Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting that you are both going to do more schooling outside of your field.... I'm seeing this more and more. People realize too late that they don't want to do what they majored in their first time in college.
I like Portland so far (only been here a month). But the job outlook is not great, and some things can be pricey here. I do highly disagree that Portland has a better music scene than Austin. SXSW alone wraps that argument up in my mind. Seattle would be a closer debate.
And the OP said her boyfriend would be doing Pre-Vet classes, which is kind of like a biology degree and can be done most anywhere, not just where the vet school is. Although with the competitiveness of Vet school, you SHOULD decide if OSU is where you want to go to vet. school. It's a lot easier to get into Vet. school as a local or state resident! (I know as I just moved from Fort Collins, CO, home to CSU Vet school (the second best in the US). LOTS and LOTS of kids moved there just to get in-state and be local to try to get into CSU. A couple years ahead of going even.)
We're interested in a city with a fun, creative, decently safe downtown for a young couple in their 20s. I would prefer a city with great food and neighborhood coffee shops. We do not plan to live together initially so we'd prefer rent under $800
If this is what you value, instead of economics, then Portland for sure. Austin has no real public transportation and you will need a car unless you work out a rather eclectic lifestyle mix.
Rent in Austin in the downtown-ish areas is notably higher than Portland, but the urban "feel" is way less substantive AND you will likely need car(s).
But you should consider the economic angle because there's a huge difference. Austin has a far more dynamic entrepreneurial culture than does Portland. Austin's economy is actually in a real recovery now, not that it got that bad.
Portland and Oregon generally has such an anti-business environment that it may never get it together.
The bottom line is that Austin has a lot more opportunities for a bright future, but whether that's really of value to you depends on a lot of personal sentiments.
Portland is a great town for people like yourselves. You could probably rent for less in either of the other two cities. Portland has a high unemployment rate and also a high under employment rate...meaning, people with master's degrees will work as baristas because they love living here so much. If it's a job you're looking for, I don't know that anyplace has good options at the moment. Good luck with your decision
Thats why getting a masters now is a waste of time. Better off getting a yr trade degree honestly, less time, and even if you dont get a job, seems to make no difference in merit from a long degree, but it must kill those people who went to school YEARS and didnt get a reward out of it.
Medical seems most rewarding if you are gonna go to school that long. Criminal justice degrees seem worthless too and some of them are 6 yr degrees. Suckers! lol sorry just cant help but to throw that in.
If this is what you value, instead of economics, then
...But you should consider the economic angle because there's a huge difference. Austin has a far more dynamic entrepreneurial culture than does Portland. Austin's economy is actually in a real recovery now, not that it got that bad.
Portland and Oregon generally has such an anti-business environment that it may never get it together....
I agree that Austin has a more entrepreneurial culture and that Portland's job market is not good. Portland consistently has among the highest unemployment rates of U.S. cities in good times and bad. I've never been able to come up with an entirely satisfactory explanation for Portland and Oregon's general malaise, but I'm pretty sure it is not because of (or at least not primarily due to) the "anti-business environment". That is just standard Republican propaganda used to try to justify more tax cuts for the richest .1% of the population.
I'm not sure what "anti-business" is really supposed to mean. I'm sure any elected official in Oregon would be thrilled to have more high-paying jobs come here. It is true that Oregonians are perhaps somewhat less likely to be willing to sacrifice their environment for economic growth at any cost. If that's "anti-business" than I'll take it. I find the quality of life to be so good here that I'm willing to earn less money than I could in many other places in order to live here.
I think a lot of people have that attitude, and that is partly why we have high unemployment - once people get here, they generally don't want to leave, even if they have difficulty finding a good job.
In my opinion, thought, the real reasons why Oregon's economy is weak are due to underlying structural and historical circumstances. Oregon's economy has historically been heavily dependent on timber and agriculture, which doesn't tend to lead to a vibrant high-tech economy. Oregon also lacks a major research university, and in the modern economy, it is primarily ideas and the availability of a workforce with advanced skills that drive economic growth. It's hard to imagine Silicon Valley having happened without Stanford and UC Berkeley, or Boston's economy without Harvard and MIT.
For that matter, the one major corporation that is headquartered here, Nike, wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the fact the U of O has a great track program. That's all well and good, but Nike is a one-time thing...U of O's track program is unlikely to spawn additional economic development, whereas the science and business programs at a Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard or MIT will continue to churn out bright, talented people who will invent things and start companies or work for those who do.
Also, while Oregon may be "anti-business" in some relatively narrow ways, I think the issue is more that its elites have tended to be fairly insular and provincial - although in recent years, Portland has attracted newcomers from all over, people of an age to be in leadership positions still tend to overwhelmingly think of the world in terms of "Duck vs. Beaver".
Or maybe it's that the endless stretches of gray gloomy weather in the winter make you just want to curl up with a cup of coffee and contemplate your navel. Then, in summer, it's so nice you just want to get outdoors. So there's never any time to go out and conquer the world
...but I'm pretty sure it is not because of (or at least not primarily due to) the "anti-business environment". That is just standard Republican propaganda used to try to justify more tax cuts for the richest .1% of the population.
...
I agree the issue is more complex than merely business friendliness, but the sky high income tax is a distinct negative for smaller businesses, especially those started by younger people leaving other high tax states or high cost of business states. A 9%+ income tax is a big deal to smaller low-resource businesses and entrepreneurs, especially if they don't use much real estate or churn sales taxed items, meaning that they don't get the tax "advantages" Oregon has in that regard. Cumulatively, this adds up to less incentive to create wealth.
Larger companies don't care as much about taxes because other factors like access to an educated labor pool, being near solid airport connections, and being near customers ultimately matters more. California and MA/NY/NJ can get away with their high taxes more easily because these they have strengths like these that at least somewhat balance the taxes.
Oregon's economy is bad a combination of high taxes on income and profits, no tier 1 research universities, a bad public school system, mediocre air connections, and no distinct modern economy gravity (e.g., Houston + energy).
Separate from this however Oregon has a lot going for it... all the pluses people talk about.
Thats why getting a masters now is a waste of time. Better off getting a yr trade degree honestly, less time, and even if you dont get a job, seems to make no difference in merit from a long degree, but it must kill those people who went to school YEARS and didnt get a reward out of it.
Medical seems most rewarding if you are gonna go to school that long. Criminal justice degrees seem worthless too and some of them are 6 yr degrees. Suckers! lol sorry just cant help but to throw that in.
So, I am moving (with husband and kids) to SW Portland metro area in about 2 months and will have JUST graduated from a medical assistant program so I'll be looking for entry-level medical assistant jobs.
I noticed on CL many of the medical assistant jobs are for medical assistant w/ limited x-ray. Will I be able to find an entry-level job even without the limited x-ray license? Or, will I be forced to fall back on my 20 years of specialty coffee experience?
Oregon also lacks a major research university, and in the modern economy, it is primarily ideas and the availability of a workforce with advanced skills that drive economic growth. It's hard to imagine Silicon Valley having happened without Stanford and UC Berkeley, or Boston's economy without Harvard and MIT.
OHSU, is slowly moving up in this department. While definitely not the size of UW, Berkeley, or UCSF, it is definitely growing in the positive direction, with lots of grant and research money.
So, I am moving (with husband and kids) to SW Portland metro area in about 2 months and will have JUST graduated from a medical assistant program so I'll be looking for entry-level medical assistant jobs.
I noticed on CL many of the medical assistant jobs are for medical assistant w/ limited x-ray. Will I be able to find an entry-level job even without the limited x-ray license? Or, will I be forced to fall back on my 20 years of specialty coffee experience?
I think you will have better luck in the medical field but like all other ocupations, they will ask more and more skills so the limited x-ray skills will be of help. Entry level jobs are gold out here. There are almost more medical assistant training schools than there are trees. Lots of competition.
Very little chance of getting something in the coffee field. You could get lucky of course but keep in mind there are hundreds just like you competing for those jobs. My company recently hired a young woman who worked for Starbucks and she said the comeptition there was cutthroat.
But if you have the patience and the resources to hang in there until the chance that you will be able to get something in the coffee business, you may succeed.
I agree the issue is more complex than merely business friendliness, but the sky high income tax is a distinct negative for smaller businesses, especially those started by younger people leaving other high tax states or high cost of business states. A 9%+ income tax is a big deal to smaller low-resource businesses and entrepreneurs, especially if they don't use much real estate or churn sales taxed items, meaning that they don't get the tax "advantages" Oregon has in that regard. Cumulatively, this adds up to less incentive to create wealth.
There may be various factors that impact small businesses more heavily than large businesses, but I don't entirely buy your argument that the 9% income tax rate creates a disincentive to "create wealth". I'm perhaps oversimplifying your argument, but essentially you are saying that a small businessperson would rather have no wealth, than have some and have it taxed at 9%. Let's say I'm a small business person, and I have some opportunity either through investment or working more, to earn an additional 10,000 dollars of income next year. After the 9% tax, I'd be left with $9,100. Are you suggesting that a rational person would rather have $0 than $9,100? I'm not buying it.
Also, the personal income tax is not really a disincentive for small business to create jobs, because salaries are an expense that reduces their tax liability.
Are you perhaps thinking they get taxed 9% of their revenues? If so, that is not the case.
Also, having a high income tax and no sales tax means that wealthier people pay more taxes than less wealthy people, because the wealthier you are, the lower the percentage of your income you spend on items subject to sales taxes.
Please explain how having a sales tax would benefit a struggling small business? Sales taxes discourage consumption, so if anything it would hurt them twice over - if it had any impact on their revenues it would be to reduce them (if they are in retail). And, they'd probably pay as much or more in with a combination of a sales tax and an income taxes as they do with the income tax alone.
There may be various factors that impact small businesses more heavily than large businesses, but I don't entirely buy your argument that the 9% income tax rate creates a disincentive to "create wealth". I'm perhaps oversimplifying your argument, but essentially you are saying that a small businessperson would rather have no wealth, than have some and have it taxed at 9%. Let's say I'm a small business person, and I have some opportunity either through investment or working more, to earn an additional 10,000 dollars of income next year. After the 9% tax, I'd be left with $9,100. Are you suggesting that a rational person would rather have $0 than $9,100? I'm not buying it.
No I'm not saying that- $0 vs. $9,100 is straw man. But a notable number, with all other factors held constant, would rather relocate to a state with no or lower income tax than 9%+ starting from almost the first dollar of income. And that again leads to fewer new businesses started and thus fewer employee jobs created over time.
In Austin, there's no state income tax. However, sales and property taxes are higher, but these tend to be less an issue for those in entrepreneur mode, because they work crazy hours and save and recycle their money back into investments.
Quote:
Also, the personal income tax is not really a disincentive for small business to create jobs, because salaries are an expense that reduces their tax liability.
Are you perhaps thinking they get taxed 9% of their revenues? If so, that is not the case.
Salaries are just a business cost, and aren't a factor at the level I'm talking. I'm discussing tax on flow through income to the business owner after all expenses are of course deducted.
Quote:
Also, having a high income tax and no sales tax means that wealthier people pay more taxes than less wealthy people, because the wealthier you are, the lower the percentage of your income you spend on items subject to sales taxes.
Please explain how having a sales tax would benefit a struggling small business? Sales taxes discourage consumption, so if anything it would hurt them twice over - if it had any impact on their revenues it would be to reduce them (if they are in retail). And, they'd probably pay as much or more in with a combination of a sales tax and an income taxes as they do with the income tax alone.
Sales taxes do hurt small business, especially retail. But the mindset of those starting a business or seeking to relocate are foremost going to look at the bottom line calculation after expenses. Real estate and sales taxes are just another expense with a deduction. Many small "new economy" businesses don't pay a lot of sales tax or real estate tax because they're services based in a small physical footprint.
That 9%+ income tax on wages/profit is very visible.
Let me put this more concretely...
As an contract software engineer grossing $120,000 per year I'd be paying roughly $9,000-$10,000 more in income tax living in Portland than Austin. That's very significant money. I'd pay more sales tax in Austin, but I don't buy much stuff and bigger purchases are online anyway. Real estate taxes are higher in Texas, but it's also my choice if I want a big expensive place or just a smaller cheaper one. So, in Austin, I can sort of control my level of tax pain at the margins; but the state income tax has few ways of minimizing it.
Not everything in life comes down to money, but for those with an entrepreneur mindset, this type of calculus definitely comes into play and it does have consequences to a region's economic health. But merely having low taxes by itself doesn't create a good economy of course, as I noted in a previous post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
