Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast, TR Kulongoski

Tags: Oregon, employment, Tobacco Products, Total, General Fund Revenue Statement, Estate Taxes, Corporate Income Taxes, national employment, U.S., Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services, unemployment rate, Corporate income tax, western state, Western Oregon Severance Tax, Eastern Oregon Severance Tax, western states, Fund Revenues, Oregon Department of Revenue, Office of Economic Analysis, Early 2000s Recession, Alaska, Business Services Education, Oregon Economic, Percent Change, General Fund Revenue Forecast, Revenue Distribution, Fund Revenue, Income Tax Revenue, Personal Income Taxes, Manufacturing, Personal income, Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast, economic growth, Global Insight, Economic Advisory Committee
Content: Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast May 2009 Volume XXIX, No. 2
Scott L. Harra, Director Department of Administrative Services
Theodore R. Kulongoski Governor
Prepared By: Office of Economic Analysis
___________________________________ SUBSCRIPTIONS ___________________________________
The Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast is published quarterly, as follows: March, June, September, and December. To subscribe, send the following information to: Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast Office of Economic Analysis Department of Administrative Services 155 Cottage Street, NE, U20 Salem, OR 97301-3966
NAME
_________________________________
ORGANIZATION
_________________________________
MAILING ADDRESS _________________________________
CITY
_________________________________
STATE
_________________________________
ZIP CODE
_________________________________
E-MAIL ADDRESS _________________________________
If you have any questions regarding subscriptions to the forecast, please call Mallory Crain at 503-378-3405 or send e-mail to [email protected] The Economic and Revenue Forecast document is also available on our web page at: http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/. Data files are also available for download on our web page.
May 2009
-i-
Department of Administrative Services Scott L. Harra, Director Office of Economic Analysis Tom Potiowsky, State Economist Dae Baek, Deputy State Economist (on leave thru 8/09) Josh Harwood, Senior Economist Kanhaiya Vaidya, Senior Demographer Damon Bell, Senior Analyst Josh Lehner, Economic Analyst Mallory Crain, Administrative Assistant http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/ - ii -
___________________________________ FOREWORD ___________________________________ This document contains the Oregon economic and revenue forecasts. The Oregon economic forecast is published to provide information to planners and policy makers in state agencies and private organizations for use in their decision making processes. The Oregon revenue forecast is published to open the revenue forecasting process to public review. It is the basis for much of the budgeting in state government. The report is issued four times a year; in March, June, September, and December. The economic model assumptions and results are reviewed by the Department of Administrative Services Economic Advisory Committee and by the Governor's Council of Economic Advisors. The Department of Administrative Services Economic Advisory Committee consists of 15 economists employed by state agencies, while the Governor's Council of Economic Advisors is a group of 12 economists from academia, finance, utilities, and industry. Members of the Economic Advisory Committee and the Governor's Council of Economic Advisors provide a two-way flow of information. The Department of Administrative Services makes preliminary forecasts and receives feedback on the reasonableness of such forecasts and assumptions employed. After the discussion of the preliminary forecast, the Department of Administrative Services makes a final forecast using the suggestions and comments made by the two reviewing committees. The results from the economic model are in turn used to provide a preliminary forecast for state tax revenues. The preliminary results are reviewed by the Council of Revenue Forecast Advisors. The Council of Revenue Forecast Advisors consists of 15 specialists with backgrounds in accounting, financial planning, and economics. Members bring specific specialties in tax issues and represent private practices, accounting firms, corporations, government (Oregon Department of Revenue and Legislative Revenue Office), and the Governor's Council of Economic Advisors. After discussion of the preliminary revenue forecast, the Department of Administrative Services makes a final revenue forecast using the suggestions and comments made by the reviewing committee. Readers who have questions or wish to submit suggestions may contact the Office of Economic Analysis by telephone at 503-378-3405. Scott L. Harra, Director Department of Administrative Service - iii -
- iv -
___________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS ___________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 1 I. ECONOMIC FORECAST ......................................................................................................... 7 A. National Economic Review and Forecast ........................................................................... 7 B. International Review and Outlook .................................................................................... 13 C. Western Region ................................................................................................................. 20 D. Oregon Economic Review and Forecast........................................................................... 29 II. REVENUE FORECAST......................................................................................................... 59 A. 2007-09 General Fund Revenues...................................................................................... 59 B. Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook ....................................................................... 61 C. Tax Law Assumptions....................................................................................................... 62 D. Forecast Risks ................................................................................................................... 62 E. Lottery Earnings Forecast ................................................................................................. 63 F. Overview of Budgetary Reserves ..................................................................................... 65 APPENDIX A: ECONOMIC FORECAST DETAIL............................................................. 69 APPENDIX B: REVENUE FORECAST DETAIL ............................................................... 97 APPENDIX C: POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX................................... 112 -v-
- vi -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY May 2009 Oregon Economic Forecast The first quarter of 2009 marks the fifth consecutive quarter of job losses. The annualized drop of 8.2 percent is the largest quarterly employment decline since the second quarter of 1980. The year-over-year (Y/Y) employment decline for the first quarter is 4.5 percent. Two quarters ago, the Y/Y employment decline was only 0.4 percent. The job loss decent has been extremely rapid the past two quarters. For the U.S. economy, this recession is the deepest downturn post World War II. For Oregon, the projected job loss during this recession is the second largest downturn, only bested by the 19801982 recession periods. The unemployment rate for March 2009 reached 12.1 percent, matching the highest seasonally adjusted unemployment rate during the early 1980's recession. With more job losses likely this year, the unemployment rate will continue to rise. In the first quarter of 2009, almost all sectors either continued to lose jobs or had slower employment growth. Only two broad job sectors gained jobs: educational and health services and government. Every manufacturing employment, except for food, sector had double digit job losses. The broader service sector continued to decline across most job categories. Health services continued to add jobs but at a much slower rate. Government job growth was barely positive. "Hope springs eternal..." so wrote Alexander Pope in 1733. And as spring moves us out of the harshness of winter, signs that the U.S. recession may be coming to an end are slowly appearing. Although Paul Krugman warns us not to be too giddy, evidence of "green shoots" and "glimmers of hope" are making their way into the economic data. The signs that Oregon's economic decline are coming to an end are harder to read. The March job drop was less than February but still over 10,000. The unemployment rate jumped a historical 1.4 percentage points from February to March; up to 12.1 percent to match the highest monthly rate during the early 1980's recession. The Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank State Coincidence Indicator for Oregon was declining at faster rates since June 2008. February marked the first month that the decline has slowed, though the drop is still one of the largest in the data which goes back to January 1979. Some regions of Oregon are seeing housing inventory levels easing, though once again, they are still at very high levels. House price declines are either not as sharp or accelerating depending on the measure used and timeliness of the data. The bottom line, Oregon has less signals of seeing the end of this recession but should mirror the US business cycle. OEA (Office of Economic Analysis ­ Oregon) forecasts a decline of 6.5 percent in total employment for the second quarter of 2009. The year average for 2009 is an employment decline of 5.3 percent. Job growth is negative at 0.7 percent in 2010 but with job gains starting in the second quarter through the end of the year. The Oregon economy does not see above 2 percent job growth until the first quarter of 2011. 1
The wood products industry is projected to lose jobs at a rate of -19.0 percent in 2009 and -2.2 percent in 2010 before a rebound of 6.7 percent growth in 2011. The computer and electronic equipment sector is projected to lose jobs this year and the first quarter of 2010. This sector is projected to lose jobs at the rate of 13.7 percent in 2009, 4.4 percent in 2010, before adding jobs at 7.3 percent in 2011. The recession has been especially harsh for the transportation equipment sector. Hard times will persist for this sector with job losses of 28.0 percent in 2009 and 5.0 percent in 2010 before growth of 3.4 percent returns in 2011. The metals and machinery sector was one of the last manufacturing sectors to lose jobs as we entered this recession. This sector will reduce jobs by 14.6 percent in 2009 but return to positive growth of 1.8 percent in 2010 and 3.5 percent in 2011. Employment in food processing is forecast to increase 0.4 percent in 2009, the only sector covered in the manufacturing sector projected to add jobs this year. Employment is expected to decline 5.3 percent in 2010 and remain flat in 2011. Other nondurables, which includes paper and allied products, is projected to have job declines of 10.4 percent in 2009 and 3.9 percent in 2010 before adding jobs in 2011 at 2.1 percent. Construction employment is projected to decrease annually by 18.3 percent in 2009, 9.0 percent in 2010, and 0.4 percent in 2011. These numbers would even be worse if not for the construction projects from the Federal and State stimulus packages. Trade, transportation, and utilities sector employment will decrease by 6.5 percent during 2009 followed by increases of 0.5 percent growth in 2010 and 1.8 percent growth in 2011. Retail jobs are projected to decrease 6.2 percent in 2009 and increase 1.4 percent in 2010 and 2.0 percent in 2011. The information sector, which includes traditional publishers such as newspapers and publishers of software, is being impacted from the slowing retail sector as advertising has decreased. This sector is expected to contract by 5.7 percent in 2009 and by 4.0 percent in 2010. Job growth should pick up in 2011 with growth of 3.6 percent. The fragile stability of the financial sector came into stark awareness during the closing months of 2008. Financial activities are projected to lose jobs at 4.6 percent rate in 2009 with very mild growth of 0.6 percent in 2010. Growth continues in 2011 with job gains of 2.1 percent. Professional and business services are projected to decline 7.0 percent in 2009, a slight drop of 0.4 percent in 2010, and return to positive growth of 7.3 percent in 2011. Education and health services has generated jobs better than any other sector. But this recession is testing its ability to keep generating high job growth rates. Rather than sustain its plus three percent growth rate of past years, this sector's jobs will grow 2.9 percent in 2009, 2.8 percent in 2010, and 2.2 percent in 2011. 2
Leisure and Hospitality is projected to decline 4.2 percent in 2009, a slight decline of 0.3 percent in 2010, and grow 0.9 percent in 2011. Just as the retail sector has been hit by the decline in household discretionary spending, this sector is also feeling the loss of business and household customers. The government sector will decline by 0.1 percent in 2009, 0.2 percent in 2010, and 0.4 percent in 2011. Population growth will slow to 0.9 percent in 2009 increasing by 1.0 perfect in 2010 and 1.2 percent in 2011. Forecast Risks The US economy is now in the deepest post WWII recession. Oregon is almost there with this recession starting to rival the 1980-1982 recessionary period. Our economies have experienced financial crises in the past, but the breadth of this one is the worst since the Great Depression. When you hear the phrase "we are in uncharted waters", we are reminded that our policy makers are not quite sure what to do. "Uncharted waters" means we have no map to either lead us out of this mess or even know where we are. We do know not to repeat the policy prescriptions during the Great Depression. But the policies for the Great Recession are largely untried with little or no track record. As with our last quarterly forecast, there are both negative and positive risks going forward. The economic situation could get worse or start to turn just as government stimuli kick in and create a robust recovery. The return of the financial sector to some form of normalcy will be key to ending this recession. We will continue to monitor and recognize the potential impacts of risk factors on the Oregon economy. We have identified the major risks now facing the Oregon economy in the list below: · Contagion of the credit crunch and financial market instability. With the freezing up of credit markets, broad based borrowing and lending is very expensive or non-existent. Consumer spending has been greatly curtailed and the stock market has lost 40 percent of its value in 2008, though the stock market has almost regained its losses during 2009. Some signs of credit easing are appearing. If the credit markets do not return soon to some sort of state of normalcy, the current recession could be much deeper and longer than presently projected. Oregon will suffer the consequences along with the rest of the nation. · Prolonged housing market instability. Generally, analysts believe that the housing market has yet to hit bottom, at least in terms of price declines. Though Oregon has been hit hard through this downturn, Oregon's housing market is relatively better off compared to California, Nevada, Florida, and Arizona. Coupled with the recessionary state of the economy, the rise in mortgage rates and heightened credit standards will keep demand for housing relatively low. Rather than the correction of the housing bubble further hurting the Oregon housing market, it will be the deepening recession that causes further home price declines and rising foreclosures. Unlike many parts of the economy, there is an upside risk here as well. If the recession is over sooner than forecasted, Oregon's housing market should revive better than the states who experienced the greater housing market bubbles. 3
· The relative effectiveness of nearly-global government stimulus. The level of government response to the current recession has never been greater. Furthermore, the coordination of central bank actions throughout the world was similarly unprecedented. While the intent was for significant stabilization and growth, it is unknown if these will come to pass. Federal Reserve, US Treasury, and the federal stimulus package may lift this economy out of recession sooner than projected. · The return of federal timber payments to Oregon counties. Included in the federal bailout was a provision to reinstate federal timber payments for four years. Oregon counties will receive $254 million, down from the previous $282 million level and will be phased out over the four year window. While this temporary reinstatement helps cover short term budgets for Oregon counties, finding or replacing this dwindling revenue source will be imperative as any loss of public services could have adverse impacts on economic activity. · The extent of the global downturn triggered by the U.S. slowdown. The U.S. economy has been an important engine of growth for the global economy. As the U.S. economic woes continue, the whole world is being to feel the impact. First, European economic growth slowed considerably, even contracting in places. Then Asian economies began slowing due to their large exposure, via trade, to the U.S. economy. China is a top importer of Oregon products and any slowing of the Chinese economy will adversely impact Oregon exports. To the extent that Oregon major trading partners take longer to recovery compared to the US economy, this could extend the downturn in Oregon. · Appreciation of the U.S. dollar. Along with slowing foreign economies, the recent appreciation of the U.S. dollar has slowed exports from U.S. producers. This is also true for Oregon exports. The extent of the impact from the U.S. dollar may not be as great for Oregon given the expected appreciation of the Chinese Yuan, one of Oregon's major trading partners. Still, the risk is present for a slowing of exports. · National and regional energy prices. The over 60 percent drop in oil prices is bringing relieve to both businesses and households. The near term outlook is also for lower regional prices for natural gas and electricity. This comes at a welcomed time when businesses are looking for cost savings. The benefit from lower energy prices is most likely short-lived as the underlying demand drivers will return once the world economies rebound from this recession. · Geopolitical risks. Uncertainty still abounds in Iraq. Tensions with Iran and heightened security risks weigh on businesses and consumers. Disruptions in travel, oil supplies, and consumer confidence could be severe. The drop in business activity could deepen if this uncertainty persists or if the transition out of the Iraq war goes badly for the U.S. The eventual winding down of military expenses will not greatly impact Oregon. There is also an upside risk that the transition will go more smoothly than anticipated, and stability in the Mideast will provide a stronger than forecasted stimulus to the economy. · H1N1 flu. The "Swine" flu pandemic is still unknown. The disruption to the economy of Mexico has been severe, but other economies so far have not been greatly impacted. Indications to date are for mild disruption and nothing approaching the devastation of the Spanish Flu of 1918-19. 4
· Initiatives, referendums, and referrals. Generally, the ballot box brings a number of unknowns that could have sweeping impacts on the Oregon economy. Demographic Forecast Oregon's estimated population on July 1, 2008 reached 3,791,075. That was an increase of 1.2 percent over the 2007 population. The growth has slowed down since the highs of 2005 through 2007 when it exceeded 1.5 percent on average. Overall, population change since 2000 is much lower than the rate of growth of well over 2.0 percent during the early 1990s. As a result of recent economic downturn, Oregon's population is expected to grow at a slower pace in the near future. Based on the current forecast, Oregon's population will reach 4.106 million in the year 2015 with an annual rate of growth of 1.14 percent between 2008 and 2015. Oregon's economic condition heavily influences the state's population growth. Its economy determines the ability to retain local work force as well as attract job seekers from other states and beyond. As Oregon's total fertility rate remains below the replacement level and deaths continue to rise due to ageing population, long-term growth comes from net in-migration. Working-age adults come to Oregon as long as we have good economic and employment situations. During the 1980s that included a major recession and a net loss of population, net migration contributed to 22 percent of the population change. On the other extreme, net migration accounted for 73 percent of the population change during the booming 1990s. This share of migration declined to 57 percent in 2002. As a sign of slow to modest economic gain, the net migration will account for 49 to 64 percent of the population change in the near future. Although economy and employment situation in Oregon look bleak, migration situation is not expected to replicate the early 1980s pattern. Potential Oregon outmigrants have no better place to go since other states are also in the same boat in terms of economy and employment. Growth in all age groups will show the effects of the baby-boom and their echo generations during the period of 2008-2015. It will also reflect demographics impacted by the depression era birth cohort combined with diminished migration of the working age population and elderly retirees. After a period of slow growth in the past, the elderly population (65+) growth has picked up in pace and will surge as the baby-boom generation starts to enter this age group. The average annual growth of the elderly population will be nearly 3.8 percent during the forecast horizon as the boomers continue to enter retirement age. The youngest elderly (aged 65-74) will grow at an extremely fast pace due to the direct impact of the baby-boom generation entering retirement age. The elderly aged 75-84 will continue to shrink in numbers until 2009, as the depression era birth-cohort will dominate this group. The oldest elderly (aged 85+) will continue to grow at a moderately high rate due to the combination of cohort change, continued positive net migration, and improving longevity. However, the annual growth rate will continue to taper off as the depression era small birth cohort transitions from the younger age group. As the baby-boom generation matures, the once fast-paced growth of population aged 45-64 will gradually taper to near 0 percent rate by 2012. The young adult population (aged 18-24) will grow at an average of 0.1 percent annually, considerably slower than the rate averaging 1.1 percent experienced between 2000 and 2008. Although the slow growth of college-age population tend to ease the pressure on public spending on college education, college enrollment typically goes up during the time of high unemployment and scarcity of well paying jobs when even the older population flock back to college to better position themselves in a tough job market. Compared to other non-elderly age groups, children under the age of five show a higher rate of growth after a slow growth period in the recent past. However, the growth rate for the children will remain below the 5
overall population growth rate resulting in lesser demand for CHILD CARE services and preKindergarten program. The K-12 population (aged 5-17) will show very slow growth which will translate into slow growth in school enrollments. This population will actually decline in the near future. The 25-44 age group population has reversed the several year trend of decline. The decline was mainly due to the exiting baby-boom cohort. This age group has seen positive growth starting in the year 2003 and will approach 1.2 percent annual growth by the year 2011. Revenue Forecast The forecast for General Fund revenues for the 2007-09 biennium is $11,757.9 million, a decrease of $260.6 million from the March 2008 forecast. The decrease is concentrated in personal income taxes, as expectations for income tax receipts related to both capital gains and business income continued to slide rapidly through April. Corporate income tax receipts have exhibited similar weakness. Including the beginning balance of $1,436.7 million, total available resources amount to $12,833.2 million, a decline of $1,305.7 million from the Close of Session forecast. After adjustments for several new laws related to expenditure cuts and revenue increases, the May projections result in a negative ending balance of $351.3 million for the 2007-09 biennium. The protracted slowdown will push still further downward relative to the March forecast in the 2009-11 biennium. The forecast for total General Fund revenue during 2009-11 was reduced by $532.5 million relative to March. Projected lottery earnings for 2007-09 will total $1,326.9 million, an increase of $9.7 million from the prior forecast. Though coming in slightly ahead of the March forecast, the dramatic decline in lottery sales through the winter has continued, with weekly video lottery sales down more than 20 percent on a year-over-year basis. Including the beginning balance and other earnings, total available resources equal $1,400.2 million. Total projected resources have increased $8 million from the Close of 2007 Session. Lottery earnings are expected to fall 14.3 percent to $1,137.1 million for the 2009-11 biennium. In addition to the expected impact of the smoking restrictions and slow economic growth, the weak growth is the result of an absence of administrative savings for the biennium, compared with $102.7 million in the current biennium. In spite of the increased transfer rate, video lottery earnings will decrease 7.1 percent, while traditional products will decline 7 percent. Not including any administrative savings that may accrue during the biennium, total available resources will amount to $1,141.8 million. 6
I. ECONOMIC FORECAST April 2009 This edition of the National Economic Review and Forecast contains excerpts from Nigel Gault, U.S. Economy: Current Situation: Forecast Flash, Global Insight, April 2009. This publication summarizes Global Insight's baseline national forecast that OEA incorporates into the Oregon economic and revenue models. Editorial comments written by OEA staff are enclosed in [ ]. In addition, Table N.1 provides a quick look at the annual rates. Table N.2 provides a look at the forecast change from the last forecast. Graph N.1 provides a graphic U.S. history and forecast. A. National Economic Review and Forecast Forecast Flash Signs of Hope Although we still expect the fourth and first quarters to show back-to-back declines in real GDP of more than 6% (annual rates), signs are accumulating (especially in consumption and housing) that the worst is now behind us. This does not mean that we think the economy is now ready to grow again--we expect GDP to bottom out only in the second half of the year. Nor does it means that the labor market is ready to turn--we still expect the unemployment rate to reach 10% before it peaks. But it does mean that there is now some solid evidence that the period of economic free-fall is now behind us, that the next step will be a slower rate of decline, to be followed by a bottoming out in the second half of the year, and a recovery gathering pace in 2010. We still expect a severe 3.5% decline for GDP this year, though, followed by a 1.4% rebound in 2010. First Quarter Probably Worse Than the Fourth. We still think that the first-quarter GDP outcome will be worse than the fourth. We expect a 6.6% drop, compared with the fourth quarter's 6.3%, despite a swing in consumer spending from sharp decline to modest increase. A much steeper drop in nonresidential construction and a very severe inventory adjustment wipe out the consumption improvement. Inventories fell in the fourth quarter, but are still far too high relative to sales and must contract sharply, producing a one-time hit to growth in the first quarter. Consumer Stabilization in First Quarter. Improved retail sales this year indicate that the consumer spending plunge in the second half of 2008 (average rate of decline: 4.1%) is now behind us. Spending probably rose 1.3% in the first quarter, even as consumer sentiment remained at rock-bottom levels. But given continuing steep employment declines, lower household wealth, and still-tight credit, it is hard to make a case for a robust consumer recovery. We still expect spending to be down 0.9% on average in 2009. Housing Bottoming Out. The recent improvements in housing sales and starts have probably been exaggerated by the weather (bad in January, much better in February). But even allowing for that, it does seem that housing activity is starting to bottom out. Even though there will be a delay after housing starts hit bottom until residential construction spending starts to rise, the latter should occur by the end of the year. 7
Exports and Business Spending Still Negatives. The signals from the rest of the world remain mostly negative. We still expect world GDP to decline more than 2% this year, pulling down U.S. export volumes by 15.3%. And the downward momentum in business spending remains severe. We expect equipment spending to be growing again by the end of this year, but we expect the decline in business construction to extend through mid-2010. Both commercial construction (due to overcapacity and lack of financing) and drilling activity (due to low oil and natural gas prices) are turning lower. Deflation Fears Recede. Signs of stabilization in commodity prices have eased fears of deflation. By the third quarter of 2009, we still expect headline CPI inflation to be as low as minus 3.0% year-on-year, largely on lower energy costs. But core consumer price inflation has remained stubborn, and we now see the core consumption price index rising 1.1% year-on-year as of the third quarter, near the bottom of the Federal Reserve's 1­2% comfort zone, but not below it, as we had previously anticipated. Unfinished Business. The Treasury's public-private investment partnership, by providing generous taxpayer loans to private investors, should succeed in taking some toxic assets off bank balance sheets. But for the banks in the worst shape, it remains questionable whether the prices that investors will pay will match the prices at which the banks will be willing to sell, leaving their solvency in doubt. Fed Goes "All In." The Fed has now added direct purchases of long-term Treasuries to its arsenal of weapons aimed at the recession, which has helped to drive long-term fixed mortgage rates well below 5%. The Fed will eventually have to worry about how to withdraw its stimulus, but that will be a question for 2010, not today.
­Excerpted from Nigel Gault, U.S. Economy: Current Situation: Forecast Flash, Global Insight, April 2009
Figure N.1*
Quarterly
Annual
Real GDP (Percent change) Federal Funds Rate (Percent) Ten-Year Treasury Yield (Percent) Oil Prices, WTI (Dollars/barrel) Consumer Price Index (Percent change) Housing Starts (Millions) Consumer Sentiment (Univ. of Michigan) Unemployment Rate (Percent)
4Q 08 -6.3 0.51 3.25 59 1.5 0.66 58 6.9
1Q 09 -6.6 0.19 2.74 43 -0.2 0.55 58 8.1
2Q 09 -3.2 0.12 2.78 44 -1.6 0.52 58 8.9
3Q 09 -1.0 0.12 2.79 45 -3.0 0.53 60 9.5
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1.1 -3.5 1.4 3.5 4.0 1.93 0.14 0.21 1.70 3.34 3.67 2.78 2.89 3.84 4.49 100 45 54 61 74 3.8 -1.4 1.6 2.1 2.3 0.90 0.55 0.85 1.26 1.55 64 59 64 68 72 5.8 9.1 10.2 9.6 8.5
* Figure N.1 was taken from Nigel Gault, U.S. Economy: Current Situation: Forecast Flash, Global Insight, April 2009
8
TABLE N. 1 U.S. Forecast Summary 2007-2016 (Apr 2009 U.S. Forecast, Global Insight)
Quarterly 2009:1 2009:2 2009:3
Annual 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
GDP (Bil of 2000 $) Chain Weight % Ch
11,326 11,234 11,206 (6.6) (3.2) (1.0)
11,524 11,652 11,247 11,403 11,799 12,271 12,676 13,028 13,379 13,747
2.0
1.1
(3.5)
1.4
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.8
2.7
2.8
Personal Income (Bil of $) % Ch
12,068 12,161 12,114
(1.9) 3.1
(1.5)
11,663.3 12,102.7 12,120.5 12,339.5 12,821.3 13,488.0 14,227.1 15,017.6 15,818.4 16,641.1
6.1
3.8
0.1
1.8
3.9
5.2
5.5
5.6
5.3
5.2
Nonagricultural Employment (Millions) % Ch
133.7 132.3 131.4 (5.7) (4.3) (2.7)
137.6 1.1
137.0 132.1 131.0 132.9
(0.4) (3.6) (0.8)
1.5
136.2 2.4
139.2 2.2
141.3 1.5
142.8 1.1
144.3 1.0
Unemployment Rate % Ch
8.1
8.9
9.5
93.6 46.5
31.1
4.6
5.8
9.1
10.2
9.6
8.5
7.7
7.3
7.0
6.6
0.4
25.4
57.1
11.4
(5.9) (10.9) (9.4)
(5.7)
(4.3)
(4.9)
Industrial Production Index (2002=100) % Ch
99.2 98.0 (19.0) (4.7)
97.1 (3.6)
111.3 1.5
108.8 (2.2)
97.7 (10.2)
97.4 101.9
(0.3)
4.6
107.3 5.3
111.2 3.6
114.3 2.8
117.4 2.7
120.5 2.7
Corporate Profits (Bil of $) % Ch
1,306.5 1,319.4 1,333.9
43.1
4.0
4.4
1,886.3 1,597.3 1,334.2 1,595.0 1,828.6 1,883.7 1,899.5 1,865.9 1,897.8 1,932.3
0.7 (15.3) (16.5) 19.5 14.6
3.0
0.8
(1.8)
1.7
1.8
9
Money Supply (M2) (Bil of $) % Ch
8,221 8,397
10.7
8.9
8,534 6.7
7,385 5.8
8,014 8.5
8,656 8.0
9,096 5.1
9,610 10,108 10,593 11,064 11,591 12,191
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.8
5.2
Prime Rate % Ch
3.25 3.25 3.25
(58.8) 0.0
0.0
8.05
5.09
3.25
3.30 4.70 6.34 6.55
7.59 7.75 7.75
1.2 (36.8) (36.1)
1.7
42.1
35.1
3.3
15.9
2.1
(0.0)
Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100) % Ch
212.6 211.9 212.1
(2.3) (1.4)
0.4
207.3 2.9
215.2 3.8
212.3 215.6
(1.4)
1.6
220.2 2.1
225.3 2.3
230.5 2.3
235.8 2.3
241.2 2.3
246.7 2.3
Federal Budget (unified) (Bil of $, Fed FY) (567.7) (336.9) (516.8)
(187.9) (833.2) (1,957.9) (1,480.3) (912.8) (321.0) (375.2) (617.8) (696.6) (721.3)
Current Account Balance (Bil of $) % Ch
(403.2) (343.7) (409.6) (66.85) (47.16) 101.74
(731.2) (673.3) (406.1) (544.0) (646.3) (747.2) (795.0) (818.0) (815.1) (806.0)
(7.2)
(7.9) (39.7) 34.0
18.8
15.6
6.4
2.9
(0.4) (1.1)
Population (Millions) % Ch
307.2 308.0
1.0
1.0
308.7 1.0
302.41 305.37 308.36 311.37 314.38 317.41 320.48 323.58 326.70 329.84
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
TABLE N. 2 U.S. Forecast Change - (Current Forecast Apr 2009 vs. Last Forecast Feb 2008)
Quarterly 2009:1 2009:2 2009:3
2007 2008 2009 2010
Annual 2011 2012 2013 2014
2015 2016
GDP (Bil of 2000 $) Chain Weight % Change From Last Forecast
11,326 11,234 11,206 (0.8) (0.8) (1.0)
11,524 11,652 11,247 11,403 11,799 12,271 12,676 13,028 13,379 13,747
0.0
(0.2)
(1.0)
(1.6)
(1.7)
(1.0)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.2)
Personal Income (Bil of $) % Change From Last Forecast
12,068 12,161 12,114 11,663.3 12,102.7 12,120.5 12,339.5 12,821.3 13,488.0 14,227.1 15,017.6 15,818.4 16,641.1
(0.1) (0.6) (0.6)
0.0
0.0
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.2)
(0.8) (0.5)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
Nonagricultural Employment (Millions) % Change From Last Forecast
133.7 132.3 131.4 (0.2) (0.6) (0.7)
137.6 0.0
137.0 (0.0)
132.1 (0.6)
131.0 (1.3)
132.9 (1.5)
136.2 139.2 (1.1) (0.7)
141.3 (0.5)
142.8 (0.4)
144.3 (0.3)
Unemployment Rate % Change From Last Forecast
8.1
8.9
9.5
3.0
4.9
5.6
4.6
5.8
9.1
10.2
9.6
8.5
7.7
7.3
7.0
6.6
0.0
0.0
5.1
8.6
10.3
7.9
4.9
3.5
2.4
1.0
Industrial Production Index (2002=100) % Change From Last Forecast
99.2 98.0 97.1 (1.6) (1.9) (2.3)
111.3 108.8
(0.1)
(0.6)
97.7 (2.1)
97.4 (3.5)
101.9 107.3 111.2 114.3
(3.5)
(2.4) (1.9)
(2.0)
117.4 120.5
(1.9)
(2.0)
Corporate Profits (Bil of $) % Change From Last Forecast
1,306.5 1,319.4 1,333.9 (2.8) 0.1 (3.7)
1,886.3 1,597.3 1,334.2 1,595.0 1,828.6 1,883.7 1,899.5 1,865.9 1,897.8 1,932.3
0.0
(1.0)
(2.8)
(1.9)
2.3
4.2
3.7
4.1
4.9
5.3
10
Money Supply (M2) (Bil of $) % Change From Last Forecast
8,221 8,397 8,534 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0)
7,385 0.0
8,014 0.0
8,656 (0.3)
9,096 (0.5)
9,610 10,108 10,593 11,064 11,591 12,191
(0.2)
0.3
0.2
0.0
(0.0)
(0.1)
Prime Rate % Change From Last Forecast
3.25 3.25 3.25
(19.9) 0.0
0.0
8.05
5.09
3.25
3.30
4.70
6.34
6.55
7.59
7.75
7.75
0.0
0.0
(5.8)
0.2
(0.0)
0.5
0.8
3.5
(0.0)
(0.0)
Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100) % Change From Last Forecast
212.6 211.9 212.1
0.4
0.6
0.6
207.3 0.0
215.2 212.3
(0.0)
0.5
215.6 0.3
220.2 0.2
225.3 0.3
230.5 0.0
235.8 (0.1)
241.2 (0.2)
246.7 (0.4)
Federal Budget (unified) (Bil of $, Fed FY) (567.7) (336.9) (516.8)
(187.9) (833.2) (1,957.9) (1,480.3) (912.8) (321.0) (375.2) (617.8) (696.6) (721.3)
Current Account Balance (Bil of $) % Change From Last Forecast
(403.2) (343.7) (409.6) 28.6 31.8 27.9
(731.2) (673.3) (406.1) (544.0) (646.3) (747.2) (795.0) (818.0) (815.1) (806.0)
0.0
1.3
25.9
(1.6)
(7.3)
(2.3) (0.8) (2.9)
(4.4)
(3.9)
Population (Millions) % Change From Last Forecast
307.2 308.0 308.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
302.41 305.37 308.36
0.0
0.0
0.0
311.37 0.0
314.38 317.41 320.48 323.58
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
326.70 329.84
0.0
0.0
Graph N. 1
U.S. ECONOMIC HISTORY AND FORECAST
REAL GDP, PERCENT CHANGE 2000 DOLLARS, CHAIN WEIGHTED 5 4
INTEREST RATES 12
Prime
3 Month Treasury
10 Year Govt
7.216 2.6362 3 2.9117 4 5 106.0322 6.3875 6.4017 6.6506 6.8659 6.9541
Percent
Percent Change
3
8
2
2.0 -0.8 ## -0.5 # ##
2.3
2.2
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
1
6
0 2.249 2.05 2.01
-1 1994 6.4195936 19968 .802000 7.260082
3.207902
4.18
4.07
-2
3.97893
4.69
5.27
0.305983
3.84
4.18
-3
2.635818
3.90
2.71
-4
4.073928
4.96
5.31
1.652886
2.87
2.96
1.953591
3.10
2.65
UNEMP1L.2O94Y44M5 ENT1R.21ATE 1.19
-0.144837
1.48
1.29
11
4.556057
5.11
4.48
10
2.653234
3.87
3.39
9
31.8
33.4
37.0
37.6
38.7
37.7
8
7
Percent
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
1.96 1.78
2060.411 2006 6.620408
3.98
3.51
3.88
4.60
3.62
4.42
3.53
4.30
5.59
5.95
3.37
3.93
2.04
2.56
1.17
1.20
-0.05
1.05
4.40
3.87
2.86
3.32
41.7
46.7
37.2
37.9
1.49 ## 250.1807 #2#012 1.67 ### 4.75 ### 0.70 ### 4.17 ### 7.05 ### 5.92 ### 2.57 ### 1.17 ### 0.82 ### 1.72 ### 3.23 ### 47.7 ### 36.8 ###
1.24 # ## 4 1.01 1.25 1.22 1.19 1.19 1.12 1.10 1.14 2701.24 2 # ## 2.91 4.29 5.19 6.03 6.39 6.40 6.65 6.87
2.02 ## ###
-0.51
1.08
2.04
2.33
2.16
1.78
1.55
1.56
4.56 ## ### 2 1.17
2.82
2.86
3.55
3.83
3.71
3.79
3.96
0.13 ## ###
-3.43
-1.19
0.78
1.07
0.70
0.40
0.44
0.82
3.74 ## ### 0 2.00
3.58
2.92
3.39
3.24
2.81
2.68
2.76
7.96 ## ###
3.19
4.47
5.00
5.61
5.85
5.86
6.05
6.25
5.28 ## ### 96:1 19.74:41 98:1 993:.10000:1 01:12.0628:1 03:1 034.:11405:1 06:31.3007:1 08:1 30.91:81 10:1 113:.12112:1 13:13.36
2.17 ## ###
-0.11
1.19
1.71
1.82
1.63
1.31
1.07
1.07
1.12 -0.34
## ##
##H####OUSI-N04..G9649 STA-R01..84T76S
0.86 1.15
0.85 -0.14
0.84 -0.75
0.83 -1.09
0.82 -0.92
0.82 -0.54
2.34 ## ###
0.25
1.59
2.46
2.80
2.61
2.13
1.78
1.68
2.60 ## ### 2.0 0.51
1.85
2.06
2.39
2.22
1.85
1.53
1.49
47.8 ## ###
41.4
42.6
44.6
45.3
45.7
46.2
46.7
47.4
35.7 ## ###
31.5
30.9
31.1
31.3
31.4
31.5
31.6
31.6
1.5
Millions
1.0
Total
Single Unit
Multiple Unit
0.5
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
0.0 96:1 97:1 98:1 99:1 00:1 01:1 02:1 03:1 04:1 05:1 06:1 07:1 08:1 09:1 10:1 11:1 12:1 13:1
1.15 6.95 1.62 3.94 0.84 3.12 6.42 3.42 1.18 0.81 -0.10 1.87 1.64 47.8 31.7
Percent Change from Prior Year
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX ALL ITEMS VS. ALL ITEMS LESS FOOD & ENERGY
REAL EXCHANGE RATE 125%
6
5
16E5x.c4lu3ding1F8o3o.d60&7E5nerg2y00.3575
216 229.9575 241 248.6875 ## 274 286.2415 299.7681 312.0301 326.8946 343.0362 360.1616 377.9351 395.7143 415.1283
4
12A8l.l7It5ems 133.1583 135.2083 141.425 149.9167 158 167.61667 ## 184 200.56667 211.0506 214.4351 223.9009 233.1842 243.0206 253.4427 264.7599 276.6656 100%
3
2
1
0
75%
-196:1 98:1 00:1 02:1 04:1 06:1 08:1 10:1 12:1 14:1
-2
-3
50%
-4
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
STANDARD & POOR'S 500 INDEX 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 94:1 96:1 98:1 00:1 02:1 04:1 06:1 08:1 10:1 12:1 14:1
CONSUMER CONFIDENCE & SPENDING
8
Percent Change in Real Consumer Spending - Left Scale
1.30
University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment (Feb 1966=1) Right Scale
1.20
6 1.10
4
1.00
Percent Change
2
0.90
0.80 0
94:1 96:1 98:1 00:1 02:1 04:1 06:1 08:1 10:1 12:1
0.70
-2 0.60
-4
0.50
11
12
B. International Review and Outlook Introduction After faltering in the latter months of 2008, the global economy is in recession. Initial hope that the U.S. would not pull the world economy down with it as it began to slow considerably in 2008 quickly faded as consumer demand plummeted and credit markets froze. With the largest economies leading the way, the world economy is in the deepest and most synchronized recession since at least World War II and most likely, since the Great Depression. All major international organizations ­ such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) ­ are forecasting negative global GDP growth for 2009 coupled with a significant decrease in international trade. The current situation is largely driven by the strong consumer retrenchment caused by the financial credit crisis, the double negative wealth effects of falling home and stock prices and a general loss of confidence. In a recent study examining financial crises and synchronized crises, the IMF finds such a recession is twice as long ­ lasting seven quarters ­ than a standard recession and the associated GDP decline nearly twice as large. Furthermore, the World Bank expects international trade to decrease the most in 80 years with other organizations' estimates in the -9 percent to -13 percent range. After peaking in May 2008, the Baltic Dry Index (BDI), a leading trade indicator, reached bottom in December 2008, down over 94 percent. Since December, the BDI has rebounded 231 percent through early May 2009, but still remains 81 percent below its peak. Combating the Great Recession are central banks and governments worldwide. The average interest rate for the Group of 7 countries has been lowered from 295 basis points in August 2008 to 40 basis points in May 2009. The European Central Bank's rate remains relatively high at the just reduced 100 basis points level but remains committed to fighting the recession by using additional quantitative easing measures. Such measures, like buying corporate and government bonds, have been implemented in most advanced economies and have helped to bring down credit risk spreads and long term interest rates over the past few months. Similarly, over 30 of the world's largest economies have passed and/or began instituting federal stimulus packages. These packages, typically comprised of new government spending coupled with tax cuts, are designed to jumpstart each country's economy, also known as pump-priming, by instating government-led demand in lieu of the economic slack caused by the fall in private demand. While the Great Recession is taking a major toll on the world economy, the Chief Economist for the OECD, Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel, writes: "The Great Depression was deepened by terrible policy mistakes, ranging from contractionary monetary policy to beggar-thy-neighbor policies in the form of trade protection and competitive devaluations. In contrast, this recession has broadly elicited the right policy." Due to the relatively quick and sizable policy response the world over, the economic free fall is nearing its end. The European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet believes the world economy is in or around an inflection point, meaning the rate of decline is slowing, building the foundation for a recovery, however sluggish it may be. 13
Recent Developments and Outlook for Oregon export markets As new economic data continues to remain in the red, there are beginning to be signs of economic life. The OECD sees "tentative signs" of a pause in the U.K., France and Italy, while The Economist believes the Asian economies will be the first to pull out of the recession. One reason Asia may fare better is they rely heavily upon highly cyclical industries such as cars, electronic goods and capital machinery. Even a modest rebound in demand for such industries will have an amplified effect in countries like China, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. Additionally, these countries' stimulus packages are larger than most ­ around 4 percent of 2009 GDP ­ and their corporate and household debt is at much lower levels, indicating that tax cuts and rebates are more likely to be spent, rather than saved, unlike the previous U.S. stimulus payments in early-mid 2008. Japan's economy contracted at a revised, annualized 12.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 and is expected to decline around the same rate in the first quarter of 2009. GDP has grown an average of 0.6 percent per year since 1991, lagging far behind other advanced economies and in nominal terms, first quarter GDP may be approximately the same as the 1993 level, thanks to the country's period of deflation. The Japanese government has announced multiple rounds of fiscal stimulus to support the faltering economy and the Bank of Japan has began buying corporate bonds for the first time in its history. The country's largest companies are hurting due to the plunge in consumer demand and in recent days Nissan and Hitachi announced financial losses of $2.4 billion and $8.1 billion, respectively, for the most recent reporting quarter. In response, companies are trying to avoid laying off employees and instead asking for significant pay reductions, an example being Toyota factory workers agreeing to a 15 percent pay cut in order retain their positions. The one segment of society that does not benefit from this scenario is temporary workers, approximately one-third of all employees and dominated by immigrants, which are being laid off and the government is even offering up to $3,000 for immigrants to leave the country and never return. Given all this, Japan's industrial output rose in March, the first gain in six months, and may be in a better position to ramp up production should a consumer rebound occur. The vertical specialization of companies and supply-chains has amplified the negative shocks through the Japanese economy but this effect can work in reverse, with production increasing rapidly and leading to a sharp recovery. After growing 13 percent in 2007, China's GDP grew just 9 percent in 2008 with the fourth quarter slowing to an annualized 6.8 percent. First quarter 2009 estimates have the economy expanding even slower at 6.1 percent, which given the country's recent performance, represents the slowest pace of expansion in nearly a decade. However, China is still significantly outperforming the world's other major economies and many forecasters are now raising their 2009 estimates for the Chinese economy. The People's Bank of China still expects full-year GDP to increase 8 percent, the commonly cited growth needed to incorporate the influx of rural immigrants into the fast growing metropolitan and industrial producing areas along the eastern seaboard. April export data ­ down 22.6 percent Y/Y ­ brought disappointing news after March exports' rate of decline improved to -17 percent. In total, exports have fallen for 6 consecutive months. China relies heavily on exports and a portion of the bad news is attributable to the country's even deeper decline in imports ­ down 25 percent in March ­ which are turned into reexports to other countries. Additionally, the fact that commodity prices have plunged in the past 14
8 months brings the estimated total monetary value of exports down substantially. Given China's reliance on exports, one widely accepted belief is that the Chinese economy depends significantly on the U.S. consumer to drive growth but the fact is Chinese exports largely remain within the continent with major destinations being countries such as Japan and South Korea. In fact, The Economist estimates that on a value-added basis, Chinese exports to the U.S. account for less than 5 percent of GDP. Europe is mired in the midst of its worst economic slump since at least the aftereffects of World War II, led by its largest economies ­ Germany, France and the U.K. ­ and housing bubbles in other significant countries such as Ireland and Spain. The Bank of England (BOE) and the European Central Bank (ECB) have reduced rates to historic lows, 0.5 percent and 1.0 percent, respectively, with the intentions of leaving them low for the foreseeable future. The BOE expects the U.K. economy to contract every quarter in 2009 with a very slow and prolonged recovery starting in early 2010. Even though ECB President Trichet sees the second derivative turning positive, the European Commission forecasts the E.U. economy will decline 4 percent in 2009. In March, the eurozone industrial production fell 20 percent Y/Y. The region's largest economy, Germany, is very sensitive to external demand as exports accounted for 47 percent of GDP in 2008, which is more than double than that of Japan and nearly four times that of the U.S. 64 percent of Germany's exports are to countries within Europe and as economic activity shrinks, German manufacturers are feeling the brunt of the recession. Emerging European countries like Hungary, Latvia, Serbia, Romania, Turkey and Poland have all either accepted or are in discussion to accept IMF support which further derails the European economy, especially given that these countries primary financiers have been the large institutions of Western Europe. After seven years of economic growth, Canada is now feeling the effects of the Great Recession. From October 2008 to February 2009, Canadian economic activity has fallen 2.4 percent, in nominal terms. In April, the Bank of Canada downwardly revised its GDP forecast to -3 percent for 2009, from -1.2 percent a few months earlier, due to the high uncertainty of the global economy and broad-based losses in all domestic sectors. Employment is falling faster than in the previous recessions of the 1980s and 1990s. Bankruptcies increased nearly 10 percent in the first quarter and the future of General Motors (including GM Canada, with 12,000 employees and 700 dealerships in Canada) looms large over the future of the country's economy. To help support the economy, the Bank of Canada has lowered its key interest rate to 0.5 percent, down from 4 percent in December 2007 and the government's stimulus package size is 1.9 percent of GDP in 2009 and 1.4 percent in 2010. Economic recovery largely rests on U.S. consumers, the destination of 80 percent of Canadian exports, and other external demand for commodities such as oil and lumber. 15
Table I.1 shows IHS Global Insight's (GI) country specific economic forecast as of April 10, 2009. It its global forecast, GI cites some issues to watch to gauge future trends of the global economy. First, extreme financial strains are evident in both Western and Emerging Europe. This could worsen the crises as well as raise political risks. Second, countries hit hard by the financial crises could see extended periods of below-trend growth, similar to Japan's "lost decade" during the 1990s.
Table I.1 Projected Growth Rates of Real GDP (Percent)
As of 4/10/2009 United States Canada Japan Eurozone Mexico South America Asia except Japan China World
(Average) 2008 2009 2010 2011-14 1.1 -3.5 1.4 3.4 0.5 -2.9 1.9 3.2 -0.7 -6.7 0.8 3.3 0.7 -4.0 -0.3 1.7 1.8 -3.9 2.3 3.3 4.8 -1.0 2.4 4.0 5.7 2.3 5.2 7.3 9.0 5.7 7.6 9.4 2.2 -2.6 1.8 3.9
GI's April 2009 global forecast details the current Source: Global Insight, April 2009 global crises and issues facing policymakers
worldwide as they struggle to turn the economic tide
toward a recovery. Even as the fiscal and
monetary policies continue to break the Table I.2 economy's fall, the spiral will continue for Projected Growth for Top U.S. Export Markets
an extended period of time and the recovery is not quite yet at hand. The European recovery will lag other regions due to its sluggish policy responses and weakened competitiveness. Similar to the
Ranked by $ Value of U.S. Goods Exported Canada Mexico
Oregon Projected Change
Exports 2008
in Real GDP
Rank ($ mil.) 2007 2008 2009 2010 1 2,801 2.7 0.5 -2.0 1.9 8 748 3.3 1.3 -2.7 2.2
European Commission's estimates, GI Japan
3 2,016 2.4 -0.7 -5.6 0.6
believes the eurozone will contract 4 percent overall in 2009. Being hammered by the plunge in exports, Japan is expected to experience the deepest recession among the G7 countries with real GDP declining 6.7 percent in 2009. Finally, GI remains
United Kingdom China Germany South Korea Netherlands Taiwan France
13 338 3.0 0.8 -1.8 1.1 2 2,469 11.6 9.1 6.6 8.0 10 400 2.6 1.0 -3.2 0.7 5 1,253 5.0 2.6 -4.2 2.6 11 396 3.5 1.8 -2.4 0.8 6 1,111 5.7 -0.7 -4.9 2.8 16 295 2.1 0.7 -2.7 0.7
bearish on China compared to other forecasters, with economic activity expected to expand only at a 5.7 percent rate in 2009, indicating even more room for a slowdown in the coming months.
Singapore Belgium Hong Kong Australia Brazil Eurozone
15 327 7.7 1.1 -4.8 2.6 24 120 2.6 1.2 -2.2 0.7 14 338 6.4 3.0 -3.2 2.4 12 345 4.0 2.1 -0.8 1.6 17 283 5.7 5.3 -0.7 3.1 2.6 0.7 -2.8 0.6
U.S.
2.0 1.1 -2.6 1.8
Source: Blue Chip Economic Indicators, April 2009
Table I.2 summarizes the Blue Chip
Oregon Export Data: WISER, May 2009
Consensus forecast (April 2009) for
Oregon's major export markets. It is consistent
with the GI forecast shown in Table I.1, although
more optimistic for 2009 overall.
16
Oregon Exports
U.S. exports which fell 4 percent Y/Y in the fourth quarter of 2008 have plunged over 22 percent in the first quarter Y/Y. Overall for 2008 national exports increased 11.8 percent, following a 12.1 percent increase in 2007. The rate of decline may be turning positive, however it remains too soon to tell given exports fell 11.5 percent in December, 21.1 percent in January, 23.8 percent in February and 21.8 percent in March Y/Y. Exports are expected to remain at depressed levels as the global economy continues to struggle and the U.S. dollar remains strong.
($ million) (% change)
Q1 2009 Q4 2008 Q3 2008 Q2 2008 Q1 2008 Q4 2007 Q3 2007 Q2 2007 Q1 2007 Q4 2006 Q3 2006 Q2 2006 Q1 2006 Q4 2005 Q3 2005 Q2 2005 Q1 2005 Q4 2004 Q3 2004 Q2 2004 Q1 2004 Q4 2003 Q3 2003 Q2 2003 Q1 2003 Q4 2002 Q3 2002 Q2 2002 Q1 2002 Q4 2001 Q3 2001 Q2 2001 Q1 2001 Q4 2000 Q3 2000 Q2 2000 Q1 2000 Q4 1999 Q3 1999 Q2 1999 Q1 1999 Q4 1998 Q3 1998 Q2 1998 Q1 1998 Q4 1997 Q3 1997 Q2 1997 Q1 1997
Just as Oregon saw stronger growth throughout 2008 than the U.S. overall, Oregon is now
Graph I.1 6000
Oregon's Total Exports (1Q 1997 - 1Q 2009, current dollars)
experiencing an even deeper
5000
plunge. In the first quarter of
2009, Oregon exports decreased
4000
Total Exports (left scale)
31.9 percent Y/Y. Monthly
declines in January, February and
3000
March were 31.0 percent, 36.4
percent and 28.6 percent,
2000
respectively. In nominal terms,
the $3.2 billion in first quarter
1000
Year-over-year percent change (right scale)
exports were the lowest since the 0 second quarter of 2005. The
decline is broad-based as nearly
every single industry's exports
declined double digits from 2008
and the only major export industry Table I.3 to register gains being chemicals. Oregon Exports by Industry
Graph I.1 illustrates Oregon's total exports and the Y/Y percent change from 1997 through 2009.
($ millions, current prices) Total All Industries Computer And electronic products
2008 Q1 20 09 Q1 y/ y % change 4 ,702.2 3,200.8 -3 1.9% 1 ,825.3 1,230.4 -3 2.6%
Agricultu ral Products Table I.3 shows Oregon's exports Machinery, Except Electrical
878 .4 413 .3
486.7 -4 4.6% 246.5 -4 0.4%
and growth rates by industry for the first quarter of 2009 (Y/Y). These are the top fifteen industries by export volume (in value). With
Transportation Equipment Chemicals Primary Metal Manufact uring Waste And Scrap Wood Produ cts Paper
376 .6 199 .8 175 .2 103 .4 119 .5 95 .0
208.6 -4 4.6% 282.9 41.6% 146.8 -1 6.2% 90.8 -1 2.2% 66.6 -4 4.2% 54.5 -4 2.6%
the continued slowing of the global economy and strong U.S. dollar,
Food And Kindred Product s Miscellaneous Manufact ured Commodities Fabricated Metal Products, Neso i
95.2 75.2 -2 1.0% 81.2 65.7 -1 9.1% 73.6 47.1 -3 6.0%
exports remained at low levels in the past few months. Y/Y growth is
Electrical Equipment, Appliances, And Component Plastics And Rubb er P roducts Nonmetallic M ineral Products
52.2 44.9 -1 3.8% 41.7 23.1 -4 4.4% 42.9 23.9 -4 4.4%
strongly negative for fourteen of Source:WISER, May 2009
the top fifteen export industries.
Only Chemicals managed to register
positive growth ­ up over $80 billion
or 41.6 percent.
40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 Share out of Total 1 00.0% 38.4 % 15.2 % 7.7 % 6.5 % 8.8 % 4.6 % 2.8 % 2.1 % 1.7 % 2.3 % 2.1 % 1.5 % 1.4 % 0.7 % 0.7 %
17
The computer and electronics sector saw a steep plunge Y/Y in exports, recording a 32.6 percent decrease. Computer and electronics remain Oregon's largest export market at 38.4 percent of total exports.
Agriculture, Machinery, Transportation Equipment, Wood Products, Paper, Plastics and Rubber Products and Nonmetallic Mineral Products all registered larger than 40 percent declines Y/Y, evidence of the global recession's effect on a wide variety of industries.
Q1 2009 Q4 2008 Q3 2008 Q2 2008 Q1 2008 Q4 2007 Q3 2007 Q2 2007 Q1 2007 Q4 2006 Q3 2006 Q2 2006 Q1 2006 Q4 2005 Q3 2005 Q2 2005 Q1 2005 Q4 2004 Q3 2004 Q2 2004 Q1 2004 Q4 2003 Q3 2003 Q2 2003 Q1 2003 Q4 2002 Q3 2002 Q2 2002 Q1 2002 Q4 2001 Q3 2001 Q2 2001 Q1 2001 Q4 2000 Q3 2000 Q2 2000 Q1 2000 Q4 1999 Q3 1999 Q2 1999 Q1 1999 Q4 1998 Q3 1998 Q2 1998 Q1 1998 Q4 1997 Q3 1997 Q2 1997 Q1 1997
Graph I.2 illustrates quarterly exports by major industry since 1997. With a drop in the past two quarters, computer and electronics have fallen to mid2005 levels; however they remain some $350 million above the dotcom recession level.
($ million)
Graph I.2 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000
Oregon Exports by Major Industry (1Q 1997 - 1Q 2009, current dollars) Computer And Electronic Products Agricultural products Machinery, Except Electrical Transportation Equipment Chemicals
Agricultural exports, the
800
beneficiary of the late 2007,
600
400 early 2008 commodity boom, 200
have decreased for four 0
consecutive quarters and are
now more in line with their
long-run average of around $400 million per quarter.
Table I.4 charts exports of Oregon products to major destinations. Out of the top fifteen export markets, only China, the Netherlands and India saw an increase in trade Y/Y. Exports to China and India increased substantially and those two economies are continuing to do relatively well compared to the rest of the world, even with their recent slowdowns. Exports with all other major trading partner countries have fallen by more than 20 percent Y/Y in the first quarter. The recent boom in international trade has ended and along with it goes the economic boost exports provide the Oregon economy.
Table I.4
Oregon Exports to Major Trading Partners
($ millions, current prices)
2008 Q1
2009 Q1
y/y % change
Total All Countries
4,702.2 3,200.8 -31.9%
China (Mainland) Canada Japan Malaysia China (Taiwan) Korea, Republic Of Costa Rica Philippines Germany Netherlands India Hong Kong Mexico United Kingdom France
385.8 714.8 483.1 394.5 262.3 383.6 165.4 391.5 101.1 85.0 19.1 75.3 199.6 103.6 73.5
564.1 46.2% 528.4 -26.1% 379.0 -21.5% 236.1 -40.2% 165.7 -36.8% 154.7 -59.7% 129.1 -22.0% 101.7 -74.0% 98.3 -2.7% 86.2 1.4% 57.7 201.6% 56.1 -25.5% 50.4 -74.7% 45.6 -56.0% 44.1 -40.0%
Source: WISER, May 2009
Share out of Total 100.0% 17.6% 16.5% 11.8% 7.4% 5.2% 4.8% 4.0% 3.2% 3.1% 2.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.4%
18
Graph I.3 shows the quarterly export trend for Oregon's major markets since 1997. On a
quarterly basis, exports to Oregon's top five markets decreased, with only China registering a
positive Y/Y growth, as noted above. From the graph, it is clear that the second and third quarters
of 2008 saw amazing export growth to China and the trade data for the next few quarters will show significant declines
Graph I.3 900
Oregon Exports by Country (1Q 1997 - 1Q 2009, current dollars)
Canada
China (Mainland)
Japan
relative to the previous boom. 800
Malaysia
Korea, Republic Of
Recent trade increases to 700
Malaysia and Japan have also 600
($ million)
subsided and are returning to 500 more average levels. Even
exports to Canada have declined 400
significantly after rising for most 300
of the decade. Canada has 200
historically been the number one 100 market for Oregon exports, but
Q1 2009 Q4 2008 Q3 2008 Q2 2008 Q1 2008 Q4 2007 Q3 2007 Q2 2007 Q1 2007 Q4 2006 Q3 2006 Q2 2006 Q1 2006 Q4 2005 Q3 2005 Q2 2005 Q1 2005 Q4 2004 Q3 2004 Q2 2004 Q1 2004 Q4 2003 Q3 2003 Q2 2003 Q1 2003 Q4 2002 Q3 2002 Q2 2002 Q1 2002 Q4 2001 Q3 2001 Q2 2001 Q1 2001 Q4 2000 Q3 2000 Q2 2000 Q1 2000 Q4 1999 Q3 1999 Q2 1999 Q1 1999 Q4 1998 Q3 1998 Q2 1998 Q1 1998 Q4 1997 Q3 1997 Q2 1997 Q1 1997
China has now overtaken the top
0
position for three consecutive
quarters. These trends are
expected to continue given the current state of the global economy and the relative robustness of
the Chinese economy.
It is important to keep in mind that as economies worldwide begin to see green shoots or glimmers of hope, international trade will begin to increase again. The data presented here is "old" data in the sense that it is backward looking and shows where the recent trend has been. There are economic signs of life and as long as those begin to appear in more places and with greater frequency, the trade market will pick up. This would certainly be good news for Oregon, which has the fifth highest reliance on export-supported jobs in the U.S.
19
C. Western Region Introduction This section of the May forecast examines the thirteen Western states and their economic performance during the current recession as well as the 2001 recession. While the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is the official purveyor of determining and dating U.S. business cycles, no such organization exists for state level recessions. Gauging the health of a local economy is important for both business and policy planning purposes. Understanding when and why economies experience downturns is a more complicated matter and this section aims to shed light on state level economic conditions over the course of the two most recent business cycles. State Economies Each state's economy is uniquely defined by a number of contributing factors including, among others, geographical location, natural resources and the makeup of the labor force (demographics, education attainment, etc.) The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia produces monthly coincident indexes for each of the 50 states and a national index, which are designed to summarize current economic conditions in each state, and therefore the indexes are not leading or lagging indicators. The four variables which comprise the index for each state are nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing, the unemployment rate and real wage and salary disbursements. Given the index components, it can be thought of as a labor market economic index and thus expansions and contractions represented in the data are closely tied to state level employment conditions. Even after examining the data, determining and dating each state's business cycles can be complex. One method commonly cited in the academic literature is to analyze the data using a Markov regime-switching model. A regime-switching model is a variant of a state-space model which evaluates the data over time and distinguishes between periods of high growth and low growth. Most regime-switching models use either a two-state or three-state format from which the model calculates transitional probabilities that the data is shifting from one regime to another. Jeremy Piger, an associate professor of economics at the University of Oregon, has developed a two-state regime-switching model to date state level recessions. Professor Piger's model output is a percent probability that a state has transitioned from an expansionary phase (state one) into a recession (state two). Using Prof. Piger's model, the Office of Economic Analysis ran each of the thirteen western states' coincident index1 from 1996 through the most currently available data March 2009 - to determine and date state level recessions, as reported in this section. 1 Due to data irregularities, New Mexico and Oregon's seasonally adjusted total nonfarm employment series were used in place of these two state's coincident indexes. Since total nonfarm employment is one of the four components of the coincident index, the results obtained are expected to be qualitatively and quantitatively the same. 20
Early 2000s Recession
Table W.1 reports the dates when each of the western states fell into recession, along with the last month of the recession and each state's recession duration, or the number of months in which the state experienced the recession.
Overall, there are stark differences between the economic effects across the states. Alaska, Montana, New
Table W.1 Alaska*
First Month of Recession ---
Last Month of Recession Recession Duration
---
---
Mexico and Wyoming did not
Arizona
July 2000
June 2003 36 months
experience a full fledged
California March 2001
October 2003 32 months
recession following the
Colorado January 2001
October 2003 34 months
bursting of the dotcom bubble.
Hawaii January 2001 December 2001 12 months
At the same time Arizona,
Idaho
April 2001 February 2002 11 months
California, Colorado, Oregon,
Montana*
---
---
---
and Utah felt a deep impact
Nevada January 2001
March 2002 15 months
from the recession. One reason
New Mexico*
---
---
---
for the variation may be due to the higher exposure each of these states has to high technology. Each state contains a significant cluster of high
Oregon** Utah Washington Wyoming* U.S.
February 2001 July 2000 January 2001 --- January 2001
June 2003 July 2003 February 2002 --July 2003
29 months 37 months 14 months --31 months
tech firms which were hit the hardest during the early 2000s.
* Alaska, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming did not experience a full recession in 2001, even though growth did slow considerably
It is interesting to note that the regime-switching model dates the U.S. recession as beginning
** Oregon experienced a "double dip" recession in the early 2000s, the first from Feb 2001 to Jan 2002 and the second from Oct 2002 to Jun 2003, the numbers reported in the table include the entire time period between 2001 and 2003
in January 2001 and ending in July 2003. The NBER dates the recession as beginning in March
2001 and ending in November of the same year. The discrepancy between the figures could be
attributable to the fact that the national coincident index is composed of labor market variables
and the 2001 recession is commonly referred to as a "jobless" recovery. In fact, national
employment did not return to pre-recession levels until early 2005, over three years after the
NBER determined the official recession had ended.
Graph W.1 provides a snapshot illustration of the probability that each western state experienced a recession during each of the given months. These maps show how the recession affected each state over the course of the 2000 ­ 2003 period and which states went into the recession first and which recovered sooner as well. Table W.1 reports the dates when each of the western states fell into recession, along with the last month of the recession and each state's recession duration, or the number of months in which the state experienced the recession.
21
Graph W.1
2001 Recession
0 - 25%
Probability of Recession:
25 - 50%
50 - 70%
70 ­ 100%
September 2000
March 2001*
November 2001 **
February 2002
November 2002
November 2003
* NBER recession start date ** NBER recession end date 22
The Great Recession The Great Recession, as the current recession is now being called, began in December 2007, according to the NBER. The onset of this recession is generally considered to be the overconsumption of housing coupled with the bundling, slicing and selling of their associated mortgages by the banks and other financial institutions. When the housing bubble began to burst the economy was affected, culminating in massive financial losses for firms and individuals alike. As with the 2001 recession, the western states exhibit a wide variety of experiences in terms of the depth and length of the current recession. While the end of the recession is still unknown, the regime-switching model is able to identify when each state economy began feeling the effects of the recession. Table W.2 details the start date for each state and its relative position compared to the U.S. for entering into the recession. The model results show that Arizona, California, Hawaii and Nevada were in recession well in advance of the U.S. Conversely, the economies of Alaska, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming were not in recession until just a few months ago.
Table W.2
2001 Recession
2008 Recession
Alaska Arizona California Colorado Hawaii Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Oregon Utah Washington Wyoming U.S.**
First Month of Recession --July 2000 March 2001 January 2001 January 2001 April 2001 --- January 2001 --- February 2001 July 2000 January 2001 --- January 2001
Number of Months Leading (+) or Lagging (-) the U.S.* --+8 0 +2 +2 -1 --+2 --+1 +8 +2 --+2
First Month of Recession January 2009 October 2006 April 2007 January 2008 December 2006 July 2007 November 2008 February 2007 November 2008 March 2008 September 2007 March 2008 January 2009 December 2007
Number of Months Leading (+) or Lagging (-) the U.S.* - 13 + 14 +8 -1 + 12 +5 - 11 + 10 - 11 -3 +3 -3 - 13 0
* U.S. recession date based on NBER determined Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions ** U.S. estimated recession dates based on two state regime switching model
At the national level, the model determines the recession start date as the same month that the NBER declared ­ December 2007. While the 2001 official recession dates do not coincide precisely with employment peaks and troughs, the start of the Great Recession does, as December 2007 was the national employment peak.
23
As mentioned previously, one of the major components of the current recession is overconsumption of housing during the 2003-2008 time period. As housing prices kept rising, more and more individuals were buying second homes to flip, use as investments, use as vacation homes and/or taking on mortgages larger than their incomes could afford. It is not a coincidence to see the states that had the largest housing price increases and reliance on construction employment enter into the recession sooner than the nation as a whole. The states of Arizona, California, Hawaii and Nevada had large housing bubbles that have collapsed significantly over the past year.
Table W.3 summarizes each of these state's location quotient, as calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics2.
Table W.3 Industry Natural Resources and Mining Construction
Arizona 1.08 1.51
California 1.94 1.01
Hawaii 0.85 1.15
Nevada 0.80 1.78
The location quotient is a ratio
Manufacturing
0.67
which compares a state's
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities Information
1.01 0.72
employment concentration in a
Financial Activities
1.14
0.91
0.25
0.37
0.95
1.04
0.89
1.34
0.79
0.53
0.95
0.83
0.80
specific industry to that of the
Professional and Business Services
1.15
U.S. as a whole. A value of 1.0
Education and Health Services Leisure and Hospitality
0.87 1.04
indicates that a state has the
Other Services
0.83
1.09
0.96
0.90
0.81
0.93
0.53
1.00
1.86
2.56
1.40
1.28
0.66
same percentage of its
Unclassified
0.77
2.07
0.29
0.49
employment in the industry as
the national average. Values
greater than 1.0 indicate a state having a larger concentration than the national average, while
values less than 1.0 represent a smaller percentage of employment in a given industry.
From the data, it is clear that Arizona and Nevada had a significantly higher percentage of their employment in the construction industry, representative of the housing boom. California and Hawaii also had slightly higher location quotients but not nearly as large as Arizona and Nevada.
Alaska, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming were late participants in the Great Recession and
their location quotients are displayed in Table W.4. While these states also have large
concentrations
in
construction employment, Table W.4
they also employ a
Industry
Alaska Montana New Mexico Wyoming
significantly larger number
Natural Resources and Mining
3.89
2.10
of workers in natural
Construction Manufacturing
1.12
1.36
0.46
0.47
resources and mining.
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
1.19
1.08
2.96
8.53
1.40
1.85
0.48
0.39
0.97
1.05
Given the commodity price
Information
1.11
0.80
boom of 2007 and early
Financial Activities
0.83
Professional and Business Services
0.68
0.85 0.73
2008, it is no wonder that
Education and Health Services
1.03
1.07
these state's economies performed better at a later
Leisure and Hospitality Other Services Unclassified
1.17
1.39
1.06
1.15
1.12
0.36
0.94
0.70
0.74
0.74
1.09
0.54
1.02
0.67
1.18
1.32
0.89
1.01
0.06
---
date then the rest of the
nation. These states also exhibit a smaller manufacturing sector which is very procyclical with
economic expansions and contractions, thus potentially minimizing the downside risk.
2 Location quotients are based on 2007 data, the most currently available data from the BLS
24
The five western states that
entered into the recession at
approximately the same
time as the nation overall
tend to have a more
balanced
employment
makeup, evidenced by their
location quotients in Table
W.5. Even though
Colorado, Idaho, Oregon
Table W.5 Industry Natural Resources and Mining Construction Manufacturing Trade, Transportation, and Utilities Information Financial Activities Professional and Business Services Education and Health Services Leisure and Hospitality Other Services Unclassified
Colorado 1.28 1.31 0.63 0.95 1.48 1.13 1.15 0.80 1.20 0.89 0.13
Idaho 2.81 1.44 1.00 1.03 0.75 0.78 0.97 0.84 0.98 0.75 0.01
Oregon 2.19 1.07 1.15 1.00 0.93 0.85 0.86 0.92 1.01 1.11 0.28
Utah 0.95 1.52 1.02 1.03 1.15 1.02 0.99 0.81 0.94 0.78 0.07
Washington 2.27 1.21 0.99 0.96 1.59 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.98 1.22 0.00
and Washington have a
larger concentration in construction employment, these are balanced out by their natural
resources and mining employment.
Graph W.2 illustrates the different western state's recession probabilities over the past two years and depicts when each state went into recession. It is clear from the maps that the states with the largest housing bubbles entered into the recession before the other states. Graphs W.3 and W.4 depict individual state's probabilities of recession over the entire sample period from 1996 to March 2009 and how these probabilities compare to each state's coincident index.
Summary
Each recession is different from the last, as determined by the individual characteristics which drive the economy downward and the individual states are affected in different ways as well. Depending upon the industry sectors hit hardest by a particular recession, states with a larger location quotient in that sector tend to fare worse. In times of economic expansion the opposite is true as well. For example, during the recent commodity boom Alaska, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming experienced tremendous economic growth due to their natural resources. The industrial components of individual states are different and for that reason, each state's recessions are different.
References
Chauvet, Marcelle, and James D. Hamilton (2005), "Dating Business Cycle Turning Points," in Nonlinear Analysis of Business Cycles.
Owyang, Michael T., Piger, Jeremy, and Howard J. Wall. (2005), "Business Cycle Phases in U.S. States." Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(4), pp. 604-16.
25
Graph W.3 0 - 25% June 2007
2008 Recession
Probability of Recession:
25 - 50%
50 - 70%
70 ­ 100%
September 2007
December 2007 *
June 2008
December 2008
March 2009
* NBER recession start date 26
27
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
160
170
90%
180
100%
Alaska California Haw aii Montana
Colorado 180 160 140 120 100 80 Idaho 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80
Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09
Co in cid en t In d ex
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 80
Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09
90
100
110
120
130
Pro b ab ility o f Recessio n Coincident Index
140
150
Probability of Recession
Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09
Coincident Index
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09
80
85
90
95
100
105
Probability of Recession Co in cid en t In d ex
110
115
Pro b ab ility o f Recessio n
120
80%
125
90%
130
100%
80%
160
90%
170
100%
United States Arizona
170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80
Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09
80
0%
90
10%
100
20%
110
30%
70% 140 60% 130 50% 120 40%
Coincident Index Probability of Recession Coincident Index Probabiilty of Recession
150
Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09
80
0%
85
10%
90
20%
95
30%
100
40%
105
50%
Coincident Index Probability of Recession Coincident Index Probability of Recession
110
60%
115
70%
120
80%
125
90%
130
100%
Graph W.3
28
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
160
80%
170
90%
180
100%
New Mexico Utah Wyoming
80%
180
90%
200
100%
Nevada Oregon Washington
Graph W.4 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 1750 1700 1650 1600 1550 1500 1450 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80
Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09
80
0%
90
10%
100
20%
110
30%
120
40%
130
50%
Coincident Index Probability of Recession Coincident Index Probability of Recession
140
60%
150
70%
Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09
80
0%
20% 100 10%
30%
120
40%
140
50%
Nonfarm Employment Probability of Recession Coincident Index Probability of Recession
70% 160 60%
Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09
650
0%
10%
700
20%
30%
750
40%
50%
Coincident Index Probability of Recession Nonfarm Employment Probability of Recession
800
60%
70%
850
80%
90%
100%
900
D. Oregon Economic Review and Forecast
Summary of Recent Trends
Statewide Trends
The first quarter of 2009 marks the fifth consecutive quarter of job losses. The annualized drop of 8.2 percent is the largest quarterly employment decline since the second quarter of 1980. The year-over-year (Y/Y) employment decline for the first quarter is 4.5 percent. Two quarters ago, the Y/Y employment decline was only 0.4 percent. The job loss decent has been extremely rapid the past two quarters.
For the U.S. economy, this recession is the deepest downturn post World War II. For Oregon, the projected job loss during this recession is the second largest downturn, only bested by the 19801982 recession periods. The unemployment rate for March 2009 reached 12.1 percent, matching the highest seasonally adjusted unemployment rate during the early 1980's recession. With more job losses likely this year, the unemployment rate will continue to rise.
In the first quarter of 2009, almost all sectors either continued to lose jobs or had slower employment growth. Only two broad job sectors gained jobs: educational and health services and government. Every manufacturing employment, except for food, sector had double digit job losses. The broader service sector continued to decline across most job categories. Health services continued to add jobs but at a much slower rate. Government job growth was barely positive.
The most recent Blue Chip Job Growth rankings place Oregon 47th in the nation for Y/Y job
growth. Between March 2008 and March 2009, jobs decreased by 91,400 or 5.31 percent. A year ago Oregon ranked 31st. The relative performance of the fifty states is shown in Figure O.1.
U.S. employment growth during this Figure O. 1 period was down 3.56 percent. A year ago, the nation enjoyed 0.30
Nonfarm Job Growth by State March 2009 over March 2008
percent growth. Every state had
(Ranked by Percent Change)
slower job growth compared to a year ago. Alaska was ranked 1st, with 0.68 percent growth. Washington ranked 28th, while Idaho was 45th. While Washington, Idaho,
Oregon: 47th
and Oregon moved down, California moved up from 43rd to 37th among
the 50 states, with -4.22 percent job
growth.
Bottom 10
Fourth 10
Middle 10
Second 10
Top 10
Source: Blue Chip Job Growth Update, Bank One Economic Outlook Center, Arizona State University, March 2009
29
Table O.1 Total Nonfarm Employment, 1st quarter 2009 (Employment in thousands, Annualized Percent Change)
Preliminary Estimate level % ch
Forecast Forecast Error Y/Y Change level % ch level % % ch
Total Nonfarm Total Private Natural Resources and Mining Construction Manufacturing Durable Goods Wood Product Metals and Machinery Computer and Electronic Product Transportation Equipment Other Durable Goods Nondurable Goods Food Other Nondurable Goods Trade, Transportation & Utilities Retail Trade Wholesale trade Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities Information Financial Activities Professional & Business Services Educational & Health Services Educational Services Health Services Leisure and Hospitality Other Services Government Federal State State Education Local Local Education
1,659.0 1,357.8 7.6 82.9 177.3 125.3 23.2 35.2 35.9 11.4 19.6 52.0 25.2 26.7 317.8 187.3 75.9 54.6 34.9 97.6 185.8 224.3 31.8 192.5 168.7 61.0 301.2 29.8 78.3 29.2 193.1 102.6
(8.2) (10.0) (30.1) (24.2) (21.5) (25.7) (33.5) (31.1) (13.6) (34.5) (19.6) (10.3) 3.4 (21.3) (10.7) (7.4) (11.7) (19.8) (8.6) (6.4) (8.7) 2.3 7.4 1.4 (9.4) 2.9 0.5 4.4 3.8 6.0 (1.5) (0.7)
1,663.2 (7.2) 1,364.4 (8.2) 7.8 (23.1) 84.0 (20.3) 180.5 (15.7) 128.8 (17.2) 23.8 (25.7) 37.6 (10.7) 35.6 (15.9) 12.0 (21.0) 19.7 (17.6) 51.7 (12.0) 23.9 (15.9) 27.8 (8.5) 322.6 (5.1) 188.2 (5.6) 77.3 (4.7) 57.2 (4.0) 34.7 (11.0) 97.8 (5.5) 182.7 (14.5) 224.3 2.2 31.0 (3.5) 193.3 3.2 169.8 (6.9) 60.3 (2.1) 298.7 (2.7) 29.5 0.8 76.3 (6.2) 28.1 (9.6) 192.9 (1.7) 102.4 (1.6)
(4.2) (0.3) (6.6) (0.5) (0.2) (2.6) (1.1) (1.3) (3.2) (1.8) (3.4) (2.7) (0.6) (2.7) (2.4) (6.4) 0.3 0.7 (0.6) (4.7) (0.1) (0.5) 0.3 0.5 1.3 5.4 (1.0) (3.7) (4.9) (1.5) (0.8) (0.4) (1.4) (1.9) (2.6) (4.5) 0.2 0.6 (0.2) (0.2) 3.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.7 (0.8) (0.4) (1.1) (0.7) 0.8 1.3 2.4 0.8 0.3 1.0 2.0 2.6 1.1 4.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2
(4.5) (5.8) (14.7) (16.9) (11.8) (15.2) (17.9) (9.8) (10.4) (30.3) (18.6) (2.1) 7.4 (9.6) (6.9) (6.8) (6.3) (8.3) (4.3) (6.1) (6.4) 3.6 7.3 3.0 (3.4) 0.0 2.0 1.3 3.5 5.1 1.5 2.2
Table O.1 shows a comparison of preliminary estimates for first quarter Oregon employment growth compared to the March 2009 forecast. Table O.1 also provides forecast errors and Y/Y growth. While percent change in the preliminary estimate shows the most recent development in the employment front, Y/Y growth indicates what has happened over a year's time. Unless noted otherwise, the employment figures are seasonally adjusted, and all percentage rates discussed below reflect annualized rates of change for first quarter 2009. When the preliminary estimate is lower than OEA's forecast, forecast error is shown as negative. Positive forecast error then means that the preliminary estimate came in higher than OEA's forecast. The worst quarters of this recession were expected to be the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009. So far, the numbers support this view. The total private employment sector lost 36,200 jobs or down 10.0 percent. Manufacturing took the brunt of the job losses with declines
30
of 21.5 percent and a Y/Y decline of 11.8 percent. Nonmanufacturing jobs declined 8.0 percent. Government added 340 jobs for a growth of 0.5 percent. Within manufacturing, wood products, metal and machinery, and transportation equipment all had job losses over 30 percent: 33.5 percent, 31.1 percent, and 34.5 percent, respectively. Computer and electronic products was down 13.6 percent for a loss of 1,300 jobs. Other durable goods job loss was 19.6 percent. Food processing, a highly seasonable sector, reported job gains of 3.4 percent. Other labor sectors within nondurable manufacturing, which include paper and allied products, had job losses of 21.3 percent. In the private nonmanufacturing sectors, construction lost just fewer than 6,000 jobs for a decline of 24.2 percent. Construction has lost jobs every quarter since the second quarter of 2007. Initial job losses were concentrated in the single family housing market but have now spread to other construction markets as the recession deepened in 2008. Retail trade and wholesale trade shed jobs at growth rates of -7.4 percent and -11.7 percent, respectively. The drop in consumer spending is evident with the Y/Y rate in retail down from 0.5 percent a year ago to -6.8 percent while wholesale trade Y/Y job growth is -6.3 percent. Transportation services and warehousing is also tied to consumer markets. This sector, transportation, warehousing, and utilities, is down 19.8 percent. Information, which includes publishers of software, decreased jobs by 8.6 percent. Leisure and hospitality job losses were 9.4 percent, reflecting the slowdown in consumer discretionary spending. Financial activities continue to reflect the down housing market and credit problems, losing 6.4 percent in the quarter, and are down Y/Y by 6.1 percent. Once a rapidly growing sector, professional and business services jobs fell 8.7 percent. The Y/Y job growth is -6.4 percent, considerably less then the plus four percent growth in 2006. Health services added jobs at a 1.4 percent rate with Y/Y growth of 3.0 percent, showing some signs of slowing as the recession intensified in the last two quarters. The government sector increased jobs by 0.5 percent on strength in the federal and state levels of government. Federal jobs were up 4.4 percent and state jobs up 3.8 percent. local government jobs were down 1.5 percent. Population growth will slow to 0.9 percent in 2009 with slightly faster growth of 1.0 percent in 2010 and 1.2 percent in 2011. 31
Regional Trends Every region of the state posted a year-over-year decline in employment during the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009. In the most recent quarter, declines ranged from -4.2 percent in central Oregon and -4.1 percent in southern Oregon to -1.3 percent in eastern Oregon. Regional unemployment rates (not seasonally adjusted) climbed from the elevated rates seen in the fourth quarter of 2008. In March, central Oregon had the highest rate at 16.4 percent, although southern Oregon took a very close second at 16.2 percent. The area with the lowest unemployment rate was Portland (11.4%). Statewide, the March unemployment rate was 12.9 percent. Greater Portland Area Employment Continues to Drop: Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill counties Although Portland posted year-over-year employment gains in the first three quarters of 2008, declines in the fourth quarter offset the gains such that average total employment from 2007 to 2008 was essentially unchanged. In the first quarter of 2009, employment was down nearly four percent from the year prior. By county, first quarter employment was down by as much as 4.8 percent in Washington and as little as 2.3 percent in Multnomah over the year, although Yamhill, Clackamas, and Columbia all experienced rates closer to Washington's (-4.0%, -4.3%, and -4.3%, respectively). All of Portland's counties also saw a year-over-year employment decline in the fourth quarter of 2008, although the rate of decline was generally less severe. Year-over-year employment changes by industry varied by county in March. The one exception was construction, which declined in every Portland-area county. Losses were mildest in Multnomah (-8.7%), and most severe in Yamhill (-25.3%). Clackamas, Columbia, and Washington all experienced construction employment losses around 15 percent. The other industries with year-over-year declines in most counties were information; manufacturing; professional and business services; and transportation, warehousing, and utilities. One source of growth in three of the five counties was private education and health services, which grew over the year by 1.1 percent in Clackamas, 1.5 percent in Washington, and 6.1 percent in Yamhill. federal government employment also grew somewhat, but only in Clackamas (+15.4%) and Multnomah (+2.4%). In Washington and Yamhill counties, employment in this industry was unchanged from the year prior. The March preliminary unemployment for the combined five-county Portland area was 11.4 percent. The rate is six percentage points higher than the year prior. Willamette Valley Employment Declines: Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion, and Polk counties 32
The Willamette Valley showed mixed employment trends in 2008. It posted moderate year-overyear growth in the first two quarters, followed by stagnant growth in the third quarter, and then an over-the-year decline in the fourth quarter of nearly two percent. In the first quarter of 2009, employment in the Willamette Valley was down 3.6 percent from the year prior. By county, year-over-year employment declines ranged from 2.1 percent in Benton to 5.4 percent in Lane during the first quarter. Marion and Polk's combined rate (-2.2%) was very similar to Benton's, while Linn County (-4.0%) was in-between. The declines were noticeably more severe than in the fourth quarter, when employment was down 0.2 to 3.4 percent from the year prior. As of March 2009, several industries showed year-over-year employment declines in all five Willamette Valley counties. With losses of more than 15 percent in every county, construction was one such industry. Manufacturing showed declines ranging from 5.9 percent in Linn County to 27.5 percent in Lane County. The significant decline in Lane County's manufacturing employment was primarily due to the widely-publicized closing of the Hynix Semiconductor plant in Eugene and large layoffs at Coburg-area RV manufacturing companies such as Monaco Coach. Despite the overall declines, there were a few bright spots in March. Employment in private education and health services was up over the year in every county, with an increase of 2 percent in Benton and in Marion and Polk counties, about 3 percent in Linn County, and nearly 4 percent in Lane County. State government employment was also a source of strength among most counties in the Valley, with growth as high as 3.4 percent in the Salem metropolitan area. The Valley's preliminary unemployment rate was 13.1 percent in March ­ more than double the rate one year prior, when it was 5.8 percent. Coastal Oregon Counties Show Mixed Trends: Clatsop, Coos, Curry, Lincoln, and Tillamook counties Employment in Oregon's coastal counties declined year-over-year in 2008, falling by a total of nearly one percent from 2007. In the first quarter of 2009, employment was down 2.6 percent from the year prior. Oregon's coastal counties experienced year-over-year employment declines ranging from 1.2 percent in Clatsop to 4.6 percent in Lincoln during the first quarter. Both Coos and Tillamook counties were down 2.1 percent from the first quarter of 2008, while Curry's employment was down 3.5 percent. Employment also declined in every county during the fourth quarter of 2008. As of March, employment in the construction industry was down over the year in every coastal county. Losses ranged from nearly 10 percent in Tillamook and Lincoln to 22.4 percent in Clatsop. The small mining and logging industry also experienced noteworthy employment declines from one year earlier in two coastal counties: Coos (-60 jobs) and Clatsop (-50). 33
One bright spot in every county was federal government employment; it was higher than the year prior by as much as 40 jobs in Clatsop County. Education and health services employment was also higher in three of the five coastal counties, with increases from 1.3 percent (30 jobs) to 8.1 percent (160 jobs) since March 2008. The unemployment rate in Oregon's coastal counties was 13.3 percent in March, which is an increase of 6.8 percentage points from one year prior. Southern Oregon Experiences Large Job Losses: Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties Southern Oregon has posted year-over-year employment declines during most of the past two years, with total employment declining 3 percent from 2007 to 2008. In the first quarter of 2009, employment was down more than 4 percent from one year prior. By county, southern Oregon's year-over-year employment declines in the first quarter were 5.5 percent in Douglas, 3.7 percent in Jackson, and 3.2 percent in Josephine. The only county to experience a year-over-year employment gain in the past two years was Jackson, which last saw growth in third quarter of 2007. Douglas and Josephine last saw an over-the-year gain in the fourth quarter of 2006. In March, several industries showed significant employment declines over the year in all three southern Oregon counties: manufacturing, construction, and wholesale trade. These three industries accounted for about 19 percent of the region's employment in March 2008, but only 17.5 percent in March 2009. Additionally, both Douglas and Jackson posted large declines in mining and logging (-13.6% and -11.9%, respectively), Josephine County, however, showed growth of 20 jobs in this sector (+7.7%). Educational and health services ­ usually a source of growth, even in economic downturns ­ was almost unchanged in Josephine County but grew in Douglas (+1.3%) and Jackson (+2.2%) counties. The only other industries to show over-the-year employment gains in March were in the public sector. At 16.2 percent, southern Oregon had one of the highest unemployment rates in the state in March. The rate was 7.7 percentage points higher than the year prior. Central Oregon Job Losses Worsen: Crook, Deschutes, Gilliam, Hood River, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Sherman, Wasco, and Wheeler counties Much like southern Oregon, Central Oregon saw year-over-year employment declines throughout 2008. In the first quarter of 2009, employment was down 4.2 percent from the year prior. Central Oregon's diverse counties showed a wide range in their year-over-year rates of decline. Sherman County's employment in the first quarter was just 0.7 percent lower than one year 34
earlier. Crook County, with a decline of 12.2 percent from the year prior, had the steepest loss of any county in the state. Despite these extremes, the rates of decline otherwise fell between Wheeler's 1.2 percent loss and the 5.9 decline in both Gilliam and Jefferson counties. Over-the-year employment changes in March varied significantly by county. Leisure and hospitality employment, for instance, showed growth in Deschutes, Jefferson, Sherman, and Wheeler counties, but declined in Crook, Gilliam, Hood River, and Lake. Just two industries showed somewhat consistent declines across central Oregon's counties: manufacturing and construction. Manufacturing employment dipped in at least six of the ten counties, and the rate of decline was generally in the double digits. Construction employment was also lower over the year in nearly every county. Most counties posted over-the-year growth in some portion of public-sector employment. Generally, government employment growth ranged from one to three percent. In March, Central Oregon's unemployment rate was the highest in the state, at 16.4 percent. The rate is 8.4 percentage points higher than the rate one year prior, giving central Oregon yet another distinction: the highest year-over-year increase in the unemployment rate. Eastern Oregon Loses Employment in Most Counties: Baker, Grant, Harney, Malheur, Morrow, Umatilla, Union, and Wallowa counties Eastern Oregon experienced moderate year-over-year employment declines throughout 2008. In the first quarter of 2009, employment was down 1.3 percent from one year prior. This was only half the size of the next-largest regional percentage decline. Employment in Morrow County grew an impressive 6.8 percent from the first quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009. It is the only county in the state with noteworthy total employment growth. The only other Oregon county showing employment growth in the first quarter is also in eastern Oregon: Malheur, with a modest 0.2 percent increase over the year. In March, Morrow posted employment growth in several industries, including mining and logging, wholesale trade, and federal government. In all, the county had nearly 200 more jobs than the year prior. Malheur's growth was entirely due to increased local government employment, which was up nearly four percent from the year prior. In the remaining eastern Oregon counties, over-the-year employment declines ranged from 1.2 percent in Umatilla to 5.4 percent in Harney. In March, the industries in decline varied by county. The one exception was manufacturing, which showed lower employment over the year in every county. The worst decline was in Harney County, where manufacturing employment has almost disappeared, having declined 94 percent since March 2008. One bright spot among the declines was private educational and health services, where employment increased over the year in every county but Harney. The largest growth in this industry was in Umatilla County, where employment is up by 100 (+3.7%) from one year prior. 35
Eastern Oregon's March unemployment rate was just over 13 percent. Although the rate is somewhat high, the increase since March 2008 was the smallest increase of any region in the state, at 5.7 percentage points. Information on employment in Oregon's 15 workforce regions and 36 counties is available at www.QualityInfo.org. For more information, contact Brooke Jackson-Winegardner, economist, [email protected], 503-947-1263. 36
Figure O.2
Oregon Index of Leading Indicators
(Six-Month Annualized Percent Change, through March 2009)
30%
9%
20%
6%
10%
3%
0%
0%
-10%
-3%
-20%
-6%
Recession in Oregon
-30%
-9%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Leading Index (L)
Diffusion Index <50
Nonfarm Employment(R)
For the six months ending in March 2009, the Oregon Index of Leading Indicators3 decreased an annualized 8.2 percent, following a revised 13.1 percent decline the prior month. This represents the 30th time in the past 33 months the index has been negative, but for the first time since July 2008, the index ceased to decline at an increasing rate ­ the second derivative has turned positive. Even with 9 out of the 10 indicators registering negative values, the Index is reflecting the fact that the economic data is no longer in a free fall. Unemployment Insurance Claims, the US Dollar Index, Housing Permits, the Purchasing Managers Index and the Semiconductor Book-to-Bill ratio, while are all still declining, are now indicating less bad news for future economic activity. The interest rate spread continues to be the only positive indicator and New Incorporations have turned negative after a brief uptick in early 2009. The overall Index remains negative, indicating a continuation of the Great Recession in the near future; however, the slight improvement may provide another glimmer of hope for an economic recovery on the horizon.
3 The OILI applies the Conference Board's methodology for the U.S. National Leading Index to Oregon-specific components. The ten components incorporated in the OILI include: Semiconductor book-to-bill ratio, Oregon housing permits, Institute for Supply Management's purchasing managers index, spread between 10-year treasury bond and Federal Funds rates, University of Michigan consumer sentiment index, Oregon withholding, Board of Governors of the Federal System Dollar index (Broad), new Oregon incorporations, Oregonian help-wanted index, and initial Oregon unemployment claims. 37
Short-Term Outlook Overview "Hope springs eternal..." so wrote Alexander Pope in 1733. And as spring moves us out of the harshness of winter, signs that this recession may be coming to an end are slowly appearing. Although Paul Krugman warns us not to be too giddy, evidence of "green shoots" and "glimmers of hope" are making their way into the economic data. On the national front, there are a number of hopeful signs. Retail sales stopped their six month declines with small rises in January and February, though March and April were down. Chain store same store sales showed signs of recovering from the dismal holiday shopping season. Real personal consumer spending growth registered in positive territory for the first quarter of this year. Even vehicle sales managed to slightly bounce up at the start of the year. The federal stimulus package and lower commodity prices (especially energy) will help consumer spending. As households refinance their mortgages, the reduced monthly payments provide more budget for other spending needs. Financial markets are giving up some of their pessimism and extreme hedges against risk. The stock market as of early May has gained 25 percent from the low of early March. Financial stocks have risen on more promising financials from commercial banks. Changes to the markto-market accounting rules will help strengthen balance sheets. Credit risk spreads are well down from their highs at the end of last year and credit is flowing more easily. Local and municipal bond markets have opened back up allowing more tax anticipation notes to manage cash flows for state and local governments. Housing sales, though many due to short sales and foreclosures, are stabilizing. With housing price declines and mortgage rates falling below 5 percent, housing affordability is rapidly rising. Credit availability is improving through the Federal Housing Administration. The first-time buyer incentives from the federal government will also help sales. The ISM manufacturing index has moved up for the first three months of 2009. Business new orders are up while inventories have been coming down. Although new orders are coming off a very low level and inventories relative to sales may have further to fall, these are the signs one looks for when manufacturing should bottom out. The G-20 meetings promised to implement programs to stabilized international markets. Hopefully this coordinated effort of central bank and federal fiscal policies will bolster trade and calls for protectionism. The one major area yet to see some slowing is the decline in jobs. Initial unemployment claims are still rising and the unemployment rate continues to climb at a rapid rate. The labor market generally is last to show signs of bottoming out. And the positive signs above point to the proverbial "light at the end of the tunnel", though in this case, the signs are that the free fall is coming to an end; we are reaching the bottom of the pit. So while spring time is upon us, the growth from the "green shoots" will not appear until we are well into 2010. 38
The signs that Oregon's economic decline are coming to an end are harder to read. The March job drop was less than February but still over 10,000. The unemployment rate jumped a historical 1.4 percentage points from February to March; up to 12.1 percent to match the highest monthly rate during the early 1980's recession. The Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank State Coincidence Indicator for Oregon was declining at faster rates since June 2008. February marked the first month that the decline has slowed, though the drop is still one of the largest in the data which goes back to January 1979. Some regions of Oregon are seeing housing inventory levels easing, though once again, they are still at very high levels. House price declines are either not as sharp or accelerating depending on the measure used and timeliness of the data. The bottom line, Oregon has less signals of seeing the end of this recession but should mirror the US business cycle. OEA (Office of Economic Analysis ­ Oregon) forecasts a decline of 6.5 percent in total employment for the second quarter of 2009. The year average for 2009 is an employment decline of 5.3 percent. Job growth is negative at 0.7 percent in 2010 but with job gains starting in the second quarter through the end of the year. The Oregon economy does not see above 2 percent job growth until the first quarter of 2011.
Table O.2 Oregon Total Nonfarm Employment and Personal Income Growth
Forecaster
Date of Forecast
Moody's Economy.com
December 2008
IHS Global Insight
March 2009
Wells Fargo & Co.
March 2009
John Mitchell
March 2009
Conerly Consulting
March 2009
Portland General Electric
March 2009
OEA
April 2009
Consensus*
March 2009
*Consensus forecast from Western Blue Chip forecast
Employment 2009 2010 2011 -1.6 0.9 2.6 -3.0 0.8 1.9 -3.7 0.3 N/A -3.0 1.5 N/A -5.5 0.9 N/A -1.6 1.6 N/A -5.3 -0.7 2.0 -2.7 0.9 N/A
Personal Income 2009 2010 2011 2.6 3.9 4.7 0.8 3.0 4.6 1.3 2.3 N/A 2.5 5.0 N/A 0.9 3.8 N/A 2.6 5.1 N/A 0.2 2.1 4.6 2.1 3.8 N/A
Table O.2 compares OEA's forecast to other published forecasts. Both Moody's Economy.com and IHS Global Insight follow a similar path to OEA. We believe that once Moody's Economy.com updates their forecast, it will be more similar to OEA. The local forecasters (Wells Fargo, John Mitchell, Conerly Consulting, Portland General Electric) are also similar to OEA with recessionary conditions in 2009 followed by mild recovery in 2010.
Employment paths are in the same direction, and with the exception of Conerly in 2009, OEA has the most pessimistic outlook. OEA also has the most pessimistic outlook for personal income compared to the national and local forecasters. The common thread among all forecasts is improvement in 2010 extending into 2011.
39
Table O.3 Oregon Forecast Summary Quarterly 2009:1 2009:2
2009:3
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Personal Income ($ billions)
Nominal Personal Income % change Real Personal Income (base year=2000) % change Nominal Wages and Salaries % change
136.0 (1.9) 112.2 (1.0) 72.1 (5.6)
136.9 2.6 113.1 3.3 71.5 (3.2)
136.4 (1.4)
123.9 131.3
8.3
6.0
112.6 (1.7)
108.0 111.6
5.4
3.3
71.3 (1.3)
67.9 71.6
6.8
5.5
Other Indicators
136.3 3.8 112.1 0.4 73.4 2.6
136.5 0.2 112.7 0.5 71.6 (2.5)
139.3 2.1 113.6 0.8 72.3 1.0
145.7 4.6 116.8 2.8 75.4 4.2
153.6 5.4 121.0 3.6 79.7 5.7
162.0 5.5 125.2 3.5 84.3 5.9
170.3 5.1 129.2 3.1 88.7 5.2
178.8 5.0 133.0 3.0 92.9 4.8
Per Capita Income ($1,000) % change Average Wage rate ($1,000) % change Population (Millions) % change Housing Starts (Thousands) % change
35.6 (2.8)
35.7 35.5 1.5 (2.7)
33.5 35.0 35.9 35.6 35.9 37.1 38.7 40.3 41.8 43.3
6.6
4.5
2.6
(0.9) 0.9
3.4
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.7
43.0
43.4 43.6
39.4 40.9 42.2 43.4 44.2 45.1 46.3 47.8 49.3 50.9
2.8
3.5
1.8
3.9
3.8
3.2
2.9 1.7
2.1
2.7
3.2
3.2 3.1
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8 3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.1 4.1
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.9 1.0
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2 1.2
8.6
6.3
6.3
(41.7) (71.5) 3.5
27.6 22.0 12.8
7.0 9.3 14.1 19.2 22.3 23.4 24.4
(10.8) (20.5) (41.7) (45.3) 32.4 52.5 35.7 16.4
5.1 3.9
Employment (Thousands)
Total Nonfarm % change Private Nonfarm % change Construction % change Manufacturing % change Durable Manufacturing % change Wood Product Manufacturing % change High Tech Manufacturing % change Transportation Equipment % change Nondurable Manufacturing % change Private nonmanufacturing % change Retail Trade % change Wholesale Trade % change Information % change Professional and Business Services % change Health Services % change Leisure and Hospitality % change Government % change
1,659.0 (8.2) 1,357.8 (10.0) 82.9 (24.2) 177.3 (21.5) 125.3 (25.7) 23.2 (33.5) 35.9 (13.6) 11.4 (34.5) 52.0 (10.3) 1,180.6 (8.0) 187.3 (7.4) 75.9 (11.7) 34.9 (8.6) 185.8 (8.7) 192.5 1.4 168.7 (9.4) 301.2 0.5
1,631.3 1,618.6 (6.5) (3.1)
1,331.6 1,321.6 (7.5) (3.0)
77.4 75.3 (24.3) (10.4)
168.7 162.8 (18.1) (13.2)
118.5 113.8 (20.2) (14.8)
21.9 20.9 (20.0) (17.0)
34.1 32.7 (18.5) (15.0)
10.7 10.4 (23.7) (10.2)
50.2 (13.0)
48.9 (9.6)
1,163.0 1,158.8 (5.8) (1.4)
183.8 182.9 (7.2) (2.0)
74.9 (5.2)
74.7 (0.7)
34.1 (8.5)
33.9 (2.0)
182.3 181.0 (7.3) (2.8)
194.0 195.6
3.1
3.4
166.0 165.4 (6.1) (1.4)
299.6 297.1 (2.0) (3.4)
1,703.5 1,731.4 1,721.2 1,630.4 1,619.2 1,652.3 1,700.2
3.0
1.6 (0.6) (5.3) (0.7) 2.0
2.9
1,417.4 1,441.7 1,422.3 1,331.7 1,321.1 1,355.3 1,401.7
3.5
1.7 (1.3) (6.4) (0.8) 2.6
3.4
100.9 104.2
11.0
3.3
94.7 77.3 70.3 70.0 74.2 (9.2) (18.3) (9.0) (0.4) 5.9
207.3 204.1 195.1 166.9 157.7 163.3 170.5
1.7 (1.6) (4.4) (14.5) (5.5) 3.5
4.4
154.7 150.9 142.4 117.1 110.2 115.2 121.3
1.7 (2.5) (5.6) (17.8) (5.9) 4.6
5.3
32.4 30.0 27.0 21.7 21.2 22.6 24.3
(0.8) (7.5) (9.8) (19.8) (2.2) 6.7
7.6
41.9 40.7 38.9 33.5 32.1 34.4 36.9
1.5 (2.9) (4.5) (13.7) (4.4) 7.3
7.4
18.3 17.4 14.9 10.7 10.2 10.5 11.0
2.1 (5.1) (14.6) (28.0) (5.0) 3.4
4.9
52.6 53.2 52.7 49.8 47.6 48.1 49.1
1.6
1.1 (0.8) (5.5) (4.6) 1.1
2.2
1,210.1 1,237.6 1,227.1 1,164.8 1,163.3 1,192.0 1,231.2
3.8
2.3 (0.8) (5.1) (0.1) 2.5
3.3
197.4 200.7 196.7 184.5 187.1 190.8 195.6
2.0
1.7 (2.0) (6.2) 1.4
2.0
2.5
79.9 80.8 80.0 75.0 74.1 75.0 78.1
2.6
1.2 (1.1) (6.2) (1.2) 1.2
4.1
34.9 36.0 36.1 34.1 32.7 33.9 33.9
3.7
3.3
0.4
(5.7) (4.0)
3.6
0.2
194.4 197.3 195.7 182.0 181.2 194.4 208.2
4.8
1.5 (0.8) (7.0) (0.4) 7.3
7.1
176.8 182.8 189.6 194.8 201.2 206.4 209.7
3.0
3.4
3.7
2.7
3.3
2.6
1.6
165.0 171.9 173.7 166.4 165.8 167.3 171.2
3.7
4.2
1.1
(4.2) (0.3)
0.9
2.3
286.1 289.7 298.9 298.7 298.1 297.0 298.5
0.4
1.3
3.2
(0.1) (0.2) (0.4)
0.5
1,744.5 2.6 1,442.9 2.9 79.3 7.0 176.0 3.2 125.7 3.6 25.2 3.4 38.3 3.7 11.7 6.4 50.3 2.4 1,266.9 2.9 201.4 3.0 80.9 3.5 34.2 0.7 217.0 4.3 213.7 1.9 174.9 2.2 301.6 1.0
1,777.7 1,805.8 1.9 1.6
1,473.7 1,499.7 2.1 1.8
83.0 85.4 4.6 2.8
180.3 183.7 2.5 1.9
128.8 131.2 2.5 1.8
25.7 25.6 1.9 (0.2)
38.4 38.9 0.3 1.4
12.4 12.8 5.7 3.4
51.5 52.6 2.4 2.1
1,293.4 1,315.9 2.1 1.7
205.2 208.5
1.9
1.6
82.9 84.6
2.5
2.0
34.5 34.7
0.9
0.6
223.7 229.4
3.1
2.6
218.4 223.1
2.2
2.2
177.9 180.8
1.7
1.6
304.0 306.2
0.8
0.7
40
Goods Producing Sectors [References to specific businesses and organizations are from public news sources and from compiled news items published in Around the State, Workforce Analysis Section, Oregon Employment Department.] The wood products industry continues to be battered by the recession. The Random Lengths Composite Price (Random Lengths Publications, March 2009) for lumber is $195 per thousand feet compared to $199 per thousand feet in February and $239 per thousand feet in March 2008. Historical low housing starts and lowered world demand have continued to bring down lumber prices. The Western Wood Products Association estimates U.S. lumber demand will be 28.9 billion board feet in 2009, 30 percent less than 2008 totals. They project western lumber production to decrease 26 percent this year to 9.7 billion board feet. The report states: "That volume is the lowest since the 1930s and represents a little more than half the volume Western mills produced five years earlier." A modest upturn is expected in 2010. Closures and work stoppage continue throughout the sector. Swanson Group Manufacturing's stud mill in Roseburg has furloughed 78 workers. Weyerhaeuser closed its plant in Dallas impacting 78 employees and in Warrenton laid off 59 employees. Southport Lumber Co. laid off 22 workers in Coos Bay's North Spit. Swanson Group will lay off 45 workers in Roseburg, 43 in Glendale, and 23 at other locations. Interfor Pacific shut down its timber mill in Gilchrist laying off 70 employees. Boise Cascade ended a second shift in Elgin laying off 30 employees. Hampton Affiliates cut back operations in Tillamook laying off 85 workers. This industry is projected to lose jobs at a rate of -19.0 percent in 2009 and -2.2 percent in 2010 before a rebound of 6.7 percent growth in 2011. The computer and electronic equipment sector is projected to lose jobs this year and the first quarter of 2010. The semiconductor equipment book-to-bill ratio moved up to 0.61 in March from 0.49 in February. This is still at very low levels with bookings down 76 percent and billings down 66 percent from a year ago. Research firm, Gartner, projects worldwide semiconductor revenue to decline 24.1 percent this year compared to 2008. The Semiconductor Industry Association reports that firms reacted quickly to the downturn and scaled back capacity and inventories. Hewlett-Packard in Corvallis announced a downsizing of facilities with about 250 workers being laid off. In a related industry, iSuppli projects worldwide photovoltaic (PV) installations to fall by 32 percent in 2009 due to overcapacity, plunging prices, and weak demand from the global recession. The report also estimates that strong growth will return in 2011. In Hillsboro, plans are still underway for SolarWorld to expand facilities. This sector is projected to lose jobs at the rate of 13.7 percent in 2009, 4.4 percent in 2010, before adding jobs at 7.3 percent in 2011. The recession has been especially harsh for the transportation equipment sector. The recreational vehicle (RV) manufacturers have dramatically curtailed production and some have stopped operations. Fleetwood Enterprises is closing their travel trailer plants in Pendleton and La Grande impacting over 400 workers. Country Coach of Junction City has laid off 460 workers, returning around 100 to finish work by the end of April. Marathon Coach in Coburg has cut production and employs around one-third as many workers as a year ago. Also in Coburg, Monaco Coach is expected to shut down operations, continuing lay offs of over 2,000 employees including 105 workers in Burns. North River Marine, maker of aluminum boats, closed its plant in Green laying off 100 workers. Cessna in Bend has announced the closer of its airplane 41
manufacturing plant laying off 200 workers this summer. Greenbrier Cos. of Lake Oswego, maker of railcars, cut jobs and lowered wages. One piece of news on the bright side is that addition of 18 workers at Supreme Northwest, a bus factory in Woodburn. Hard times will persist for this sector with job losses of 28.0 percent in 2009 and 5.0 percent in 2010 before growth of 3.4 percent returns in 2011. The metals and machinery sector was one of the last manufacturing sectors to lose jobs as we entered this recession. The loss of jobs was immediate and deep. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills in McMinnville will lay off an additional 76 workers after laying off 73 employees last December. Evraz Inc. of Portland will lay off 225 workers at its spiral pipe and steel mill. This sector is projected to lose 18.4 percent of jobs in 2009 and 14.9 percent jobs in 2010. Job losses are expected to end in 2011 with 0.9 percent growth. Other durable good manufacturers, which includes furniture makers, has also been hit by the housing downturn and broader recession. MasterBrand Cabinets cut 136 jobs at its Grants Pass plant. A-dec Inc., maker of dental equipment, laid off 100 workers at its Newberg facility. JeldWen will lay off 50 workers at its headquarters in Klamath Falls. This sector will reduce jobs by 14.6 percent in 2009 but return to positive growth of 1.8 percent in 2010 and 3.5 percent in 2011. Employment in food processing is forecast to increase 0.4 percent in 2009, the only sector covered in the manufacturing sector projected to add jobs this year. Employment is expected to decline 5.3 percent in 2010 and remain flat in 2011. This sector is subject to wide employment swings due to seasonal factors. RainSweet in West Salem is closing its onion processing operation impacting 118 workers. Other nondurables, which includes paper and allied products, is projected to have job declines of 10.4 percent in 2009 and 3.9 percent in 2010 before adding jobs in 2011 at 2.1 percent. Construction employment is projected to decrease annually by 18.3 percent in 2009, 9.0 percent in 2010, and 0.4 percent in 2011. Single-family residential construction continues to be hard hit by the declining housing market. Single-family building permits are down 47.8 percent year to date for March 2009. The nonresidential side of construction is now also impacted by the broader recession. Grubb & Ellis report deteriorating conditions for office and industrial real estate in the Portland area in the first quarter of 2009. These numbers would even be worse if not for the construction projects from the Federal and State stimulus packages. Service Producing Sectors Trade, transportation, and utilities sector employment will decrease by 6.5 percent during 2009 followed by increases of 0.5 percent growth in 2010 and 1.8 percent growth in 2011. Portland International Airport reports passenger traffic was down 15.7 percent in the first quarter of 2009 compared to the same period a year ago. With the drop in consumer spending, retail trade has lost jobs. A number of retail concerns, from furniture to grocery, from automotive to boats, have recently downsized or closed. With the bankruptcy of its parent company, Joe's Sports, Outdoors and More is liquidating merchandise at 31 stores in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Joe's distribution center in Wilsonville will also lose 190 positions. Retail jobs are projected to decrease 6.2 percent in 2009 and increase 1.4 percent in 2010 and 2.0 percent in 2011. 42
The information sector, which includes traditional publishers such as newspapers and publishers of software, is being impacted from the slowing retail sector as advertising has decreased. A number of newspapers have announced lay offs, pay cuts, and furlough days for workers. This sector is expected to contract by 5.7 percent in 2009 and by 4.0 percent in 2010. Job growth should pick up in 2011 with growth of 3.6 percent. The fragile stability of the financial sector came into stark awareness during the closing months of 2008. Two banks in Oregon closed in February: Silver Falls Bank in Silverton and Pinnacle Bank in Beaverton, the first such closures in Oregon since 1991. As a sign of the times, LoanRefine, a loan-modification company that works with distressed borrowers, has opened in Bend. Financial activities are projected to lose jobs at 4.6 percent rate in 2009 with very mild growth of 0.6 percent in 2010. Growth continues in 2011 with job gains of 2.1 percent. Professional and business services are projected to decline 7.0 percent in 2009, a slight drop of 0.4 percent in 2010, and return to positive growth of 7.3 percent in 2011. As Verizon Wireless will close a call center in Bend laying off 49 workers, TRG Customer Solutions in Bend will expand with possibly adding 350 people. Education and health services has generated jobs better than any other sector. But this recession is testing its ability to keep generating high job growth rates. Cascade Healthcare Community Inc., located in Bend, will lay off 74 people and reduce hours for 45 other workers. Asante Health Systems of Medford plans to cut 94 jobs in southern Oregon. Lower Umpqua Hospital in Reedsport will lay off 15 people. Rather than sustain its plus three percent growth rate of past years, this sector's jobs will grow 2.9 percent in 2009, 2.8 percent in 2010, and 2.2 percent in 2011. Leisure and Hospitality is projected to decline 4.2 percent in 2009, a slight decline of 0.3 percent in 2010, and grow 0.9 percent in 2011. Just as the retail sector has been hit by the decline in household discretionary spending, this sector is also feeling the loss of business and household customers. The government sector will decline by 0.1 percent in 2009, 0.2 percent in 2010, and 0.4 percent in 2011. The drop in tax revenues is causing budget shortfalls at the state and local government levels. State government is in the process of layoffs and furlough days with more planned for the second half of the year. Local government districts in Coos Bay, Grants Pass, Lebanon, Ashland, Clackamas County, Multnomah County, Marion County, Salem, Tillamook County, Eagle Point, Baker, Elgin, to name a few are facing budget shortfalls and pending layoffs. Local government employment is projected to fall 0.4 percent in 2009 and then very mild growth of 0.5 percent in 2010 and 0.9 percent in 2011. Population growth will slow to 0.9 percent in 2009 increasing by 1.0 perfect in 2010 and 1.2 percent in 2011. 43
Personal Income Components OEA forecasts that personal income will grow 0.2 percent in 2009, followed by growth of 2.1 percent in 2010. The growth rate has dramatically slowed along with the economy. The growth rate for personal income does not pick up again until the fourth quarter of 2010. Wage and salary income will decline 2.5 percent in 2009, and mildly grow 1.0 percent in 2010. This income component follows the employment forecast and starts to improve in the latter part of 2010. Appendix A provides the forecast of various personal income components. Nonfarm proprietors' income, which includes income of small businesses, will decline 0.9 percent in 2009, followed by growth of 3.6 percent in 2010. Transfer payments get a boost in the second quarter of 2009 due to the federal stimulus package. Other personal income components follow the national forecast with slow or negative growth in 2009 and improvements in 2010. Per capita income in Oregon will stay slightly below the U.S. average throughout the forecast horizon. Oregon's economy is expected to grow faster than the U.S. economy, with Oregon's total personal income growing at about the same rate as the nation's. Most job gains will come from the nonmanufacturing sector of the private economy. But Oregon's population growth will be higher than the nation's. As a result, per capita income in Oregon will not appreciatively lose ground compared to the U.S. average. 44
Forecast Changes Relative to the March 2009 Forecast Table O.4 provides a summary of forecast changes compared to the March 2009 forecast. Personal income was lowered further for all years, starting in 2008 to reflect the slower Oregon employment growth. Additionally, the Bureau of Economic Analysis downwardly revised the previous five quarters of Oregon personal income through the third quarter of 2008, including farm income, a the small component, being reduced by more than half. The main reason for the lowering of the forecast is due to the substantially weaker outlook for the economy. OEA also revised down employment numbers 1.0 percent in 2009, 1.8 percent in 2010, and 1.9 percent in 2011. This was due to the very weak economic outlook, lower job counts for the first quarter of 2009 and a lower national employment forecast. Housing starts were raised 4.6 percent in 2009 due to an exceptionally pessimistic forecast in March 2009. Even with the raised forecast, OEA still expects housing starts in 2009 to remain the lowest on record, falling even further than 1982 when only 7,200 houses were constructed. The forecast also lowers housing starts in 2010 and 2011 as the downturn is expected to last longer and be drawn out over the medium term. OEA does not anticipate housing to rebound sharply as the economy begins to recover. Residential building permits in Oregon continue to be down significantly, even from deflated 2008 levels. Housing starts do not recover until 2013 when they reach their historical long run average of around 21,000 per year. The manufacturing outlook is lowered in 2009 through 2013. The downward revision reflects the lower first quarter 2009 numbers, lower national outlook and recent industry closures. Durable goods jobs are lowered due to both the job estimate numbers in the first quarter 2009 and the lowered national outlook for industrial production. Private nonmanufacturing has been lowered to reflect the lower first quarter job estimates. The components mainly impacted these changes are the lower outlooks for retail, wholesale, and leisure and hospitality as the economy sours. These sectors reflect lower national outlooks along with lower job estimates in Oregon. The government sector forecast is revised up by 0.1 percent in 2009, down by 0.3 percent in 2010 with further downward revisions of 0.5 percent in 2011 and 0.4 percent in 2012. The slowing economy is expected to impact government employment with a lag compared to private sector employment. The job growth rate in this sector had been relatively mild prior to this forecast. 45
Table O.4 Oregon Forecast Change (Current vs. Last) Quarterly 2009:1 2009:2 2009:3
2006 2007 2008 2009
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Personal Income ($ billions)
Nominal Personal Income % change
136.0 136.9 136.4 (0.3) (0.9) (1.0)
123.9 131.3 136.3 136.5 139.3 145.7 153.6 162.0 170.3 178.8
0.1
0.0
(0.2) (0.9) (1.7) (2.3) (2.4) (2.4) (2.6) (2.9)
Real Personal Income (base year=2000) 112.2 113.1 112.6
% change
(0.9) (1.7) (1.7)
108.0 111.6 112.1 112.7 113.6 116.8 121.0 125.2 129.2 133.0
0.1
0.0
(0.2) (1.6) (2.3) (2.8) (2.9) (2.7) (2.7) (2.8)
Nominal Wages and Salaries % change
72.1 71.5 71.3
0.2
(0.2) (0.5)
67.9 (0.0)
71.6 (0.0)
73.4 (0.1)
71.6 (0.3)
72.3 (1.5)
75.4 (2.2)
79.7 (2.2)
84.3 (2.2)
88.7 92.9 (2.4) (2.6)
Other Indicators
Per Capita Income ($1,000) % change
35.6 (0.9)
35.7 (1.7)
35.5 (1.0)
33.5 35.0 35.9 35.6 35.9 37.1 38.7 40.3 41.8 43.3
0.1
0.0
(0.2) (0.8) (1.6) (2.1) (2.1) (2.2) (2.4) (2.7)
Average Wage rate ($1,000) % change
43.0 43.4 43.6
0.5
0.8
0.9
39.4 40.9 42.2 43.4 44.2 45.1 46.3 47.8 49.3 50.9
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.3
(0.3) (0.6) (0.9) (1.3) (1.7)
Population (Millions) % change
3.816 3.825 3.836
0.4
0.6
(0.2)
3.698 3.751 3.795 3.831 3.870 3.916 3.965 4.014 4.064 4.113
0.2
0.2
0.1
(0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1)
Housing Starts (Thousands) % change
8.6
6.3
6.3
27.6 22.0 12.8
7.0
9.3 14.1 19.2 22.3 23.4 24.4
29.6
0.8
(1.1)
0.0
0.6
0.5
4.6 (13.9) (1.3) 19.8 31.6 33.2 33.7
Employment (Thousands)
Total Nonfarm % change
1,659.0 1,631.3 1,618.6 1,703.5 1,731.4 1,721.2 1,630.4 1,619.2 1,652.3 1,700.2 1,744.5 1,777.7 1,805.8
(0.3) (1.0) (1.3)
(0.0) (0.0)
0.0
(1.0) (1.8) (1.9) (1.6) (1.2) (1.1) (0.9)
Private Nonfarm % change
1,357.8 1,331.6 1,321.6 1,417.4 1,441.7 1,422.3 1,331.7 1,321.1 1,355.3 1,401.7 1,442.9 1,473.7 1,499.7
(0.5) (1.3) (1.6)
(0.0) (0.0)
0.0
(1.3) (2.1) (2.1) (1.8) (1.4) (1.2) (1.0)
Construction % change
82.9 (1.3)
77.4 (4.2)
75.3 (4.0)
100.9 104.2 (0.0) (0.0)
94.7 (0.0)
77.3 (3.2)
70.3 (5.2)
70.0 (7.6)
74.2 (6.3)
79.3 (4.3)
83.0 85.4 (3.2) (2.4)
Manufacturing % change
177.3 168.7 162.8 (1.8) (3.7) (4.9)
207.3 204.1 195.1 166.9 157.7 163.3 170.5 176.0 180.3 183.7 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (4.0) (5.6) (3.8) (2.0) (0.5) 0.6 1.3
Durable Manufacturing % change
125.3 118.5 113.8 (2.7) (5.1) (6.4)
154.7 150.9 142.4 117.1 110.2 115.2 121.3 125.7 128.8 131.2
(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (5.3) (6.7) (4.1) (1.5)
0.5
2.0 3.0
Wood Product Manufacturing % change
23.2 (2.7)
21.9 (4.2)
20.9 (3.2)
32.4 30.0 27.0 21.7 21.2 22.6 24.3 25.2 25.7 25.6
(0.0) (0.0)
0.0
(3.0)
0.1
0.6
2.1
3.0
2.9 1.4
High Tech Manufacturing % change
35.9 34.1 32.7
0.7
(1.7) (4.8)
41.9 40.7 38.9 33.5 32.1 34.4 36.9 38.3 38.4 38.9
(0.0) 0.0
0.0
(3.2) (9.0) (6.7) (3.2)
0.3
2.8 5.9
Transportation Equipment % change
11.4 (4.7)
10.7 (6.8)
10.4 (5.9)
18.3 17.4 14.9 10.7 10.2 10.5 11.0 11.7 12.4 12.8
0.0
(0.0)
0.0
(5.8) (5.2) (6.2) (5.6) (4.9) (4.1) (3.8)
Nondurable Manufacturing % change
52.0 50.2 48.9
0.5
(0.3) (1.4)
52.6 53.2 52.7 49.8 47.6 48.1 49.1 50.3 51.5 52.6
(0.0) 0.0
0.0
(0.8) (2.8) (3.0) (3.0) (2.8) (2.6) (2.5)
Private nonmanufacturing % change
1,180.6 1,163.0 1,158.8 1,210.1 1,237.6 1,227.1 1,164.8 1,163.3 1,192.0 1,231.2 1,266.9 1,293.4 1,315.9
(0.3) (1.0) (1.1)
(0.0) 0.0
0.0
(0.9) (1.6) (1.9) (1.8) (1.5) (1.4) (1.3)
Retail Trade % change
187.3 183.8 182.9 (0.4) (1.2) (2.7)
197.4 200.7 196.7 184.5 187.1 190.8 195.6 201.4 205.2 208.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
(1.9) (3.1) (2.6) (2.3) (1.9) (1.7) (1.5)
Wholesale Trade % change Information % change
75.9 (1.9) 34.9 0.6
74.9 (2.5) 34.1 (0.3)
74.7 (2.6) 33.9 0.8
79.9 (0.0) 34.9 (0.0)
80.8 0.0 36.0 (0.0)
80.0 0.0 36.1 (0.0)
75.0 (2.4) 34.1 0.4
74.1 (3.2) 32.7 (1.5)
75.0 (3.8) 33.9 (2.6)
78.1 (3.1) 33.9 (3.5)
80.9 (2.1) 34.2 (3.8)
82.9 (1.6) 34.5 (3.8)
84.6 (1.4) 34.7 (4.0)
Professional and Business Services % change
185.8 1.7
182.3 1.1
181.0 1.3
194.4 197.3
(0.0)
0.0
195.7 0.0
182.0 1.3
181.2 0.0
194.4 208.2
(0.6)
0.2
217.0 223.7 229.4 (0.2) (0.5) (0.5)
Health Services % change
192.5 194.0 195.6 (0.4) (0.5) (0.3)
176.8 182.8 189.6 194.8 201.2 206.4 209.7 213.7 218.4 223.1
(0.0)
0.0
0.0
(0.4) (0.5) (0.9) (1.4) (1.4) (1.2) (1.0)
Leisure and Hospitality % change
168.7 166.0 165.4 (0.7) (1.5) (1.5)
165.0 171.9 173.7 166.4 165.8 167.3 171.2 174.9 177.9 180.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
(1.3) (1.5) (1.0) (1.5) (1.7) (1.9) (1.9)
Government % change
301.2 299.6 297.1
0.8
0.4
(0.4)
286.1 289.7 298.9 298.7 298.1 297.0 298.5 301.6 304.0 306.2
0.0
(0.0) (0.0)
0.1
(0.3) (0.5) (0.4) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3)
46
Graph O.1
OREGON AND U.S. ECONOMIC FORECASTS
OREGON
U.S.
PERSONAL INCOME
9
8
7
Percent Change
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Percent Change
REAL PERSONAL INCOME 2000 CHAIN WEIGHTED DOLLARS 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Percent Change
NON FARM EMPLOYMENT 5 4 3 2 1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Percent Change
POPULATION 2 1 0.0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Percent Change
MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT 5 0 -5 -10 -15 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Percent Change
PRIVATE NON MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT
6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Employees (000's)
WOOD PRODUCT MANUFACTURING & HIGH TECH MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT 60
55
Wood Product
High Tech Manufacturing
50
45
40
35
30
25
20 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Percent Change
HOUSING PRICES REPEAT PURCHASE INDEX: OREGON VS. U.S. AVERAGE
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
47
Graph O.2
GRAPH O.2 COMPARISON OF LAST THREE FORECASTS Dec 2008 Mar 2009 May 2009
Percent Percen t
PERSONAL INCOME GROWTH 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6
2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997
Alternative Scenarios The baseline forecast is our projection of the most likely outcome for the Oregon economy. As with any forecast, however, other scenarios are possible. The economy could either under- or over- perform relative to our baseline forecast. We broadly call these forecasts the Optimistic and Pessimistic scenarios. While we attach the highest probability to the baseline forecast, these other outcomes are within the realm of possibility. Table O.5 shows the annual summary of alternative scenarios. Figure O.3 shows the quarterly details of alternative scenarios for total nonfarm employment, personal income, manufacturing employment, and private nonmanufacturing employment. The outlook for the U.S. economy has a direct influence on the outlook for the Oregon economy. Global Insight provides alternative forecasts to their baseline forecast that we label "Optimistic" and "Pessimistic." Essentially, the optimistic forecast has stronger growth in the next few years while the pessimistic forecast has weaker growth for the same period. The Governor's Council of Economic Advisors (GCEA) met with OEA to discuss the outlook for the U.S. economy. Members were asked to compare their outlook with that of forecaster Global Insight, whose forecast forms the basis for OEA's Oregon economic model. Generally, GCEA believes the Baseline Scenario has a greater chance of occurrence, with upside and downside risks more balanced. Some members were more pessimistic with greater downside risks both in the near term and in the later outlook. Other members felt Global Insight was too pessimistic, and was underestimating the strength of the recovery. Discussions also centered around the ultimate impacts on the economy from all the rescue packages, whether they will truly jump start the economy to longer term growth or only provide a temporary bump up in economic activity. Still evident is the unknown nature of the direction for the US economy given the extent and depth of the financial meltdown and the equally unprecedented rescue packages of the Federal Reserve and US Treasury. It should be noted that in a consensus forecast of fifty national forecasting firms in the Blue Chips Economic Indicators publication, Global Insight had the second lowest forecast for 2009 and in the bottom 10 forecasters for 2010. Given the risks to the US economic outlook and GCEA views, the forecast for the Oregon economy more closely follows Global Insights baseline scenario rather than reflect more downside risks.
48
Optimistic Scenario: The initial responses by the Federal Reserve and Treasury help the economy avert a financial disaster and the federal stimulus package seals the deal for a solid turnaround. The economy averts a catastrophic downturn but the recession is still a serious one. The stimulus packages kick in earlier and GDP turns in a positive growth for the third quarter of 2009. Economic growth is fueled by stronger total factor productivity, generated by reinvigorated innovation in the Technology Sector. Business investment spending rebounds in 2010 after contracting in 2009. The housing market begins to recover in mid-2009. Worldwide economic growth is faster and export growth recovers after falling through early 2009. In this scenario, Oregon still sees large job losses and only modest income gains. Employment will contract -4.8 percent in 2009, not as strong as the baseline forecast of -5.3 percent. Job growth is relatively flat in 2010 at -0.1 percent. Personal income slows in 2009 to 1.0 percent compared to the baseline growth of just 0.2 percent. Growth improves in 2010 and is six tenths of a percentage higher than the baseline. This reflects the smaller bounce back for the optimistic scenario.
Table O.5
Alternative Scenarios for Oregon Total Employment and Personal Income
Baseline
Compared to Baseline Pessimistic Losses Optimistic Gains
Growth Rates Baseline Pessimistic Optimistic
Total Employment (thousands)
2008 1721.2 2009 1630.4 2010 1619.2
1721.2 1621.7 1600.5
0.0 1721.2 0.0 -8.7 1639.1 8.7 -18.7 1638.3 19.1
-0.6% -5.3% -0.7%
-0.6% -5.8% -1.3%
-0.6% -4.8% -0.1%
2011 1652.3
1628.4 -23.9 1677.0 24.7
2.0%
1.7%
2.4%
Personal Income ($ billions)
2008 136.3
136.3
0.0
136.3 0.0
3.8%
3.8%
3.8%
2009 136.5
135.4
-1.1
137.6
1.1
0.2%
-0.6%
1.0%
2010 139.3
137.2
-2.1
141.4
2.0
2.1%
1.3%
2.7%
2011 145.7
142.9
-2.8
148.4
2.7
4.6%
4.2%
5.0%
Pessimistic Scenario: The financial crisis worsens through 2009, sending the economy into the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Credit conditions do not improve as the economy moves into 2010. Inflation falls due to weak demand, allowing the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates at near 0 percent in 2009 and 2010. When the economy begins to recover, inflation creeps up because of rising energy prices, a slowdown in productivity and a weaker dollar. Housing starts continue to fall in 2009 to their lowest levels since WWII; median prices of existing homes are nearly 14 percent below baseline values in 2010. The loss of wealth associated with falling home prices and a slowdown in job growth causes consumers to retrench sharply. Business investment and capital spending drop for eight straight quarters. Foreign economic growth is weak, cutting into US export growth. Employment declines for eleven straight quarters and real GDP falls for seven quarters, beginning with third quarter 2008. The
49
peak to trough GDP drop is worse than the 1973-75 and 1981-82 recessions which are considered the two worst postwar downturns. Under this economic environment, Oregon's economy worsens with deeper job losses and personal income. Employment declines sharply throughout 2009 and continues to fall in 2010. Manufacturing sheds jobs through 2009 with a mild rebound in the fourth quarter of 2010. Personal income growth suffers, and weak consumer spending does not support jobs in the retail and service sectors. Employment growth stays well below the baseline scenario through 2010.
Figure O.3
(Tho usand s)
1 ,7 50 1 ,7 25 1 ,7 00 1 ,6 75 1 ,6 50 1 ,6 25 1 ,6 00 1 ,5 75 2008:1
Total Nonfarm Employment
Optimistic Base
2008:3
2009:1
2009:3
2010:1
Pessimistic
2010:3
2011:1
2011:3
Manufacturing Employment 2 10 2 00
in Thousand s
1 90 1 80
1 70 1 60 1 50 2008:1
2008:3
Optimistic
Pessimistic 2009:1 2009:3
2010:1
2010:3
2011:1
Base 2011:3
in Thousands
in Billions $
Personal Income 1 54
1 49 1 44 1 39 1 34 2008:1
2008:3
2009:1
2009:3
Optimistic
2010:1
Pessimistic
2010:3
2011:1
Base 2011:3
1,260 1,240 1,220 1,200 1,180 1,160 1,140 2008:1
Private Non-Manufacturing Employment
Optimistic Base
2008:3
2009:1
2009:3
2010:1
2010:3
Pessimistic
2011:1
2011:3
Forecast Risks The US economy is now in the deepest post WWII recession. Oregon is almost there with this recession starting to rival the 1980-1982 recessionary period. Our economies have experienced financial crises in the past, but the breadth of this one is the worst since the Great Depression. When you hear the phrase "we are in uncharted waters", we are reminded that our policy makers are not quite sure what to do. "Uncharted waters" means we have no map to either lead us out of this mess or even know where we are. We do know not to repeat the policy prescriptions during the Great Depression. But the policies for the Great Recession are largely untried with little or no track record. As with our last quarterly forecast, there are both negative and positive risks going forward. The economic situation could get worse or start to turn just as government stimuli kick in and create a
50
robust recovery. The return of the financial sector to some form of normalcy will be key to ending this recession. We will continue to monitor and recognize the potential impacts of risk factors on the Oregon economy. We have identified the major risks now facing the Oregon economy in the list below: · Contagion of the credit crunch and financial market instability. With the freezing up of credit markets, broad based borrowing and lending is very expensive or non-existent. Consumer spending has been greatly curtailed and the stock market has lost 40 percent of its value in 2008, though the stock market has almost regained its losses during 2009. Some signs of credit easing are appearing. If the credit markets do not return soon to some sort of state of normalcy, the current recession could be much deeper and longer than presently projected. Oregon will suffer the consequences along with the rest of the nation. · Prolonged housing market instability. Generally, analysts believe that the housing market has yet to hit bottom, at least in terms of price declines. Though Oregon has been hit hard through this downturn, Oregon's housing market is relatively better off compared to California, Nevada, Florida, and Arizona. Coupled with the recessionary state of the economy, the rise in mortgage rates and heightened credit standards will keep demand for housing relatively low. Rather than the correction of the housing bubble further hurting the Oregon housing market, it will be the deepening recession that causes further home price declines and rising foreclosures. Unlike many parts of the economy, there is an upside risk here as well. If the recession is over sooner than forecasted, Oregon's housing market should revive better than the states who experienced the greater housing market bubbles. · The relative effectiveness of nearly-global government stimulus. The level of government response to the current recession has never been greater. Furthermore, the coordination of central bank actions throughout the world was similarly unprecedented. While the intent was for significant stabilization and growth, it is unknown if these will come to pass. Federal Reserve, US Treasury, and the federal stimulus package may lift this economy out of recession sooner than projected. · The return of federal timber payments to Oregon counties. Included in the federal bailout was a provision to reinstate federal timber payments for four years. Oregon counties will receive $254 million, down from the previous $282 million level and will be phased out over the four year window. While this temporary reinstatement helps cover short term budgets for Oregon counties, finding or replacing this dwindling revenue source will be imperative as any loss of public services could have adverse impacts on economic activity. · The extent of the global downturn triggered by the U.S. slowdown. The U.S. economy has been an important engine of growth for the global economy. As the U.S. economic woes continue, the whole world is being to feel the impact. First, European economic growth slowed considerably, even contracting in places. Then Asian economies began slowing due to their large exposure, via trade, to the U.S. economy. China is a top importer of Oregon products and any slowing of the Chinese economy will adversely impact Oregon exports. To the extent that 51
Oregon major trading partners take longer to recovery compared to the US economy, this could extend the downturn in Oregon. · Appreciation of the U.S. dollar. Along with slowing foreign economies, the recent appreciation of the U.S. dollar has slowed exports from U.S. producers. This is also true for Oregon exports. The extent of the impact from the U.S. dollar may not be as great for Oregon given the expected appreciation of the Chinese Yuan, one of Oregon's major trading partners. Still, the risk is present for a slowing of exports. · National and regional energy prices. The over 60 percent drop in oil prices is bringing relieve to both businesses and households. The near term outlook is also for lower regional prices for natural gas and electricity. This comes at a welcomed time when businesses are looking for cost savings. The benefit from lower energy prices is most likely short-lived as the underlying demand drivers will return once the world economies rebound from this recession. · Geopolitical risks. Uncertainty still abounds in Iraq. Tensions with Iran and heightened security risks weigh on businesses and consumers. Disruptions in travel, oil supplies, and consumer confidence could be severe. The drop in business activity could deepen if this uncertainty persists or if the transition out of the Iraq war goes badly for the U.S. The eventual winding down of military expenses will not greatly impact Oregon. There is also an upside risk that the transition will go more smoothly than anticipated, and stability in the Mideast will provide a stronger than forecasted stimulus to the economy. · H1N1 flu. The "Swine" flu pandemic is still unknown. The disruption to the economy of Mexico has been severe, but other economies so far have not been greatly impacted. Indications to date are for mild disruption and nothing approaching the devastation of the Spanish Flu of 1918-19. · Initiatives, referendums, and referrals. Generally, the ballot box brings a number of unknowns that could have sweeping impacts on the Oregon economy. Extended Outlook The Oregon economy grew slower than the U.S. economy from 1998 through 2003. This has not occurred since 1985. It outpaced the nation in growth in 2004 through 2007. Between 2009 and 2015, employment growth in Oregon will be slower than in the mid-1990s. However, the U.S. economy is expected to have even slower growth than that expected in Oregon. Global Insight projects Oregon's Gross State Product to have the second highest growth rate in the nation over the coming years. The slower economic growth of 1998 through 2003 also slowed the growth of Oregon's per capita income and average wages. The devastating 1980-82 recession slowed the growth of incomes and wages until 1986. In the 1990s, as the Oregon economy became more industrially diversified, per capita income and wages grew faster than the nation's as a whole. Going forward, the Oregon economy is projected to grow faster than the nation's. However, it will take some time for per capita income and average wages to catch up with the national averages. 52
The key factors that will fuel the state's long-term growth are listed below: · Steady in-migration and population growth: High population growth is an opportunity for economic growth as the state creates jobs to serve a growing population. At the same time, it presents a challenge for the state as the demand for services increases. · Export growth and high commodity prices: Global economic expansion will increase demand for Oregon commodities, both finished and capital goods. Oregon is well positioned for trade with countries in the Pacific Rim. High commodity prices will benefit agricultural and timber producers in the state. · Returning high energy prices. Recently, slower demand for oil has caused the gas price spike to fade. However, the long-term growth of the developing world could cause demand to return, creating upward price pressures. We have already seen how high energy prices can slow consumer spending and raise business costs. · Continued strength in domestic markets: Continued economic growth in California and other major domestic markets will fuel demand for Oregon products. · Business costs advantages: The Oregon economy will benefit from a comprehensive energy plan. Efforts which have long been in place for electricity planning should extend to all energy sources. If the plan can assure businesses of an abundant, reliable, and relatively inexpensive supply of electricity and other sources of energy, the state (and the Pacific Northwest) will continue to have a relative energy cost advantage over other regions. Oregon has other business cost advantages, such as lower workers' compensation rates and multimodal transportation options compared to other states. Equally important is an educated work force that contributes to productivity. · Environmental issues: Salmon protection measures, the Portland Super Fund, and other issues could change the economic landscape. · Affordable housing: For most of the late 1990s and the early part of this decade, California, Washington, and the nation as a whole have experienced more rapidly rising housing costs than Oregon. The housing boom once again raised California prices above Oregon's house prices, and Washington kept pace with Oregon. This relative advantage in housing cost is narrowing as prices in California fall faster than in Oregon, with Washington once again keeping pace with Oregon. If housing costs rise faster in Oregon than in the rest of the nation, companies will face increased difficulties recruiting workers. If Oregon can maintain a relative cost advantage in housing, this factor will be attractive for firm location. · Biotechnology and Clean Technology: These sectors are seen by many as the next growth industries. Portland and the State have launched funding plans to promote the biotechnology sector. The platform for the Oregon Business Plan includes nanotechnology as an emerging field for Oregon. It is too early to tell if these are indeed the next growth industries and what returns they may bring. 53
· Renewable Energy and sustainable development: Centered in the Portland area, this movement in sustainable building practices is spreading throughout the U.S. Uncertainty surrounds the number of new jobs associated with this movement, but it may allow gains in market shares for construction and consulting firms in Oregon. Renewable energy such as solar and wind mills are increasing looking to Oregon as a place to locate. · Quality of life: Oregon will continue to attract financially secure retirees. Companies that place a high premium on quality of life will also want to locate in Oregon. Oregon Regional Profile The accompanying tables provide data on regional and county population levels within the state. This section will be a regular feature following the Oregon Economic Review and Forecast. The tables (Table O.6 through O.9) highlight the social, economic, and demographic diversity in the state. Please review these tables in each quarterly issue as they will include updated data every quarter. 54
Table O.6
Oregon's Economic Profile by County and Region
G eo g raph y
2008
2008
To ta l Employm ent Une mployment Rate
2007
2008
Per c ap ita pe rsonal Average wage pe r job
in com e
O reg o n Portland 5-County Clackama s Columbia Mu lt no m ah Was hin g to n Yam hi ll Willamette Valley Benton Lane Linn Marion Polk Coast Clatsop Coos Curry Lincoln Tillamook Southern Douglas Jackson Jos ep hin e C en tr al Crook Desc hutes Gilliam Hood River Jefferson Klamath Lake She rman Was co Wheeler
1,833,374 898,290 189,924 22,689 365,473 275,361 44,843 446,698 41,206 171,888 51,153 145,408 37,043 87,676 19,406 26,033 8,923 21,440 11,874 168,447 41,953 94,500 31,994 152,306 8,960 75,563 1,108 12,560 8,455 28,259 3,301 910 12,601 589
6.4% 5.6% 5.5% 6.9% 5.7% 5.1% 6.3% 6.4% 4.5% 6.6% 7.6% 6.5% 5.5% 6.6% 5.1% 8.1% 7.8% 6.5% 5.4% 9.5% 9.8% 7.7% 9.0% 6.8% 9.6% 8.0% 4.3% 5.3% 9.9% 9.0% 8.5% 5.8% 5.9% 5.8%
$35,143 $39,952 $43,965 $31,828 $40,598 $38,371 $32,290 $31,564 $36,398 $32,877 $28,153 $30,863 $28,370 $30,587 $31,108 $29,087 $31,214 $31,796 $30,862 $31,274 $29,708 $33,516 $27,770 $31,418 $25,158 $35,057 $29,853 $31,792 $24,986 $28,050 $26,571 $28,971 $30,589 $26,549
$40,486 $46,023 $41,145 $33,117 $45,992 $51,134 $34,258 $35,774 $42,384 $35,367 $35,154 $35,513 $29,887 $30,033 $30,864 $30,316 $28,421 $29,281 $30,488 $32,639 $32,925 $33,366 $29,764 $33,489 $34,694 $35,023 $37,513 $30,188 $31,334 $32,193 $31,064 $47,107 $30,531 $24,338
Eastern Baker Grant Harney Malheur Morrow Uma tilla Union Wallowa
79,961 6,927 3,056 3,023 11,959 5,131 35,175 11,328 3,362
7.1% 7.0% 10.3% 9.4% 7.3% 6.2% 6.4% 8.0% 7.5%
$26,617 $25,754 $30,231 $28,238 $21,733 $32,079 $26,535 $28,833 $29,537
$30,888 $28,340 $29,548 $29,461 $28,500 $35,567 $32,451 $30,446 $26,704
Sources: Total employment and unemployment rate: Oregon Employment Department; per capita personal income: U.S. Bureau of Econom ic Analysis; average wage per job: Oregon Employment Department.
55
Table O.7 Oregon's Gross Farm & Ranch Sales By County and Region for 2007 and 2008 (in 1, 000 $)
STATE/COUNTY
Year 2008 Livestock & All Crops Poultry
All Crop & Livestock
Year 2007 Livestock & All Crops Poultry
OREGON
3,496,243 1,387,060
Portland PMSA Clackamas Count Columbia County Multnomah Coun Washington Coun Yamhill County
929,056 307,246 18,870 76,296 282,407 244,237
123,162 56,998 3,999 2,851 19,650 39,664
Willamette Valley Benton County Lane County Linn County Marion C ounty Polk County
1, 029,957 100,108 108,442 237,754 460,896 122,757
287,855 12,466 31,380 58,693 143,153 42,163
Coast Clats op County Coos County Curry County Lincoln County Tillamook Count
101,851 8,980 45,033 34,124 8,998 4,716
149,007 13,595 16,344 3,345 1,845 113,878
Southern Douglas County Jackson County Josephine County
113,137 43,731 55,921 13,485
49,919 20,063 21,508 8,348
Central Crook County Deschutes Count Gilliam County Hood River Coun Jefferson County Klamath County Lake County Sherman County Wasco County Wheeler County
491,816 20,536 16,468 15,855 72,259 55,028 143,544 48,385 40,390 76,798 2,553
258,496 19,363 9,522 9,022 1,200 14,748 157,388 28,669 2,815 6,495 9,274
East ern Baker County Grant County Harney County Malheur County Morrow County Umatilla County Union County Wallowa County
830,426 24,823 7,669 37,320 160,069 195,737 311,587 64,921 28,300
518,621 41,673 38,329 45,024 116,374 175,340 67,374 15,338 19,169
4,883,304 3,452,694 1,371,359
1,052,216 364,243 22,869 79,147 302,057 283,900
978, 862 331, 732 22, 566 82, 676 290, 861 251, 027
125,618 56, 492 4, 002 2, 855 20, 837 41, 432
1,317,811 1,027,157
112,574
97, 801
139,822 107,020
296,447 237,549
604,048 464,235
164,920 120,552
281,067 13, 789 31, 984 57, 466 134, 944 42, 884
250,858 22,575 61,377 37,469 10,843 118,594
89, 012 6, 000 38, 366 28, 889 10, 474 5, 283
148,723 11, 184 16, 890 3, 500 1, 833 115, 316
163,056 63,794 77,429 21,833
130, 241 52, 330 59, 444 18, 467
55,826 21, 979 22, 574 11, 273
750,315 39,899 25,991 24,877 73,459 69,777 300,932 77,054 43,205 83,294 11,827
491, 232 18, 298 14, 985 27, 558 76, 797 44, 285 157, 497 36, 327 43, 416 68, 278 3, 791
242,104 21, 702 10, 441 10, 022 1, 200 9, 855 140, 824 28, 864 2, 974 6, 998 9, 224
1,349,048 66,496 45,998 82,344 276,443 371,078 378,961 80,259 47,469
736, 190 17, 869 6, 152 19, 408 130, 517 176, 075 303, 446 58, 110 24, 613
518,021 49, 279 40, 397 50, 884 131, 639 144, 974 66, 389 16, 563 17, 896
Source: Oregon State University's Oregon Agricultural information network (OAIN), Extension Economic Information Office.
Change All Crop & in total s ales Livestock from 07 to 08
4,824,053 1,104,483 388,225 26,569 85,531 311,698 292,460 1,308,225 111,590 139,004 295,015 599,179 163,437 237,735 17,185 55,256 32,388 12,307 120,599 186,067 74,309 82,018 29,740 733,335 40,000 25,426 37,580 77,997 54,139 298,321 65,191 46,390 75,276 13,015 1,254,208 67,148 46,548 70,291 262,155 321,049 369,835 74,673 42,509
1.2% -4.7% -6.2% -13.9% -7.5% -3.1% -2.9% 0.7% 0.9% 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 0.9% 5.5% 31.4% 11.1% 15.7% -11.9% -1.7% - 12.4% -14.2% -5.6% -26.6% 2.3% -0.3% 2.2% -33.8% -5.8% 28.9% 0.9% 18.2% -6.9% 10.7% -9.1% 7.6% -1.0% -1.2% 17.1% 5.5% 15.6% 2.5% 7.5% 11.7%
56
Table O.8
Oregon's Public Elementary and Secondary School Enrollment Statistics
E nrol lmen t
Oct. 1, 2008 Oct. 1, 2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2007-2008
% eligible for free or Operating expenditure
STATE/COUNTY
enrollment
enrollment
% change reduced price lunch
per student
OREGON Portland PMSA Clackamas Columbia Multnomah Washington Yamhill Willamette Valley Benton Lane Linn Marion Polk Coast Clatsop Coos Curry Lincoln Tillamook Southern Douglas Jackson Josephine Central Crook Deschutes Gilliam Hood River Jefferson Klamath Lake Sherman Wasco Wheeler Eastern Baker Grant Harney Malheur Morrow Umatilla Union Wallowa
564,064 258,943 58,961 8,584 91,062 83,701 16,635 142,480 9,030 46,686 21,325 58,676 6,763 24,719 5,020 8,446 2,575 5,377 3,301 54,684 15,181 28,367 11,136 50,793 3,208 24,578 233 3,973 3,681 10,094 1,103 275 3,450 198 30,285 2,208 1,032 1,187 5,194 2,412 13,551 3,830 871
564,747 258,221 58,812 8,639 90,751 83,385 16,634 142,374 9,064 47,464 20,497 58,584 6,765 24,808 5,119 8,251 2,673 5,433 3,332 55,725 15,537 28,876 11,312 51,301 3,247 24,397 250 3,968 3,787 10,525 1,124 271 3,521 211 30,654 2,286 1,059 1,254 5,372 2,376 13,545 3,886 876
-0. 1% 0. 3% 0.3% -0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0. 1% -0.4% -1.6% 4.0% 0.2% 0.0% -0. 4% -1.9% 2.4% -3.7% -1.0% -0.9% -1. 9% -2.3% -1.8% -1.6% -1. 0% -1.2% 0.7% -6.8% 0.1% -2.8% -4.1% -1.9% 1.5% -2.0% -6.2% -1. 2% -3.4% -2.5% -5.3% -3.3% 1.5% 0.0% -1.4% -0.6%
45.7% 40.1% 31.1% 34.8% 50.0% 35.1% 45.6% 48.8% 35.5% 42.9% 41.3% 58.6% 45.6% 53.7% 46.5% 53.4% 53.4% 58.3% 58.4% 51.1% 53.4% 48.5% 54.5% 50.1% 56.2% 40.4% 42.9% 56.7% 75.6% 61.6% 50.0% 52.0% 46.2% 58.6% 57.8% 54.0% 43.9% 63.4% 66.7% 67.6% 59.0% 42.3% 45.7%
$9,664 $9,569 $8,808 $8,983 $10,728 $9,052 $8,902 $9,594 $9,751 $9,931 $8,517 $9,724 $9,190 $10,628 $10,632 $10,180 $10,200 $10,433 $12,396 $9,296 $9,673 $9,035 $9,446 $9,933 $9,852 $8,793 $19,130 $11,746 $11,349 $10,473 $11,665 $16,106 $10,458 $20,818 $10,217 $11,259 $12,926 $11,598 $10,866 $10,840 $9,398 $9,786 $11,053
Source: Oregon Department of Education Note: Pre-kindergarten enrollment suppressed in October 1 enrollments Operating expenditure per student calculated by dividing school year expenditure by average daily membership (ADM) County/region total do not add to the state total due to county not assigned cases.
57
Table O.9 2008 Annual Average Covered Employment by NAICS Division and by Region
E mp loy ment Natural Resources & Mining Construction Manufa cturing T rade , T ransportation, & Utilities In fo rmat ion Financial Activities Professional & Business Services E ducation & Health Services Leisure & Hospitality Other Services Government T otal
Portland 5- Willamette
Oregon
Co u nt y
Va lley
50,629 92,928 194,859 332,578 36,040 85,984 195,596 212,942 172,798 63,340 277,533
13, 642 48, 758 109, 245 176, 937 22, 150 53, 557 120, 968 109, 741 85, 707 33, 859 115, 999
17,256 19,963 44,046 67,119 6,701 15,276 35,303 50,176 34,447 14,007 81,679
1,716,008 890, 948 386,067
Region
Coast Southern
2,760 3,936 6,866 13,352 803 2,521 4,639 7,446 13,096 2,607 16,064
4,845 7,129 15,174 30,857 2,257 6,055 12,034 21,057 15,743 5,251 23,363
74,100 143,807
Centra l 5,949 8,395 11,657 24,668 2,198 5,386 11,336 16,564 17,329 4,261 22,081 129,890
Eastern 5,957 2,480 7,733 13,934 670 1,949 3,854 6,979 5,839 1,860 18,308 69,580
Di stribution
Portland 5- Willamette
Oregon
Co u nt y
Va lley
Region Coast Southern
Centra l
Natural Resources & Mining Construction Manufa cturing T rade , T ransportation, & Utilities In fo rmat ion Financial Activities Professional & Business Services E ducation & Health Services Leisure & Hospitality Other Services Government
3.0% 5.4% 11.4% 19.4% 2.1% 5.0% 11.4% 12.4% 10.1% 3.7% 16.2%
1.5% 5.5% 12.3% 19.9% 2.5% 6.0% 13.6% 12.3% 9.6% 3.8% 13.0%
4.5% 5.2% 11.4% 17.4% 1.7% 4.0% 9.1% 13.0% 8.9% 3.6% 21.2%
3. 7% 5. 3% 9. 3% 18. 0% 1. 1% 3. 4% 6. 3% 10. 0% 17. 7% 3. 5% 21. 7%
3.4% 5.0% 10.6% 21.5% 1.6% 4.2% 8.4% 14.6% 10.9% 3.7% 16.2%
4.6% 6.5% 9.0% 19.0% 1.7% 4.1% 8.7% 12.8% 13.3% 3.3% 17.0%
T otal
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100. 0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Oregon Employment Department Note: E mployment includes only covered employment. Oregon total inc ludes multi-county employment not shown in individual regions. Total includes a sma ll number of non-classifiable jobs not shown in individual industries.
Definition of regions: Portland 5-County: Clackama s, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill counties. Willamette Valley: Benton, Lane, Linn, M arion, and Polk counties. Coast: Clatsop, Coos, Curry, Lincoln, and Tillamook counties. Southern: Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties. Central: Crook, Deschutes, Gilliam, Hood River, Jefferson, Klamath, L ake, Sherman, Wasco, and Whe eler counties. E astern: Baker, Grant, Harney, Malheur, Morrow, Union, Umatilla, and Wallowa counties.
Eastern 8.6% 3.6% 11.1% 20.0% 1.0% 2.8% 5.5% 10.0% 8.4% 2.7% 26.3% 100.0%
58
II. REVENUE FORECAST A. 2007-09 General Fund Revenues The forecast for General Fund revenues for the 2007-09 biennium is $11,757.9 million, a decrease of $260.6 million from the March 2009 forecast. The decrease is concentrated in personal income taxes, as expectations for income tax receipts related to both capital gains and business income continued to slide rapidly through April. Corporate income tax receipts have exhibited similar weakness. Including the beginning balance of $1,436.7 million, total available resources amount to $12,833.2 million, a decline of $1,305.7 million from the Close of Session forecast. After adjustments for several new laws related to expenditure cuts and revenue increases, the May projections result in a negative ending balance of $351.3 million for the 2007-09 biennium. Table B.1 in Appendix B presents detailed revenue information for the 2007-09 biennium. The protracted slowdown will push still further downward relative to the March forecast in the 2009-11 biennium. The forecast for total General Fund revenue during 2009-11 was reduced by $532.5 million relative to March. The latest revenue forecast for the current biennium represents the most probable outcome given available information. OEA feels that it is important that anyone using this forecast for decisionmaking purposes recognize the potential for actual revenues to depart significantly from this
Table R.1
2007-09 General Fund Forecast Summary
(Millions)
2007 COS Forecast
March 2009 Forecast
Beginning Balance Structural Revenues Personal Income Tax Corporate Income Tax All Oth er Revenues
$1,513.0 $12,347.9 $920.9 $888.5
$1,436.7 $11,456.4 $748.8 $897.5
Gross GF Revenues Total Kicker Refunds/Credits Net GF Revenues
$14,157.3 -$1,164.7 $12,992.6
$13,102.7 -$1,084.2 $12,018.5
Administrative Actions1 Legislative Act ions2 Net Available Resources
-$57.3 -$309.4 $14,138.9
-$42.1 -$319.3 $13,093.8
Confidence Intervals 67% Confidence 95% Confidence
+/- 1.5% +/- 3.0%
1 Reflec ts cost of cashflow management actions, exc lusive of internal borrowing. 2. Equals portion of 2005-07 co rporate surplus designated for Rainy Day Fund.
May 2009 Forecast $1,436.7
Change from Change from Prior Forecast COS Forecast
$0.0
-$76.3
$11,190.1 $686.7 $965.3 $12,842.1 -$1,084.2 $11,757.9 -$42.1 -$319.3 $12,833.2
-$266.3 -$62.1 $67.8 -$260.6 $0.0 -$260.6 $0.0 $0.0 -$260.6
-$1,157.8 -$234.2 $76.8 -$1,315.2 $80.5 -$1,234.7 $15.2 -$9.9 -$1,305.7
$176. 4 $352. 7
$11.58B to $11.93B $11.41B to $12.11B
59
projection. Tables R.1 present the May forecast for the 2007-09 and 2009-11 biennia, including guidelines for budgetary purposes. Section D discusses explicit risks that might cause actual revenues to differ substantially from the forecast. Personal Income Tax Personal income tax collections totaled $1,002.7 million for the third quarter of fiscal year 2009, $59.8 million below the latest forecast. Withholding receipts of $1,129 million fell short of forecast by $65 million. Estimated payments equal to $217.3 million were $30.3 million above forecast. Compared to the year-ago level, estimated payments were down 22.8 percent. For both withholding and estimated payments, these rates of decline are the largest quarterly year-overyear decreases since at least 1993 (records reflect data from 1994 forward). Final payments exceeded forecast by $9.7 million, while refunds were $34.8 million more than expected. Refunds were up 14.8 percent over the prior year level, in part a product of processing efficiencies at the Department of Revenue accelerating the paying of refunds through the tax season. The forecast for total personal income tax receipts during the current biennium is $11,190 million, a decrease of $266.3 million from the prior forecast. This reflects an adjustment for the weaker-than-expected final payments in April, as well as the lower expectations for withholding receipts due to the severe job losses that have characterized early 2009. We further expect that the current weak economic conditions will be both deeper and longer than previously anticipated. The effect on tax receipts will be exacerbated by somewhat limited growth in FY 2011 as the economy slowly recovers. The result is a decrease in receipts ­ $406.9 million ­ relative to the March forecast in the 2009-11 biennium. Corporate Income Tax Corporate income taxes equaled $18.6 million for the third quarter of fiscal year 2009, a shortfall of $0.5 million relative to the March forecast. The third fiscal quarter is a low volume quarter in terms of collections, and is thus subject to significant fluctuations in percentage terms. On a year-over-year basis, corporate receipts were down 70.4 percent. Table B.8 in Appendix B presents a comparison of actual and projected corporate income tax revenues for the third quarter of fiscal year 2009. Following expectations that corporate profits will be severely limited in the near future, the forecast for corporate tax collections has been decreased significantly in the near term. The forecast for the 2007-09 biennium is $686.7 million, a decrease of $62.1 million from the March forecast. Meanwhile, the forecast for the subsequent 2009-11 biennium is $117.4 million lower than was anticipated in March. Non-income Tax Sources of Revenue 60
All other revenues will total $965.3 million for the biennium, an increase of $70 million from the prior forecast. Other than a significant increase due to one-time transfers associated with the passage of Senate Bill 581, the only significant changes were slight decreases in the forecasts for interest earnings and miscellaneous revenues.
B. Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook
Table R.2 exhibits the long-run forecast for General Fund revenues through the 2013-15 biennium. Total structural General Fund revenues will decrease 2.5 percent to $12,517.5 million in 2009-11. This represents a $532.5 million decrease relative to the March forecast. Personal income tax growth of 9.1 percent, which will raise collections to $11,022.9 million, is due entirely to the $1.084 billion kicker rebate distributed in the prior biennium ­ factoring the kicker out results in a modest decline in personal income tax revenue in 2009-11 relative to 2007-09. Corporate income taxes will decline 11.2 percent to $609.7 million, as the economic slowdown in 2008 and 2009 filters through to corporate income tax receipts. All other revenues will reach $884.9 million, mildly below the prior biennium's level. It should be noted that these figures include $62 million in positive indirect impacts resulting from the federal stimulus package enacted on February 18, 2009.
General Fund revenues will total $15,028.8 million in 2011-13, an increase of 20.1 percent from the prior period. The growth is fueled primarily by a 21.1 percent increase in personal income
Table R.2 Gene ral Fund Revenue Forecast Summary (Millions of Dollars, Cur rent L aw)
Revenue Sourc e
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
2005-07 % 2007-09 % 2009-11 % 2011-13 % 2013-15 %
Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg
Personal Income Taxes 11,040.3 22.8% 10,105.9 -8.5% 11,022.9 9.1% 13,349.5 21.1% 15,876.9 18.9%
Corporate Income Taxes 844.1 31.7% 686.7 -18.6% 609.7 -11.2% 804.9 32.0% 904.6 12.4%
All Others
857.6 6.4% 965.3 12.6% 884.9 -8.3% 874.4 -1.2% 915.6 4.7%
Total General Fund
12,742.0 22.1% 11,757.9 -7.7% 12,517.5 6.5% 15,028.8 20.1% 17,697.2 17.8%
Kicker Distributions
-
1,084.2
-
-
-
Total Revenue
12,742.0 22.1% 12,842.1 0.8% 12,517.5 -2.5% 15,028.8 20.1% 17,697.2 17.8%
Other ta xes include General Fund portions of the Ea stern Oregon Severance Tax, Western Orego n Severance Tax and Am usement Devic e T ax. Com mercial Fish Licenses & F ees and Pari-m utual Receipts are included in Other Revenues
tax collections to $13,349.5 million. Corporate income taxes will reach $804.9 million, while all other revenues will total $884.9 million.
For the 2013-15 biennium, General Fund revenues will equal $17,697.2 million, a 17.8 percent increase from the prior biennium. Personal income tax collections will rise 18.9 percent to
61
$15,876.9 million, as income growth returns to long-term trends. Corporate income taxes will experience modest 12.4 percent growth to $904.6 million. Remaining sources of revenue will equal $915.6 million, a 4.7 percent increase over the prior biennium. Table B.2 in Appendix presents a more detailed look at the long-term General Fund revenue forecast. C. Tax Law Assumptions The revenue forecast is based on existing law, including actions signed into law during the 2009 Oregon Legislative Session and indirect impacts resulting from recent federal legislation. OEA makes routine adjustments to the forecast to account for legislative and other actions not factored into the personal and corporate income tax models. These adjustments can include expected kicker refunds, when applicable, as well as any tax law changes not yet present in the historical data. A summary of these items can be found in Appendix B Table B.3. A rough rule of thumb for personal income tax is that nearly all collections activity on a given tax year occurs between the start of the tax year and June of the following year. Modest payment and refund activity continues for years thereafter, but with only a marginal net impact on revenues. Therefore, when interpreting the timing of personal income tax impacts presented in Appendix B Table B.3, this 18-month window is suitable for all but the most technical purposes. Corporate income tax is more difficult in that corporations do not have a standardized tax year. A corporate tax year is signified by the calendar year in which the corporation's fiscal year begins. The rule of thumb is that the majority of corporate collections on a given tax year will be received in the State fiscal year that begins July 1 of that year, i.e. the corporate tax impact specified in Appendix B Table B.3 for tax year 2007 will be realized primarily in state fiscal year 2007-08. Contact the Office of Economic Analysis at (503) 378-3455 with questions regarding tax law impacts. D. Forecast Risks The revenue forecast presented herein constitutes a guideline for budgetary purposes. Variation above or below this forecast is to be expected, although OEA strives to minimize the magnitude of this variation by investigating new data resources and methodological approaches, as well as regularly consulting with experts from the economics, financial, and accounting communities. The following are major factors that could cause actual revenues to deviate from this forecast by a significant degree: · Personal income tax is expected to account for nearly ninety percent of General Fund revenues in the 2007-09 biennium and beyond. The income tax forecast is based on OEA's outlook regarding general economic conditions. To the extent that actual economic performance departs from this outlook, particularly with respect to factors that influence more volatile forms of non-wage income, so too will the personal income tax, and thus the General Fund forecast. It should also be noted that current conditions will manifest themselves over the next 12 months as taxpayers reconcile differences in 62
withholding and estimated payments compared to taxes owed through final payments and refunds. · Capital gains and business-related income are highly volatile. Capital gains income exceeded 10 percent of income for the first time in the 2007 tax year. This exposure contributes to the volatility in personal income taxes because the financial decisions on the part of a relatively few individuals can have a significant impact on the aggregate levels. The concentration of gains at the high end of the income distribution exacerbates the inherent volatility in this source of income. · The timing and nature of an economic recovery. Historically, economic recoveries would suggest that there will be significant increases in income tax revenue beginning in either FY 2011 or FY 2012. This forecast assumes that the vast majority of any recovery would occur in the 2011-13 biennium. However, should the recovery come earlier, or be significantly weaker than previous upturns, the forecast errors could be significant. · Growth in revenues is partly due to inflation. Wage inflation contributes to rising wage and salary income, and consequently personal income tax collections. Price inflation raises gross corporate revenues and, potentially, corporate income tax revenue. Rental and small business income exhibit similar growth factors. The magnitude of actual revenue growth will depend on actual inflation rates. Currently, OEA expects inflation to come down from its current levels for the coming years, contributing to slower than expected revenue growth compared to that experienced in the previous two decades. Should inflation be stronger than expected, revenue growth could also exceed forecast. · Unexpected changes in the impact of tax expenditures. Tax expenditures such as credits and deductions reduce tax revenue. In some cases, estimates of the usage and tax impact vary widely, thus making it is difficult to know the amount of tax reduction. Increased usage of such provisions would reduce revenues relative to this forecast. E. Lottery Earnings Forecast Table R.3 presents a summary of lottery earnings and distribution for the 2007-09 biennium. Projected lottery earnings will total $1,326.9 million, an increase of $9.7 million from the prior forecast. Though coming in slightly ahead of the March forecast, the dramatic decline in lottery sales through the winter has continued, with weekly video lottery sales down more than 20 percent on a year-over-year basis. Including the beginning balance and other earnings, total available resources equal $1,400.2 million. Total projected resources have increased $8 million from the Close of 2007 Session. Despite a historic decline in sales, the current forecast for the ending balance in the Economic Development Fund is $0.4 million. This occurs because the Lottery has transferred an additional $102.7 million in administrative savings during the biennium. Furthermore, the implementation of the Raffle added roughly $800,000 to the last transfer for this biennium. 63
The May forecast continues to incorporate the expected impact from statewide smoking restrictions that was articulated in the September forecast. These restrictions went into effect January 1, 2009. While expectations regarding the magnitude of this impact range wildly, the Legislative Revenue Office (LRO) concluded that there would be at least a short-term loss in
Table R.3 2007-09 Lo ttery Fund Forecast Summary
Transfers of Lottery Earnings traditional games Video Lottery Administrative Savings1 Total Transfers
Close of 2007 March 2009
Se ssion
Forecast
$ 129.3 $1,151.9 $35.0 $1,316.1
$132.7 $1,087.5 $97.0 $1,317.2
May 2 009 Forecast $132.2 $1,091.2 $103.5 $1,326.9
Changes from:
March 2009 Close of 2007
Forecast
Session
-$0.5
$2.9
$3.7
-$60.6
$6.5
$68.5
$9.7
$10.7
Economic Development Fund Beginning Balance Transfers from L ottery Other earnings2 Total Available Resources
$66.3 $1,316.1 $9.8 $1,392.2
$64.1 $1,317.2 $14.1 $1,395.3
$64.1 $1,326.9 $9.3 $1,400.2
$0.0
-$2.2
$9.7
$10.7
-$4.8
-$0.5
$4.9
$8.0
Dedicated Distributions3 Other Legislatively Adopted Allocations Total Distributions
$ 675.4 $ 703.7 $1,379.0
$671.3 $723.7 $1,395.0
$667.0 $732.9 $1,399.9
-$4.3
-$8.4
$9.2
$29.2
$4.9
$20.8
Ending Balance
$13.2
$0.4
$0.4
$0.0
-$12.8
Fo ot n ot e s:
1. Includes a transfer of $800,000 related to the Lottery Raf le.
2. Includes
interest earnings an d reversions.
3. Includes the Education Stability Fund (18 %), the Parks and N atural Resources Fund (15%), and Debt Service. See T able B.9 for more information.
video lottery sales. Though there is only a limited amount of data, thus far it does appear as though the actual impact is perhaps slightly higher than expected. Furthermore, it should be noted that it is difficult to draw significant conclusions as to the magnitude of the smoking restriction impact compared to that from the economic recession. OEA will continue to evaluate the actual impact of the smoking restrictions as more data become available. The extended outlook for lottery earnings can be found in Table B.9 in Appendix B. It is critical to note that the earnings reflected in Table B.9 include a transfer rate pertaining to video lottery of 65.1 percent as opposed to the 62.4 percent rate. The Lottery will apply this transfer rate on sales beginning July 1, 2009. Lottery earnings are expected to fall 14.3 percent to $1,137.1 million for the 2009-11 biennium. In addition to the expected impact of the smoking restrictions and slow economic growth, the weak growth is the result of an absence of administrative savings for the biennium, compared with $102.7 million in the current biennium. In spite of the increased transfer rate, video lottery earnings will decrease 7.1 percent, while traditional products will decline 7 percent. Not including any administrative savings that may accrue during the biennium, total available resources will amount to $1,141.8 million.
64
Lottery earnings will amount to $1,253.8 million in 2011-13, a 10.3 percent increase over the previous biennium. Including interest earnings, available resources will total $1,259.8 million. For the 2013-15 biennium, lottery earnings will climb to $1,371.6 million while available resources will equal $1,377.6 million. F. Overview of Budgetary Reserves The state currently administers two general reserve accounts, the Oregon Rainy Day Fund (ORDF) and the Education Stability Fund (ESF). This section updates balances and the recalculates the outlook for these funds based on the May revenue forecast. Oregon Rainy Day Fund Established by the 2007 Legislature, the ORDF is funded from ending balances each biennium, up to one percent of appropriations. The Legislature can deposit additional funds, as it did in first populating the ORDF with surplus corporate income tax revenues from the 2005-07 biennium. The ORDF also retains interest earnings. Withdrawals from the ORDF require one of three triggers, including a decline in employment, a projected budgetary shortfall, or declaration of a state of emergency, plus a three-fifths vote. Withdrawals are capped at two-thirds of the balance as of the beginning of the biennium in question. Fund Balances are capped at 7.5 percent of General Fund revenues in the prior biennium. 65
Education Stability Fund The ESF gained its current reserve structure and mechanics via constitutional amendment in 2002. The ESF receives 18 percent of lottery earnings4, deposited on a quarterly basis. The ESF does not retain interest earnings. The ESF has similar triggers as the ORDF (in fact, the
Table R.4 Oregon's Budgetary Reserves
(Millions) Rainy Day Fund Beginning Balance Deposits Interest Triggered Withdrawals Ending Balance1
Actuals through 3/1/2009 $0.0 $319.3 $17.4 $0.0 $336.7
2007-09 Biennium $0.0 $319.3 $18.6 $0.0 $337.9
2009-11 Biennium $337.9 $0.0 $27.0 $0.0 $364.9
Education Stability Fund Beginning Balance Deposits Interest2 Triggered Withdrawals Ending Balance
$178.9 $215.0 $16.2 -$16.0 $394.0
$178.9 $215.0 $17.4 -$17.3 $394.0
$394.0 $112.1 $18.9 -$18.9 $506.1
Total Reserves
$730.7
$731.9
$871.0
Footnotes: 1. Under current law, only 2/3rds of the begin ning balance is available for withdrawal. Withdrawal subject to economic and financial triggers. 2. Edu cation Stability Fund inte rest is distributed to the Oregon Education Fun d (75% ) and the State Scho larship Commission (25% ).
ORDF was modeled on the ESF), but does not have the two-thirds cap on withdrawals. The ESF balance is capped at five percent of General Fund revenues collected in the prior biennium. Should no withdrawals be made from the ESF, it is expected that the five percent cap would be reached late in the 2009-11 biennium. At that point, funding of the ESF stops and instead 15 percent of lottery earnings will flow to a school capital matching account. Budgetary Reserve Outlook Table R.4 presents current and projected balances for the ORDF and ESF. As of the third quarter of fiscal year 2009, the balance in the ORDF equaled $336.7 million. As indicated above, none of this balance is available this biennium without additional legislation. The ORDF is projected 4 Ten percent of these transfers are deposited to the Oregon Growth sub-account. Due to the illiquid nature of this sub-account, only funds in the main account are included in the figures presented here.
66
to reach $337.9 million by the end of 2007-09, and to total $364.9 million by the end of next biennium. At the end of March 2009, the ESF balance stood at $394.0 million with the full amount available to the legislature if economic and fiscal conditions are met. Assuming no distributions are made during the next biennium, by the end of 2009-11, available ESF funds will total $506.1 million. Table B.10 in Appendix B provides detailed information for Oregon's budgetary reserves. 67
68
APPENDIX A: ECONOMIC FORECAST DETAIL
Table A.1 Table A.2
Annual Forecast .............................................................................................71 Quarterly Forecast..........................................................................................76
69
70
TABLE A.1 May 2009 - Personal Income (Billions of Current Dollars)
2004
Total Personal Income*
Oregon
10 9.7
% Ch
4.3
U.S.
9,72 7.2
% Ch
6.2
2005 114.4 4.2 10, 269.8 5.6
2006 123 .9 8 .3 10 ,993 .9 7 .1
2007 1 31.3 6.0 11,6 63.3 6.1
2008 136 .3 3 .8 12 ,102 .7 3 .8
2009 13 6.5 0.2 1 2,12 0.5 0.1
Wage and Salary Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
5 9.7 5.6 5,39 4.5 5.5
63.5 6.4 5, 671.7 5.1
67 .9 6 .8 6 ,027 .3 6 .3
71.6 5.5 6,3 62.0 5.6
73 .4 2 .6 6 ,550 .1 3 .0
7 1.6 ( 2.5) 6,49 2.6 ( 0.9)
Other Labor Income Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
1 5.6 (1.8) 86 8.5 6.5
15.5 (0.7 ) 926.0 6.6
16 .2 4 .5 956 .8 3 .3
16.8 3.8 9 91.9 3.7
17 .3 3 .1 1 ,026 .9 3 .5
1 7.6 1.4 1,07 2.1 4.4
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
8.8
% Ch
7.7
U.S.
87 4.3
% Ch
1 1.8
9.2 5.0 925.7 5.9
9 .9 7 .4 998 .5 7 .9
10.1 1.7 1,0 12.2 1.4
10 .0 (0 .2) 1 ,037 .9 2 .5
9.9 ( 0.9) 1,02 0.1 ( 1.7)
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
2 1.0
% Ch
6.2
U.S.
1,55 0.5
% Ch
5.5
21.2 0.8 1, 660.7 7.1
24 .7 16 .7 1 ,869 .1 12 .6
27.0 9.1 2,0 40.2 9.2
28 .3 5 .0 2 ,134 .6 4 .6
2 7.4 ( 3.0) 2,14 9.3 0.7
Transfer Payments Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
1 6.5 2.7 1,39 6.1 6.0
17.7 6.8 1, 483.1 6.2
18 .9 6 .7 1 ,578 .1 6 .4
20.1 6.7 1,6 81.4 6.5
22 .0 9 .5 1 ,833 .4 9 .0
2 4.4 1 0.9 1,94 8.1 6.3
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
1 0.3
% Ch
6.7
U.S.
42 0.5
% Ch
6.0
10.8 5.7 446.2 6.1
11 .6 6 .7 477 .0 6 .9
12.1 4.2 5 00.4 4.9
12 .4 2 .8 518 .0 3 .5
1 2.1 ( 2.0) 51 1.6 ( 1.2)
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
(2.0)
(2.1 )
(2 .2)
(2.5 )
(2 .6)
( 2.3)
% Ch
0.5
4.2
6 .3
12.1
2 .9
(1 1.5)
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
0.3
% Ch
1 9.6
0.2 (29.3 )
0 .1 (38 .6)
0.3 1 09.7
0 .1 (68 .7)
( 0.0) (10 5.7)
Per Capita Income (Thousands of $)
Oregon
3 0.6
31.4
33 .5
35.0
35 .9
3 5.6
% Ch
3.1
2.8
6 .6
4.5
2 .6
( 0.9)
U.S.
3 3.1
34.6
36 .7
38.6
39 .6
3 9.3
% Ch
5.2
4.6
6 .0
5.1
2 .8
( 0.8)
* Personal Income includes all classes of income minus Contributions for Social Security
2010 1 39.3 2.1 12,3 39.5 1.8 72.3 1.0 6,5 79.7 1.3 18.2 3.8 1,1 31.6 5.5 10.3 3.6 1,0 61.2 4.0 27.8 1.3 2,2 12.7 3.0 25.2 3.2 2,0 28.8 4.1 12.3 1.3 5 19.8 1.6 (2.2 ) (2.2 ) 0.0 (1 33.2 ) 35.9 0.9 39.6 0.8
2011 145 .7 4 .6 12 ,821 .3 3 .9 75 .4 4 .2 6 ,823 .1 3 .7 19 .1 4 .5 1 ,176 .4 4 .0 10 .8 5 .0 1 ,132 .9 6 .8 29 .4 5 .8 2 ,365 .2 6 .9 26 .2 4 .1 2 ,131 .0 5 .0 12 .9 4 .9 543 .2 4 .5 (2 .3) 3 .5 0 .0 383 .8 37 .1 3 .4 40 .8 2 .9
2012 15 3.6 5.4 1 3,48 8.0 5.2 7 9.7 5.7 7,15 5.8 4.9 2 0.1 5.7 1,22 8.6 4.4 1 1.3 4.5 1,19 7.9 5.7 3 1.2 6.1 2,53 1.4 7.0 2 7.4 4.6 2,25 9.7 6.0 1 3.7 6.1 57 4.4 5.7 (2.4) 5.1 0.0 (8 0.9) 3 8.7 4.1 4 2.5 4.2
2013 162. 0 5. 5 14, 227. 1 5. 5 84. 3 5. 9 7, 528. 1 5. 2 21. 3 6. 0 1, 294. 0 5. 3 11. 8 4. 0 1, 260. 1 5. 2 32. 8 5. 1 2, 697. 9 6. 6 28. 9 5. 4 2, 403. 2 6. 3 14. 6 6. 3 609. 9 6. 2 (2. 5) 5. 3 (0. 0) ( 935. 7) 40. 3 4. 1 44. 4 4. 5
2014 17 0.3 5.1 1 5,01 7.6 5.6 8 8.7 5.2 7,88 0.6 4.7 2 2.5 5.4 1,36 1.8 5.2 1 2.3 4.3 1,33 1.0 5.6 3 4.3 4.6 2,86 8.7 6.3 3 0.6 6.1 2,55 8.7 6.5 1 5.4 5.5 64 4.9 5.7 ( 2.7) 4.7 ( 0.0) 10 3.5 4 1.8 3.9 4 6.4 4.5
2015 1 78.8 5.0 15,8 18.4 5.3 92.9 4.8 8,2 22.5 4.3 23.6 5.2 1,4 26.3 4.7 12.7 3.7 1,3 94.7 4.8 35.8 4.5 3,0 47.7 6.2 32.6 6.3 2,7 22.9 6.4 16.1 4.8 6 79.5 5.4 (2.8 ) 4.3 (0.0 ) 44.0 43.3 3.7 48.4 4.3
71
TABLE A.1 May 2009 - Employment By Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
Total Nonfarm Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
1,60 6.6 2.0 13 1.4 1.1
1,65 4.4 3.0 13 3.7 1.7
1,70 3.5 3.0 13 6.1 1.8
1,73 1.4 1.6 13 7.6 1.1
1,7 21.2 (0.6 ) 1 37.0 (0.4 )
Private Nonfarm Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
1,32 4.3 2.3 10 9.8 1.3
1,36 9.4 3.4 11 1.9 1.9
1,41 7.4 3.5 11 4.1 2.0
1,44 1.7 1.7 11 5.4 1.1
1,4 22.3 (1.3 ) 1 14.5 (0.7 )
Natural Resources and Mining
Oregon
9.7
9.6
9.4
9.2
% Ch
3.1
(1.0) (1.6) (1.7)
U.S.
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
% Ch
3.2
6.2
9.1
5.8
8.6 (6.9 ) 0.8 6.8
Constr uc tio n Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
8 2.7
90.8 100.9 104.2
94.7
7.4
9.9
1 1.0
3.3
(9.2 )
7.0
7.3
7.7
7.6
7.2
3.5
5.2
4.9
(0.8)
(5.5 )
Manufacturing Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
19 9.9 2.5 1 4.3 (1.3)
20 3.9 2.0 1 4.2 (0.6)
20 7.3 1.7 1 4.2 (0.5)
20 4.1 (1.6) 1 3.9 (2.0)
1 95.1 (4.4 ) 13.4 (3.3 )
Durable Manufacturing
Orego n
14 7.5
% Ch
3.2
U.S.
8.9
% Ch
(0.4)
15 2.2 3.2 9.0 0.3
15 4.7 1.7 9.0 0.3
15 0.9 (2.5) 8.8 (1.9)
1 42.4 (5.6 ) 8.5 (3.8 )
Wood Products
Oregon
3 2.1
% Ch
3.4
U.S.
0.5
% Ch
2.3
3 2.7
3 2.4
3 0.0
27.0
1.8
(0.8) (7.5)
(9.8 )
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.7
(0.0) (7.8) (10.9)
Metal and Machinery
Oregon
3 4.8
3 6.2
3 7.4
3 8.4
% Ch
2.7
3.9
3.2
2.8
U.S.
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.2
% Ch
0.0
1.4
1.5
0.2
39.1 1.9 3.2 (1.6 )
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
4 1.0
4 1.3
% Ch
0.9
0.7
U.S.
1.3
1.3
% Ch
(2.4)
(0.5)
4 1.9 1.5 1.3 (0.7)
4 0.7 (2.9) 1.3 (2.7)
38.9 (4.5 ) 1.2 (2.0 )
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
1 6.7
1 8.0
% Ch
1 0.9
7.7
U.S.
1.8
1.8
% Ch
(0.5)
0.3
1 8.3 2.1 1.8 (0.2)
1 7.4 (5.1) 1.7 (3.2)
14.9 (14.6 ) 1.6 (6.2 )
Other Durables
Oregon
2 2.9
% Ch
2.7
U.S.
2.7
% Ch
0.1
2 4.0 5.1 2.7 (0.5)
2 4.7 2.8 2.7 (0.1)
2 4.4 (1.1) 2.6 (2.5)
22.5 (7.9 ) 2.5 (5.6 )
2009 2010
1, 630.4 (5.3 ) 132.1 (3.6 )
1 ,619 .2 (0 .7) 131 .0 (0 .8)
1, 331.7 (6.4 ) 109.5 (4.4 )
1 ,321 .1 (0 .8) 108 .5 (0 .9)
7.1 (17.1 ) 0.7 (7.8 )
7 .2 1 .4 0 .7 (8 .6)
77.3 (18.3 ) 6.3 (12.6 )
70 .3 (9 .0) 5 .8 (8 .6)
166.9 (14.5 ) 11.8 (12.1 )
157 .7 (5 .5) 10 .9 (7 .3)
117.1 (17.8 ) 7.2 (14.8 )
110 .2 (5 .9) 6 .6 (8 .2)
21.7 (19.8 ) 0.4 (22.0 )
21 .2 (2 .2) 0 .4 (1 .1)
31.9 (18.4 ) 2.7 (16.0 )
27 .2 (14 .9) 2 .2 (15 .8)
33.5 (13.7 ) 1.1 (10.3 )
32 .1 (4 .4) 1 .1 2 .3
10.7 (28.0 ) 1.3 (16.8 )
10 .2 (5 .0) 1 .3 (5 .8)
19.2
19 .6
(14.6 )
1 .8
2.4
2 .5
(2.0 )
2 .9
2011 2012 2013 2014
1 ,652 .3 2 .0 132 .9 1 .5
1 ,700 .2 2 .9 136 .2 2 .4
1 ,744 .5 2 .6 139 .2 2 .2
1 ,777 .7 1 .9 141 .3 1 .5
1 ,355 .3 2 .6 110 .7 2 .0
1 ,401 .7 3 .4 113 .8 2 .8
1 ,442 .9 2 .9 116 .5 2 .3
1 ,473 .7 2 .1 118 .3 1 .6
7 .2 (0 .4) 0 .7 2 .7
7 .1 (1 .6) 0 .7 0 .2
7 .0 (2 .0) 0 .7 (1 .2)
6 .8 (1 .5) 0 .6 (1 .8)
70 .0
74 .2
79 .3
83 .0
(0 .4)
5 .9
7 .0
4 .6
5 .8
6 .2
6 .7
7 .0
0 .4
8 .0
7 .0
4 .2
163 .3 3 .5 11 .1 1 .0
170 .5 4 .4 11 .5 4 .2
176 .0 3 .2 11 .9 3 .6
180 .3 2 .5 12 .1 1 .7
115 .2 4 .6 6 .8 2 .7
121 .3 5 .3 7 .2 6 .4
125 .7 3 .6 7 .6 4 .9
128 .8 2 .5 7 .8 2 .2
22 .6
24 .3
25 .2
25 .7
6 .7
7 .6
3 .4
1 .9
0 .4
0 .5
0 .5
0 .5
15 .6
12 .7
4 .7
2 .2
27 .4
28 .4
29 .5
31 .1
0 .9
3 .7
3 .7
5 .2
2 .2
2 .4
2 .6
2 .7
0 .5
8 .4
8 .0
4 .2
34 .4
36 .9
38 .3
38 .4
7 .3
7 .4
3 .7
0 .3
1 .2
1 .3
1 .3
1 .2
6 .4
4 .5
(0 .2)
(3 .1)
10 .5
11 .0
11 .7
12 .4
3 .4
4 .9
6 .4
5 .7
1 .3
1 .4
1 .4
1 .5
2 .9
6 .1
5 .3
3 .1
20 .2
20 .6
20 .9
21 .3
3 .5
1 .7
1 .7
1 .6
2 .6
2 .6
2 .6
2 .6
3 .4
1 .3
0 .3
0 .2
2015 1,80 5.8 1.6 14 2.8 1.1 1,49 9.7 1.8 11 9.7 1.2 6.8 ( 1.2) 0.6 ( 2.7) 8 5.4 2.8 7.1 2.2 18 3.7 1.9 1 2.2 0.7 13 1.2 1.8 7.8 0.7 2 5.6 ( 0.2) 0.5 0.1 3 2.3 3.9 2.8 1.5 3 8.9 1.4 1.2 ( 0.7) 1 2.8 3.4 1.5 0.9 2 1.5 1.1 2.7 0.4
72
TABLE A.1 May 2009 - Employment By Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2004 2005
Nondurable Manufacturing
Orego n
5 2.4
5 1.8
% Ch
0.7
(1.1)
U.S.
5.4
5.3
% Ch
(2.8)
(2.2)
2006 5 2.6 1.6 5.2 (1.8)
2007 5 3.2 1.1 5.1 (2.0)
Food Manufacturing
Oregon
2 2.2
2 1.6
2 2.2
2 3.1
% Ch
0.9
(2.6)
3.0
3.9
U.S.
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
% Ch
(1.5)
(1.1)
0.1
0.3
Other Nondurable
Oregon
3 0.2
% Ch
0.5
U.S.
3.9
% Ch
(3.3)
3 0.2 (0.1) 3.8 (2.6)
3 0.3 0.7 3.7 (2.6)
3 0.1 (0.9) 3.6 (2.9)
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Oregon
320.3 328.6
% Ch
1.7
2.6
U.S.
2 5.5
2 6.0
% Ch
1.0
1.7
33 5.6 2.1 2 6.3 1.2
34 0.3 1.4 2 6.6 1.3
Retail Trade Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
18 7.8 1.8 1 5.1 1.0
19 3.6 3.1 1 5.3 1.5
19 7.4 2.0 1 5.4 0.5
20 0.7 1.7 1 5.5 1.1
Wholesale Trade
Orego n
7 5.6
7 7.8
7 9.9
8 0.8
% Ch
1.3
2.9
2.6
1.2
U.S.
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
% Ch
0.9
1.8
2.5
1.9
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Orego n
5 6.9
5 7.2
5 8.4
5 8.8
% Ch
2.0
0.6
2.0
0.8
U.S.
4.8
4.9
5.0
5.1
% Ch
1.1
2.2
2.0
1.5
Information Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
3 3.0 (1.9) 3.1 (2.2)
3 3.6 2.0 3.1 (1.8)
3 4.9 3.7 3.0 (0.8)
3 6.0 3.3 3.0 (0.2)
Financial Activities
Oregon
9 7.4
% Ch
0.4
U.S.
8.0
% Ch
0.7
10 2.1 4.8 8.2 1.5
10 6.1 3.9 8.3 2.2
10 6.4 0.3 8.3 (0.3)
Professional and Business Services
Oregon
176.2 185.6
% Ch
3.2
5.3
U.S.
1 6.4
1 6.9
% Ch
2.5
3.4
19 4.4 4.8 1 7.6 3.7
19 7.3 1.5 1 7.9 2.1
2008 52.7 (0.8 ) 5.0 (2.3 ) 23.8 2.7 1.5 0.0 29.0 (3.6 ) 3.5 (3.1 ) 3 35.5 (1.4 ) 26.4 (0.9 ) 1 96.7 (2.0 ) 15.4 (1.1 ) 80.0 (1.1 ) 6.0 (0.9 ) 58.9 0.1 5.1 (0.6 ) 36.1 0.4 3.0 (1.2 ) 1 01.8 (4.3 ) 8.1 (1.9 ) 1 95.7 (0.8 ) 17.8 (0.9 )
2009 49.8 (5.5 ) 4.6 (7.3 )
2010 47 .6 (4 .6) 4 .3 (6 .0)
23.8 0.4 1.5 (1.3 )
22 .6 (5 .3) 1 .4 (2 .1)
26.0 (10.4 ) 3.4 (3.3 )
25 .0 (3 .9) 3 .3 (1 .8)
313.8 (6.5 ) 25.3 (4.1 )
315 .5 0 .5 25 .3 0 .1
184.5 (6.2 ) 14.8 (3.9 )
187 .1 1 .4 14 .9 0 .8
75.0 (6.2 ) 5.7 (4.4 )
74 .1 (1 .2) 5 .6 (1 .5)
54.3 (7.8 ) 4.9 (4.2 )
54 .3 (0 .1) 4 .8 (0 .4)
34.1 (5.7 ) 2.8 (5.1 )
32 .7 (4 .0) 2 .7 (5 .3)
97.1 (4.6 ) 7.9 (3.5 )
97 .7 0 .6 7 .8 (0 .1)
182.0 (7.0 ) 16.7 (6.1 )
181 .2 (0 .4) 16 .7 0 .2
2011 2012
48 .1
49 .1
1 .1
2 .2
4 .2
4 .3
(1 .5)
0 .6
2013 50 .3 2 .4 4 .3 1 .3
2014 51 .5 2 .4 4 .4 0 .9
22 .6
22 .7
22 .8
22 .7
0 .0
0 .4
0 .3
(0 .2)
1 .4
1 .4
1 .5
1 .5
(0 .3)
1 .2
2 .0
1 .5
25 .5 2 .1 3 .3 (1 .0)
26 .4 3 .7 3 .2 (0 .9)
27 .5 4 .2 3 .2 (0 .8)
28 .8 4 .4 3 .2 (0 .5)
321 .2 1 .8 25 .4 0 .3
330 .9 3 .0 26 .0 2 .3
341 .2 3 .1 26 .7 2 .7
348 .2 2 .1 27 .2 1 .7
190 .8 2 .0 14 .8 (0 .6)
195 .6 2 .5 14 .9 0 .5
201 .4 3 .0 15 .1 1 .7
205 .2 1 .9 15 .3 0 .9
75 .0
78 .1
80 .9
82 .9
1 .2
4 .1
3 .5
2 .5
5 .7
5 .9
6 .1
6 .3
0 .7
4 .2
3 .6
2 .3
55 .3
57 .2
58 .9
60 .1
2 .0
3 .4
3 .0
2 .0
5 .0
5 .2
5 .5
5 .6
2 .5
5 .4
4 .8
3 .1
33 .9
33 .9
34 .2
34 .5
3 .6
0 .2
0 .7
0 .9
2 .8
2 .8
2 .8
2 .8
3 .2
(0 .5)
0 .3
0 .9
99.7 103.2 105.8 106.0
2 .1
3 .5
2 .5
0 .2
8 .0
8 .1
8 .2
8 .1
1 .3
2 .3
0 .7
(0 .6)
194 .4 7 .3 18 .2 8 .5
208 .2 7 .1 19 .3 6 .3
217 .0 4 .3 19 .9 3 .2
223 .7 3 .1 20 .5 2 .8
2015 5 2.6 2.1 4.4 0.7 2 2.6 ( 0.4) 1.5 1.5 2 9.9 4.1 3.2 ( 0.4) 35 4.2 1.7 2 7.5 1.1 20 8.5 1.6 1 5.3 0.4 8 4.6 2.0 6.4 1.7 6 1.1 1.6 5.8 2.4 3 4.7 0.6 2.8 0.7 10 5.7 ( 0.3) 8.1 ( 0.4) 22 9.4 2.6 2 1.0 2.5
73
TABLE A.1 May 2009 - Employment By Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2004 2005
Education and Health Services
Oregon
192.8 198.8
% Ch
2.1
3.1
U.S.
1 6.9
1 7.4
% Ch
2.2
2.5
Educational Services
Orego n
2 6.0
2 7.2
% Ch
3.0
4.5
U.S.
2.8
2.8
% Ch
2.4
2.7
Health Care and Social Assistance
Orego n
166.8 171.6
% Ch
2.0
2.9
U.S.
1 4.2
1 4.5
% Ch
2.1
2.4
Leisure and Hospitality
Oregon
15 5.1
% Ch
2.3
U.S.
1 2.5
% Ch
2.6
15 9.1 2.6 1 2.8 2.6
Other Services Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
5 7.3
5 7.3
1.1
(0.1)
5.4
5.4
0.2
(0.3)
Government Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
28 2.4 0.9 2 1.6 0.2
28 5.1 0.9 2 1.8 0.9
Federal Government
Oregon
3 0.3
% Ch
(1.4)
U.S.
2.7
% Ch
(1.1)
2 9.7 (2.0) 2.7 0.0
State Government
Oregon
7 4.3
7 5.6
% Ch
1.7
1.9
Education State Government
Orego n
2 6.7
2 7.5
% Ch
1.0
3.0
Local Government
Oregon
17 7.9
% Ch
1.0
17 9.8 1.1
Education Local Government
Orego n
9 3.7
9 4.9
% Ch
0.5
1.2
2006 20 4.9 3.1 1 7.8 2.6 2 8.2 3.6 2.9 2.3 17 6.8 3.0 1 4.9 2.7 16 5.0 3.7 1 3.1 2.3 5 8.9 2.9 5.4 0.8 28 6.1 0.4 2 2.0 0.8 2 9.0 (2.1) 2.7 (0.0) 7 5.0 (0.9) 2 7.4 (0.4) 18 2.2 1.3 9 5.9 1.1
2007 21 1.8 3.4 1 8.3 2.8 2 9.0 3.0 2.9 1.5 18 2.8 3.4 1 5.4 3.0 17 1.9 4.2 1 3.4 2.4 6 0.3 2.4 5.5 1.0 28 9.7 1.3 2 2.2 1.1 2 9.1 0.2 2.7 0.1 7 4.5 (0.7) 2 7.4 0.3 18 6.2 2.2 9 8.3 2.5
2008 2 20.0 3.9 18.9 2.9 30.4 4.9 3.0 3.3 1 89.6 3.7 15.8 2.8 1 73.7 1.1 13.5 0.2 61.0 1.0 5.5 0.6 2 98.9 3.2 22.5 1.2 29.5 1.3 2.8 1.1 76.5 2.8 28.3 3.2 1 92.9 3.6 1 02.1 3.9
2009 226.4 2.9 19.4 2.7
2010 232 .6 2 .8 20 .0 3 .2
2011 237 .9 2 .2 20 .4 2 .1
2012 241 .2 1 .4 20 .6 0 .7
2013 245 .4 1 .7 20 .8 1 .0
2014 250 .3 2 .0 21 .0 1 .4
2015 25 5.4 2.0 2 1.4 1.5
31.6
31 .5
31 .4
31 .5
31 .7
32 .0
3 2.3
3.8
(0 .4)
(0 .1)
0 .4
0 .5
0 .8
1.1
3.1
3 .1
3 .1
3 .1
3 .0
3 .0
2.9
1.7
0 .8
0 .9
(1 .7)
(2 .3)
(1 .8)
( 1.3)
194.8 2.7 16.3 2.9
201 .2 3 .3 16 .9 3 .7
206 .4 2 .6 17 .3 2 .3
209 .7 1 .6 17 .5 1 .2
213 .7 1 .9 17 .7 1 .6
218 .4 2 .2 18 .1 1 .9
22 3.1 2.2 1 8.4 1.9
166.4 (4.2 ) 13.2 (2.2 )
165 .8 (0 .3) 13 .1 (0 .4)
167 .3 0 .9 13 .1 0 .0
171 .2 2 .3 13 .3 1 .7
174 .9 2 .2 13 .5 1 .3
177 .9 1 .7 13 .6 0 .7
18 0.8 1.6 1 3.6 0.2
60.7
60 .2
60 .4
61 .3
62 .0
62 .8
6 3.6
(0.4 )
(0 .7)
0 .3
1 .4
1 .3
1 .3
1.2
5.4
5 .4
5 .4
5 .3
5 .3
5 .3
5.3
(1.7 )
(0 .4)
(1 .0)
(0 .9)
(0 .2)
0 .6
0.2
298.7 (0.1 ) 22.5 0.2
298 .1 (0 .2) 22 .5 (0 .0)
297 .0 (0 .4) 22 .3 (1 .3)
298 .5 0 .5 22 .3 0 .3
301 .6 1 .0 22 .7 1 .9
304 .0 0 .8 23 .0 1 .0
30 6.2 0.7 2 3.1 0.7
29.8
31 .0
29 .6
29 .5
29 .5
29 .4
2 9.4
1.3
3 .9
(4 .6)
(0 .3)
(0 .1)
(0 .1)
( 0.0)
2.8
2 .9
2 .8
2 .7
2 .7
2 .7
2.7
1.3
3 .3
(4 .5)
(0 .5)
(0 .2)
(0 .2)
( 0.1)
76.7
74 .0
72 .6
72 .3
73 .3
73 .5
7 3.5
0.2
(3 .5)
(1 .9)
(0 .5)
1 .4
0 .4
( 0.0)
28.7
28 .3
28 .2
28 .2
28 .3
28 .4
2 8.5
1.4
(1 .5)
(0 .4)
0 .1
0 .3
0 .3
0.3
192.2 (0.4 )
193 .1 0 .5
194 .8 0 .9
196 .8 1 .0
198 .9 1 .1
201 .1 1 .1
20 3.2 1.1
102.2 0.1
102 .2 0 .0
102 .9 0 .7
103 .9 1 .0
105 .0 1 .0
106 .2 1 .1
10 7.3 1.1
74
TABLE A.1 May 2009 - Other Economic Indicators
GDP (Bil of 2000 $), Chain Weight (in billions of $) % Ch
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
10,675.7 10,989.5 11,294.9 11,523.9 11,652.0 11,247.2 11,402.5 11,798.6 12,271.1 12,675.7 13,028.4 13,378.6
3.6
2.9
2.8
2.0
1.1
(3.5)
1.4
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.8
2.7
GDP Implicit Price Deflator, Chain Weight U.S., 2000=100 % Ch Personal Consumption Deflator, Chain Weight U.S., 2000=100 % Ch CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=100 Portland-Salem, OR-WA % Ch U.S. % Ch Oregon Average Wage Rate (Thous $) % Ch U.S. Average Wage Wage Rate (Thous $) % Ch
109.5 2.9
113.0 3.3
108.4 2.6
111.6 2.9
116.7 3.2 114.7 2.8
Price and Wage Indicators
119.8 2.7
122.5 2.2
124.3 1.5
125.6 1.0
117.7 2.6
121.6 3.3
121.2 (0.3)
122.7 1.2
127.2 1.3 124.8 1.7
128.9 1.3
131.1 1.7
126.9 1.7
129.4 1.9
133.6 2.0 131.9 2.0
136.3 2.0 134.5 1.9
192.1 2.3 188.9 2.7
197.1 2.7 195.3 3.4
36.8
37.9
3.4
3.1
41.0
42.4
4.4
3.3
203.0 3.0 201.6 3.2 39.4 3.9 44.3 4.4
208.9 2.9 207.3 2.9 40.9 3.8 46.2 4.4
215.6 3.2 215.2 3.8 42.2 3.2 47.8 3.4
217.7 1.0 212.3 (1.4)
219.4 0.8 215.6 1.6
43.4
44.2
2.9
1.7
49.2
50.2
2.9
2.1
222.7 1.5 220.2 2.1 45.1 2.1 51.3 2.2
226.7 1.8 225.3 2.3 46.3 2.7 52.6 2.4
231.2 2.0 230.5 2.3 47.8 3.2 54.1 2.9
236.0 2.1 235.8 2.3 49.3 3.2 55.8 3.1
241.1 2.2 241.2 2.3 50.9 3.1 57.6 3.2
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index Housing Index 1987 Q1=100 % Ch
318.8 9.6
371.8 16.6
435.4 17.1
Housing Indicators
464.6 6.7
458.2 (1.4)
408.7 (10.8)
382.8 (6.3)
387.9 1.3
405.9 4.6
431.4 6.3
452.1 4.8
480.0 6.2
FHFA National Housing Price Index
(1980Q1=100)
313.2
% Ch
9.5
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
27.5
% Ch
8.7
U.S. (Millions)
1.9
% Ch
5.2
349.4 11.6 30.9 12.5 2.1 6.3
376.2 7.7
385.3 2.4
375.2 (2.6)
338.8 (9.7)
314.6 (7.1)
317.3 0.9
27.6
22.0
12.8
7.0
9.3
14.1
(10.8)
(20.5)
(41.7)
(45.3)
32.4
52.5
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.8
1.3
(12.6)
(26.0)
(32.6)
(39.0)
53.9
48.0
Industrial Production Index U.S, 2002 = 100 % Ch
103.8 2.5
107.2 3.3
109.7 2.3
Other Indicators
111.3 1.5
108.8 (2.2)
97.7 (10.2)
97.4 (0.3)
101.9 4.6
Prime Rate (Percent) % Ch
4.3
6.2
8.0
5.3
42.5
28.6
8.1
5.1
3.3
1.2
(36.8) (36.1)
3.3
4.7
1.7
42.1
Population (Millions) Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch Timber Harvest (Mil Bd Ft) Oregon % Ch
3.6 1.2 294.0 0.9
3.6 1.4 296.7 0.9
3.7 1.6 299.6 1.0
3.8 1.4 302.4 0.9
3.8 1.2 305.4 1.0
3.8 0.9 308.4 1.0
3.9 1.0 311.4 1.0
3.9 1.2 314.4 1.0
4,000.0 3,955.0 4,328.0 3,799.0 3,400.0 2,900.0 3,100.0 3,308.9
(0.0)
( 1.1)
9.4
(12.2)
(10.5)
(14.7)
6.9
6.7
331.3 4.4 19.2 35.7 1.5 23.0 107.3 5.3 6.3 35.1 4.0 1.3 317.4 1.0 3,561.4 7.6
350.5 5.8 22.3 16.4 1.7 7.5 111.2 3.6 6.6 3.3 4.0 1.3 320.5 1.0 3,683.9 3.4
365.7 4.3 23.4 5.1 1.7 1.0 114.3 2.8 7.6 15.9 4.1 1.2 323.6 1.0 3,753.2 1.9
387.0 5.8 24.4 3.9 1.7 2.6 117.4 2.7 7.7 2.1 4.1 1.2 326.7 1.0 3,790.7 1.0
75
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Personal Income (Billions of Current Dollars)
20 06:1
Total Personal Income
Oreg on
1 21.4
% Ch
16.5
U.S.
10,7 81.6
% Ch
8.6
2 006 :2 122 .7 4 .2 10 ,913 .2 5 .0
200 6:3 12 4.7 6.8 1 1,05 6.1 5.3
20 06:4 1 26.6 6.1 11,2 24.7 6.2
2 007: 1 128. 7 7. 0 11, 473. 0 9. 1
2007 :2 130 .3 4 .9 11 ,577 .5 3 .7
200 7:3 13 2.2 6.1 1 1,73 0.4 5.4
20 07:4 1 33.9 5.0 11,8 72.1 4.9
2 008: 1 134. 5 2. 0 11 ,960. 5 3. 0
2008 :2 136 .8 7 .1 12 ,152 .2 6 .6
Wage and Salary Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
67.1 16.3 5,9 46.4 10.8
66 .9 (0 .9) 5 ,966 .2 1 .3
6 8.0 6.6 6,03 4.2 4.6
69.4 8.1 6,1 62.2 8.8
70. 3 5. 5 6, 294. 0 8. 8
71 .1 4 .4 6 ,310 .7 1 .1
7 2.0 5.2 6,37 7.7 4.3
73.0 5.8 6,4 65.5 5.6
73. 2 1. 3 6 ,518. 0 3. 3
73 .6 1 .9 6 ,531 .3 0 .8
Other Labor Income Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
16.0 10.3 9 46.6 3.1
16 .0 (0 .3) 952 .9 2 .7
1 6.2 5.1 95 9.5 2.8
16.4 4.4 9 68.1 3.6
16. 5 1. 6 977. 6 4. 0
16 .7 6 .0 987 .7 4 .2
1 6.9 4.6 99 6.5 3.6
17.1 5.0 1,0 05.9 3.8
17. 2 3. 2 1 ,015. 3 3. 8
17 .4 2 .9 1 ,024 .4 3 .6
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
9.8
% Ch
6.7
U.S.
9 87.5
% Ch
8.9
10 .0 9 .2 1 ,008 .4 8 .7
9.9 ( 1.8) 99 9.6 ( 3.4)
9.9 0.6 9 98.7 (0.4 )
10. 0 0. 8 997. 9 (0. 3)
10 .1 3 .9 1 ,007 .9 4 .1
1 0.1 1.5 1,01 6.4 3.4
10.1 2.1 1,0 26.7 4.1
10. 0 (4. 5) 1 ,030. 1 1. 3
10 .1 2 .2 1 ,039 .0 3 .5
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
23.7
% Ch
32.1
U.S.
1,7 88.3
% Ch
4.5
24 .5 14 .5 1 ,855 .1 15 .8
2 5.2 1 1.0 1,90 6.2 1 1.5
25.5 5.3 1,9 26.8 4.4
26. 1 10. 7 1, 966. 0 8. 4
26 .8 9 .7 2 ,027 .2 13 .0
2 7.3 8.7 2,07 2.7 9.3
27.6 4.8 2,0 94.8 4.3
27. 8 3. 0 2 ,093. 2 (0. 3)
28 .3 7 .2 2 ,110 .9 3 .4
Transfer Payments Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
18.4 14.4 1,5 43.0 10.3
18 .7 6 .8 1 ,570 .7 7 .4
1 9.0 6.5 1,59 5.4 6.4
19.2 3.0 1,6 03.1 2.0
19. 9 16. 0 1, 665. 3 16. 4
19 .9 0 .5 1 ,667 .5 0 .5
2 0.2 5.6 1,68 8.0 5.0
20.4 4.2 1,7 04.7 4.0
20. 9 10. 7 1 ,745. 8 10. 0
22 .4 30 .3 1 ,893 .9 38 .5
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
11.5
% Ch
19.4
U.S.
4 72.1
% Ch
16.4
11 .4 (1 .3) 473 .8 1 .4
1 1.6 5.2 47 7.3 3.0
11.8 6.1 4 84.7 6.3
11. 9 5. 2 497. 5 11. 0
12 .0 2 .6 497 .4 (0 .1)
1 2.1 3.9 50 0.9 2.9
12.2 4.1 5 05.7 3.9
12. 4 5. 0 515. 7 8. 2
12 .4 2 .2 517 .6 1 .5
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
(2.2 )
(2 .2)
( 2.2)
(2.3 )
(2. 5)
(2 .5)
(2.5)
(2.5 )
(2. 6)
(2 .6)
% Ch
20.6
(3 .0)
7.3
5.3
40. 7
3 .5
2.1
5.4
7. 3
2 .4
Farm P roprietor's Income
Oregon
0.1
% Ch
(96.8 )
0 .1 501 .1
0.2 18 7.8
0.2 3 68.2
0. 3 312. 9
0 .2 (68 .7)
0.4 33 5.3
0.3 (51.4 )
0. 2 (90. 4)
0 .1 (65 .4)
76
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Personal Income (Billions of Current Dollars)
20 08:3
Total Personal Income
Oreg on
1 37.1
% Ch
0.8
U.S.
12,1 70.4
% Ch
0.6
2008:4 2009:1 2009:2
136 .7 (1 .1) 12 ,127 .5 (1 .4)
13 6.0 ( 1.9) 1 2,06 8.4 ( 1.9)
1 36.9 2.6 12,1 61.0 3.1
2009:3 2009:4
136.4 (1.4 ) 12, 113.9 (1.5 )
136 .8 1 .0 12 ,138 .7 0 .8
201 0:1 13 7.5 2.1 1 2,20 2.3 2.1
20 10:2 1 38.6 3.3 12,2 86.3 2.8
2 010: 3 139. 9 3. 8 12, 386. 4 3. 3
2010 :4 141 .4 4 .4 12 ,483 .2 3 .2
Wage and Salary Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
73.8 1.1 6,5 81.8 3.1
73 .2 (3 .1) 6 ,569 .4 (0 .8)
7 2.1 ( 5.6) 6,50 3.5 ( 4.0)
71.5 (3.2) 6,4 96.7 (0.4)
71.3 (1.3 ) 6, 483.4 (0.8 )
71 .3 (0 .0) 6 ,486 .7 0 .2
7 1.5 1.3 6,51 5.4 1.8
72.0 2.7 6,5 55.5 2.5
72. 5 2. 9 6, 597. 1 2. 6
73 .2 3 .8 6 ,650 .9 3 .3
Other Labor Income Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
17.4 0.6 1,0 31.2 2.7
17 .3 (2 .1) 1 ,036 .7 2 .2
1 7.4 2.1 1,04 9.2 4.9
17.5 1.7 1,0 61.8 4.9
17.6 3.9 1, 081.5 7.6
17 .8 3 .4 1 ,096 .0 5 .5
1 7.9 3.6 1,10 9.4 5.0
18.1 4.4 1,1 24.6 5.6
18. 3 4. 8 1, 141. 9 6. 3
18 .5 3 .5 1 ,150 .4 3 .0
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
10.1
% Ch
2.0
U.S.
1,0 48.2
% Ch
3.6
9 .9 (7 .4) 1 ,034 .2 (5 .2)
9.8 ( 3.9) 1,01 7.9 ( 6.2)
9.9 3.1 1,0 18.0 0.0
10.0 2.5 1, 017.6 (0.1 )
10 .1 3 .4 1 ,026 .8 3 .7
1 0.1 3.2 1,03 6.1 3.7
10.2 4.3 1,0 53.0 6.7
10. 4 4. 3 1, 067. 9 5. 8
10 .5 5 .2 1 ,087 .7 7 .6
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
28.7
% Ch
5.7
U.S.
2,1 62.7
% Ch
10.2
28 .3 (5 .4) 2 ,171 .4 1 .6
2 7.7 ( 8.1) 2,16 1.5 ( 1.8)
27.5 (3.4) 2,1 47.1 (2.6)
27.3 (2.6 ) 2, 141.1 (1.1 )
27 .2 (1 .3) 2 ,147 .5 1 .2
2 7.4 1.8 2,16 6.8 3.6
27.6 3.6 2,1 93.6 5.0
28. 0 5. 3 2, 225. 8 6. 0
28 .4 6 .0 2 ,264 .7 7 .2
Transfer Payments Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
22.0 (5.9 ) 1,8 36.4 (11.6 )
22 .7 13 .1 1 ,857 .5 4 .7
2 3.5 1 5.0 1,90 5.3 1 0.7
24.9 26.1 1,9 38.8 7.2
24.5 (6.2 ) 1, 965.2 5.5
24 .7 1 .8 1 ,983 .1 3 .7
2 5.0 5.0 2,00 5.2 4.5
25.1 1.9 2,0 20.3 3.0
25. 3 2. 9 2, 035. 9 3. 1
25 .5 3 .7 2 ,053 .8 3 .6
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
12.4
% Ch
(0.2 )
U.S.
5 20.1
% Ch
1.9
12 .3 (3 .9) 518 .4 (1 .3)
1 2.2 ( 2.5) 51 6.0 ( 1.9)
12.2 (1.2) 5 13.8 (1.7)
12.1 (3.0 ) 509.7 (3.1 )
12 .0 (2 .8) 506 .9 (2 .2)
1 2.2 6.9 51 7.5 8.6
12.3 1.0 5 17.9 0.3
12. 3 2. 1 520. 1 1. 7
12 .4 3 .0 523 .9 2 .9
Residence Adjustment Oregon % Ch
(2.6 ) (4.7 )
(2 .5) (3 .6)
( 2.4) (2 0.4)
(2.2) ( 22.7)
(2.2 ) (3.8 )
(2 .2) (2 .2)
( 2.2) ( 1.6)
(2.2 ) 1.7
(2. 2) 2. 2
(2 .2) 3 .3
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
0.0
% Ch
(99.7 )
0 .1 1 ,989 .2
0.0 (9 8.1)
(0.0) ( 93.9)
(0.0 ) 607.0
(0 .0) (61 .6)
( 0.0) (9 8.1)
0.0
0. 0
(99.2) 14,074.8
0 .0 (14 .1)
77
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Personal Income (Billions of Current Dollars)
20 11:1
Total Personal Income
Oreg on
1 43.0
% Ch
4.5
U.S.
12,6 13.3
% Ch
4.2
2 011 :2 144 .7 4 .9 12 ,740 .6 4 .1
201 1:3 14 6.7 5.7 1 2,89 2.2 4.8
20 11:4 1 48.6 5.2 13,0 39.0 4.6
2 012:1 150.5 5.2 13, 218.7 5.6
2012:2 2012:3
152 .5 5 .6 13 ,397 .3 5 .5
15 4.8 6.0 1 3,58 1.4 5.6
2012:4 2013:1 2013:2
1 56.8 5.3 13,7 54.4 5.2
158. 8 5. 2 13, 944. 6 5. 6
160 .8 5 .3 14 ,132 .3 5 .5
Wage and Salary Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
74.0 4.5 6,7 19.4 4.2
74 .9 4 .6 6 ,784 .9 4 .0
7 5.8 5.1 6,85 6.4 4.3
76.8 5.7 6,9 31.5 4.5
77.9 5.7 7, 020.1 5.2
79 .0 5 .9 7 ,109 .2 5 .2
8 0.2 6.2 7,20 0.7 5.2
81.4 6.1 7,2 93.3 5.2
82. 6 5. 9 7, 393. 2 5. 6
83 .7 5 .6 7 ,484 .3 5 .0
Other Labor Income Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
18.7 4.5 1,1 60.3 3.5
18 .9 4 .8 1 ,169 .7 3 .3
1 9.2 5.3 1,18 2.1 4.3
19.4 5.4 1,1 93.5 3.9
19.7 5.8 1, 206.4 4.4
20 .0 5 .8 1 ,220 .2 4 .6
2 0.3 6.3 1,23 6.9 5.6
20.6 5.9 1,2 51.1 4.7
20. 9 6. 0 1, 267. 3 5. 3
21 .1 5 .3 1 ,284 .3 5 .5
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
10.6
% Ch
5.4
U.S.
1,1 06.6
% Ch
7.1
10 .8 5 .4 1 ,125 .9 7 .2
1 0.9 4.8 1,14 1.7 5.7
11.0 4.5 1,1 57.5 5.7
11.1 4.6 1, 174.8 6.1
11 .3 4 .5 1 ,191 .8 5 .9
1 1.4 3.8 1,20 5.1 4.5
11.5 3.8 1,2 19.9 5.0
11. 6 3. 8 1, 235. 0 5. 1
11 .7 4 .1 1 ,251 .7 5 .5
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
28.7
% Ch
5.0
U.S.
2,3 02.0
% Ch
6.8
29 .2 6 .4 2 ,345 .6 7 .8
2 9.7 7.7 2,38 6.8 7.2
30.1 5.7 2,4 26.2 6.8
30.5 5.1 2, 465.2 6.6
31 .0 6 .3 2 ,510 .1 7 .5
3 1.5 7.2 2,55 3.4 7.1
31.9 4.8 2,5 96.9 7.0
32. 2 3. 8 2, 637. 6 6. 4
32 .6 4 .9 2 ,678 .2 6 .3
Transfer Payments Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
25.9 6.0 2,0 93.0 7.9
26 .1 3 .4 2 ,117 .7 4 .8
2 6.4 4.5 2,14 3.7 5.0
26.6 3.3 2,1 69.8 4.9
27.0 6.6 2, 216.6 8.9
27 .2 3 .8 2 ,245 .1 5 .2
2 7.6 4.8 2,27 3.6 5.2
27.8 3.8 2,3 03.7 5.4
28. 3 7. 6 2, 355. 3 9. 3
28 .7 5 .2 2 ,387 .3 5 .5
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
12.7
% Ch
10.2
U.S.
5 37.0
% Ch
10.4
12 .8 4 .2 541 .5 3 .4
1 2.9 3.0 54 4.9 2.5
13.1 4.5 5 49.4 3.4
13.4 11.0 564.8 11.7
13 .6 4 .9 570 .6 4 .2
1 3.8 5.2 57 7.5 4.9
14.0 5.4 5 84.8 5.2
14. 3 10. 5 601. 3 11. 7
14 .5 5 .1 607 .7 4 .3
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
(2.3 )
(2 .3)
( 2.3)
(2.3)
(2.4 )
(2 .4)
( 2.4)
% Ch
3.1
3 .9
4.9
5.6
4.3
5 .2
6.2
(2.5 ) 6.0
(2. 5) 4. 6
(2 .5) 5 .2
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
0.0
% Ch
66.4
0 .0 493 .9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 .0
0.0
(0.0 )
(0. 0)
(0 .0)
5 1.3
( 57.3)
(80.7 )
(87 .9)
(99.9) 105,970.7 3,082.8
629 .2
78
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Personal Income (Billions of Current Dollars)
20 13:3
Total Personal Income
Oreg on
1 63.2
% Ch
6.0
U.S.
14,3 23.6
% Ch
5.5
2 013 :4 165 .2 5 .0 14 ,508 .0 5 .3
201 4:1 16 7.2 5.0 1 4,71 7.3 5.9
20 14:2 1 69.2 5.0 14,9 17.0 5.5
2 014:3 171.4 5.2 15, 121.6 5.6
2014 :4 173 .4 4 .8 15 ,314 .4 5 .2
201 5:1 17 5.5 4.8 1 5,52 4.1 5.6
20 15:2 1 77.6 5.0 15,7 19.5 5.1
2 015: 3 179. 9 5. 3 15, 918. 1 5. 2
2015 :4 182 .1 4 .9 16 ,111 .8 5 .0
Wage and Salary Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
84.9 5.8 7,5 73.7 4.9
86 .0 5 .4 7 ,661 .3 4 .7
8 7.1 5.2 7,75 5.6 5.0
88.2 4.8 7,8 40.2 4.4
89.2 4.8 7, 922.6 4.3
90 .2 4 .7 8 ,004 .0 4 .2
9 1.3 4.8 8,09 5.2 4.6
92.3 4.6 8,1 79.6 4.2
93. 4 4. 9 8, 264. 8 4. 2
94 .6 5 .0 8 ,350 .4 4 .2
Other Labor Income Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
21.5 7.2 1,3 04.4 6.4
21 .8 5 .1 1 ,320 .0 4 .9
2 2.1 5.6 1,33 6.5 5.1
22.3 4.4 1,3 51.9 4.7
22.6 5.2 1, 371.7 6.0
22 .9 5 .6 1 ,387 .0 4 .5
2 3.2 5.4 1,40 3.2 4.8
23.5 4.8 1,4 17.1 4.0
23. 8 5. 2 1, 435. 6 5. 3
24 .1 5 .0 1 ,449 .3 3 .9
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
11.8
% Ch
4.0
U.S.
1,2 67.6
% Ch
5.2
11 .9 4 .4 1 ,285 .9 5 .9
1 2.1 4.9 1,30 6.9 6.7
12.2 4.7 1,3 26.2 6.0
12.3 3.6 1, 339.1 3.9
12 .4 3 .2 1 ,351 .9 3 .9
1 2.5 3.7 1,36 8.9 5.1
12.7 4.0 1,3 87.3 5.5
12. 8 3. 7 1, 403. 1 4. 6
12 .9 3 .7 1 ,419 .7 4 .8
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
33.0
% Ch
6.0
U.S.
2,7 17.0
% Ch
5.9
33 .4 4 .0 2 ,758 .6 6 .3
3 3.7 3.4 2,79 9.6 6.1
34.1 5.0 2,8 46.6 6.9
34.6 5.7 2, 891.6 6.5
34 .9 4 .0 2 ,937 .1 6 .4
3 5.2 3.5 2,98 0.7 6.1
35.6 4.7 3,0 26.2 6.2
36. 1 5. 9 3, 069. 6 5. 9
36 .4 3 .6 3 ,114 .3 6 .0
Transfer Payments Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
29.1 5.2 2,4 19.2 5.5
29 .4 5 .0 2 ,451 .1 5 .4
3 0.0 8.4 2,50 7.3 9.5
30.4 5.3 2,5 40.9 5.5
30.8 5.6 2, 575.8 5.6
31 .3 5 .5 2 ,611 .0 5 .6
3 1.9 8.5 2,66 6.8 8.8
32.3 5.6 2,7 03.5 5.6
32. 8 5. 9 2, 741. 5 5. 7
33 .3 5 .9 2 ,780 .0 5 .7
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
14.6
% Ch
3.7
U.S.
6 11.8
% Ch
2.8
14 .8 4 .6 618 .7 4 .6
1 5.2 1 0.4 63 6.5 1 2.0
15.3 3.7 6 42.4 3.7
15.4 3.0 647.3 3.1
15 .6 3 .8 653 .3 3 .8
1 5.9 9.4 67 0.5 1 1.0
16.0 2.7 6 76.4 3.6
16. 2 3. 6 682. 1 3. 4
16 .3 3 .7 688 .9 4 .1
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
(2.6 )
(2 .6)
( 2.6)
(2.6)
(2.7 )
(2 .7)
( 2.7)
(2.8 )
(2. 8)
(2 .8)
% Ch
5.5
5 .0
4.2
4.5
4.6
4 .5
3.8
4.2
4. 5
4 .6
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
(0.0 )
% Ch
3 22.2
(0 .0) 212 .7
( 0.0) 6 0.0
(0.0) 51.8
(0.0 ) 50.8
(0 .0) 48 .3
( 0.0) 5 4.4
(0.0 ) 37.2
(0. 0) 31. 4
(0 .0) 27 .1
79
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Employment by Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
Total Nonfarm Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
200 6:1 1,68 8.2 3.6 13 5.4 2.4
20 06:2 1,7 01.1 3.1 1 35.9 1.4
2 006 :3 1 ,707 .4 1 .5 136 .3 1 .1
200 6:4 1,71 7.4 2.4 13 6.8 1.4
20 07:1 1,7 28.1 2.5 1 37.3 1.5
2 007: 2 1, 729. 5 0. 3 137. 6 0. 9
2007 :3 1 ,730 .5 0 .2 137 .6 0 .1
200 7:4 1,73 7.5 1.6 13 8.0 1.2
2008:1 2008:2
1,7 37.0 (0.1 ) 1 37.9 (0.2 )
1, 729. 0 (1. 8) 137. 5 (1. 3)
Private Nonfarm Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
1,40 2.9 4.2 11 3.6 2.8
1,4 15.4 3.6 1 14.0 1.5
1 ,420 .9 1 .6 114 .3 1 .1
1,43 0.3 2.6 11 4.7 1.5
1,4 40.9 3.0 1 15.1 1.5
1, 440. 3 (0. 2) 115. 3 0. 7
1 ,440 .6 0 .1 115 .4 0 .1
1,44 4.8 1.2 11 5.7 1.0
1,4 41.9 (0.8 ) 1 15.5 (0.5 )
1, 432. 8 (2. 5) 115. 0 (1. 7)
Natural Resources and Mining
Orego n
9.4
9.4
9 .4
9.3
9.4
% Ch
(1.8)
0.8
(1 .7)
( 2.7)
0.8
U.S.
0.7
0.7
0 .7
0.7
0.7
% Ch
1 0.7
11.8
5 .8
6.5
5.8
9. 5
9 .1
9.0
8.9
8. 6
3. 7
(12 .2)
(5.6)
(5.8 )
(13. 4)
0. 7
0 .7
0.7
0.8
0. 8
5. 2
3 .0
5.4
8.6
6. 4
Construction Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
9 8.6
1 00.9
101 .3
10 2.7
1 04.6
104. 6
104 .4
10 3.3
99.7
96. 6
1 7.1
9.6
1 .5
5.7
7.8
(0. 1)
(0 .8)
(4.0)
( 13.2 )
(12. 0)
7.7
7.7
7 .7
7.7
7.7
7. 7
7 .6
7.5
7.4
7. 3
8.2
2.4
0 .2
( 0.9)
0.1
(1. 0)
(3 .5)
(3.1)
(5.4 )
(8. 2)
Manufacturing Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
20 6.4 3.4 1 4.2 0.5
2 07.6 2.3 14.2 (0.2 )
208 .0 0 .8 14 .2 (1 .6)
20 7.3 ( 1.5) 1 4.1 ( 2.7)
2 06.7 (1.1 ) 14.0 (1.8 )
204. 1 (5. 0) 13. 9 (2. 3)
202 .7 (2 .6) 13 .8 (2 .3)
20 2.9 0.3 1 3.8 (1.6)
2 01.0 (3.7 ) 13.7 (2.4 )
198. 0 (5. 8) 13. 5 (4. 1)
Durable Manufacturing
Oreg on
15 4.3
% Ch
3.4
U.S.
9.0
% Ch
1.3
1 55.2 2.3 9.0 1.0
155 .3 0 .1 9 .0 (1 .3)
15 4.1 ( 3.0) 8.9 ( 2.4)
1 53.2 (2.4 ) 8.9 (2.1 )
150. 6 (6. 5) 8. 8 (2. 3)
150 .1 (1 .4) 8 .8 (2 .6)
14 9.7 (0.9) 8.7 (2.0)
1 47.9 (4.8 ) 8.7 (2.7 )
145. 4 (6. 6) 8. 6 (5. 0)
Wood Products
Oregon
3 3.0
33.0
32 .4
3 1.3
30.8
30. 1
29 .8
2 9.3
28.3
27. 3
% Ch
4.1
(0.7 )
(6 .9)
(1 2.7)
(6.5 )
(8. 8)
(3 .9)
(6.8)
( 13.0 )
(12. 8)
U.S.
0.6
0.6
0 .6
0.5
0.5
0. 5
0 .5
0.5
0.5
0. 5
% Ch
4.6
(3.2 )
(7 .2)
(1 1.3)
(7.6 )
(6. 8)
(6 .5)
(9.1)
( 10.3 )
(13. 1)
Metal and Machinery
Oregon
3 6.9
37.1
37 .5
3 7.8
38.2
38. 3
38 .3
3 8.8
39.1
39. 2
% Ch
4.6
2.3
4 .1
3.7
3.3
1. 5
0 .5
5.1
2.6
1. 5
U.S.
3.2
3.2
3 .2
3.2
3.2
3. 2
3 .2
3.2
3.2
3. 2
% Ch
1.8
2.3
1 .7
( 0.4)
0.3
(0. 3)
(1 .3)
0.1
0.2
(2. 5)
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
4 1.8
42.0
% Ch
6.6
2.1
U.S.
1.3
1.3
% Ch
(1.7)
1.6
42 .1 0 .5 1 .3 (1 .7)
4 1.8 ( 2.8) 1.3 ( 2.4)
41.2 (5.4 ) 1.3 (2.8 )
40. 7 (5. 0) 1. 3 (4. 8)
40 .4 (2 .8) 1 .3 (3 .0)
4 0.5 1.0 1.3 (1.9)
40.0 (4.2 ) 1.3 (0.7 )
39. 4 (5. 8) 1. 3 (1. 5)
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
1 8.2
18.4
% Ch
(3.0)
3.5
U.S.
1.8
1.8
% Ch
1.0
1.4
18 .5 2 .1 1 .8 (2 .8)
1 8.3 ( 3.9) 1.8 ( 3.5)
18.2 (1.3 ) 1.7 (4.5 )
17. 2 (21. 2) 1. 7 (3. 6)
17 .4 4 .2 1 .7 (2 .0)
1 6.9 (1 0.8) 1.7 (3.6)
16.4 (9.8 ) 1.7 (4.6 )
15. 9 (12. 0) 1. 6 (8. 8)
Other Durables
Oregon
2 4.4
24.8
24 .9
2 4.9
24.8
24. 4
24 .2
2 4.3
24.1
23. 5
% Ch
0.5
6.0
1 .6
0.8
(1.3 )
(6. 5)
(2 .8)
1.4
(3.7 )
(9. 4)
U.S.
2.7
2.7
2 .7
2.7
2.7
2. 7
2 .6
2.6
2.6
2. 5
% Ch
2.1
(0.5 )
(2 .3)
( 3.6)
(2.8 )
(2. 2)
(2 .0)
(1.3)
(9.0 )
(8. 9)
80
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Employment by Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
Total Nonfarm Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
200 8:3 1,72 3.8 ( 1.2) 13 7.0 ( 1.5)
Private Nonfarm Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
1,42 0.5 ( 3.4) 11 4.5 ( 1.9)
Natural Resources and Mining
Orego n
8.7
% Ch
4.7
U.S.
0.8
% Ch
1 2.6
Construction Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
9 3.4 (1 2.7) 7.2 ( 6.3)
Manufacturing Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
19 3.2 ( 9.3) 1 3.4 ( 4.7)
Durable Manufacturing Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
14 1.3 (1 0.7) 8.4 ( 5.4)
Wood Products Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 6.9 ( 5.8) 0.5 (1 3.9)
Metal and Machinery Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
3 9.6 4.0 3.2 ( 3.3)
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
3 8.8
% Ch
( 6.5)
U.S.
1.2
% Ch
( 1.6)
Transportation Equipment Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
1 4.4 (3 3.9) 1.6 ( 9.5)
Other Durables Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 1.7 (2 7.4) 2.5 ( 6.5)
20 08:4 1,6 94.8 (6.6 ) 1 35.7 (3.7 ) 1,3 94.0 (7.3 ) 1 13.2 (4.4 ) 8.3 ( 16.3 ) 0.8 3.1 88.9 ( 18.0 ) 6.9 ( 11.8 ) 1 88.4 (9.6 ) 13.1 (9.4 ) 1 35.0 ( 16.8 ) 8.2 ( 11.1 ) 25.7 ( 16.9 ) 0.4 ( 19.6 ) 38.7 (9.1 ) 3.1 (9.5 ) 37.2 ( 15.4 ) 1.2 (4.8 ) 12.7 ( 38.2 ) 1.5 ( 17.0 ) 20.7 ( 17.0 ) 2.4 (3.5 )
2 009: 1 1, 659. 0 (8. 2) 133. 7 (5. 7) 1, 357. 8 (10. 0) 111. 2 (7. 0) 7. 6 (30. 1) 0. 8 (8. 5) 82. 9 (24. 2) 6. 6 (18. 0) 177. 3 (21. 5) 12. 5 (17. 4) 125. 3 (25. 7) 7. 7 (21. 2) 23. 2 (33. 5) 0. 4 (33. 7) 35. 2 (31. 1) 2. 9 (22. 4) 35. 9 (13. 6) 1. 2 (10. 7) 11. 4 (34. 5) 1. 4 (27. 1) 19. 6 (19. 6) 2. 4 (1. 5)
2009 :2 1 ,631 .3 (6 .5) 132 .3 (4 .3) 1 ,331 .6 (7 .5) 109 .7 (5 .2) 6 .8 (33 .5) 0 .7 (20 .7) 77 .4 (24 .3) 6 .4 (13 .5) 168 .7 (18 .1) 12 .0 (14 .2) 118 .5 (20 .2) 7 .4 (18 .1) 21 .9 (20 .0) 0 .4 (21 .4) 32 .6 (27 .0) 2 .7 (19 .6) 34 .1 (18 .5) 1 .1 (19 .6) 10 .7 (23 .7) 1 .3 (15 .9) 19 .2 (7 .8) 2 .4 0 .5
200 9:3 1,61 8.6 (3.1) 13 1.4 (2.7) 1,32 1.6 (3.0) 10 8.8 (3.0) 7.0 1 0.2 0.7 (2 2.8) 7 5.3 (1 0.4) 6.2 (1 1.2) 16 2.8 (1 3.2) 1 1.5 (1 4.0) 11 3.8 (1 4.8) 7.0 (1 7.7) 2 0.9 (1 7.0) 0.3 (2 1.3) 3 0.8 (2 0.3) 2.6 (2 4.0) 3 2.7 (1 5.0) 1.1 (1 7.1) 1 0.4 (1 0.2) 1.3 (9.9) 1 9.0 (4.0) 2.4 1.6
20 09:4 1,6 12.7 (1.4 ) 1 30.8 (1.7 ) 1,3 15.9 (1.7 ) 1 08.3 (1.9 ) 7.1 4.7 0.7 ( 14.5 ) 73.6 (8.4 ) 6.1 (8.8 ) 1 58.8 (9.3 ) 11.2 (9.9 ) 1 10.6 ( 10.8 ) 6.8 ( 11.9 ) 20.6 (5.4 ) 0.3 (4.2 ) 29.2 ( 18.7 ) 2.4 ( 18.7 ) 31.5 ( 13.5 ) 1.1 (7.0 ) 10.2 (7.0 ) 1.3 ( 10.0 ) 19.0 (0.5 ) 2.5 2.3
2 010: 1 1, 611. 8 (0. 2) 130. 7 (0. 4) 1, 314. 3 (0. 5) 108. 2 (0. 6) 7. 2 3. 7 0. 6 (6. 2) 72. 1 (8. 1) 5. 9 (8. 0) 157. 2 (4. 1) 11. 1 (5. 6) 109. 4 (4. 3) 6. 7 (5. 2) 20. 8 3. 1 0. 3 3. 7 28. 0 (15. 3) 2. 3 (17. 0) 31. 2 (4. 1) 1. 1 20. 4 10. 1 (4. 3) 1. 3 (4. 5) 19. 3 5. 6 2. 5 3. 4
2010 :2 1 ,617 .0 1 .3 130 .9 0 .7 1 ,316 .8 0 .7 108 .2 (0 .0) 7 .3 5 .8 0 .6 (0 .8) 70 .7 (7 .4) 5 .8 (8 .5) 156 .9 (0 .7) 10 .9 (6 .6) 109 .4 0 .0 6 .6 (7 .1) 20 .9 2 .3 0 .3 2 .9 27 .0 (13 .6) 2 .2 (17 .2) 32 .0 10 .3 1 .1 12 .9 10 .1 (0 .2) 1 .2 (5 .3) 19 .4 2 .4 2 .5 3 .5
201 0:3 1,62 0.8 0.9 13 1.1 0.4 1,32 2.8 1.9 10 8.5 1.3 7.3 (0.2) 0.7 2.5 6 9.4 (6.9) 5.7 (8.1) 15 8.0 2.8 1 0.9 (0.2) 11 0.6 4.2 6.6 2.3 2 1.4 9.6 0.4 1 6.6 2 6.9 (2.2) 2.2 (0.6) 3 2.4 5.9 1.2 2.6 1 0.1 0.6 1.3 3.6 1 9.7 7.1 2.5 4.0
20 10:4 1,6 27.2 1.6 1 31.4 1.1 1,3 30.4 2.3 1 09.1 1.9 7.3 (0.5 ) 0.7 4.9 69.0 (2.6 ) 5.7 (1.7 ) 1 58.8 2.2 10.9 0.1 1 11.3 2.6 6.6 1.5 21.6 4.3 0.4 15.2 26.9 (0.2 ) 2.2 (0.9 ) 32.6 1.8 1.2 3.6 10.3 6.2 1.3 2.3 19.9 4.4 2.6 4.1
81
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Employment by Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
Total Nonfarm Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
201 1:1 1,63 6.0 2.2 13 1.9 1.6
Private Nonfarm Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
1,33 9.0 2.6 10 9.6 2.0
Natural Resources and Mining Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
7.2 ( 1.0) 0.7 2.9
Construction Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
6 8.9 ( 0.3) 5.7 0.6
Manufacturing Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
16 0.7 4.7 1 0.9 1.1
Durable Manufacturing Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
11 2.9 5.9 6.7 2.4
Wood Products
Oregon
2 2.0
% Ch
6.4
U.S.
0.4
% Ch
1 5.5
Metal and Machinery Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 7.1 3.2 2.2 ( 0.3)
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
3 3.3
% Ch
9.5
U.S.
1.2
% Ch
9.3
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
1 0.4
% Ch
4.3
U.S.
1.3
% Ch
2.1
Other Durables
Oregon
2 0.1
% Ch
4.1
U.S.
2.6
% Ch
4.0
20 11:2 1,6 46.2 2.5 1 32.6 1.9 1,3 49.2 3.1 1 10.3 2.6 7.2 (0.5 ) 0.7 3.6 69.3 2.4 5.7 4.3 1 62.3 4.1 11.0 2.4 1 14.3 5.2 6.7 4.2 22.3 6.3 0.4 17.2 27.3 3.5 2.2 3.2 34.1 9.1 1.2 6.9 10.4 2.0 1.3 3.7 20.2 1.7 2.6 3.0
2 011: 3 1, 657. 2 2. 7 133. 3 2. 2 1, 360. 3 3. 3 111. 0 2. 8 7. 2 (1. 4) 0. 7 0. 9 70. 3 5. 6 5. 8 7. 3 164. 2 4. 8 11. 1 3. 8 116. 0 6. 1 6. 8 6. 3 22. 8 9. 9 0. 4 18. 1 27. 5 3. 6 2. 3 7. 0 34. 9 9. 5 1. 2 6. 4 10. 5 3. 7 1. 3 5. 6 20. 3 0. 9 2. 6 2. 1
2011 :4 1 ,669 .6 3 .0 134 .0 2 .3 1 ,372 .6 3 .7 111 .9 3 .0 7 .2 (1 .6) 0 .7 0 .2 71 .5 7 .0 5 .9 8 .0 166 .0 4 .6 11 .2 4 .7 117 .6 5 .5 7 .0 7 .3 23 .4 9 .2 0 .4 18 .3 27 .9 4 .7 2 .3 9 .6 35 .3 5 .7 1 .2 3 .4 10 .6 4 .1 1 .3 7 .0 20 .4 2 .9 2 .6 1 .5
201 2:1 1,68 1.5 2.9 13 4.9 2.5 1,38 3.9 3.4 11 2.7 2.9 7.1 (1.6) 0.7 0.3 7 2.3 4.6 6.1 9.1 16 8.0 4.9 1 1.3 4.7 11 9.3 5.9 7.1 7.1 2 3.9 9.2 0.5 1 4.7 2 8.1 3.6 2.4 9.0 3 6.1 8.3 1.3 5.7 1 0.8 5.8 1.3 6.4 2 0.5 1.5 2.6 1.4
20 12:2 1,6 93.8 3.0 1 35.7 2.7 1,3 95.6 3.4 1 13.5 2.9 7.1 (1.8 ) 0.7 (1.0 ) 73.4 6.1 6.2 8.8 1 69.7 4.0 11.5 4.2 1 20.7 4.7 7.2 6.2 24.2 6.1 0.5 8.8 28.4 3.7 2.4 9.1 36.6 6.3 1.3 2.8 10.9 5.2 1.4 6.2 20.6 1.7 2.6 0.8
2 012: 3 1, 706. 7 3. 1 136. 6 2. 6 1, 408. 0 3. 6 114. 3 2. 8 7. 1 (1. 7) 0. 7 (0. 1) 74. 9 8. 3 6. 3 7. 3 171. 3 3. 9 11. 6 4. 1 122. 0 4. 5 7. 3 5. 8 24. 6 5. 3 0. 5 4. 9 28. 6 3. 1 2. 5 8. 7 37. 2 6. 9 1. 3 3. 7 11. 1 5. 5 1. 4 5. 8 20. 6 0. 9 2. 6 0. 4
2012 :4 1 ,718 .7 2 .8 137 .4 2 .5 1 ,419 .1 3 .2 115 .0 2 .5 7 .0 (1 .8) 0 .7 (1 .1) 76 .0 6 .3 6 .4 7 .4 172 .9 3 .7 11 .7 4 .1 123 .3 4 .3 7 .4 5 .8 24 .7 3 .0 0 .5 3 .9 28 .8 2 .5 2 .5 8 .7 37 .9 7 .4 1 .3 3 .4 11 .3 6 .5 1 .4 5 .6 20 .7 1 .7 2 .6 0 .2
201 3:1 1,72 9.3 2.5 13 8.2 2.2 1,42 8.7 2.7 11 5.6 2.2 7.0 (2.0) 0.7 (1.4) 7 7.5 7.7 6.5 7.3 17 4.1 2.8 1 1.8 4.1 12 4.2 2.9 7.5 5.5 2 4.9 2.7 0.5 5.3 2 9.0 3.1 2.6 9.3 3 8.1 1.9 1.3 (1.3) 1 1.4 6.7 1.4 5.8 2 0.8 2.6 2.6 0.4
20 13:2 1,7 39.4 2.4 1 38.9 2.0 1,4 38.1 2.7 1 16.2 2.1 7.0 (2.3 ) 0.7 (1.6 ) 78.6 6.0 6.6 6.4 1 75.3 2.9 11.9 3.3 1 25.2 3.1 7.6 4.4 25.1 2.9 0.5 4.7 29.3 4.4 2.6 7.6 38.3 2.0 1.3 (2.3 ) 11.6 6.9 1.4 5.1 20.9 1.5 2.6 0.2
82
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Employment by Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
Total Nonfarm Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
201 3:3 1,75 0.1 2.5 13 9.5 1.8
Private Nonfarm Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
1,44 8.1 2.8 11 6.7 1.8
Natural Resources and Mining Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
6.9 ( 2.1) 0.7 ( 1.5)
Construction
Orego n
8 0.2
% Ch
8.4
U.S.
6.7
% Ch
6.1
Manufacturing Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
17 6.7 3.2 1 2.0 2.3
Durable Manufacturing Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
12 6.2 3.4 7.6 3.0
Wood Products
Oregon
2 5.3
% Ch
3.4
U.S.
0.5
% Ch
3.3
Metal and Machinery
Oregon
2 9.7
% Ch
5.4
U.S.
2.6
% Ch
5.6
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
3 8.5
% Ch
2.3
U.S.
1.3
% Ch
( 3.2)
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
1 1.8
% Ch
6.5
U.S.
1.5
% Ch
4.0
Other Durables Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 1.0 0.9 2.6 ( 0.0)
20 13:4 1,7 59.2 2.1 1 40.1 1.7 1,4 56.5 2.3 1 17.2 1.7 6.9 (2.0 ) 0.7 (1.6 ) 81.2 5.2 6.8 5.6 1 77.8 2.6 12.0 1.8 1 27.0 2.6 7.7 2.4 25.5 3.1 0.5 2.8 30.1 6.3 2.7 4.9 38.4 (1.0 ) 1.3 (5.0 ) 12.0 6.2 1.5 3.9 21.0 1.6 2.6 0.1
2 014: 1 1, 767. 1 1. 8 140. 6 1. 5 1, 463. 8 2. 0 117. 7 1. 6 6. 9 (1. 1) 0. 7 (1. 9) 82. 3 5. 4 6. 9 4. 7 178. 9 2. 5 12. 1 1. 7 127. 8 2. 6 7. 7 2. 1 25. 6 2. 2 0. 5 2. 7 30. 6 6. 3 2. 7 4. 2 38. 3 (0. 8) 1. 2 (3. 9) 12. 2 5. 9 1. 5 3. 2 21. 2 2. 2 2. 6 0. 4
2014 :2 1 ,774 .3 1 .6 141 .1 1 .4 1 ,470 .5 1 .9 118 .2 1 .5 6 .9 (1 .1) 0 .7 (1 .4) 82 .6 1 .7 6 .9 2 .5 179 .9 2 .2 12 .1 1 .3 128 .5 2 .2 7 .8 1 .7 25 .7 1 .9 0 .5 2 .4 30 .9 4 .6 2 .7 3 .3 38 .3 (0 .1) 1 .2 (2 .7) 12 .3 5 .3 1 .5 2 .4 21 .2 1 .4 2 .7 0 .2
201 4:3 1,78 1.4 1.6 14 1.5 1.2 1,47 7.1 1.8 11 8.5 1.3 6.8 (1.2) 0.6 (2.4) 8 3.2 3.0 7.0 1.7 18 0.7 1.7 1 2.2 1.1 12 9.0 1.5 7.8 1.3 2 5.7 (1.0) 0.5 (0.7) 3 1.2 3.4 2.7 2.8 3 8.4 0.7 1.2 (1.7) 1 2.5 4.5 1.5 2.0 2 1.3 1.6 2.7 0.0
20 14:4 1,7 87.9 1.5 1 41.9 1.1 1,4 83.1 1.6 1 18.9 1.1 6.8 (1.2 ) 0.6 (2.8 ) 83.9 3.3 7.0 2.3 1 81.7 2.3 12.2 1.1 1 29.8 2.3 7.8 1.2 25.6 (1.5 ) 0.5 (1.4 ) 31.5 4.3 2.8 2.0 38.7 3.3 1.2 1.1 12.6 4.0 1.5 1.4 21.4 1.3 2.7 (0.1 )
2 015: 1 1, 794. 8 1. 6 142. 3 1. 1 1, 489. 3 1. 7 119. 2 1. 1 6. 8 (1. 2) 0. 6 (2. 8) 84. 6 3. 3 7. 1 3. 1 182. 5 1. 8 12. 2 0. 7 130. 3 1. 7 7. 8 0. 5 25. 5 (1. 0) 0. 5 (0. 7) 31. 8 3. 3 2. 8 1. 1 38. 9 2. 0 1. 2 (0. 9) 12. 7 3. 2 1. 5 1. 0 21. 4 1. 2 2. 7 0. 6
2015 :2 1 ,801 .9 1 .6 142 .6 1 .1 1 ,496 .0 1 .8 119 .5 1 .2 6 .8 (1 .3) 0 .6 (3 .0) 85 .0 2 .0 7 .1 2 .1 183 .3 1 .8 12 .2 0 .3 130 .9 1 .8 7 .8 0 .3 25 .6 0 .9 0 .5 0 .9 32 .1 4 .4 2 .8 0 .8 38 .9 0 .4 1 .2 (0 .9) 12 .8 3 .0 1 .5 0 .5 21 .5 0 .6 2 .7 0 .6
201 5:3 1,80 9.5 1.7 14 3.0 1.0 1,50 3.1 1.9 11 9.9 1.1 6.8 (1.2) 0.6 (3.0) 8 5.5 2.3 7.1 1.5 18 4.1 1.7 1 2.2 0.3 13 1.4 1.5 7.8 0.2 2 5.6 0.8 0.5 1.1 3 2.4 3.7 2.8 0.7 3 8.9 0.4 1.2 (0.9) 1 2.9 2.4 1.5 (0.1) 2 1.5 0.7 2.7 0.6
20 15:4 1,8 17.0 1.7 1 43.4 1.0 1,5 10.2 1.9 1 20.2 1.1 6.7 (1.2 ) 0.6 (2.8 ) 86.4 4.4 7.2 1.3 1 85.0 2.0 12.2 0.4 1 32.0 2.0 7.8 0.3 25.8 2.0 0.5 2.6 32.8 4.3 2.8 1.3 39.1 1.1 1.2 (0.9 ) 12.9 1.8 1.5 (1.0 ) 21.6 0.7 2.7 0.6
83
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Employment by Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
200 6:1
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oreg on
5 2.1
% Ch
3.4
U.S.
5.2
% Ch
(0.8)
20 06:2 52.4 2.3 5.2 (2.4 )
2 006 :3 52 .8 2 .9 5 .2 (2 .0)
Food Manufacturing
Oregon
2 1.9
22.0
22 .4
% Ch
8.1
2.3
6 .6
U.S.
1.5
1.5
1 .5
% Ch
1.1
0.8
0 .2
Other Nondurable Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
3 0.2 0.2 3.7 (1.9)
30.4 2.3 3.7 (3.4 )
30 .4 0 .3 3 .7 (2 .6)
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Orego n
33 3.9
% Ch
1.6
U.S.
2 6.2
% Ch
1.4
3 35.5 1.9 26.2 0.5
335 .8 0 .4 26 .3 0 .8
Retail Trade Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
19 6.5 (0.1) 1 5.4 0.5
1 97.2 1.6 15.3 (0.8 )
197 .6 0 .6 15 .3 0 .0
Wholesale Trade Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
7 9.3
79.9
79 .9
3.3
3.2
0 .0
5.9
5.9
5 .9
3.3
2.6
1 .6
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oreg on
5 8.1
58.4
58 .4
% Ch
5.2
1.5
0 .1
U.S.
5.0
5.0
5 .0
% Ch
2.1
2.1
2 .2
Information Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
3 4.5 2.5 3.1 (0.2)
34.5 (0.4 ) 3.0 (1.8 )
35 .1 7 .0 3 .0 (1 .4)
Financial Activities Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
10 5.2 3.9 8.3 2.8
1 05.9 3.0 8.3 1.6
106 .4 1 .8 8 .3 0 .2
Professional and Business Services
Orego n
19 1.6
% Ch
4.8
U.S.
1 7.4
% Ch
3.9
1 93.7 4.5 17.5 3.4
195 .3 3 .3 17 .6 2 .9
200 6:4 5 3.2 3.1 5.1 ( 3.2) 2 2.8 7.3 1.5 ( 0.8) 3 0.4 0.2 3.6 ( 4.5) 33 7.2 1.7 2 6.4 1.8 19 8.1 1.1 1 5.4 1.5 8 0.6 3.4 5.9 2.1 5 8.5 1.0 5.1 2.2 3 5.3 2.4 3.0 ( 0.2) 10 7.0 2.1 8.4 1.1 19 7.0 3.5 1 7.7 2.3
20 07:1 53.5 2.7 5.1 (1.2 ) 23.1 5.5 1.5 (0.0 ) 30.5 0.6 3.6 (2.0 ) 3 39.5 2.7 26.5 2.2 1 99.9 3.7 15.5 2.4 81.0 2.0 6.0 2.1 58.6 0.6 5.1 1.8 35.5 2.8 3.0 0.5 1 07.8 3.3 8.3 (0.4 ) 1 97.9 1.9 17.9 3.0
2 007: 2 53. 5 (0. 5) 5. 1 (2. 3) 23. 3 4. 1 1. 5 1. 2 30. 2 (3. 9) 3. 6 (3. 2) 339. 7 0. 3 26. 6 1. 1 200. 3 0. 9 15. 5 0. 9 80. 7 (1. 2) 6. 0 2. 2 58. 7 0. 6 5. 1 0. 2 36. 2 7. 5 3. 0 0. 7 106. 9 (3. 4) 8. 3 (1. 6) 197. 3 (1. 3) 17. 9 1. 1
2007 :3 52 .7 (5 .8) 5 .1 (1 .8) 22 .8 (8 .5) 1 .5 1 .2 29 .9 (3 .7) 3 .6 (2 .5) 340 .6 1 .0 26 .6 0 .3 201 .2 1 .8 15 .5 (0 .2) 80 .7 0 .1 6 .0 1 .2 58 .7 (0 .2) 5 .1 0 .9 36 .1 (1 .3) 3 .0 (0 .7) 105 .9 (3 .7) 8 .3 (0 .9) 196 .5 (1 .4) 17 .9 0 .2
200 7:4 5 3.2 3.9 5.0 (0.9) 2 3.4 1 0.5 1.5 0.1 2 9.8 (0.9) 3.6 (2.2) 34 1.5 1.1 2 6.7 1.2 20 1.3 0.1 1 5.6 1.2 8 1.0 1.2 6.0 1.0 5 9.3 4.3 5.1 1.2 3 6.2 1.4 3.0 (0.5) 10 5.2 (2.7) 8.3 (2.0) 19 7.3 1.5 1 8.1 2.6
20 08:1 53.1 (0.7 ) 5.0 (1.9 ) 23.5 2.6 1.5 0.2 29.6 (3.2 ) 3.5 (2.9 ) 3 41.4 (0.1 ) 26.7 (0.7 ) 2 00.9 (0.6 ) 15.5 (0.6 ) 81.0 (0.1 ) 6.0 (1.4 ) 59.5 1.5 5.1 (0.1 ) 36.5 2.9 3.0 (0.6 ) 1 03.9 (4.7 ) 8.2 (1.8 ) 1 98.4 2.3 18.0 (0.8 )
2 008: 2 52. 6 (3. 4) 5. 0 (2. 6) 23. 6 0. 8 1. 5 (1. 5) 29. 1 (6. 6) 3. 5 (2. 9) 338. 6 (3. 2) 26. 5 (2. 3) 198. 4 (4. 9) 15. 4 (2. 7) 80. 8 (0. 9) 6. 0 (2. 2) 59. 4 (0. 7) 5. 1 (1. 3) 36. 3 (1. 9) 3. 0 (1. 5) 102. 8 (4. 2) 8. 2 (1. 8) 197. 7 (1. 4) 17. 9 (2. 8)
84
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Employment by Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
Nondurable Manufacturing Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
200 8:3 5 1.9 ( 5.4) 4.9 ( 3.4)
20 08:4 53.4 12.2 4.9 (6.4 )
Food Manufacturing Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 2.9
25.0
(1 0.2)
41.9
1.5
1.5
( 0.3)
0.6
Other Nondurable Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 9.0 ( 1.5) 3.5 ( 5.0)
28.4 (7.8 ) 3.4 (4.3 )
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
33 5.1 ( 4.1) 2 6.3 ( 2.5)
3 26.9 (9.5 ) 26.0 (5.1 )
Retail Trade Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
19 6.4 ( 4.1) 1 5.3 ( 2.5)
1 91.0 ( 10.6 ) 15.1 (5.2 )
Wholesale Trade Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
7 9.9 ( 4.4) 6.0 ( 2.2)
78.3 (7.8 ) 5.9 (4.6 )
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oreg on
5 8.9
57.7
% Ch
( 3.3)
(8.1 )
U.S.
5.1
5.0
% Ch
( 2.8)
(5.5 )
Information Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
3 6.1 ( 1.6) 3.0 ( 2.8)
35.7 (5.1 ) 3.0 (3.7 )
Financial Activities Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
10 1.4 ( 5.5) 8.1 ( 2.0)
99.2 (8.1 ) 8.0 (4.3 )
Professional and Business Services Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
19 6.4 ( 2.6) 1 7.7 ( 3.5)
1 90.1 ( 12.3 ) 17.5 (5.4 )
2 009: 1 52. 0 (10. 3) 4. 7 (10. 7) 25. 2 3. 4 1. 5 (3. 5) 26. 7 (21. 3) 3. 4 (2. 2) 317. 8 (10. 7) 25. 6 (6. 0) 187. 3 (7. 4) 14. 9 (4. 6) 75. 9 (11. 7) 5. 8 (7. 4) 54. 6 (19. 8) 4. 9 (8. 4) 34. 9 (8. 6) 2. 9 (7. 3) 97. 6 (6. 4) 7. 9 (6. 3) 185. 8 (8. 7) 17. 1 (9. 6)
2009 :2 50 .2 (13 .0) 4 .6 (7 .7) 24 .0 (17 .6) 1 .5 0 .1 26 .1 (8 .5) 3 .4 (3 .5) 313 .0 (5 .9) 25 .2 (5 .5) 183 .8 (7 .2) 14 .7 (6 .2) 74 .9 (5 .2) 5 .7 (6 .0) 54 .3 (2 .3) 4 .9 (2 .3) 34 .1 (8 .5) 2 .9 (7 .5) 97 .1 (2 .0) 7 .9 (2 .5) 182 .3 (7 .3) 16 .7 (7 .0)
200 9:3 4 8.9 (9.6) 4.5 (7.8) 2 3.2 (1 2.7) 1.5 (2.1) 2 5.7 (6.7) 3.3 (3.0) 31 1.9 (1.4) 2 5.2 (1.1) 18 2.9 (2.0) 1 4.7 (1.4) 7 4.7 (0.7) 5.7 (1.0) 5 4.2 (0.5) 4.8 (0.6) 3 3.9 (2.0) 2.8 (1.6) 9 6.7 (1.7) 7.8 (2.7) 18 1.0 (2.8) 1 6.6 (3.5)
20 09:4 48.2 (5.7 ) 4.5 (6.9 ) 22.9 (6.1 ) 1.5 (2.8 ) 25.3 (5.3 ) 3.3 (2.2 ) 3 12.6 0.9 25.2 0.8 1 83.8 1.9 14.7 1.8 74.7 (0.4 ) 5.7 (0.5 ) 54.2 (0.4 ) 4.8 (0.7 ) 33.3 (7.1 ) 2.8 (7.8 ) 97.0 1.1 7.8 0.9 1 79.0 (4.4 ) 16.4 (4.5 )
2 010: 1 47. 8 (3. 7) 4. 4 (6. 1) 22. 7 (3. 2) 1. 4 (2. 2) 25. 1 (4. 2) 3. 3 (1. 7) 313. 6 1. 3 25. 3 0. 8 185. 0 2. 8 14. 8 2. 3 74. 5 (1. 0) 5. 6 (1. 6) 54. 1 (0. 4) 4. 8 (0. 6) 32. 8 (6. 3) 2. 7 (9. 3) 97. 5 2. 2 7. 8 1. 1 178. 4 (1. 3) 16. 4 (0. 7)
2010 :2 47 .5 (2 .4) 4 .3 (5 .8) 22 .6 (1 .8) 1 .4 (2 .8) 24 .9 (2 .9) 3 .3 (1 .0) 314 .8 1 .5 25 .3 0 .8 186 .3 2 .8 14 .9 1 .7 74 .2 (1 .3) 5 .6 (0 .9) 54 .2 0 .7 4 .8 (0 .1) 32 .3 (5 .2) 2 .7 (8 .1) 97 .6 0 .6 7 .8 (0 .1) 179 .4 2 .3 16 .5 4 .1
201 0:3 4 7.4 (0.4) 4.3 (3.9) 2 2.5 (0.7) 1.4 (1.8) 2 4.9 (0.1) 3.3 (1.3) 31 6.2 1.8 2 5.4 0.5 18 7.9 3.3 1 4.9 1.3 7 4.0 (1.5) 5.6 (1.4) 5 4.3 1.0 4.8 0.5 3 2.6 3.6 2.7 2.0 9 7.6 (0.2) 7.8 (0.4) 18 1.7 5.2 1 6.8 6.8
20 10:4 47.6 1.0 4.3 (2.0 ) 22.5 (0.0 ) 1.4 0.1 25.0 2.0 3.3 (1.0 ) 3 17.4 1.6 25.4 0.0 1 89.2 2.8 14.9 0.7 73.8 (0.8 ) 5.6 (2.0 ) 54.4 0.8 4.8 0.3 33.0 5.2 2.7 8.9 97.9 1.3 7.9 1.2 1 85.3 8.0 17.2 9.4
85
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Employment by Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
Nondurable Manufacturing Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
201 1:1 4 7.8 1.8 4.3 ( 0.9)
20 11:2 47.9 1.4 4.2 (0.5 )
Food Manufacturing Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 2.6
22.6
0.4
0.2
1.4
1.4
( 0.1)
0.2
Other Nondurable Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 5.2 3.1 3.3 ( 0.8)
25.4 2.6 3.3 (0.9 )
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
31 8.6 1.5 2 5.4 ( 0.1)
3 20.0 1.8 25.3 (0.2 )
Retail Trade Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
18 9.9 1.5 1 4.9 ( 0.9)
1 90.3 0.9 14.8 (2.8 )
Wholesale Trade Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
7 4.0
74.6
1.0
3.1
5.6
5.6
0.1
3.1
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oreg on
5 4.7
55.1
% Ch
1.9
2.8
U.S.
4.9
4.9
% Ch
2.4
4.2
Information Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
3 3.6
33.9
7.4
3.4
2.8
2.8
6.5
2.2
Financial Activities Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
9 8.4
99.3
2.1
3.7
7.9
7.9
1.1
2.0
Professional and Business Services Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
18 8.9 8.2 1 7.6 9.4
1 92.6 8.0 18.0 9.7
2 011: 3 48. 2 1. 9 4. 2 (0. 2) 22. 6 0. 5 1. 4 0. 2 25. 6 3. 1 3. 3 (1. 2) 321. 8 2. 3 25. 4 0. 8 190. 9 1. 2 14. 7 (2. 0) 75. 4 4. 3 5. 7 4. 3 55. 5 3. 4 5. 0 5. 5 34. 0 0. 9 2. 8 (0. 4) 100. 2 3. 4 8. 0 2. 6 196. 2 7. 5 18. 4 8. 4
2011 :4 48 .4 2 .3 4 .2 0 .6 22 .6 0 .5 1 .4 1 .0 25 .8 3 .9 3 .3 (0 .9) 324 .3 3 .2 25 .5 2 .4 192 .2 2 .9 14 .8 0 .8 76 .1 3 .9 5 .7 3 .9 56 .0 3 .3 5 .0 5 .1 34 .0 (0 .5) 2 .8 (1 .6) 101 .1 3 .7 8 .0 2 .8 199 .9 7 .9 18 .7 7 .0
201 2:1 4 8.7 2.3 4.3 0.7 2 2.7 0.5 1.4 1.4 2 6.0 3.9 3.2 (0.9) 32 6.6 2.9 2 5.7 2.5 19 3.3 2.2 1 4.8 0.9 7 6.8 4.0 5.8 4.1 5 6.5 3.4 5.1 5.5 3 3.9 (0.1) 2.8 (0.5) 10 1.9 3.4 8.1 2.4 20 3.5 7.4 1 9.0 6.1
20 12:2 49.0 2.2 4.3 0.9 22.7 0.4 1.4 1.5 26.3 3.8 3.2 (0.7 ) 3 29.4 3.5 25.9 3.0 1 94.8 3.2 14.8 1.5 77.7 4.4 5.9 4.6 56.9 3.4 5.2 5.5 33.9 (0.0 ) 2.8 (0.4 ) 1 02.9 3.8 8.1 2.6 2 06.7 6.5 19.2 5.6
2 012: 3 49. 3 2. 4 4. 3 1. 3 22. 7 0. 4 1. 5 1. 8 26. 6 4. 2 3. 2 (0. 7) 332. 5 3. 8 26. 1 3. 3 196. 5 3. 6 14. 9 1. 7 78. 5 4. 5 5. 9 4. 8 57. 4 3. 7 5. 3 6. 1 33. 9 0. 1 2. 8 (0. 4) 103. 7 3. 5 8. 2 1. 6 209. 8 6. 2 19. 4 4. 8
2012 :4 49 .6 2 .3 4 .3 1 .2 22 .7 0 .4 1 .5 1 .8 26 .8 3 .9 3 .2 (0 .8) 335 .2 3 .3 26 .3 3 .1 197 .9 2 .7 15 .0 1 .6 79 .4 4 .5 6 .0 4 .6 57 .9 3 .5 5 .3 5 .8 33 .9 (0 .0) 2 .8 (0 .9) 104 .4 2 .6 8 .2 0 .7 212 .7 5 .6 19 .6 3 .6
201 3:1 4 9.9 2.5 4.3 1.7 2 2.8 0.4 1.5 2.4 2 7.1 4.3 3.2 (1.0) 33 7.6 2.8 2 6.5 2.8 19 9.2 2.8 1 5.0 2.1 8 0.0 2.9 6.0 3.0 5 8.3 2.8 5.4 4.6 3 4.0 0.6 2.8 0.4 10 5.0 2.3 8.2 0.2 21 4.6 3.7 1 9.7 2.7
20 13:2 50.1 2.3 4.3 1.4 22.8 0.3 1.5 2.0 27.4 4.0 3.2 (0.8 ) 3 40.1 3.1 26.7 2.7 2 00.8 3.2 15.1 1.9 80.6 3.3 6.1 3.2 58.7 2.6 5.4 4.1 34.1 1.5 2.8 1.3 1 05.7 2.5 8.2 0.4 2 16.1 2.8 19.9 2.5
86
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Employment by Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
Nondurable Manufacturing Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
201 3:3 5 0.5 2.8 4.3 1.1
20 13:4 50.8 2.5 4.3 0.9
Food Manufacturing Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 2.8
22.8
0.4
0.2
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
Other Nondurable Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 7.7 4.8 3.2 ( 0.6)
28.0 4.5 3.2 (0.5 )
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
34 2.7 3.1 2 6.8 2.1
3 44.3 1.8 26.9 1.7
Retail Trade Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
20 2.4 3.3 1 5.2 1.0
2 03.2 1.6 15.2 0.9
Wholesale Trade Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
8 1.2
81.7
3.1
2.3
6.1
6.2
3.2
2.5
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oreg on
5 9.1
59.4
% Ch
2.6
2.0
U.S.
5.5
5.5
% Ch
4.1
3.1
Information Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
3 4.2
34.3
1.5
1.0
2.8
2.8
1.4
0.8
Financial Activities Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
10 6.2 2.0 8.2 0.4
1 06.6 1.4 8.2 (0.2 )
Professional and Business Services Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
21 7.6 2.7 2 0.0 2.4
2 19.8 4.2 20.1 3.2
2 014: 1 51. 1 2. 3 4. 4 0. 9 22. 8 (0. 4) 1. 5 1. 4 28. 3 4. 6 3. 2 (0. 7) 345. 7 1. 7 27. 0 1. 6 203. 9 1. 3 15. 2 0. 8 82. 2 2. 5 6. 2 2. 3 59. 7 2. 0 5. 6 3. 0 34. 4 0. 6 2. 8 0. 6 106. 3 (0. 9) 8. 2 (1. 1) 221. 6 3. 4 20. 3 3. 3
2014 :2 51 .4 2 .2 4 .4 0 .7 22 .8 (0 .4) 1 .5 1 .3 28 .6 4 .3 3 .2 (0 .5) 347 .4 2 .0 27 .1 1 .6 204 .8 1 .8 15 .3 1 .2 82 .7 2 .6 6 .2 1 .7 59 .9 1 .8 5 .6 2 .6 34 .5 0 .9 2 .8 0 .9 106 .0 (1 .0) 8 .1 (1 .2) 223 .3 3 .0 20 .5 3 .0
201 4:3 5 1.7 2.3 4.4 0.9 2 2.7 (0.4) 1.5 1.5 2 8.9 4.4 3.2 (0.3) 34 9.3 2.1 2 7.2 1.3 20 5.9 2.2 1 5.3 0.7 8 3.2 2.1 6.3 1.7 6 0.2 1.8 5.7 2.7 3 4.5 0.8 2.8 1.0 10 5.9 (0.5) 8.1 (0.7) 22 4.4 1.9 2 0.5 1.9
20 14:4 51.9 2.1 4.4 0.9 22.7 (0.4 ) 1.5 1.8 29.2 4.1 3.2 (0.3 ) 3 50.5 1.4 27.3 1.2 2 06.5 1.1 15.3 0.5 83.6 2.1 6.3 1.8 60.5 1.6 5.7 2.3 34.6 0.4 2.8 0.5 1 05.8 (0.3 ) 8.1 (0.4 ) 2 25.5 1.9 20.6 1.9
2 015: 1 52. 2 2. 2 4. 4 0. 9 22. 7 (0. 4) 1. 5 1. 8 29. 5 4. 2 3. 2 (0. 4) 351. 8 1. 5 27. 4 1. 1 207. 1 1. 3 15. 3 0. 3 84. 0 2. 0 6. 3 1. 9 60. 7 1. 6 5. 7 2. 2 34. 6 0. 3 2. 8 0. 3 105. 7 (0. 5) 8. 1 (0. 7) 227. 0 2. 7 20. 8 2. 6
2015 :2 52 .5 1 .9 4 .4 0 .4 22 .7 (0 .5) 1 .5 1 .1 29 .8 3 .8 3 .2 (0 .5) 353 .4 1 .9 27 .4 1 .1 208 .1 1 .8 15 .3 0 .4 84 .4 2 .1 6 .3 1 .7 60 .9 1 .6 5 .8 2 .3 34 .6 0 .7 2 .8 0 .8 105 .6 (0 .2) 8 .1 (0 .3) 228 .6 3 .0 20 .9 2 .9
201 5:3 5 2.7 2.0 4.4 0.6 2 2.6 (0.4) 1.5 1.3 3 0.1 3.8 3.2 (0.4) 35 5.1 1.9 2 7.5 0.9 20 9.1 2.0 1 5.3 0.0 8 4.8 1.8 6.4 1.5 6 1.2 1.7 5.8 2.5 3 4.7 1.0 2.8 1.1 10 5.7 0.3 8.1 0.2 23 0.2 2.7 2 1.1 2.7
20 15:4 53.0 1.9 4.4 0.6 22.6 (0.4 ) 1.5 1.6 30.4 3.7 3.2 (0.4 ) 3 56.4 1.5 27.6 0.8 2 09.9 1.5 15.3 (0.0 ) 85.1 1.5 6.4 1.4 61.4 1.5 5.8 2.1 34.8 1.1 2.8 0.9 1 05.7 (0.1 ) 8.1 (0.2 ) 2 32.0 3.2 21.2 3.1
87
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Employment by Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
200 6:1
Education and Health Services
Orego n
20 2.5
% Ch
3.7
U.S.
1 7.7
% Ch
3.1
20 06:2 2 04.8 4.5 17.8 2.0
Educational Services
Oreg on
2 7.8
28.5
% Ch
4.0
9.6
U.S.
2.9
2.9
% Ch
4.4
0.7
Health Care and Social Assistance
Oreg on
17 4.7
% Ch
3.6
U.S.
1 4.8
% Ch
2.9
1 76.3 3.7 14.9 2.2
Leisure and Hospitality Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
16 2.6 4.5 1 3.0 3.4
1 64.2 3.9 13.1 2.2
Other Services Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
5 8.1
58.8
3.5
5.2
5.4
5.4
2.4
0.3
Government Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
28 5.3 0.9 2 1.9 0.6
2 85.7 0.6 21.9 1.0
Federal Government Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 9.1 (5.1) 2.7 (0.6)
29.0 (1.2 ) 2.7 0.3
State Government Orego n % Ch
7 5.0 (1.1)
74.7 (1.4 )
Education State Government
Oreg on
2 7.2
27.3
% Ch
1.4
1.4
Local Government Orego n % Ch
18 1.2 2.7
1 81.9 1.7
Education Local Government
Oreg on
9 5.5
95.8
% Ch
2.2
1.6
2 006 :3 205 .2 0 .8 17 .9 2 .1 28 .0 (6 .7) 2 .9 (0 .5) 177 .2 2 .1 15 .0 2 .6 165 .3 2 .9 13 .1 2 .5 59 .1 1 .9 5 .4 0 .5 286 .5 1 .1 22 .0 1 .5 28 .9 (1 .4) 2 .7 0 .6 75 .1 2 .1 27 .6 5 .2 182 .4 1 .1 96 .0 0 .8
200 6:4 20 7.2 4.0 1 8.0 3.4 2 8.4 5.7 2.9 3.9 17 8.9 3.8 1 5.1 3.3 16 7.7 5.7 1 3.2 3.4 5 9.6 3.3 5.5 1.7 28 7.1 0.9 2 2.1 1.1 2 9.0 1.4 2.7 ( 1.6) 7 5.0 ( 0.6) 2 7.4 ( 3.3) 18 3.1 1.4 9 6.3 1.0
20 07:1 2 09.2 3.9 18.1 2.6 28.5 1.0 2.9 0.2 1 80.8 4.4 15.2 3.0 1 70.2 6.1 13.3 2.7 60.0 3.1 5.5 1.2 2 87.2 0.2 22.1 1.0 29.1 0.4 2.7 0.7 74.1 (4.7 ) 27.1 (4.1 ) 1 84.1 2.1 97.0 2.9
2 007: 2 211. 0 3. 3 18. 3 3. 0 29. 0 7. 7 2. 9 1. 3 182. 0 2. 6 15. 3 3. 3 171. 0 1. 9 13. 4 1. 8 60. 2 0. 7 5. 5 1. 4 289. 2 2. 8 22. 2 1. 4 29. 1 0. 4 2. 7 (0. 2) 74. 5 2. 4 27. 5 5. 3 185. 6 3. 3 97. 9 4. 0
2007 :3 212 .4 2 .8 18 .4 3 .0 29 .2 2 .9 2 .9 1 .9 183 .2 2 .8 15 .4 3 .2 172 .6 3 .9 13 .4 1 .0 60 .3 0 .8 5 .5 0 .1 289 .8 0 .8 22 .2 0 .1 29 .1 0 .3 2 .7 0 .7 74 .3 (1 .4) 27 .4 (0 .2) 186 .4 1 .8 98 .6 3 .0
200 7:4 21 4.6 4.2 1 8.5 3.1 2 9.4 3.2 3.0 3.8 18 5.2 4.3 1 5.6 3.0 17 3.9 3.0 1 3.5 3.0 6 0.8 3.7 5.5 0.8 29 2.7 4.1 2 2.3 2.1 2 9.1 (0.0) 2.7 0.8 7 4.9 3.2 2 7.7 4.5 18 8.7 5.1 9 9.6 3.7
20 08:1 2 16.6 3.7 18.7 2.8 29.6 2.8 3.0 3.8 1 87.0 3.9 15.7 2.7 1 74.6 1.5 13.5 (0.1 ) 61.0 1.2 5.5 1.8 2 95.2 3.4 22.4 1.6 29.4 4.5 2.7 0.8 75.6 4.0 27.8 1.2 1 90.1 3.0 1 00.3 3.2
2 008: 2 218. 8 4. 1 18. 8 3. 1 30. 2 7. 6 3. 0 4. 3 188. 6 3. 6 15. 8 2. 8 174. 2 (0. 8) 13. 5 (0. 9) 61. 1 0. 5 5. 5 0. 6 296. 2 1. 5 22. 5 1. 2 29. 5 0. 4 2. 8 2. 6 76. 2 2. 9 28. 1 4. 6 190. 6 1. 0 100. 3 (0. 2)
88
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Employment by Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
Education and Health Services Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
200 8:3 22 1.7 5.4 1 8.9 2.9
Educational Services
Oreg on
3 0.7
% Ch
7.6
U.S.
3.1
% Ch
4.9
Health Care and Social Assistance
Oreg on
19 1.0
% Ch
5.1
U.S.
1 5.9
% Ch
2.5
Leisure and Hospitality Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
17 3.3 ( 2.0) 1 3.5 ( 1.4)
Other Services Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
6 1.2 0.6 5.5 ( 0.5)
Government Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
30 3.3 9.9 2 2.5 1.0
Federal Government
Orego n
2 9.5
% Ch
0.2
U.S.
2.8
% Ch
1.4
State Government
Orego n
7 6.8
% Ch
3.2
Education State Government
Oreg on
2 8.4
% Ch
4.0
Local Government Orego n % Ch
19 7.1 1 4.3
Education Local Government Oreg on % Ch
10 5.0 2 0.2
20 08:4 2 23.1 2.5 19.0 2.2 31.2 6.7 3.1 (1.1 ) 1 91.8 1.8 16.0 2.8 1 72.9 (1.1 ) 13.3 (3.1 ) 60.6 (3.7 ) 5.5 (1.8 ) 3 00.8 (3.3 ) 22.5 (0.1 ) 29.5 0.1 2.8 1.0 77.6 4.1 28.8 5.8 1 93.8 (6.5 ) 1 02.7 (8.3 )
2 009: 1 224. 3 2. 3 19. 2 2. 5 31. 8 7. 4 3. 1 2. 5 192. 5 1. 4 16. 1 2. 5 168. 7 (9. 4) 13. 2 (3. 1) 61. 0 2. 9 5. 5 (3. 8) 301. 2 0. 5 22. 6 0. 5 29. 8 4. 4 2. 8 2. 4 78. 3 3. 8 29. 2 6. 0 193. 1 (1. 5) 102. 6 (0. 7)
2009 :2 225 .6 2 .3 19 .3 3 .0 31 .6 (2 .4) 3 .1 0 .5 194 .0 3 .1 16 .2 3 .5 166 .0 (6 .1) 13 .2 (2 .0) 60 .6 (2 .4) 5 .4 (2 .5) 299 .6 (2 .0) 22 .6 0 .4 30 .2 4 .8 2 .8 5 .1 77 .5 (4 .1) 28 .6 (8 .4) 192 .0 (2 .2) 102 .2 (1 .3)
200 9:3 22 7.2 2.8 1 9.5 3.7 3 1.5 (1.1) 3.1 2.9 19 5.6 3.4 1 6.4 3.9 16 5.4 (1.4) 1 3.1 (1.4) 6 0.4 (1.6) 5.4 (0.9) 29 7.1 (3.4) 2 2.5 (1.1) 2 9.6 (6.5) 2.8 (6.4) 7 5.8 (8.5) 2 8.5 (1.1) 19 1.7 (0.7) 10 1.9 (1.1)
20 09:4 2 28.4 2.2 19.6 1.8 31.5 (0.3 ) 3.1 0.1 1 96.9 2.7 16.5 2.1 1 65.4 (0.1 ) 13.1 (0.1 ) 60.6 1.5 5.4 2.9 2 96.9 (0.2 ) 22.5 (0.6 ) 29.7 1.1 2.8 0.7 75.1 (3.5 ) 28.4 (1.4 ) 1 92.1 0.8 1 02.0 0.1
2 010: 1 229. 9 2.6 19. 7 3.7 31. 5 0.1 3.1 (0. 0) 198. 4 3.0 16. 6 4.4 165. 2 (0. 4) 13. 1 (0. 3) 60. 5 (1. 0) 5.4 (0. 1) 297. 5 0.8 22. 5 0.6 30. 3 7.2 2.8 6.2 74. 7 (2. 3) 28. 4 (1. 2) 192. 5 1.0 102. 0 0.1
2010 :2 231 .8 3 .3 19 .9 4 .0 31 .5 (0 .4) 3 .1 0 .3 200 .3 3 .9 16 .8 4 .7 165 .7 1 .2 13 .1 0 .1 60 .2 (1 .7) 5 .4 (2 .3) 300 .2 3 .8 22 .8 4 .0 33 .0 41 .9 3 .1 38 .0 74 .3 (2 .2) 28 .3 (0 .7) 193 .0 0 .9 102 .1 0 .5
201 0:3 23 3.6 3.2 2 0.1 3.3 3 1.5 (0.1) 3.1 2.0 20 2.2 3.7 1 7.0 3.5 16 6.3 1.4 1 3.1 0.5 6 0.1 (0.5) 5.4 (0.7) 29 8.0 (3.0) 2 2.5 (3.9) 3 0.9 (2 3.6) 2.9 (2 2.3) 7 3.8 (2.3) 2 8.3 (0.5) 19 3.3 0.7 10 2.3 0.9
20 10:4 2 35.3 2.8 20.2 2.3 31.4 (0.5 ) 3.1 1.9 2 03.8 3.4 17.1 2.4 1 66.2 (0.1 ) 13.1 (0.7 ) 60.2 0.1 5.4 (1.3 ) 2 96.8 (1.5 ) 22.4 (3.1 ) 29.8 (12.8 ) 2.8 (12.2 ) 73.3 (2.9 ) 28.2 (0.7 ) 1 93.7 0.9 1 02.5 0.6
89
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Employment by Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
Education and Health Services Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
201 1:1 23 6.0 1.2 2 0.3 1.3
Educational Services Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
3 1.4 ( 0.4) 3.1 1.2
Health Care and Social Assistance
Oreg on
20 4.6
% Ch
1.4
U.S.
1 7.1
% Ch
1.3
Leisure and Hospitality Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
16 6.4 0.4 1 3.1 ( 0.5)
Other Services Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
6 0.2 0.4 5.4 ( 0.8)
Government Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
29 7.0 0.3 2 2.3 ( 0.3)
Federal Government Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 9.7 ( 2.1) 2.8 ( 2.2)
State Government Orego n % Ch
7 3.1 ( 1.1)
Education State Government Oreg on % Ch
2 8.2 ( 0.6)
Local Government Orego n % Ch
19 4.3 1.1
Education Local Government Oreg on % Ch
10 2.6 0.5
20 11:2 2 37.4 2.5 20.4 2.3 31.4 (0.1 ) 3.2 0.7 2 06.1 2.9 17.2 2.6 1 66.8 1.0 13.1 0.4 60.3 0.5 5.4 (1.1 ) 2 97.0 (0.1 ) 22.3 (1.0 ) 29.6 (1.3 ) 2.8 (1.4 ) 72.7 (1.8 ) 28.2 (0.2 ) 1 94.7 0.8 1 02.8 0.7
2 011: 3 238. 6 1. 9 20. 5 1. 5 31. 5 1. 0 3. 1 (0. 7) 207. 1 2. 0 17. 3 1. 9 167. 5 1. 6 13. 1 0. 6 60. 5 1. 2 5. 4 (0. 8) 297. 0 0. 0 22. 2 (0. 7) 29. 5 (0. 7) 2. 8 (0. 9) 72. 5 (1. 5) 28. 2 0. 2 195. 0 0. 7 103. 1 1. 2
2011 :4 239 .5 1 .5 20 .5 0 .6 31 .5 0 .2 3 .1 (1 .1) 208 .0 1 .7 17 .4 0 .9 168 .5 2 .6 13 .2 1 .6 60 .6 1 .2 5 .3 (0 .9) 297 .1 0 .1 22 .2 (1 .1) 29 .5 (0 .5) 2 .8 (0 .7) 72 .1 (1 .9) 28 .2 (0 .2) 195 .5 0 .9 103 .3 0 .8
201 2:1 24 0.0 0.9 2 0.5 0.3 3 1.5 0.0 3.1 (2.1) 20 8.5 1.0 1 7.4 0.7 16 9.6 2.6 1 3.2 2.2 6 0.9 1.8 5.3 (1.2) 29 7.5 0.6 2 2.2 0.1 2 9.5 (0.2) 2.8 (0.3) 7 2.0 (0.6) 2 8.2 0.0 19 6.1 1.3 10 3.5 0.9
20 12:2 2 40.8 1.3 20.5 0.5 31.5 0.3 3.1 (2.6 ) 2 09.2 1.4 17.4 1.0 1 70.6 2.5 13.3 1.8 61.1 1.4 5.3 (1.7 ) 2 98.2 0.9 22.3 1.6 29.5 (0.0 ) 2.7 (0.2 ) 72.2 0.9 28.2 0.2 1 96.6 1.0 1 03.8 1.0
2 012: 3 241. 6 1.4 20. 6 0.5 31. 6 1.1 3.1 (2. 5) 210. 0 1.4 17. 5 1.1 171. 7 2.6 13. 4 2.0 61. 4 1.6 5.3 (0. 2) 298. 8 0.8 22. 3 1.4 29. 5 (0. 0) 2.7 (0. 2) 72. 3 0.7 28. 2 0.5 197. 0 0.9 104. 1 1.3
2012 :4 242 .5 1 .5 20 .6 0 .6 31 .6 0 .2 3 .1 (2 .5) 210 .9 1 .7 17 .5 1 .2 172 .8 2 .5 13 .4 2 .0 61 .6 1 .4 5 .3 0 .4 299 .6 1 .1 22 .5 2 .3 29 .5 (0 .1) 2 .7 (0 .2) 72 .6 1 .7 28 .2 0 .0 197 .5 1 .1 104 .4 1 .1
201 3:1 24 3.4 1.5 2 0.7 1.0 3 1.6 0.3 3.0 (2.5) 21 1.8 1.7 1 7.6 1.6 17 3.8 2.4 1 3.5 1.4 6 1.8 1.2 5.3 (0.3) 30 0.6 1.3 2 2.6 2.1 2 9.5 (0.1) 2.7 (0.2) 7 2.9 1.8 2 8.2 0.2 19 8.2 1.4 10 4.6 0.8
20 13:2 2 44.7 2.2 20.7 1.4 31.7 0.4 3.0 (2.0 ) 2 13.1 2.5 17.7 2.0 1 74.6 1.8 13.5 0.6 61.9 1.0 5.3 (0.5 ) 3 01.3 1.0 22.7 1.8 29.5 (0.1 ) 2.7 (0.2 ) 73.2 1.4 28.3 0.4 1 98.7 1.0 1 04.9 1.0
90
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Employment by Industry (Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
Education and Health Services Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
201 3:3 24 6.1 2.2 2 0.8 1.6
Educational Services Oreg on % Ch U.S. % Ch
3 1.8 1.1 3.0 ( 2.0)
Health Care and Social Assistance
Oreg on
21 4.3
% Ch
2.3
U.S.
1 7.8
% Ch
2.2
Leisure and Hospitality Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
17 5.3 1.7 1 3.5 0.2
Other Services
Orego n
6 2.2
% Ch
1.5
U.S.
5.3
% Ch
0.0
Government Oregon % Ch U.S. % Ch
30 2.0 0.9 2 2.8 1.9
Federal Government Orego n % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 9.4 ( 0.1) 2.7 ( 0.2)
State Government
Orego n
7 3.4
% Ch
1.3
Education State Government
Oreg on
2 8.3
% Ch
0.6
Local Government Orego n % Ch
19 9.1 0.9
Education Local Government Oreg on % Ch
10 5.2 1.2
20 13:4 2 47.3 2.1 20.9 1.3 31.8 0.2 3.0 (2.1 ) 2 15.5 2.3 17.9 1.8 1 75.9 1.4 13.5 0.8 62.3 1.1 5.3 (0.1 ) 3 02.7 0.9 22.9 1.3 29.4 (0.1 ) 2.7 (0.2 ) 73.5 0.7 28.3 0.2 1 99.7 1.1 1 05.4 0.9
2 014: 1 248. 4 1. 7 20. 9 1. 1 31. 8 0. 6 3. 0 (2. 0) 216. 6 1. 9 17. 9 1. 6 176. 8 1. 9 13. 6 0. 9 62. 5 1. 3 5. 3 0. 6 303. 3 0. 9 22. 9 0. 7 29. 4 (0. 1) 2. 7 (0. 2) 73. 5 0. 0 28. 3 0. 0 200. 3 1. 3 105. 7 0. 9
2014 :2 249 .7 2 .1 21 .0 1 .4 31 .9 1 .2 3 .0 (1 .7) 217 .7 2 .2 18 .0 1 .9 177 .5 1 .8 13 .6 0 .8 62 .7 1 .2 5 .3 1 .4 303 .8 0 .6 22 .9 0 .7 29 .4 (0 .1) 2 .7 (0 .2) 73 .5 0 .0 28 .4 0 .3 200 .8 1 .0 106 .0 1 .1
201 4:3 25 1.1 2.3 2 1.1 1.7 3 2.0 1.8 3.0 (1.4) 21 9.0 2.3 1 8.1 2.2 17 8.3 1.8 1 3.6 0.5 6 2.9 1.2 5.3 2.1 30 4.2 0.6 2 3.0 0.7 2 9.4 (0.1) 2.7 (0.2) 7 3.6 0.1 2 8.4 0.7 20 1.3 0.9 10 6.4 1.5
20 14:4 2 52.2 1.9 21.2 1.3 32.1 0.8 2.9 (1.4 ) 2 20.1 2.1 18.2 1.7 1 79.0 1.6 13.6 0.5 63.1 1.2 5.3 0.4 3 04.8 0.7 23.0 0.8 29.4 (0.0 ) 2.7 (0.0 ) 73.5 (0.2 ) 28.4 (0.0 ) 2 01.8 1.1 1 06.6 1.0
2 015: 1 253. 3 1.8 21. 2 1.3 32. 2 0.6 2.9 (1. 5) 221. 2 1.9 18. 3 1.8 179. 8 1.6 13. 6 (0. 0) 63. 3 1.2 5.3 (0. 3) 305. 5 1.0 23. 1 0.8 29. 4 (0. 0) 2.7 (0. 0) 73. 6 0.3 28. 4 0.3 202. 5 1.4 106. 9 0.9
2015 :2 254 .7 2 .1 21 .3 1 .5 32 .2 1 .1 2 .9 (1 .3) 222 .4 2 .3 18 .4 2 .0 180 .4 1 .4 13 .6 (0 .0) 63 .5 1 .3 5 .3 (0 .5) 306 .0 0 .6 23 .1 0 .7 29 .4 (0 .0) 2 .7 (0 .0) 73 .5 (0 .3) 28 .4 0 .1 203 .0 1 .0 107 .2 1 .1
201 5:3 25 6.2 2.4 2 1.4 1.9 3 2.4 1.7 2.9 (1.0) 22 3.8 2.5 1 8.5 2.3 18 1.2 1.9 1 3.6 (0.1) 6 3.7 1.4 5.3 (0.4) 30 6.4 0.5 2 3.2 0.6 2 9.4 (0.0) 2.7 (0.0) 7 3.5 0.0 2 8.5 0.8 20 3.4 0.8 10 7.5 1.4
20 15:4 2 57.3 1.8 21.5 1.4 32.4 0.8 2.9 (1.0 ) 2 24.9 2.0 18.6 1.8 1 81.9 1.6 13.6 0.3 63.9 1.2 5.3 (0.4 ) 3 06.8 0.6 23.2 0.5 29.4 (0.0 ) 2.7 (0.0 ) 73.5 (0.3 ) 28.5 0.2 2 03.9 1.0 1 07.8 0.9
91
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Other Economic Indicators
2006:1 2006:2 2006:3 2006:4 2007:1 2007:2 2007:3 2007:4 2008:1 2008:2
GDP (Bil of 2000 $) Chain Weight (in billions of $) % Ch
11,2 17.3 4.8
11, 291.7 2.7
11, 314. 1 0. 8
11,356.4 11,357.8 11,491.4
1 .5
0 .0
4.8
1 1,62 5.7 4.8
11,620.7 11,646.0
(0.2 )
0.9
11, 727. 4 2. 8
Price and Wage Indicators GDP Implicit Price Deflator, Chain Weight U.S., 2000=100 % Ch
1 15.5 3.5
116.3 2.7
117. 1 2. 8
117 .7 2 .2
118 .9 4 .1
11 9.5 2.0
12 0.0 1.5
1 20.8 2.8
1 21.6 2.6
122. 0 1. 1
Personal Consumption Deflator, Chain Weight U.S., 2000=100 % Ch
1 13.6 1.8
114.5 3.3
115. 4 3. 1
115 .2 (0 .5)
116 .2 3 .4
11 7.2 3.6
11 8.0 2.5
1 19.2 4.3
1 20.3 3.6
121. 5 4. 3
CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=100 Portland-Salem, OR-WA % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 00.8 3.1 1 99.6 1.9
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
39.3
% Ch
13.1
U.S. Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
43.9
% Ch
8.1
Housing Indicators FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index Index 1987 Q1=100 % Ch
4 14.6 16.2
202.3 3.0 201.2 3.4
203. 9 3. 2 203. 0 3. 6
38.9
39. 4
(3.9 )
5. 1
43.9
44. 3
(0.1 )
3. 4
431.3 17.2
443. 4 11. 7
205 .2 2 .5 202 .5 (1 .0)
206 .7 3 .0 204 .4 3 .9
20 8.1 2.7 20 6.5 4.2
40 .0
40 .2
4 0.6
5 .6
2 .8
4.0
45 .1
45 .9
4 5.9
7 .3
7 .3
0.2
452 .2 8 .2
458 .0 5 .2
46 5.5 6.7
20 9.6 3.0 20 7.7 2.4 4 1.1 5.0 4 6.4 4.2 46 5.8 0.2
2 11.2 3.1 2 10.7 5.8 41.6 4.2 46.9 4.4 4 69.4 3.2
2 13.0 3.4 2 13.0 4.5
214. 7 3. 4 215. 4 4. 5
41.7
42. 1
1.3
3. 8
47.3
47. 5
3.5
2. 1
4 68.3 (0.9 )
463. 5 (4. 0)
FHFA National Housing Price Index (19 80Q1=1 00) % Ch
3 70.3 7.5
Housing Starts Oregon (Thous) % Ch U.S. (Millions) % Ch
30.5 (21.7 ) 2.1 10.4
Other Indicators Industrial Production Index, U.S, 1997=100 % Ch
1 09.0 3.6
Prime Rate (Percent)
7.4
% Ch
29.4
374.0 4.0 29.8 (8.9 ) 1.9 (41.4 ) 109.6 2.2 7.9 27.8
377. 6 3. 9 25. 5 (46. 3) 1. 7 (29. 1) 110. 1 2. 0 8. 3 18. 9
383 .1 5 .9 24 .5 (14 .6) 1 .6 (27 .7) 110 .0 (0 .6) 8 .3 0 .0
385 .6 2 .7
38 6.1 0.6
27 .4 55 .3 1 .5 (26 .6)
2 2.8 (5 2.2) 1.5 1.9
110 .5 1 .8 8 .3 0 .0
11 1.1 2.4 8.3 0.0
38 4.0 (2.2) 2 0.3 (3 6.9) 1.3 (3 7.6) 11 1.7 2.1 8.2 (3.5)
3 85.5 1.6 17.3 ( 47.1 ) 1.2 ( 38.0 ) 1 12.0 0.8 7.5 ( 28.3 )
3 84.8 (0.7 ) 14.9 (44.4 ) 1.1 (30.0 ) 1 12.0 0.2 6.2 (53.5 )
378. 7 (6. 2) 13. 1 (41. 2) 1. 0 (10. 2) 110. 7 (4. 6) 5. 1 (55. 3)
92
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Other Economic Indicators
2008:3 2008:4 2009:1 2009:2 2009:3 2009:4 2010:1 2010:2 2010:3 2010:4
GDP (Bil of 2000 $) Chain Weight (in billions of $) % Ch
11,7 12.4 (0.5 )
11,522.1 11,326.2 11,234.1
(6.3 )
(6. 6)
(3 .2)
11 ,206 .0 (1 .0)
1 1,22 2.5 0.6
11,2 70.7 1.7
11,3 62.5 3.3
11 ,439. 4 2. 7
11 ,537 .5 3 .5
Price and Wage Indicators GDP Implicit Price Deflator, Chain Weight U.S., 2000=100 % Ch
1 23.1 3.9
123.3 0.5
124. 2 2. 9
124 .2 (0 .1)
124 .4 0 .7
12 4.6 0.6
1 25.0 1.4
1 25.4 1.2
125. 8 1. 3
126 .2 1 .3
Personal Consumption Deflator, Chain Weight U.S., 2000=100 % Ch
1 23.0 5.0
121.5 (4.9 )
121. 2 (0. 9)
121 .0 (0 .7)
121 .1 0 .3
12 1.3 0.7
1 21.9 1.8
1 22.4 1.8
122. 9 1. 7
123 .5 1 .8
CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=100 Portland-Salem, OR-WA % Ch U.S. % Ch
2 16.8 3.8 2 18.6 6.2
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
42.3
% Ch
2.3
U.S. Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
48.0
% Ch
4.7
Housing Indicators FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index Index 1987 Q1=100 % Ch
4 53.4 (8.5 )
218.0 2.2 213.9 (8.3 ) 42.7 3.6 48.4 3.0 447.6 (5.0 )
218. 4 0. 9 212. 6 (2. 3) 43. 0 2. 8 48. 6 1. 9 432. 9 (12. 5)
217 .6 (1 .5) 211 .9 (1 .4) 43 .4 3 .5 49 .1 4 .0 410 .2 (19 .4)
217 .4 (0 .3) 212 .1 0 .4 43 .6 1 .8 49 .3 1 .9 399 .4 (10 .1)
21 7.4 (0.0) 21 2.6 1.0
2 18.2 1.5 2 13.9 2.4
4 3.7
43.9
1.5
1.5
4 9.6
49.8
1.9
2.1
39 2.4 (6.8)
4 03.5 11.8
2 19.1 1.5 2 15.1 2.2
219. 8 1. 4 216. 1 2. 0
220 .6 1 .5 217 .3 2 .2
44.0
44. 3
44 .5
1.4
1. 9
2 .2
50.1
50. 3
50 .6
1.8
2. 1
2 .2
3 78.0 (23.0 )
370. 5 (7. 7)
379 .4 10 .0
FHFA National Housing Price Index (19 80Q1=1 00) % Ch
3 69.0 (9.8 )
Housing Starts Oregon (Thous) % Ch U.S. (Millions) % Ch
13.3 6.5 0.9 (46.7 )
Other Indicators Industrial Production Index, U.S, 1997=100 % Ch
1 08.1 (9.0 )
Prime Rate (Percent) % Ch
5.0 (6.2 )
368.3 (0.8 ) 9.8 (70.3 ) 0.7 (67.7 ) 104.5 (12.7 ) 4.1 (56.7 )
356. 0 (12. 7) 8. 6 (41. 7) 0. 5 (53. 1) 99. 2 (19. 0) 3. 3 (58. 8)
338 .9 (17 .9) 6 .3 (71 .5) 0 .5 (18 .7) 98 .0 (4 .7) 3 .3 0 .0
333 .4 (6 .3) 6 .3 3 .5 0 .5 7 .3 97 .1 (3 .6) 3 .3 0 .0
32 7.0 (7.5)
3 32.5 6.8
6.8
7.8
3 3.4
75.6
0.6
0.7
8 2.0
89.7
9 6.6
96.6
(2.1)
0.0
3.3
3.3
0.0
0.0
3 11.0 (23.4 )
305. 1 (7. 4)
310 .0 6 .5
8.6
9. 6
11 .0
45.2
58. 5
69 .6
0.8
0. 9
1 .0
42.2
64. 2
59 .7
97.0
97. 6
98 .5
1.8
2. 4
3 .8
3.3
3. 3
3 .5
0.0
0. 0
29 .3
93
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Other Economic Indicators
2011:1 2011:2 2011:3 2011:4 2012:1 2012:2 2012:3 2012:4 2013:1 2013:2
GDP (Bil of 2000 $) Chain Weight
(in billions of $)
11,6 27.3
% Ch
3.2
11, 740. 4 3. 9
11 ,855 .9 4 .0
11 ,970 .7 3 .9
1 2,08 9.0 4.0
12,21 8.5 4.4
12,3 33.3 3.8
12, 443. 8 3. 6
12 ,536 .0 3 .0
12 ,631 .1 3 .1
Price and Wage Indicators GDP Implicit Price Deflator, Chain Weight U.S., 2000=100 % Ch
1 26.6 1.5
127. 0 1. 2
127 .4 1 .1
127 .7 1 .1
12 8.2 1.6
12 8.6 1.3
1 29.1 1.4
129. 6 1. 5
130 .2 1 .9
130 .8 1 .8
Personal Consumption Deflator, Chain Weight U.S., 2000=100 % Ch
1 24.0 1.6
124. 5 1. 8
125 .1 1 .7
125 .6 1 .6
12 6.1 1.8
12 6.7 1.8
1 27.2 1.8
127. 8 1. 6
128 .4 2 .0
129 .1 2 .1
CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=100
Portland-Salem, OR-WA
2 21.4
% Ch
1.3
U.S.
2 18.3
% Ch
1.9
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
44.8
% Ch
2.3
U.S. Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
50.9
% Ch
2.6
Housing Indicators FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index Index 1987 Q1=100 % Ch
3 84.4 5.4
222. 2 1. 4 219. 6 2. 3 45. 0 2. 0 51. 2 2. 0 387. 6 3. 4
223 .2 1 .9 220 .8 2 .2 45 .2 2 .3 51 .4 2 .1 388 .0 0 .4
224 .1 1 .6 222 .0 2 .2 45 .5 2 .6 51 .7 2 .1 391 .7 3 .9
22 5.0 1.7 22 3.4 2.5 4 5.8 2.8 5 2.1 2.7 39 7.4 6.0
22 6.1 1.9 22 4.7 2.3 4 6.2 2.8 5 2.4 2.4 40 3.6 6.4
2 27.3 2.2 2 25.9 2.3 46.5 3.0 52.7 2.6 4 07.8 4.3
228. 3 1. 8 227. 1 2. 0 46. 9 3. 2 53. 1 2. 7 414. 8 7. 0
229 .4 1 .9 228 .5 2 .5 47 .2 3 .3 53 .5 3 .3 423 .8 9 .1
230 .6 2 .1 229 .9 2 .5 47 .6 3 .2 53 .9 2 .9 430 .3 6 .2
FHFA National Housing Price Index (19 80Q1=1 00) % Ch
3 14.3 5.7
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
12.2
% Ch
50.9
U.S. (Millions)
1.1
% Ch
44.5
Other Indicators
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100
99.8
% Ch
5.2
Prime Rate (Percent)
4.0
% Ch
69.6
317. 2 3. 6 13. 4 47. 1 1. 2 48. 9 101. 2 5. 7 4. 4 57. 1
317 .4 0 .3 14 .7 42 .4 1 .3 39 .1 102 .7 6 .1 4 .9 54 .2
320 .3 3 .7 16 .2 49 .9 1 .4 29 .2 104 .1 5 .5 5 .5 50 .6
32 4.9 5.8 1 7.6 3 7.2 1.5 1 9.4 10 5.3 4.9 6.0 4 0.9
32 9.6 6.0 1 8.7 2 9.2 1.5 1 9.0 10 6.7 5.2 6.4 3 5.1
3 32.7 3.8 19.7 23.3 1.6 13.3 1 08.0 4.9 6.5 5.1
338. 0 6. 5 20. 7 20. 5 1. 6 7. 1 109. 2 4. 4 6. 5 0. 0
345 .1 8 .6 21 .4 15 .9 1 .6 4 .5 109 .9 2 .9 6 .5 0 .0
349 .9 5 .7 22 .0 11 .6 1 .6 6 .0 110 .8 3 .0 6 .5 0 .0
94
TABLE A.2 May 2009 - Other Economic Indicators
2013:3 2013:4 2014:1 2014:2 2014:3 2014:4 2015:1 2015:2 2015:3 2015:4
GDP (Bil of 2000 $) Chain Weight
(in billions of $)
12,7 21.8
% Ch
2.9
12, 814. 0 2. 9
12 ,901 .0 2 .7
12 ,990 .2 2 .8
1 3,07 0.1 2.5
13,15 2.3 2.5
13,2 40.5 2.7
13, 334. 6 2. 9
13 ,424 .6 2 .7
13 ,515 .0 2 .7
Price and Wage Indicators GDP Implicit Price Deflator, Chain Weight U.S., 2000=100 % Ch
1 31.4 1.9
132. 0 1. 8
132 .7 2 .2
133 .3 2 .0
13 4.0 2.0
13 4.6 1.8
1 35.3 2.2
135. 9 1. 8
136 .6 1 .9
137 .2 1 .8
Personal Consumption Deflator, Chain Weight U.S., 2000=100 % Ch
1 29.7 2.0
130. 3 1. 8
130 .9 2 .0
131 .6 2 .0
13 2.2 2.0
13 2.8 1.9
1 33.5 2.0
134. 1 1. 9
134 .8 1 .9
135 .4 1 .9
CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=100
Portland-Salem, OR-WA
2 31.9
% Ch
2.3
U.S.
2 31.3
% Ch
2.4
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
48.0
% Ch
3.2
U.S. Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
54.3
% Ch
3.0
Housing Indicators FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index Index 1987 Q1=100 % Ch
4 33.4 2.9
232. 9 1. 8 232. 5 2. 1 48. 4 3. 2 54. 7 3. 0 437. 9 4. 2
234 .0 1 .9 233 .8 2 .3 48 .8 3 .3 55 .2 3 .5 444 .4 6 .1
235 .3 2 .2 235 .1 2 .3 49 .1 3 .0 55 .6 3 .0 450 .1 5 .2
23 6.7 2.4 23 6.5 2.4 4 9.5 3.1 5 6.0 3.1 45 3.7 3.3
23 7.9 2.0 23 7.8 2.2 4 9.9 3.2 5 6.4 3.1 46 0.1 5.8
2 39.1 2.0 2 39.2 2.4 50.3 3.2 56.9 3.5 4 70.0 8.9
240. 4 2. 2 240. 5 2. 2 50. 7 3. 0 57. 3 3. 1 477. 4 6. 4
241 .8 2 .4 241 .9 2 .3 51 .1 3 .1 57 .8 3 .2 482 .5 4 .4
243 .1 2 .1 243 .3 2 .3 51 .5 3 .2 58 .2 3 .2 490 .1 6 .4
FHFA National Housing Price Index (19 80Q1=1 00) % Ch
3 51.9 2.3
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
22.7
% Ch
13.1
U.S. (Millions)
1.7
% Ch
8.1
Other Indicators Industrial Production Index, U.S, 1997=100 % Ch
1 11.6 3.0
Prime Rate (Percent)
6.5
% Ch
0.0
355. 1 3. 7 23. 1 6. 3 1. 7 2. 7 112. 4 3. 0 6. 7 13. 9
360 .0 5 .6
364 .3 4 .8
36 6.8 2.8
23 .2
23 .4
2 3.5
2 .7
2 .7
2.8
1 .7
1 .7
1.7
(2 .3)
(2 .6)
1.4
113 .1 2 .6 7 .2 32 .5
113 .9 2 .8 7 .7 28 .5
11 4.6 2.4 7.7 4.2
37 1.6 5.4 2 3.6 2.0 1.7 0.9 11 5.4 2.8 7.7 0.0
3 79.4 8.6 23.8 2.3 1.7 1.2 1 16.2 2.6 7.7 0.0
385. 0 6. 1
388 .8 4 .0
24. 1
24 .6
6. 4
7 .8
1. 7
1 .7
5. 4
7 .6
117. 0 2. 9
117 .8 2 .7
7. 7
7 .7
(0. 0)
0 .0
394 .6 6 .1 24 .9 5 .0 1 .8 3 .3 118 .6 2 .7 7 .7 (0 .0)
95
96
APPENDIX B:
REVENUE FORECAST DETAIL
Table B.1 Table B.2 Table B.3 Table B.4 Table B.5 Table B.6 Table B.7 Table B.8 Table B.9 Table B.10
General Fund Revenue Statement 2007-09 ...........................................................99 General Fund Revenue Forecast by Fiscal Year ..................................................100 Summary of Tax Model Adjustments ..................................................................101 Oregon Personal Income Tax Revenue Forecast ................................................102 Oregon Corporate Income Tax Revenue Forecast ...............................................104 Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Distribution ..............................................................106 Revenue Distribution to Local Governments ......................................................107 Track Record for the March 2008 Forecast .........................................................108 Lottery Forecast Statement 2007-09 ....................................................................109 Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook..........................................................110
97
98
99
Table B.1 General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2007-09
Taxes Personal Income Taxes (Before Kicker) Implicit Kicker Offset Corporate Income Taxes (Before Kicker) Insurance Taxes Estate Taxes Cigarette Taxes Other Tobacco Products Taxes Other Taxes Fines and Fees State Court Fees Secretary of State Fees Criminal Fines & Assessments Securities Fees Central Service Charges Liquor Apportionment Interest Earnings Miscellaneous Revenues One-time Transfers Gross General Fund Revenues Total Kicker Refunds/Credits Net General Fund Revenues Plus Beginning Balance Less Anticipated Administrative Actions* Less Legislatively Adopted Actions** Available Resources
Estimate at COS 2007
Forecasts Dated: 3/1/2009
Total
2007-08
2008-09
2007-09
Forecasts Dated: 5/15/2009
Total
2007-08
2008-09
2007-09
12,347,910,000 (1,164,712,000) 920,897,000 157,060,000 141,000,000 86,073,000 33,860,000 1,900,000
6,057,533,000 (1,084,201,000) 440,732,000 44,412,000 109,549,000 41,012,000 17,253,000 403,000
5,398,831,000 308,091,000 52,826,000 92,298,000 41,094,000 16,865,000 1,004,000
11,456,364,000 (1,084,201,000) 748,823,000 97,238,000 201,847,000 82,106,000 34,118,000 1,407,000
6,057,533,000 (1,084,201,000) 440,732,000 44,412,000 109,549,000 41,779,000 17,271,000 403,000
5,132,539,000 245,950,000 51,589,000 92,475,000 39,288,000 16,706,000 1,004,000
11,190,072,000 (1,084,201,000) 686,682,000 96,001,000 202,024,000 81,067,000 33,977,000 1,407,000
61,794,000 20,692,000 82,756,000 19,404,000 8,666,000 179,549,000 78,000,000 15,480,000 2,300,000 14,157,341,000 (1,164,712,000) 12,992,629,000 1,513,010,424 (57,332,917) (309,418,000) 14,138,888,507
28,674,000 11,394,000 36,430,000 10,323,000 4,380,000 90,397,000 68,652,000 10,524,000 0 6,971,668,000 (1,084,201,000) 5,887,467,000
28,674,000 12,325,000 37,540,000 8,940,000 4,380,000 92,390,000 25,800,000 10,000,000 0 6,131,058,000 0 6,131,058,000
57,348,000 23,719,000 73,970,000 19,263,000 8,760,000 182,787,000 94,452,000 20,524,000 0 13,102,726,000 (1,084,201,000) 12,018,525,000 1,436,710,360 (42,140,255) (319,288,368) 13,093,806,737
28,674,000 11,394,000 36,682,000 10,323,000 4,380,000 90,397,000 68,652,000 10,524,000 0 6,972,705,000 (1,084,201,000) 5,888,504,000
28,345,000 11,079,000 37,799,000 8,940,000 4,380,000 92,390,000 16,000,000 5,000,000 85,908,000 5,869,392,000 0 5,869,392,000
57,019,000 22,473,000 74,481,000 19,263,000 8,760,000 182,787,000 84,652,000 15,524,000 85,908,000 12,842,097,000 (1,084,201,000) 11,757,896,000 1,436,710,360 (42,140,255) (319,288,368) 12,833,177,737
Projected Expenditures
13,954,705,033
13,948,967,482
13,184,491,858
Estimated Ending Balance
184,183,474
(855,160,745)
Notes: One-time Actions and expenditure changes from SB 5552, HB 5015, and SB 581 are included for FY 2009. Corporate income tax figure includes Corporate Multistate taxes. Other taxes include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Severance Tax, Western Oregon Severance Tax and Amusement Device Tax. Kickers generated in 2005-07 are accounted as revenue offsets in 2007-09. Detailed entries may not add to totals due to rounding. * Administrative Actions equal expenses associated with cashflow management, exclusive of internal borrowing. ** Equals 2005-07 portion of corporate surplus designated for Rainy Day Fund.
(351,314,121)
Difference
Less 3/1/2009
5/15/2009 Less COS
(266,292,000) 0 (62,141,000) (1,237,000) 177,000 (1,039,000) (141,000) 0
(1,157,838,000) 80,511,000 (234,215,000) (61,059,000) 61,024,000 (5,006,000) 117,000 (493,000)
(329,000) (1,246,000) 511,000 0 0 0 (9,800,000) (5,000,000) 85,908,000 (260,629,000) 0 (260,629,000) 0 0 0 (260,629,000) (764,475,624) 503,846,624
(4,775,000) 1,781,000 (8,275,000) (141,000) 94,000 3,238,000 6,652,000 44,000 83,608,000 (1,315,244,000) 80,511,000 (1,234,733,000) (76,300,064) 15,192,662 (9,870,368) (1,305,710,770) (770,213,175) (535,497,595)
100
Table B.1 General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2009-11
Taxes Personal Income Taxes (Before Kicker) Corporate Income Taxes (Before Kicker) Insurance Taxes Estate Taxes Cigarette Taxes Other Tobacco Products Taxes Other Taxes Fines and Fees State Court Fees Secretary of State Fees Criminal Fines & Assessments Securities Fees Central Service Charges Liquor Apportionment Interest Earnings Miscellaneous Revenues1 One-time Transfers Gross General Fund Revenues Net General Fund Revenues Plus Beginning Balance Less Anticipated Administrative Actions* Available Resources
Forecasts Dated: 3/1/2009
Total
2009-10
2010-11
2009-11
5,432,824,000 325,973,000 50,063,000 96,357,000 36,251,000 16,068,000 550,000
5,996,984,000 401,127,000 55,339,000 98,675,000 34,049,000 16,305,000 500,000
11,429,808,000 727,100,000 105,402,000 195,032,000 70,300,000 32,373,000 1,050,000
27,262,000 12,772,000 27,723,000 7,506,000 4,380,000 91,222,000 32,000,000 39,350,000 0
27,262,000 13,239,000 28,567,000 7,883,000 4,380,000 94,946,000 27,000,000 43,400,000 0
54,524,000 26,011,000 56,290,000 15,389,000 8,760,000 186,168,000 59,000,000 82,750,000 0
6,200,301,000 6,849,656,000 13,049,957,000
6,200,301,000 6,849,656,000 13,049,957,000
(855,160,745)
(43,700,000)
13,006,257,000
Forecasts Dated: 5/15/2009
Total
2009-10
2010-11
2009-11
5,241,552,000 278,853,000 46,892,000 96,542,000 34,668,000 15,948,000 550,000
5,781,325,000 330,882,000 52,719,000 98,865,000 32,665,000 16,187,000 500,000
11,022,877,000 609,735,000 99,611,000 195,407,000 67,333,000 32,135,000 1,050,000
28,322,000 12,305,000 30,991,000 7,212,000 4,380,000 92,704,000 22,000,000 39,350,000 0 5,952,269,000 5,952,269,000
28,322,000 12,751,000 31,934,000 7,784,000 4,380,000 96,488,000 27,000,000 43,400,000 0
56,644,000 25,056,000 62,925,000 14,996,000 8,760,000 189,192,000 49,000,000 82,750,000 0
6,565,202,000 12,517,471,000
6,565,202,000 12,517,471,000
(351,314,121)
(43,700,000)
12,473,771,000
1. Includes $62 million related to indirect impacts from the Federal Stimulus legislation signed 2/18/09. Notes: Corporate income tax figure includes Corporate Multistate taxes. Other taxes include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Severance Tax, Western Oregon Severance Tax and Amusement Device Tax. Cigarette and Other Tobacco Taxes are gross tax receipts. Distributions, net of administrative costs, are reported in the Table B.6. Detailed entries may not add to totals due to rounding. * Administrative Actions equal expenses associated with cashflow management, exclusive of internal borrowing.
Difference Less 3/1/2009 (406,931,000) (117,365,000) (5,791,000) 375,000 (2,967,000) (238,000) 0 2,120,000 (955,000) 6,635,000 (393,000) 0 3,024,000 (10,000,000) 0 0 (532,486,000) (532,486,000) 503,846,624 0 (532,486,000)
TABLE B.2 General Fund Revenue Forecast ($Millions)
May 2009
Fiscal Years Taxes Personal Income Corporate Excise & Income Insurance Estate Cigarette Other Tobacco Products Other Taxes Other Revenues Licenses and Fees Charges for Services Liquor Apportionment Interest Earnings Others Total General Fund
2005-06 Fiscal Year
2006-07 Fiscal Year
2007-08 Fiscal Year
2008-09 Fiscal Year
2009-10 Fiscal Year
2010-11 Fiscal Year
2011-12 Fiscal Year
2012-13 Fiscal Year
2013-14 Fiscal Year
2014-15 Fiscal Year
5,443.6 438.2 60.9 89.3 44.3 16.3 1.5
5,596.7 405.9 53.8 79.6 44.5 16.2 1.0
4,973.3 440.7 44.4 109.5 41.8 17.3 0.4
5,132.5 246.0 51.6 92.5 39.3 16.7 1.0
5,241.6 278.9 46.9 96.5 34.7 15.9 0.6
5,781.3 330.9 52.7 98.9 32.7 16.2 0.5
6,397.4 390.0 55.5 101.6 32.7 16.4 0.5
6,952.1 414.9 59.0 104.7 32.7 16.7 0.5
7,600.1 451.0 61.4 108.0 32.7 16.9 0.5
8,276.8 453.6 64.1 111.4 32.5 17.1 0.5
91.6 3.4 78.8 32.2 11.7 6,311.8
83.8 3.3 67.3 69.2 8.9 6,430.2
87.1 4.4 90.4 68.7 10.5 5,888.5
86.2 4.4 92.4 16.0 90.9 5,869.4
78.8 4.4 92.7 22.0 39.4 5,952.3
80.8 4.4 96.5 27.0 43.4 6,565.2
80.3 4.4 99.4 32.0 10.8 7,221.1
82.4 4.4 102.4 27.0 11.0 7,807.7
82.1 4.4 105.4 32.0 11.3 8,505.7
83.9 4.4 108.6 27.0 11.5 9,191.5
101
Biennial Totals Taxes Personal Income Corporate Excise & Income Insurance Estate Taxes Cigarette Other Tobacco Products Other Taxes
2005-07 Biennium Percent Change 2007-09 Biennium Percent Change 2009-11 Biennium Percent Change 2011-13 Biennium Percent Change 2013-15 Biennium Percent Change
11,040.3 844.1 114.7 168.9 88.8 32.6 2.5
22.8% 31.7% 7.5% 29.5% 7.4% 48.5% -10.2%
10,105.9 686.7 96.0 202.0 81.1 34.0 1.4
-8.5% -18.6% -16.3% 19.6% -8.7% 4.4% -43.8%
11,022.9 609.7 99.6 195.4 67.3 32.1 1.1
9.1% -11.2% 3.8% -3.3% -16.9% -5.4% -25.4%
13,349.5 804.9 114.5 206.3 65.5 33.1 1.0
21.1% 32.0% 15.0% 5.6% -2.8% 3.0% -4.8%
15,876.9 904.6 125.5 219.4 65.2 34.0 1.0
18.9% 12.4% 9.5% 6.3% -0.5% 2.8% 0.0%
Other Revenues
Licenses and Fees Charges for Services Liquor Apportionment Interest Earnings Others Total General Fund
175.4 6.7 146.1 101.4 20.5 12,742.0
29.7% 6.5% 18.5% 233.2% -87.6% 22.1%
173.2 8.8 182.8 84.7 101.4 11,757.9
-1.2% 31.0% 25.1% -16.5% 394.3% -7.7%
159.6 8.8 189.2 49.0 82.8 12,517.5
-7.9% 0.0% 3.5% -42.1% -18.4% 6.5%
162.7 8.8 201.7 59.0 21.8 15,028.8
1.9% 0.0% 6.6% 20.4% -73.7% 20.1%
166.0 8.8 214.0 59.0 22.8 17,697.2
2.1% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 4.6% 17.8%
Note: Detailed entries may not add to totals due to rounding. Other taxes include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Severance Tax, Western Oregon Severance Tax and Amusement Device Tax. Commercial Fish Licenses & Fees and Pari-mutual Receipts are included in Other Revenues
102
Table B.3 Summary of Tax Model Adjustments
Personal Income Tax (Thousands) Federal Law Changes Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004
2007
2008
2009
2010
11,130
7,492
5,265
0
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconcilation Act of 2005 Pension Protection Act of 2006 Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 Other Federal Legislation Measure 88 (Federal Tax Subraction Increase) Multnomah County Income Tax 2005 Session Total Tax Law Changes Additional Audit and Compliance Efforts 2007 Session (Regular & Special 1*) Total Tax Law Changes Additional Audit and Compliance Efforts Projected Kicker Personal IncomeTax Law Adjustments
2,600 -1,900 0 -14,200 -149,500
-14,700 -1,500 41,520 -2,200 -152,000
-11,000 -1,500 2,810 -2,400 -154,500
6,300 -2,500 2,300 -17,700 -157,000
-16,572 13,200 6,279 9,264
-20,460 13,200 -2,601 1,990
-18,872 13,200 -7,307 2,060
-26,058 13,200 -12,713 2,240
-139,699 -129,259 -172,244 -191,931
Corporate Income Tax (Thousands) Federal Law Changes Job Creation Act of 2004
2007 -4,210
2008 5,952
2009 5,967
2010 3,822
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconcilation Act of 2005 Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 Other Federal Legislation
-5,400 0 -2,400
-5,700 -85300 -2,000
-1,400 17600 -2,370
500 15260 -2,660
2005 Session Total Tax Law Changes Additional Audit and Compliance Efforts
6,886 2,500
8,213 2,500
7,045 2,500
6,914 2,500
2007 Session (Regular & Special 1) H.B. 2031 (Small Business Tax Credit) Other Tax Law Changes Additional Audit and Compliance Efforts Affordable Housing Lenders Credit
-24,800 -19,002 1,210 0
0 1,581 1,240 0
0 -1,480 1,360 -1,000
0 -5,891 1,460 -2,000
Projected Kicker
Corporate Income Tax Law Adjustments
-45,217
-73,515
28,222
19,905
Notes: Adjustments factored into model results beginning with first forecast observation. Impacts phased out as impact becomes present in historical data. * 2007 Special Session 1 did not result in adjustments to personal income tax.
2011 0 24,200 -19,300 1,730 6,100 -159,500 -17,143 13,200 -30,629 2,340 -179,002 2011 0 500 12800 -2,150 6,450 2,500 0 -10,373 1,560 -3,000 8,287
2012 0 19,700 -21,400 1,460 4,400 -162,000 -13,571 13,200 -25,286 2,440 -181,057 2012 0 400 10400 -2,150 7,045 2,500 0 -14,025 1,660 -3,000 2,830
2013 0 6,500 -25,700 950 3,400 -164,500 -13,846 13,200 -23,961 2,540 -201,417 2013 0 300 6960 -2,470 6,914 2,500 0 -11,401 1,760 -3,500 1,063
May 2009
2014
2015
0 0 -32,000 670 2,300 -167,000
0 0 -37,000 290 1,600 -169,500
-14,127 13,200 22,737 2,640
-14,406 13,200 23,726 2,740
-171,580 2014
-179,350 2015
0 0 4400 -1,870
0 0 2600 -2,080
6,783 2,500
6,652 2,500
0 -11,484 1,860 -4,000
0 -11,392 1,960 -4,000
-1,812
-3,761
TABLE B.4 WITHHOLDING %CHYA EST. PAYMENTS %CHYA FINAL PAYMENTS %CHYA REFUNDS %CHYA OTHER TOTAL %CHYA WITHHOLDING %CHYA EST. PAYMENTS %CHYA FINAL PAYMENTS %CHYA REFUNDS %CHYA OTHER TOTAL %CHYA WITHHOLDING %CHYA EST. PAYMENTS %CHYA FINAL PAYMENTS %CHYA REFUNDS %CHYA OTHER TOTAL
OREGON PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted
2003:3
2003:4
2004:1
2004:2
FY 2004
2004:3
2004:4
2005:1
933,137 4.7%
983,211 4.6%
996,751 7.9%
962,199 6.2%
3,875,297 5.9%
982,063 5.2%
1,022,832 4.0%
1,065,596 6.9%
145,084 -4.5%
116,621 6.0%
168,334 -0.2%
233,037 8.3%
663,076 2.7%
159,213 9.7%
136,815 17.3%
201,521 19.7%
40,743 8.1%
45,029 -3.9%
56,825 13.2%
403,032 11.2%
545,630 9.7%
44,363 8.9%
53,304 18.4%
78,178 37.6%
74,032 -3.1%
78,971 -4.8%
292,880 -3.9%
366,839 16.2%
812,722 4.2%
69,112 -6.6%
80,463 1.9%
343,067 17.1%
(128,394)
-
-
125,686
(2,708)
(125,686)
-
-
916,537 4.8%
1,065,890 5.2%
929,030 10.9%
1,357,116 4.7%
4,268,573 6.1%
990,841 8.1%
1,132,488 6.2%
1,002,228 7.9%
2005:3
2005:4
2006:1
2006:2
FY 2006
2006:3
2006:4
2007:1
1,064,107 8.4%
1,087,942 6.4%
1,177,488 10.5%
1,075,476 6.0%
4,405,013 7.8%
1,118,878 5.1%
1,172,656 7.8%
1,182,336 0.4%
194,848 22.4%
186,648 36.4%
224,403 11.4%
270,754 0.3%
876,653 14.2%
231,720 18.9%
177,026 -5.2%
267,345 19.1%
51,797 16.8%
68,000 27.6%
88,998 13.8%
787,622 49.4%
996,416 41.7%
55,408 7.0%
89,432 31.5%
100,476 12.9%
62,638 -9.4%
94,755 17.8%
345,524 0.7%
358,699 -1.4%
861,617 0.6%
89,254 42.5%
126,707 33.7%
444,768 28.7%
(149,733)
-
-
176,911
27,178
(176,911)
-
-
1,098,381 10.9%
1,247,835 10.2%
1,145,365 14.3%
1,952,063 22.2%
5,443,644 15.3%
1,139,841 3.8%
1,312,406 5.2%
1,105,388 -3.5%
2007:3
2007:4
2008:1
2008:2
FY 2008
2008:3
2008:4
2009:1
1,115,359 -0.3%
1,200,822 2.4%
1,196,532 1.2%
1,111,034 2.1%
4,623,747 1.4%
1,162,107 4.2%
1,182,763 -1.5%
1,128,994 -5.6%
250,749 8.2%
217,163 22.7%
281,441 5.3%
399,475 10.0%
1,148,828 10.6%
264,440 5.5%
174,826 -19.5%
217,305 -22.8%
57,503 3.8%
129,817 45.2%
104,841 4.3%
971,325 24.6%
1,263,486 23.3%
70,306 22.3%
99,430 -23.4%
104,105 -0.7%
71,372 -20.0%
155,912 23.0%
389,876 -12.3%
365,908 -1.0%
983,068 -4.6%
92,063 29.0%
180,329 15.7%
447,706 14.8%
(177,781) (1,084,201)
-
182,322 (1,079,660)
(182,322)
-
-
1,174,457
307,689
1,192,938
2,298,247
4,973,332
1,222,469
1,276,690
1,002,698
May 2009
2005:2
FY 2005
1,014,547 5.4%
4,085,037 5.4%
269,882 15.8%
767,431 15.7%
527,249 30.8%
703,094 28.9%
363,923 -0.8%
856,565 5.4%
149,733
24,047
1,597,487 17.7%
4,723,045 10.6%
2007:2
FY 2007
1,088,108 1.2%
4,561,977 3.6%
363,055 34.1%
1,039,146 18.5%
779,577 -1.0%
1,024,893 2.9%
369,456 3.0%
1,030,186 19.6%
177,781
870
2,039,066 4.5%
5,596,701 2.8%
2009:2
FY 2009
1,074,803 -3.3%
4,548,667 -1.6%
266,589 -33.3%
923,161 -19.6%
504,443 -48.1%
778,284 -38.4%
399,008 9.0%
1,119,106 13.8%
183,854
1,533
1,630,682
5,132,539
103
Note: "Other" includes kicker and federal pension refunds, as well as July withholding accrued to June. Tax law impacts are reflected in the collections numbers to produce more meaningful projections.
104
TABLE B.4 WITHHOLDING %CHYA EST. PAYMENTS %CHYA FINAL PAYMENTS %CHYA REFUNDS %CHYA OTHER TOTAL %CHYA WITHHOLDING %CHYA EST. PAYMENTS %CHYA FINAL PAYMENTS %CHYA REFUNDS %CHYA OTHER TOTAL %CHYA WITHHOLDING %CHYA EST. PAYMENTS %CHYA FINAL PAYMENTS %CHYA REFUNDS %CHYA OTHER TOTAL %CHYA
OREGON PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
FY 2010
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
1,114,248 -4.1%
1,135,659 -4.0%
1,185,994 5.0%
1,125,959 4.8%
4,561,861 0.3%
1,177,066 5.6%
1,199,683 5.6%
1,282,702 8.2%
209,175 -20.9%
143,533 -17.9%
152,599 -29.8%
362,773 36.1%
868,081 -6.0%
240,145 14.8%
164,784 14.8%
175,567 15.1%
66,678 -5.2%
78,643 -20.9%
81,153 -22.0%
568,816 12.8%
795,290 2.2%
63,105 -5.4%
76,666 -2.5%
83,411 2.8%
96,913 5.3%
199,107 10.4%
365,435 -18.4%
333,289 -16.5%
994,745 -11.1%
84,178 -13.1%
168,081 -15.6%
386,926 5.9%
(183,854)
-
-
194,919
11,064
(194,919)
-
-
1,109,335 -9.3%
1,158,728 -9.2%
1,054,311 5.1%
1,919,178 17.7%
5,241,552 2.1%
1,201,218 8.3%
1,273,053 9.9%
1,154,754 9.5%
2011:3
2011:4
2012:1
2012:2
FY 2012
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
1,277,471 8.5%
1,302,018 8.5%
1,396,846 8.9%
1,331,403 9.0%
5,307,738 8.7%
1,391,834 9.0%
1,418,579 9.0%
1,513,044 8.3%
282,438 17.6%
193,806 17.6%
206,071 17.4%
490,495 15.0%
1,172,810 16.4%
324,693 15.0%
222,800 15.0%
235,922 14.5%
66,185 4.9%
80,690 5.2%
87,298 4.7%
753,311 16.5%
987,483 13.5%
70,943 7.2%
88,026 9.1%
97,119 11.2%
87,892 4.4%
178,642 6.3%
427,533 10.5%
394,356 10.7%
1,088,422 9.3%
95,517 8.7%
195,581 9.5%
486,116 13.7%
(213,178)
-
-
230,979
17,800
(230,979)
-
-
1,325,024 10.3%
1,397,871 9.8%
1,262,682 9.3%
2,411,832 12.1%
6,397,409 10.7%
1,460,975 10.3%
1,533,824 9.7%
1,359,970 7.7%
2013:3
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
FY 2014
2014:3
2014:4
2015:1
$1,506,338 8.2%
$1,535,282 8.2%
$1,642,927 8.6%
$1,565,380 8.6%
$6,249,927 8.4%
$1,636,431 8.6%
$1,667,875 8.6%
$1,784,917 8.6%
$355,657 9.5%
$244,048 9.5%
$258,804 9.7%
$598,925 11.5%
$1,457,434 10.4%
$396,470 11.5%
$272,053 11.5%
$288,489 11.5%
$78,396 10.5%
$96,993 10.2%
$107,471 10.7%
$899,734 9.5%
$1,182,594 9.8%
$86,582 10.4%
$107,029 10.3%
$117,837 9.6%
$107,383 12.4%
$222,510 13.8%
$508,625 4.6%
$470,156 4.3%
$1,308,674 6.6%
$113,238 5.5%
$233,044 4.7%
$571,063 12.3%
-$248,505
$0
$0
$267,305
$18,800
-$267,305
$0
$0
1,584,502 8.5%
1,653,813 7.8%
1,500,578 10.3%
2,861,189 10.2%
7,600,082 9.3%
1,738,940 9.7%
1,813,914 9.7%
1,620,179 8.0%
Note: "Other" includes kicker and federal pension refunds, as well as July withholding accrued to June. Tax law impacts are reflected in the collections numbers to produce more meaningful projections.
March 2009
2011:2
FY 2011
1,222,005 8.5%
4,881,456 7.0%
426,663 17.6%
1,007,159 16.0%
646,783 13.7%
869,965 9.4%
356,329 6.9%
995,515 0.1%
213,178
18,260
2,152,300 12.1%
5,781,325 10.3%
2013:2
FY 2013
1,440,935 8.2%
5,764,392 8.6%
537,271 9.5%
1,320,687 12.6%
821,403 9.0%
1,077,491 9.1%
450,748 14.3%
1,227,962 12.8%
248,505
17,526
2,597,366 7.7%
6,952,134 8.7%
2015:2
FY 2015
$1,700,682 8.6%
$6,789,905 8.6%
$667,264 11.4%
$1,624,276 11.4%
$977,415 8.6%
$1,288,863 9.0%
$529,023 12.5%
$1,446,367 10.5%
$287,470
$20,165
3,103,808 8.5%
8,276,841 8.9%
105
TABLE B.5 ADVANCE PAYMENTS %CHYA FINAL PAYMENTS %CHYA REFUNDS %CHYA TOTAL %CHYA ADVANCE PAYMENTS %CHYA FINAL PAYMENTS %CHYA REFUNDS %CHYA TOTAL %CHYA ADVANCE PAYMENTS %CHYA FINAL PAYMENTS %CHYA REFUNDS %CHYA TOTAL %CHYA
OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted
FY
2003:3
2003:4
2004:1
2004:2
2004
2004:3
2004:4
2005:1
2005:2
91,425 35.0%
151,227 20.3%
28,619 -26.8%
120,004 -3.9%
391,275 9.4%
92,089 0.7%
143,362 -5.2%
40,464 41.4%
146,093 21.7%
10,068 16.0%
14,962 39.9%
22,643 152.7%
34,694 203.8%
82,368 107.1%
16,583 64.7%
16,464 10.0%
20,117 -11.2%
45,967 32.5%
17,431 -6.8%
94,587 -13.5%
19,329 0.0%
24,791 -0.5%
156,137 -9.4%
18,617 6.8%
130,324 37.8%
15,204 -21.3%
33,721 36.0%
84,062 45.6%
71,603 163.9%
31,934 11.1%
129,907 16.6%
317,506 41.1%
90,056 7.1%
29,503 -58.8%
45,378 42.1%
158,340 21.9%
2005:3
2005:4
2006:1
2006:2
FY 2006
2006:3
2006:4
2007:1
2007:2
119,391 29.6%
183,280 27.8%
59,091 46.0%
163,812 12.1%
525,573 24.5%
129,737 8.7%
236,441 29.0%
59,754 1.1%
162,465 -0.8%
14,985 -9.6%
17,619 7.0%
24,327 20.9%
39,526 -14.0%
96,457 -2.7%
19,718 31.6%
17,154 -2.6%
25,440 4.6%
65,628 66.0%
16,350 -12.2%
108,723 -16.6%
19,140 25.9%
39,592 17.4%
183,805 -7.1%
22,481 37.5%
199,419 83.4%
38,715 102.3%
49,865 25.9%
118,026 31.1%
92,177 212.4%
64,278 41.6%
163,745 3.4%
438,225 35.6%
126,975 7.6%
54,176 -41.2%
46,478 -27.7%
178,228 8.8%
2007:3
2007:4
2008:1
2008:2
FY 2008
2008:3
2008:4
2009:1
2009:2
133,408 2.8%
205,375 -13.1%
64,256 7.5%
155,284 -4.4%
558,323 -5.1%
100,589 -24.6%
145,285 -29.3%
63,802 -0.7%
89,176 -42.6%
23,631 19.8%
45,064 162.7%
35,076 37.9%
52,143 -20.5%
155,912 21.9%
23,501 -0.6%
26,721 -40.7%
22,314 -36.4%
38,914 -25.4%
39,623 76.3%
158,106 -20.7%
36,380 -6.0%
39,394 -21.0%
273,503 -11.9%
28,134 -29.0%
124,826 -21.0%
67,471 85.5%
43,922 11.5%
117,416 -7.5%
92,333 70.4%
62,951 35.4%
168,032 -5.7%
440,732 8.6%
95,956 -18.3%
47,181 -48.9%
18,645 -70.4%
84,169 -49.9%
May 2009 FY 2005 422,009 7.9% 99,132 20.4% 197,866 26.7% 323,276 1.8% FY 2007 588,396 12.0% 127,941 32.6% 310,480 68.9% 405,857 -7.4% FY 2009 398,853 -28.6% 111,450 -28.5% 264,352 -3.3% 245,950 -44.2%
106
TABLE B.5 ADVANCE PAYMENTS %CHYA FINAL PAYMENTS %CHYA REFUNDS %CHYA TOTAL %CHYA ADVANCE PAYMENTS %CHYA FINAL PAYMENTS %CHYA REFUNDS %CHYA TOTAL %CHYA ADVANCE PAYMENTS %CHYA FINAL PAYMENTS %CHYA REFUNDS %CHYA TOTAL %CHYA
OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted
FY
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
67,660 -32.7%
109,975 -24.3%
44,376 -30.4%
106,674 19.6%
328,685 -17.6%
72,299 6.9%
125,187 13.8%
51,228 15.4%
115,932 8.7%
37,805 60.9%
39,371 47.3%
40,841 83.0%
13,782 -64.6%
131,798 18.3%
18,883 -50.1%
15,636 -60.3%
15,478 -62.1%
39,275 185.0%
33,217 18.1%
98,800 -20.8%
21,822 -67.7%
27,791 -36.7%
181,629 -31.3%
18,142 -45.4%
69,829 -29.3%
15,423 -29.3%
19,642 -29.3%
72,248 -24.7%
50,546 7.1%
63,395 240.0%
92,665 10.1%
278,853 13.4%
73,040 1.1%
70,993 40.5%
51,283 -19.1%
135,565 46.3%
2011:3
2011:4
2012:1
2012:2
FY 2012
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
78,078 8.0%
132,378 5.7%
53,686 4.8%
116,701 0.7%
380,842 4.4%
78,246 0.2%
130,664 -1.3%
52,912 -1.4%
119,817 2.7%
15,892 -15.8%
21,141 35.2%
57,747 273.1%
82,327 109.6%
177,108 98.4%
29,413 85.1%
36,715 73.7%
86,269 49.4%
91,773 11.5%
12,822 -29.3%
103,238 47.8%
22,802 47.8%
29,039 47.8%
167,901 36.5%
18,957 47.8%
127,788 23.8%
28,224 23.8%
35,945 23.8%
81,148 11.1%
50,281 -29.2%
88,631 72.8%
169,989 25.4%
390,049 17.9%
88,702 9.3%
39,590 -21.3%
110,956 25.2%
175,645 3.3%
2013:3
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
FY 2014
2014:3
2014:4
2015:1
2015:2
80,700 3.1%
136,854 4.7%
55,546 5.0%
122,006 1.8%
395,107 3.5%
81,899 1.5%
137,313 0.3%
55,546 0.0%
122,006 0.0%
36,556 24.3%
41,515 13.1%
90,876 5.3%
98,803 7.7%
267,749 9.7%
39,354 7.7%
44,890 8.1%
94,860 4.4%
99,792 1.0%
23,465 23.8%
125,403 -1.9%
27,697 -1.9%
35,274 -1.9%
211,839 0.4%
23,027 -1.9%
132,486 5.6%
29,262 5.6%
37,267 5.6%
93,791 5.7%
52,966 33.8%
118,725 7.0%
185,534 5.6%
451,017 8.7%
98,227 4.7%
49,717 -6.1%
121,144 2.0%
184,532 -0.5%
May 2009 FY 2011 364,645 10.9% 89,273 -32.3% 123,036 -32.3% 330,882 18.7% FY 2013 381,639 0.2% 244,169 37.9% 210,914 25.6% 414,894 6.4% FY 2015 396,765 0.4% 278,897 4.2% 222,041 4.8% 453,620 0.6%
TABLE B.6 Cigarette & Tobacco Tax Distribution (Millions of $)*
Cigarette Tax Distribution
State GF (22 cents) 1
Health Plan (Measure 44) (87 cents) 1
Tobacco Use Reduction Account (3 cents) 2
State Total
Cities, Counties & Public Transit 3
Total
May 2009
Other Tobacco Tax Distribution
State GF
Health Plan4 (Measure 44)
Tobacco Use Reduction Account 4
State Total
107
Gross Receipts 2007-08 2008-09 2007-09 Biennium Net Distributions* 2007-08 2008-09 2007-09 Biennium
41.779 39.288 81.067 41.426 38.935 80.361
162.823 153.117 315.940 161.447 151.742 313.189
6.495 6.108 12.602 6.440 6.053 12.492
211.096 198.513 409.609 209.312 196.730 406.042
12.989 12.215 25.204 12.880 12.105 24.985
224.085 210.728 434.814 222.192 208.835 431.027
17.271 16.706 33.977 16.835 16.269 33.104
Distribution Forecast* 2009-10 2010-11 2009-11 Biennium 2011-12 2012-13 2011-13 Biennium
34.668 32.665 67.333 32.745 32.719 65.464
135.109 127.306 262.415 127.616 127.517 255.132
5.389 5.078 10.467 5.090 5.086 10.177
175.166 165.049 340.215 165.451 165.322 330.773
10.778 10.156 20.934 10.181 10.173 20.353
185.945 175.205 361.150 175.632 175.495 351.127
15.948 16.187 32.135 16.431 16.670 33.101
2013-14 2014-15 2013-15 Biennium
32.660 32.507 65.167
127.287 126.688 253.975
5.077 5.053 10.131
165.024 164.249 329.273
10.154 10.107 20.261
175.179 174.355 349.534
16.905 17.135 34.040
* "Net Distributions" receipts net of Tobacco Task Force expense of $5.409 million for 2007-09 biennium. These expenses are not determined for future biennia, and thus are not incorporated into the forecast. 1. The 1997 Legislature specified that the temporary 10 cent tax be counted as other funds starting July 1, 1997. As a result the Health Plan received 37 cents per pack as of July 1, 1997. The 10 cent tax has expired on January 1, 2004. Voters approved 60 cents per pack tax increase dedicated to the Health Plan, effective November 1, 2002. 2. Measure 44 created the TURA and funded it with a 3 cents per pack tax effective February 1, 1997. 3. Cities, Counties and Public Transit each receive revenue from a 2 cent per pack tax. The total amount shown equals the total 6 cents per pack dedicated to these entities. 4. Measure 44 increased the other tobacco taxes from 35% to 65% of the wholesale price, effective February 1, 1997. House Bill 3433, enacted by the 2001 Legislature, limits this tax to 50 cents per cigar. The Health Plan receives 41.54% of the revenue from the other tobacco tax collections. The TURA receives 4.62 % of collections. The remainder goes to the General Fund.
Note: Tobacco Settlement Payment Forecast ($millions) Source: Bear Stearns
Year
2007
Amount
75.1
2008
2009
97.4
98.9
13.326 12.889 26.215 12.989 12.552 25.541 12.305 12.489 24.794 12.677 12.862 25.539 13.043 13.221 26.263
1.482 1.434 2.916 1.445 1.396 2.841
32.079 31.029 63.108 31.268 30.218 61.486
1.369 1.389 2.758 1.410 1.430 2.840 1.451 1.470 2.921
29.621 30.066 59.687 30.519 30.962 61.480 31.398 31.826 63.224
TABLE B.7 Revenue Distribution to Local Governments (Millions of $)
May 2009
Liquor Apportionment Distribution
Total Liquor
Available for
City Revenue
Revenue Less General Cities and Revenue
Available Fund 56% Counties Sharing Regular Total
Counties
2007-08 2008-09 2007-09 Biennium
161.424 164.982 326.406
90.397 92.390 182.787
71.027 72.592 143.619
22.599 23.098 45.697
32.285 32.996 65.281
54.884 56.094 110.978
16.142 16.498 32.641
Cigarette Tax Distribution to Cities, Counties & Public Transit 1 12.880 12.105 24.985
108
2009-10 2010-11 2009-11 Biennium
165.543 172.300 337.842
92.704 96.488 189.192
72.839 75.812 148.651
23.176 24.122 47.298
33.109 34.460 67.568
56.285 58.582 114.866
16.554 17.230 33.784
10.778 10.156 20.934
2011-12 2012-13 2011-13 Biennium
177.469 182.793 360.261
99.382 102.364 201.746
78.086 80.429 158.515
24.846 25.591 50.437
35.494 36.559 72.052
60.339 62.149 122.489
17.747 18.279 36.026
10.181 10.173 20.353
2013-14 2014-15 2013-15 Biennium
188.276 193.925 382.201
105.435 108.598 214.033
1 For details on cigarette revenues see TABLE B.6 on previous page
82.842 85.327 168.168
26.359 27.149 53.508
37.655 38.785 76.440
64.014 65.934 129.948
18.828 19.392 38.220
10.154 10.107 20.261
109
Table B.8 Track Record for the March 2009 Forecast
(Quarter ending March 31, 2009) Personal Income Tax (Millions of dollars) Withholding Dollar difference
Forecast Comparison
Actual Revenues
Latest Forecast
Percent Difference
$1,129.0
$1,194.0 -$65.0
-5.4%
Estimated Payments Dollar difference
$217.3
$187.0 $30.3
16.2%
Final Payments Dollar difference
$104.1
$94.4 $9.7
10.3%
Refunds Dollar difference
-$447.7
-$412.9 -$34.8
8.4%
Total Personal Income Tax Dollar difference
$1,002.7
$1,062.5 -$59.8
-5.6%
Corporate Income Tax (Millions of dollars) Advanced Payments Dollar difference
Forecast Comparison
Actual
Latest
Percent
Revenues
Forecast
Difference
$63.8
$77.6
-17.8%
-$13.8
Final Payments Dollar difference
$22.3
$31.5 -$9.2
-29.2%
Refunds Dollar difference
-$67.5
-$90.0 $22.5
-25.0%
Total Corporate Income Tax Dollar difference Total Income Tax (Millions of dollars) Corporate and Personal Tax Dollar difference
$18.6
$19.1 -$0.5
-2.5%
Forecast Comparison
Actual
Latest
Percent
Revenues
Forecast
Difference
$1,021.3
$1,081.6
-5.6%
-$60.3
Year/Year Change
Prior Year
Percent Change
$1,196.5 -$67.5
-5.6%
$281.4 -$64.1
-22.8%
$104.8 -$0.7
-0.7%
-$389.9 -$57.8
14.8%
$1,192.9 -$190.2
-15.9%
Year/Year Change
Prior
Percent
Year
Change
$64.3
-0.7%
-$0.5
$35.1 -$12.8
-36.4%
-$36.4 -$31.1
85.5%
$63.0 -$44.3
-70.4%
Year/Year Change
Prior
Percent
Year
Change
$1,255.9
-18.7%
-$234.5
110
TABLE B.9 Summary of Lottery Resources Date: 05/14/2009 (in millions of dollars) LOTTERY EARNINGS Traditional Lottery1 Video Lottery Admin. Savings Total Available to Transfer
2007-09 Current Forecast
Change from Change Mar-09 from COS
132.198 1,091.230 103.455 1,326.883
(0.514) 3.747 6.500 9.732
2.902 (60.623) 68.455 10.734
2009-11 Current Forecast
Change from Mar-09
122.883 1,014.186 0.000 1,137.068
0.791 7.819 0.000 8.610
2011-13 Current Forecast
Change from Mar-09
120.847 1,132.965 0.000 1,253.812
(0.802) 14.231 0.000 13.430
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND Beginning Balance2 Transfers from Lottery Other Resources 3 Total Available Resources
64.109 1,326.883 9.256 1,400.248
0.000 9.732 (4.827) 4.905
(2.184) 10.734 (0.526) 8.024
0.186 1,137.068 4.500 1,141.754
0.010 8.610 0.000 8.620
0.000 1,253.812 6.000 1,259.812
0.000 13.430 0.000 13.430
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES County Economic Development Education Stability Fund 4 Oregon Capital Matching Account 4 Parks and Natural Resources Fund5 Collegiate Athletics 6 Gambling Addiction 6 County Fairs Debt Service on Lottery Bonds7 Other Legislatively Adopted Allocations Total Distributions Ending Balance/Discretionary Resources
39.997 238.839 199.033 11.742 12.067 3.557 161.733 732.909 1,399.877 0.372
(0.786) 1.752
(5.185) 1.932
1.460 0.097 (1.105) 0.000 (5.753) 9.219 4.885 0.021
1.610 0.107 (1.095) 0.000 (5.753) 29.219 20.836 (12.812)
39.088 124.578 66.745 170.560 11.371 11.371 3.648 242.700 670.060 471.694
0.301 (25.563) 1.291 0.086 0.086 0.317 76.394 52.914 (66.887)
43.463 55.454 141.860 188.072 12.538 12.538 3.648 243.100 700.673 559.139
0.547 0.116 2.014 0.134 0.134 0.317 76.794 80.057 (68.545)
Note: Some totals may not foot due to rounding. 1. Includes planned raffles. 2. One-half of the BI200709 Ending balance is transferred to the Capital Matching Account, thus reducing the beginning balance for BI 2009-11. 3. Includes interest earnings on Economic Development Fund and reversions. 4. Eighteen percent of proceeds accrue to the Ed. Stability Fund, until the balance equals 5% of GF Revenues. Thereafter, 15% of proceeds accrue to the Oregon Capital Matching Account. 5. The Parks and Natural Resources Fund Constitutional amendment requires 15% of net proceeds be transferred to this fund. 6. One percent of net lottery proceeds are dedicated to Collegiate Athletics and Gambling Addiction programs, respectively. 7. 2007-11 figures reflect gross debt service on lottery bonds. Figures do not include future issuance.
May 2009 Forecast 2013-15
Current Change from
Forecast
Mar-09
120.508 1,251.052 0.000 1,371.560
(0.800) 24.067 0.000 23.267
0.000 1,371.560 6.000 1,377.560
0.000 23.267 0.000 23.267
47.998 119.830 105.876 205.734 13.716 13.716 3.648 225.700 736.217 641.343
0.924 1.832 3.490 0.233 0.233 0.317 59.394 66.422 (45.119)
Table B.10: Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook
Rainy Day Fund (Millions)
2007-09
Beginning Balance
$0.0
Interest Earnings
$18.6
Deposits1 Ending Balance2
$319.3 $337.9
Education Stability Fund3 (Millions) Beginning Balance Interest Earnings4 Deposits5 Distributions Oregon Education Fund State Scholarship Commission Triggered Withdrawals Ending Balance
2007-09 $178.9 $17.4 $215.0 -$17.3 -$13.0 -$4.3 $394.0
Total Reserves (Millions) Ending Balances Percent of GF Revenues
2007-09 $731.9 6.2%
2009-11 $337.9 $27.0 $0.0 $364.9 2009-11 $394.0 $18.9 $112.1 -$18.9 -$14.2 -$4.7 $506.1 2009-11 $871.0 7.0%
2011-13 $364.9 $45.4 $123.2 $533.5 2011-13 $506.1 $54.8 $49.9 -$54.8 -$41.1 -$13.7 $556.0 2011-13 $1,089.5 7.2%
May 2009 2013-15 $533.5 $73.9 $270.4 $877.8 2013-15 $556.0 $64.5 $107.8 -$64.5 -$48.4 -$16.1 $663.8 2013-15 $1,541.7 8.7%
Footnotes: 1. Includes transfer of ending General Fund balances, up to 1% of budgeted appropriations, as well as private donations. Assumes future appropriations equal to 98.75 percent of available resources. 2. Available funds in a given biennium equal 2/3rds of the beginning balance under current law. 3. Excludes funds in the Oregon Growth and the Oregon Resource and Technology Development subaccounts. 4. Interest earnings are distributed to the Oregon Education Funds (75% ) and the State Scholarship Fund (25% ). 5. Contributions to the ESF are capped at 5% of the prior biennium's General Fund revenue total. Quarterly contributions are made until the balance exceeds the cap.
111
APPENDIX C: POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX STATE OF OREGON Table C. 1 Population Forecasts Components of Change 1980-2013 .............................114 Table C. 2 Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000-2013 ........................................115 Table C. 3 Population of Oregon: 1980-2013 .................................................................116 Table C. 4 Children: Ages 0-4 .........................................................................................116 Table C. 5 School Age Population: Ages 5-17 ................................................................116 Table C. 6 Young Adult Population: Ages 18-24 ............................................................116 Table C. 7 Criminally "At Risk" Population: Males Ages 15-39....................................117 Table C. 8 Prime Wage Earners: Ages 25-44 ..................................................................117 Table C. 9 Older Wage Earners: Ages 45-64...................................................................117 Table C. 10 Elderly Population by Age Group..................................................................117 112
113
OREGON'S POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX Procedure and Assumptions Population forecasts by age and sex are developed using the cohort-component projection procedure. The population by single year of age and sex is projected based on the specific assumptions of vital events and migrations. Oregon's population as of July 1, 2000 is the base population for the forecasting model. The total base population by age-sex detail is derived from the U.S. Census Bureau. To explain the cohort-component projection procedure very briefly, the forecasting model "survives" the initial population distribution by age and sex to the next age-sex category in the following year, and then applies age-sex-specific birth and migration rates to the mid-year population. Further iterations subject the in-and-out migrants to the same population. Total populations for the years 2001 through 2008 in the following tables are annual estimates from Center for Population Research, Portland State University. The numbers of births and deaths through 2007-08 are from Oregon's Center for Health Statistics. The total populations for the period 2009 to 2015 are generated as part of the economic and revenue forecast of OEA. The numbers of births and deaths are projected based on the assumptions of fertility and mortality rates derived from historical trend and forecast for the United States. Age-specific fertility rates are projected based on Oregon's past trends and past and projected national trends. Oregon's total fertility rate is assumed to remain below 2.0 children per woman during the forecast period, tracking at slightly lower than the national rate. Life Table survival rates are developed for the year 2000. Male and female life expectancies for the 2000-2015 period are projected based on the past three decades of trends and national projected life expectancies. Gradual improvements in life expectancies are expected over the forecast period. At the same time, the difference between the male and female life expectancies will continue to shrink. The male life expectancy of 75.7 and the female life expectancy of 80.3 in 2000 are projected to improve to 78.8 years for males and 83.1 years for females by the year 2015. Estimates and forecasts of the number of net migrations are based on the residuals from the difference between population change and natural increase (births minus deaths) in a given forecast period. The annual net migration between 2008 and 2015 is expected to remain in the range of 16,600 to 31,300, averaging 27,000 persons annually. Slowdown in Oregon's economy during the early years of this decade resulted in smaller net migration and slow population growth. Population growth and net migration rates in 2000 through 2004 were the lowest in over a decade. Current slowdown in Oregon's economy is expected to result in even lower net migration and slowing population growth in the short-term with implications for the long-term forecast horizon. Migration is intrinsically related to economy and employment situation of the state. Still, current high unemployment and job loss will impact net migration and population growth, but not to the extent to early 1980s. It is because of the fact that other states are not faring any better. Hence the potential out-migrants have very limited destination choices. 114
Table C. 1
Year ( J-u-l-y--1-) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
Po--p-u--l-a-t-io--n2,641,200 2,668,000 2,664,900 2,653,100 2,666,600 2,672,600
1980-1985
1986 2,683,500 1987 2,701,000 1988 2,741,300 1989 2,790,600 1990 2,860,400 1985-1990
1991 2,928,500 1992 2,991,800 1993 3,060,400 1994 3,121,300 1995 3,184,400 1990-1995
1996 3,247,100 1997 3,304,300 1998 3,352,400 1999 3,393,900 2000 3,431,530 1995-2000
2001 3,471,700 2002 3,504,700 2003 3,541,500 2004 3,582,600 2005 3,631,440 2000-2005
2006 3,690,505 2007 3,745,455 2008 3,791,075 2009 3,824,900 2010 3,863,000 2005-2010
2011 3,908,500 2012 3,957,700 2013 4,007,200 2014 4,056,500 2015 4,105,800 2010-2015
1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010
STATE OF OREGON POPULATION FORECASTS COMPONENTS OF CHANGE 1980 -2015
Population Change
--N--u-m---b-e--r P-e--r-c-e-n--t
---
---
26,800
1.01
-3,100 -0.12
-11,800 -0.44
13,500
0.51
6,000
0.23
31,400
Births
--N--u--m--b-e--r Ra-t-e-/-1-0-0-0-
---
---
43,196 16.27
42,261 15.85
40,378 15.19
39,611 14.89
39,296 14.72
204,742
Deaths
--N--u-m--b--e-r- Ra-t-e-/-1-0-0-0-
---
---
21,870
8.24
21,548
8.08
22,039
8.29
22,702
8.54
23,531
8.81
111,690
10,900
0.41
39,332
14.69
23,403
8.74
17,500
0.65
38,702
14.38
23,695
8.80
40,300
1.49
39,120
14.38
24,752
9.10
49,300
1.80
40,648
14.70
24,705
8.93
69,800
2.50
42,008
14.87
24,763
8.76
187,800
199,810
121,318
68,100
2.38
42,682
14.75
24,944
8.62
63,300
2.16
42,427
14.33
25,166
8.50
68,600
2.29
41,442
13.69
26,543
8.77
60,900
1.99
41,487
13.42
27,564
8.92
63,100
2.02
42,426
13.46
27,552
8.74
324,000
210,464
131,769
62,700
1.97
43,196
13.43
28,768
8.95
57,200
1.76
43,625
13.32
29,201
8.91
48,100
1.46
44,696
13.43
28,705
8.62
41,500
1.24
45,188
13.40
29,848
8.85
37,630
1.11
45,534
13.34
28,909
8.47
247,130
222,239
145,431
40,170
1.17
45,536
13.19
29,934
8.67
33,000
0.95
44,995
12.90
30,828
8.84
36,800
1.05
45,686
12.97
30,604
8.69
41,099
1.16
45,599
12.80
30,721
8.62
48,841
1.36
45,892
12.72
30,723
8.52
199,910
227,708
152,810
59,065
1.63
46,471
12.69
30,314
8.28
54,950
1.49
48,503
13.05
30,448
8.19
45,620
1.22
48,384
12.84
30,889
8.20
33,825
0.89
48,357
12.70
31,118
8.17
38,101
1.00
48,797
12.69
31,308
8.14
231,560
240,512
154,078
45,500
1.18
49,147
12.65
31,546
8.12
49,199
1.26
49,778
12.66
31,835
8.09
49,500
1.25
50,381
12.65
32,163
8.08
49,300
1.23
50,932
12.63
32,512
8.06
49,301
1.22
51,427
12.60
32,880
8.06
242,800
251,665
160,936
219,200 571,130 431,470
404,552 432,703 468,220
233,008 277,200 306,888
Natural -I-n--c-r-e-a--s-e- --21, 326 20, 713 18, 339 16, 909 15, 765 93, 052 15, 929 15, 007 14, 368 15, 943 17, 245 78, 492 17, 738 17, 261 14, 899 13, 923 14, 874 78, 695 14, 428 14, 424 15, 991 15, 340 16, 625 76, 808 15, 602 14, 167 15, 082 14, 878 15, 169 74, 898 16, 157 18, 055 17, 495 17, 239 17, 489 86, 435 17, 601 17, 943 18, 218 18, 420 18, 547 90, 729 171, 544 155, 503 161, 333
Sources: 1980-2000 population - U.S. Bureau of the Census; 2001-2008 population - Population Research Center, PSU; 2009-2015 - Office of Economic Analysi s; 1980-08 births and deaths: Oregon Center for Health Statistics.
Net Migration
--N--u-m---b-e--r Ra-t-e-/1--0-0-0-
---
---
5,474
2.06
-23,813
-8.93
-30,139 -11.33
-3,409
-1.28
-9,765
-3.66
-61,652
-5,029 2,493 25,932 33,357 52,555 109,308
-1.88 0.93 9.53 12.06 18.60
50,362 46,039 53,701 46,977 48,226 245,305
17.40 15.55 17.75 15.20 15.30
48,272 42,776 32,109 26,160 21,005 170,322
15.01 13.06 9.65 7.76 6.15
24,568
7.12
18,833
5.40
21,718
6.16
26,221
7.36
33,672
9.33
125,012
42,908 36,895 28,125 16,586 20,612 145,125
11.72 9.92 7.46 4.36 5.36
27,899
7.18
31,256
7.95
31,282
7.86
30,880
7.66
30,754
7.54
152,071
47,656 415,627 270,138
115
Table C. 2
Oregon's Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000-2015 (July 1 population)
2000
2001
2002
2 003
Age
M ale
F emale
To tal
-------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
0-4
114, 089
10 9,109
223,1 98
5- 9 10-14
119, 728 124, 731
11 4,005 11 8,373
233,7 33 243,1 04
15-19 20-24
125, 941 119, 362
11 9,230 11 3,342
245,1 71 232,7 04
25-29 30-34
120, 609 122, 510
11 2,253 11 4,776
232,8 62 237,2 86
35-39 40-44 45-49
128, 828 134, 552 135, 715
12 6,293 13 7,191 13 7,448
255,1 21 271,7 43 273,1 63
50-54 55-59
118, 674 85, 986
11 9,617 8 8, 165
238,2 91 174,1 51
60-64 65-69
64, 549 53, 078
6 7, 444 5 9, 230
131,9 93 112,3 08
70-74 75-79
48, 503 40, 447
5 8, 073 5 4, 757
106,5 76 95,2 04
80-84 85+
26, 452 18, 528
4 0, 414 3 9, 528
66,8 66 58,0 56
M ale
Fe m a le
Total
------------------ ------------------ ------------------
114, 659
109, 885
224,5 44
118, 993 125, 947
113, 315 119, 558
232,3 07 245,5 05
126, 971 121, 099
119, 674 115, 890
246,6 44 236,9 89
119, 719 126, 215
111, 704 117, 835
231,4 23 244,0 50
126, 068 135, 208 136, 538
123, 161 136, 998 139, 007
249,2 29 272,2 07 275,5 45
125, 869 89, 402
127, 223 91, 625
253,0 92 181,0 28
67, 398 53, 720
70, 444 59, 268
137,8 42 112,9 88
48, 093 40, 355
57, 134 54, 200
105,2 27 94,5 55
27, 369 19, 345
41, 320 40, 489
68,6 89 59,8 34
Ma l e
Fe m al e
T ot a l
------------------ ------------------ ------------------
115,0 65
109, 830
224,895
118,1 03 126,4 63
112, 750 120, 499
230,853 246,963
126,6 31 123,4 41
119, 486 118, 175
246,117 241,616
119,7 30 128,4 38
112, 740 119, 539
232,470 247,977
124,0 81 134,2 06 137,5 69
119, 818 135, 536 140, 403
243,899 269,742 277,971
126,6 20 98,4 01
128, 221 100, 700
254,840 199,101
70,6 83 54,7 35
73, 992 59, 983
144,675 114,718
47,5 09 40,2 41
56, 256 53, 341
103,766 93,582
28,2 18 19,9 47
42, 149 41, 200
70,366 61,147
Male
Fe m al e
Total
------------------ ------------------ ------------------
115,889
110, 479
22 6,368
117,869 126,988
112, 700 120, 635
23 0,570 24 7,622
125,593 126,189
119, 690 120, 175
24 5,282 24 6,364
121,438 129,262
114, 557 120, 677
23 5,995 24 9,940
122,730 133,448 137,161
117, 464 134, 053 140, 481
24 0,194 26 7,501 27 7,642
129,646 104,124
132, 014 106, 201
26 1,660 21 0,325
75,518 56,496
78, 824 61, 615
15 4,342 11 8,111
47,046 40,238
55, 542 52, 409
10 2,588 9 2,647
28,535 20,866
42, 794 42, 152
7 1,329 6 3,018
T ot al
1,702,282 1,72 9, 248 3,431,5 30
1,722,970 1,748,729 3, 471,7 00
1,740,0 82 1 ,764,618 3,504,700
1,759,037 1 ,782,463 3,54 1,500
M dn. Age
35. 2
3 7.6
36.4
35. 3
3 7. 8
36.6
35.5
38. 0
36.8
35.7
38. 2
3 6.9
2004
2005
2006
2 007
-----A--g-e------ -----------M----a-l-e- ---------F--e-m--a--l-e- ------------T--o-t-a--l
0-4
116, 733
11 1,248
227,9 81
5- 9 10-14
118, 416 126, 151
11 3,224 12 0,031
231,6 40 246,1 82
15-19
126, 310
12 0,509
246,8 19
20-24 25-29 30-34
127, 998 123, 787 128, 821
12 2,284 11 7,101 12 0,228
250,2 83 240,8 88 249,0 49
35-39 40-44
123, 467 133, 141
11 7,324 13 2,773
240,7 91 265,9 14
45-49 50-54 55-59
135, 935 132, 902 110, 295
13 9,566 13 6,064 11 2,331
275,5 01 268,9 66 222,6 25
60-64 65-69
80, 122 58, 549
8 3, 333 6 3, 639
163,4 55 122,1 88
70-74 75-79
46, 997 39, 892
5 4, 975 5 1, 358
101,9 72 91,2 50
80-84 85+
28, 915 21, 632
4 3, 453 4 3, 096
72,3 68 64,7 28
------------M---a-l-e- ---------F--e-m--a---le- ------------T--o-t-a--l
117, 472
112, 080
229,5 52
119, 188 124, 709
114, 155 118, 975
233,3 43 243,6 85
128, 176
122, 094
250,2 70
129, 345 126, 462 127, 601
123, 196 120, 639 119, 645
252,5 41 247,1 02 247,2 47
127, 326 131, 886
120, 259 130, 347
247,5 85 262,2 33
135, 632 135, 198 117, 552
139, 553 138, 572 120, 023
275,1 85 273,7 70 237,5 75
84, 084 60, 958
87, 757 65, 580
171,8 42 126,5 38
47, 595 39, 739
55, 013 50, 721
102,6 08 90,4 60
29, 283 22, 640
43, 589 44, 394
72,8 73 67,0 34
------------M---a-l-e- ---------F--e-m---a-l-e- ------------T--o-t-a--l
118,3 67
112, 937
231,303
120,4 68 124,3 45
115, 652 118, 655
236,120 243,000
129,8 88
123, 801
253,689
131,1 04 129,6 12 127,6 70
124, 339 124, 600 120, 104
255,443 254,212 247,775
131,8 83 129,6 06
124, 207 127, 710
256,090 257,317
136,7 10 136,3 94 125,2 02
139, 803 140, 578 128, 183
276,513 276,971 253,385
87,8 85 64,0 07
91, 673 68, 847
179,558 132,855
48,4 31 39,6 39
55, 250 50, 116
103,681 89,755
29,4 97 23,9 10
43, 385 46, 047
72,882 69,957
------------M---a-l-e- ---------F--e-m---a-l-e- ------------T--o-t-a--l
120,282
114, 757
23 5,039
121,509 123,946
116, 197 118, 611
23 7,706 24 2,557
130,919
125, 281
25 6,200
131,195 133,221 128,804
124, 589 128, 129 122, 330
25 5,785 26 1,350 25 1,134
135,064 128,211
126, 880 124, 932
26 1,943 25 3,143
136,181 137,832 126,416
138, 840 142, 439 129, 668
27 5,021 28 0,270 25 6,084
97,264 67,551
101, 267 72, 736
19 8,531 14 0,287
49,677 39,441
56, 211 49, 595
10 5,888 8 9,036
29,736 25,128
42, 972 47, 644
7 2,708 7 2,772
T ot al
1,780,063 1,80 2, 537 3,582,6 00
1,804,847 1,826,593 3, 631,4 40
1,834,6 19 1 ,855,887 3,690,505
1,862,376 1 ,883,079 3,74 5,455
M dn. Age
35. 8
3 8.3
37.0
36. 0
3 8. 4
37.1
36.3
38. 4
37.3
36.5
38. 5
3 7.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
Age
M ale
Female
Total
-------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
0-4
121,458
115,869
237,326
5- 9
122,593
117,087
239,679
10-14
124,068
118,934
243,002
15-19
131,606
125,564
257,170
20-24
130,044
124,737
254,781
25-29
136,324
130,444
266,768
30-34
131,038
124,657
255,695
35-39
136,261
128,432
264,694
40-44
127,095
122,762
249,856
45-49
135,615
137,542
273,157
50-54
137,586
142,668
280,253
55-59
129,545
133,612
263,157
60-64
103,114
106,955
210,069
65-69
72,417
77,712
150,129
70-74
51,496
57,957
109,453
75-79
39,251
49,129
88,380
80-84
29,935
42,415
72,350
85+
26,075
49,079
75,155
M al e
Female
T ot a l
------------------ ------------------ ------------------
122,429
116,783
239,213
122,894
117,312
240,206
124,421
119,266
243,687
130,421
124,594
255,015
130,246
125,031
255,278
137,261
131,754
269,016
133,010
126,780
259,790
135,464
127,591
263,055
127,646
122,366
250,012
135,148
136,051
271,199
136,223
141,523
277,746
132,507
137,381
269,888
108,980
112,831
221,811
76,769
82,053
158,822
53,427
59,941
113,368
39,315
48,710
88,025
29,775
41,705
71,479
26,896
50,396
77,291
Male
Female
T ota l
------------------ ------------------ ------------------
123,716
118,007
241,723
122,979
117,503
240,482
124,806
119,803
244,608
128,515
123,058
251,573
131,749
126,227
257,976
137,537
131,609
269,146
134,974
129,637
264,612
133,599
126,337
259,936
131,182
124,925
256,108
133,586
133,220
266,806
135,707
141,202
276,910
134,480
139,536
274,016
115,811
120,157
235,968
80,395
86,160
166,554
55,637
61,754
117,391
39,935
48,816
88,751
29,773
41,318
71,091
27,840
51,508
79,349
M a le
Female
Total
------------------ ------------------ ------------------
125,192
119,416
244,607
123,209
117,711
240,921
125,366
120,579
245,945
127,738
122,316
250,054
133,189
127,641
260,831
138,459
131,888
270,347
137,119
132,676
269,795
132,770
125,874
258,644
135,187
128,294
263,480
130,847
130,019
260,866
136,481
141,070
277,551
135,400
141,195
276,596
122,948
127,880
250,828
83,746
89,643
173,389
58,314
64,674
122,988
40,688
49,040
89,728
29,777
40,902
70,679
28,763
52,490
81,253
T ot al
1,885,520 1,905,555 3,791,075
1,902,834 1,922,066 3,824,900
1,922,222 1,940,778 3,863,000
1,945,194 1,963,307 3,908,500
Mdn. Age
36.7
38.7
37.7
37.0
39.0
38.0
37.2
39.2
38.2
37.3
39.4
38.3
2012
2013
2014
2015
Age
M ale
Female
Total
-------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
0-4
126,005
120,190
246,195
5- 9
124,904
119,321
244,226
10-14
125,891
120,592
246,484
15-19
127,194
122,134
249,328
20-24
134,122
129,037
263,159
25-29
138,258
131,834
270,093
30-34
140,271
135,790
276,061
35-39
133,415
127,637
261,052
40-44
138,054
130,632
268,686
45-49
129,331
127,036
256,367
50-54
135,981
140,098
276,078
55-59
136,884
143,095
279,979
60-64
124,155
129,370
253,524
65-69
92,643
98,916
191,559
70-74
61,517
68,255
129,772
75-79
41,809
49,948
91,757
80-84
29,743
40,562
70,305
85+
29,720
53,355
83,075
M al e
Female
T ot a l
------------------ ------------------ ------------------
127,170
121,298
248,468
126,246
120,599
246,846
126,704
121,218
247,923
127,225
122,373
249,598
134,927
129,417
264,344
137,362
132,269
269,631
143,619
138,350
281,969
135,738
130,083
265,820
139,302
132,257
271,560
128,269
124,881
253,149
135,566
138,942
274,509
136,849
143,522
280,371
127,448
133,520
260,969
98,401
104,635
203,036
66,097
73,030
139,127
43,469
51,618
95,087
29,752
40,304
70,056
30,577
54,160
84,737
Male
Female
T ota l
------------------ ------------------ ------------------
128,562
122,624
251,186
127,725
122,012
249,737
127,341
121,782
249,123
127,832
122,965
250,797
134,082
128,790
262,873
138,349
133,343
271,692
145,538
140,676
286,214
138,472
133,019
271,491
138,990
131,919
270,910
129,151
124,824
253,975
135,444
137,811
273,255
135,867
142,769
278,635
130,828
137,769
268,597
104,447
110,849
215,296
70,348
77,373
147,721
45,277
53,550
98,827
29,967
40,118
70,085
31,192
54,893
86,085
M a le
Female
Total
------------------ ------------------ ------------------
129,940
123,936
253,876
129,382
123,597
252,979
127,668
122,223
249,892
128,363
123,655
252,018
132,353
127,443
259,796
140,420
135,101
275,521
146,510
141,193
287,704
141,055
136,583
277,638
137,466
131,025
268,491
132,930
127,643
260,573
134,083
135,158
269,241
135,586
142,672
278,258
133,078
140,217
273,295
111,352
118,413
229,765
73,905
81,446
155,351
47,352
55,324
102,675
30,635
40,377
71,012
32,001
55,716
87,717
T ot al
1,969,897 1,987,803 3,957,700
1,994,722 2,012,478 4,007,200
2,019,413 2,037,086 4,056,500
2,044,079 2,061,722 4,105,800
Mdn. Age
37.5
39.5
38.5
37.7
39.6
38.6
37.9
39.7
38.8
38.1
39.9
39.0
116
Population Percent Ch ang e
Table C. 3 Population of Oregon: 1980-2015
Year
Total Change from previous year
(July 1) Population
Number
Percent
----------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
1980 2,641,200
-- -
1981 2,668,000
26,800
1.01%
1982 2,664,900
-3,100
- 0.12%
1983 2,653,100
-11,800
- 0.44%
1984 2,666,600
13,500
0.51%
1985 2,672,600
6,000
0.23%
1986 2,683,500
10,900
0.41%
1987 2,701,000
17,500
0.65%
1988 2,741,300
40,300
1.49%
1989 2,790,600
49,300
1.80%
1990 2,860,400
69,800
2.50%
1991 2,928,500
68,100
2.38%
1992 2,991,800
63,300
2.16%
1993 3,060,400
68,600
2.29%
1994 3,121,300
60,900
1.99%
1995 3,184,400
63,100
2.02%
1996 3,247,100
62,700
1.97%
1997 3,304,300
57,200
1.76%
1998 3,352,400
48,100
1.46%
1999 3,393,900
41,500
1.24%
2000 3,431,530
37,630
1.11%
2001 3,471,700
40,170
1.17%
2002 3,504,700
33,000
0.95%
2003 3,541,500
36,800
1.05%
2004 3,582,600
41,099
1.16%
2005 3,631,440
48,841
1.36%
2006 3,690,505
59,065
1.63%
2007 3,745,455
54,950
1.49%
2008 3,791,075
45,620
1.22%
2009 3,824,900
33,825
0.89%
2010 3,863,000
38,101
1.00%
2011 3,908,500
45,500
1.18%
2012 3,957,700
49,199
1.26%
2013 4,007,200
49,500
1.25%
2014 4,056,500
49,300
1.23%
2015 4,105,800
49,301
1.22%
Oregon' s Population and Annual Percent Change, 1980-2015
4,500,000
4.0%
4,000,000
3.0%
Annual Percent Change
(right s cale)
3,500,000
2.0%
3,000,000 2,500,000
Total Population (left scal e)
1.0% 0.0% Forecast
2,000,000
-1 .0 %
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Table C. 4
Children: Ages 0-4
Table C. 5 School Age Population: Ages 5-17
Table C. 6 Young Adult Population: Ages 18-24
Year
Change from pr evious decade /yr.
Change from previous decade/yr .
Change from previous decade/yr.
(July 1)
Population
Number
Percent Population
Number
Percent Population
Number
Percent
----------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
1980
199,525
---
---
524,446
---
---
329,407
---
---
1990
209,638
10,113
5.07% 532,727
8,281
1.58%
268,134
-61,273
-18.60%
2000
223,198
13,560
6.47% 624,354
91,627
17.20%
330,358
62,224
23.21%
2001
224,544
1,346
0.60% 624,712
358
0.06%
336,733
6,375
1.93%
2002
224,895
351
0.16% 624,644
-68
-0.01%
340,905
4,171
1.24%
2003
226,368
2004
227,981
1,473 1,612
0.66% 0.71%
624,381 625,526
-263 1,145
-0.04% 0.18%
345,458 349,398
4,553 3,940
1.34% 1.14%
2005
229,552
1,571
0.69% 628,404
2,878
0.46%
351,435
2,037
0.58%
2006
231,303
1,752
0.76% 633,562
5,158
0.82%
354,690
3,254
0.93%
2007
235,039
2008
237,326
3,736 2,288
1.61% 0.97%
635,561 635,276
1,999 -285
0.32% -0.04%
356,687 359,356
1,998 2,669
0.56% 0.75%
2009
239,213
1,886
0.79% 633,588
-1,688
-0.27%
360,597
1,241
0.35%
2010
241,723
2011
244,607
2,510 2,884
1.05% 1.19%
633,083 634,987
-505 1,904
-0.08% 0.30%
361,556 362,763
959 1,207
0.27% 0.33%
2012
246,195
1,588
0.65% 640,176
5,189
0.82%
363,020
257
0.07%
2013
248,468
2014
251,186
2,273 2,718
0.92% 1.09%
644,756 648,951
4,580 4,195
0.72% 0.65%
363,955 363,579
934
0.26%
-376
-0.10%
2015
253,876
2,690
1.07% 653,464
4,514
0.70%
361,220
-2,359
-0.65%
- 117 -
Table C. 7
Table C. 8
Table C. 9
Criminally "At Risk" Population:
Prime Wage Earners: Ages 25-44
Older Wage Earners: Ages 45-64
Males Ages 15-39
Year (July 1)
Change fr om previous decade/yr.
P opulat ion
Number
Percent
Change from previous de cade/yr .
Pop ula ti on
Number
Percent
Change f rom pr evious decade/yr.
Po pu lat ion
Number
Percent
----------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
1980
561,931
---
---
790,750
---
---
491,249
---
---
1990
544,738
-17,193
-3.06% 926,326
135,576
17.15%
531,181
39,932
8.13%
2000
617,250
72,512
13.31% 997,012
70,686
7.63%
817,598
286,417
53.92%
2001
620,072
2,822
0.46% 996,909
-103
-0.01%
847,507
29,909
3.66%
2002
622,321
2,248
0.36% 994,088
-2,820
-0.28%
876,588
29,081
3.43%
2003
625,212
2004
630,384
2,891 5,171
0.46% 0.83%
993,630 996,642
-458 3,012
-0.05% 0.30%
903,969 930,548
27,381 26,579
3.12% 2.94%
2005
638,911
8,527
1.35% 1,004,166
7,524
0.75%
958,371
27,823
2.99%
2006
650,157
2007
659,203
11,246 9,046
1.76% 1,015,394 1.39% 1,027,570
11,228 12,176
1.12%
986,427
1.20% 1,009,906
28,056 23,479
2.93% 2.38%
2008
665,273
6,070
0.92% 1,037,012
9,443
0.92% 1,026,637
16,731
1.66%
2009
666,403
2010
666,375
1,131 -29
0.17% 1,041,873 0.00% 1,049,801
4,861 7,928
0.47% 1,040,644 0.76% 1,053,700
14,007 13,056
1.36% 1.25%
2011
669,275
2,900
0.44% 1,062,266
12,465
1.19% 1,065,840
12,140
1.15%
2012
673,260
3,986
0.60% 1,075,892
13,626
1.28% 1,065,949
108
0.01%
2013
678,871
5,611
0.83% 1,088,980
13,088
1.22% 1,068,998
3,049
0.29%
2014
684,274
5,403
0.80% 1,100,307
11,327
1.04% 1,074,463
5,465
0.51%
2015
688,702
4,428
0.65% 1,109,353
9,046
0.82% 1,081,367
6,904
0.64%
Table C. 10
Elderly Population by Age Group
Change from
Change from
Change from
Change from
Year
previous
previous
pr evious
p rev iou s
(July 1 )
Ages 65+ decade/yr. Ages 65-74 decade/yr. Ages 75-84 decade/yr. Ages 85+ decade/yr.
----------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
1 980
305,841
---
185,86 3
- --
91,1 37
---
28,841
---
1 990
392,369
28.29%
224,77 2
20.93% 128,813
41.34%
38,784
34 .48%
2 000
439,010
11.89%
218,88 4
-2.62% 162,070
25.82%
58,056
49 .69%
2 001
441,294
0.52%
218,21 6
-0.31% 163,244
0.72%
59,834
3 .06%
2 002
443,579
0.52%
218,48 4
0.12% 163,948
0.43%
61,147
2 .19%
2 003
447,694
0.93%
220,69 9
1.01% 163,976
0.02%
63,018
3 .06%
2 004
452,505
1.07%
224,16 0
1.57% 163,618
-0.22%
64,728
2 .71%
2 005
459,513
1.55%
229,14 6
2.22% 163,333
-0.17%
67,034
3 .56%
2 006
469,129
2.09%
236,53 6
3.22% 162,637
-0.43%
69,957
4 .36%
2 007
480,692
2.46%
246,17 5
4.08% 161,745
-0.55%
72,772
4 .02%
2 008
495,467
3.07%
259,58 2
5.45% 160,730
-0.63%
75,155
3 .27%
2 009
508,985
2.73%
272,18 9
4.86% 159,505
-0.76%
77,291
2 .84%
2 010
523,136
2.78%
283,94 5
4.32% 159,842
0.21%
79,349
2 .66%
2 011
538,037
2.85%
296,37 7
4.38% 160,406
0.35%
81,253
2 .40%
2 012
566,468
5.28%
321,33 2
8.42% 162,062
1.03%
83,075
2 .24%
2 013
592,043
4.51%
342,16 3
6.48% 165,143
1.90%
84,737
2 .00%
2 014
618,014
4.39%
363,01 7
6.09% 168,912
2.28%
86,085
1 .59%
2 015
646,520
4.61%
385,11 6
6.09% 173,687
2.83%
87,717
1 .90%
- 118 -

TR Kulongoski

File: oregon-economic-and-revenue-forecast.pdf
Author: TR Kulongoski
Author: State of Oregon DAS
Published: Fri May 15 13:19:07 2009
Pages: 126
File size: 1.02 Mb


, pages, 0 Mb

sletter, 8 pages, 0.9 Mb

NFORMAN, 4 pages, 1.06 Mb
Copyright © 2018 doc.uments.com