Is Oregon becoming “Oldegon”? (Portland, Eugene: power lines, tax, living in)

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts

I wonder if the more conservative rural districts of Oregon have a higher TFR. I haven't seen TFR broken down by district but maybe that data exist somewhere.

The reddest parts of Oregon are the rural counties of eastern Oregon. And they are shrinking as young people who don't want to grow broke farming or toiling away in marginal businesses move away. And all that is mostly left is the old folks who get agitated at their changing world and want to be part of Idaho.

But those areas are barely rounding error when it comes to population. Counties like Gilliam, Wheeler, and Sherman have less population than the average subdivision in some random Portland suburb.

[ChessieMom]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

Pets are a lot of work, but they are nothing compared to the trouble and expense of raising a child. At least if a dog gets on your nerves, you can throw it out into the backyard and leave it there for the rest of the day. You can leave the dog home alone while you go out to party. You don't have to teach the dog to read, or go to it's teacher parent conferences, or pay for its little league or for its college.

But yes, pets are work and responsibility and no one should have a pet unless they are wanting to put the time and effort in. I feel the same way about kids. If you don't want to do the work or pay the expense, don't have kids.

I can take a kid anywhere with me. On vacation, on a plane, my kid was my very best travel buddy. And they don't stink up the house and leave poop in my grass. A child beats out a pet any day of the week for me. Obviously I love kids. I like dogs, and love to play with them, but I don't want one living in my home, ever. My BF has always had one, and I know exactly how much work they are.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

The reddest parts of Oregon are the rural counties of eastern Oregon. And they are shrinking as young people who don't want to grow broke farming or toiling away in marginal businesses move away. And all that is mostly left is the old folks who get agitated at their changing world and want to be part of Idaho.

But those areas are barely rounding error when it comes to population. Counties like Gilliam, Wheeler, and Sherman have less population than the average subdivision in some random Portland suburb.

To be fair, only a pretty small minority of those east of the Cascades favor the Greater Idho movement. And as neglible as the numbers are compared to Portland, populations in La Grande, Baker City, and Pendleton have increased in recent years, although I doubt that's due to a growing number of births.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by ChessieMom

I'd take a kid over a pet any day of the week. Pets are a massive "bother" in my opinion.

i'll go with neither.
that's my choice.

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts

The TFR (total fertility rate) by state has been trending down for years almost everywhere.

Oregon is 5th lowest TFR, side by side with Massachusetts, Vermont, Delaware, and a couple of other smaller, highly educated and liberal states.

As one might expect, Utah is near the top, along with many other "red" states.

My understanding is that Oregon has for decades attracted an artsy, hipster type of community from all over the country particularly to Portland. This has pushed their previously moderate-liberal politics farther to the left. For whatever reason, left wing policies tend to be child-unfriendly.

Massachusetts is down in the fertility doldrums as well, despite the hundreds of thousands of young people attracted to the state's colleges and universities. There is a net outflow of people from year to year, and it, along with California & New York, is considered one of the most expensive states for families.

I wonder if the more conservative rural districts of Oregon have a higher TFR. I haven't seen TFR broken down by district but maybe that data exist somewhere.

Very interesting map on a number of levels. The greatest extremes being Utah on the one end with Oregon on the other right next door. You could overlay this with other socio-cultural, economic factors and see other correlated trends. But bottom line, Oregon does seem to favor a certain demographic with a shrinking younger population.

I have a co-worker from the Midwest who is planning a visit to Oregon and strongly considering moving into the Portland metro. His kids are grown and not a factor. The main thing he is looking for is enjoying the beautiful outdoors. When he learned of the state's progressive tax system, he became interested in Vancouver, WA as well. Regardless, I think he is more the type to move to Oregon these days going for that nature loving experience over raising a family, per say. I know a number of others doing the same post raising kids. Maybe they can't afford CA. But they want greater geographic diversity than the Midwest could ever offer from the mountains to the coast. The south, of course, is attracting many as well. I'm heading the Charleston on another business trip and it's one of the fastest growing cities in the US. It really is a beautiful place and has a lot going for it though far from perfect. It's also got a much higher TFR with lots of kids and families there. I find it interesting to visit different parts of the country and talk with local folks about their experiences living in their area.




Derek

[CalWorth]

I don’t think this is anything new. My parents left the Salem area for better work opportunities in SoCal, & a good number of family members did the same. A few returned to Oregon for retirement.

Regarding the birth rate, there are more than enough people on this earth already, & a huge number who are not “contributing members of society”, aka unemployed.

[StealthRabbit]

There is a saying... "You (Oregon) made your own bed.... Go lie in it"

But it's quite reasonable and strategic to tailor your residents and voters.

Old people with lots of money to spend on expensive HC and financial services, are far more profitable to a local economy than a bunch of young families needing housing sprawl, schools, roads, parks, fire stations... and employment. CA is made for them!

[blisterpeanuts]

Originally Posted by StealthRabbit

There is a saying... "You (Oregon) made your own bed.... Go lie in it"

But it's quite reasonable and strategic to tailor your residents and voters.

Old people with lots of money to spend on expensive HC and financial services, are far more profitable to a local economy than a bunch of young families needing housing sprawl, schools, roads, parks, fire stations... and employment. CA is made for them!

They may be perceived that way, but in reality, a vibrant population of families with children economically sustains a region.

Young people are needed for the entry jobs, food industry, factories, the trades. Young people come up with fresh ideas and start businesses. Without that, everything fades and dies.

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts

They may be perceived that way, but in reality, a vibrant population of families with children economically sustains a region.

Young people are needed for the entry jobs, food industry, factories, the trades. Young people come up with fresh ideas and start businesses. Without that, everything fades and dies.

Oregon (and the USA) is not in it for the 'long-term'. 4yrs is the maximum horizon of our policy makers.

As long as they secure the personal benefits that come with the short-term job... They've succeeded in their personal objectives. (And are usually well set for a very beneficial life).

Schools and infrastructure is expensive. (But it does not have to be, but it WILL BE with current ingrained, and well fed leadership in government and schools)

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

Very interesting map on a number of levels. The greatest extremes being Utah on the one end with Oregon on the other right next door. You could overlay this with other socio-cultural, economic factors and see other correlated trends. But bottom line, Oregon does seem to favor a certain demographic with a shrinking younger population.

I have a co-worker from the Midwest who is planning a visit to Oregon and strongly considering moving into the Portland metro. His kids are grown and not a factor. The main thing he is looking for is enjoying the beautiful outdoors. When he learned of the state's progressive tax system, he became interested in Vancouver, WA as well. Regardless, I think he is more the type to move to Oregon these days going for that nature loving experience over raising a family, per say. I know a number of others doing the same post raising kids. Maybe they can't afford CA. But they want greater geographic diversity than the Midwest could ever offer from the mountains to the coast. The south, of course, is attracting many as well. I'm heading the Charleston on another business trip and it's one of the fastest growing cities in the US. It really is a beautiful place and has a lot going for it though far from perfect. It's also got a much higher TFR with lots of kids and families there. I find it interesting to visit different parts of the country and talk with local folks about their experiences living in their area.




Derek

I was going to bring up the fertility rate.

The Hanford Nuclear site (upriver on the Columbia) is the largest nuclear clean-up site in the US. It is the most contaminated nuclear site in the Western Hemisphere. Look it up as there is lots of published information.