Why is the Oregon unemployment rate so high??? (Portland, Beaverton: environment, relocate)

[mikemorrow]

Originally Posted by Good_Teacher

I am glad the timber industry has been decimated. I wish they would stop all the environmentally destructive clear cut logging. I have no respect for a community based on such terrible environmental destruction.

Agreed!

It is all in what you make it. I've been doing allot of checking and there seems to be allot of jobs in the 9-12 dollar area, That's enough for me to live on. The fishing. claming, and the view will be enough for me. And my mind will thrive.


BTW
66 more days!!

[Terryj]

Yes, the Oregon timber industry has been decimated, which in my opinion is a shame. Clear cutting in Oregon has not be allow on federal lands for years, only in special areas that have been subject to fire and diseased trees. Private land is a different story, yes, they still clear cut these lands, it's their land and they manage it very well. We can see what happens when we put the clamps on an industry, we get to import lumber from Canada and Australia which in turn drives up the new housing cost.
There is nothing wrong with cutting trees, if it's done in a responsible manner, the alternative to not managing a forest is the destruction of that forest by fire or disease. Like with most resources if there managed correctly they will last, and with trees they always grow back.

[Leisesturm]

There was/is nothing, absolutely nothing to indicate that without clamps that clearcutting wouldn't have gone on and on and on until there wasn't a single old growth tree left standing. Other industries based on 'renewable' resources (shellfishing, whaling, others I don't even know about) have sputtered to a halt because the unchecked greed of the industries that managed those resources couldn't, didn't put the brakes on themselves and by the time the government did the clams and oysters were already gone, various species of whales are now extinct, etc. Importing goes on not because their isn't enough wood being produced locally but because of treaties which insist on a certain amount of trade taking place to maintain quota's.

[snb3]

Originally Posted by freedom

There is a large no growth, no industry mentality here, kind of a visit and spend your money and go home mindset.

Don't cut a tree, build a house, expand business opportunity.
Very difficult climate for capitalism.

Fullerton was a great place to grow up. I went to Sunny Hills, class of 82.

freedom

Hey Freedom, long time no post!....
Lancer class of 90

[snb3]

Originally Posted by caliguy92832

no way. small world. i graduated from sunny hills in 1995. started there in 1991. also went to parks middle school. gary carter the baseball player also graduated from SH, i think in the late 60's.

Do we know each other?

I went to D. Russell Parks late 80s & Fern Drive elementary. Still jog at times @ Parks. Gary Carter played Pony League across from the Library on Commonwealth in the early 70s. Don't 4get Jackson Browne. That area was great then. Not so much anymore. Some parts feel like Asia.

[JOhn Crider]

A good part of the reason for the unemployment rate is simply that the job growth rate has not kept up with the immigration rate - people are flocking in droves from California and other places, but job creation is slow, a bit lower than other parts of the country. So Oregon is left with a mix of retirees and PhD's waiting tables. It's such a desirable place to live that many people are willing to work for far lower wages than they could get in more metropolitan areas -- john

[NWPAguy]

I lived in Oregon (Salem / Independence area) in 2001-2002 when the unemployment rate in Oregon was THE HIGHEST in the country. People were being thrown out of work all the time, and I found myself vying for entry-level computer-field jobs against people with Ph.D's and 15 years of experience.

Everyone who doesn't blame the bleeding-heart liberals for the high unemployment is not thinking through the entire situation very clearly. Let's put it to you this way... America is a great country, and one of the things which makes it great is freedom to move about the states. Most European countries are about the size of one "United State"... so, to move the same equivalent distance in Europe, you'd have to become a naturalized citizen of another country, perhaps learn another language, all that rigamarole! But, here in the USA, you can choose the state in which you live... and the state in which you set up a business. Okay. The federal minimum wage, another socialistic bit of garbage created by the liberals who so quickly forget that a capitalist market will determine its own minimum wage without their interference, is presently something like $5.85 an hour. As I understand it, that is slated to increase this summer and next summer... but for now it's $5.85 an hour. Most low-tax RED STATES do not have their own minimum wage laws which set the minimum wage higher than the federal rate. Oregon's minimum wage, when last I checked the statistics, was $7.95 an hour.

Now... let's do some math. One comment on this thread is that businesses are only interested in their bottom line... as a businessman myself, I can say that that is almost entirely true. You have to take care of your employees and your customers in order to ensure that there always will be a bottom line, but in the end it HAS to come down to the bottom line. If you're not making money, you cannot stay in business. Let's say that YOU are a business owner, looking to buy a building for your business and set up a headquarters somewhere... and it can be anywhere. Let's also say that you intended to have ten employees, in entry-level unskilled positions, working standard 40-hour weeks at minimum wage. What incentive would you have to locate in a state such as Oregon, where your labor costs per week would be ($7.95/hour times 40 hours times 10 employees) = $3,180, when you could locate in a state with no higher minimum wage law, such that the labor cost per week would be ($5.85/hour times 40 hours times 10 employees) = $2,340? The difference, not counting back-end payroll taxes such as Social Security which would make it even larger, is $840/week. Multiply it out... for one entire year, that's approximately $43,800.

Put another way, in a state where employees can legally be paid the federal minimum wage of $5.85/hour, your business could afford to hire 27 full-time workers for the same amount of money that it would cost to hire only 20 full-time workers in Oregon.

Now... maybe you would need to pay more than the minimum wage in order to get good people. That's what I was talking about before, when I said that a capitalist market will determine its own minimum wage. (For example, if there was no federal minimum wage, and nobody would accept a job paying $3.00 an hour, apparently the minimum wage in that market is higher than $3.00 an hour!) I'm taking the issue which drives unemployment, and putting it into simple mathematical terms.

For a different angle on things, I present to you the following lists, gathered from information readily available online. (It's amazing what a Google search can do.) The first list is the top ten states ranked by worst unemployment, along with the minimum wage rate for each state. (Note that Hawaii and Washington, DC were excluded from my consideration due to the lack of complete information on both of those areas.)

1. Michigan- $7.15/hr
2. Alaska- $7.15/hr
3. South Carolina- FEDERAL
4. Mississippi- FEDERAL
5. California- $8.00/hr
6. Rhode Island- $7.40/hr
7. (tie) Illinois- $7.50 (This state is home to Barack Obama, by the way.)
7. (tie) Arkansas- $6.25/hr (Original home state of Bill and Hillary Clinton.)
9. (tie) Oregon- $7.95/hr
9. (tie) Nevada- $6.33/hr
9. (tie) Missouri- $6.65/hr
9. (tie) Ohio- $7.00/hr

Notice how, in these twelve states, only TWO have minimum wage rates equal to the federal minimum. The rest of the states have higher minimum wages... which are generally A LOT higher than the federal minimum. If those minimum wages were lower, companies would be able to hire more workers and unemployment would be lower. This is simple math. (Here is where the bleeding-heart liberals will whine and complain about how people can't live on $5.85 an hour. Lemme tell ya something... out in Africa, they live on one dollar a day. Just because Americans have become spoiled brats and we all expect to have a really high standard of living, being able to live in a mansion and drive a Cadillac on the money we make sweeping floors, that doesn't mean that such a standard of living is our God-given right. Some people will live in mansions and some will live in one-bedroom apartments. Bring your average resident of sub-Saharan Africa to America and give him a minimum-wage job and an average one-bedroom apartment, and he'll think he has gone to heaven! Stop thinking that it is your right to have an inflated standard of living and bring your brain back to earth where it belongs! If someone will accept a job that pays $5.85 an hour, SHUT UP and let him do that job! If he HAD to have more money, he wouldn't accept a job paying $5.85 an hour!!)

This next list shows the states ranked by LOWEST unemployment, and their minimum wage rates.

1. South Dakota- FEDERAL
2. Wyoming- FEDERAL
3. Idaho- FEDERAL
4. Nebraska- FEDERAL
5. Utah- FEDERAL
6. New Mexico- $6.50/hr
7. (tie) North Dakota- FEDERAL
7. (tie) Montana- $6.25/hr
9. Virginia- FEDERAL
10. (tie) Maryland- FEDERAL
10. (tie) New Hampshire- $6.50/hr

Notice how, in these 11 states, only THREE have minimum wage rates higher than the federal minimum... which are generally not much higher than the federal minimum. New Hampshire has very low state taxes, which certainly contributes to low unemployment as people will have more money to spend at businesses which could then hire more employees.

Oregon is a gorgeous state... but the taxes are through the roof, gas prices are among the highest in the country, and that oppressive minimum wage seals the deal. This is why it's hard to get a decent job in Oregon. So, Oregonians, if you want to change this for the better, stop electing redistributionist Marxists into government and start electing people who will level your playing field against the rest of the country. You'll see the jobs come in. People will come in as well... after all, from having lived in Oregon, I can tell you I'd go back in a heartbeat if Oregon became a "red state" and had a better economic climate. I loved the Oregon coast, and the mild weather.

[Leisesturm]

Given the freedom to do so American businessmen would pay the majority of their workforce $0.60/dy to work in their industries. That is why you have a minimum wage. Unfortunately the minimum wage has made no effort at all to keep pace with inflation which has been roughly 4%/yr for the last ten but has been about 8%/yr for the last two. Factored against inflation and given that the average room in a SRO in NYC is $125/wk a minimum wage job after taxes cannot house and feed an individual yet NYC is still at the FEDERAL minimum wage and will be one of the slowest to go to the next tier up when it is mandated. Despite all the layoffs and offshoring of jobs the salaries of the various board heads and directors and CEO's at the heads of America's corporations are unchanged. Actually they increase even as the wages offered to new employee's decrease. I interpret the earlier post as nothing less than a clear example of why we need a minimum wage law. Given relaxed controls on wages I don't have much faith that something very similar to slavery wouldn't be reestablished in America. As labor in China and India reaches American compensation levels American business will become desperate to continue the insane profits that can result when you have absurdly low labor overhead. They will return to the American labor pool battered and bruised by the long attrition and attempt to establish a New World order where wages are absurdly low without taking into account that American infrastructure demands a daily expenditure that simply doesn't exist in less developed countries. You cannot (reasonably) pay Third World salaries to employees in a First World nation. That is not being bleeding heart liberal it is being a human being.

H

[freedom]

Originally Posted by Leisesturm

Given the freedom to do so American businessmen would pay the majority of their workforce $0.60/dy to work in their industries. That is why you have a minimum wage. Unfortunately the minimum wage has made no effort at all to keep pace with inflation which has been roughly 4%/yr for the last ten but has been about 8%/yr for the last two. Factored against inflation and given that the average room in a SRO in NYC is $125/wk a minimum wage job after taxes cannot house and feed an individual yet NYC is still at the FEDERAL minimum wage and will be one of the slowest to go to the next tier up when it is mandated. Despite all the layoffs and offshoring of jobs the salaries of the various board heads and directors and CEO's at the heads of America's corporations are unchanged. Actually they increase even as the wages offered to new employee's decrease. I interpret the earlier post as nothing less than a clear example of why we need a minimum wage law. Given relaxed controls on wages I don't have much faith that something very similar to slavery wouldn't be reestablished in America. As labor in China and India reaches American compensation levels American business will become desperate to continue the insane profits that can result when you have absurdly low labor overhead. They will return to the American labor pool battered and bruised by the long attrition and attempt to establish a New World order where wages are absurdly low without taking into account that American infrastructure demands a daily expenditure that simply doesn't exist in less developed countries. You cannot (reasonably) pay Third World salaries to employees in a First World nation. That is not being bleeding heart liberal it is being a human being.

H

Its all relative, the min. wage has spawned inflation. If workers made .60 cents a day. Fuel would be a nickel a gallon, bread would be 2 1/2 cents a loaf.
When we set wages, the market adjusts to it, hurting those that can least afford it. The big evil is inflation, and greed. But inflation is less controlable.

freedom

[NWPAguy]

Leisesturm, you sound like you're taking a liberal stance on the economy... which, as an American, you have every right to do. However, I am going to address your response piece by piece to show you some fallacies in its logic.

Given the freedom to do so American businessmen would pay the majority of their workforce $0.60/dy to work in their industries.

Not quite. Given the freedom to do so, American businessmen would OFFER to pay the majority of their workforce 60 cents per day (or less!). However, there isn't an American anywhere who would work for 60 cents per day. So, they could offer 60 cents a day all day every day... and get no employees... which would ultimately make their businesses fail. They would have to raise their offer to the "going rate", whatever the market determines that to be, in order for them to find any employees.

That is why you have a minimum wage.

No, you have a minimum wage because too many people whined and complained about low wages back in the 1930s... resulting in a minimum wage law being set in 1938. If they had refused to work for low pay, or had moved to an area where higher-paying jobs existed, or had furthered their own prospects through higher education, they would not have been victimized by low pay. As I said before, business owners who won't pay good wages will find themselves without workers. If there were no minimum wage law and I, as a business owner, could get someone to do a job for me adequately for one dollar an hour, I'd interpret that as the person saying that I do not need to pay him more than one dollar an hour to get him to do his work. Why, in that case, should I pay him seven dollars an hour? Am I running a business or a charity ward? It's sort of like this... when you go to McDonald's, you can get a hamburger on the dollar menu for one dollar. Why would you give them seven dollars for it when you can get it for one?

Bear in mind, I believe that people should be paid what they're worth... and I hate to see people get exploited... but the biggest thing which exploits people is the people themselves. They'll cry and complain about things going sour in areas like the Northeast, and expect that the governments will give them a handout. They COULD move to another area or another state where there is growth, and get a job. None of us need to be paying for people who choose to be unproductive. (And let's face it, if they refuse to move to where jobs exist, in a case where that's the only alternative to going on the dole from the government, that's choosing to be unproductive.)

Unfortunately the minimum wage has made no effort at all to keep pace with inflation which has been roughly 4%/yr for the last ten but has been about 8%/yr for the last two.

I don't know where you're getting your numbers from. I've read that it's been around 2.5% for a long time and this past year it topped 4%.

Factored against inflation and given that the average room in a SRO in NYC is $125/wk a minimum wage job after taxes cannot house and feed an individual yet NYC is still at the FEDERAL minimum wage and will be one of the slowest to go to the next tier up when it is mandated.

1) People can move away from NYC if it's too expensive. Most of them do.

2) If a minimum wage job won't get someone an apartment, they can find a roommate, a second job, a better job, or a different place to live. It's not my responsibility if someone doesn't want to do what they can, and must, do to improve their situation. At least they CAN improve their situation in America.

3) New York's minimum wage is $7.15 per hour. Again, I don't know where you are getting your facts.

4) New York will probably be one of the first to increase its minimum wage, actually. It is usually on the leading edge of the liberal agenda, along with California. (This is one reason why New York has been losing population while most of the states in America have been gaining population.)

Despite all the layoffs and offshoring of jobs the salaries of the various board heads and directors and CEO's at the heads of America's corporations are unchanged.

There are costs involved with offshoring jobs. Any company that ships manufacturing jobs to China has to get the stuff made out there and then get it shipped over here. Shipping ain't cheap. The fact that it's cheaper to get it made in China and shipped over here just goes to show that America needs to get wise. Labor isn't the only reason why jobs are disappearing. I read recently that America has THE HIGHEST corporate tax out of all developed countries. If you can locate a company in another country with lower corporate taxes, and you can get cheaper labor on top of that, why not do so? America needs to LOWER ITS TAXES as it did in the Reagan administration. "Reaganomics" ended the largest recession that the United States experienced since World War II.

Actually they increase even as the wages offered to new employee's decrease.

The rich are the ones providing the jobs. Turn the tables against them, and they will shut their companies down... putting even more people out of work. Eventually, you have a Marxist state... and socialism has never worked in any country. (Even the socialist countries of today have lots of problems... in spite of the fact that some have growing economies. The ones with growing economies are only growing because they're shifting their policies away from socialism, a bit at a time.) Besides, how can the wages offered to new employees decrease that much in a country with a minimum wage law such as America? This is illogical.

I interpret the earlier post as nothing less than a clear example of why we need a minimum wage law. Given relaxed controls on wages I don't have much faith that something very similar to slavery wouldn't be reestablished in America.

If slavery would be re-established, it's only because the American people would allow it. Heaven knows, any of the ills we face today are only still there because we allow them. If we would stand up against, for example, high gas prices... gas prices couldn't stay high. If we all just stopped driving and said that we're not going to take this crap anymore, the oil companies (and the investors who are ultimately to blame for bidding up the price of oil) would be forced to drop their prices or shut down for lack of business. But no, we all keep tanking up and driving. I do it too... I'm part of the problem. I won't stop unless everyone else does... and everyone else feels that way. A huge organized protest would work miracles. Only trouble is getting everyone on board...

As labor in China and India reaches American compensation levels American business will become desperate to continue the insane profits that can result when you have absurdly low labor overhead. They will return to the American labor pool battered and bruised by the long attrition and attempt to establish a New World order where wages are absurdly low

No... American businesses will get to the point where their leaders realize that continuation of those huge profits is impossible... and they will keep operating anyway. Just look at all of the trucking companies that are still going in the wake of $4.32/gallon diesel (that's where it is here in high-tax Pennsylvania) and compensation which hasn't covered the higher fuel costs. You stay in business for the profit you can get, or you shut down. There won't be any new world order, because Americans will only accept wages that are so low. I am a performing musician and I have my low threshold of what I will accept as compensation for a gig... and if someone will not pay me that much, I will not play for them.

without taking into account that American infrastructure demands a daily expenditure that simply doesn't exist in less developed countries.

Daily expenditures have to be responsible. If you've ever driven in New Jersey, you'll know how terrible the roads are... in terms of congestion and road condition. Yet, New Jersey spends almost three times as much money on its roads, per mile of state-owned road, as does the second-place state on that list (Massachusetts). North Dakota was lowest on the expenditure list... and its roads are awesome. I drove out there this past summer, and loved it. The more cars you have on the road, the more money you're likely to have to spend to maintain those roads... but that comes from gas taxes. More miles traveled = more gas taxes... so it's all relative. The biggest problem with daily expenditures is not the minimum wage. It's waste.

You cannot (reasonably) pay Third World salaries to employees in a First World nation. That is not being bleeding heart liberal it is being a human being.

I agree, and so would probably 99.9999% of all Americans. This does not explain why we should have a minimum wage. It does, however, explain why the American capitalist market (if it were allowed to be capitalist, which it really isn't) would establish its own minimum wage an awful lot higher than a Third World country's salary. Get on the bus here... socialism isn't going to solve anything. Learn a lesson from Reaganomics, and don't blame George Bush for today's economic woes. The last recession started when Bill Clinton was president, in the form of the technology bust of 2000. Gas prices were historically low in the end of 2001 to the beginning of 2002... at about 99 cents per gallon... when George Bush was president. Bush can't do everything, due to the American system of checks and balances. Apparently, the Democratically-controlled Congress is not doing enough to help our economy either.