[However, one could make the argument, of course, that there is a tendency that not "all things are equal". For example, one could argue that different regions contain different economic activities with employees at different earning levels. Thus, per employee, more money is likely to be spent in the local economy generating more local employment. Thus, as you aggregate economic activities and households to larger regions, it may happen that you "dilute" the larger employment multipliers of a small region with the lower multipliers of the additional areas and thereby reduce the aggregate multiplier. However, it is unlikely this effect can outweigh the "regional increase effect" for very long.]

Please note that the local employment multiplier (total employment per basic employee) tend to respond differently to increased income than the local income multiplier (total income per dollar of basic income), since the employment effect (additional non-basic workers generated by the total locally spent income of one basic worker) may still be substantial even if the "pcl" is relatively small (see Microsoft's local impacts e.g. in Redmond WA).