I read this in the newspaper today. It wasn't the focus of the article, but I thought it was interesting that Oregon's unemployment rate has historically almost always been higher than the national rate. I've been making the point, repeatedly, that things are tough all over, and this economic crisis isn't something unique to Oregon. But is Oregon worse off now than it used to be, relative to the rest of the country? The answer (looking only at unemployment data) is not really, no. Over the past 35 years, Oregon has been, on average, in good times and bad, 0.9 percentage points above the national average. We are currently 1.0 percentage points above the national average. I'm personally skeptical that there is a tight connection between governors and unemployment, but let's see what the data says about our past governors and the average unemployment rates (as compared to national) while they were in office. The best gov. for unemployment was Barbara Roberts. During her one term we were on average 0.4 points below the national unemployment rate. Here's the rest of the list. Barbara Roberts (D): -0.4% Neil Goldschmidt (D): 0.1 Bob Straub (D): 0.7 John Kitzhaber (D): 0.9 Ted Kulongoski (D): 1.2 Vic Atiyeh (R): 1.5 If you prefer to look at the actual rates (rather than as compared to the national rates) here they are - average over the 35 years is 7.2%: Neil Goldschmidt (D): 5.7% John Kitzhaber (D): 5.8 Barbara Roberts (D): 6.2 Ted Kulongoski (D): 7.4 Bob Straub (D): 7.6 Vic Atiyeh (R): 9.2 barfo
Interesting stats. Like US Presidents, state Governors seem to get too much credit when things are going well and too much consternation when they go bad. But with property taxes going up, income tax increases, why is the state in such bad shape with the economy? Does the programs of the Gov & state legislature play any part?
Why is the state in such bad shape? It's in bad shape because the whole western world is in bad shape. There isn't anything that is happening to Oregon that isn't happening to other states too. Does the state government play a role? Sure. While the state can't control the overall economy, it makes lots of decisions that affect life here in Oregon. barfo
Depends on who is in office. If he (or she) is my party and something good happens to the economy, they had a role. If he (or she) is my party and something bad happens to the economy, then they had very little role. If he (or she) isn't my party and something good happens to the economy, they had absolutely no role. If he (or she) isn't my party and something bad happens to the economy, then they had very HUGE role.
But in other states property taxes are dropping and in many the sales taxes have remained static. Here, they are both up substantially and still the state sinks into the toilet. Seems odd to me.'
Well, sales taxes are not up here. Sales tax is still zero in Oregon, which is why we lean on property and income taxes so heavily. Property tax rates are the result of voter-passed initiatives, so we have no one to blame but ourselves for that. Income taxes [which I think you meant rather than sales taxes] are not up substantially (unless you are in the over-$250K bracket). If you are below $250K, then income tax rates are the same as they've been for decades. And, measure 66 was passed by the voters, not state government, so again, there's no one else to blame. barfo
In a way, it's actually a good thing to have a higher than normal unemployment rate over time. The main reason for this is due to the fact that you have to be employable in order to qualify for the statistic. So if you took 100 adults (men, women, grandparents, etc.) from Alabama or West Virginia, it might be that 30 are employable and the rest simply live at home with their parents or are housewives or grandparents living with their adult children, etc. So of the people that could be employed, they make a huge effort to actually be working for the families and you will likely only have a couple of them unemployed. In Oregon, working wives and teenagers and grandparents are much more common. But they can still pull from their husbands, parents or working adult children, so what you see more in Oregon would be like 40 qualified adults in that example, but only 35 of them are working since the other 5 are between jobs or collecting unemployment and not in a hurry since they're living off of another person. So the net affect here in Oregon is that you have many more qualified adults for unemployment that drive that stat you're seeing. But we employee a much larger percent of the adult population.
It appears you are right. This isn't correct, because I'm using 2010 labor force numbers and 2008 state population estimates, but it probably gives a rough idea: OR: 1.96 million labor force / 3.8 million population = 52% AL: 2.1 million/ 4.7 million = 45% WV: 0.77 million/ 1.8 million = 43% barfo
Not sure if the labor force/population ratio is the perfect indicator, but probably does get you in the right theme there. The general point is even more intuitive. That is that there is a misconception that unemployment is based on people not working, as where it is really based on people that were attempting to work but currently aren't. So if you have other states where people really don't actively try to work or try and collect unemployment, they don't end up showing up as a stat.
I have actually been of the opinion for a long time that the government actually has very little effect on the jobs/economy. There are certain things they can do to promote business growth in their state, and make those businesses coming in more comfy by providing infrastructure, but overall, the main thing that drives the economy is consumer confidence. If the consumers are confident and spending money, the rest of the economy goes with it. The rest is about attracting business to your state. That in itself might be out of the governments control. Often times when business moves, it is because the CEO has a goal in mind, and it is not always a business goal (like being close to a ski resort or a ton of golf courses).
I agree with your sentiment hasoos, but one thing I might add that the government can influence is business confidence: The government is like the O-line, big strong and slow moving. Businesses are like the half-back, small nimble and when shown a hole, are able to make a break and move the chains forward. We need the government to clear a path so that the businesses are willing to make a break, otherwise the forces are too great to overcome. Its as if the fat government is trying to carry the ball themselves instead of clearing a path for innovation of business, and businesses are just waiting for the government to fumble. Right now business leaders are sitting on the sidelines. It seems to me that if you want to increase confidence in an economy, you should target the movers and shakers first.
Business needs to quit whining and get back on the field, then. Sitting on the bench bitching about your teammates isn't how you win the game. barfo
