Indirect effect much larger with 2014 data

Comments

1 comment

  • Avatar
    IMPLAN Forum
    Hi William! Due to the constant changes in the economy and the further apart two sets of data years are, the greater the change. Add in the fact that 2010 was still a recessive year for the economy, compared to a more optimistic 2013, and it’s not surprising that output values, and the indirect multipliers associated with them, would vary between the two years. Consider the output per worker, which increased across the U.S. as companies asked workers to take on additional responsibilities as jobs were cut. As you are using employment as your input, the increased output per worker is going add to the effect you see. In addition, the 2013 data shows a significant increase in the Regional absorption rates for the Wholesale Trade Sector (you can find these numbers by going to the explore section and clicking social accounts, balance sheets, select wholesale trade, and selecting the commodity demand tab). 2013 Gross Regional Absorption (the amount of demand that is met locally) was 32.8%. This is compared to 2010’s 20.6%. A third or more of this increase is related to the real estate, management, and advertising commodities. 32.8% 2013 Regional Absorption 20.6% 2010 Regional Absorption In terms of data gathering and generation, we have made numerous methodological improvements over time, which could have changed the output multipliers. Finally, your two data sets sit on opposite sides of a BEA Benchmark (which was in 2012). When the BEA updates/modifies their data, our data changes to reflect that change. In general, the possible reasons to account for this over such a span of time, especially a span that includes an update to the 5-year benchmark, are manifold. Thanks!
    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.