Why is Oregon's economy so bad? (Portland, Hillsboro: leases, unemployment rate, school)

[Leisesturm]

Originally Posted by freemkt

My cousin told me in the 1980s that unemployment in Oregon was somewhat higher than the average elsewhere, and wages were lower than the average elsewhere.

Unemployment in Oregon is somewhat higher than the average elsewhere. Unemployment in Hillsboro is far lower than the average elsewhere. Unemployment in North Dakota and Wyoming is far lower than the average elsewhere... do you want to live there??

[Terryj]

I think that Oregon should push real hard on trying to get their federal lands back, Oregon could manage these lands a lot more effective than the federal government. The big problem with federal lands is NO ONE wins, the counties can not use them, the state can use them and resources just go up in smoke. I do think that if the federal government is going to own land (which according to the constitution, they are not allowed to) then it should have to pay its share of property tax to the state and counties.

[Larry Caldwell]

It's not going to happen for a lot of lands, but I do think they should be forced to put the land grab from the Great Depression back on the market. This was private property that was seized for taxes in the '30s. When the counties couldn't get bids for the land, they turned it over to the BLM to manage, and there it sits. It was once private property, and should be again.

The BLM also manages O&C lands, and our congressional delegation keeps trying to put that land back into production. So far, that has been blocked by the environmental lobby.

The national forests are a lost cause. They will just burn.

Counties and the state should just withdraw all services for federal lands. Let them maintain their own roads and provide their own fire and police services. We can't force the feds to pay taxes, but we can certainly withhold services.

[Terryj]

Larry, I agree, however, one thing that should be of concern to all Oregonians, and that is the States ability to fight wildfires. Wildfires in Oregon have been increasing year after year and each year the fires get worse. In just 2012 and 2013 Oregon has lost over a million acres to wildfires. This year Lloyds of London may not carry the wildfire policy for Oregon, which means that the State will be on it's own to fund fire fighting, which then begs the question: :"Which fire do they fight", "which one is more cost effective to fight". Fire suppression in Oregon over the last 50 years have left our forest a tender box for large fires, this coupled with the lack of management of these forest is a recipe for disaster.

[Nell Plotts]

^^^ Exactly.

[bar20]

We have no Boeing, we have no Microsoft. There is very little manufacturing in Oregon. The lumber and fishing industries are pretty much gone. The low wages are due to supply and demand. High demand and low supply of jobs. I saw this happen in Silicon Valley when the Dot.com bubble burst. All the IPO companies had all this money and all these jobs available and the wages were ridiculously high. It was definitely an employees market. After the burst what jobs were still available now became an employers market. Thus lower wages. I think the state of Oregon does a pretty poor job of making Oregon a desirable place for manufacturing to move here. They should look at Nevada and use the same format.

[bler144]

Originally Posted by bar20

They should look at Nevada and use the same format.

I was with you until you said we should "copy Nevada."

Why in heaven's name would Oregon copy Nevada? They have higher unemployment despite the tourism of LV, and arguably a better economy for extractable natural resources. They may not be dead last in the U.S., but they're usually ranked near the bottom as state economies go, other than the brief window when the booming RE market was carrying them pre-bust.

One of the few areas they rank well is that they ran a budget surplus, though part of that is pretty low spending on public services, which would be a tough sell in much of Oregon. Not to mention, OR also has a surplus right now as well.

[peaceloveandjulie]

I don't live there yet and don't mean to downplay anything but when you have a state with a low population, percentages are more volatile. I live in Texas and there are areas with persistent, longstanding double-digit unemployment here but with a state this size and a huge population, that's offset by the large metros during the good, if not average, times in the economy.

Everyone's darling -- Austin -- has FIERCE competition for jobs. After college, my son progressed through five interviews for an entry-level job and made it to the final selection but lost out to someone with a Master's degree. The job was with a well-known online company but only paid $35K. He would have needed a roommate to survive on that and get a decent apartment in Austin. Fine for someone fresh out of school but, geez, for someone with a Master's? Not so much. He had SO MANY prospects that went that way.

Finally, he had to move back in with me and get something locally, but the going entry level wage locally is the federal minimum wage, unless you're in health care or a skilled trade. A friend's son-in-law earned his bachelor's in engineering, couldn't find anything, and ended up training to be a welder so he could earn a decent living.

All of this to say that the grass isn't always greener in other states. Some are just better at propping up their numbers and have the advantage of a large population to help buttress their shortcomings. At least Oregon law provides for a decent minimum wage. The cost-of-living can't be cheap enough anywhere to enable someone to pay for the most basic of needs -- an apartment, utilities, transportation, and food -- on the federal minimum.

[bler144]

True, though the problems Austin has are similar to the problems Portland has (Austin may be just a hair boomier), and what Eugene was on pace for 2000-2008 before it leveled out.

Eugene still has employment issues like what you described (large population of degree-holders who don't want to leave will tend to keep salaries for entry/mid-level positions low). And even if COL is a tad lower than Austin, affording a 1BR even on Oregon's min. wage is going to be tough sailing (35%+ of take-home) without other resources.

[redguard57]

Originally Posted by bler144

I was with you until you said we should "copy Nevada."

Why in heaven's name would Oregon copy Nevada? They have higher unemployment despite the tourism of LV, and arguably a better economy for extractable natural resources. They may not be dead last in the U.S., but they're usually ranked near the bottom as state economies go, other than the brief window when the booming RE market was carrying them pre-bust.

One of the few areas they rank well is that they ran a budget surplus, though part of that is pretty low spending on public services, which would be a tough sell in much of Oregon. Not to mention, OR also has a surplus right now as well.

Yes, I wouldn't want to copy Nevada - they were ground zero of the housing crisis and have unemployment just as high if not higher than we do here in Oregon.

Better states to look at would be Washington & Idaho. To a lesser extent North Carolina.

Idaho's economy seems to be rolling for the small state they are.