Oregon falls furthest in CEO survey of best states for business

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/05/oregon_falls_furthest_in_ceo_s.html

UPDATED 2:43 p.m.: Oregon fell 14 spots to No. 38 -- the biggest drop of any state -- in Chief Executive magazine's annual survey of Best and Worst States for Business.

Washington, meanwhile, posted the biggest gain, jumping 10 spots to No. 30, according to the survey of 650 CEOs nationwide.

Texas and North Carolina ranked first and second. California and New York finished at the bottom.

The surveyed asked executives to grade states on their tax & regulatory environment, workforce quality and living environment.

"Oregon is highly rated for its living environment -- higher, in fact, than Texas which is rated number one in the overall rankings this year," said magazine editor-in-chief J.P. Donlon. "But faced with a budget shortfall, Oregon decided to hike taxes, raise fees and basically take the path that New Jersey usually took—before it elected its now current governor—when faced with deficits."

Donlon added that CEOs also say the state’s attitude to business increasingly is becoming more adversarial and likened to California, especially when it comes to matters involving environmental regulation.

Oregon got a D in the tax and regulation category, an A- for its living environment and a B- in workforce quality.

The magazine's web site allows readers to rank states based on their own criteria.

 

I've been preaching this for a long time . . . I'm not happy this is confirmed, but at least i know I'm not going crazy.

There were all kinds of debates about the tax increase on businesses. I warned about the physiological effect this would have and was literally mocked.

Oregon business community is frustrated with the gov't and the power of the labor unions. In particular, public employee union has so much political influence they are discouraging businesses to come to Oregon. With one foutune 500 company left, I would say the odds are greater they leave vs. another fortune 500 company setting up shop here.

No sales tax, raising taxes during a recession, unions controlling politics . . . . Oregon is an archaic state heading the wrong way when it comes to business development.

 

Love it!
Moved to Vancouver about 6 years ago and havent regretted it once.

 

I suppose this means even more CEOs panhandling at onramps. Sigh.

 

Exactly what Chris Dudley is talking about. People moving across the river to escape
capital gains and income tax. Oregon is bad for business, and this article proves it.

Hopefully people vote for a new future, and not a third term governor...

 

Well, at least Portland is thinking about its transportation issue and expanding the max lines. Washington is the one against the I-5 expansion and also the Max line idea. At least Portland is expanding to accept of the population sprawl and is using this as a business benefit and environmental issue for this city.

 

196 of the Fortune 1000 were in California or New York in 2008, or 20% of them. They also comprise 19% of the US population. If they are such terrible places to do business, you'd think the ratios would be different.

Texas has 8.5% of the US population, but 113 Fortune 1000 companies, or 11% of them. Probably 1/4 of them are oil companies, fwiw.

So basically it seems barfo's right. Bigger populations do attract bigger businesses.

It is interesting to note, though, that New Jersey and North Carolina have roughly the same population--around 9 mil each, or 3% of the total US each. NJ has 42 companies (4% of the total), NC has 26 (2.5%). Both have more than you'd expect for their populations, but obviously New Jersey has significantly more (probably because of the proximity to NYC).

In the end, CEO's are customers of state governments. They buy services (infrastructure, educated workforce, security, etc) from states through taxes. Anybody who runs a business knows that the first thing any customer complains about is the price, so naturally CEO's complain more about taxes than anything else. Anybody who runs a business also knows that although it's important to listen to your customers when they complain about price, it doesn't mean it's wise to immediately slash prices. It's not always desirable to be the low-cost leader.

New Jersey charges higher prices than North Carolina, yet retains far more Fortune 1000 companies than North Carolina. If I lived in New Jersey, I'd be pretty satisfied with corporate taxes. (I might not be happy with how that money is spent--that's an entirely different matter.) If I were North Carolina, I'd probably be a little discouraged that I have low prices but don't seem to compete well with New Jersey in getting customers. (Of course, I could always console myself by looking at states like Montana or Wyoming, which despite being very corporate-friendly in taxes have not a single Fortune 1000 company.)

 

Oregon, fwiw, has 6 Fortune 1000 companies (0.6%), and 1.3% of the US population. Given its small size, it's actually doing reasonably well.

 

Well, geez. At the top of the page it says "Fortune 500". But if you go to the main page, it is 1000. WTF? Ok, I'll adjust my earlier post.

 

FWIW i'd assume really rich people consider things more than just making money, such as weather and the city.

 

Perception is reality. IMO were far behind our potential as a state, with all this large & "green" state has to offer 11.5% unemployment is reasonably shitty

 

You haven't seen anything yet. Read the Oregonian this week? Over the next 10 years as the SIU retirement/entitlement program gobbles up more and more of the states budget, taxes and fees will continue to go up. New taxation is just beginning.

 

I think Oregon is a wonderfully diverse state with the ocean, valleys, mountains, deserts... and therefore has something to offer. I also think we have a very good workforce. But, taxes and the promise of much more taxation is a problem for new business. Also, our housing is still over priced IMHO.