The Plant Closure: Evaluating a 2.5 Multiplier and Three Proposals
A poultry processing plant in a county of 48,000 people has announced it will close in nine months, eliminating 1,200 jobs. County unemployment, 4.1 percent before the announcement, is projected by the planning office to reach roughly 7.3 percent. The county commission has $7.8 million in reserve and three proposals on the table. Proposal A is a $4.2 million, ten-year property tax abatement for a distribution center that promises 300 jobs at $17 per hour. Proposal B is $1.1 million in downtown facade grants for small property owners. Proposal C is $2.5 million to fund certificate programs in welding and health care at the community college, which projects 400 completers in three years. A consultant's report claims the closure will cost the county 3,000 jobs because the plant's employment multiplier is 2.5, and urges the commission to fund whichever proposal "replaces the most jobs fastest." Mr. Delgado's economics class has been asked to review the proposals and the consultant's claim.
1. How should students evaluate the consultant's claim that the closure means 3,000 lost jobs?
Read the worked answer
The arithmetic is trivial and the reasoning is not: 1,200 times 2.5 equals 3,000, but the multiplier is an assumption, not a measurement, and the report gives no source for it. Students should ask what is inside the number. Multipliers combine indirect effects, meaning suppliers losing business, and induced effects, meaning workers spending less, and they vary with how much of that spending stays local. In a county of 48,000, a large share of a processing plant worker's paycheck leaks out to regional retailers, online sellers, and distant suppliers, so a 2.5 multiplier is plausible only if supplier linkages are unusually local and the model's base year is current. The claim also ignores offsetting effects such as workers commuting to jobs in the neighboring county or retiring. The defensible classroom conclusion is not "the claim is false" but "the claim is unsupported until we see the model, its base year, and its local-purchase assumptions," and the class should ask for those before the multiplier is used to rank proposals.
2. The commission says it will fund "whichever proposal replaces the most jobs fastest." What is wrong with that criterion, and what should the class recommend instead?
Read the worked answer
The criterion is attractive because it sounds decisive, but it hides two choices. First, it counts jobs without counting quality: 300 jobs at $17 per hour may not retain workers or keep a family above the county's living wage, and a job that turns over twice a year is not equivalent to a stable one. Second, "fastest" systematically favors the abatement, because a distribution center can hire within a year, while certificate programs produce completers over three years and small business grants have diffuse, slow effects. The class should propose multiple criteria and show the trade-offs: public cost per job created, expected wage relative to the county median, how long until benefits appear, how concentrated the benefit is among displaced workers, and whether the money is recoverable if the firm leaves. On a straight cost-per-job calculation the abatement looks cheapest at roughly $14,000 per job, but that ignores the wage issue and the risk that the county pays for jobs that would have come anyway, which is the central problem with abatements.