Stanislaus differences 2011 vs. 2012 data sets

Comments

1 comment

  • Avatar
    IMPLAN Support
    Hi Cheryl, We see a couple of things that are going on here. First we aren't able to duplicate the values you are getting out of the 2011 Model as shown in the spreadsheet. While we do see that the 2012 values are higher, what we are able to produce in house shows a smaller variance. Based on the analysis components provided our 2011 Employment results are: Impact Type Employment Direct Effect 100.0 Indirect Effect 54.5 Induced Effect 38.8 Total Effect 193.2 The remainder of the results are also very variant from what we get doing the analysis in house. We would recommend making sure that the Event for the 2011 Model has the Event Year set prior to entering any other values, as the variance we see in the results, between ours and yours, may be indicative of a change to Event Year of some other field after an initial value was entered. If this does not draw the results closer, please email us the 2011 Model at implangroup@implan.com and include the post number in the upper right-hand corner. The 2012 results exactly duplicate what we have in house, so there is no concern there. As regards the differences that we are still seeing between these two Models, going to Explore> Social Accounts> Balance Sheet (Tab), and select View By: Industry Balance Sheet and the Commodity Demand tab, we see the following: 2011 [table] [tr] [td]Total Commodity Demand[/td] [td]Gross Absorption[/td] [td]Regional Purchasing Coefficient[/td] [td]Regional Absorption[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][/td] [td]36.081%[/td] [td]47.343%[/td] [td]17.082%[/td] [/tr] [/table] 2012 [table] [tr] [td]Total Commodity Demand[/td] [td]Gross Absorption[/td] [td]Regional Purchasing Coefficient[/td] [td]Regional Absorption[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][/td] [td]25.462%[/td] [td]45.028%[/td] [td]11.456%[/td] [/tr] [/table] Thus the raw data is indicating that less of total value of sales (Gross Absorption) and less of the total regional purchases (Regional Absorption)are obtained locally. This is what has led to the decrease in Indirect results. Where has the decreased Gross Absorption gone? Looking again at the data, but at this time at the Value Added tab, we see the following: 2011 [table] [tr] [td]Total Value Added[/td] [td]Employment Compensation[/td] [td]Proprietor Income[/td] [td]Other Property Type Income[/td] [td]Taxes on Production & Imports[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]63.919%[/td] [td]14.887%[/td] [td]3.180%[/td] [td]44.402%[/td] [td]1.450%[/td] [/tr] [/table] 2012 [table] [tr] [td]Total Value Added[/td] [td]Employment Compensation[/td] [td]Proprietor Income[/td] [td]Other Property Type Income[/td] [td]Taxes on Production & Imports[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]74.538%[/td] [td]15.839%[/td] [td]2.323%[/td] [td]54.909%[/td] [td]1.467%[/td] [/tr] [/table] While there is an increase in the amount of Labor Income payments between the two years the increase is very small (18.07% in 2011 and 18.16% in 2012). The majority of the change has gone to profits (Other Property Type Income) which are not considered in the impact results. Therefore it appears that the resultant decrease in Induced jobs (38.8 in 2011 to 36.3 in 2012 based on what we are seeing in house)appears to be a result of a combination of changes in Output per Worker and Regional Purchasing Coefficient values between the years, which are being captured in the IMPLAN Multipliers. Hopefully this will help to resolve some of the issues you are seeing. Please let us know about the Event Year issue and the 2011 Model and if you have any additional questions.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.