Hello again, I was trying to figure out the differences in the multipliers posted before and realized that I had compared a subset of zip code data to the total County-wide data (not defined by zips). So, probably not the same jurisdictional boundaries. So, I ran the numbers again, building the County model from all the zips listed for the County. Still, some multipliers were greater for the subset City zips than for the total County zips. I compared the differenced by induced and indirect multipliers, and it is all coming from the induced multipliers. Attached, again, are the files - the City of San Jose and County by all zips are the data columns to look at, and the induced effect difference is listed in columns Y. Of the industries I looked at, only industry 340 also has a higher indirect multiplier for the City than for the County. My co-worker was also running into problems with Santa Clara County and San Jose data, and it was determined this is due to an unusually high household savings rate, so less household spending, in the County. I am suspecting this is due to the same situation... I'm wondering if there may be a work-around? It is odd to report that County-wide indirect and induced impacts and lower than for the City... Jenny [attachment=430]IMPLANSJH20Plant2011-CountyEmploymentMultipliers.xls[/attachment] [attachment=431]IMPLANSJH20Plant2011-CountyEmployeeCompensationMultipliers.xls[/attachment]
Please sign in to leave a comment.