Posts Tagged ‘Economy’

Don’t blame manufacturing for Oregon’s chronic high unemployment

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

At 11 percent unemployment, Oregon is tied with Alabama for having the ninth highest unemployment in the U.S.  Some politicians and policy makers are cheering the fact that Oregon is not tied for first or second place, as it was a few months ago. Even so, Oregon has occupied a spot in the top ten highest unemployment states in 18 of the past 34 years.

Oregon’s chronic high employment has been a source of bafflement for many observers and economists.

Businesses note that Oregon has an anti-business attitude that treats business as a problem to be dealt with rather than an endeavor to foster.  In contrast, others point to surveys that rank Oregon as having one of the lowest business tax burdens in the country [1, 2] or being one of the most “business friendly” states in the country. In the face of these studies, Oregon’s persistent high employment rate suggests (1) Oregon is not employment friendly, and/or (2) the various tax burden and business friendly reports are fundamentally flawed and, therefore, meaningless.

Since so many Oregonian’s do not like to discuss the state’s business environment, observers have tried other explanations for Oregon’s moribund jobs environment, including:

  1. Education.  If Oregon just spent more money on education, employment in the state would improve.
  2. Climate.  Analysts at the Oregon Employment Department have a theory that states with milder climates have higher unemployment rates and (believe it or not) Oregon is considered to have a relatively mild climate.
  3. High minimum wage.  Although minimum wage workers (and potential workers) make up a relatively small portion of the workforce, Oregon’s unemployment rate among those most likely to earn minimum wage is substantially higher than if Oregon’s minimum wage was the same as the Federal rate.

Ultimately, many observers, reporters, and politicians throw up their hands and blame manufacturing.  The story goes like this …

Oregon relies heavily on heavy manufacturing. Heavy manufacturing is highly cyclical: Employment soars during boom times and plummets during down times.  Thus, during recessions Oregon’s employment suffers worse than the rest of the country.  The story falls apart for several reasons:

  1. Oregon’s unemployment rate is high even during boom times.  If the manufacturing story were true, during economic booms Oregon’s unemployment rate should drop faster and/or be lower than the rest of the country’s.
  2. Oregon does not rely that heavily on heavy manufacturing.  According to the Oregon Employment Department, throughout the U.S. heavy manufacturing accounts for approximately 6.1 percent of employment.  In Oregon, it accounts for 8.3 percent. It not clear that this is enough of a difference to explain the state’s persistently high unemployment.
  3. Other states that rely more heavily on heavy manufacturing do not have persistently high unemployment.  According to the Oregon Employment Department, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire have a greater share of their employment in heavy manufacturing, yet these states have much lower unemployment than Oregon.  In fact, the Oregon Employment Department produced the following graph that concludes that “there seem to be other factors that have a stronger correlation to the unemployment rate than the concentration of durable goods employment.”

Pew Center on the States: Will Oregon Follow California to “Failed State” Status?

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

The Pew Center on the States examined nine states, in addition to California, that are particularly affected by the recession (pdf). Pew notes that all of California’s neighbors—Arizona, Nevada and Oregon—were severely hit by the bursting housing bubble, landing them on Pew’s list of states facing fiscal difficulties similar to California’s. Pew blames Oregon’s problems on the state’s lack of sales tax, its Kicker law, and its relatively undiversified economy.

The following provides an economist’s view of selected portions of the Pew report.  While most of the study is more reportage than analysis, some of the facts and analysis would have benefited from a more rigorous review.

[The recession has] prompted lawmakers to respond with $2 billion in spending cuts, aggressive use of federal stimulus dollars and more than $1 billion in new taxes, including $733 million in proposed income tax hikes that will be challenged at the polls in January 2010.

oregon_approved_budget_2009-11Oregon’s Legislative Fiscal Office reports (pdf) that the state budget has increased by 9.3 percent (enlarge figure).  The Legislature increased spending by $4.8 billion.

Between the second quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2009, Oregon’s unemployment rate more than doubled, outpacing California’s job loss increases and surging faster than that of any other state. … To understand Oregon’s soaring unemployment rate and its corresponding decline in tax revenue, look no further than the goods the state produces—many of which are going unsold. Oregon’s once-mighty wood products industry, whose workforce has been shrinking due to automation and technology advances, is projected to lose a jarring 21 percent of its jobs in 2009. Driving the collapse is the nation’s housing bust: When new homes are not being built, timber sales slump.

Oregon almost always has some of the highest unemployment in the U.S., whether or not the country is in boom or recession. While the decline in the timber industry and the housing bust may explain Oregon’s chronic high employment, eventually a time comes to ask whether the state’s policies are contributing to the unemployment.

Some policy makers, including the governor, believe that one sector of Oregon’s economy, clean energy, offers hope. Oregon had a bigger share of its jobs in clean energy than any other state as of 2007, according to a Pew report. Kulongoski has worked hard to build a green legacy—insisting on generous tax credits for renewable-energy firms even as other Democrats sought to reduce them, for example, and publicly test-driving electric cars in an effort to lure their manufacturers to Oregon. … But some experts question whether the sector can lead Oregon out of its economic doldrums. “There are worries that we’re getting in a little late, especially with all the investment that China is doing,” said Jessica Nelson, an economist with the Oregon Employment Division.

It is becoming more and more clear that the “generous tax credit” could more accurately be described as a money grab bordering on scandalous.

Confronted with a staggering loss of jobs and tax revenue that accompanied the state’s economic nosedive, Oregon Democrats seized upon the supermajorities they won in last year’s legislative elections. On February 5, less than a month after the session began and about two weeks before President Obama signed the federal stimulus package into law, Kulongoski signed Oregon’s own, state-level stimulus initiative, a $175 million borrowing plan that promised to create jobs while making improvements to the state’s roads and schools. At the same time, lawmakers made about $2 billion in cuts ….

Again, these “cuts” were actually an increase of $4.8 billion.

But the more than $1 billion in tax increases that Democrats pushed through to balance the budget and pay for major new initiatives in transportation and health care have proven most controversial. To help fund a massive road-improvement plan they said would create thousands of jobs, lawmakers raised the gas tax from 24 to 30 cents per gallon and hiked the cost of vehicle registration from $54 to $86. To expand health care for to up to 115,000 uninsured children, they created a new 1 percent tax on health insurance premiums and raised hospital taxes.  … The vast majority of new tax revenue, $733 million, came in the form of new personal and corporate income tax rates that have drawn national attention and will go before the voters in a crucial special election in 2010.

As noted on this blog, over the next four years, increased taxes on hospitals and health insurance will be as large as the increased personal and corporate income taxes.  All of these new taxes amount to $2.6 billion in new taxes.

Oregon’s minimum wage is another line of demarcation. The $8.40 hourly rate is the second- highest in the nation, and while liberals see it as helpful to the poor, fiscal conservatives claim that it hurts businesses and even some low-wage workers who might not get jobs because of it.

Actually, this has nothing to do with “liberals” and “conservatives.”  Empirical research demonstrates that Oregon’s minimum wage is associated with an unemployment among young workers that is 5 to 10 percentage points higher than it would be if the state’s minimum wage was the same as the federal minimum wage.

The state-level stimulus has provided its own controversy, similar to the national debate over the federal stimulus. The Oregon Legislative Fiscal Office credits the program with having “created or retained a total of 3,236 jobs” in its first three months.201 But an Associated Press investigation questioned the way the state counted those jobs and found that each job lasted a total of 35 hours, or less than a week of full-time employment.

Oregon is quickly reaching the point where employment impacts published by state agencies cannot be trusted [1, 2, 3].

PERS: Oregon’s 800-pound gorilla that the Pew report missed

It is well known that Oregon’s Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) has been a major driver of Oregon’s high state and local government spending.  It is a system of generous promises that shifts to taxpayers nearly all of the risks of investing in asset markets.  The PERS crisis earlier this decade pushed the state to the edge of insolvency.  There is still a risk of another crisis in the future.

At the end of 2007, Pew published a report that said Oregon had THE BEST funded pension system in the U.S. (pdf). Even though the PERS Board knew of the flaws in Pew’s study, it promoted the report as proof of the system’s soundness (pdf).

Pew seemed unaware that the state and many local governments issued pension obligation bonds to plug the huge deficits in their accounts.  This practice shifted money out of the pension system and onto the books of the individual government entities.  It did not solve the problem, it simply made a pension problem into a bond problem.  Pew missed this crucial fact of Oregon’s pension system, which means that Pew’s conclusions are meaningless.  The PERS Board should have known this and flagged it for Pew.  Instead, the PERS Board trumpeted the flawed findings.

California—and Oregon’s—fiscal problems are spending problems not revenue problems

The Pew report focuses almost exclusively on states’ challenges to find new or additional revenues.  Much of the fiscal problem facing states are spending problems: Misdirected tax credits, ambitious programs, and skyrocketing public employee expenditures.

The Pew report does not describe how much is spent on Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credits.  The Pew report only briefly mentions the massive expansion of state-run and state-subsidized health care in the state.  These new programs will cost as much or more than the amount returned to taxpayers with the last Kicker payment.

Hoodwinking our way out of recession: Oregon DHS uses economic sleight of hand to sell a billion dollars of new taxes

Wednesday, November 11th, 2009

Oregon's New Taxes - Economics International Corp.

Over the next four years, Oregonians will face $2.4 billion in new taxes.

In January 2010, Oregonians will vote on ballot measures that will raise personal income taxes by $847 million and raise corporate income taxes by $530 million over the next four years. The campaigns for and against these new taxes ensure that nearly every Oregonian will know about them by Christmas.

$1 Billion in Taxes on Health Insurance and Hospital Care

Less well known are the massive tax increases—$1.0 billion—affecting health insurance and hospital care provided in Oregon. These new taxes are set in stone. There will be no vote and they go into effect soon.

Oregon HB 2116 (PDF) raises taxes through a tax on hospitals and a tax on health insurance providers. The figure above shows that the hospital tax is projected to raise $307 million in 2009-11 and the health insurer tax will raise $105 million in 2009-11. In 2011-13, the increased hospital taxes will amount to $450 million and the health insurance tax will amount to $154 million.

State Agency Fudges Employment Impacts—Again

Such huge tax increases in the middle of one of the worst recessions in memory will slow Oregon’s recovery from the current recession and damage employment growth in the state.

That is why it is so surprising that Oregon’s Department of Human Services (DHS) has reported to Oregon Business magazine that the tax increases will boost employment in the state by 3,600 jobs.

In response to a public records request, DHS has provided documents describing how the agency came up with results that are contrary to fundamental economic analysis.

As it turns out, the agency employed the Broken Window Fallacy to its benefit. The agency counted only the estimated additional money that would flow into the state from Federal sources, such as matching funds.  The agency did not account for the tax money that will be extracted from taxpayers by the State of Oregon. Thus, the agency considered only the benefits of the program, but did not consider the costs.

This is not the first time that state agencies have cooked to books to fudge the economic and fiscal impacts of its tax policies.

The Bend Bulletin (registration required) has picked up these stories and provides a summary of the recent rounds of economic sleight of hand.

Note: This post has been revised since it was originally published.

Recovery Report Card: Unemployment breaks past 10%

Friday, November 6th, 2009

Economics International - Recovery Report Card - October 2009

In August, the White House projected that unemployment would peak at 10 percent sometime in the middle of next year. The BLS’s October labor report shows that unemployment passed the 10 percent level in October.

U.S. unemployment in October was 10.2 percent. Total nonfarm payroll employment declined by 190,000 in October. In the most recent 3 months, job losses have averaged 188,000 per month.

The U.S. will continue to see a jobless recovery.  Unemployment is likely to increase in the near future. Companies are increasing productivity, demonstrating that they can make earnings with fewer employees.  Much of the “stimulus” spending has gone to transfer payments that actually encourage unemployment.  The “Cash for Clunkers” program registered a one-month increase in auto sales.  Since then, auto sales have remained at the low pre-Clunker levels.

White House economists see increasing unemployment for the next 12 months

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

Economics International - Recovery Report Card

The White House budget office has released its latest economic and fiscal projections. It predicts the largest deficits since World War II and increasing unemployment.

The White House unemployment prediction highlights the impotence of the stimulus package passed earlier this year. As the figure above shows, at the time, the administration predicted that the stimulus would have halted job losses by the middle of this summer.

Instead, the latest White House projections predict increasing unemployment until the middle of next year, where it will peak at 10%. This means that another 988,000 workers will lose their jobs over the upcoming year.

Obama economists’ jobless predictions off by 2.9 million

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009

Recovery Report Card - Revised Jobless Predictions

In January, Administration economists Romer & Bernstein predicted that stimulus spending would mean that unemployment at the end of this year would be 7.6 percent.

Now, Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, says that even with the stimulus spending, end-of-year unemployment will be 9.5 percent.

In other words, Romer implies that another 925,000 workers will lose their jobs by the end of the year.

If Romer’s most recent prediction is correct, that means that in “selling” the stimulus package Romer & Bernstein were off by almost 3 million jobs.  That is a margin of error of 20 percent.