I had a quick question to make sure I was on the right track with my analysis of a labor income change/proprietor income change. The problem I am working on is a bit different in that I am modeling a proprietor income change that is not necessarily associated with any change in output or employment. The idea is that a farmer would be trained in new method/technology that would generate an increase in yields, thus leading to greater sales/business profit. However, since it would be increasing the yield from existing inputs, there would not be any associated increase in input purchases/indirect expenditures and the associated indirect effect...so modeling it as an increase in sales wouldn't be accurate. My current thought processes is that this would best be described as an increase in profit to the farmer, or proprietor income. I am essentially trying to go about this as an ABP, but without the corresponding industry spending pattern analysis. As a result I do not have any indirect effects, only induced effects. This is probably simple and I am overthinking it, but I am concerned with adding in the direct effects. Since there is no direct output or labor effect, the only direct effect to add into the induced effects is within labor income and subsequently value added/GRP. This leads to my value added effects dwarfing my output effects. I can justify this with my thinking, but I am still concerned I may have gone about something the wrong way. Am I on the right track?
Please sign in to leave a comment.