I just purchased the 2011 data for Maricopa County (AZ) and I am having trouble with the model. I have set up an industry change for sector 284. Employment is 70 with an annual payroll of $4,697,100. No sales data is available. The problem is that I get a negative value of ($11,708,372) for Proprietor Income. When I check the income multipliers I find that direct is -0.116374; indirect is 0.14711; and induced is 0.015054. In fact sectors 287, 289, 288, 286, 175, 284, 293 and 285 all have a negative direct income multipliers. Just to double check my sanity, I ran the same model using the 2010 data. I don't have the same problems. The direct income multiplier for this sector is 0.176201 and my results don't have any negative numbers. In fact, there are no negative direct income multipliers in the 2010 data set. Questions - Is there something wrong with the data set? If not, why is there a negative value for the direct income multipliers, and how can this multiplier change so dramatically in one year? Thank you.
Was this post helpful?
0 out of 0 found this helpful

Comments

1 comment

  • Hi Judie, We get our Proprietor Employment and Income data from the BEA’s REA data series, and as you can see from looking at the Explore> Study Area> Industry Detail data 175 and 284-293 the loss of Proprietor Income across all industries that report under the NAICS codes in this Sector is significant enough to create a net negative Labor Income value for these Sectors. This simply means that these particular Sectors include privately owned businesses that lost money in 2011 (Proprietor Income includes the proprietor’s labor income as well as profit, and profit can be negative in any given year). While we can't say specifically why there was a drastic change in income reported by proprietors in 2011, it does reflect what the raw data shows. Since you have data from previous years, you can customize the Event to reflect those data (i.e., average EC per Output, average PI per Output), otherwise, we would be happy to get a 3-year average for you, though I suspect the same issue may be present in past years as well.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.