Oregon falls furthest in CEO survey of best states for business

[tlongII]

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.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

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.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

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

 

[barfo]

I've been preaching this for a long time . . . I'm not happy this is confirmed,

Well, it's not confirmed. These sort of surveys are anything but scientific.
Oregon raised taxes this year (albeit minimally), so Oregon gets a bad score. That's to be expected, but it doesn't mean that the business tax climate here is actually bad.

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.

I suppose you mean me, but I didn't think I mocked you. I did disagree with you. I'm not sure taxes have any physiological effect. Unless taxes cause beer belly, in which case I've been paying too much tax.

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.

Proof? There are a bunch of companies that have come to Oregon. Obviously they weren't discouraged.

With one foutune 500 company left, I would say the odds are greater they leave vs. another fortune 500 company setting up shop here.

That's probably true, but that has little to nothing to do with taxes. We didn't lose the fortune 500 companies we had due to taxes. We lost them due to M&A, and the death of the forest products industry. We won't gain any existing ones, because fortune 500 companies don't look for backwater states to move to. They move in one direction, and that's towards population centers. To get new ones we have to grow new ones, not import them.

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.

A sales tax probably would help Oregon, but are you really proposing that consumers should pay more tax so that business can pay less? I see a sales tax as useful for evening the load out on consumers. There's no reason why instituting a sales tax should give businesses a tax break, in my opinion.

barfo

 

[barfo]

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

Nor have I. All those who want to move to Vancouver should definitely do so.
After that's done, we dynamite the bridges.

barfo

 

[TripTango]

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

 

[HailBlazers]

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

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...

 

[barfo]

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...

Hopefully people that think the grass is greener on the other side of the Columbia go ahead and move there.

barfo

 

[barfo]

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.

Something I didn't notice before, but did when I read it in the newspaper tonight: the states finishing last in this survey were New York and California.
How many fortune 500 companies are there in New York and California? Somewhere between a shitload and a fuckload, right?
So maybe Fortune 500 company headquarters and this survey don't have a damn thing to do with each other. Or, if they do, they are inversely correlated.

barfo

 

[Nate Dogg]

Oregon is an archaic state heading the wrong way when it comes to business development.

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.

 

[mook]

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.)

 

[mook]

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.

 

[barfo]

So basically it seems barfo's right.

I completely agree. However, I have to point out you are looking at the fortune 1000, not the fortune 500.

barfo

 

[mook]

I completely agree. However, I have to point out you are looking at the fortune 1000, not the fortune 500.

barfo

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.

 

[Eastoff]

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

 

[HailBlazers]

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.

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

 

[barfo]

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

What is it that the state has to offer that would reduce unemployment, in your opinion?

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

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.

This is the type of news we need to be translating into Spanish on leaflets and dropping along the USA/Mexico border!

(Except for the living environment part, we'll tell them that's a F.)

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

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.

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.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

What is it that the state has to offer that would reduce unemployment, in your opinion?

barfo

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.

 

[barfo]

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.

Well, I think it is wonderfully diverse state too, so at least we agree on that. But how do ocean, valleys, mountains, deserts reduce unemployment specifically? Tourism is down due to the economy, that's part of the problem.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Well, I think it is wonderfully diverse state too, so at least we agree on that. But how do ocean, valleys, mountains, deserts reduce unemployment specifically? Tourism is down due to the economy, that's part of the problem.

barfo

If I wanted to move a business (depending on the type of business), I'd look at several things. One of the main ones is livability. Then the quality & quantity of the workforce. Of course, other things like unions, cost of living, taxes, type of government also plays an important part. So I would think we'd get at least a good hard look initially due to the beauty of the state.

 

[tlongII]

Well, I think it is wonderfully diverse state too, so at least we agree on that. But how do ocean, valleys, mountains, deserts reduce unemployment specifically? Tourism is down due to the economy, that's part of the problem.

barfo

How about construction? Unfortunately part of the problem with our housing prices lies with our liberal urban growth boundaries which limit where housing construction can occur. If these were relaxed we could have more available land and thus lower housing prices. This would drive an increase in the construction industry and therefore create more jobs.

 

[barfo]

If I wanted to move a business (depending on the type of business), I'd look at several things. One of the main ones is livability. Then the quality & quantity of the workforce. Of course, other things like unions, cost of living, taxes, type of government also plays an important part. So I would think we'd get at least a good hard look initially due to the beauty of the state.

So how do you explain the fact that most businesses are located in relatively unlivable places (some of them with higher costs of living, stronger unions, and higher taxes than Oregon)?

Myself, I think the answer is most businesses don't move. Most businesses stay in the same place they were started, and they get started in the places where people happen to be.
And what determines where people happen to be when they start a company? Three things: where they grew up, where they went to college, and where they are working when they decide to strike out on their own. The first one is just a matter of population, and we are obviously at a disadvantage there. The third is a chicken and egg problem - saying the way to attract more jobs is to have more jobs is pretty useless advice, albeit correct. The second one is really the only thing a state can truly do something about. Unfortunately, this state has had its head up its ass for its entire history about the value of higher ed, and the fact that Portland itself lacks a real university is a huge problem as far as economic growth goes. Now, admittedly we've done a great job of adjusting by becoming a destination for 20-somethings to move to for lifestyle reasons, but it would still be better to have the university.

barfo

 

[barfo]

How about construction? Unfortunately part of the problem with our housing prices lies with our liberal urban growth boundaries which limit where housing construction can occur. If these were relaxed we could have more available land and thus lower housing prices. This would drive an increase in the construction industry and therefore create more jobs.

In a general sense that's probably correct - lower land prices will lead to lower housing prices. However it is not the case at present that there is a lack of available, buildable, cheap land within the UGB. Go out to Happy Valley and look around - it's all for sale and not that expensive. The problem is there is no demand.

barfo

 

[tlongII]

In a general sense that's probably correct - lower land prices will lead to lower housing prices. However it is not the case at present that there is a lack of available, buildable, cheap land within the UGB. Go out to Happy Valley and look around - it's all for sale and not that expensive. The problem is there is no demand.

barfo

I don't believe that. I think on a relative basis the housing prices here are still extremely high. The low demand is because of the poor economy and high unemployment.

 

[barfo]

I don't believe that. I think on a relative basis the housing prices here are still extremely high.

I didn't say they weren't - in fact I agree with you that they are. I said there was land available to build more houses on, if anyone wanted to build houses.

The low demand is because of the poor economy and high unemployment.

Yes, of course. And that's why the UGB is irrelevant to construction. If you did away with the UGB tomorrow, the economy would still be poor and unemployment would still be high, so why would anyone suddenly start building houses?

barfo

 

[tlongII]

I didn't say they weren't - in fact I agree with you that they are. I said there was land available to build more houses on, if anyone wanted to build houses.



Yes, of course. And that's why the UGB is irrelevant to construction. If you did away with the UGB tomorrow, the economy would still be poor and unemployment would still be high, so why would anyone suddenly start building houses?

barfo

Because if you lower the cost more people could afford it. Thus driving more demand. Thus driving more construction. Thus driving a healthier economy.

 

[barfo]

Because if you lower the cost more people could afford it. Thus driving more demand. Thus driving more construction. Thus driving a healthier economy.

Lowering the cost of building new houses won't drop the price on existing houses, unless a whole bunch of new houses actually get built.
And how much savings per house do you think we are talking about here?

barfo

 

[tlongII]

Lowering the cost of building new houses won't drop the price on existing houses, unless a whole bunch of new houses actually get built.
And how much savings per house do you think we are talking about here?

barfo

The hell it won't! All you need is the opportunity to build new homes inexpensively and you can bet it will drive existing home prices down.