{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01444043321299639, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009626955475330927, 'mean_word_length': 4.985611510791367, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Internal Geography of Firms

We document that the plants belonging to small and mid-sized firms are geographically concentrated, while large firms are much more dispersed. These differences are sizable; firms with 2 plants have a dispersion that is 5 log points lower than predicted by industry location patterns, while the corresponding figure is less than 2 log points for firms with 40 plants and less than a half for firms with 100 or more plants. These patterns are qualitatively robust across industries, time periods, and alternative specifications. We also find that plants that are farther from the firm center employ significantly less workers than closer plants within the same firm, and that this effect is attenuated in large firms. These findings suggest that large firms face lower costs of geographic expansion.