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.
Era One: Postwar Oregon, fueled by Oregon’s timber industry, boomed from 1945 until the McCall/Straub governorships (1967-79).
• Era Two: McCall changed the state’s conversation, maybe even its ethos, when he told a national audience, via CBS reporter Terry Drinkwater, his views on conservation: “Come visit us again and again, but for heaven’s sake, don’t come here to live.” But the McCall/Straub era came to a close in economic ruin, as the unemployment rate climbed to 12.5 percent. By the early 1980s, Oregon’s unemployment rate was the highest of any state since the Great Depression. That’s not all McCall’s fault, but still.
Tom McCall definitely has no place in a thread about economic development in Oregon.
• Era Three: Oregon’s political leadership, under the governorships of Vic Atiyeh and Neil Goldschmidt, took a dramatic U-turn in the 1980s and early 1990s. Turning away from its insular progressive direction, Oregon turned outward in a global direction. Atiyeh would start by holding a press conference on the California border where he very publicly removed the “Welcome to Oregon, “Enjoy Your Visit.” sign. McCall fumed. Later Atiyeh would travel nine times to Japan, create a television show about Oregon that was popular in Asia, and correct anti-business elements of the Oregon tax code.
And it worked. Oregon was open for business. By the time Atiyeh left office, 200 Japanese companies had decided to locate in Oregon.
Neil Goldschmidt knew enough not to step on Atiyeh’s work. During Goldschmidt’s tenure, Intel chose to move its 5,000 research and development Ph.D engineers to Hillsboro. The Wall Street Journal summarized at the time that more money was being invested in Washington County in the semi-conductor industry than in the rest of the nation put together. Twelve billion dollars. Oregon was booming. And then it stopped.
• Era Four: Oregon’s modern political leadership, symbolized most especially by Vera Katz and John Kitzhaber, became once again, like McCall, unconcerned about growth, and instead placed heavy emphasis on “stewardship” over jobs.
And what is the current price tag for this schizophrenic approach to our economy?
In 2012, Oregon ranked No. 33 in the nation in per-capita income, down 11 spots from a high of No. 22 in the mid 1990s. The average Oregon resident now makes almost $7,000 less than the average Washington resident. The region’s financial and economic capital, Portland, has lost more than 40,000 jobs in its downtown core in the past decade. That’s quite a price tag to have “things look different here.”
One of the great advantages of living in Southern Oregon is that it hasn't been ruined like so much of the Willamette Valley. People still have values that don't start with a dollar sign.
Not just North America, all over the world. Their web site also has a list of factories you could visit or call up and talk to yourself about sustainability practices. You would think that in the 25 years since they started on their sustainability crusade that there would be people calling them out as hypocrites. Instead this is what we see: (found while searching for "Nike Sustainability Hypocrisy"
While abuses do still happen, it's usually at the factory level and certainly is not at the behest of Nike. Remember none of these factories are owned by Nike, although Nike works hard to investigate and correct such issues, including punishment such as pulling production and dropping factories. This keeps happening because the rest of the apparel industry does not do the same. Yet Nike, pretty much the face of fair treatment of workers these days, is the only one called out when these abuses happen. It's a single fish swimming upstream against the rest coming down.
Where is the calling out of every single other apparel company that does the same? Where are the mass protests at WalMart for their unfair labor practices in their supplier's factories? When was the last time Adidas or Reebok had to face criticism, even though their stuff is frequently produced in the same factory or one owned by the same company?
You must not have been paying attention. There was plenty of outrage over that recent little maneuver on both sides of the Political Spectrum, especially among the "liberal" types who are apparently turning such a blind eye to Nike.
Look, I'm not going to play apologist for Nike. Any large corporation has it's huge glaring problems. I just think a lot of people's abuse and hatred of Nike is misplaced these days. The company is trying, which is a lot more then can be said for pretty much anyone else. They are making a difference, but it's slow going especially when they're the only ones really doing it.
I'm not going to delve into whether Nike is good or bad. I like Nike as a company too. Changes or no changes, my point was that Nike is a company that doesn't fall into the parameters of Tom McCall's words that some other poster talked about. My point is that "we don't want big businesses here, etc etc" but Nike sits in the backyard engaging in some of the practices Oregonians would tend to loathe. I have no doubt in my mind that it's improving, but that's not the point.
Basically, it appears that Nike is the exception, and that no more exceptions will be given.
Statewide land use planning in Washington lagged Oregon’s program by almost
20 years. Washington’s legislature passed the Growth Management Act in 1990
to reduce urban sprawl, concentrate urban growth, support property rights, and
conserve lands important to the state’s agriculture and forest industries (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development 2006). http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lulcd/Public...010_GTR829.pdf
Smart land grab. Claim you need 330 acres to build a chip fab, run it for 20 years until it's totally obsolete, then end up with 330 acres inside the city limits to partition and sell off for a huge profit, about 10x what they said they were going to spend on the facility. I wonder what bunch of rubes bought that bridge?
Ill put it plainly: Washington has Amazon, T Mobile, Russell, Boeing, Nintendo, Microsoft and Oregon has Nike and Intel. When it comes to state economic development, what are our neighbors to the north doing better than us?
I think there are a couple of issues that cause this.
1) As others have mentioned, Oregon is very pro mom and pop business and local companies first.
2) The founders of Boeing, Amazon.com, Microsoft, Weyerhauser, Zillow, Redfin, Starbucks, on and on were from the Seattle-Tacoma metro. They started businesses where they lived and stayed. Fred Meyer is the only one I am aware of that started in PDX and then moved their HQ to Seattle.
3) Education. WSU is considered a much better school than OSU or U of O. When large companies look to move, they look at the amount of people with a good educational background. They need to have good access to "talent" and Oregon higher ed, doesn't deliver on this front, with some exceptions. Some of the Universities have top notch programs for really specific degrees but when looked at as a whole, quite average.
4) Urban growth boundaries. Some companies don't want to go where they are designated to go.
In my opinion Oregon loses economic development because of its dedication to local small businesses and the environment. I'm not sure that is a bad thing, but some people prefer large growth. The problem with being dependent on large employers, look at HP for an example, is that they can control a local economy. In my opinion, having smaller and diverse businesses run your local economy is much better for stability. That way if a business fails, it doesn't impact the local economy as much.
I think there are a couple of issues that cause this.
1) As others have mentioned, Oregon is very pro mom and pop business and local companies first.
2) The founders of Boeing, Amazon.com, Microsoft, Weyerhauser, Zillow, Redfin, Starbucks, on and on were from the Seattle-Tacoma metro. They started businesses where they lived and stayed. Fred Meyer is the only one I am aware of that started in PDX and then moved their HQ to Seattle.
3) Education. WSU is considered a much better school than OSU or U of O. When large companies look to move, they look at the amount of people with a good educational background. They need to have good access to "talent" and Oregon higher ed, doesn't deliver on this front, with some exceptions. Some of the Universities have top notch programs for really specific degrees but when looked at as a whole, quite average.
4) Urban growth boundaries. Some companies don't want to go where they are designated to go.
In my opinion Oregon loses economic development because of its dedication to local small businesses and the environment. I'm not sure that is a bad thing, but some people prefer large growth. The problem with being dependent on large employers, look at HP for an example, is that they can control a local economy. In my opinion, having smaller and diverse businesses run your local economy is much better for stability. That way if a business fails, it doesn't impact the local economy as much.
Well said. It is about choices and trade offs. Oregon has made some choices that limited its growth, and most of us are fairly happy with the trade offs involved. Sounds like the OP is not, but it is a free country after all, and opinions will differ. As I said upthread, I think Oregon has more in common with other rural, independent, slow growth states, like Maine, Vermont, New Mexico, etc., and some of the same issues. Both California and Washington actively compete for the cult status of the hippest and coolest for the mostest. Oregon...not so much. The cost of success would be too high, as both our neighbors demonstrate.
I also like Larry Caldwell's comment that many of us here value other things more than $$$. That is certainly the case in S. Oregon.
I think there are a couple of issues that cause this.
1) As others have mentioned, Oregon is very pro mom and pop business and local companies first.
Apparently Oregon couldn't keep Integra in its borders. Now, I understand people like to dismiss and use other excuses as did the company, but the company could've consolidated to one site cheaply elsewhere in the state, or even elsewhere in Portland. There is something going on here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall
2) The founders of Boeing, Amazon.com, Microsoft, Weyerhauser, Zillow, Redfin, Starbucks, on and on were from the Seattle-Tacoma metro. They started businesses where they lived and stayed. Fred Meyer is the only one I am aware of that started in PDX and then moved their HQ to Seattle.
I can guess Portland's reaction: "Fine we don't need you anyway." Why did they move to Seattle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall
3) Education. WSU is considered a much better school than OSU or U of O. When large companies look to move, they look at the amount of people with a good educational background. They need to have good access to "talent" and Oregon higher ed, doesn't deliver on this front, with some exceptions. Some of the Universities have top notch programs for really specific degrees but when looked at as a whole, quite average.
No it isn't. UO is aroiund 110th or so in the nation. Now if you want to debate WSU vs OSU, those are more tied and, I believe, might be considered "Tier 3" schools. UO is ranked higher than both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall
4) Urban growth boundaries. Some companies don't want to go where they are designated to go.
In my opinion Oregon loses economic development because of its dedication to local small businesses and the environment. I'm not sure that is a bad thing, but some people prefer large growth.
I think it is a bad thing. There are very good companies out there that are honest, pay good wages, don't skimp on taxes and have a very good product and try to do things the right way, like CostCo. Having their corporate headquarters in Oregon isn't going to kill the country side, it isn't going to ruin the state or the environment, and will probably do a lot to improve things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall
The problem with being dependent on large employers, look at HP for an example, is that they can control a local economy. In my opinion, having smaller and diverse businesses run your local economy is much better for stability. That way if a business fails, it doesn't impact the local economy as much.
I didn't say anything about being dependent on them, I said try bringing a few more in.
I think it is a bad thing. There are very good companies out there that are honest, pay good wages, don't skimp on taxes and have a very good product and try to do things the right way, like CostCo. Having their corporate headquarters in Oregon isn't going to kill the country side, it isn't going to ruin the state or the environment, and will probably do a lot to improve things.
But for every one good company there are two dozen bad companies. How would we discourage the bad ones and encourage the good ones? Other then tax cuts and kick backs that are already standard practice.
I think there are a couple of issues that cause this.
1) As others have mentioned, Oregon is very pro mom and pop business and local companies first.
4) Urban growth boundaries. Some companies don't want to go where they are designated to go.
In my opinion Oregon loses economic development because of its dedication to local small businesses and the environment. I'm not sure that is a bad thing, but some people prefer large growth. The problem with being dependent on large employers, look at HP for an example, is that they can control a local economy. In my opinion, having smaller and diverse businesses run your local economy is much better for stability. That way if a business fails, it doesn't impact the local economy as much.
LOL, apparently when one is immersed in the fantasy, they can find no handle with which to find reality...
Oregon hates ALL businesses equally, and the liberal Portlandites (and their associates nearby) have killed off every vestige of hope for ANYONE to do ANYTHING. Eastern Oregon is an economic wasteland, and yet, they continue to pretend that their policies, which are nothing but a collection of fiction, garbage, and insanity, are somehow "contributing" to their welfare. It's been so freaking long since someone in the area has actually done something real and of value, they really do seem to believe that you can make something, produce something, invent something, or do something of value while making all the worst decisions and living by the worst rules possible.
You can't start, keep, or run any business in Oregon without every authority in the state beating a path to you door demanding you be stupid or dumb, like they are.
You stupid schmucks keep talking about "quality of life". Quality of life cannot even EXIST until we have some economic growth. A JOB is the ABSOLUTE FIRST requirement, the ONLY way that happens, is an influx of business, and to AGAIN producing wealth within the state, instead of just being lawyers and politicians and money shufflers. SOMEONE HAS TO PRODUCE WEALTH. And Oregon has put up the "We hate you, go away" sign for anyone who has such an idea.
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.
Why did they move to Seattle?
