As far as Portland and Bend go, I'd assume a lot of it has to do with massive tech layoffs/offshoring and lack of construction most everywhere else. Both of those industries cause a massive ripple effect throughout the entire Oregon economy. Hopefully, stimulus dollars will be focused on both industries...when tech is booming and buildings/roads/facilities are being built, Oregon booms and unemployment drops every time. Green tech isn't going to put everyone back to work...not at the rates they used to make. There are too many specialized folks that are sitting around whose specializations aren't in installing solar panels, they make business software and computer components. That's why green industry absolutely has to be completely local, so people who write the software and make the parts and install the solar panels all come from here. And yes, that probably means choosing higher local bids for work over low bids...if you want those unemployment numbers to turn around anytime soon, that is.

So what kind of an State or Federal administration is best for Oregon?

The trend certainly isn't very attractive.

Whether the local labor pool is green, high tech, blue collar, slacker, or service oriented, it isn't of much concern as all types are present.

What's lacking is any clear vision of how to attract business, or create long term jobs. For the few large successful companies located in Oregon, they seem to be a target rather than industries to be nurtured and encouraged. Kudos to the companies that have figured out how to survive in business unfriendly Oregon.

What's missing in Oregon?

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

I know it's an old bromide, (but nevertheless true).

As someone who has operated businesses in Oregon, Texas, Arizona and now Oregon again, I can say, without a doubt that there IS NO credence to the claim that Oregon is unfriendly to business. You could make an argument that Multnomah county is less than welcoming to biz, but not the state itself.

Here is the caveat. There IS a perception by people, both here and in other states, that Oregon IS HOSTILE TOWARDS BUSINESS. And we all know that perceptions become reality quite easily. Hell, Blue Oregon loves to make "business" the big bad boogey man responsible for all things wrong in the state all the time.

What the state needs to do is stop focusing on the 'flavor' of the month industry and try and develop all industries. There are 83 businesses ranked in the INC 5000 list of fastest growing companies in the country here in Oregon. They cover a broad spectrum of industries. What the state should do is try to double that number in the next 5 years. The state of Louisiana has a $230M business development fund that they are using, with good results, to nurture small businesses and enabling their growth. Computer chips, nanotech and biofuel may be sexy, but what have they really gotten us.

Carla,

I rent office space from a guy who owns and operates a staffing and payroll agency. He was telling me that an encouraging sign that he's beginning to see is that existing companies that were forced to layoff workers are now bringing those people back - and he's seeing fewer layoffs overall.

This is probably one of the reasons why we'll creep out of the recession, instead of jump out. It will take several months, if not a year or more for companies to get back to normal staffing levels before new job creation can begin.

While I'm cautiously optimistic, it's nice to hear some positive news from a guy who's in the trenches of employment every day.

What I have noticed is that if you have college degree (and not in poli sci or psych) or you're working in healthcare, public sector, high tech programming, or operations you will do just fine (albeit without COLA or decent benefits).

If you have a GED, work in manufactoring, construction, or hospitality you might want to rethink your career choices.

I hear the pay in blogging sucks too!

One less car, one less transport taxpayer and eventually one less job – one out of every 10 jobs in the US is tied to the auto industry. And then there is the proposed Oregon legislation that restricts phone directories to “by request only delivery” – one less phone directory, eventually one less job and maybe even one less small business that relied on the phone directory as their primary means of advertising. Tax your way out of this picture you say – the rich get richer with development subsidies for temporary jobs and a few more small businesses go under and again a few less permanent jobs. Bottom line: socialism and social engineering doesn’t work. The free market in Oregon is long gone. Nobody bothers to look at the jobs that go away when attempting to invent a new economy.

Steve,

maybe you should look at the unemployment rates of GOP states such as TX and UT. They have unemployment rates of 6.6% and 5.4% respectively.

Steve,

A red herring if I've ever seen one. GOP counties are typically rural and have been under the thumb of the urban population for decades. While people in rural areas see the land as a place of work, Portlanders et.al. view them as their personal recreation zone.

Kari: I've updated my name.

mp97303: I agree with your comment that there is a perception that Oregon is unfriendly to business.

I think I spread too broad a brush, as Oregon is certainly attracting many small, but growing businesses as the INC stats indicate.

Some of these companies will continue to continue to grow, but many will plateau or fizzle out.

My comment probably was driven by the exodus of large companies. There simply aren't many left in Oregon. While an argument can be made that many successful small companies is a good thing, we simply need more of them as the other posters have noted.

I don't see this as a partisan issue as some have noted. Don't simply look at percentages -- those rural areas don't have that many residents.

Attract a few more large companies with growth potential, and perhaps there will be more critical mass to develop the smaller support businesses.

As was debated in another thread when Intel was the topic -- "not paying their fair share of income taxes" -- compromises were made to attract Intel to Oregon in the first place. Whether it was initially property tax incentives, development funds, or other favorable tax treatment, I think it is safe to say that we need more large companies like Intel, and Nike and Adidas, too. Tektronix and ESI got things started in Washington County 40+ years ago. And we need fewer incentives in Multnomah County, like the ones that moved Columbia Sportswear to WashCo.

To the other gentleman who asked me what makes Oregon unfriendly? I think mp97303 said it best - it is all a perception issue. Oregon needs to focus all its efforts on promoting and encouraging businesses that take an interest in Oregon.

Too bad we can't all agree on what businesses to encourage.

Steve,

Those counties you listed are in rural areas. Their economies have forever been tied to the land - agriculture and timber.

Eastern Oregon also lacks the following:

1. Major freeway (besides I-84)
2. Major Airport
3. Major Port
4. Technology infrastructure (compared with urban areas)
5. Economic & job diversity
6. Higher Education Access (a few exceptions)
7. Retail/art/cultural amenities

Rural areas consistently have higher unemployment rates than urban areas, and the above list highlights only a few of the reasons why opportunities for job creation are limited in rural areas. And because opportunities are limited, it also makes it very difficult to diversify an economy well enough to cushion the blow during a recession such as this one.

This is not a republican/democratic problem, this is just the reality of rural areas. Most of these counties have depended upon one sector of the economy for decades, and will always fight that battle.

In Crook County the unemployment rate was under 6% in 2008. Now it's 18.5% (seasonally adjusted). Most of the job creation here was tied to the housing market, and now those jobs are being shed. This is clearly a market-driven situation, and not one controlled by anyone with an (R) beside their name.

One of the reasons I visit this website every day is because I like to listen, learn and be challenged. I may disagree most of the time with people like Carla and Kari, but I believe both of them to be very intelligent and caring people. Unfortunately, when someone like yourself makes completely bogus and off-the-wall comments with absolutely no facts to back them up, it dilutes an intelligent and healthy debate and/or discussion.

CORRECTION:

The 6% unemployment rate in Crook County was in 2007, not 2008.

Before anyone gets too comfortable with the possibility of the unemployment rate going down, keep in mind that there will be a lot of teachers and educational assistants hitting the unemployment rolls in mid-June through August (depending on when they're actually eligible for unemployment, depending on check distribution of 10 month payments) due to cuts in K-12 education.

That's not going to go away very fast. With anywhere from 10-20% cuts in some districts, the amounts will be significant in some counties.

The unemployment rate is not going down...at least anytime soon. The "stimulus" package isn't going to do anything positive and in fact is making the situation worse, along with everything else the Obama administration is doing (or trying to do). Commercial real estate is probably the next bubble to burst, perhaps as soon as next fall. An inflationary depression is the most likely outcome.

I mean seriously folks, it should be pretty clear that what the FED and government is doing is simply everything within their power to maintain the bubble when what needs to happen is for prices and wages to fall, interest rates to rise and productive assets put in hands that can afford and make productive use of them. Low interest rates that exist for any other reason than a surplus of savings are illusory and merely lead to the boom/bust cycles we are experiencing.

Subsidizing continued consumption with paper currenty and debt is the worst possible policy.

Ignoring the politics and "quality of life" issues, why do the Dixie states have lower unemployment? I am no expert, but my immediate guess is that the Dixie states: (a) have lower minimum wage requirements, (b) have lower land values, (c) have less restrictive land use requirements, (d) have lower worker-compensation costs, and e) are anti-union as compared to Oregon.

None of the above are attractive to me, but I can fully understand why "Dixie" has lower unemployment.

If you want a guaranteed job, move to India. I understand they have jobs available for you (and your children) sewing Nike soccer balls at $00.06 each. Full employment, at least until somebody else offers to do the job for $00.04 each.

Excuse me, folks. How do you pull up the country breakdown?

Apologies, I mean the county breakdown.

@Greg D.

I don't claim to be a Texas expert, having only lived in Houston for a little more than a year, but your assessment is pretty good. The results are that a working family could buy a brand new home, built by a nationally recognized builder in an attractive subdivision for <100K.

It is easy for us to "look down our noses" at their values, but is sure is a hell of a lot more affordable to live there. I wonder just what our "working poor" could accomplish if they had and unemployment rate 1/2 of what is currently is here and affordable housing. Hell, they might just achieve the American dream. We wouldn't want that now would we.

Also, the south, and Texas especially, don't provide anywhere near the level of 'services' that we do. They have an ingrained ethic that says "take care of yourself" and don't expect others to do it for you.

@Mike (one of the many)

The only problem with trying to attract large companies here is that they lack any 'roots' tying them to Oregon. How many times have we seen Company A state that unless we make A, B, and C concessions, they might just have to close their factory or move their HQ. I would suspect that a homegrown company would be very unlikely to ever try that as they are connected to the community.

No matter what we do, we must have as our primary objective the development of a diverse economic base. Something that our leaders don't seem to understand.

The Portland Tribune is now reporting Nike is laing off 500 people.

Carla,

The 21% figure you give for March is the raw number. The 18.5 is seasonally adjusted.

As for making Steve's point, I completely disagree.

Small, rural communities tend to have a lack of higher-paying or family wage jobs; therefore, their expendable income is less. In Crook County, the average personal income (for one person) is about $22,000 per year - which jives with many of the secondary wood-products jobs. When higher wages are available it makes it easier for a household to "invest" as you put it. As my income has grown, I'm way more willing to vote for a tax that makes sense now, than I was 10-years ago.

There's also the demand issue at play here. You can't invest in infrastructure when the demand doesn't exist. Rural areas always lag behind urban areas for that reason, and trying to get federal earmarks or other funds when you're in competition with places like Bend, Medford, Eugene, Salem, Portand metro, etc. - you find very quickly that the smaller, rural areas often get left in the dust.

I agree with you that rural people tend to be conservative to the point of being anti-tax, no matter what it is. There are opposing mindsets and cultural differences between urban and rural areas when it comes to how you invest in infrastructure and jobs. Often times, conservatives vote down a tax not realizing that without the investment now, you'll end up paying more for it in the future - either through higher taxes or lost opportunities, which equates to lower paying jobs, etc.

I've lived in Eugene and now Prineville - about as opposite in political philosophy as you can get. You have to realize, as I have learned, that some people in rural America are content living with limited services and opportunities. I don't always understand it, but it's just the way it is.

Having worked in economic development, there are so many other factors that play into rural areas dealing with high unemployment. I think it's pretty sophomoric to blame it on Republicans.

Jenni, when I lived in OK under the conditions you describe, I paid 250/mo for a huge, well-maintained house. Here, I pay 750/mo for a box in a high-density drive-through zone with no livability other than the fact that we don't have shootings.

No comparison in my eyes. Standard of living, quality of life.... let's just tqalk about what we need here and stop all the comparison junk. Comparisons are faulty logic whether in areas of self-esteem or areas of discussing issues of local standards of livabilty.

For a major city (are PDX and Houston the same size, roughly? Not sure) that would make sense. But our rents and costs are at the levels of many major/larger mid size cities, with lower pay.

However, your info is probably more germane than mine. Being a right to work state is a dreadful thing for workers.

interesting. second highest unemployment yet the fastest grwoing unemployment as well.

this is bad policy passed by bad politicians.

In times of recession, increasing tax burdens on Oregonians is the wrong way to go.....but i know how much you dems love to tax and spend.

have fun destroying oregon prosperity....

"But you know, Scott, if you want to live in a Third World country, why don't you simply move to one?"

Steve M, is that the apex of your intellect?
I'd expect a line such as that from a 6th grader. Think about including the following to your index of one liners:

"I know you are but what am I?" "I used to do that too until I got a (job/girlfiend/clue, etc)"

Have a beautiful day and be careful about your carbon foot print, I need you to offset my 8 cylinder SUV CO2 belching road hog.

The Oregon mindset is too intent on controlling and targeting only specific types of businesses rather than working towards attracting businesses in general. Looking at a large publication called “A Manifest of Western Oregon” published in the early 1950’s, the primary businesses on page after page were logging and lumber, and agriculture including raising livestock. Although those businesses along with technology play a role in today’s economy, and the fact that many of the logging and lumbering jobs no longer exist, Oregon needs a much wider range of diversity in the employment base to withstand recessionary periods. Therefore, Oregon politicians need to be laying the ground work and sending out the welcome mat to all types of businesses - not just the ones that are so called green.

Here's a thought: Oregon's economic failure is a consequence of its inadequate and third rate research universities, particularly when it comes to science and engineering.

If you are skeptical, share with me the economic success stories among states with universities at our lackluster level.

There is a beeter view of the unemployment situation at: http://www.localetrends.com/st/or_oregon_unemployment.php

for califonia unemployment maps: http://www.localetrends.com/st/ca_california_unemployment.php

For Washington state unemployment maps:

http://www.localetrends.com/st/wa_washington_unemployment.php

Steve M,

Just as a point of fact, you didn't ask a question (unless you count asking me If I'd like to move to a different country), you made a statement.

<h2>As for the rest of your subjective gibberish about 3rd world countries, please keep supplying us with your endless jumble of crap, I almost got through the 2nd paragraph before moving on.</h2>