Using Disclosed ES202 data versus model employment
We are running a multi-industry contribution analysis. In the past we have often used the most recent CEW data in our events. This time, however, we purchased the fully disclosed ES202 data for 2014 as it was available and thought that might be easier (since we are estimating for many geographies). An alternative approach would be simply to use the model study area data for each industry.
There are a lot of differences between the model study area data and the fully disclosed ES202 data. I would expect the model data to be higher than the ES202 data since the model includes self-employed, but this is rarely the case. The ES202 value is often higher than the study area data. Can you suggest why there might be differences between these data? Also, please advise which would be the better approach (using model study area data or ES202)? Finally, can you please check sector 176 employment and payroll in the ES202 file for Ventura County CA as this value exceeds the entire state employment and payroll values.
Thanks so much!
-
Hello, If you are doing a contribution analysis with IMPLAN, we would definitely suggest using IMPLAN values since these are the only values that will match the definitions of IMPLAN data. The IMPLAN data brings together several different disparate data sources than CEW. (See: [url=http://implan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=450]Comparison of IMPLAN Source Data for Employment and Labor Income[/url]) CEW data doesn't have Output values, so if you are doing Contribution Analysis by our definition you need to start from Output (Industry Sales) for single region. To help us better answer your question, could you send us your calculations and spreadsheet for comparison purposes? You can email implangroup@implan.com with the subject title "SupForum #20395". Best regards, IMPLAN Group Staff
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
1 comment