Oregon Economic Forecast Report
Content
Oregon Economic and
Revenue Forecast
September 2012
Volume XXXII, No. 3
Release Date: August 29, 2012
Michael Jordan
Chief Operating Officer
DAS Director
John A. Kitzhaber, MD
Governor
Prepared By:
Office of Economic Analysis
Department of Administrative Services
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:
Download from the Web
OEA will post all forecasts online at http://oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/economic.shtml. To receive an
e-mail notice of new postings sign up at the following Web site.
http://oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/listserv.shtml
Department of Administrative Services
Michael Jordan
DAS Director
Chief Operating Officer
Office of Economic Analysis
Mark McMullen, State Economist
Kanhaiya Vaidya, Senior Demographer
Damon Bell, Senior Analyst
Josh Lehner, Economist
Kris Klemm, Administrative Specialist
http://oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/OR_EconAnalysis
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 the 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.
Michael Jordan
DAS Director
Chief Operating Officer
iii
iv
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 6
I.
ECONOMIC FORECAST ............................................................................................. 13
A.
National Economic Review and Forecast ..................................................................... 13
B.
International Review and Outlook ................................................................................ 17
C.
Western Region ............................................................................................................... 23
D.
Oregon Economic Review and Forecast ....................................................................... 27
II.
REVENUE FORECAST ................................................................................................ 56
A.
2011-13 General Fund Revenues ................................................................................... 56
B.
Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook ................................................................... 59
C.
Tax Law Assumptions .................................................................................................... 59
D.
Forecast Risks.................................................................................................................. 60
E.
Lottery Earnings Forecast ............................................................................................. 61
F.
Overview of Budgetary Reserves ................................................................................... 62
APPENDIX A: ECONOMIC FORECAST DETAIL ............................................................ 64
APPENDIX B: REVENUE FORECAST DETAIL ............................................................... 85
APPENDIX C: POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX.................................... 98
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
September 2012
Oregon Economic Forecast
Current Conditions
Oregon’s economic expansion is still intact for now, but remains at risk, and is losing steam due
to weakness in global demand for our products. To date, local labor markets have slowly
improved along with the nation overall, resulting in a slowly declining unemployment rate.
Although economic growth in Oregon has continued at roughly the same slow pace since the
recovery began, the forces driving this growth have recently changed. In particular, the regional
housing market is beginning to show signs of life, which is helping to offset weaker market
conditions among many of Oregon’s major manufacturers and exporters.
The fact that improvement continues is encouraging. However, the threat of external shocks has
placed a burden on businesses and households, leading many to pull back on their spending out
of caution. The euro zone recession – and potential crisis – in addition to the slowdown in China
and an uncertain U.S. federal policy environment represent three very large risks to the global
outlook. These risks are hard to handicap from a planning perspective and have created an
exorbitant amount of uncertainty about the future. As a result, future plans are being delayed
with businesses and individuals holding off on making long-term investments.
Outlook
Despite all of the uncertainty, the economic outlook for Oregon remains positive. It is likely that
the U.S. economic recovery can survive any one of these external shocks if faced in isolation.
However, even if all of the external threats facing Oregon are resolved in a painless manner, the
uncertainty they have caused can be expected to weigh on growth. By taking a wait-and-see
approach, firms and households are ensuring that some degree of a slowdown will occur. Should
they not see anything too drastic; the expected slowdown will remain just that, and not transition
into something worse.
Due to a recent string of weak manufacturing, consumer spending, and trade data, a broad
consensus of economic forecasters has become more pessimistic about future growth prospects.
Similarly, the Office of Economic Analysis outlook reflects somewhat weaker expectations for
growth over the next two years. Despite the revised growth rates, the general character of
Oregon’s lackluster economic outlook has not changed, with more of the same, slow
improvement expected going forward.
During the recovery so far, Oregon’s employment has grown at just under the state’s long run
trend rate, or approximately 1.2 percent annually. While growing at trend – which includes both
6
expansions and recessions – is better than not, this is less than half of a typical expansion year’s
growth. The private sector has added jobs at a 1.5 percent pace since late 2010, which again is
just about half of the past two expansions’ pace.
The economy has faced two major drags in recent years: housing and government. After
contracting 30 percent during the recession and losing a further 1.5 percent from early 2010 to
early 2011, housing-related jobs have begun to grow again. While the pace of hiring is slow,
simply having the housing sector turn from a negative aspect of the economy to a neutral or
slightly positive aspect is more than welcome news. The news is less good on the public sector
side. Government job cuts have not ended, holding down the headline employment numbers
statewide. Although the losses have not stopped, government job cuts in recent months have
been less severe than a year ago.
The vast majority of the public sector cuts have occurred at the local government education level
– K-12 and community colleges – and the economic outlook calls for another round of cuts this
coming school year. Next year, expectations are for public sector employment to stabilize with
the sector gradually turning from a negative to a positive contributor to employment growth.
Growth in housing-related industries and a stabilization of government payrolls is particularly
good news for rural Oregon. Recent differences in the economic performance of counties across
Oregon are expected to lessen going forward. As the housing market continues to heal and state
and local governments stop cutting back, drags on economic growth in rural areas will lessen.
Farm income remains healthy, and market conditions are stabilizing for many wood product
firms. Expectations are not for strong growth, but at least a sustained upturn in many areas that
have missed out on the recovery thus far.
All told, slow growth will continue to be the norm. The manufacturing cycle is past its peak, and
Oregon’s major trading partners are ordering fewer of our goods. Consumers will not save the
day, since many still need to fix their household balance sheets by saving more or paying down
debt. Recent improvements in labor markets and housing markets will help the expansion persist,
but will not be enough to generate strong growth.
Summary of Recent Trends
Getting a handle on the health of Oregon’s labor market is being somewhat complicated by
technical issues within the underlying payroll jobs data. Technical issues aside, employment in
Oregon continues to increase at a slow, subdued pace through early 2012, approximately in line
with the gains seen at the U.S. level.
The employment data discussed in this report is adjusted for two important technical purposes:
seasonality and the upcoming benchmark revisions 1.After adjustments, the data reveals a state
that continues to expand slowly, adding nearly 19,000 jobs in the past year (1.2% through
2012q2), instead of a state that is close to stagnating, adding only 11,500 jobs in the past year
(0.7%).
1
See the full forecast report for additional detail
7
Over the past year, job growth has been widespread across industries, with only transportation
equipment manufacturers and financial service firms seeing small declines in the private sector.
Public sector employment fell by more than 2.0 percent over the same period. The largest gains
have been in professional and business services and leisure and hospitality, which increased by
approximately 7,400 and 3,100, respectively, from 2011q2 to 2012q2. Health services and
construction each added between 2,500 and 3,000 jobs over the past year. These four main
industry groups account for approximately 63 percent of all private sector gains, with
manufacturing accounting for another 13 percent, or 3,200 jobs. Within manufacturing, gains
were led by durable goods, particularly metals and machinery.
Similar to the employment data, leading indicators for Oregon have moved in fits and starts in
recent years. Following growth in late 2011 through early 2012, Oregon’s leading indicators
declined sharply in June. However, the index remains positive on a six-month growth basis,
which is consistent with an expanding economy in the near future. The overall index was led
downward by large movements in a handful of indicators most affected by the global economic
weakness Most indicators, including measures of the health of Oregon’s job market, point to
continued growth.
Demographic Forecast
Oregon’s population count on April 1, 2010 was 3,831,074. Oregon gained 409,550 persons
between the years 2000 and 2010. The population growth during the decade of 2000 to 2010 was
12.0 percent, down from 20.4 percent growth from the previous decade. Oregon’s rankings in
terms of decennial growth rate dropped from 11th between 1990-2000 to 18th between 2000 and
2010. Slow population growth during the most recent decade due to double recessions probably
cost Oregon one additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Actually, Oregon’s
decennial population growth rate during the most recent decade was the second lowest since
1900. The slowest, actually negative, was during the 1980s when Oregon was hit hard by another
recession. As a result of recent economic downturn and sluggish recovery, Oregon’s population
is expected to continue a slow pace of growth in the near future. Based on the current forecast,
Oregon’s population will reach 4.25 million in the year 2020 with an annual rate of growth of
1.03 percent between 2010 and 2020.
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 national and
international labor market. As Oregon’s total fertility rate remains below the replacement level
and deaths continue to rise due to ageing population, long-term growth comes mainly from net
in-migration. Working-age adults come to Oregon as long as we have favorable economic and
employment environments. During the 1980s, which 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
economy of 1990s. This share of migration to population change declined to 56 percent in 2002
and it was further down to 32 percent in 2010. As a sign of slow to modest economic gain, the
ratio of net migration-to-population change will increase gradually and will reach 72 percent by
the end of the forecast horizon. Although economy and employment situation in Oregon look
stagnant at this time, migration situation is not expected to replicate the early 1980s pattern of
8
negative net migration. Potential Oregon out-migrants have no better place to go since other
states are also in the same boat in terms of economy and employment.
Age structure and its change affect employment, state revenue, and expenditure. Demographics
are the major budget drivers, which are modified by policy choices on service coverage and
delivery. Growth in many age groups will show the effects of the baby-boom and their echo
generations during the period of 2010-2020. 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 during the 1990s and early 2000s, the elderly
population (65+) has picked up a faster pace of growth and will surge as the baby-boom
generation continue to enter this age group. The average annual growth of the elderly population
will be 3.9 percent during the forecast period as the boomers continue to enter retirement age.
However, the youngest elderly (aged 65-74) will grow at an extremely fast pace during the
forecast period, averaging 4.9 percent annual rate of growth due to the direct impact of the babyboom generation entering the retirement age. Reversing several years of shrinking population,
the elderly aged 75-84 will start a positive growth as the effect of depression era birth-cohort will
dissipate. A faster pace of growth of population in this age group will begin once the baby-boom
generation starts to mature. The oldest elderly (aged 85+) will continue to grow at a moderately
but steady rate due to the combination of cohort change, continued positive net migration, and
improving longevity. The average annual rate of growth for this oldest elderly over the forecast
horizon will be 1.4 percent.
As the baby-boom generation matures out of oldest working-age cohort combined with slowing
net migration, the once fast-paced growth of population aged 45-64 will gradually taper off to
below zero percent rate of growth by 2012 and will remain at slow or below zero growth phase
for several years. The size of this older working-age population will remain virtually unchanged
at the beginning to the end of the decade. The 25-44 age group population is recovering from
several years of declining and slow growing trend. The decline was mainly due to the exiting
baby-boom cohort. This age group has seen positive growth starting in the year 2004 and will
increase by 1.2 percent annual average rate during the forecast horizon. The young adult
population (aged 18-24) will change only a little over the forecast period and remain virtually
unchanged for most of the years into the future. Although the slow or stagnant growth of collegeage population (age 18-24), in general, tend to ease the pressure on public spending on higher
education, college enrollment typically goes up during the time of high unemployment and
scarcity of well-paying jobs when even the older people flock back to college to better position
themselves in a tough job market. The growth in K-12 population (aged 5-17) will remain low
which will translate into slow growth in school enrollments. This school-age population has
actually declined in size in recent years and will grow in the future at well below the state
average. The growth rate for children under the age of five will remain below zero percent in the
near future and will see positive growth only after 2013. Although the number of children under
the age of five will decline slightly in the near future, the demand for child care services and preKindergarten program will be additionally determined by the labor force participation and
poverty rates of the parents. Overall, elderly population over age 65 will increase rapidly
whereas population groups under age 65 will experience slow growth in the coming decade.
Hence, based solely on demographics of Oregon, demand for public services geared towards
9
children and young adults will likely to increase at a slower pace, whereas demand for elderly
care and services will increase rapidly.
Revenue Forecast
Summary
The weaker outlook for economic growth translates directly into a weaker outlook for Oregon’s
primary General Fund revenue sources. Most notably, personal income tax collections are
expected to be more than 2% smaller over the extended forecast horizon than what was reflected
in the June 2012 forecast.
With fewer jobs expected, taxes related to labor income are expected to grow at a slower rate.
Reductions in the outlook for taxes withheld out of workers’ paychecks mirror reductions in the
outlook for wage earnings. Forecasts have been reduced by much more for some volatile income
tax sources including capital gains and corporate excise taxes. In addition to personal income
taxes, consumer spending on video lottery and tobacco products is also now expected to be
weaker than what was reflected in the June 2012 forecast.
Although the long-term revenue forecast has been reduced significantly, the outlook for the
current biennium remains on track. Over the last three months, General Fund revenue collections
have come in somewhat stronger than expected. Also, it will take several months before the
expected weakness in economic growth becomes fully reflected in lower tax collections.
Overall, General Fund revenue growth is expected to remain slow, growing by 11% during 201113 and in each of the next two biennia. During past periods of economic expansion in Oregon,
revenues have grown by 15% to 20% in a typical biennium.
Revenue growth in Oregon and other states will face considerable downward pressure over the
10-year extended forecast horizon. As the baby boom population cohort works less and spends
less, traditional state tax instruments such as personal income taxes and general sales taxes will
become less effective, and revenue growth will fail to match the pace seen in the past.
2011-13 General Fund Revenues
Growth in general fund revenues has not been remarkable over the summer months, but it has
been healthy. Personal income taxes are growing due to a mix of both labor and investment
income, and corporate excise taxes appear to have stabilized after dropping sharply early in the
biennium.
Collections of most major revenue types came in stronger than what was expected over the
summer. Although a weaker economy is already manifesting itself in tax collections, it will take
some time before slower economic growth is fully reflected in the revenue outlook. As a result,
the revenue outlook for the 2011-13 biennium is somewhat stronger than what was predicted in
the June 2012 forecast. The forecast for General Fund revenues for 2011-13 is now $13,921
million. This represents an increase of $88 million (0.6%) from the June 2012 forecast.
10
Table R.1
2011-13 General Fund Forecast Summary
(Millions)
June 2012
Forecast
September 2012
Forecast
Structural Revenues
Personal Income T ax
$12,193.6
$11,919.9
$11,956.6
$36.7
-$236.9
Corporate Income T ax
$894.2
$814.5
$842.6
$28.1
-$51.7
All Other Revenues
$944.2
$1,098.5
$1,121.8
$23.2
$177.6
Gross GF Revenues
$14,032.0
$13,832.9
$13,921.0
$88.0
-$111.0
Administrative Actions1
-$23.1
-$14.1
-$4.4
$9.7
$18.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$14,008.9
$13,818.9
$13,916.6
$97.7
-$92.3
Legislative Actions
Net Available Resources
Change from
Prior Forecast
Change from
COS Forecast
2011 COS
Forecast
Confidence Intervals
67% Confidence
95% Confidence
+/- 4.0%
+/- 7.9%
$552.0
$1,104.0
$13.37B to $14.47B
$12.82B to $15.02B
1 Reflects cost of cashflow management actions, ex clusiv e of internal borrowing.
The forecast for the 2011-13 biennium is now $111 million below the Close of Session forecast.
Given the strong employment gains seen in early 2011, the Close of Session forecast is more
optimistic than other versions produced before or since. Nevertheless, given lackluster near-term
expectations for revenue growth, a strong April 2013 of tax collections would put us back on
track with the Close of Session’s relatively optimistic outlook. If we see a boom similar to the
last revenue cycle, the personal income tax kicker may yet come into play.
Personal Income Tax
Personal income tax collections were $1,836 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012,
$29.4 million (1.6%) above the latest forecast. Compared to the year-ago level, total personal
income tax collections grew by 3.7% relative to a forecast that called for 2.1% growth. Personal
income tax collections have continued to come in higher than forecast during the current quarter.
Appendix B presents a comparison of actual and projected personal income tax revenues for the
fourth quarter of 2012.
Personal income tax collections are expected to remain weak until the April 2013 filing season
when the gains seen in stock markets this year are realized for tax purposes. Further taxable
capital gains realizations will be generated by taxpayers attempting to move their assets ahead of
potential federal tax increases in 2013. Very few collections related to filers who receive
extensions are expected this year, with payments expected to fall and refunds to rise.
11
Corporate Excise Tax
Corporate excise tax collections equaled $172 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012,
$12.4 million above the June forecast. Compared to one year ago, net corporate receipts were
down 1.6% with the forecast calling for an 8.7% decline.
Corporate tax collections are expected to continue to decline throughout fiscal year 2013, as they
remain very large from an historical perspective. Very strong growth is expected during the
2013-15 biennium, since corporate tax collections are prone to boom-bust cycles. However,
growth rates, while large, will remain less than half of what has been seen during recent profit
booms.
Other Sources of Revenue
All other General Fund revenues are expected to total $1,122 million for the 2011-13 biennium,
an increase of $23 million (2.1%). Most revenue sources are tracking ahead of the June forecast,
including large contributions from estate taxes, judicial-related revenues and liquor
apportionment. Only revenues from the sale of tobacco products and video lottery sales are
tracking significantly below forecast. 2
Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook
Table R.2 exhibits the long-run forecast for General Fund revenues through the 2019-21
biennium. Users should note that the potential for error in the forecast increases substantially the
further ahead we look.
Table R.2
General Fund Revenue Forecast Summary (Millions of Dollars, Current Law)
Forecast
Revenue Source
Personal Income Taxes
Corporate Income Taxes
All Others
Total General Fund
Kicker Distributions
Total Revenue
Forecast
2009-11
%
Biennium
Chg
10,467.2
2011-13
Forecast
%
Biennium Chg
3.7% 11,956.6
20.9%
842.6
1.8%
1,226.6
29.8%
1,121.8
-8.5%
12,521.4
12,521.4
6.8% 13,921.0
%
Biennium
Chg
14.2% 13,416.9
827.6
1,070.8
2015-17
Forecast
%
2017-19
Forecast
%
2019-21
%
Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg
12.2% 15,069.0 12.3% 16,638.4 10.4% 18,405.7
10.6%
27.1%
1,083.7
1.2%
1,056.6 -2.5%
1,081.7
2.4%
967.2 -13.8%
1,025.8
6.1%
1,096.6
1,184.4
8.0%
9.4% 20,671.8
10.0%
11.2% 15,454.8
-2.2% 13,921.0
Forecast
2013-15
11.2% 15,454.8
11.0% 17,178.5 11.2% 18,791.6
-
-
11.0% 17,178.5 11.2% 18,791.6
6.9%
9.4% 20,671.8
10.0%
Other tax es include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Sev erance Tax , Western Oregon Sev erance Tax and Amusement Dev ice Tax .
Commercial Fish Licenses & Fees and Pari-mutual Receipts are included in Other Rev enues
2
Lottery transfers into the General Fund are not included in the total. See the full forecast document for a
discussion of the lottery forecast.
12
General Fund revenues will total $15,455 million in 2013-15, an increase of 11.0% percent from
the prior period, and $223 million (-1.4%) below the March forecast. In 2015-17, revenue growth
is expected to remain stable at 11.2%, followed by slower rates of 9% to 10% in subsequent
biennia. The slowdown in long-run revenue growth is largely due to the impact of demographic
changes.
I.
ECONOMIC FORECAST
September 2012
While economic growth continues in fits and starts, an underlying positive trend remains intact.
The nation’s GDP has grown about 2 percent per year for the past three years and payroll
employment gains have averaged 150,000 per month. Certainly, these figures make for a
disappointing recovery, but they do not make for a disaster.
This edition of the National Economic Review and Forecast contains excerpts from Nigel Gault,
U.S. Economy: Current Situation: Forecast Flash, IHS Global Insight, July 2012. This
publication summarizes Global Insight’s baseline national forecast that OEA uses as a starting
point for the Oregon economic and revenue models. OEA summarizes the Forecast Flash and is
our interpretation of this document. Any errors or misrepresentations are attributable to OEA.
A.
National Economic Review and Forecast
Slowdown or Something Worse?
The U.S. manufacturing sector in June and July finally felt the global slowdown as the ISM
manufacturing index dropped below the breakeven point of 50. While most manufacturing
indices around the world had already slowed, the U.S. held up longer than the majority of the
advanced economies. The nonmanufacturing ISM index remained above 50 but did show signs
of slowing. Central banks, such as China and the ECB, are cutting interest rates, or extending
unconventional easing, such as the Bank of England, but the potency of these actions is unclear.
Worse to Come? Do these data point to worse things to come? Or are we, once again, in a
temporary soft patch in the recovery? IHS Global Insight and the general economic consensus
take the latter view. The U.S. economy is still above recessionary readings and not all of the
news is bad. Both residential and nonresidential construction activity is increasing. The gasoline
price drop from April through June was a welcomed boost to consumers to the tune of about
0.5% of disposable income – although prices are once again rising. Overall economic and
employment growth is likely to remain modest. The macroeconomic outlook has been nudged
slightly lower and the probability of recession in the near term has risen to 25%.
Second Quarter GDP Growth Now Pegged at Just 1.5% IHS Global Insight lowered its
projected in second quarter growth to just 1.5% ahead of the official data release, which showed
the domestic economy expanding at 1.5%. IHS Global Insight expects GDP growth to average
2% in the second half of the year, led by consumer spending and housing activity.
External Shocks Remain the Biggest Risk. The baseline forecast continues to assume Greece
exits the European Monetary Union in 2013; an earlier exit would threaten turmoil as it would
13
likely intensify pressure on both Italy and Spain. Even without an early Grexit, the Eurozone
crisis could worsen particularly if the economic data continues to be bad. The slowdown in
China could also intensify. And a confrontation with Iran has not disappeared from a geopolitical risk, which would impact oil prices. Within the U.S. the “fiscal cliff” continues to cloud
the outlook but remains an entirely avoidable calamity. IHS Global Insight estimates that under
the worse case “cliff” scenario that the economy would contract 0.3% in 2013. Given the
severity of the cliff’s consequences, it is expected that an extension of current policies remains
the likely outcome. Meaning that the baseline forecast assumes neither the Bush tax cuts nor the
payroll tax cut expire in 2013 and the sequestration does not go ahead.
Healthcare Reform Survives for Now. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the healthcare reform has
no impact of the baseline forecast. The reform may still unravel, of course, if Republicans are
sufficiently powerful after the November elections. Or if many states opt out of the Medicaid
expansion.
The Fed: More Quantitative Easing Still on the Table. The Federal Reserve has again lowered
its economic outlook, including inflation, and has also extended “Operation Twist” through the
end of 2012. “Twist” – as you may recall – is the process in which the Fed buys longer term
government securities and sells shorter term securities. IHS Global Insight believes the Fed
continues to be too optimistic on growth and will likely follow up with more action once the
twist expires. The forecast assumes $500 billion worth of quantitative easing in 2013. Should
growth be even weaker in 2012 of if the Eurozone crisis intensifies, this easing is likely to be
brought forward.
Figure N.1*
Quarterly
AR)
Real GDP (%,
Federal Funds
Rate
10 Year T-Bill
Oil Prices,
Refiner Acquisition
Cost ($)
Consumer Price
Index (Y/Y %)
Housing Starts
(millions)
Consumer
Sentiment (Univ. of
Michigan)
Unemployment
Rate (Percent)
Annual
1
Q 12
1.
9
0.
10
2.
04
2
Q 12
1.
5
0.
15
1.
83
3
Q12
2.
0
0.
16
1.
69
4
Q12
2.
0
0.
16
1.
79
2
011
1
.7
0
.10
2
.79
2
012
2
.0
0
.14
1
.83
2
013
2
.0
0
.16
2
.22
2
014
2
.7
0
.26
3
.02
2
015
3
.3
1
.81
3
.91
10
8
10
1
88
88
1
02
9
6
8
9
9
7
9
6
2.
8
1.
9
1.
1
1.
1
3
.1
1
.7
1
.3
2
.3
2
.0
0.
71
0.
73
0.
78
0.
83
0
.61
0
.77
0
.94
1
.22
1
.52
76
76
76
77
6
7
7
6
7
9
8
0
8
2
8.
2
8.
2
8.
1
8.
0
9
.0
8
.1
8
.0
7
.7
7
.1
*Figure N.1 was taken from Nigel Gault, U.S. Economy: Current Situation: Forecast Flash, IHS Global Insight, July 2012
14
Graph N.1
U.S. Economic History and Forecast
Interest Rates
Real GDP, Percent Change
2005 Dollars, Chain Weighted
5
Prime
11
3M Treasury
10 Yr Treasury
10
4
9
Percent
3
Percent Change
2
1
8
7
6
5
0
1996
-1
1999
2005
2002
2008
2011
2014
2017
4
2020
3
2
-2
1
-3
0
1996
-4
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
Housing Starts
Unemployment Rate
11
Total
2.5
10
Single Family
Multi-Family
9
2.0
8
Percent
Millions
7
1.5
6
5
1.0
4
3
0.5
2
1
0.0
0
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
1996
2020
Year-Over-Year Percent Chnage
6
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2020
2017
Real Exchange Rate
Consumer Price Index
All Items
1999
Major Trading Partners
Excluding Food & Energy
Other Important Partners
1.30
5
1.20
4
1.10
3
1.00
2
0.90
1
0.80
0
0.70
-1
0.60
0.50
-2
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
1996
2020
1999
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
Consumer Confidence & Spending
Standard and Poor's 500 Index
2,000
2002
1,800
Real Consumer Spending (Left Axis)
Consumer Sentiment (Univ of Mich, Right Axis)
8
1,600
6
100
4
90
2
80
0
70
-2
60
Percent Chnage
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
-4
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
15
110
50
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
TABLE N. 1
U.S. Forecast Summary 2009-2017 (Jul 2012 U.S. Forecast, IHS Global Insight)
GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight
% Ch
2011:4
2012:1
13,429
3.0
13,491
1.9
Quarterly
2012:2 2012:3
13,543
1.5
13,610
2.0
2012:4
2013:1
2009
2010
2011
2012
Annual
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
13,677
2.0
13,756
2.3
12,703
(3.5)
13,088
3.0
13,315
1.7
13,580
2.0
13,850
2.0
14,228
2.7
14,701
3.3
15,148
3.0
15,592
2.9
Personal Income (Bil of $)
% Ch
13,106
1.5
13,228
3.8
13,340
3.4
13,475
4.1
13,604
3.9
13,715
3.3
11,930
(4.3)
12,374
3.7
12,991
5.0
13,412
3.2
13,908
3.7
14,544
4.6
15,278
5.0
16,068
5.2
16,803
4.6
Nonagricultural Employment (Millions)
% Ch
132.0
1.4
132.7
2.1
133.0
1.0
133.3
1.0
133.8
1.3
134.2
1.4
130.8
(4.4)
129.9
(0.7)
131.4
1.2
133.2
1.4
134.9
1.3
136.8
1.4
139.1
1.7
141.5
1.7
143.5
1.4
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
8.7
(15.2)
8.3
(18.5)
8.2
(4.8)
8.1
(2.5)
8.0
(4.1)
8.0
(2.6)
9.3
59.9
9.6
3.8
8.9
(7.0)
8.1
(9.0)
8.0
(2.4)
Industrial Production Index (2007=100)
% Ch
95.3
5.1
96.6
5.6
97.4
3.1
97.7
1.2
98.3
2.3
98.9
2.6
85.4
(11.4)
90.1
5.4
93.7
4.1
97.5
4.0
99.7
2.2
Corporate Profits (Bil of $)
% Ch
1,905
(1.7)
2,139
59.1
2,059
(14.1)
2,078
3.7
2,114
7.2
2,363
56.0
1,456
7.0
1,819
25.0
1,896
4.2
2,098
10.6
2,353
12.2
2,326
(1.1)
2,270
(2.4)
2,215
(2.4)
2,168
(2.1)
Money Supply (M2) (Bil of $)
% Ch
9,571
7.5
9,771
8.6
9,877
4.4
9,971
3.9
10,061
3.6
10,159
4.0
8,450
5.3
8,728
3.3
9,571
9.7
10,061
5.1
10,412
3.5
10,911
4.8
11,368
4.2
11,752
3.4
12,147
3.4
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
(36.1)
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.32
2.2
4.81
44.9
6.67
38.6
7.00
5.0
Prime Rate
% Ch
Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100)
% Ch
227.0
1.3
228.3
2.5
228.8
0.7
228.6
(0.2)
229.3
1.2
230.2
1.4
214.6
(0.3)
218.1
1.6
224.9
3.1
228.8
1.7
231.7
1.3
7.7
(3.5)
102.9
3.2
237.1
2.3
7.1
(8.0)
106.8
3.8
241.8
2.0
6.6
(7.1)
109.8
2.8
246.1
1.8
6.2
(5.7)
112.9
2.9
250.1
1.6
Federal Budget (unified) (Bil of $, Fed FY
(321.7)
(457.2)
(103.2)
(251.8)
(281.2)
(330.2)
Current Account Balance (Bil of $)
% Ch
(474.6)
44.85
(549.3)
79.34
(534.3)
(10.47)
(487.4)
(30.74)
(459.1)
(21.27)
(436.1)
(18.59)
(1,471.3) (1,275.1) (1,249.6) (1,093.4) (743.6) (632.2) (570.9) (574.5) (562.5)
(381.9)
(43.6)
(442.0)
15.7
(465.9)
5.4
(507.5) (460.4) (517.3) (544.2) (580.1) (570.0)
8.9
(9.3)
12.4
5.2
6.6
(1.7)
Population (Millions)
% Ch
313.41
1.0
314.17
1.0
314.93
1.0
315.69
1.0
316.46
1.0
317.22
1.0
307.58
0.9
310.06
0.8
312.38
0.7
315.31
0.9
318.38
1.0
321.48
1.0
324.59
1.0
327.73
1.0
330.89
1.0
2009
2010
2011
2012
Annual
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
12,703
0.0
13,088
0.0
13,315
0.0
TABLE N. 2
U.S. Forecast Change - (Current Forecast Jul 2012 vs. Last Forecast Apr 2012)
2011:4
2012:1
Quarterly
2012:2 2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight
% Change From Last Forecast
13,429
0.0
13,491
(0.0)
13,543
(0.2)
13,610
(0.2)
13,677
(0.3)
13,756
(0.2)
Personal Income (Bil of $)
% Change From Last Forecast
13,106
(0.4)
13,228
(0.2)
13,340
(0.4)
13,475
(0.7)
13,604
(0.8)
13,715
(0.9)
11,930
0.0
12,374
0.0
12,991
(0.1)
13,412
(0.5)
13,908
(1.0)
14,544
(1.4)
15,278
(1.2)
16,068
(1.0)
16,803
(0.8)
132.0
0.0
132.7
(0.0)
133.0
(0.1)
133.3
(0.3)
133.8
(0.4)
134.2
(0.5)
130.8
0.0
129.9
0.0
131.4
0.0
133.2
(0.2)
134.9
(0.6)
136.8
(1.0)
139.1
(1.0)
141.5
(0.8)
143.5
(0.5)
8.7
0.0
8.3
(0.0)
8.2
(0.1)
8.1
(0.1)
8.0
(0.0)
8.0
(0.0)
9.3
0.0
9.6
0.0
8.9
0.0
8.1
(0.0)
8.0
0.1
7.7
0.4
7.1
0.5
6.6
0.4
6.2
0.2
Industrial Production Index (2007=100)
% Change From Last Forecast
95.3
0.2
96.6
0.3
97.4
(0.4)
97.7
(1.0)
98.3
(1.0)
98.9
(1.0)
85.4
0.0
90.1
0.0
93.7
0.0
97.5
(0.5)
99.7
(1.3)
102.9
(1.6)
106.8
(0.9)
109.8
(0.8)
112.9
(0.3)
Corporate Profits (Bil of $)
% Change From Last Forecast
1,905
0.0
2,139
5.9
2,059
3.9
2,078
5.8
2,114
7.6
2,363
10.7
1,456
0.0
1,819
0.0
1,896
0.0
2,098
5.8
2,353
9.4
2,326
2.9
2,270
3.6
2,215
4.3
2,168
5.1
Money Supply (M2) (Bil of $)
% Change From Last Forecast
9,571
(0.3)
9,771
(0.1)
9,877
0.2
9,971
0.1
10,061
0.0
10,159
0.0
8,450
(0.5)
8,728
(0.4)
9,571
(0.3)
10,061
0.0
10,412
(0.8)
10,911
(1.2)
11,368
(1.3)
11,752
(1.2)
12,147
(0.9)
Prime Rate
% Change From Last Forecast
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.32
2.2
4.81
13.6
6.67
6.4
7.00
(0.0)
228.8
(0.5)
231.7
(0.9)
237.1
(0.4)
241.8
(0.3)
246.1
(0.5)
250.1
(0.5)
Nonagricultural Employment (Millions)
% Change From Last Forecast
Unemployment Rate
Point Change From Last Forecast
Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100)
% Change From Last Forecast
227.0
0.0
228.3
0.0
228.8
(0.3)
228.6
(0.8)
229.3
(0.9)
230.2
(1.0)
Federal Budget (unified) (Bil of $, Fed FY (321.7)
(457.2)
(103.2)
(251.8)
(281.2)
(330.2)
Current Account Balance (Bil of $)
% Change From Last Forecast
(474.6)
(4.39)
(549.3)
0.30
(534.3)
(6.97)
(487.4)
(13.91)
(459.1)
(16.03)
(436.1)
(15.56)
(381.9)
1.4
(442.0)
(6.1)
(465.9)
(1.6)
(507.5) (460.4) (517.3) (544.2) (580.1) (570.0)
(9.2) (10.0)
3.3
2.4
2.4
2.5
Population (Millions)
% Change From Last Forecast
313.41
(0.4)
314.17
(0.4)
314.93
(0.4)
315.69
(0.4)
316.46
(0.4)
317.22
(0.4)
307.58
(0.1)
310.06
(0.1)
312.38
(0.3)
315.31 318.38 321.48 324.59 327.73 330.89
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.3)
16
214.6
0.0
218.1
0.0
224.9
0.0
13,580 13,850 14,228 14,701 15,148 15,592
(0.2)
(0.6)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(0.9)
(0.6)
(1,471.3) (1,275.1) (1,249.6) (1,093.4) (743.6) (632.2) (570.9) (574.5) (562.5)
B.
International Review and Outlook
This edition of the International Review and Outlook contains information written by Payton Odom,
Research Analyst, and Valerie Grossman, Research Assistant, with the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas. The following section was originally published as the International Economic Update, dated
August 3, 20123, and is reprinted here in accordance with the Bank’s disclaimer and privacy policy.
Near-term forecasts for global gross domestic product (GDP) growth have been revised downward
in most advanced and emerging economies, with uncertainty surrounding the euro area continuing
to restrain growth prospects.
With Spain’s and Italy’s financial stability in question and China’s second-quarter growth rates
lower than expected, central banks in advanced and emerging economies have lowered benchmark
policy rates to stimulate flagging midyear output and employment growth numbers. While the
United States is experiencing a positive, albeit moderate, recovery from the global financial crisis,
the threat of sovereign debt contagion in the euro area is tempering growth and feeding uncertainty.
Financial imbalances, structural impediments to growth and policy uncertainty continue to
contribute to a negative outlook for the euro area. The 17 euro-area states have widely varying
financial situations. An examination of balances in the region’s TARGET cross-border central bank
payment system provides evidence that periphery economies such as Spain and Italy are relying on
the European Central Bank and core members such as Germany for bank liquidity. This reliance has
created large payment deficits between debtor and creditor countries, exacerbating political tensions
and revealing the need for structural reform.
Core countries have not escaped the threat of sovereign debt contagion, however: Moody’s has
lowered its outlook for Germany from stable to negative amid concerns that Greece may leave the
euro area and that Germany may be charged with the responsibility of providing more funds to the
euro-area periphery.
After reaching a yield of 7.18 percent on June 18, rates for Spain’s 10-year government bond
hovered slightly below the 7 percent mark for much of June and July, rose to a record high of 7.63
percent on July 24 and then fell back under 7 percent. Italy has also experienced rising borrowing
costs. The rise in yields has drawn attention to these two countries’ financial situations. European
finance ministers agreed to a bailout for the Spanish government of up to €100 billion, but several
regional governments, unable to pay civil-service wages or service debt payments, are now asking
for assistance from Madrid as well. The size of Spain’s and Italy’s debt markets in comparison to
those in Greece and Portugal suggests a higher capacity to absorb increased debt servicing costs and
avoid default.
Adding to the global uncertainty stemming from the euro area are recent allegations that major
investment banks manipulated the benchmark London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) to
misrepresent their risk portfolios. LIBOR is the most commonly used benchmark for short-term
interest rates, serving as the base rate for $800 trillion in mortgages, loans and investments. Doubts
concerning the accuracy of benchmark rates could serve as an additional drag on investor
confidence in the region.
3
http://www.dallasfed.org/institute/update/2012/int1205.cfm
17
Monetary Policy Eases with Global Inflation Pressures
With inflationary pressures mostly low across advanced and emerging economies, monetary
authorities in many countries are responding to the recent growth slowdown by lowering benchmark
policy rates. The Bank of England, which already has a record low rate of 0.5 percent, has little
room to enact rate changes. The bank left its rate unchanged and instead pledged a round of
quantitative easing on July 5, adding £50 billion to an asset-purchase program that now totals £375
billion. The European Central Bank followed suit, lowering its main lending rate 25 basis points to
0.75 percent and its deposit rate to zero.
Emerging economies also tried to stave off spillover effects from the euro-area crisis by easing
monetary policy. On July 5, China unexpectedly lowered its lending rate 31 basis points to 6
percent and its deposit rate 25 basis points to 3 percent following a rate cut in June. Brazil cut its
policy rate to a record low of 8 percent on July 11; South Africa unexpectedly lowered its policy
rate 50 basis points to a record low of 5 percent on July 19.
Major Emerging Economies Still Feel Chill from Euro Area
A closer examination of the impetus for China’s policy rate cuts reveals that the pace of economic
growth in China is slowing. China’s manufacturing purchasing managers index, though up to 49.5
from 48.2 in June, still lies in contractionary territory. Moreover, in the second quarter, China’s
year-over-year GDP growth rate dropped to 7.6 percent, a pace last seen in 2009. The International
Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts real GDP growth rates slightly above 8 percent for China through
2017.
With declining inflationary pressures accompanying softer GDP growth, investors remain uncertain
as to whether China’s slowdown is indicative of a soft landing or a more pronounced trend. China
isn’t the only emerging-market economy experiencing slowing growth. While emerging economies
are seeing stronger growth than advanced economies, economic activity has decelerated, and the
IMF revised its 2012 and 2013 growth forecasts downward for the BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia,
India and China) in July.
Global Problem Depends on European Solution
The wide-reaching effects of the euro-area crisis are evident through trade and financial linkages
across the globe, and GDP growth forecasts have been lowered in response to continued uncertainty
in the region. Resolution of the region’s most pressing problems is riding on credible fiscal and
structural reform commitments in the euro area, and a renewed pace of growth appears unlikely
without momentum from cooperative commitments between the area’s member governments. In the
second half of the year, both advanced and emerging economies are expected to see continued
modest growth, accompanied by low and stable inflationary pressures.
- Payton Odom and Valerie Grossman
18
Oregon Exports
Overview
As discussed in the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report, global growth has slowed – particularly
manufacturing activity. One result is a slowdown in international trade, including Oregon’s exports.
Overall, Oregon exports through the first half of 2012 are down 5.1 percent relative to their 2011
Graph I.1
Oregon Export Growth, Top 50 Countries
2010
2011
2012 June YTD
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
Total
China &
Malaysia
Japan & S.
Korea
Other Asia
North
America
Eurozone
Other Europe
All Other
levels. As seen in Graph I.1, exports to some regions have held up. However, exports to Oregon’s
largest trading partners are flat or declining.
Given the state’s geographic location, it is no surprise that Oregon trades largely with fellow Pacific
Rim countries. For Asia, the manufacturing slowdown is clearly seen in Oregon’s export data.
Exports to China and Malaysia accounted for nearly 30 percent of all exports in 2011 and are
currently down over 28 percent so far through the first half of 2012. Exports to Japan and South
Korea represent 15 percent of the state’s total and are, effectively, flat on the year. All other Asian
exports – another 15 percent of all exports – have increased 6 percent in the past year due to
increased shipments of Computer and Electronic Products to Vietnam. All Asian economies
combined, representing 59 percent of Oregon export markets, have seen trade fall nearly 14 percent
so far in 2012.
Oregon exports to the rest of North America accounted for 19 percent of all exports in 2011, with
Canada representing over 70 percent of this segment. These exports continue to grow strongly so far
in 2012 to all three major North American destinations: Canada (+11%), Costa Rica (+57%) and
Mexico (+70%). Many of these regional exports are related to farm and mining equipment.
However, even if commodity prices come down, trade in the Americas should continue to increase
due to the relative strength of both the Canadian and Mexican economies.
Where Oregon export trends are most interesting is regarding trade with Europe. The euro zone has
fallen back into recession and the euro is weakening relative to the dollar and many other
currencies. Given the economic weakness in the monetary union, demand is falling. A depreciating
currency makes Oregon’s exports more expensive for Europeans, thus a decline in exports to the
19
region is not surprising. Conversely, Eurpoean countries not in the euro zone have seen their
currencies strengthen, and Oregon’s exports become more affordable. Generally, these economies
are doing better than their euro zone neighbors, and demand is increasing. However, the largest
gains in this category are exports to the United Kingdom. Given that the U.K. economy, while not
officially falling back into recession, is weaker than the U.S. economy, this significant increase may
be a blip related to the recent Olympics. Overall, Oregon exports to Europe represent approximately
11 percent of all exports in 2011 with the euro zone comprising two-thirds of this total.
Finally, exports to the rest of the world continue to increase, however represent a small portion of
Oregon’s total trade flows. Recent increases in exports to Australia represent the largest increase in
this category, primarily due to gains in motor vehicle shipments. The remainder of the increases
relate to gains in exports to both the Middle East (Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, U.A.E.) and South
America (Argentian, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru).
Export Trends
$ millions
Graph I.2 illustrates Oregon’s Graph I.2
total exports and the growth rate
Oregon Total Exports
from 1997 through 2012q2.
Total Exports (Left Axis)
Year-over-Year Change (Right Axis)
45%
6,000
After robust growth in 2009 and
into early 2010, Oregon’s export
5,000
30%
gains have certainly slowed. In
2011, Oregon’s export growth of
4,000
15%
3.5 percent ranked 4th slowest
among all states. While it is true
3,000
0%
that
Oregon
typically
2,000
-15%
experiences
more
volatile
movements than the US overall
1,000
-30%
– during booms exports increase
more than the nation and during
0
-45%
recessions they decrease more
Q1 1997 Q1 1999 Q1 2001 Q1 2003 Q1 2005 Q1 2007 Q1 2009 Q1 2011
than the nation – the current
expansion is somewhat different given the nature of Oregon’s exports. As seen in Graph I.3 there
are essentially three trends going on in the detailed data that are masked by the total export figures.
High dollar value computer and
electronic
product
exports
typically compose around 40-45
percent of the state’s total value
of exports, and thus, movements
within the high tech sector swing
the statewide totals. In the first
year and a half of the export
recovery, exports of computer
and
electronic
products
increased over 70 percent from
their recessionary lows, driving
the state’s overall export growth.
Since then, these exports have
fallen from historic highs reach
Graph I.3
Export Growth in Recovery
Computer And Electronic Products
Agricultural Products
All Other
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
Q1 2009
Q1 2010
20
Q1 2011
Q1 2012
in 2010; however the past recent quarter saw another large gain and the industry is currently
exporting 40 percent more than during the depths of the recession.
The second underlying trend has been the overall strength in agricultural exports, even though they
remain very volatile due to commodity prices. Agricultural exports, chiefly grains, have remained
relatively steady in terms of the volume of exports, which is important from an economic impact
sense as the number of containers or barges loaded impacts the number of longshoremen or truck
drivers or warehouse space needed, rather than just the dollar value of exports. Even though the
quantity of exports has remained comparatively stable, the dollar value has not due to the large
commodity price swings experienced in recent years as can be seen in both Graph I.3 above and I.4
below.
The third main trend in Oregon exports has to do with all other industries. While these products
may not have driven export growth initially, they are now the state’s strongest due to their slow and
steady growth in the past three years. Currently, exports from all industries outside of agriculture
and computer and electronic products are over 70 percent above their recessionary lows and the
gains are broad based across industries. Both Chemicals and Machinery have each contributed 16
percentage points to Oregon’s overall export growth, while Wood Products and Paper Products
have contributed a further 9 percent. These four industries’ growth outpaces the combined growth
of Agriculture and Computer and Electronic Products (33 percent). Over the past three years, only
three industries (out of 32) have registered losses over the period and none have seen declines larger
than 0.7 percent.
All told, Oregon exports have
rebounded
strongly
from
recessionary lows in recent years,
and have reached a plateau at a
high level the past two years.
Expectations are for continued
growth across all industries in the
near future as global demand
picks up following the recent
slowdown.
Table I.1
Oregon Exports by Industry
($ millions, current prices)
Total All Industries
2011q2
YTD
9,515.6
2012q2
YTD
9,034.6
y/y %
change
-5.1%
Share out
of Total
100.0%
Computer And Electronic Products
Agricultural Products
Machinery, Except Electrical
Chemicals
Transportation Equipment
Waste And Scrap
Food And Kindred Products
Primary Metal Manufacturing
Wood Products
Paper
Electrical Equipment, Appliances, And Component
Miscellaneous Manufactured Commodities
Fabricated Metal Products, Nesoi
Plastics And Rubber Products
Petroleum And Coal Products
3,472.1
1,507.2
827.3
974.7
424.7
280.3
258.2
313.2
266.9
235.3
142.6
148.9
147.6
91.7
75.3
3,102.6
1,187.0
949.3
855.0
562.1
315.3
298.7
281.5
256.8
244.0
176.3
153.5
135.6
104.2
91.7
-10.6%
-21.2%
14.8%
-12.3%
32.3%
12.5%
15.7%
-10.1%
-3.8%
3.7%
23.6%
3.1%
-8.1%
13.7%
21.8%
34.3%
13.1%
10.5%
9.5%
6.2%
3.5%
3.3%
3.1%
2.8%
2.7%
2.0%
1.7%
1.5%
1.2%
1.0%
Table I.1 shows Oregon’s dollar
value of exports and year-overyear growth rates for the first half
of 2012. Graph I.4 illustrates
exports by major industry since
1997. For Table I.1, these are the
top fifteen industries by export
Source: WISER, August 2012
volume (in value). annual growth
is positive for nine of the top fifteen export industries. As mentioned above, computer and
electronic products have decreased over the past two years. Exports to the top three partner
countries in the industry (China, Costa Rica and Malaysia) account for almost two-thirds of
shipments, and fell sharply in 2011. So far in 2012 exports to China and Malaysia continue to
decline, while Costa Rica has seen gains. Overall, this industry is Oregon’s largest and most
important export sector, driven by the state’s cluster of high technology firms.
21
Graph I.4
Exports of Transportation Equipment,
Electrical Equipment and Petroleum
and Coal all increased over 20 percent
in the first half of 2012, while
Machinery, Waste and Scrap, Food
and Plastics have seen double digit
gains.
Table I.2 charts exports of Oregon
products to major destinations. For the
first six months of 2012, only seven
out of the top fifteen export markets
saw increases in trade. As discussed
previously, exports to China and
Malaysia have declined considerably
in recent years – partially a result of
within firm movements but also due to
the global high technology industry
cycle and weaker demand for
computer products. Exports to many
other countries have experienced a
slowdown. However, export gains to
Canada continue more or less
unabated, as seen in Graph I.5.
Canada was Oregon’s largest export
market for much of the past two
decades before being overtaken in
recent years by China. The Great
Recession took a heavy toll on
Canadian bound exports as the
dominant industries have traditionally
been transportation equipment and
wood products--two industries hit
especially hard by the financial crisis
and its aftermath. Growth in 2011 was
predominately driven by increases in
Transportation
Equipment
and
Computer and Electronic Products,
while Primary Metal Manufacturing,
Chemicals, Food and Paper also saw
strong gains. So far in 2012, the gains
are driven by manufactured machinery
primarily used for agriculture,
construction or mining and oil and gas.
Oregon Exports by Major Industry ($ millions)
$2,400
Computer And Electronic Products
Agricultural Products
Machinery, Except Electrical
Chemicals
Transportation Equipment
$2,000
$1,600
$1,200
$800
$400
$0
Q1 1997
Q1 1999
Q1 2001
Q1 2003
Q1 2005
Q1 2007
Q1 2009
Q1 2011
Table I.2
Oregon Exports to Major Trading Partners
($ millions, current prices)
2011q2
YTD
Total All Countries
9,515.6
2012q2 y/y %
YTD change
9,034.6 -5.1%
Canada
China
Malaysia
Japan
Korea, Republic Of
Costa Rica
Taiwan
Brazil
Vietnam
Germany
Australia
Mexico
United Kingdom
Singapore
Philippines
1,480.9
1,171.2
910.9
792.6
620.8
380.5
368.1
298.9
254.8
251.3
230.3
210.7
192.8
181.2
171.4
1,328.7
1,641.7
1,269.6
899.8
538.8
241.6
422.9
329.6
111.7
273.4
153.2
124.1
134.7
194.0
190.9
Share out
of Total
100.0%
11.5%
-28.7%
-28.3%
-11.9%
15.2%
57.5%
-13.0%
-9.3%
128.2%
-8.1%
50.3%
69.8%
43.2%
-6.6%
-10.2%
16.4%
13.0%
10.1%
8.8%
6.9%
4.2%
4.1%
3.3%
2.8%
2.8%
2.5%
2.3%
2.1%
2.0%
1.9%
Source: WISER, August 2012
Graph I.5
$1,200
Canada
Oregon Exports by Country ($ millions)
China
Malaysia
Japan
Korea, Republic Of
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
Q1 1997
22
Q1 1999
Q1 2001
Q1 2003
Q1 2005
Q1 2007
Q1 2009
Q1 2011
C.
Western Region
This section of the September 2012 forecast examines the economies of seven western states and
their relative performance to the U.S. overall. Gauging the health of local economies is important
for business planning purposes and looking at a wide range of data points can be useful. Below, you
will find tables analyzing how Oregon’s economy is fairing compared to the following western
states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Washington.
A little over three years removed from the depths of the 2008 recession, the regional economy is
pushing forward cautiously. Below are data tables, graphs, and accompanying descriptions covering
six important state-level economic indicators: employment, state coincident indexes (which are a
more complete measure of labor market health), state leading indexes, housing prices, exports, and
tax revenue.
Employment
The recession raised the Graph W.1
unemployment rate in
Unemployment Rate (U-6)
all western states to 30Arizona
California
14
year highs, and the
Idaho
subsequent labor market
Nevada
Oregon
recovery
has
been
12
Utah
lackluster. Currently, at
Washington
8.5 percent in June,
U.S.
10
Oregon has the 3rd
highest
seasonally
8
adjusted unemployment
rate of the seven
Western states (U.S.
6
rate is 8.2%). Given the
mobile nature of its
4
labor force and the local
mix
of
industries,
2
Oregon tends to have a
Jan-07
Jan-08
Jan-09
Jan-10
Jan-11
higher unemployment
rate than most states in
both good times and bad. See Graph W.1.
Jan-12
Nearly all employment sectors showed positive growth on the year (Q2 2011 to Q2 2012), with the
exception of the public sector which declined in all western states except Arizona and Utah. While
the public sector remains a drag in most states, the recent trends are for smaller public sector cuts--a
hopeful sign that budgets are beginning to stabilize across the region.
Coincident Index
One useful local economic summary measure is the State Coincident Index, produced by the
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Each month the bank compiles and indexes data for each
state that combines nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing, the
unemployment rate, and real wage and salary disbursements. As a coincident index, the data is
designed to report current economic conditions on a monthly basis, and is not a leading or a lagging
indicator.
23
Figure W.1
The economic activity go-light is a
faint green for Oregon and its
neighbors, while the country overall
has experienced slowing growth (see
Figure W.1). Much like the past two
years, economic growth in 2012 is
coming in fits and starts. A few
strong months followed by a few
weak months, even if the underlying
trend is slow and steady. Over the
past quarter, 47 states saw
increasing indexes. However, the
more recent one-month trends are
weak. In June, 35 states saw positive
month-over-month growth while in
July, only 22 saw positive growth. Table W.2
On a quarterly basis, Oregon’s
Economic Coincident Index for 2012 Q2
growth ranked 10th best nationally,
Q/Q Percent Y/Y Percent 5 Year Percent
Change
Index Value Change (AR)
Change
and outpaced all other western
2.5%
-11.7%
178.79
2.6%
Arizona
states. On a year-over-year basis,
-0.7%
3.2%
3.1%
California
152.51
th
Oregon’s growth ranked 11 best
3.2%
-12.9%
Idaho
192.77
2.7%
nationally, and trailed both Utah and
-22.5%
0.3%
0.2%
Nevada
178.59
-2.3%
3.2%
Oregon
201.58
3.3%
Washington among western states.
0.4%
Utah
189.63
2.7%
3.3%
Examining the monthly data reveals
3.6%
-3.7%
Washington
152.96
2.8%
Oregon’s coincident index improved
1.6%
150.44
2.6%
2.7%
United States
strongly in late 2011 and early 2012,
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Index = 100 in July 1992
and has slowed somewhat in the
months since. Current growth in the index is being driven by gains in statewide employment and
wage growth as both hours worked among manufacturing employees and the unemployment rate
have leveled off in recent months.
Figure W.2
Leading Indexes
The leading index is also compiled
monthly by the Federal Reserve Bank
of Philadelphia and is designed to
predict the six-month growth rate of
each state’s coincident index. In
addition to the coincident index, the
leading index includes state-level
housing
permits,
initial
unemployment insurance claims,
delivery times from the Institute of
Supply Management’s manufacturing
survey, and the interest rate spread
between the 10-year and 3-month
treasuries.
In June, 33 states’ leading indexes
were positive, indicating future
Table W.3
Housing Price Index (2012 Q1)
Arizona
California
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington
United States
24
Index Q/Q Percent Y/Y Percent Percent Change
Value Change (AR)
Change
Since Peak
169.92
10.2%
2.5%
-46.3%
152.28
4.0%
-1.3%
-43.7%
186.32
5.4%
2.6%
-28.3%
111.36
8.1%
-6.9%
-57.9%
247.28
-1.1%
-0.2%
-26.7%
245.27
12.9%
3.0%
-20.9%
204.55
-0.4%
-5.4%
-26.1%
181.03
2.2%
0.5%
-19.4%
Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)
growth over the coming six months. In March, 48 states had positive indices. Oregon’s leading
index was negative in June, which is consistent with -0.06 percent growth over the next six months,
compared to the nation’s projected growth of 1.0 percent. Oregon’s projected slowdown is primarily
driven by a decrease in housing permits issued in June. However this is not a grave concern given
that the sustained, underlying trend in permits is positive. May happened to be an exceptionally
large month for permits in Oregon, and when June’s figures fell back to trend, the state registered a
large negative over the month. Initial claims for unemployment insurance in Oregon continue to
decline. Across the region, California (1.6 percent), Utah (1.8 percent) and Washington (1.8
percent) are expected to grow faster than the nation, while Arizona (1.0 percent) and Idaho (0.8
percent) are projected to grow slightly slower.
Housing Price Index
One of the 2008 recession’s salient features was a brutal decline in home prices and new
construction activity. The property market crash has weighed heavily on housing-related
employment, and has also caused large drops in consumer wealth (restraining household spending),
and reduced the collateral available for entrepreneurship. Multiple levels of government stepped in
to prop up housing prices (re-zoning, encouraging immigration, house owner assistance, etc.), but
not until recently have the western states’ real-estate markets begun to reverse their declining trend.
Table W.3 shows the
Federal Housing Finance Graph W.2
Agency’s home price index
FHFA Home Price Index (Purchase Only)
for each western state.
Arizona
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Graph W.2 shows the
California
Nevada
Utah
U.S.
FHFA Housing Price Index
240
for each of the western
220
states since 2000.
200
Western states can be
180
divided into two groups
160
(see table W.3 above). One
140
group (Arizona, Nevada,
120
and California) experienced
a very steep and deep
100
housing market decline.
80
The other four western
2006Q1
2010Q1
2000Q1
2002Q1
2004Q1
2008Q1
2012Q1
states experienced a smaller
bubble than did the former group, with house prices falling more gradually and less overall. Oregon
experienced a slight decline in average house prices during the first quarter. However, prices in the
state have remained relatively steady the past year.
Table W.4
Exports
Total Exports (2012q2 YTD)
The global recession caused a sharp decline in international
trade throughout late 2008 and early 2009. However, exports
have since rebounded strongly for all western states. All
western states except Idaho and Oregon have seen export
growth through the first half of the year. Idaho’s figures are a
result of a slowdown in Computer and Electronic Products and
also a nearly 85 percent drop in Metal Ores. Conversely,
Arizona
California
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington
United States
Y/Y Percent
Exports ($ mill) Change
$9,204
2.4%
$81,965
6.0%
$2,751
-9.6%
$4,977
39.2%
$9,035
-5.1%
$9,708
14.0%
$35,102
16.0%
$773,351
7.0%
Source: WiserTrade, August 2012
25
Nevada’s exceptional growth is due to gains in nonferrous metal production and processing,
excluding aluminum, the bulk of which goes to Switzerland. Overall, exports from Arizona, Idaho
and Oregon have yet to reach their pre-recession peak levels, although they are close. All other
western states and the nation have surpassed their pre-recession levels.
Tax Revenue
After being hit hard by the Great Recession, state and local tax revenues rebounded substantially in
2010 and 2011. However, early 2012 data is mixed across states (see Table W.5). Generally
speaking, personal income tax states have reached their pre-recession levels in terms of revenue
while most sales tax states have not quite recovered completely. Utah continued to see strong
revenue gains in 2012q1 due to increases in motor vehicles, personal income taxes and corporate
income taxes. Washington’s growth over the year is largely driven by general sales and gross
receipts taxes. All other western states experienced drops in revenue relative to 2011q1. However,
for the states that levy personal income taxes, like Arizona, California, Idaho, Oregon and Utah, the
second quarter is more important given the tax filing season.
Table W.5
State and Local Tax Revenue (2012 Q1)
Total Taxes
Y/Y Percent Change
Property tax
Y/Y Percent Change
General sales and gross receipts
Y/Y Percent Change
Motor fuel sales taxes
Y/Y Percent Change
Alcoholic beverages
Y/Y Percent Change
Public utilities
Y/Y Percent Change
Insurance
Y/Y Percent Change
Tobacco products
Y/Y Percent Change
Amusements
Y/Y Percent Change
Motor vehicles
Y/Y Percent Change
Corporations in general
Y/Y Percent Change
Occupation and business licenses
Y/Y Percent Change
Individual income taxes
Y/Y Percent Change
Corporation net income taxes
Y/Y Percent Change
Arizona
2,458,513
-2.6%
189,576
-2.1%
1,199,499
-17.2%
192,284
-3.4%
12,291
-33.2%
4,934
-7.8%
111,105
1.5%
72,929
-7.4%
133
-95.6%
43,718
-0.7%
2,848
20.5%
30,180
6.7%
424,087
64.7%
111,363
33.3%
California
27,077,864
-0.2%
494,035
-32.3%
7,892,105
-4.2%
1,363,206
-1.0%
82,607
7.9%
215,147
35.5%
107,141
-15.1%
240,333
-7.0%
X
X
772,653
-0.6%
13,024
-1.5%
1,055,109
3.8%
11,978,459
-0.6%
1,624,161
-21.3%
Nevada
Oregon
Utah Washington
Idaho
737,304 1,494,357 1,703,406 1,322,104 4,543,036
-1.1%
-5.3%
-2.6%
10.0%
3.7%
49,111
-3,260
X
815,069
X
X
-43.0%
-161.3%
X
1.3%
475,582 2,609,751
294,855
675,274 X
-3.8%
-2.1%
X
1.3%
5.2%
58,442
68,907
113,385
83,136
279,419
-1.2%
4.9%
-4.7%
-1.4%
6.7%
84,998
1,813
10,505
3,925
19,091
4.2%
4.0%
1.8%
9.6%
70.5%
3,618
7,470
5,023
132,079
677
-21.2%
62.3%
-1.7%
12.2%
21.8%
27,189
9,499
58,479
20,943
54,303
5.7%
3.1%
23.7%
28.7%
15.4%
23,813
60,167
28,493
106,146
10,957
-9.8%
0.8%
8.5%
-3.7%
-1.4%
X
11,025
29
X
0
X
3.2%
70.6%
X
NA
36,826
41,989
144,109
84,206
117,970
-3.4%
4.1%
2.0%
72.9%
-0.5%
540
17,827
0
151
8,464
1.7%
-4.9%
-100.0%
-93.0%
11.5%
21,955
162,056
75,487
11,761
60,479
9.2%
-7.2%
-43.2%
-2.7%
2.9%
220,908
X 1,134,237
491,125
X
-1.6%
9.4%
X
-2.3%
X
30,322
X
64,335
46,560
X
X
-18.2%
X
-12.0%
70.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ($ 000s)
26
D.
Oregon Economic Review and Forecast
Current Conditions
Oregon’s economic expansion is still intact for now, but remains at risk, and is losing steam due to
weakness in global demand for our products. To date, local labor markets have slowly improved
along with the nation overall, resulting in a slowly declining unemployment rate.
Although economic growth in Oregon has continued at roughly the same slow pace since the
recovery began, the forces driving this growth have recently changed. In particular, the regional
housing market is beginning to show signs of life, which is helping to offset weaker market
conditions among many of Oregon’s major manufacturers and exporters.
The fact that improvement continues is encouraging. However, the threat of external shocks has
placed a burden on businesses and households, leading many to pull back on their spending out of
caution. The euro zone recession – and potential crisis – in addition to the slowdown in China and
the uncertain U.S. federal policy environment represent three very large risks to the global outlook.
These risks are hard to handicap from a planning perspective and have created an exorbitant amount
of uncertainty about the future. As a result, future plans are being delayed with businesses and
individuals holding off on making long-term investments.
Outlook
Despite all of the uncertainty, the economic outlook for Oregon remains positive. It is likely that the
U.S. economic recovery can survive any one of these external shocks if faced in isolation.
However, even if all of the external threats facing Oregon are resolved in a painless manner, the
uncertainty they have caused can be expected to weigh on growth. By taking a wait-and-see
approach, firms and households are ensuring that some degree of a slowdown will occur. Should
they not see anything too drastic; the expected slowdown will remain just that, and not transition
into something worse.
Due to a recent string of weak manufacturing, consumer spending, and trade data, a broad
consensus of economic forecasters has become more pessimistic about future growth prospects.
Similarly, the Office of Economic Analysis outlook reflects somewhat weaker expectations for
growth over the next two years. Despite the revised growth rates, the general character of Oregon’s
lackluster economic outlook has not changed, with more of the same, slow improvement expected
going forward.
During the recovery so far, Oregon’s employment has grown at just under the state’s long run trend
rate, or approximately 1.2 percent annually. While growing at trend – which includes both
expansions and recessions – is better than not, this is less than half of a typical expansion year’s
growth. The private sector has added jobs at a 1.5 percent pace since late 2010, which again is just
about half of the past two expansions’ pace.
The economy has faced two major drags in recent years: housing and government. After contracting
30 percent during the recession and losing a further 1.5 percent from early 2010 to early 2011,
housing-related jobs have begun to grow again. While the pace of hiring is slow, simply having the
housing sector turn from a negative aspect of the economy to a neutral or slightly positive aspect is
more than welcome news. The news is less good on the public sector side. Government job cuts
27
have not ended, holding down the headline employment numbers statewide. Although the losses
have not stopped, government job cuts in recent months have been less severe than a year ago.
The vast majority of the public sector cuts have occurred at the local government education level –
K-12 and community colleges – and the economic outlook calls for another round of cuts this
coming school year. Next year, expectations are for public sector employment to stabilize with the
sector gradually turning from a negative to a positive contributor to employment growth. For more
information on Oregon’s housing market or public sector employment trends, please visit out
office’s blog 4.
Summary of Recent Trends
Oregon’s Employment Trends
Getting a handle on the health of Oregon’s labor market is being somewhat complicated by
technical issues within the underlying payroll jobs data. Technical issues aside, employment in
Oregon continues to increase at a slow, subdued pace through early 2012, approximately in line
with the gains seen at the U.S. level.
The employment data discussed in this report is adjusted for two important technical purposes:
seasonality and the upcoming benchmark revisions 5. Given the relative strength of employment as
measured by data collected through the unemployment insurance program, it is clear that
preliminary payroll job counts will be revised upward significantly when benchmark adjustments
are made next year. Such preliminary revisions to the payroll survey data are regularly published in
some states, and are currently a topic of discussion at the Oregon Employment Department.
After adjustments, the data reveals a state that continues to expand slowly, adding nearly 19,000
jobs in the past year (1.2% through 2012q2), instead of a state that is close to stagnating, adding
only 11,500 jobs in the past year (0.7%).
Over the past year, job growth has been widespread across industries, with only transportation
equipment manufacturers and financial service firms seeing small declines in the private sector.
Public sector employment fell by more than 2.0 percent over the same period. The largest gains
have been in professional and business services and leisure and hospitality, which increased by
approximately 7,400 and 3,100, respectively, from 2011q2 to 2012q2. Health services and
construction each added between 2,500 and 3,000 jobs over the past year. These four main industry
groups account for approximately 63 percent of all private sector gains, with manufacturing
4
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/update-on-housing/
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/oregon-employment-public-sector-trends/
5
Each year the Oregon Employment Department and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics revise the employment data –
a process known as benchmarking. The current establishment survey (CES), also known as the monthly payroll survey,
is benchmarked against the quarterly census of employment and wages (QCEW), a series that contains all employees
covered by unemployment insurance. The monthly CES is based on a sample of firms, whereas the QCEW contains
approximately 96 percent of all employees, or nearly a complete count of employment in Oregon. The greatest benefit
of the CES is the timeliness – monthly employment estimates are available with only a one month lag – and these
estimates are reasonably accurate. However the further removed from the latest benchmark, the larger the errors. The
QCEW is less timely as the data is released publically approximately 3-4 months following the end of the quarter. The
greatest benefit of the QCEW is that is a near 100 percent count of statewide employment. For these reasons, the CES is
usually used to discuss recent monthly employment trends, however once a year the data is revised to match the
historical QCEW employment trends. The last month of official benchmark data is June 2011. The QCEW is currently
available through March 2012, thus the preliminary benchmark used here covers the July 2011 – March 2012 period.
28
accounting for another 13 percent, or 3,200 jobs. Within manufacturing, gains were led by durable
goods, particularly metals and machinery.
Labor Market Rankings
The Office of Economic Analysis examines four main sources for jobs data: the monthly payroll
employment survey, the monthly household employment survey, monthly withholding tax receipts
and the quarterly census of employment and wages. Right now, all four of the sources are indicating
continued growth, although the monthly payroll employment survey is lagging somewhat relative to
the other data. Oregon’s labor market is improving right along with the nation overall, if not a little
bit faster.
The most recent job growth Figure O.1
rankings, published by Arizona
State University’s W.P. Carey
School of Business, places Oregon
26th in the nation for job growth.
Between July 2011 and July 2012, Oregon: 26th
jobs increased by 16,600, or 1.03
percent. Last July, Oregon ranked
27th. Washington’s growth has been
even stronger; measuring 1.9
percent of the past year. This ranks
13th best among all states. The
relative performance of the fifty
states is shown in Figure O.1.
Nonfarm Job Growth by State
July 2012 over July 2011
(Ranked by Percent Change)
North Dakota retained the 1st ranked
position with job growth of 6.88
Bottom 10
Fourth 10
Middle 10
Second 10
Top 10
Source: Blue Chip Job Growth Update, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University
percent, a ranking it also held a year
ago. Elsewhere in the region, California’s job gains ranked 2nd and Idaho’s 22nd among the 50
states.
Employment Growth by Metropolitan Size
Last quarter, part of our analysis focused on the differences between Portland and the rest of the
state. It was argued that much of rural Oregon has missed out on the economic recovery due to the
mix of industries in these areas. This quarter, the regional focus is on the different employment
growth patterns experienced by metropolitan areas. How much, if at all, does city size help explain
economic performance over the business cycle? Also, how do Oregon’s MSAs compare relative to
their national peers of similar size?
Portland is driving Oregon’s statewide employment growth while the other metropolitan areas and
more rural areas have yet to fully share in the recovery, if at all. Seattle and Washington largely
follow the same pattern. Portland and Seattle are large, urban centers that represent over 50 percent
of all jobs in their respective states. How have the other large metropolitan areas across the country
fared economically? Examining the 29 largest MSAs in the country – all metros with a population
larger than 2 million – reveals that each one has seen employment growth in recovery. Over twothirds of the largest cities, 20 out of 29, have experienced growth at least as strong as the national
average, with 8 cities – Portland and Seattle included – growing at least 50 percent stronger than the
national average in recovery.
29
Broadening the analysis to examine all U.S. metropolitan areas (totaling more than 370) reveals that
the representative (median) city from each size group have fared about the same. However, the
smaller cities – employment less than 50,000 – did lose more jobs during the recession than the
national average. Cities in the three largest groups – employment greater than 600,000 – also
typically saw larger losses, but also stronger gains so far in recovery. One reason for this is the fact
that larger cities turned around first, relative to cities of other sizes.
As seen in Graph O.2, it
does not appear that city size
had any particular affect on
when an MSA began losing
jobs as the Great Recession
was an equal opportunity
disaster. However, within
these groups there is
variation and those cities
that experienced a larger
housing boom and bust
typically went down first.
Graph O.2
Employment Peak Date
Employment Trough Date
100%
100%
80%
80%
< 50k
50-100k
60%
< 50k
60%
50-100k
100-200k
100-200k
200-400k
400-600k
40%
200-400k
40%
400-600k
600k - 1 m
600k - 1 m
1-2 m
> 2m
20%
1-2 m
20%
> 2m
0%
0%
Before or At U.S.
Peak
Before or at U.S.
Trough
After U.S.
After U.S.
Two factors likely playing a
role in recovery are a city’s exposure to both housing and government, as previously discussed, the
two main economic drags this business cycle. Smaller cities have a larger share of their workforce
in both construction and government not because they have so many of these jobs, but rather
because they do not have as many other types of jobs (advertising firms and ballet dancers, as two
examples) to offset these industries. Given the severity of the housing downturn and government
austerity in recent years, having more local exposure to these two sectors has typically resulted in a
deeper recession and/or a slower recovery.
Turning to Oregon, Graph O.3 compares the economic performance of each Oregon MSA relative
to its national peers, based on city size. The red bars are the median city nationwide in each cohort.
Corvallis is outperforming its small metro peers. Portland is slightly more volatile than its peers, but
overall has fared just about the same as other large cities. Oregon differs most in its small to
Graph O.3
5%
4%
3%
< 50k
30
50-100k
100-200k
Portland
0%
-18%
Salem
1%
-15%
Eugene
-12%
Bend
2%
Medf ord
Portland
Salem
Bend
600k - 1 m
Corvallis
-9%
Employment Gains by City Size
100-200k
U.S. Median
-6%
Corvallis
-3%
U.S. Median
0%
Medf ord
50-100k
Eugene
Employment Losses by City Size
< 50k
600k - 1 m
medium sized metros. Bend and Medford took an outsized hit during the recession – largely the
aftermath of their substantial housing downturns 6 – and have only come back slightly from their
employment lows. A similar story can be told for Eugene and Salem, however not quite as severe.
Stepping back and examining Bend, Eugene and Medford’s employment, it appears that they’re
continuing to bounce along the bottom with no sustained improvement. From their lowest points
each city has seen 1-2 percent employment growth. Salem is somewhat of a different story as it is
now clearly losing jobs again. Salem still has seen some job gains for the recovery as a whole, but
the recent trend is certainly negative.
The regional differences in economic performance across Oregon are expected to lessen going
forward. As the housing market continues to heal and state and local governments stop cutting back,
drags on economic growth in rural areas will lessen. Farm income remains healthy, and market
conditions are stabilizing for many wood product firms. Expectations are not for strong growth, but
at least a sustained upturn in many areas. 7
Employment in the Most Recent Quarter
Table O.1 shows a comparison of preliminary estimates for second quarter Oregon employment
growth compared to the June 2012 forecast. Unless noted otherwise, all percentage rates discussed
reflect annualized rates of change for second quarter 2012. 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 preliminary estimate for second
quarter employment was slightly higher than forecast, however the growth rate was slightly lower
than forecast. This arises due to employment revisions to prior months, in particular, the preliminary
benchmark employment figures for the first quarter. Overall employment was 1,900 above forecast
for the quarter for an error of 0.1 percent. The second quarter continues the slow growth trend that
both Oregon and the U.S. have experienced since the depths of the recession in 2009. Some quarters
have exhibited stronger growth, and others weak, however the trend has been relatively steady for
the past two years.
6
7
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/more-on-home-prices/
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/employment-by-metro/
31
Table O.1
Total Nonfarm Employment, 2nd quarter 2012
(Employment in thousands, Annualized Percent Change)
Preliminary
Estimate
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
1,638.1
1,347.9
7.3
71.6
171.4
121.1
19.6
34.8
37.0
10.8
19.0
50.3
24.9
25.4
315.7
186.9
75.3
53.5
32.2
91.8
194.3
237.8
34.3
203.5
168.2
57.8
290.2
27.7
79.9
31.6
182.7
94.0
0.6
1.3
(1.0)
3.7
2.4
2.6
3.4
6.1
3.5
(3.7)
(2.4)
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.8
1.7
(0.4)
3.5
0.7
0.2
1.0
3.8
0.6
1.2
(0.2)
(2.5)
(5.7)
(2.0)
2.0
(2.2)
(3.0)
Forecast
Forecast Error
level % ch
level
%
Y/Y
Change
% ch
1,636.2
1.0
1,345.2
1.6
7.3
2.5
68.4 (1.5)
171.2 (1.0)
121.5
0.7
19.3
3.8
34.9
6.6
37.5
8.1
11.1 (2.7)
18.7 (21.7)
49.6 (4.9)
24.3 (11.8)
25.4
2.5
315.9 (1.1)
186.7
1.0
75.1
1.2
54.1
0.7
31.8 (0.5)
92.5
1.4
194.2
5.1
236.8 (1.0)
32.4 (9.6)
204.4
2.9
169.1
3.6
58.0
3.1
290.9 (2.0)
28.2 (2.2)
80.2 (0.6)
31.5
1.1
182.6 (2.6)
93.4 (5.5)
1.9
2.6
0.0
3.1
0.3
(0.4)
0.3
(0.1)
(0.5)
(0.3)
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.1
(0.2)
0.2
0.2
(0.6)
0.4
(0.7)
0.1
1.0
1.9
(0.9)
(1.0)
(0.2)
(0.7)
(0.5)
(0.3)
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.1
4.5
0.2
(0.3)
1.4
(0.3)
(1.4)
(2.8)
1.6
1.3
2.4
0.3
(0.1)
0.1
0.3
(1.2)
1.1
(0.8)
0.0
0.4
5.7
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.4)
(0.3)
(1.9)
(0.4)
0.2
0.1
0.7
1.2
1.9
5.9
4.1
1.9
2.0
1.3
4.6
1.8
(1.2)
0.3
1.6
2.8
0.6
1.0
0.9
1.4
0.8
0.5
(0.4)
3.9
1.8
5.0
1.2
1.9
1.8
(2.1)
(2.8)
(1.0)
1.6
(2.4)
(3.9)
Regional Trends
Total nonfarm employment in Oregon rose by 0.7 percent from the second quarter of 2011 to the
second quarter of 2012. This marked the state’s seventh consecutive quarter of positive year-overyear employment growth. Employment growth varied from one region of Oregon to the next. In the
second quarter of 2012, four regions experienced quarterly employment gains from the previous
year: the Portland area; Central Oregon; Southern Oregon; and the Northeastern region.
Employment declined between the second quarters of 2011 and 2012 in the Willamette Valley, the
South Central-Southeast region, the Columbia Gorge, and along the North Coast. Employment was
essentially flat over the year for the South Coast region.
32
Every region posted lower
unemployment
rates
(not
seasonally adjusted) in the
second quarter of 2012 than
during the second quarter of
2011. Rates ranged from a low of
7.4 percent in the Oregon portion
of the Portland metropolitan area
to a high of 11.1 percent in
Southern Oregon during the
second
quarter
of
2012.
Statewide,
the
unadjusted
unemployment rate was 8.4
percent.
Unemployment Rates Fell in All Regions, 2Q2011 to 2Q2012
Not Seasonally Adjusted
16.0%
2Q2012
2Q2011
12.0%
8.0%
4.0%
0.0%
Portland 5County
Columbia North Coast Northeast
Gorge
Willamette South Coast
South
Valley
Central - SE
Central
Southern
Portland Area:
Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill counties
Year-over-year employment growth resumed in the Portland area during the third quarter of 2010.
The region has outpaced statewide job growth for eight consecutive quarters. Moreover, the
Portland area is the only region in the state that has sustained quarterly job growth over the last two
years. The Portland area experienced an employment gain of 1.6 percent between the second
quarters of 2011 and 2012.
By county, second quarter
employment growth was fastest in
Yamhill
County
(+3.1%),
followed by Washington County
(+1.5%). Multnomah (+0.9%),
Clackamas
(+0.8%),
and
Columbia (+0.7%) experienced
smaller gains over the year.
Portland Unemployment Rate
14%
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Portland MSA
12%
10%
8%
The
second
quarter
6%
unemployment rate in the
Portland area was 7.4 percent, 4%
compared with 8.3 percent in the
second quarter of 2011. The 2%
unemployment rate in the region
is now significantly below both 0%
Jan-90
Jan-94
Jan-98
Jan-02
Jan-06
Jan-10
the statewide average and the
national average. Given that the Portland MSA is driving the statewide employment growth, this
pattern in the unemployment rate is expected. Furthermore, the Portland region is the only region in
the state to see sustained growth in the labor force. The employment gains have been strong enough
to accommodate the influx of new workers and bring the unemployment rate down in the past two
years.
33
Willamette Valley:
Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion and Polk counties
The Willamette Valley posted its first over-the-year job loss in the third quarter of 2008, the same
time employment growth turned negative statewide. While Oregon’s employment trend resumed
positive growth in the fourth quarter of 2010, Willamette Valley employment has generally
continued to decline. In the second quarter of 2012, employment fell by 1.2 percent in the
Willamette Valley from the previous year.
In the second quarter of 2012, job losses were dispersed throughout the region. Linn County
(-1.7%) experienced the largest rate of employment decline, followed by Lane County (-1.2%). The
Salem metro area – which consists of Marion and Polk counties – posted a job loss of 1.1 percent.
In Benton County, losses totaled 1.0 percent.
In the second quarter of 2012, the Willamette Valley’s unemployment rate was 8.6 percent. The rate
dropped 0.9 percentage point from the previous year. The decrease was driven by a reduction in the
region’s labor force, rather than a
Willamette Valley Unemployment Rate
rise
in
employment.
The
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Willamette Valley
Willamette Valley, and Salem in 14%
particular, is having a difficult
recovery, given there have been no 12%
sustained job gains. Benton County
(Corvallis) has done comparatively 10%
well this business cycle, however 8%
Lane (Eugene) and Marion and
Polk counties (Salem) have 6%
experienced both larger job losses
and no real employment gains. 4%
While most counties have at least
stopped losing jobs, the Salem 2%
MSA has turned downward again, 0%
as noted above, with job losses in
Jan-90
Jan-94
Jan-98
Jan-02
Jan-06
Jan-10
the past six months.
The region has largely followed the statewide figures over the past two decades. However with the
slow to no job growth, the unemployment rate is now above the statewide average in 2012 as seen
in the graph above.
North Coast:
Clatsop, Lincoln and Tillamook counties
Employment declines in Oregon’s northern coastal counties began in the fourth quarter of 2008.
After 12 quarters of year-over-year job losses, the North Coast returned to employment gains
(+0.4%) in the fourth quarter of 2011 and the first quarter of 2012 (+0.8). However, the region
posted a slight decline (-0.2%) in the second quarter of 2012. Employment rose in Clatsop County
(+1.0%), but declined in Lincoln (-1.0%) and Tillamook (-1.0%) counties.
34
The North Coast region’s jobless rate was 8.3 percent in the second quarter of 2012, an
improvement from 8.9 percent
Northern Coast Unemployment Rate
in the second quarter of 2011.
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
North Coast
The graph on the right compares 14%
the
Northern
Coast’s
unemployment rate with both 12%
the statewide and national
averages since 1990. After 10%
outperforming the state during
8%
the recession – and matching the
national figures – the North 6%
Coast’s unemployment rate now
is comparable to the state’s rate. 4%
The unemployment rate in the
region has improved nearly 2 2%
percentage points; however this
0%
movement is smaller than the
Jan-90
Jan-94
Jan-06
Jan-10
Jan-98
Jan-02
state’s improvement.
Southern Oregon:
Douglas, Jackson and Josephine counties
After 13 consecutive quarters of
Southern Oregon Unemployment Rate
over-the-year
employment
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Southern Oregon
declines – which began in the 16%
third quarter of 2007 – year-to- 14%
year job growth leveled off in
Southern Oregon during the 12%
fourth quarter of 2010. Since 10%
then, the region has experienced
modest employment changes, 8%
both positive and negative. 6%
During the second quarter of
2012, Southern Oregon posted 4%
its best positive year-to-year job
2%
growth reading in 20 quarters,
growing 0.8 percent. Preliminary 0%
Jan-94
Jan-02
Jan-90
Jan-98
Jan-06
Jan-10
estimates show a higher rate of
growth in Jackson County
(+1.3%) than in Josephine (+0.2%) or Douglas (+0.1%) counties.
Southern Oregon posted an unemployment rate of 11.1 percent in the second quarter of 2012, 1.2
percentage points below the level one year prior. As seen in the graph above, Southern Oregon’s
unemployment rate has generally been above both the state and national figures. The improvement
in the unemployment rate has largely matched the state’s improvement, however there has yet to be
a sustained upturn in the number of jobs in the region. Even though the region has stopped losing
jobs, the small gains in employment are not enough to drive down the unemployment rate quickly.
35
South Coast:
Coos and Curry counties
Quarterly employment declines began relatively early for the South Coast region, which posted its
first over-the-year loss in the fourth quarter of 2006. After reaching a maximum job loss of 6.9
percent over the year in the middle of 2009, declines eased, then quarterly job gains resumed in the
third quarter of 2010. Growth turned again though, and the South Coast posted four consecutive
quarters of year-to-year job declines. After coming back with year-to-year job gains of 1.3 percent
in the fourth quarter of 2011 and 1.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012, employment growth has
fallen off again. In the second quarter of 2012, employment was essentially flat from its level one
year prior.
Southern Coast Unemployment Rate
The South Coast had an
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
South Coast
unemployment rate of 10.6 16%
percent, an improvement of 0.8
percentage point from the level 14%
one year prior. The graph on 12%
the right compares the Southern
Coasts’ unemployment rate for 10%
the past 22 years to those of the 8%
state and nation. In every single
year, the unemployment rate 6%
has been above both of these
4%
other measures and given the
severe job losses in the early 2%
1980s recession, likely that
0%
decade as well. The declining
Jan-90
Jan-06
Jan-94
Jan-98
Jan-02
Jan-10
unemployment rate today is a
mixture of both good and bad factors. Jobs have improved slightly, the number of unemployment is
also declining, however so too is the labor force.
Columbia Gorge:
Gilliam, Hood River, Sherman,
Wasco and Wheeler counties
The Columbia Gorge saw
comparatively light employment
impacts during the recession.
Quarterly employment declined
over the year from the first
quarter of 2009 through the first
quarter of 2010. After three
consecutive quarters of year-toyear job gains, employment
declined by 0.6 percent in the
Gorge between the second
quarters of 2011 and 2012.
Columbia Gorge Unemployment Rate
16%
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Columbia Gorge
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Jan-90
Jan-94
36
Jan-98
Jan-02
Jan-06
Jan-10
Employment trends varied among the region’s five counties. While Wheeler (+0.6%) and Hood
River (+0.2%) counties experienced gains, employment dropped over the year in Sherman (-0.6%),
Wasco (-1.1%), and Gilliam (-5.6%) counties.
The unemployment rate for the Columbia Gorge was 7.8 percent in the second quarter of 2012,
compared with 8.6 percent the previous year. As seen in the graph above, the region‘s
unemployment rate has been lower than both the nation’s and state’s rates this business cycle. The
current recession has not had a severe impact on employment in the region, unlike the rest of the
state. For more information on the region, please see our office’s blog post:
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/columbia-river-gorge/
Central Oregon:
Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties
After 13 consecutive quarters of year-over-year employment declines – some as steep as 11.1
percent – during the recession, employment growth has returned to Central Oregon. In the second
quarter of 2012, the region posted an employment gain of 1.2 percent, the fourth consecutive yearto-year improvement for the region.
Jefferson County (+3.3%) had the fastest year-over-year job growth in the second quarter of 2012.
Employment rose by 2.4 percent
Central Oregon Unemployment Rate
in
Crook
County,
while
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Central Oregon
Deschutes County posted a job 18%
gain of 0.8 percent.
16%
The region’s 11.0 percent 14%
unemployment rate in the second 12%
quarter of 2012 improved from
12.3 percent the previous year. 10%
As seen in the graph of the 8%
region’s unemployment rate, the 6%
improvement in the region has
significantly outpaced both the 4%
state and nation’s decline. 2%
Unfortunately this is partially due 0%
to the fact that the region suffered
Jan-90
Jan-98
Jan-94
such severe job losses during the
recession it has much further to go to reach pre-recession levels.
Jan-02
Jan-06
Jan-10
For a more thorough look at the region’s employment history and recession comparison, please see
our office’s blog post: http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/central-oregon/
37
Northeastern Oregon:
Baker, Grant, Morrow, Umatilla, Union and Wallowa counties
The Northeast Oregon counties first saw quarterly over-the-year job losses at the beginning of 2008.
Losses did not reach the steep levels seen in other regions, but did persist through the fourth quarter
of 2010. After modest movements through most of 2011, year-over-year job gains picked up in the
fourth quarter of 2011 (+0.9%) and the first quarter of 2012 (+1.0%). In the second quarter of 2012,
the region’s employment improved from the previous year, but at a more modest 0.4 percent.
Employment growth in the second quarter of 2012 was concentrated in Umatilla (+1.3%) and Union
(+0.6%) counties. The rest of the Northeastern Oregon counties posted employment losses. The
biggest decline occurred in Grant
Northeast Oregon Unemployment Rate
County (-3.1%), followed by
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Northeast Oregon
Morrow (-1.7%), Baker (-0.9%), 14%
and Wallowa (-0.9%) counties.
12%
In the second quarter of 2012, the
unemployment rate in Northeast 10%
Oregon was 8.6 percent, down
from 9.3 percent the previous 8%
year. The graph illustrates the
6%
region’s unemployment rate since
1990. After experiencing a 4%
significantly higher rate of
unemployment throughout the 2%
1990s the regional rate has
largely matched the statewide 0%Jan-90
Jan-94
Jan-98
Jan-02
Jan-06
Jan-10
figures in recent years. The
recessionary increase and subsequent slow decline in the unemployment rate has mirrored the rest
of the state.
South Central and Southeast Oregon:
Harney, Klamath, Lake and Malheur counties
In the third quarter of 2010, South
Central and Southeast Oregon
broke 11 consecutive quarters of
year-over-year
employment
declines with a modest gain of 0.6
percent. Since then, the region has
seen job declines in almost every
quarter. In the second quarter of
2012, employment fell by 0.7
percent from the previous year.
Klamath (+0.1%) was the only
county to register an employment
gain between the second quarters
of 2011 and 2012. Harney County
S. Central and SE Oregon Unemployment Rate
16%
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Southeast Oregon
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Jan-90
Jan-94
38
Jan-98
Jan-02
Jan-06
Jan-10
(-4.3%) experienced the largest decline, followed by Lake (-3.9%) and Malheur (-0.9%) counties.
The unemployment rate was 10.9 percent in the second quarter of 2012 for South Central and
Southeastern Oregon. The rate declined by 0.8 percentage point from the previous year, but that
decline resulted from reductions in the labor force rather than employment gains.
Information on employment in Oregon’s 15 workforce regions and 36 counties is available at
www.QualityInfo.org. For more information, contact Gail Kiles Krumenauer, Economist,
[email protected] 503-947-1873.
39
Oregon Index of Leading Indicators
Index Value
Similar to the overall economy, the two leading indicator series for Oregon both have moved in fits
and starts in recent years. Following growth in late 2011 through early 2012, both indices declined
sharply in June. Graph O.4
However,
both
Oregon Economic Indexes (Jan 2005 = 100)
120
100%
remain positive on a
six-month
growth
90%
115
basis,
which
is
consistent with an
80%
110
expanding economy
70%
in the near future.
105
OEA’s
Oregon
60%
Index of Leading
100
50%
Indicators 8 was led
downward by large
40%
95
movements in a few
30%
indicators,
while
90
most
indicators
20%
Recession Probability (Right)
point to continued
Coincident Index (Philadelphia Fed)
85
Total Nonfarm Employment
10%
growth.
UO Index of Economic Indicators
Oregon Index of Leading Indicators
80
0%
The
overall
Jan-05 Jul-05 Jan-06 Jul-06 Jan-07 Jul-07 Jan-08 Jul-08 Jan-09 Jul-09 Jan-10 Jul-10 Jan-11 Jul-11 Jan-12
weakness in OEA’s
OILI is being led by the Graph O.5
Oregon Indexes
indicators most affected
(Six Month Annualized Percent Change, through June 2011)
100%
by the global economic 20%
weakness,
particularly
related
to
the
10%
80%
manufacturing sector. The
Purchasing
Managers
Index declined sharply in
0%
60%
June to just below the
breakeven point between
40%
a
manufacturing -10%
expansion and contraction
and remained there in
20%
July. The Semiconductor -20%
book-to-bill ratio for
equipment makers has -30%
0%
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-10 Jan-11 Jan-12
also declined to just
Recession Probability (R)
OEA
UO Index
Total Nonfarm Employment
below its breakeven point
8
The OILI applies the Conference Board’s methodology for the U.S. National Leading Index to Oregon-specific components. The eleven components
incorporated in the OILI include: Semiconductor book-to-bill ratio, Oregon housing permits, Institute for Supply Management’s purchasing
managers index, University of Michigan consumer sentiment index, Oregon withholding, new Oregon incorporations, Oregonian help-wanted index,
Portland International Airport air freight tonnage, Oregon trade-weighted dollar index, Industrial Production Index, and initial Oregon
unemployment claims.
40
in June. The Oregon Dollar Index is again appreciating relative to our major trading partners. All
three indicators are reflecting the global manufacturing slowdown. Given that Oregon remains a
manufacturing state and an export-heavy state, these indicators are worrisome.
On the positive side, the health of the Oregon labor market continues to improve. New claims for
unemployment insurance continue to fall, while withholdings out of Oregonians’ paychecks
continue to increase. The gains in new housing permits should further aid future growth in the state.
Overall, the state’s leading indicators continue to signal growth in the near term.
Short-Term Outlook
Overview
Slow growth will continue to be the norm. The manufacturing cycle is past its peak, and Oregon’s
major trading partners are ordering fewer of our goods. Consumers will not save the day, since
many still need to fix their household balance sheets by saving more/paying down debt. Recent
improvements in labor markets and housing markets will help the expansion persist, but will not be
enough to generate strong growth.
Oregon Forecast Comparisons
Table O.2 compares OEA’s forecast to other published forecasts. While most forecasters see
improvements in jobs for 2012, our office predicts a more subdued increase than the consensus. The
local forecasts are available via the Western Blue Chip Economic Forecast published by Arizona
State University’s W.P. Carey School of Business for all forecasters except IHS Global Insight. A
similar story is apparent in the personal income forecasts, which the consensus expects, more or
less, constant growth in coming years, while our office has an income growth slowdown in 2012
built into the forecast.
Table O.2
Oregon Total Nonfarm Employment and Personal Income Growth
Employment
Forecaster
IHS Global Insight
July 2012
Conerly Consulting
August 2012
1.1
3.1
3.6
4.5
Forefront Economics
August 2012
1.9
2.7
4.1
4.5
John Mitchell
August 2012
1.7
Portland General Electric
August 2012
1.8
2.3
4.8
5.5
Wells Fargo & Co.
August 2012
1.4
1.6
4.3
4.5
Oregon Office of Economic Analysis
August 2012
1.2
1.8
2.9
3.7
August 2012
1.6
2.5
4.2
4.5
Consensus*
2013
1.5
Personal Income
2012
0.9
Date of Forecast
2014
1.9
2012
3.5
2013
3.9
2014
5.0
4.9
1.9
4.9
*Consensus forecast from Western Blue Chip forecast
Oregon Forecast Summary
Table O.3 provides a quick summary of the latest economic forecast in the near term on both a
quarterly and annual frequency.
41
Table O.3
Oregon Forecast Summary
Annual
Quarterly
2012:1
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Personal Income ($ billions)
Nominal Personal Income
% change
149.4
3.4
150.5
3.2
151.4
2.4
152.9
4.0
154.4
3.9
139.4
3.2
146.8
5.3
151.1
2.9
156.6
3.7
164.4
4.9
173.6
5.6
Real Personal Income (base year=2005)
% change
129.4
0.8
130.2
2.5
131.0
2.3
131.9
3.0
132.8
2.6
125.5
1.4
128.9
2.8
130.6
1.3
134.1
2.6
138.0
2.9
143.0
3.6
76.4
2.3
76.7
1.8
77.3
3.1
78.1
4.4
79.0
4.7
71.6
1.9
75.0
4.7
77.1
2.9
80.3
4.1
84.0
4.6
88.3
5.0
Nominal Wages and Salaries
% change
Other Indicators
Per Capita Income ($1,000)
% change
38.5
2.8
38.8
2.5
38.9
1.3
39.2
3.2
39.5
3.1
36.3
2.6
38.0
4.7
38.8
2.2
39.9
2.8
41.5
3.9
43.3
4.4
Average Wage rate ($1,000)
% change
46.1
(0.4)
46.2
1.5
46.5
2.6
46.8
2.3
47.1
2.4
44.1
2.6
45.6
3.5
46.4
1.7
47.5
2.3
48.7
2.6
50.1
2.8
Population (Millions)
% change
3.88
0.6
3.88
0.7
3.89
1.1
3.90
0.8
3.91
0.8
3.84
0.6
3.86
0.6
3.89
0.7
3.92
0.9
3.96
1.0
4.01
1.1
Housing Starts (Thousands)
% change
9.0
18.6
10.6
90.8
10.1
(15.2)
10.4
10.0
10.5
5.9
7.6
0.5
8.1
5.9
10.0
24.3
11.0
9.9
14.3
29.6
19.4
36.1
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
8.7
(0.4)
8.5
(0.2)
8.6
0.1
8.4
(0.1)
8.3
(0.1)
10.8
(0.3)
9.5
(1.3)
8.5
(0.9)
8.0
(0.5)
7.5
(0.5)
7.0
(0.5)
Employment (Thousands)
Total Nonfarm
% change
1,635.6
2.7
1,638.1
0.6
1,640.2
0.5
1,648.6
2.1
1,657.7
2.2
1,601.9 1,620.8
(0.7)
1.2
1,640.6
1.2
1,670.4
1.8
1,702.6
1.9
1,738.4
2.1
1,343.5
3.6
1,347.9
1.3
1,351.5
1.1
1,359.6
2.4
1,368.4
2.6
1,302.2 1,325.4
(0.9)
1.8
1,350.6
1.9
1,380.6
2.2
1,411.2
2.2
1,444.9
2.4
70.9
8.2
71.6
3.7
72.0
2.7
73.1
5.9
73.4
1.5
67.6
(8.7)
68.6
1.5
71.9
4.8
73.7
2.5
76.4
3.6
80.9
5.9
170.4
2.8
171.4
2.4
171.8
0.9
172.3
1.0
172.7
1.0
163.8
(2.0)
168.3
2.7
171.5
1.9
173.9
1.4
177.4
2.0
181.4
2.3
120.4
3.2
121.1
2.6
122.1
3.1
122.4
1.1
122.9
1.6
114.9
(2.6)
118.7
3.3
121.5
2.4
124.1
2.1
127.1
2.4
130.8
2.9
Wood Product Manufacturing
% change
19.4
6.6
19.6
3.4
19.8
3.2
19.9
3.2
20.3
9.0
20.0
(4.7)
19.3
(3.3)
19.7
1.9
21.0
6.7
22.2
5.8
23.8
6.9
High Tech Manufacturing
% change
36.7
(1.5)
37.0
3.5
37.3
2.8
37.4
1.5
37.2
(1.7)
35.0
(1.3)
36.5
4.2
37.1
1.8
37.2
0.2
37.7
1.4
38.6
2.4
Transportation Equipment
% change
10.9
(3.1)
10.8
(3.7)
10.8
(1.3)
10.7
(2.1)
10.7
(1.0)
10.2
(0.0)
10.9
6.6
10.8
(0.9)
10.8
0.2
11.4
5.2
12.0
5.1
50.1
1.7
50.3
1.8
49.7
(4.4)
49.8
0.7
49.8
(0.6)
48.9
(0.7)
49.6
1.4
50.0
0.8
49.9
(0.2)
50.3
0.9
50.6
0.5
1,173.8
3.8
1,176.4
0.9
1,138.4 1,157.1
(0.7)
1.6
1,179.3
1.9
1,206.7
2.3
1,233.8
2.2
1,263.5
2.4
186.1
1.7
186.9
1.8
75.0
2.1
Private Nonfarm
% change
Construction
% change
Manufacturing
% change
Durable Manufacturing
% change
Nondurable Manufacturing
% change
Private nonmanufacturing
% change
1,187.3
2.6
1,195.7
2.9
186.8
(0.3)
187.8
2.2
188.8
2.1
183.2
(0.2)
184.9
0.9
186.9
1.1
189.8
1.6
190.7
0.4
192.9
1.2
75.3
1.7
75.4
0.6
75.8
2.2
76.3
2.4
73.3
(2.7)
74.3
1.4
75.4
1.5
76.9
1.9
78.3
1.9
79.7
1.8
31.9
2.9
32.2
3.5
32.3
2.4
32.6
2.8
32.8
3.0
32.1
(3.0)
32.0
(0.2)
32.2
0.8
33.0
2.3
33.6
1.9
33.9
1.0
Professional and Business Services
% change
194.2
9.6
194.3
0.2
194.8
1.2
196.0
2.3
197.9
4.0
182.3
1.2
187.9
3.0
194.8
3.7
200.5
2.9
209.0
4.2
219.3
4.9
Health Services
% change
203.2
1.0
203.5
0.6
204.4
1.9
205.6
2.3
206.9
2.6
197.1
2.2
201.5
2.2
204.2
1.3
209.0
2.4
214.6
2.7
220.0
2.5
Leisure and Hospitality
% change
167.7
3.7
168.2
1.2
169.0
1.9
170.2
2.9
171.5
3.0
162.3
(0.4)
165.6
2.0
168.7
1.9
173.4
2.8
176.8
2.0
178.8
1.1
292.0
(1.7)
290.2
(2.5)
288.7
(2.1)
289.0
0.5
289.3
0.4
299.7
0.1
295.4
(1.5)
290.0
(1.8)
289.8
(0.1)
291.4
0.6
293.5
0.7
Retail Trade
% change
Wholesale Trade
% change
Information
% change
Government
% change
1,179.7
1.1
42
Forecast Changes Relative to the June 2012 Forecast
Table O.4 provides a summary of forecast changes compared to the June 2012 forecast. The
character of the forecast remains the same however the short and medium term growth outlooks
have been lowered due to a more subdued forecast. The baseline still remains a slight improvement
in growth rates in 2013 through 2015 relative to 2011 and 2012 figures; however this improvement
is not quite as strong as predicted a few months ago.
The employment outlook in Oregon is essentially unchanged for 2012; however the downward
revisions are 0.8 percent in 2013 and 1.1 percent in 2014, before lessening over the rest of the
decade. The revisions are less industry specific in nature and reflect a more general weakness in the
outlook.
Personal income was lowered approximately one percent over the forecast horizon primarily due to
reduced forecasts for wages and salaries, a result of the lowered employment outlook. Overall, real
personal income was lowered by a smaller degree than total nominal personal income, due to the
slightly lower forecast for inflation. A reduced overall global economic outlook keeps downward
pressure on commodity prices and inflation more generally. It is important to point out that the
inflation outlook remains subdued by historical standards.
Housing starts in early 2012 have come in above forecast, leading to an upward revision to the very
near term outlook. The June forecast called for 8,600 housing starts in 2012, while the September
forecast now calls for 10,000 starts, an increase of 16 percent. However the medium and longer
term outlook for housing remains largely the same, with housing starts returning to their long-run
average level in 2016. Even with the near term upward revision, OEA still expects a very subdued
housing starts forecast. While housing construction is on the upswing (multi-family is strong and
single family is just beginning to improve somewhat), real improvements will not materialize until
late 2013 or early 2014 according to our forecast.
Similar to housing starts, the construction industry is gaining jobs faster than initially projected. The
outlook has been revised upward in the near term reflecting this strength. Our office’s outlook for
the sector as a whole remains stable. Even with job gains each year from 2011 through 2020, the
number of jobs in 2020 in the construction industry is still projected to be lower than the level of
jobs prior to the recession.
The manufacturing outlook has been lowered throughout the forecast horizon – from 2012 through
2021. While the sector continues to add jobs in Oregon today, the global manufacturing slowdown
will wash up on our shores, leading to a more subdued outlook.
Private nonmanufacturing employment has been lowered more than one percent from 2014-2020.
The downward revisions are largely across-the-board, but driven by the larger sectors. Retail Trade,
Professional and Business Services and Health Services all have weaker outlooks. The retail trade
revisions reflect a more subdued outlook for consumer purchases in brick and mortar stores. The
health services revisions reflect a slightly slower trend growth rate in the future. In recent decades,
employment growth in health services routinely topped 3 percent per annum. Over the forecast
horizon, this growth rate is lowered to approximately 2.5 percent. Health service remains the largest
employment sector in Oregon and a key driver of employment growth in the state, so any changes
made to the industry forecast are certainly seen in the top line numbers as well.
43
Government sector employment has similarly been revised downward approximately one half of
one percent. The demand for public services generally increases with population, and as such, a
lower population outlook results in slower increases in public sector growth.
Table O.4
Oregon Forecast Change (Current vs. Last)
Quarterly
2012:1
2012:2
2012:3
Annual
2012:4
2013:1
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
139.4
0.0
125.5
0.0
71.6
0.0
146.8
0.0
128.9
0.0
75.0
(0.0)
151.1
(0.3)
130.6
(0.0)
77.1
(1.4)
156.6
(1.0)
134.1
(0.3)
80.3
(1.9)
164.4
(1.3)
138.0
(0.8)
84.0
(2.4)
173.6
(1.0)
143.0
(0.6)
88.3
(2.6)
36.3
(0.0)
44.1
(0.0)
3.84
0.0
7.6
(0.1)
10.8
0.0
38.0
0.0
45.6
(0.2)
3.86
(0.0)
8.1
0.2
9.5
0.0
38.8
(0.2)
46.4
(1.3)
3.89
(0.1)
10.0
16.0
8.5
(0.0)
39.9
(0.8)
47.5
(1.3)
3.92
(0.2)
11.0
4.3
8.0
0.0
41.5
(1.1)
48.7
(1.4)
3.96
(0.2)
14.3
(0.5)
7.5
0.0
43.3
(0.7)
50.1
(1.5)
4.01
(0.3)
19.4
0.0
7.0
0.0
Personal Income ($ billions)
Nominal Personal Income
% change
Real Personal Income (base year=2005)
% change
Nominal Wages and Salaries
% change
Per Capita Income ($1,000)
% change
Average Wage rate ($1,000)
% change
Population (Millions)
% change
Housing Starts (Thousands)
% change
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
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
149.4
(0.1)
129.4
(0.2)
76.4
(0.9)
150.5
0.0
130.2
0.2
76.7
(1.3)
151.4
152.9
(0.6)
(0.7)
131.0
131.9
(0.1)
(0.1)
77.3
78.1
(1.7)
(1.7)
Other Indicators
38.5
(0.0)
46.1
(1.2)
3.88
(0.1)
9.0
(0.1)
8.7
0.0
38.8
0.1
46.2
(1.4)
3.88
(0.1)
10.6
31.1
8.5
(0.2)
38.9
39.2
(0.5)
(0.6)
46.5
46.8
(1.4)
(1.3)
3.89
3.9
(0.1)
(0.1)
10.1
10.4
18.0
16.7
8.6
8.4
0.0
0.0
Employment (Thousands)
1,635.6
0.2
1,343.5
0.3
70.9
3.2
170.4
(0.7)
120.4
(0.8)
19.4
1.5
36.7
(0.3)
10.9
(2.6)
50.1
(0.4)
1,173.8
0.6
186.1
(0.1)
75.0
0.1
31.9
0.2
194.2
1.3
203.2
0.1
167.7
0.0
292.0
(0.1)
1,638.1
0.1
1,347.9
0.2
71.6
4.5
171.4
0.2
121.1
(0.3)
19.6
1.4
37.0
(1.4)
10.8
(2.8)
50.3
1.3
1,176.4
(0.2)
186.9
0.1
75.3
0.3
32.2
1.1
194.3
0.0
203.5
(0.4)
168.2
(0.6)
290.2
(0.3)
1,640.2
(0.3)
1,351.5
(0.2)
72.0
4.8
171.8
(0.6)
122.1
(0.8)
19.8
1.3
37.3
(2.6)
10.8
(2.9)
49.7
(0.1)
1,179.7
(0.6)
186.8
(0.5)
75.4
0.1
32.3
3.6
194.8
(0.5)
204.4
(0.7)
169.0
(1.0)
288.7
(0.8)
1,648.6
(0.4)
1,359.6
(0.3)
73.1
5.3
172.3
(1.1)
122.4
(1.4)
19.9
1.3
37.4
(2.9)
10.7
(4.8)
49.8
(0.3)
1,187.3
(0.7)
187.8
(0.5)
75.8
(0.1)
32.6
3.3
196.0
(0.7)
205.6
(0.8)
170.2
(1.0)
289.0
(0.7)
44
154.4
(0.9)
132.8
(0.2)
79.0
(1.8)
39.5
(0.7)
47.1
(1.3)
3.9
(0.1)
10.5
10.6
8.3
0.0
1,657.7
(0.5)
1,368.4
(0.5)
73.4
4.8
172.7
(1.8)
122.9
(2.3)
20.3
0.1
37.2
(4.3)
10.7
(6.8)
49.8
(0.6)
1,195.7
(0.8)
188.8
(0.5)
76.3
(0.2)
32.8
2.3
197.9
(0.4)
206.9
(0.8)
171.5
(1.0)
289.3
(0.7)
1,601.9 1,620.8 1,640.6 1,670.4 1,702.6 1,738.4
0.0
0.1
(0.1)
(0.7)
(1.1)
(1.2)
1,302.2 1,325.4 1,350.6 1,380.6 1,411.2 1,444.9
0.0
0.0
(0.0)
(0.7)
(1.2)
(1.3)
67.6
68.6
71.9
73.7
76.4
80.9
0.0
0.0
4.5
3.3
(1.1)
(3.4)
163.8
168.3
171.5
173.9
177.4
181.4
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.5)
(2.1)
(2.1)
(1.8)
114.9
118.7
121.5
124.1
127.1
130.8
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.8)
(2.7)
(2.9)
(2.5)
20.0
19.3
19.7
21.0
22.2
23.8
0.0
0.0
1.4
(0.9)
(4.4)
(4.7)
35.0
36.5
37.1
37.2
37.7
38.6
(0.0)
(0.0)
(1.8)
(4.5)
(2.7)
(1.8)
10.2
10.9
10.8
10.8
11.4
12.0
(0.0)
(0.0)
(3.3)
(8.4)
(9.0)
(7.3)
48.9
49.6
50.0
49.9
50.3
50.6
(0.0)
0.0
0.1
(0.4)
0.0
0.1
1,138.4 1,157.1 1,179.3 1,206.7 1,233.8 1,263.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
(0.4)
(1.0)
(1.2)
183.2
184.9
186.9
189.8
190.7
192.9
0.0
0.0
(0.2)
(0.7)
(1.5)
(1.7)
73.3
74.3
75.4
76.9
78.3
79.7
0.0
0.0
0.1
(0.5)
(0.8)
(0.6)
32.1
32.0
32.2
33.0
33.6
33.9
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.3
2.5
1.3
182.3
187.9
194.8
200.5
209.0
219.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
(0.4)
(1.4)
(1.6)
197.1
201.5
204.2
209.0
214.6
220.0
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.5)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.8)
162.3
165.6
168.7
173.4
176.8
178.8
0.0
0.0
(0.6)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(1.0)
299.7
295.4
290.0
289.8
291.4
293.5
0.0
0.3
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.4)
-15.0
Select Industry Employment
High Tech Mfg
15
40
10
30
20
0
10
45
2020
-10
2020
-5
2018
0
2018
5
2016
Repeat Purcahse Index, Oregon vs U.S. Avg
2016
Housing Prices
2014
-12.5
2014
-7.5
2012
-10.0
2012
-5.0
2010
0.0
2010
2.5
2008
5.0
2008
Manufacturing Employment
2006
-7
2006
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
-5
2004
-4
2004
-3
2004
0
2002
1
2002
2
2002
3
2000
4
2000
5
2000
Total Nonfarm Employment
-1
1998
0
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
6
1998
-6
1996
Percent Change
2
Percent Change
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
4
1996
-2.5
Percent Change
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
8
1998
50
Percent Change
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
Percent Change
Total Personal Income
1996
2020
2018
2016
2014
Wood Product
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
60
2002
2000
1998
-2
1996
Percent Change
-1
1998
1996
Percent Change
-2
1996
Employment (000s)
Graph O.6
Oregon and U.S. Economic Forecasts
Oregon
U.S.
Real Total Personal Income
2005 Chain Weighted Dollars
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-2
Population
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Private Non-manufacturing Employment
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
-6.0
-7.0
Comparison of Last Three Forecasts
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2003
2002
2001
2005
Employment Growth
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
2000
Percent
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2002
2003
2001
Sep 2012
2004
Jun 2012
Personal Income Growth
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
2000
Percent
Mar 2012
Alternative Scenarios
The baseline forecast is our projection of the most likely outcome for the Oregon economy. As with
any forecast, however, many other scenarios are possible. Currently, risks are heightened
considerably and concentrated on the downside. The Optimistic scenario is one in which the
expansion gathers steam and employment and income growth accelerate throughout 2012 and into
2013. The Pessimistic scenario is one in which the U.S. (and Oregon) falls back into recession with
declining consumer spending and job losses. These scenarios are not based on statistical error band
calculations around the baseline forecast, but rather are based on business cycles that reflect likely
avenues for growth or potential causes of weakness in the near term.
Optimistic Scenario: The recovery gathers steam and pulls the economy away from recession and
into a stronger cyclical expansion. The economic lull seen in the second quarter proves temporary
and the U.S. economy builds momentum through the second half of the year. The economy is soon
firing on all cylinders. Economic growth is above potential in 2012 and 2013, resulting in stronger
job and income gains. The fiscal cliff is averted in 2013. U.S. policy makers extend both the payroll
tax cut and the emergency unemployment benefit program, providing a vital source of income for
liquidity-constrained households. Overall, stronger growth leads to more consumer spending and
more business investment.
In Oregon, job gains are broad based with strong growth in all private sector industries. Public
sector employment still contracts somewhat in the near term given the fixed budget outlook;
however, losses are smaller than in the baseline as improving tax revenues prevent the most severe
cutbacks. The unemployment rate declines faster than under the baseline scenario as individuals are
able to find employment more readily and income growth accelerates. The increase in employment
and income support a self-sustaining economic expansion in which new income fuels increased
consumer spending (and debt reduction) which begets further increases in employment. Such an
expansion increases housing demand as newly employed households (and increasing income for
existing households) find their own homes after doubling-up with family and friends during the
recession. This results in working down the existing inventory overhang more quickly and new
construction returns to normal levels by early 2015.
Pessimistic Scenario: A return to recession with declining GDP and job losses. While this scenario
would be categorized as a new recession, per the National Bureau of Economic Research, it will
feel more like a long, drawn-out double-dip given that the U.S. economy has not returned to
previous trends. The soft patch in the second quarter reflects fundamental weakness and is not
temporary. Errors on both sides of the Atlantic – from U.S. and European policy makers – turn the
46
fleeting recovery into recession. The current mild euro zone recession worsens, leading to financial
panic and contagion. Worldwide credit markets freeze, leading to declining consumer and business
confidence. In the U.S., Congress does not anticipate the dangers and political gridlock results in
premature austerity. The U.S. runs off the fiscal cliff, hereby leading to economic contraction in
early 2013.
Oregon would certainly join in any recession at the U.S. level. Although the likelihood of a
recession is uncomfortably high, a near term downturn would probably not be very pronounced.
Given the lackluster expansion to date, we do not have very far to fall. Few excesses have been built
up, and many cyclically sensitive industries such as construction have yet to recover at all.
As such, the magnitude of the recession would likely be fairly mild by historical standards.
However it certainly will not go unnoticed, especially given the underwhelming expansion to date.
Employment would decline throughout 2012 and into early 2013 with job losses of approximately
30,000, or 1.8 percent. This decline would roughly be on par with the 1990 recession in Oregon and
approximately half the depth of the 2001 recession in the state. However, this employment decline
would nearly erase all the job gains the state has seen in the past two and a half years. The
unemployment rate rises back to nearly 10 percent and remains above 9 percent through early 2015.
The unemployment rate does not fall below 8 percent until 2018, which would mark over eight full
years above that level.
Furthermore, the housing market would take longer to recover. Home prices decline another 11
percent, while new home construction’s rebound is delayed another year, resulting in further
sluggish growth in the near term. On the bright side, when construction does rebound, it will result
in a surge of new home building that will rise above the state’s long term average level of building
due to pent-up demand for housing and the fact that the state will have under built housing during
this time period.
Table O.5 details both the quarterly and annual outlook for select Oregon economic variables under
the two alternative scenarios. Graph O.7 illustrates these near-term scenarios for each of the
variables.
47
Table O.5
Alternative Scenario Summary
Annual
2012:1
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Baseline
Total Nonfarm Employment (thousands)
% change
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
Total Personal Income ($ billions)
% change
Nonfarm Proprietors' Income ($ billions)
% change
Housing Starts
% change
Housing Price Index (1980 Q1 = 100)
% change
1,635.6 1,638.1 1,640.2 1,648.6 1,657.7 1,667.2
2.7%
0.6%
0.5%
2.1%
2.2%
2.3%
8.7
8.5
8.6
8.4
8.3
8.1
(0.4)
(0.2)
0.1
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.2)
149.4
150.5
151.4
152.9
154.4
155.9
3.4%
3.2%
2.4%
4.0%
3.9%
3.9%
11.2
11.3
11.6
11.7
11.9
12.0
3.5%
3.9%
7.6%
5.9%
5.5%
4.3%
8,988.4 10,563.6 10,136.2 10,379.7 10,529.2 10,006.9
18.6%
90.8% -15.2%
10.0%
5.9% -18.4%
356.6
356.0
353.4
350.8
348.2
346.0
-1.1%
-0.7%
-2.9%
-2.9%
-2.9%
-2.5%
Total Nonfarm Employment (thousands)
% change
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
Total Personal Income ($ billions)
% change
Nonfarm Proprietors' Income ($ billions)
% change
Housing Starts
% change
Housing Price Index (1980 Q1 = 100)
% change
1,635.6 1,638.1 1,648.8 1,664.5 1,686.6 1,702.3
2.7%
0.6%
2.6%
3.9%
5.4%
3.8%
8.7
8.5
8.0
7.7
7.4
7.0
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.5)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.3)
149.4
150.5
155.0
157.3
159.6
162.2
3.4%
3.2%
12.4%
6.1%
6.1%
6.7%
11.2
11.3
11.8
12.1
12.4
12.6
3.5%
3.9%
17.2%
11.2%
9.8%
6.8%
8,988.4 10,563.6 11,605.2 11,983.5 12,667.0 12,020.4
18.6%
90.8%
45.7%
13.7%
24.8% -18.9%
356.6
356.0
361.7
360.2
357.4
355.0
-1.1%
-0.7%
6.6%
-1.7%
-3.0%
-2.6%
1,601.9
-0.7%
10.6
(0.4)
139.4
3.2%
10.3
6.8%
7,611.1
0.5%
381.2
-6.6%
1,620.8 1,640.6 1,670.4 1,702.6
1.2%
1.2%
1.8%
1.9%
9.5
8.5
8.0
7.5
(1.2)
(0.9)
(0.5)
(0.5)
146.8
151.1
156.6
164.4
5.3%
2.9%
3.7%
4.9%
11.0
11.5
12.1
12.7
6.3%
4.6%
5.3%
5.4%
8,057.8 10,017.0 11,007.7 14,266.8
5.9%
24.3%
9.9%
29.6%
355.8
354.2
346.8
349.4
-6.7%
-0.5%
-2.1%
0.8%
1,601.9
-0.7%
10.6
(0.4)
139.4
3.2%
10.3
6.8%
7,611.1
0.5%
381.2
-6.6%
1,620.8 1,646.8 1,712.3 1,757.0
1.2%
1.6%
4.0%
2.6%
9.5
8.2
6.9
6.1
(1.2)
(1.3)
(1.3)
(0.8)
146.8
153.0
163.4
172.9
5.3%
4.3%
6.8%
5.8%
11.0
11.6
12.7
13.4
6.3%
6.1%
9.2%
5.3%
8,057.8 10,785.2 12,909.0 16,844.0
5.9%
33.8%
19.7%
30.5%
355.8
358.6
358.1
369.1
-6.7%
0.8%
-0.2%
3.1%
1,601.9
-0.7%
10.6
(0.4)
139.4
3.2%
10.3
6.8%
7,611.1
0.5%
381.2
-6.6%
1,620.8
1.2%
9.5
(1.2)
146.8
5.3%
11.0
6.3%
8,057.8
5.9%
355.8
-6.7%
Optimistic Scenario
Pessimistic Scenario
Total Nonfarm Employment (thousands)
% change
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
Total Personal Income ($ billions)
% change
Nonfarm Proprietors' Income ($ billions)
% change
Housing Starts
% change
Housing Price Index (1980 Q1 = 100)
% change
1,635.6 1,638.1
2.7%
0.6%
8.7
8.5
(0.4)
(0.2)
149.4
150.5
3.4%
3.2%
11.2
11.3
3.5%
3.9%
8,988.4 10,563.6
18.6%
90.8%
356.6
356.0
-1.1%
-0.7%
1,635.0
-0.7%
8.6
0.2
149.9
-1.7%
11.2
-3.6%
8,402.9
-60.0%
347.0
-9.7%
1,629.0
-1.5%
8.9
0.2
149.6
-0.7%
11.2
0.0%
7,803.4
-25.6%
336.0
-12.1%
48
1,617.5
-2.8%
9.3
0.4
149.2
-1.1%
11.2
-2.2%
8,280.7
26.8%
329.0
-8.1%
1,609.1
-2.0%
9.8
0.5
149.9
1.7%
11.2
1.2%
7,637.6
-27.6%
323.8
-6.2%
1,634.4
0.8%
8.7
(0.8)
149.9
2.1%
11.3
2.8%
8,939.6
10.9%
348.9
-1.9%
1,612.0
-1.4%
9.6
0.9
150.5
0.4%
11.2
-0.6%
8,052.0
-9.9%
322.1
-7.7%
1,629.5
1.1%
9.4
(0.2)
157.8
4.8%
11.6
3.6%
9,422.1
17.0%
321.6
-0.2%
Graph O.7
Total Nonfarm Employment
Recession
1,900,000
Optimistic
Pessimistic
Baseline
Recession
$190,000
Total Personal Income
Optimistic
Pessimistic
Baseline
$180,000
1,850,000
$170,000
1,800,000
$160,000
1,750,000
$150,000
1,700,000
$140,000
1,650,000
$130,000
$120,000
1,600,000
$110,000
1,550,000
$100,000
1,500,000
$90,000
2000
2002
Recession
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Unemployment Rate
Optimistic
Pessimistic
2014
Baseline
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Nonfarm Proprietors' Income
Recession
$14,000
Optimistic
Pessimistic
2014
Baseline
12
$13,000
10
$12,000
8
$11,000
6
4
$10,000
2
$9,000
0
$8,000
2000
36,000
2002
Recession
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Total Housing Starts
Optimistic
Pessimistic
2014
Baseline
32,000
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Housing Price Index (FHFA)
Recession
500
Optimistic
Pessimistic
2014
Baseline
450
28,000
400
24,000
20,000
350
16,000
300
12,000
250
8,000
4,000
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
200
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Forecast Risks
The economic and revenue outlook is never certain. We will continue to monitor and recognize the
potential impacts of risk factors on the Oregon economy. Although far from comprehensive, we
have identified several major risks now facing the Oregon economy in the list below:
•
Contagion of the European debt problems and financial market instability. The European
crisis looms large as a potentially catastrophic scenario. Credit markets are easing, but
consumers and businesses still have difficulty getting loans. To the extent that credit markets
take longer to come back to some sort of state of normalcy, the current recovery could be
49
slower than projected or thrown off track. In such a scenario, Oregon will suffer the
consequences along with the rest of the nation.
•
Prolonged housing market instability. Signs are starting to emerge that the housing market
has hit bottom, certainly in terms of housing starts, and increasingly so in prices, although
they may have further to fall. Foreclosures and delinquency rates are still relatively high.
Oregon, with the rest of the nation, will still see improvements to construction activity in
2012, but it will be many months yet before a tangible housing recovery kicks in. Until this
happens, the housing market will remain a barrier to a sustained economic recovery in
Oregon.
•
Commodity price inflation. Prices for many major commodities are trending down, but remain
atypically high. Future commodity prices will be tied to growth. Should the global expansion
pick up speed, a return to high rates of commodity inflation is possible.
•
Loss of federal timber payments to Oregon counties. While a temporary reinstatement will
help cover budgets for Oregon counties this year, replacing this dwindling revenue source is
imperative. The potential for large reductions in public services could have adverse impacts on
property values and economic activity. For more information from a historical perspective, see
this recent OEA blog post on the Wood Products industry in Oregon 9.
•
Global Spillovers Both Up and Down. The international list of risks seems to change by the
day: sovereign debt problems in Europe, equity and property bubbles in places like South
America and Asia, political unrest in the Middle East, and commodity price spikes and
inflationary pressures in emerging markets. In particular, with China now the top destination
for Oregon exports, the state of the Chinese economy has spillover effects to the Oregon
economy. The looming slowdown across much of Asia is a growing threat to the Pacific
Northwest’s growth prospects.
•
Undoing the Federal Policy Used to Combat the Financial Crisis and Recession. Bailouts,
tax cuts, monetary quantitative easing, and other fiscal packages most likely prevented a more
serious economic downturn. But the clean-up after the storm can have its own risks to the
economy. Exit strategies will have to be carefully implemented to prevent premature
tightening and choking off the recovery or acting too late to avoid an inflationary
environment. All states, including Oregon, face the same risks.
•
Initiatives, referendums, and referrals. Generally, the ballot box and legislative changes bring
a number of unknowns that could have sweeping impacts on the Oregon economy and
revenue picture.
9
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/historical-look-at-oregons-wood-product-industry
50
Extended Outlook
IHS Global Insight projects Oregon’s economy to fare well relative to the rest of the country in the
coming years – 2012 through 2016. The state’s Real Gross State Product is projected to be the
eighth strongest with gains averaging nearly 3 percent. Total employment is expected to be the
seventh strongest among all states while manufacturing employment will lead the nation.
OEA is somewhat less bullish, but expects Oregon to maintain a growth advantage relative to other
states. However, this advantage will be somewhat smaller than the state has enjoyed in past
decades.
Oregon has typically benefitted from an influx of households from other states, including an ample
supply of skilled workers. Households continue to move to Oregon even when local jobs are scarce,
as long as the unemployment rate is equally bad elsewhere (particularly in California).
In addition to its dynamic labor supply, Oregon also enjoys the long-term advantages of low
electricity costs, a central location between the large markets of California, Vancouver and Asia,
clean water, low business rents and living costs, and an increasingly diverse industrial base.
The primary long-run concern for Oregon’s economy is that very little progress on raising per capita
income is projected out to 2020.
The Oregon Employment Department has published a detailed look at Oregon’s per capita personal
income entitled Why Oregon Trails the Nation; it can be found at:
http://olmis.emp.state.or.us/olmisj/PubReader?itemid=00007366
Oregon Regional Profile
The accompanying regional and county tables (Table O.6 through O.9) highlight the social,
economic, and demographic diversity in the state. This section is a regular feature following the
Oregon Economic Review and Forecast.
51
Table O.6
Oregon's Economic Profile by County and Region
2010
Geography
OREGON
2011
2010
Total Employment
2011
Unemployment Rate
2010
2011
Per capita
personal income
Average wage
per job
1,772,216
1,803,602
10.7%
9.5%
$36,191
$43,092
Portland PMSA
Clackamas
Columbia
Multnomah
Washington
Yamhill
872,347
179,827
21,653
362,732
264,494
43,641
896,453
184,796
22,251
372,756
271,803
44,847
9.7%
10.0%
12.0%
9.8%
8.9%
10.5%
8.4%
8.7%
10.3%
8.5%
7.7%
9.2%
$40,617
$44,954
$33,445
$39,945
$40,606
$32,768
$49,424
$43,398
$32,709
$48,683
$56,604
$35,190
Willamette Valley
Benton
Lane
Linn
Marion
Polk
430,215
40,915
162,668
49,028
141,848
35,756
433,173
41,911
164,025
49,236
142,165
35,836
10.8%
7.4%
11.0%
13.2%
11.0%
9.2%
9.6%
6.6%
9.5%
10.1%
10.2%
8.7%
$33,057
$37,333
$33,277
$29,197
$33,605
$30,877
$37,346
$43,647
$36,773
$36,294
$37,385
$31,282
Northern Coast
Clatsop
Lincoln
Tillamook
51,844
19,127
20,859
11,858
52,054
19,242
21,003
11,809
9.9%
9.2%
10.6%
9.6%
9.1%
8.5%
9.9%
8.9%
$33,636
$34,007
$33,681
$33,011
$31,699
$32,434
$30,947
$31,790
Southern Coast
Coos
Curry
33,360
25,086
8,274
33,635
25,462
8,173
12.6%
12.5%
12.7%
11.6%
11.4%
12.0%
$31,361
$31,272
$31,611
$32,875
$31,812
$36,993
159,582
39,856
89,702
30,024
160,990
40,141
90,455
30,394
13.3%
14.6%
12.5%
14.1%
12.2%
13.1%
11.5%
12.6%
$31,955
$29,601
$34,168
$29,580
$34,191
$34,049
$35,152
$31,219
Central Oregon
Crook
Deschutes
Jefferson
85,193
7,603
69,492
8,098
86,238
7,787
70,299
8,152
14.4%
16.9%
14.1%
14.3%
12.7%
14.8%
12.4%
13.2%
$34,761
$29,761
$36,449
$27,278
$35,971
$36,993
$36,147
$33,215
Columbia Gorge
Gilliam
Hood River
Sherman
Wasco
Wheeler
29,024
1,148
13,274
964
13,001
637
29,370
1,130
13,419
987
13,215
619
8.7%
7.0%
8.2%
9.8%
9.3%
10.4%
8.1%
7.3%
7.7%
9.0%
8.5%
9.9%
$34,204
$38,204
$34,070
$52,530
$33,185
$26,510
$31,324
$41,821
$29,317
$37,592
$32,510
$25,497
Northeast Oregon
Baker
Grant
Morrow
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
65,331
6,893
3,050
5,025
35,655
11,348
3,360
66,142
6,795
3,047
5,133
36,421
11,390
3,356
10.2%
10.0%
13.4%
9.3%
9.9%
10.4%
11.9%
9.5%
10.4%
13.4%
8.5%
9.0%
9.8%
11.2%
$30,469
$29,967
$29,546
$35,021
$29,554
$30,899
$33,665
$33,667
$30,280
$31,944
$39,418
$34,559
$31,701
$28,636
S Central/SE Oregon
Harney
Klamath
Lake
Malheur
45,321
3,016
26,877
3,273
12,155
45,548
2,950
27,124
3,288
12,186
12.7%
15.5%
13.2%
13.5%
10.5%
11.9%
14.4%
12.2%
12.9%
10.1%
$27,999
$28,463
$29,419
$29,498
$24,503
$32,284
$31,190
$33,417
$33,886
$30,240
Southern Oregon
Douglas
Jackson
Josephine
Sources: Total employment and unemployment rate: Oregon Employment Department;
per capita personal income: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;
average wage per job: Oregon Employment Department.
Statewide total employment may not equal sum due to rounding
52
Table O.7
Oregon's Gross Farm & Ranch Sales By County and Region for 2010 and 2011 (in 1,000 $)
STATE/COUNTY
State Total
Year 2011
Livestock &
All Crops
Poultry
3,521,242
1,734,424
All Crop &
Livestock
5,255,666
Year 2010
Livestock &
All Crops
Poultry
2,938,177
1,428,868
2010 to 2011
All Crop &
Livestock
4,367,044
Change in
total sales
20.3%
Portland-area
Clackamas
Columbia
Multnomah
Washington
Yamhill
813,771
262,507
21,776
51,598
265,249
212,641
144,532
70,433
4,693
3,505
19,529
46,372
958,305
332,940
26,470
55,104
284,778
259,013
724,933
244,243
19,069
49,371
233,701
178,549
126,744
63,687
3,725
3,138
16,830
39,364
851,676
307,930
22,794
52,509
250,530
217,913
12.5%
8.1%
16.1%
4.9%
13.7%
18.9%
Willamette Valley
Benton
Lane
Linn
Marion
Polk
944,165
82,282
88,969
210,697
458,174
104,043
332,223
15,686
36,093
68,883
158,693
52,868
1,276,390
97,968
125,063
279,581
616,867
156,911
842,155
69,929
81,265
182,351
423,775
84,835
290,712
12,831
31,236
58,872
144,414
43,359
1,132,867
82,760
112,501
241,223
568,189
128,194
12.7%
18.4%
11.2%
15.9%
8.6%
22.4%
Northern Coast
Clatsop
Lincoln
Tillamook
24,061
5,043
13,407
5,611
248,912
68,223
47,898
132,791
272,973
73,266
61,305
138,402
15,424
2,743
8,150
4,531
139,363
15,999
3,780
119,584
154,787
18,742
11,930
124,115
76.4%
290.9%
413.9%
11.5%
Southern Coast
Coos
Curry
27,903
15,599
12,304
71,424
55,521
15,903
99,327
71,120
28,207
21,216
12,081
9,135
21,686
18,188
3,498
42,901
30,268
12,633
131.5%
135.0%
123.3%
103,513
47,803
44,476
11,234
64,732
31,364
23,146
10,222
168,244
79,167
67,622
21,455
88,437
36,621
42,739
9,077
56,389
25,415
21,898
9,076
144,826
62,036
64,637
18,153
16.2%
27.6%
4.6%
18.2%
Central Oregon
Crook
Deschutes
Jefferson
96,306
24,216
14,015
58,075
52,375
25,080
11,349
15,946
148,682
49,296
25,365
74,021
75,946
15,264
11,677
49,005
46,363
22,059
10,178
14,126
122,309
37,323
21,855
63,131
21.6%
32.1%
16.1%
17.2%
Columbia Gorge
Gilliam
Hood River
Sherman
Wasco
Wheeler
276,708
25,509
78,904
63,472
107,024
1,799
33,402
10,115
400
3,225
6,568
13,094
310,110
35,624
79,304
66,697
113,592
14,893
231,408
16,141
87,198
45,671
80,465
1,933
31,744
9,523
400
3,945
6,786
11,090
263,153
25,664
87,598
49,616
87,252
13,023
17.8%
38.8%
-9.5%
34.4%
30.2%
14.4%
Northeast Oregon
Baker
Grant
Morrow
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
863,163
29,797
9,712
308,274
415,305
69,767
30,308
401,051
50,820
45,076
168,858
87,905
21,769
26,623
1,264,215
80,617
54,789
477,132
503,210
91,536
56,931
647,347
18,654
6,558
223,228
326,466
50,065
22,376
365,177
42,886
39,524
172,578
70,541
17,564
22,084
1,012,525
61,539
46,082
395,806
397,008
67,630
44,460
24.9%
31.0%
18.9%
20.5%
26.8%
35.3%
28.0%
S Central/SE Oregon
Harney
Klamath
Lake
Malheur
371,647
27734
141795
58168
143950
385,773
55934
141938
35706
152195
757,420
83668
283733
93874
296145
291,310
21623
88709
42851
138127
350,690
45757
139281
30686
134966
642,001
67380
227991
73537
273093
18.0%
24.2%
24.4%
27.7%
8.4%
Southern Oregon
Douglas
Jackson
Josephine
Source:Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN). Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University.
53
Table O.8
Oregon's Public Elementary and Secondary School Enrollment Statistics
Enrollment
STATE/COUNTY
Oct. 1, 2011
% change
Oct. 1, 2010
2010-2011
2010
2010-2011
% receiving free or Operating expenditure
per student
reduced price lunch
OREGON
560,946
561,328
-0.1%
50.5%
$9,322
Portland PMSA
Clackamas
Columbia
Multnomah
Washington
Yamhill
260,245
57,845
8,142
92,251
85,569
16,438
260,016
58,138
8,244
91,879
85,224
16,531
0.1%
-0.5%
-1.2%
0.4%
0.4%
-0.6%
44.4%
35.3%
42.8%
53.9%
39.0%
51.4%
$9,293
$8,446
$8,568
$10,346
$8,879
$8,923
Willamette Valley
Benton
Lane
Linn
Marion
Polk
142,417
8,635
45,329
21,559
60,325
6,569
142,835
8,791
45,486
21,406
60,479
6,673
-0.3%
-1.8%
-0.3%
0.7%
-0.3%
-1.6%
53.1%
37.4%
51.5%
47.0%
59.2%
51.3%
$9,246
$9,597
$9,490
$8,027
$9,498
$8,788
Northern Coast
Clatsop
Lincoln
Tillamook
13,168
4,853
5,083
3,232
13,318
4,898
5,181
3,239
-1.1%
-0.9%
-1.9%
-0.2%
58.4%
51.5%
62.9%
61.6%
$10,461
$10,620
$9,750
$11,360
Southern Coast
Coos
Curry
11,619
9,243
2,376
10,940
8,471
2,469
6.2%
9.1%
-3.8%
55.7%
54.6%
59.8%
$9,536
$9,552
$9,483
Southern Oregon
Douglas
Jackson
Josephine
53,617
14,448
28,424
10,745
54,049
14,699
28,443
10,907
-0.8%
-1.7%
-0.1%
-1.5%
57.3%
59.7%
54.6%
60.8%
$8,982
$9,270
$8,798
$9,070
Central Oregon
Crook
Deschutes
Jefferson
30,935
3,010
24,456
3,469
30,863
2,932
24,470
3,461
0.2%
2.7%
-0.1%
0.2%
55.9%
60.8%
51.9%
79.6%
$8,705
$8,607
$8,304
$11,622
Columbia Gorge
Gilliam
Hood River
Sherman
Wasco
Wheeler
8,372
267
4,076
231
3,526
272
8,207
247
3,989
234
3,514
223
2.0%
8.1%
2.2%
-1.3%
0.3%
22.0%
57.6%
48.2%
58.4%
54.7%
57.4%
61.0%
$11,247
$18,530
$10,921
$18,115
$10,216
$18,037
Northeast Oregon
Baker
Grant
Morrow
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
23,913
2,356
911
2,366
13,658
3,751
871
24,171
2,354
962
2,389
13,736
3,854
876
-1.1%
0.1%
-5.3%
-1.0%
-0.6%
-2.7%
-0.6%
59.7%
51.6%
51.4%
69.4%
63.4%
50.6%
46.3%
$9,479
$9,831
$14,387
$10,731
$8,792
$9,349
$11,085
S Central/SEast Oregon
Harney
Klamath
Lake
Malheur
16,660
1,101
9,524
1,085
4,950
16,929
1,156
9,664
1,068
5,041
-1.6%
-4.8%
-1.4%
1.6%
-1.8%
64.8%
51.0%
66.5%
42.5%
69.4%
$10,429
$11,947
$10,035
$11,153
$10,685
Source: Oregon Department of Education
NOTE: Operating expenditure per student calculated by dividing school-year expenditure by October 1 enrollment count.
County/region total do not add to the state total due to county not assigned cases.
54
Table O.9
2011 Annual Average Covered Employment
Region
Employment
Natural Resources & Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional & Business Services
Education & Health Services
Leisure & Hospitality
Other Services
Government
Total
Oregon
Portland 5- Willamette
County
Valley
Northern
Coast
Southern
Coast
Southern
Oregon
Central Columbia Northeast S Central/SE
Oregon
Gorge
Oregon
Oregon
50,372
72,612
167,816
326,154
33,316
81,428
191,637
368,650
174,431
62,544
87,008
12,179
39,061
99,027
174,307
20,363
50,540
120,697
183,610
86,323
33,223
31,434
16,528
16,212
33,773
65,514
5,830
15,165
32,933
93,082
35,157
13,856
29,110
1,608
1,702
4,190
7,870
395
1,414
2,096
7,942
9,930
1,683
3,005
1251
1,064
2,019
5,637
311
1,011
2,555
7,054
3,907
861
1,837
4,497
5,202
12,528
29,255
2,315
5,583
10,905
34,063
15,395
5,089
6,764
1,684
3,516
5,330
14,658
1,602
3,310
7,057
15,320
10,803
2,724
4,584
4,228
897
1,777
4,617
238
607
1,847
5,651
3,505
689
1,102
5,248
2,101
6,256
10,548
512
1,508
3,676
11,317
5,002
1,561
4,963
3,040
1,232
2,770
8,196
383
1,121
2,823
9,467
4,098
1,204
4,194
1,616,622
851,063
357,242
41,843
27,511
131,623
70,628
25,164
52,706
38,535
3.1%
4.5%
10.4%
20.2%
2.1%
5.0%
11.9%
22.8%
10.8%
3.9%
5.4%
1.4%
4.6%
11.6%
20.5%
2.4%
5.9%
14.2%
21.6%
10.1%
3.9%
3.7%
4.6%
4.5%
9.5%
18.3%
1.6%
4.2%
9.2%
26.1%
9.8%
3.9%
8.1%
3.8%
4.1%
10.0%
18.8%
0.9%
3.4%
5.0%
19.0%
23.7%
4.0%
7.2%
4.5%
3.9%
7.3%
20.5%
1.1%
3.7%
9.3%
25.6%
14.2%
3.1%
6.7%
3.4%
4.0%
9.5%
22.2%
1.8%
4.2%
8.3%
25.9%
11.7%
3.9%
5.1%
2.4%
5.0%
7.5%
20.8%
2.3%
4.7%
10.0%
21.7%
15.3%
3.9%
6.5%
16.8%
3.6%
7.1%
18.3%
0.9%
2.4%
7.3%
22.5%
13.9%
2.7%
4.4%
10.0%
4.0%
11.9%
20.0%
1.0%
2.9%
7.0%
21.5%
9.5%
3.0%
9.4%
7.9%
3.2%
7.2%
21.3%
1.0%
2.9%
7.3%
24.6%
10.6%
3.1%
10.9%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Distribution
Natural Resources & Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional & Business Services
Education & Health Services
Leisure & Hospitality
Other Services
Government
Total
Source: Oregon Employment Department
Note: Employment includes only covered employment.
Oregon total includes multi-county employment not shown in individual regions.
Total includes a small number of non-classifiable jobs not shown in individual industries.
Definition of regions:
Portland 5-County: Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill counties
Willamette Valley: Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion, and Polk counties
North Coast: Clatsop, Lincoln, and Tillamook counties
South Coast: Coos and Curry counties
Southern: Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties
Gorge: Gilliam, Hood River, Sherman, Wasco, and Wheeler counties
Central: Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson counties
Northeast: Baker, Grant, Morrow, Union, Umatilla, and Wallowa counties
South Central-SE: Harney, Klamath, Lake, and Malheur counties
55
II.
REVENUE FORECAST
Summary
The weaker outlook for economic growth translates directly into a weaker outlook for Oregon’s
primary General Fund revenue sources. Most notably, personal income tax collections are expected
to be more than 2% smaller over the extended forecast horizon than what was reflected in the June
2012 forecast.
With fewer jobs expected, taxes related to labor income are expected to grow at a slower rate.
Reductions in the outlook for taxes withheld out of workers’ paychecks mirror reductions in the
outlook for wage earnings. Forecasts have been reduced by much more for some volatile income
tax sources including capital gains and corporate excise taxes. In addition to personal income taxes,
consumer spending on video lottery and tobacco products is also now expected to be weaker than
what was reflected in the June 2012 forecast.
Although the long-term revenue forecast has been reduced significantly, the outlook for the current
biennium remains on track. Over the last three months, General Fund revenue collections have
come in somewhat stronger than expected. Also, it will take several months before the expected
weakness in economic growth becomes fully reflected in lower tax collections.
Overall, General Fund revenue growth is expected to remain slow, growing by 11% during 2011-13
and in each of the next two biennia. During past periods of economic expansion in Oregon,
revenues have grown by 15% to 20% in a typical biennium.
Revenue growth in Oregon and other states will face considerable downward pressure over the 10year extended forecast horizon. As the baby boom population cohort works less and spends less,
traditional state tax instruments such as personal income taxes and general sales taxes will become
less effective, and revenue growth will fail to match the pace seen in the past.
A.
2011-13 General Fund Revenues
Growth in general fund revenues has not been remarkable over the summer months, but it has been
healthy. Personal income taxes are growing due to a mix of both labor and investment income, and
corporate excise taxes appear to have stabilized after dropping sharply early in the biennium.
56
Table R.1
2011-13 General Fund Forecast Summary
(Millions)
2011 COS
Forecast
March 2012
Forecast
June 2012
Forecast
Structural Revenues
Personal Income Tax
$12,193.6
$11,969.2
$11,919.9
-$49.3
-$273.7
Corporate Income Tax
$894.2
$812.6
$814.5
$1.9
-$79.7
All Other Revenues
$944.2
$944.6
$1,098.5
$153.9
$154.3
Gross GF Revenues
$14,032.0
$13,726.5
$13,832.9
$106.5
-$199.0
Administrative Actions1
-$23.1
-$23.1
-$14.1
$9.1
$9.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$14,008.9
$13,703.3
$13,818.9
$115.5
-$190.0
Legislative Actions
Net Available Resources
Confidence Intervals
67% Confidence
95% Confidence
+/- 5.2%
+/- 10.4%
$719.3
$1,438.6
Change from Change from
Prior Forecast COS Forecast
$13.11B to $14.55B
$12.39B to $15.27B
1 Reflects cost of cashflow management actions, ex clusiv e of internal borrow ing.
Collections of most major revenue types came in stronger than what was expected over the summer.
Although a weaker economy is already manifesting itself in tax collections, it will take some time
before slower economic growth is fully reflected in the revenue outlook. As a result, the revenue
outlook for the 2011-13 biennium is somewhat stronger than what was predicted in the June 2012
forecast. The forecast for General Fund revenues for 2011-13 is now $13,921 million. This
represents an increase of $88 million (0.6%) from the June 2012 forecast.
The forecast for the 2011-13 biennium is now $111 million below the Close of Session forecast.
Given the strong employment gains seen in early 2011, the Close of Session forecast is more
optimistic than other versions produced before or since. Nevertheless, given lackluster near-term
expectations for revenue growth, a strong April 2013 of tax collections would put us back on track
with the Close of Session’s relatively optimistic outlook. If we see a boom similar to the last
revenue cycle, the personal income tax kicker may yet come into play.
Personal Income Tax
Personal income tax collections were $1,836 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012, $29.4
million (1.6%) above the latest forecast. Compared to the year-ago level, total personal income tax
collections grew by 3.7% relative to a forecast that called for 2.1% growth. Personal income tax
collections have continued to come in higher than forecast during the current quarter. Appendix B
presents a comparison of actual and projected personal income tax revenues for the fourth quarter of
2012.
Personal income tax collections are expected to remain weak until the April 2013 filing season
when the gains seen in stock markets this year are realized for tax purposes. Further taxable capital
gains realizations will be generated by taxpayers attempting to move their assets ahead of potential
federal tax increases in 2013. Very few collections related to filers who receive extensions are
expected this year, with payments expected to fall and refunds to rise.
57
Corporate Excise Tax
Corporate excise tax collections equaled $172 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012,
$12.4 million above the June forecast. Compared to one year ago, net corporate receipts were down
1.6% with the forecast calling for an 8.7% decline.
Corporate tax collections are expected to continue to decline throughout fiscal year 2013, as they
remain very large from an historical perspective. Very strong growth is expected during the 2013-15
biennium, since corporate tax collections are prone to boom-bust cycles. However, growth rates,
while large, will remain less than half of what has been seen during recent profit booms.
Other Sources of Revenue
All other General Fund revenues are expected to total $1,122 million for the 2011-13 biennium, an
increase of $23 million (2.1%). Most revenue sources are tracking ahead of the June forecast,
including large contributions from estate taxes, judicial-related revenues and liquor apportionment.
Only revenues from the sale of tobacco products and video lottery sales are tracking significantly
below forecast. 10
10
Lottery transfers into the General Fund are not included in the total. See section E for a discussion of the lottery
forecast.
58
B.
Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook
Table R.2 exhibits the long-run forecast for General Fund revenues through the 2019-21 biennium.
Users should note that the potential for error in the forecast increases substantially the further ahead
we look.
Table R.2
General Fund Revenue Forecast Summary (Millions of Dollars, Current Law)
Forecast
Revenue Source
Personal Income Taxes
Corporate Income Taxes
All Others
Total General Fund
Kicker Distributions
Total Revenue
Forecast
2009-11
%
Biennium
Chg
10,467.2
2011-13
Forecast
%
Biennium Chg
3.7% 11,956.6
20.9%
842.6
1.8%
1,226.6
29.8%
1,121.8
-8.5%
12,521.4
6.8% 13,921.0
12,521.4
-2.2% 13,921.0
%
Biennium
Chg
14.2% 13,416.9
827.6
Forecast
2013-15
1,070.8
2015-17
Forecast
%
2017-19
Forecast
%
2019-21
%
Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg
12.2% 15,069.0 12.3% 16,638.4 10.4% 18,405.7
10.6%
27.1%
1,083.7
1.2%
1,056.6 -2.5%
1,081.7
2.4%
967.2 -13.8%
1,025.8
6.1%
1,096.6
1,184.4
8.0%
9.4% 20,671.8
10.0%
11.2% 15,454.8
11.2% 15,454.8
11.0% 17,178.5 11.2% 18,791.6
-
-
11.0% 17,178.5 11.2% 18,791.6
6.9%
9.4% 20,671.8
10.0%
Other tax es include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Sev erance Tax , Western Oregon Sev erance Tax and Amusement Dev ice Tax .
Commercial Fish Licenses & Fees and Pari-mutual Receipts are included in Other Rev enues
General Fund revenues will total $15,455 million in 2013-15, an increase of 11.0% percent from the
prior period, and $223 million (-1.4%) below the March forecast. In 2015-17, revenue growth is
expected to remain stable at 11.2%, followed by slower rates of 9% to 10% in subsequent biennia.
The slowdown in long-run revenue growth is largely due to the impact of demographic changes.
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 2011 and
2012 Oregon Legislative Sessions. 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 actions taken during the 2011 Legislative
Session can be found in Appendix B Table B.3. For a detailed treatment of the components of the
February 2012 Rebalance Plan, see: 2012 Budget Highlights, Legislative Fiscal Office.
The treatment of the corporate taxes represents an important current area of policy uncertainty.
Policymakers and the court system are currently determining whether or not Oregon tax credits can
be used to offset liability from the corporate minimum tax, and also whether firms can be asked to
pay excise taxes based on a single sales apportionment factor. There is also a citizens’ initiative on
the ballot that would redirect future corporate kicker payments.
59
Other recent tax law changes involve the treatment of court fees and criminal fines. These changes
have significantly increased the amount of judicial related funds flowing into the General Fund, but
the exact magnitude of the impact remains unclear.
Although based on current law, many of the tax policies that impact the revenue forecast are not set
in stone. In particular, sunset dates for many large tax credits have been scheduled. As credits are
allowed to disappear, considerable support is lent to the revenue outlook in the outer years of the
forecast. To the extent that tax credits are extended and not allowed to expire when their sunset
dates arrive, the outlook for revenue growth will be reduced. The current forecast relies on August
2012 estimates from the Legislative Revenue Office of the size of future tax credits.
D.
Forecast Risks
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
projection.
Currently, the overwhelming risk facing the revenue outlook is the threat that the U.S. economy will
slip back into recession in the near term. Such a scenario, however it played out, would result in
drastic revenue losses.
In our recessionary scenario, job cuts and income losses begin across a range of industries this fall.
Over the next year, most of the jobs Oregon gained since the previous trough in 2009 would be lost.
A recession of this magnitude would not be a severe one, with job losses around half the size of
what were seen in 2001-03. The working assumption is that there are few excesses to be wrung out,
with auto sales, construction activity, business inventories and the like all fairly lean. Job losses
would be most concentrated among manufacturing, leisure/hospitality, retailing and government
enterprises.
In the recessionary scenario, it is assumed that a stock market correction will occur before the end
of the year. Should a recession of this nature ensue, FY2011-13 biennial income tax revenues
would be reduced on the order $239 million. In addition to income taxes, which we can formally
model under alternative scenarios, other general fund taxes would also decline, lowering the general
fund by an additional $50 to $100 million in 2011-13. Given the timing of such a recession – the
2011-13 BN is nearly halfway completed – the largest revenue reductions, relative to the baseline,
would be the 2013-15 BN. Personal and Corporate Income Tax revenues would be more than $1.0
billion below baseline.
60
Table R.2a
R.2a Alternative Scenarios for Major General Fund Revenues
Baseline
Compared to Baseline
Pessimistic Losses Optimistic
Gains
Growth Rates
Baseline Pessimistic Optimistic
Personal Income Taxes
($ thousands)
FY 2012
5,852,884
5,852,884
0
5,852,884
0
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
FY 2013
6,103,724
5,898,883
-204,841
6,278,658
174,934
4.3%
0.8%
7.3%
FY 2014
6,450,692
5,905,149
-545,543
7,042,303
591,611
5.7%
0.1%
12.2%
FY 2015
6,966,194
6,400,620
-565,574
7,587,194
621,000
8.0%
8.4%
7.7%
FY 2016
7,376,176
6,925,834
-450,342
7,864,734
488,558
5.9%
8.2%
3.7%
FY 2017
7,692,826
7,292,663
-400,163
8,122,361
429,535
4.3%
5.3%
3.3%
FY 2012
427,202
427,202
0
427,202
0
-8.8%
-8.8%
-8.8%
FY 2013
415,375
380,822
-34,553
450,583
35,207
-2.8%
-10.9%
5.5%
FY 2014
511,928
460,400
-51,528
566,167
54,239
23.2%
20.9%
25.7%
FY 2015
558,878
500,261
-58,617
616,906
58,029
9.2%
8.7%
9.0%
FY 2016
544,702
485,801
-58,901
593,907
49,205
-2.5%
-2.9%
-3.7%
FY 2017
539,025
488,082
-50,943
582,361
43,336
-1.0%
0.5%
-1.9%
Corporate Excise Taxes
($ thousands)
Note: Optimistic and Pessimistic alternatives do not reflect statistical ranges, but rather likely scenarios for near term business cycles that are stronger/weaker
than the baseline.
E.
Lottery Earnings Forecast
Table R.3 presents a summary of lottery earnings and distribution for the 2011-13 biennium.
Projected lottery earnings will total $1,075.9 million, a decrease of $17.0 million from the prior
forecast. Overall lackluster collections stem from slower than expected video lottery sales, which
dominate overall lottery earnings. Although growth has been relatively slow, lottery revenues have
stabilized the gains continued in FY12. Revenue fell sharply in the wake of the recession and
enactment of the smoking ban. Including the beginning balance and other earnings, total available
resources equal $1,078.5 million. After adjusting for programs that receive a strict percentage of
lottery transfers and incorporating changes to distributions made during the 2012 session, the
current forecast for the ending balance is -$11.4 million.
In the current biennium, video lottery sales are forecasted to grow slowly as employment and
income growth is likewise relatively slow. Over the extended forecast horizon, video lottery sales
are expected to grow at rates just under personal income gains for Oregonians. Even with the video
lottery sales increases the past three fiscal years, the gains have not been quite as strong as the
underlying economic conditions. Consumers remain cautious with their disposable income and
while their overall entertainment spending is increasing, the share of their budgets spent on these
activities has not increased. This has not been the case in past years with gains in video lottery
having outstripped spending on other items throughout the Lottery’s history. Eventually as video
games lose some of their novelty, sales growth will slow to more sustainable levels.
61
Another major item affecting Lottery transfers for state revenue purposes is the capital replacement
plan that Lottery will implement over the FY2014-2017 time frame. During the next two biennia,
Lottery will replace the 12,000 existing video lottery terminals throughout the state, some of which
will be nine years old when they are replaced. Due to advancements in technology, like a lot of
industries, the current
machines
are Table R.3
becoming obsolete in 2011-13 Lottery Fund Forecast Summary
Changes from:
the marketplace. This
Close of 2011 Jun 2012 Sep 2012
Jun 2012 Close of 2011
replacement plan is
Session Forecast Forecast
Forecast
Session
expected to cost Transfers of Lottery Earnings
approximately $215
Traditional Games
$128.5
$128.3
$117.2
-$11.1
-$11.3
Video
Lottery
$991.8
$956.6
$950.7
-$5.9
-$41.1
million over four
Administrative Savings
$8.0
$8.0
$8.0
$0.0
$0.0
years,
of
which
Total Transfers
$1,128.3
$1,092.9 $1,075.9
-$17.0
-$52.4
Lottery will self-fund
$85 million. The
Economic Development Fund
remaining
$130
Beginning Balance
$0.2
$0.3
$0.3
$0.0
$0.1
million
will
be
Transfers from Lottery
$1,128.3
$1,092.9 $1,075.9
-$17.0
-$52.4
deducted
from
$2.5
$2.5
$2.3
-$0.2
-$0.2
Other earnings1
Total Available Resources
$1,131.0
$1,095.7 $1,078.5
-$17.2
-$52.5
Lottery earnings prior
to being transferred
$432.9
$420.5
$414.9
-$5.6
-$17.9
Dedicated Distributions2
for general revenue
Other Legislatively Adopted Allocations
$674.9
$674.9
$674.9
$0.0
$0.0
purposes. To this end,
Total Distributions
$1,107.8
$1,095.5 $1,089.9
-$5.6
-$17.9
the
forecast
for
Lottery
available
Ending Balance
$23.2
$0.2
-$11.4
-$11.6
-$34.6
resources
in
the
upcoming
2013-15 Footnotes:
1. Includes interest earnings and rev ersions.
biennium has been 2. Includes Education Stability Fund (18%), Parks and Natural Resources Fund (15%), Sports Lottery (1%), Gambling Addiction (1%), and
lowered $95.2 million County Distributions
relative to the prior
forecast. Three-quarters of this decrease is due to the capital replacement plan while the remaining
25 percent of the decrease is due to downgraded sales outlook. The full extended outlook for lottery
earnings can be found in Table B.9 in Appendix B.
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 recalculates the outlook
for these funds based on the December revenue forecast.
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.
62
The ESF gained its current reserve structure and mechanics via constitutional amendment in 2002.
The ESF receives 18 percent of lottery earnings 11, deposited on a quarterly basis. The ESF does not
retain interest earnings. The ESF has similar triggers as the ORDF (in fact, the 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.
Budgetary Reserve Outlook
Table R.4 presents projected balances for the ORDF and ESF. In 2009-11, $115.7 million from the
ORDF and $84.3 million from the ESF were transferred to the State School Fund. The ORDF ended
2009-11 with a balance of $10.4 million, while the ESF ended the biennium with a balance of $5.1
million. The General Fund ending balance for 2009-11, $35.2 million, was deposited into the ORDF
at the beginning of the 2011-13 BN. As the financials and accounting reports for the 2009-11 BN
are finalized, agency revisions along with TANS savings resulted in additional $15.6 million being
deposited into the ORDF, bringing the total deposits into the Rainy Day Fund to $50.8 million for
the 2011-13 BN.
Table R.4
In 2011-13, the ESF is expected to see
deposits of $185.0 million based on
Lottery
sales,
while
scheduled
distributions this biennium total $182.9
million. The projected ending balances for
both the ORDF and ESF total $69.6
million this biennium.
B.10 in Appendix B provides more details
for Oregon’s budgetary reserves.
Oregon's Budgetary Reserves
(Millions)
Rainy Day Fund
Beginning Balance
Net Deposits3
Interest
Ending Balance1
Education Stability Fund
Beginning Balance
Net Deposits
Interest2
Withdrawals
Ending Balance
Total Reserves
2009-11
Biennium
2011-13
Biennium
2013-15
Biennium
$112.5
$10.4
$61.8
-$103.4
$1.3
$50.8
$0.6
$197.5
$2.9
$10.4
$61.8
$262.2
$0.0
$101.4
$5.1
$184.2
$6.9
$179.2
$1.0
-$97.4
$5.1
$0.6
-$182.9
$6.9
$1.8
-$1.8
$186.1
$15.5
$68.7
$448.4
Footnotes:
1. Under current law, only 2/3rds of the beginning balance is available for withdrawal. Withdrawal subject to economic and financial triggers.
2. Education Stability Fund interest is distributed to the Oregon Education Fund (75% ) and the State Scholarship Commission (25% ).
3. Includes transfer of ending General Fund balances, up to 1% of budgeted appropriations, as well as private donations.
11
Five 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.
63
APPENDIX A:
ECONOMIC FORECAST DETAIL
Table A.1 Annual Forecast .......................................................................................................................65
Table A.2 Quarterly Forecast ...................................................................................................................69
64
Table A.1 Annual Forecast 1
TABLE A.1
Sep 2012 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2009
Total Personal Income*
Oregon
135.1
% Ch
(4.2)
U.S.
11,930.2
% Ch
(4.3)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
139.4
3.2
12,373.5
3.7
146.8
5.3
12,991.2
5.0
151.1
2.9
13,411.7
3.2
156.6
3.7
13,908.3
3.7
164.4
4.9
14,544.4
4.6
173.6
5.6
15,278.1
5.0
183.3
5.6
16,068.2
5.2
192.6
5.0
16,803.0
4.6
202.2
5.0
17,591.5
4.7
212.0
4.9
18,401.6
4.6
222.3
4.8
19,252.7
4.6
Wage and Salary
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
70.3
(5.3)
6,270.4
(4.3)
71.6
1.9
6,408.2
2.2
75.0
4.7
6,668.2
4.1
77.1
2.9
6,878.6
3.2
80.3
4.1
7,136.9
3.8
84.0
4.6
7,425.5
4.0
88.3
5.0
7,766.3
4.6
92.5
4.8
8,114.4
4.5
96.9
4.8
8,465.5
4.3
101.3
4.5
8,816.1
4.1
105.8
4.5
9,170.4
4.0
110.5
4.4
9,540.7
4.0
Other Labor Income
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
17.2
(1.0)
1,073.1
2.0
17.7
2.7
1,090.0
1.6
18.4
4.0
1,111.0
1.9
18.9
2.4
1,134.3
2.1
19.7
4.2
1,183.0
4.3
20.6
5.0
1,248.9
5.6
21.8
5.6
1,321.3
5.8
23.0
5.4
1,396.0
5.7
24.2
5.3
1,471.4
5.4
25.4
4.9
1,542.2
4.8
26.5
4.5
1,609.2
4.3
27.7
4.5
1,677.4
4.2
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
9.7
% Ch
(14.0)
U.S.
902.0
% Ch
(13.8)
10.3
6.8
984.2
9.1
11.0
6.3
1,043.0
6.0
11.5
4.6
1,092.1
4.7
12.1
5.3
1,150.8
5.4
12.7
5.4
1,223.9
6.4
13.4
5.3
1,301.2
6.3
13.9
3.7
1,358.1
4.4
14.4
3.8
1,418.3
4.4
15.1
4.5
1,493.4
5.3
15.7
4.4
1,572.3
5.3
16.4
4.4
1,655.8
5.3
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
25.3
% Ch
(16.3)
U.S.
2,013.6
% Ch
(16.0)
26.0
2.9
2,071.4
2.9
27.7
6.3
2,193.9
5.9
29.2
5.6
2,315.0
5.5
30.5
4.4
2,416.1
4.4
31.7
4.0
2,524.4
4.5
33.7
6.3
2,701.6
7.0
36.1
7.0
2,911.0
7.8
38.1
5.7
3,088.5
6.1
39.9
4.5
3,255.8
5.4
41.8
4.9
3,425.0
5.2
43.8
4.7
3,594.0
4.9
Transfer Payments
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
28.8
6.2
2,259.0
7.7
29.3
2.0
2,335.6
3.4
29.7
1.2
2,402.6
2.9
30.7
3.4
2,498.4
4.0
32.7
6.6
2,668.8
6.8
34.8
6.3
2,842.7
6.5
37.0
6.5
3,052.9
7.4
38.9
5.1
3,246.1
6.3
40.7
4.5
3,454.0
6.4
43.0
5.8
3,671.7
6.3
45.6
6.1
3,904.4
6.3
12.9
6.1
444.4
4.1
14.0
9.0
492.9
10.9
14.8
5.7
536.1
8.8
15.6
5.2
619.7
15.6
16.2
4.1
681.6
10.0
17.0
4.5
754.6
10.7
17.0
0.3
791.2
4.8
17.8
4.3
828.2
4.7
18.5
4.2
867.0
4.7
27.1
18.9
2,096.8
14.4
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
12.2
% Ch
(3.5)
U.S.
506.1
% Ch
(2.1)
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
% Ch
(2.2)
(9.9)
12.7
3.8
513.6
1.5
(2.4)
5.8
12.1
(4.5)
427.0
(16.9)
(2.6)
8.4
(2.6)
0.6
(2.7)
2.5
(2.8)
4.0
(2.9)
4.4
(3.0)
4.0
(3.1)
3.9
(3.2)
3.4
(3.3)
3.3
(3.4)
3.2
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
0.0
% Ch
(89.1)
0.1
68.9
0.2
170.6
0.1
(18.6)
0.1
(33.9)
0.1
28.3
0.1
13.5
0.1
7.3
0.1
2.1
0.2
82.1
0.2
(1.1)
0.2
(1.5)
Per Capita Income (Thousands of $)
Oregon
35.4
% Ch
(4.9)
U.S.
38.8
% Ch
(5.1)
36.3
2.6
39.9
2.9
38.0
4.7
41.6
4.2
38.8
2.1
42.5
2.3
39.9
2.7
43.7
2.7
41.4
3.8
45.2
3.6
43.2
4.4
47.1
4.0
45.1
4.3
49.0
4.2
46.8
3.8
50.8
3.6
48.5
3.7
52.7
3.7
50.2
3.5
54.6
3.6
52.0
3.5
56.6
3.6
* Personal Income includes all classes of income minus Contributions for Social Security
65
TABLE A.1
Sep 2012 - Employment By Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2009
2010
2011
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
1,612.9
1,601.9
1,620.8
% Ch
(6.2)
(0.7)
1.2
U.S.
130.8
129.9
131.4
% Ch
(4.4)
(0.7)
1.2
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
1,313.4
1,302.2
1,325.4
% Ch
(7.6)
(0.9)
1.8
U.S.
108.2
107.4
109.3
% Ch
(5.3)
(0.8)
1.8
Natural Resources and Mining
Oregon
6.8
6.7
6.9
% Ch
(21.3)
(1.8)
3.4
U.S.
0.7
0.7
0.8
% Ch
(9.3)
1.5
11.3
Construction
74.1
Oregon
67.6
68.6
% Ch
(21.3)
(8.7)
1.5
U.S.
6.0
5.5
5.5
% Ch
(16.0)
(8.2)
(0.3)
Manufacturing
Oregon
167.2
163.8
168.3
% Ch
(14.3)
(2.0)
2.7
U.S.
11.8
11.5
11.7
% Ch
(11.6)
(2.7)
1.8
Durable Manufacturing
Oregon
117.9
114.9
118.7
% Ch
(17.4)
(2.6)
3.3
U.S.
7.3
7.1
7.3
% Ch
(13.9)
(3.0)
3.0
Wood Products
Oregon
21.0
20.0
19.3
% Ch
(21.5)
(4.7)
(3.3)
U.S.
0.4
0.3
0.3
% Ch
(21.3)
(5.0)
(2.1)
M etal and M achinery
Oregon
32.0
31.2
33.3
% Ch
(17.6)
(2.5)
6.8
U.S.
2.7
2.6
2.8
% Ch
(14.4)
(2.3)
5.7
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
35.4
35.0
36.5
% Ch
(8.8)
(1.3)
4.2
U.S.
1.1
1.1
1.1
% Ch
(8.6)
(3.7)
1.1
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
10.2
10.2
10.9
% Ch
(32.3)
(0.0)
6.6
U.S.
1.3
1.3
1.4
% Ch
(16.2)
(1.1)
3.7
Other Durables
Oregon
19.4
18.6
18.8
% Ch
(17.3)
(4.1)
1.1
U.S.
2.1
2.0
2.0
% Ch
(14.6)
(4.6)
1.7
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon
49.3
48.9
49.6
% Ch
(5.8)
(0.7)
1.4
U.S.
4.6
4.5
4.5
% Ch
(7.7)
(2.2)
(0.1)
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
23.3
23.8
24.3
% Ch
(0.6)
2.3
1.9
U.S.
1.5
1.5
1.5
% Ch
(1.6)
(0.4)
0.4
Other Nondurable
Oregon
26.0
25.1
25.3
% Ch
(10.1)
(3.4)
0.9
U.S.
3.1
3.0
3.0
% Ch
(10.2)
(3.1)
(0.4)
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Oregon
312.2
308.6
312.5
% Ch
(7.1)
(1.2)
1.3
U.S.
24.9
24.6
25.0
% Ch
(5.3)
(1.1)
1.5
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
1,640.6
1.2
133.2
1.4
1,670.4
1.8
134.9
1.3
1,702.6
1.9
136.8
1.4
1,738.4
2.1
139.1
1.7
1,773.0
2.0
141.5
1.7
1,806.6
1.9
143.5
1.4
1,836.6
1.7
145.0
1.1
1,861.7
1.4
146.2
0.8
1,885.0
1.3
147.4
0.8
1,350.6
1.9
111.2
1.8
1,380.6
2.2
113.0
1.6
1,411.2
2.2
114.9
1.7
1,444.9
2.4
117.1
1.9
1,477.2
2.2
119.3
1.9
1,508.0
2.1
121.1
1.5
1,535.0
1.8
122.4
1.1
1,557.2
1.4
123.5
0.8
1,575.8
1.2
124.4
0.7
7.4
6.2
0.8
5.4
7.5
1.5
0.8
(5.7)
7.6
1.3
0.8
(0.5)
7.6
0.8
0.8
(1.0)
7.6
(0.5)
0.8
(2.2)
7.5
(0.9)
0.7
(3.0)
7.5
(0.8)
0.7
(3.3)
7.4
(0.8)
0.7
(3.2)
7.3
(0.8)
0.7
(2.0)
71.9
4.8
5.5
0.7
73.7
2.5
5.6
1.7
76.4
3.6
6.0
6.4
80.9
5.9
6.7
11.0
85.0
5.1
7.3
9.3
87.9
3.5
7.7
6.0
90.6
3.1
8.0
3.7
92.5
2.0
8.2
2.2
94.1
1.8
8.3
1.8
171.5
1.9
11.9
1.8
173.9
1.4
12.1
1.2
177.4
2.0
12.4
2.4
181.4
2.3
12.6
1.9
184.9
1.9
12.8
1.1
188.7
2.1
12.8
0.3
192.2
1.8
12.8
0.2
194.3
1.1
12.8
(0.1)
195.9
0.8
12.8
(0.3)
121.5
2.4
7.5
2.7
124.1
2.1
7.6
2.3
127.1
2.4
8.0
4.2
130.8
2.9
8.2
3.4
134.1
2.5
8.4
1.9
137.6
2.6
8.4
0.6
140.6
2.2
8.5
0.2
142.4
1.3
8.5
0.1
143.6
0.8
8.5
(0.2)
19.7
1.9
0.3
1.3
21.0
6.7
0.4
12.9
22.2
5.8
0.5
20.1
23.8
6.9
0.5
16.0
24.6
3.7
0.6
4.8
25.4
2.9
0.6
3.0
25.5
0.7
0.6
1.9
25.5
(0.2)
0.6
(0.4)
25.4
(0.3)
0.6
(1.2)
34.9
4.8
2.9
4.3
35.8
2.5
3.0
2.2
35.8
(0.1)
3.1
3.6
35.8
0.0
3.2
2.7
36.4
1.7
3.2
2.3
37.4
2.7
3.3
0.8
38.3
2.5
3.3
0.2
38.7
1.0
3.3
0.6
38.7
0.1
3.3
0.5
37.1
1.8
1.1
0.1
37.2
0.2
1.1
(0.8)
37.7
1.4
1.1
0.7
38.6
2.4
1.1
2.2
39.5
2.4
1.1
1.4
40.6
2.7
1.2
2.6
41.7
2.8
1.2
2.4
42.7
2.4
1.2
1.6
43.6
2.1
1.2
1.3
10.8
(0.9)
1.4
4.5
10.8
0.2
1.5
3.8
11.4
5.2
1.6
6.0
12.0
5.1
1.7
4.3
12.3
2.5
1.7
2.0
12.4
1.4
1.7
(2.0)
12.5
0.6
1.6
(2.4)
12.4
(0.7)
1.6
(2.0)
12.3
(1.1)
1.5
(2.6)
19.0
1.4
2.2
6.0
19.3
1.5
2.3
6.2
20.0
3.7
2.3
1.6
20.7
3.3
2.3
0.8
21.3
2.9
2.4
0.4
21.9
2.7
2.4
0.6
22.5
3.0
2.4
1.0
23.1
2.6
2.4
0.7
23.6
2.1
2.4
0.2
50.0
0.8
4.5
0.2
49.9
(0.2)
4.4
(0.5)
50.3
0.9
4.4
(0.6)
50.6
0.5
4.4
(0.9)
50.8
0.3
4.4
(0.5)
51.1
0.7
4.4
(0.2)
51.6
0.9
4.4
0.1
51.9
0.7
4.3
(0.4)
52.3
0.6
4.3
(0.5)
24.6
1.3
1.5
0.2
24.4
(0.5)
1.5
1.2
24.7
1.1
1.5
1.3
24.9
0.8
1.5
0.4
25.0
0.4
1.5
1.1
25.1
0.6
1.5
1.1
25.3
0.7
1.6
1.4
25.5
0.6
1.6
0.5
25.7
0.8
1.6
0.4
25.4
0.3
3.0
0.1
25.4
0.1
3.0
(0.5)
25.6
0.7
2.9
(1.5)
25.7
0.3
2.9
(1.4)
25.8
0.3
2.9
(1.2)
26.0
0.7
2.8
(0.7)
26.2
1.1
2.8
(0.5)
26.4
0.7
2.8
(0.9)
26.6
0.5
2.8
(1.2)
316.0
1.1
25.4
1.4
322.2
2.0
25.7
1.5
325.9
1.2
25.9
0.6
66
330.9
1.5
26.2
1.0
338.1
2.2
26.5
1.4
344.8
2.0
26.8
1.1
349.6
1.4
26.9
0.5
352.4
0.8
27.0
0.2
353.2
0.2
27.0
0.0
TABLE A.1
Sep 2012 - Employment By Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2009
2010
2011
Retail Trade
Oregon
183.4
183.2
184.9
% Ch
(6.8)
(0.2)
0.9
U.S.
14.5
14.4
14.6
1.4
(0.5)
% Ch
(5.0)
Wholesale Trade
Oregon
75.3
73.3
74.3
% Ch
(6.5)
(2.7)
1.4
5.5
U.S.
5.6
5.5
1.4
(2.4)
(6.0)
% Ch
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oregon
53.5
52.2
53.3
% Ch
(8.8)
(2.5)
2.2
4.8
U.S.
4.8
4.7
2.2
(1.2)
% Ch
(5.3)
Information
Oregon
33.1
32.1
32.0
% Ch
(7.1)
(3.0)
(0.2)
2.7
2.7
U.S.
2.8
(3.4)
(1.8)
(6.0)
% Ch
Financial Activities
Oregon
92.1
95.7
93.2
(1.2)
(2.6)
% Ch
(6.1)
U.S.
7.8
7.7
7.7
0.4
(1.5)
% Ch
(4.6)
Professional and Business S ervices
Oregon
180.1
182.3
187.9
1.2
3.0
% Ch
(8.2)
U.S.
16.6
16.7
17.3
3.6
0.9
(6.6)
% Ch
Education and Health S ervices
234.5
228.9
Oregon
223.6
2.4
2.4
% Ch
1.8
U.S.
19.2
19.5
19.9
1.8
1.8
% Ch
1.9
Educational S ervices
33.0
31.8
Oregon
30.7
% Ch
1.6
3.8
3.7
3.2
U.S.
3.1
3.2
% Ch
1.6
2.0
2.8
Health Care and S ocial Assistance
201.5
192.9
197.1
Oregon
% Ch
1.9
2.2
2.2
16.6
U.S.
16.1
16.4
% Ch
1.9
1.7
1.6
Leisure and Hospitality
162.3
165.6
Oregon
162.9
% Ch
(5.7)
(0.4)
2.0
13.0
13.3
U.S.
13.1
% Ch
(2.7)
(0.2)
2.1
Other S ervices
57.1
Oregon
57.7
56.6
(1.9)
0.8
% Ch
(5.0)
5.3
U.S.
5.4
5.3
% Ch
(2.7)
(0.7)
0.2
Government
299.7
295.4
Oregon
299.5
0.5
0.1
(1.5)
% Ch
22.1
U.S.
22.6
22.5
(1.7)
% Ch
0.2
(0.3)
Federal Government
Oregon
30.0
30.5
28.8
% Ch
1.4
1.8
(5.7)
3.0
2.9
U.S.
2.8
(4.0)
% Ch
2.5
5.1
S tate Government, Oregon
State Total
78.2
79.7
80.6
% Ch
2.0
2.0
1.1
29.8
31.1
State Education
29.0
% Ch
2.3
2.8
4.5
Local Government, Oregon
Local Total
191.4
189.5
186.0
% Ch
(0.3)
(1.0)
(1.9)
Local Education
102.8
100.3
96.6
(2.5)
(3.7)
% Ch
0.5
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
186.9
1.1
14.8
1.0
189.8
1.6
14.9
1.0
190.7
0.4
14.9
(0.5)
192.9
1.2
14.9
0.2
197.0
2.1
15.0
0.6
200.3
1.7
15.0
0.1
202.7
1.2
14.9
(0.4)
203.9
0.6
14.9
(0.3)
203.7
(0.1)
14.8
(0.4)
75.4
1.5
5.6
1.9
76.9
1.9
5.7
1.8
78.3
1.9
5.8
1.6
79.7
1.8
5.9
1.8
81.2
1.8
6.0
2.0
82.7
1.8
6.2
2.0
83.7
1.2
6.3
1.4
84.5
1.0
6.3
1.1
85.1
0.7
6.4
0.8
53.7
0.7
4.9
2.0
55.5
3.4
5.1
2.7
56.9
2.5
5.2
2.5
58.3
2.4
5.3
2.7
60.0
3.0
5.5
2.8
61.8
3.1
5.7
2.8
63.2
2.2
5.8
1.9
64.0
1.2
5.8
0.6
64.4
0.6
5.8
0.3
32.2
0.8
2.6
(0.9)
33.0
2.3
2.7
2.5
33.6
1.9
2.8
2.0
33.9
1.0
2.8
1.3
34.1
0.5
2.8
0.4
34.8
2.0
2.8
1.6
35.4
1.8
2.9
1.8
35.9
1.3
2.9
1.7
36.3
1.2
3.0
1.5
92.1
0.0
7.7
0.6
94.8
3.0
7.8
0.9
96.3
1.6
7.8
(0.0)
97.1
0.8
7.8
(0.4)
98.1
1.0
7.7
(0.5)
99.4
1.3
7.7
0.2
100.6
1.2
7.7
0.0
101.1
0.6
7.7
(0.1)
101.6
0.4
7.8
0.3
194.8
3.7
17.9
3.1
200.5
2.9
18.4
3.1
209.0
4.2
19.1
3.7
219.3
4.9
20.0
4.7
227.7
3.8
20.7
3.7
235.5
3.4
21.4
3.2
242.4
2.9
22.0
2.8
249.4
2.9
22.6
2.8
256.7
2.9
23.2
2.8
237.9
1.5
20.3
2.3
242.3
1.8
20.6
1.1
247.9
2.3
20.9
1.5
253.6
2.3
21.1
1.2
259.4
2.3
21.6
2.4
266.0
2.5
22.1
2.2
272.1
2.3
22.5
1.8
278.4
2.3
22.8
1.3
284.1
2.1
23.0
0.9
33.8
2.2
3.3
2.5
33.3
(1.4)
3.3
(0.2)
33.3
0.1
3.3
(1.9)
33.6
0.8
3.2
(3.0)
33.9
0.9
3.1
(1.8)
34.3
1.2
3.1
(0.7)
34.8
1.4
3.1
(0.5)
35.3
1.4
3.0
(0.5)
35.8
1.4
3.0
(0.8)
204.2
1.3
17.0
2.2
209.0
2.4
17.2
1.4
214.6
2.7
17.6
2.1
220.0
2.5
18.0
2.0
225.5
2.5
18.5
3.1
231.7
2.7
19.0
2.6
237.4
2.5
19.4
2.1
243.1
2.4
19.7
1.6
248.3
2.1
19.9
1.1
168.7
1.9
13.6
2.3
173.4
2.8
13.9
1.7
176.8
2.0
13.9
0.4
178.8
1.1
13.8
(0.6)
180.2
0.7
13.8
(0.5)
180.4
0.1
13.7
(0.7)
180.8
0.2
13.6
(0.7)
181.3
0.3
13.5
(0.5)
181.5
0.2
13.4
(0.5)
58.1
1.8
5.4
0.6
59.3
2.1
5.4
1.2
60.3
1.7
5.5
0.4
61.3
1.6
5.4
(1.1)
62.1
1.4
5.4
(0.8)
62.9
1.3
5.3
(0.3)
63.8
1.3
5.3
(0.5)
64.5
1.1
5.3
(0.7)
65.2
1.1
5.2
(0.5)
290.0
(1.8)
21.9
(0.7)
289.8
(0.1)
21.9
(0.4)
291.4
0.6
21.9
0.0
27.7
(3.6)
2.8
(1.7)
27.5
(1.0)
2.7
(2.6)
27.3
(0.6)
2.7
(2.6)
27.2
(0.5)
2.6
(2.0)
27.0
(0.5)
2.6
(1.5)
27.0
(0.1)
2.5
(1.3)
27.0
(0.0)
2.5
(1.2)
27.0
(0.0)
2.5
(0.9)
28.6
6.0
2.6
5.4
79.9
(0.8)
31.7
1.6
79.7
(0.3)
32.1
1.3
80.1
0.5
32.4
1.1
80.8
0.8
32.8
1.2
81.5
1.0
33.3
1.6
82.4
1.0
33.9
1.8
83.3
1.1
34.6
2.1
84.2
1.1
35.3
2.0
85.1
1.1
36.0
2.0
184.0
0.8
97.8
3.0
185.6
0.8
99.7
1.9
187.1
0.9
101.3
1.7
189.2
1.1
102.8
1.5
191.3
1.1
104.3
1.4
193.3
1.1
105.7
1.4
195.5
1.1
107.2
1.3
182.3
(2.0)
93.1
(3.6)
182.6
0.2
95.0
2.0
67
293.5
0.7
22.0
0.6
295.7
0.8
22.2
0.8
298.6
1.0
22.3
0.8
301.6
1.0
22.5
0.9
304.5
1.0
22.7
0.8
309.2
1.5
23.0
1.4
TABLE A.1
Sep 2012 - Other Economic Indicators
2009
GDP (Bil of 2005 $),
Chain Weight (in billions of $) 12,703.1
% Ch
(3.5)
2010
13,088.0
3.0
2011
13,315.1
1.7
2012
13,580.1
2.0
2013
13,849.6
2.0
2014
14,227.6
2.7
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
14,700.6
3.3
15,147.6
3.0
15,592.2
2.9
16,015.7
2.7
16,445.0
2.7
16,882.1
2.7
Price and Wage Indicators
GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=10
% Ch
109.7
1.1
111.0
1.2
113.3
2.1
115.3
1.7
116.9
1.4
118.7
1.6
120.7
1.7
122.7
1.6
124.5
1.5
126.5
1.6
128.4
1.5
130.4
1.6
Personal Consumption Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
109.2
0.2
111.1
1.8
113.8
2.5
115.6
1.6
116.8
1.1
119.1
2.0
121.4
1.9
123.5
1.7
125.5
1.6
127.7
1.7
129.8
1.7
132.0
1.7
CPI, Urban Consumers,
1982-84=100
Portland-Salem, OR-WA
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
215.6
0.1
214.6
(0.3)
218.3
1.3
218.1
1.6
224.6
2.9
224.9
3.1
229.1
2.0
228.8
1.7
232.8
1.6
231.7
1.3
237.7
2.1
237.1
2.3
242.3
1.9
241.8
2.0
246.8
1.9
246.1
1.8
251.6
1.9
250.1
1.6
256.4
1.9
254.5
1.8
261.8
2.1
258.8
1.7
267.2
2.1
263.3
1.7
Oregon Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
43.0
0.9
44.1
2.6
45.6
3.5
46.4
1.7
47.5
2.3
48.7
2.6
50.1
2.8
51.5
2.7
52.9
2.8
54.4
2.8
56.1
3.1
57.8
3.1
U.S. Average Wage
Wage Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
47.9
0.1
49.3
2.9
50.8
2.9
51.6
1.7
52.9
2.5
54.3
2.6
55.8
2.9
57.4
2.7
59.0
2.9
60.8
3.0
62.7
3.2
64.7
3.2
Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Housing Index 1987 Q1=100
408.1
% Ch
(7.8)
381.2
(6.6)
355.8
(6.7)
354.2
(0.5)
346.8
(2.1)
349.4
0.8
361.6
3.5
369.3
2.1
381.8
3.4
394.1
3.2
406.2
3.1
419.9
3.4
FHFA National Housing Price Index
(1980Q1=100)
342.2
% Ch
(4.8)
329.7
(3.7)
318.2
(3.5)
320.7
0.8
313.7
(2.2)
321.7
2.6
336.1
4.5
345.8
2.9
357.9
3.5
368.6
3.0
378.5
2.7
389.8
3.0
7.6
0.5
0.6
5.7
8.1
5.9
0.6
4.5
10.0
24.3
0.8
25.0
11.0
9.9
0.9
23.2
14.3
29.6
1.2
29.8
19.4
36.1
1.5
24.3
22.5
15.7
1.7
9.0
24.9
10.8
1.7
5.0
25.5
2.5
1.7
(0.1)
25.6
0.4
1.7
(0.4)
25.5
(0.3)
1.7
(0.8)
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
% Ch
U.S. (Millions)
% Ch
7.6
(40.8)
0.6
(38.4)
Other Indicators
Unemployment Rate (%)
Oregon
Point Change
U.S.
Point Change
11.1
4.5
9.3
3.5
10.6
(0.4)
9.6
0.3
9.5
(1.2)
8.9
(0.7)
8.5
(0.9)
8.1
(0.8)
8.0
(0.5)
8.0
(0.2)
7.5
(0.5)
7.7
(0.3)
7.0
(0.5)
7.1
(0.6)
6.7
(0.3)
6.6
(0.5)
6.7
(0.0)
6.2
(0.4)
6.8
0.1
5.9
(0.3)
6.2
(0.5)
5.8
(0.2)
5.7
(0.6)
5.6
(0.2)
Industrial Production Index
U.S, 2002 = 100
% Ch
85.4
(11.4)
90.1
5.4
93.7
4.1
97.5
4.0
99.7
2.2
102.9
3.2
106.8
3.8
109.8
2.8
112.9
2.9
116.0
2.7
119.2
2.8
122.5
2.8
Prime Rate (Percent)
% Ch
3.3
(36.1)
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
2.2
4.8
44.9
6.7
38.6
7.0
5.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
(0.0)
Population (Millions)
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
3.82
0.8
307.6
0.9
3.84
0.6
310.1
0.8
3.86
0.6
312.4
0.7
3.89
0.7
315.3
0.9
3.92
0.9
318.4
1.0
3.96
1.0
321.5
1.0
4.01
1.1
324.6
1.0
4.06
1.2
327.7
1.0
4.11
1.2
330.9
1.0
4.16
1.2
334.1
1.0
4.21
1.2
337.3
1.0
4.26
1.2
340.5
0.9
Timber Harvest (Mil Bd Ft)
Oregon
% Ch
2,820.0
(18.0)
3,210.0
13.8
3,390.0
5.6
3,637.3
7.3
3,956.7
8.8
68
4,139.9
4.6
4,248.6
2.6
4,266.6
0.4
4,337.4
1.7
4,401.4
1.5
4,466.4
1.5
4,499.7
0.7
Table A.2 Quarterly Forecast 1
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2009:1
Total Personal Income
Oregon
135.7
% Ch
(10.9)
U.S.
11,964.4
% Ch
(11.6)
2009:2
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
135.4
(0.9)
11,944.1
(0.7)
134.3
(3.3)
11,874.1
(2.3)
134.9
1.7
11,938.2
2.2
137.0
6.4
12,137.7
6.9
138.6
4.7
12,325.6
6.3
140.2
5.0
12,453.2
4.2
141.8
4.5
12,577.6
4.1
145.0
9.3
12,846.9
8.8
146.8
5.0
12,955.3
3.4
147.3
1.4
13,056.8
3.2
148.1
2.3
13,105.7
1.5
Wage and Salary
Oregon
70.9
% Ch
(11.4)
U.S.
6,280.5
% Ch
(12.7)
70.4
(2.9)
6,278.2
(0.1)
69.8
(3.1)
6,251.3
(1.7)
69.9
0.3
6,271.4
1.3
70.6
4.1
6,301.6
1.9
71.4
4.5
6,399.8
6.4
72.1
4.0
6,454.5
3.5
72.4
1.9
6,477.0
1.4
73.8
8.0
6,578.2
6.4
74.6
4.3
6,617.1
2.4
75.5
4.6
6,724.3
6.6
75.9
2.6
6,753.2
1.7
Other Labor Income
Oregon
17.4
% Ch
(2.7)
U.S.
1,071.0
% Ch
0.2
17.2
(2.4)
1,071.7
0.3
17.2
(1.2)
1,073.5
0.7
17.2
0.0
1,076.2
1.0
17.5
8.3
1,083.4
2.7
17.6
2.4
1,087.6
1.6
17.8
2.9
1,092.0
1.6
17.9
2.8
1,096.8
1.8
18.2
8.0
1,103.0
2.3
18.4
3.6
1,108.7
2.1
18.4
0.4
1,112.6
1.4
18.6
3.7
1,119.6
2.5
9.9
2.4
937.1
14.0
10.2
16.5
979.7
19.5
10.5
8.8
998.7
8.0
10.7
10.2
1,021.4
9.4
10.8
3.5
1,029.5
3.2
10.9
5.0
1,039.2
3.8
11.0
1.5
1,046.2
2.7
11.1
6.4
1,057.0
4.2
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
9.8
9.5
% Ch
(33.5)
(9.8)
U.S.
923.1
888.2
% Ch
(28.0)
(14.3)
9.6
3.6
889.9
0.8
9.8
8.8
907.0
7.9
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
26.9
25.3
% Ch
(31.6)
(21.9)
U.S.
2,130.3
2,007.2
% Ch
(30.3)
(21.2)
24.5
(11.1)
1,955.0
(10.0)
24.5
(0.1)
1,961.9
1.4
25.5
16.4
2,037.4
16.3
26.0
8.5
2,073.6
7.3
26.2
2.3
2,076.1
0.5
26.5
5.0
2,098.3
4.3
27.3
12.5
2,162.2
12.7
27.7
6.6
2,199.2
7.0
27.8
0.7
2,200.5
0.2
28.0
3.1
2,213.5
2.4
Transfer Payments
Oregon
25.4
% Ch
37.0
U.S.
1,987.2
% Ch
31.0
27.5
(0.7)
2,123.4
(0.1)
27.8
5.3
2,152.5
5.6
28.4
8.4
2,208.9
10.9
28.3
(1.0)
2,249.1
7.5
28.8
7.4
2,279.2
5.5
29.5
9.2
2,298.9
3.5
29.2
(3.6)
2,309.0
1.8
29.6
5.4
2,327.3
3.2
29.3
(3.4)
2,357.0
5.2
29.2
(1.4)
2,349.1
(1.3)
12.8
4.5
515.7
2.1
12.9
2.8
517.2
1.1
12.0
(25.8)
420.1
(56.5)
12.1
4.5
423.4
3.2
12.2
4.5
431.0
7.3
12.3
2.5
433.4
2.2
27.5
36.7
2,124.1
30.5
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
12.3
12.3
% Ch
(6.7)
(2.6)
U.S.
507.4
507.5
% Ch
(6.4)
0.0
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
(2.3)
% Ch
(20.9)
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
(0.0)
% Ch
(100.0)
12.2
(2.4)
505.0
(1.9)
12.2
0.4
504.6
(0.3)
12.5
10.7
508.5
3.1
12.6
4.6
513.1
3.7
(2.2)
(7.0)
(2.2)
(4.2)
(2.2)
0.4
(2.3)
22.7
(2.4)
5.9
(2.4)
2.5
(2.4)
0.3
(0.0)
62,400.0
0.1
##########
0.1
(89.7)
(0.0)
(84.5)
0.0
(99.4)
0.1
#########
0.1
(73.2)
69
(2.5)
27.3
0.2
339.2
(2.6)
5.0
0.2
134.0
(2.6)
2.4
(2.6)
0.9
0.2
(55.0)
0.1
(59.3)
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2012:1
Total Personal Income
Oregon
149.4
% Ch
3.4
U.S.
13,227.8
% Ch
3.8
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2013:3
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
150.5
3.2
13,339.9
3.4
151.4
2.4
13,475.2
4.1
152.9
4.0
13,604.0
3.9
154.4
3.9
13,714.7
3.3
155.9
3.9
13,844.0
3.8
157.4
3.9
13,971.4
3.7
159.0
4.1
14,103.2
3.8
161.4
6.3
14,294.9
5.5
163.3
4.6
14,452.2
4.5
165.3
5.1
14,624.6
4.9
167.4
5.2
14,805.9
5.0
Wage and Salary
Oregon
76.4
% Ch
2.3
U.S.
6,806.9
% Ch
3.2
76.7
1.8
6,836.6
1.8
77.3
3.1
6,902.4
3.9
78.1
4.4
6,968.7
3.9
79.0
4.7
7,040.0
4.2
79.9
4.6
7,105.2
3.8
80.7
4.1
7,168.9
3.6
81.6
4.4
7,233.7
3.7
82.5
4.7
7,307.5
4.1
83.5
4.8
7,381.9
4.1
84.5
4.9
7,463.3
4.5
85.6
5.1
7,549.5
4.7
Other Labor Income
Oregon
18.7
% Ch
2.3
U.S.
1,125.1
% Ch
2.0
18.8
1.6
1,129.7
1.6
18.9
2.5
1,135.5
2.1
19.1
4.5
1,147.0
4.1
19.3
5.2
1,161.0
5.0
19.5
4.4
1,174.7
4.8
19.7
4.2
1,190.4
5.5
20.0
4.6
1,205.7
5.2
20.3
5.8
1,223.4
6.0
20.5
4.6
1,240.3
5.6
20.7
4.9
1,257.0
5.5
21.0
6.1
1,274.8
5.8
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
11.2
11.3
% Ch
3.5
3.9
U.S.
1,071.7
1,082.7
% Ch
5.7
4.2
11.6
7.6
1,099.5
6.3
11.7
5.9
1,114.6
5.6
11.9
5.5
1,129.2
5.3
12.0
4.3
1,143.8
5.2
12.1
4.1
1,157.7
4.9
12.3
4.3
1,172.3
5.2
12.4
5.0
1,189.3
5.9
12.6
7.3
1,213.7
8.5
12.8
6.2
1,235.1
7.2
13.0
6.3
1,257.5
7.5
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
28.4
29.1
% Ch
6.6
9.3
U.S.
2,252.5
2,306.9
% Ch
7.2
10.0
29.6
7.1
2,338.4
5.6
29.9
4.3
2,362.1
4.1
30.1
3.4
2,385.2
4.0
30.4
3.4
2,405.9
3.5
30.6
3.2
2,423.9
3.0
30.9
3.8
2,449.4
4.3
31.2
4.1
2,477.9
4.7
31.5
3.8
2,503.0
4.1
31.9
5.3
2,539.5
6.0
32.3
5.2
2,577.3
6.1
Transfer Payments
Oregon
29.4
% Ch
2.8
U.S.
2,374.4
% Ch
4.4
29.6
2.0
2,390.2
2.7
29.8
2.5
2,411.9
3.7
30.0
3.2
2,434.0
3.7
30.3
3.9
2,464.1
5.0
30.6
3.6
2,487.8
3.9
30.8
3.7
2,509.5
3.5
31.1
3.5
2,532.0
3.6
32.2
15.3
2,627.5
16.0
32.6
4.2
2,654.9
4.2
32.9
4.3
2,682.6
4.2
33.2
4.0
2,710.3
4.2
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
12.4
12.5
% Ch
4.8
2.2
U.S.
439.0
441.3
% Ch
5.3
2.1
13.2
22.4
446.1
4.4
13.4
7.6
451.2
4.7
13.8
11.4
487.2
35.9
14.0
6.7
491.5
3.6
14.1
3.4
493.9
1.9
14.3
4.5
499.1
4.3
14.6
9.9
528.0
25.3
14.8
4.8
533.2
4.0
14.9
3.4
538.3
3.9
15.1
4.4
544.8
4.9
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
(2.6)
% Ch
(0.2)
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
0.2
% Ch
851.0
(2.6)
0.5
(2.6)
(3.2)
(2.6)
3.7
(2.6)
3.2
(2.6)
4.0
(2.7)
3.4
(2.7)
3.8
(2.7)
3.7
(2.7)
4.5
(2.8)
4.5
(2.8)
4.7
0.2
(76.5)
0.1
(96.6)
0.1
47.5
0.1
35.5
0.1
25.9
0.1
12.4
0.1
29.7
0.1
44.4
0.1
27.8
0.1
21.2
0.1
16.2
70
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2015:1
Total Personal Income
Oregon
170.3
% Ch
6.9
U.S.
14,998.0
% Ch
5.3
2015:2
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
2017:3
2017:4
172.5
5.3
15,186.0
5.1
174.7
5.3
15,371.4
5.0
176.8
4.9
15,556.9
4.9
180.0
7.3
15,783.9
6.0
182.2
5.1
15,975.9
5.0
184.4
4.9
16,162.6
4.8
186.6
4.8
16,350.3
4.7
189.1
5.4
16,519.8
4.2
191.4
5.0
16,707.2
4.6
193.7
4.9
16,896.4
4.6
196.0
4.9
17,088.8
4.6
Wage and Salary
Oregon
86.7
% Ch
5.1
U.S.
7,638.4
% Ch
4.8
87.7
5.0
7,723.8
4.6
88.8
5.0
7,809.1
4.5
89.8
4.5
7,893.8
4.4
90.9
4.9
7,984.5
4.7
91.9
4.5
8,070.7
4.4
93.0
4.8
8,157.6
4.4
94.0
4.7
8,244.9
4.4
95.2
4.8
8,336.0
4.5
96.3
4.8
8,422.0
4.2
97.4
4.8
8,508.2
4.2
98.6
4.9
8,595.5
4.2
Other Labor Income
Oregon
21.3
% Ch
6.0
U.S.
1,293.8
% Ch
6.1
21.6
5.5
1,311.9
5.7
21.9
5.3
1,330.2
5.7
22.2
5.5
1,349.2
5.8
22.5
5.5
1,367.5
5.6
22.8
5.4
1,386.2
5.6
23.1
5.5
1,405.3
5.6
23.4
5.5
1,424.8
5.7
23.7
5.4
1,443.9
5.5
24.0
5.2
1,462.1
5.1
24.3
5.2
1,480.6
5.1
24.6
5.1
1,498.9
5.0
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
13.2
13.3
% Ch
4.8
5.3
U.S.
1,275.3
1,295.4
% Ch
5.8
6.5
13.5
3.7
1,310.1
4.6
13.6
3.5
1,324.2
4.4
13.7
3.5
1,337.0
3.9
13.8
4.2
1,352.6
4.7
13.9
3.0
1,364.2
3.5
14.1
3.6
1,378.6
4.3
14.2
3.3
1,391.9
3.9
14.3
4.7
1,410.5
5.5
14.5
3.7
1,425.5
4.3
14.7
4.8
1,445.3
5.7
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
32.9
33.4
% Ch
6.8
6.9
U.S.
2,625.9
2,674.9
% Ch
7.8
7.7
34.0
7.6
2,726.4
7.9
34.6
6.7
2,779.1
8.0
35.2
7.0
2,833.0
8.0
35.8
7.4
2,887.8
8.0
36.4
6.9
2,938.8
7.3
36.9
5.9
2,984.5
6.4
37.4
5.2
3,026.1
5.7
37.9
5.2
3,066.5
5.5
38.4
5.7
3,110.0
5.8
38.9
5.0
3,151.3
5.4
Transfer Payments
Oregon
34.3
% Ch
13.9
U.S.
2,800.2
% Ch
13.9
34.6
3.6
2,827.1
3.9
34.9
3.6
2,856.6
4.2
35.2
3.6
2,886.8
4.3
36.6
15.8
2,999.3
16.5
36.9
3.3
3,033.8
4.7
37.2
3.4
3,069.5
4.8
37.5
3.9
3,109.1
5.3
38.3
8.4
3,184.4
10.0
38.7
4.2
3,224.9
5.2
39.1
4.4
3,266.4
5.2
39.5
4.5
3,308.7
5.3
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
15.4
15.5
% Ch
9.2
3.8
U.S.
610.4
616.5
% Ch
57.6
4.1
15.7
3.8
622.5
3.9
15.8
3.3
629.3
4.5
16.0
6.0
672.2
30.2
16.1
2.2
678.4
3.7
16.3
4.6
684.4
3.6
16.5
4.5
691.3
4.1
16.8
6.7
745.3
35.1
16.9
2.5
751.4
3.3
17.0
4.6
757.3
3.2
17.2
4.7
764.2
3.7
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
(2.8)
% Ch
4.1
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
0.1
% Ch
13.1
(2.9)
4.5
(2.9)
4.4
(2.9)
3.8
(3.0)
4.2
(3.0)
3.5
(3.0)
4.0
(3.0)
3.9
(3.1)
4.0
(3.1)
4.0
(3.1)
3.9
(3.2)
4.0
0.1
9.8
0.1
7.5
0.1
5.5
0.1
14.9
0.1
3.4
0.1
2.9
0.1
2.4
0.1
2.0
0.1
1.7
0.1
1.3
0.1
0.9
71
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2018:1
Total Personal Income
Oregon
198.8
% Ch
5.7
U.S.
17,300.9
% Ch
5.1
2018:2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
201.0
4.5
17,493.9
4.5
203.3
4.7
17,687.8
4.5
205.7
4.8
17,883.4
4.5
208.4
5.4
18,105.0
5.1
210.8
4.7
18,301.0
4.4
213.2
4.6
18,499.3
4.4
215.6
4.6
18,701.0
4.4
218.5
5.4
18,937.0
5.1
221.1
5.0
19,155.2
4.7
223.5
4.4
19,356.9
4.3
226.0
4.5
19,561.5
4.3
Wage and Salary
Oregon
99.7
% Ch
4.6
U.S.
8,686.4
% Ch
4.3
100.6
3.6
8,772.1
4.0
101.7
4.6
8,858.8
4.0
102.9
4.8
8,946.9
4.0
104.1
4.6
9,038.8
4.2
105.2
4.3
9,125.7
3.9
106.4
4.3
9,213.7
3.9
107.5
4.4
9,303.3
3.9
108.7
4.5
9,399.6
4.2
110.0
4.9
9,501.6
4.4
111.1
3.9
9,586.7
3.6
112.2
4.3
9,674.7
3.7
Other Labor Income
Oregon
24.9
% Ch
4.9
U.S.
1,516.4
% Ch
4.8
25.2
4.6
1,533.9
4.7
25.5
4.7
1,550.8
4.5
25.8
4.7
1,567.9
4.5
26.1
4.6
1,584.6
4.3
26.4
4.5
1,601.2
4.3
26.7
4.3
1,617.3
4.1
26.9
4.4
1,633.8
4.1
27.2
4.4
1,650.6
4.2
27.5
4.5
1,667.6
4.2
27.9
4.7
1,687.0
4.7
28.2
4.4
1,704.3
4.2
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
14.8
15.0
% Ch
4.0
5.0
U.S.
1,462.3
1,483.6
% Ch
4.8
6.0
15.1
4.5
1,503.1
5.4
15.3
4.9
1,524.5
5.8
15.5
4.2
1,543.5
5.1
15.7
4.4
1,563.4
5.3
15.8
3.9
1,581.5
4.7
16.0
4.1
1,600.8
5.0
16.1
4.7
1,622.8
5.6
16.4
5.1
1,646.8
6.1
16.5
4.0
1,666.1
4.8
16.7
4.3
1,687.5
5.2
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
39.1
39.6
% Ch
2.8
4.9
U.S.
3,193.5
3,234.2
% Ch
5.5
5.2
40.1
5.2
3,276.7
5.4
40.6
4.8
3,318.6
5.2
41.1
4.9
3,362.2
5.4
41.6
4.7
3,402.7
4.9
42.1
5.0
3,445.6
5.1
42.6
4.8
3,489.3
5.2
43.1
4.6
3,532.0
5.0
43.5
4.5
3,572.8
4.7
44.0
4.7
3,614.6
4.8
44.5
4.4
3,656.7
4.7
Transfer Payments
Oregon
40.0
% Ch
4.6
U.S.
3,388.5
% Ch
10.0
40.4
4.5
3,431.8
5.2
40.9
4.5
3,475.7
5.2
41.3
4.5
3,519.9
5.2
42.2
9.0
3,603.8
9.9
42.7
4.9
3,648.6
5.1
43.2
4.9
3,694.0
5.1
43.8
4.9
3,740.4
5.1
44.8
9.5
3,832.3
10.2
45.3
5.0
3,880.3
5.1
45.9
4.9
3,928.1
5.0
46.4
5.0
3,976.9
5.1
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
16.8
16.9
% Ch
(8.9)
1.4
U.S.
781.9
788.0
% Ch
9.6
3.1
17.1
4.4
793.9
3.0
17.3
4.5
800.8
3.5
17.6
6.5
818.9
9.3
17.6
2.1
825.0
3.0
17.8
4.1
831.0
2.9
18.0
4.2
838.1
3.4
18.3
6.3
856.8
9.3
18.4
2.6
864.3
3.5
18.6
3.7
870.1
2.7
18.8
4.1
877.0
3.2
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
(3.2)
% Ch
3.3
(3.2)
2.5
(3.2)
3.5
(3.3)
3.7
(3.3)
3.4
(3.3)
3.2
(3.3)
3.1
(3.4)
3.2
(3.4)
3.2
(3.4)
3.4
(3.5)
2.7
(3.5)
3.0
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
0.2
% Ch
996.7
0.2
(0.8)
0.2
(0.9)
0.2
(1.1)
0.2
(1.2)
0.2
(1.2)
0.2
(1.3)
0.2
(1.4)
0.2
(1.3)
0.2
(1.6)
0.2
(1.8)
0.2
(2.0)
72
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2009:1
2009:2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
1,643.6
1,613.8
% Ch
(10.0)
(7.1)
U.S.
132.8
130.9
% Ch
(6.6)
(5.5)
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
1,342.9
1,314.5
% Ch
(12.1)
(8.2)
U.S.
110.2
108.3
% Ch
(7.9)
(6.8)
Natural Resources and Mining
Oregon
7.4
6.8
% Ch
(42.4)
(26.1)
U.S.
0.7
0.7
% Ch
(13.8)
(24.2)
Construction
Oregon
79.9
74.5
% Ch
(27.8)
(24.2)
U.S.
6.4
6.1
% Ch
(21.1)
(20.0)
Manufacturing
Oregon
174.9
167.5
% Ch
(24.6)
(15.9)
U.S.
12.4
11.9
% Ch
(17.8)
(15.4)
Durable Manufacturing
Oregon
124.8
118.3
% Ch
(29.0)
(19.4)
U.S.
7.7
7.3
% Ch
(21.1)
(19.3)
Wood Products
Oregon
22.2
21.1
% Ch
(35.2)
(18.6)
U.S.
0.4
0.4
% Ch
(33.5)
(20.5)
M etal and M achinery
Oregon
34.7
32.1
% Ch
(27.8)
(26.8)
U.S.
2.9
2.7
% Ch
(21.6)
(23.2)
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
36.3
35.4
% Ch
(12.1)
(9.2)
U.S.
1.2
1.1
% Ch
(11.4)
(13.9)
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
10.8
10.1
% Ch
(58.6)
(24.0)
U.S.
1.4
1.3
% Ch
(26.1)
(19.4)
Other Durables
Oregon
20.8
19.6
% Ch
(28.5)
(21.9)
U.S.
2.2
2.1
% Ch
(21.3)
(16.6)
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon
50.1
49.2
% Ch
(12.1)
(6.8)
U.S.
4.7
4.6
% Ch
(12.0)
(8.8)
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
23.2
23.1
% Ch
(7.4)
(0.4)
U.S.
1.5
1.5
% Ch
(4.8)
(0.4)
Other Nondurable
Oregon
26.9
26.1
% Ch
(15.8)
(12.0)
U.S.
3.2
3.1
% Ch
(14.8)
(12.2)
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Oregon
319.2
313.0
% Ch
(10.3)
(7.6)
U.S.
25.3
25.0
% Ch
(7.4)
(5.8)
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
1,601.3
(3.1)
129.9
(3.0)
1,593.1
(2.0)
129.4
(1.5)
1,593.2
0.0
129.3
(0.4)
1,603.6
2.6
130.0
2.0
1,601.8
(0.4)
129.9
(0.1)
1,609.2
1.9
130.2
0.9
1,617.3
2.0
130.7
1.4
1,619.3
0.5
131.2
1.7
1,621.7
0.6
131.5
0.9
1,624.9
0.8
132.0
1.4
1,301.3
(3.9)
107.4
(3.3)
1,294.9
(2.0)
106.9
(1.8)
1,294.8
(0.0)
106.8
(0.4)
1,301.2
2.0
107.2
1.4
1,302.2
0.3
107.5
1.1
1,310.6
2.6
108.0
1.7
1,318.8
2.5
108.5
1.9
1,323.0
1.3
109.1
2.3
1,328.3
1.6
109.5
1.4
1,331.6
1.0
110.0
1.8
6.6
(14.3)
0.7
(14.3)
6.5
(4.3)
0.7
(5.1)
6.6
8.0
0.7
8.3
6.7
6.0
0.7
12.6
6.8
3.6
0.7
11.2
6.7
(8.0)
0.7
10.3
6.8
7.6
0.7
7.3
6.9
7.6
0.8
18.3
6.9
2.4
0.8
11.8
7.1
9.9
0.8
8.4
72.1
(12.4)
5.8
(14.6)
69.8
(12.1)
5.7
(10.7)
67.9
(10.4)
5.6
(8.7)
67.6
(2.0)
5.5
(2.1)
67.6
(0.0)
5.5
(2.2)
67.5
(0.5)
5.5
(0.7)
67.7
1.4
5.5
(0.6)
68.7
6.1
5.5
1.1
68.5
(1.3)
5.5
1.1
69.5
5.9
5.5
1.2
164.0
(8.1)
11.6
(8.3)
162.4
(3.8)
11.5
(4.2)
162.9
1.1
11.5
(1.2)
164.0
2.8
11.5
2.3
163.6
(1.0)
11.6
1.0
164.9
3.3
11.6
0.2
166.9
4.9
11.7
3.4
168.3
3.4
11.7
2.3
168.7
1.1
11.8
1.4
169.3
1.3
11.8
0.7
115.0
(10.6)
7.1
(10.2)
113.6
(4.9)
7.0
(5.2)
114.1
1.9
7.0
(0.9)
115.0
3.0
7.1
3.4
114.9
(0.1)
7.1
2.0
115.6
2.3
7.1
0.9
117.5
6.7
7.2
5.4
118.8
4.6
7.3
3.5
119.2
1.2
7.3
2.2
119.4
0.9
7.3
1.9
20.5
(10.9)
0.4
(11.4)
20.2
(5.2)
0.3
(3.2)
20.1
(2.0)
0.3
(4.8)
20.3
4.7
0.3
4.0
19.9
(8.4)
0.3
(5.6)
19.6
(4.8)
0.3
(4.6)
19.7
0.8
0.3
4.9
19.3
(6.4)
0.3
(5.6)
19.1
(5.2)
0.3
(7.4)
19.1
0.9
0.3
1.8
30.7
(16.1)
2.6
(12.9)
30.3
(6.0)
2.6
(5.0)
30.4
2.2
2.6
0.3
31.0
7.6
2.6
6.6
31.4
4.8
2.7
4.8
31.9
6.9
2.7
3.6
32.7
10.7
2.7
8.1
33.3
6.7
2.8
7.3
33.6
4.4
2.8
3.6
33.6
0.3
2.8
3.6
35.1
(3.6)
1.1
(10.4)
34.9
(2.6)
1.1
(5.0)
35.0
1.0
1.1
(1.9)
34.9
(1.1)
1.1
(0.2)
34.9
0.9
1.1
0.4
35.1
2.3
1.1
0.2
35.8
7.8
1.1
2.2
36.4
6.4
1.1
1.9
36.8
4.6
1.1
1.7
36.8
0.5
1.1
(1.0)
10.0
(5.7)
1.3
(4.1)
9.9
(0.9)
1.3
(3.6)
10.1
8.1
1.3
1.7
10.2
4.2
1.3
4.1
10.2
(2.7)
1.3
3.4
10.3
5.1
1.3
(1.5)
10.7
17.0
1.4
7.1
10.9
8.6
1.4
3.7
10.9
(0.4)
1.4
3.9
11.0
2.4
1.4
5.8
18.8
(15.5)
2.1
(10.6)
18.3
(9.3)
2.0
(7.2)
18.5
4.3
2.0
(2.7)
18.5
0.9
2.0
1.1
18.6
1.1
2.0
(1.4)
18.6
0.6
2.0
(0.6)
18.6
(1.2)
2.0
2.6
18.9
7.3
2.0
4.0
18.7
(3.1)
2.0
3.7
18.8
1.8
2.1
1.2
49.0
(2.0)
4.5
(5.1)
48.8
(1.1)
4.5
(2.6)
48.7
(0.8)
4.5
(1.6)
49.0
2.4
4.5
0.5
48.6
(3.1)
4.5
(0.6)
49.3
5.9
4.5
(0.8)
49.4
0.7
4.5
0.4
49.5
0.5
4.5
0.4
49.6
0.7
4.5
0.2
49.9
2.4
4.5
(1.3)
23.4
4.3
1.5
0.1
23.4
0.3
1.5
(0.6)
23.6
3.4
1.4
(2.4)
23.9
5.7
1.5
1.9
23.6
(5.9)
1.5
0.5
24.2
10.5
1.5
(1.0)
24.2
0.9
1.5
2.5
24.2
(0.3)
1.5
0.4
24.2
(0.4)
1.5
(1.2)
24.4
4.3
1.4
(2.4)
25.6
(7.3)
3.1
(7.4)
25.4
(2.4)
3.0
(3.8)
25.1
(4.5)
3.0
(1.4)
25.1
(0.5)
3.0
0.0
25.1
(0.3)
3.0
(1.1)
25.2
1.7
3.0
(1.5)
25.2
0.5
3.0
(1.0)
25.3
1.3
3.0
1.9
25.4
1.7
3.0
(0.1)
25.4
0.6
3.0
(1.1)
309.6
(4.2)
24.7
(3.2)
307.1
(3.2)
24.6
(2.5)
307.2
0.1
24.6
(0.7)
308.1
1.2
24.6
0.7
73
308.6
0.6
24.7
0.9
310.3
2.2
24.8
1.7
311.5
1.5
24.9
1.8
312.5
1.3
25.0
2.3
312.8
0.3
25.1
1.0
313.1
0.5
25.1
1.3
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2012:1
2012:2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
1,635.6
1,638.1
% Ch
2.7
0.6
U.S.
132.7
133.0
% Ch
2.1
1.0
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
1,343.5
1,347.9
% Ch
3.6
1.3
U.S.
110.7
111.0
% Ch
2.6
1.3
Natural Resources and Mining
Oregon
7.3
7.3
% Ch
13.0
(1.0)
U.S.
0.8
0.8
% Ch
9.8
1.6
Construction
Oregon
70.9
71.6
% Ch
8.2
3.7
U.S.
5.6
5.5
% Ch
2.2
(2.5)
Manufacturing
Oregon
170.4
171.4
% Ch
2.8
2.4
U.S.
11.9
12.0
% Ch
3.6
1.9
Durable Manufacturing
Oregon
120.4
121.1
% Ch
3.2
2.6
U.S.
7.4
7.5
% Ch
5.1
2.7
Wood Products
Oregon
19.4
19.6
% Ch
6.6
3.4
U.S.
0.3
0.3
% Ch
2.6
(2.3)
M etal and M achinery
Oregon
34.3
34.8
% Ch
7.7
6.1
U.S.
2.9
2.9
% Ch
6.8
4.3
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
36.7
37.0
% Ch
(1.5)
3.5
U.S.
1.1
1.1
% Ch
0.0
0.6
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
10.9
10.8
% Ch
(3.1)
(3.7)
U.S.
1.4
1.5
% Ch
7.6
5.6
Other Durables
Oregon
19.1
19.0
% Ch
5.3
(2.4)
U.S.
2.1
2.1
% Ch
4.2
12.2
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon
50.1
50.3
% Ch
1.7
1.8
U.S.
4.5
4.5
% Ch
1.3
0.8
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
24.8
24.9
% Ch
5.3
1.9
U.S.
1.5
1.5
% Ch
0.6
2.2
Other Nondurable
Oregon
25.3
25.4
% Ch
(1.7)
1.7
U.S.
3.0
3.0
% Ch
0.3
0.6
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Oregon
314.6
315.7
% Ch
1.8
1.4
U.S.
25.2
25.3
% Ch
1.6
1.0
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2013:3
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
1,640.2
0.5
133.3
1.0
1,648.6
2.1
133.8
1.3
1,657.7
2.2
134.2
1.4
1,667.2
2.3
134.7
1.4
1,674.7
1.8
135.1
1.3
1,682.0
1.8
135.5
1.2
1,689.7
1.8
136.0
1.4
1,697.7
1.9
136.5
1.4
1,706.6
2.1
137.1
1.7
1,716.3
2.3
137.7
1.8
1,351.5
1.1
111.4
1.3
1,359.6
2.4
111.9
1.7
1,368.4
2.6
112.4
1.8
1,377.5
2.7
112.8
1.7
1,384.8
2.1
113.3
1.6
1,391.8
2.0
113.7
1.5
1,399.1
2.1
114.2
1.6
1,406.5
2.1
114.6
1.7
1,414.9
2.4
115.2
1.9
1,424.2
2.6
115.8
2.1
7.4
4.5
0.8
(5.1)
7.4
1.2
0.8
(9.4)
7.4
1.2
0.8
(8.3)
7.5
1.6
0.8
(5.8)
7.5
0.8
0.8
(1.6)
7.5
1.0
0.8
(0.2)
7.5
0.4
0.8
(1.0)
7.6
2.3
0.8
1.2
7.6
1.8
0.8
0.9
7.6
1.5
0.8
0.1
72.0
2.7
5.5
1.0
73.1
5.9
5.6
1.6
73.4
1.5
5.6
1.9
73.6
1.5
5.6
1.6
73.8
0.7
5.6
2.9
74.1
1.8
5.7
5.4
74.9
4.5
5.8
6.2
75.8
5.0
5.9
7.7
76.9
5.7
6.1
9.6
77.8
4.7
6.2
11.0
171.8
0.9
12.0
0.9
172.3
1.0
12.0
(0.7)
172.7
1.0
12.0
(0.1)
173.4
1.7
12.1
3.9
174.4
2.2
12.1
2.5
175.3
2.1
12.2
2.3
176.3
2.3
12.3
2.5
176.8
1.1
12.4
2.1
177.6
1.9
12.4
2.1
178.8
2.8
12.5
2.3
122.1
3.1
7.5
1.4
122.4
1.1
7.5
(0.8)
122.9
1.6
7.5
0.8
123.6
2.4
7.6
6.2
124.4
2.5
7.7
4.2
125.3
2.8
7.8
3.9
126.1
2.7
7.9
4.4
126.5
1.2
7.9
3.7
127.2
2.4
8.0
3.8
128.4
3.7
8.1
4.1
19.8
3.2
0.3
12.6
19.9
3.2
0.4
10.1
20.3
9.0
0.4
11.5
20.8
9.8
0.4
17.5
21.3
9.0
0.4
18.4
21.5
5.0
0.4
19.1
21.7
3.4
0.4
20.0
22.0
4.4
0.4
19.9
22.3
7.3
0.5
23.4
22.9
9.6
0.5
23.1
35.2
4.5
2.9
1.9
35.5
3.5
2.9
(0.1)
35.7
2.4
2.9
(0.4)
35.7
0.6
3.0
6.1
35.8
1.3
3.0
4.3
35.9
0.4
3.0
3.6
35.8
(0.4)
3.1
3.7
35.8
(0.7)
3.1
2.9
35.7
(0.7)
3.1
2.6
35.7
(0.3)
3.1
3.2
37.3
2.8
1.1
0.1
37.4
1.5
1.1
(2.4)
37.2
(1.7)
1.1
0.7
37.1
(1.3)
1.1
(0.3)
37.0
(1.1)
1.1
(3.5)
37.3
2.7
1.1
(0.5)
37.6
3.6
1.1
1.9
37.5
(0.8)
1.1
1.7
37.7
1.3
1.1
2.6
37.9
3.1
1.1
2.9
10.8
(1.3)
1.5
(0.5)
10.7
(2.1)
1.4
(2.7)
10.7
(1.0)
1.5
2.9
10.7
1.0
1.5
10.9
10.8
5.1
1.5
7.6
11.0
6.9
1.5
6.0
11.2
5.3
1.6
6.2
11.3
5.1
1.6
5.0
11.4
4.5
1.6
4.3
11.6
6.3
1.6
4.2
19.1
3.8
2.2
9.5
18.9
(4.0)
2.2
8.2
19.0
0.6
2.3
6.6
19.2
6.0
2.3
3.5
19.4
4.0
2.3
2.4
19.6
2.7
2.3
2.2
19.8
4.4
2.3
1.3
19.9
2.8
2.3
1.0
20.1
3.8
2.3
0.8
20.3
4.0
2.3
0.5
49.7
(4.4)
4.5
0.1
49.8
0.7
4.5
(0.5)
49.8
(0.6)
4.5
(1.6)
49.8
0.2
4.5
0.0
50.0
1.4
4.4
(0.2)
50.0
0.5
4.4
(0.4)
50.2
1.4
4.4
(0.7)
50.3
0.8
4.4
(0.8)
50.4
0.6
4.4
(1.0)
50.4
0.6
4.4
(1.0)
24.3
(9.0)
1.5
1.5
24.4
1.1
1.5
1.1
24.4
0.1
1.5
0.0
24.4
0.5
1.5
1.8
24.5
1.3
1.5
1.6
24.5
1.2
1.5
1.9
24.6
1.2
1.5
1.5
24.7
1.1
1.5
0.7
24.7
0.8
1.5
0.3
24.8
0.7
1.5
0.6
25.4
0.2
3.0
0.2
25.5
0.4
3.0
(0.4)
25.4
(1.3)
3.0
(0.2)
25.4
(0.1)
3.0
(1.0)
25.5
1.6
3.0
(1.3)
25.5
(0.1)
3.0
(1.2)
25.6
1.5
3.0
(1.9)
25.6
0.4
2.9
(1.6)
25.6
0.5
2.9
(1.7)
25.7
0.5
2.9
(1.5)
315.8
0.2
25.4
1.5
317.8
2.6
25.5
2.2
319.9
2.6
25.6
1.6
321.6
2.2
25.7
1.0
74
323.0
1.8
25.8
1.5
324.2
1.5
25.8
0.7
324.7
0.6
25.8
(0.3)
325.2
0.7
25.9
0.4
326.2
1.2
25.9
0.9
327.4
1.5
26.0
1.1
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2015:1
2015:2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
1,725.1
1,733.9
% Ch
2.1
2.1
U.S.
138.2
138.8
% Ch
1.7
1.6
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
1,432.4
1,440.6
% Ch
2.3
2.3
U.S.
116.3
116.8
% Ch
1.9
1.8
Natural Resources and Mining
Oregon
7.6
7.6
% Ch
0.6
(0.1)
U.S.
0.8
0.8
% Ch
(1.0)
(2.6)
Construction
Oregon
78.9
80.3
% Ch
6.0
7.5
U.S.
6.4
6.6
% Ch
11.9
11.8
Manufacturing
Oregon
179.9
180.9
% Ch
2.4
2.2
U.S.
12.5
12.6
% Ch
2.0
1.6
Durable Manufacturing
Oregon
129.4
130.3
% Ch
3.2
2.8
U.S.
8.1
8.2
% Ch
3.4
3.1
Wood Products
Oregon
23.3
23.6
% Ch
7.9
5.3
U.S.
0.5
0.5
% Ch
15.8
12.0
M etal and M achinery
Oregon
35.7
35.7
% Ch
(0.1)
0.3
U.S.
3.1
3.2
% Ch
2.7
2.4
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
38.2
38.5
% Ch
2.7
2.9
U.S.
1.1
1.1
% Ch
2.9
2.1
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
11.8
11.9
% Ch
6.3
4.9
U.S.
1.6
1.6
% Ch
3.6
4.6
Other Durables
Oregon
20.4
20.6
% Ch
2.9
3.3
U.S.
2.3
2.3
% Ch
1.3
0.6
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon
50.5
50.6
% Ch
0.6
0.7
U.S.
4.4
4.4
% Ch
(0.7)
(1.1)
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
24.8
24.9
% Ch
1.1
0.7
U.S.
1.5
1.5
% Ch
0.5
(0.1)
Other Nondurable
Oregon
25.7
25.7
% Ch
0.1
0.6
U.S.
2.9
2.9
% Ch
(1.1)
(1.3)
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Oregon
328.5
330.0
% Ch
1.3
1.8
U.S.
26.1
26.1
% Ch
0.9
1.2
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
2017:3
2017:4
1,743.1
2.1
139.4
1.7
1,751.4
1.9
140.0
1.8
1,759.8
1.9
140.6
1.7
1,768.6
2.0
141.2
1.7
1,777.3
2.0
141.8
1.7
1,786.1
2.0
142.3
1.6
1,794.7
1.9
142.8
1.3
1,802.7
1.8
143.3
1.3
1,810.5
1.7
143.7
1.2
1,818.4
1.8
144.1
1.2
1,449.3
2.4
117.4
1.8
1,457.1
2.2
117.9
2.0
1,465.0
2.2
118.5
1.9
1,473.2
2.3
119.0
1.9
1,481.3
2.2
119.6
1.8
1,489.4
2.2
120.1
1.8
1,497.2
2.1
120.5
1.4
1,504.5
2.0
120.9
1.4
1,511.6
1.9
121.3
1.3
1,518.7
1.9
121.7
1.2
7.6
(0.1)
0.8
(2.5)
7.6
(0.2)
0.8
(2.4)
7.6
(1.1)
0.8
(2.1)
7.6
(0.4)
0.8
(1.9)
7.6
(0.6)
0.7
(1.5)
7.6
(0.9)
0.7
(2.7)
7.6
(0.5)
0.7
(3.0)
7.5
(1.2)
0.7
(3.9)
7.5
(1.2)
0.7
(3.6)
7.5
(1.2)
0.7
(3.7)
81.6
6.6
6.7
11.1
82.6
5.0
6.9
10.5
83.8
5.6
7.1
9.5
84.6
4.0
7.2
8.4
85.3
3.5
7.3
7.2
86.2
4.1
7.5
6.3
86.9
3.4
7.6
6.0
87.5
2.7
7.7
5.6
88.2
3.2
7.8
4.7
89.0
3.6
7.8
4.2
181.9
2.2
12.6
1.3
182.8
2.0
12.7
1.8
183.5
1.6
12.7
1.0
184.4
2.0
12.7
0.6
185.3
1.8
12.8
0.6
186.2
2.0
12.8
0.4
187.3
2.3
12.8
0.4
188.1
1.8
12.8
(0.0)
189.2
2.3
12.8
0.1
190.2
2.2
12.8
0.2
131.3
3.0
8.3
2.5
132.1
2.6
8.3
2.9
132.8
2.1
8.4
1.8
133.7
2.6
8.4
1.0
134.5
2.5
8.4
1.3
135.4
2.7
8.4
0.9
136.3
2.9
8.4
0.6
137.1
2.2
8.4
(0.0)
138.1
2.9
8.4
0.1
138.9
2.5
8.4
0.2
23.9
5.5
0.5
9.0
24.2
5.0
0.6
6.7
24.4
2.3
0.6
3.2
24.5
2.5
0.6
2.5
24.7
3.5
0.6
2.8
25.0
4.7
0.6
2.4
25.2
2.6
0.6
3.4
25.3
1.4
0.6
3.1
25.5
3.2
0.6
3.5
25.5
1.5
0.6
3.0
35.8
1.0
3.2
2.0
35.9
1.2
3.2
3.3
36.0
1.5
3.2
2.3
36.3
2.4
3.2
1.6
36.5
2.4
3.2
2.1
36.7
2.4
3.3
1.8
37.0
2.8
3.3
0.6
37.2
2.9
3.3
(0.1)
37.5
2.9
3.3
0.0
37.8
3.0
3.3
0.1
38.8
3.3
1.1
0.3
39.0
1.8
1.1
0.7
39.2
2.4
1.1
1.6
39.5
3.2
1.1
1.7
39.6
1.4
1.2
2.0
39.8
1.9
1.2
1.6
40.2
3.6
1.2
3.5
40.4
2.5
1.2
3.1
40.8
3.3
1.2
2.8
41.1
3.0
1.2
2.6
12.0
3.4
1.7
4.7
12.1
2.2
1.7
4.2
12.1
1.8
1.7
1.8
12.2
2.2
1.7
0.1
12.3
3.4
1.7
(0.6)
12.4
1.8
1.7
(1.2)
12.4
0.9
1.7
(2.2)
12.4
0.7
1.7
(3.2)
12.4
0.6
1.6
(3.2)
12.5
0.5
1.6
(2.9)
20.8
2.9
2.3
0.9
21.0
3.9
2.3
(0.1)
21.1
2.6
2.3
0.5
21.2
2.0
2.4
0.5
21.3
2.9
2.4
0.0
21.5
2.6
2.4
0.3
21.7
3.1
2.4
0.8
21.8
2.2
2.4
0.8
21.9
3.0
2.4
0.9
22.1
3.2
2.4
1.2
50.6
0.0
4.4
(0.9)
50.6
0.3
4.4
(0.3)
50.7
0.4
4.4
(0.3)
50.8
0.5
4.4
(0.2)
50.8
0.2
4.4
(0.5)
50.8
0.3
4.4
(0.6)
50.9
0.8
4.4
(0.0)
51.0
0.9
4.4
0.0
51.1
0.9
4.4
(0.0)
51.3
1.1
4.4
0.2
24.9
0.3
1.5
0.3
24.9
0.5
1.5
1.3
25.0
0.5
1.5
1.4
25.0
0.4
1.5
1.4
25.0
0.1
1.5
1.0
25.0
0.5
1.5
0.8
25.1
0.5
1.5
1.1
25.1
0.7
1.5
1.3
25.2
0.7
1.5
1.2
25.2
1.2
1.5
1.5
25.7
(0.2)
2.9
(1.3)
25.7
0.1
2.9
(1.1)
25.7
0.4
2.9
(1.4)
25.8
0.5
2.9
(1.2)
25.8
0.3
2.9
(1.0)
25.8
0.2
2.9
(1.0)
25.9
1.0
2.9
(0.5)
25.9
1.0
2.8
(0.5)
26.0
1.0
2.8
(0.5)
26.1
1.1
2.8
(0.3)
331.6
2.0
26.2
1.2
333.4
2.1
26.3
1.3
335.2
2.2
26.4
1.4
337.2
2.4
26.5
1.5
75
339.2
2.3
26.6
1.5
341.0
2.2
26.7
1.4
342.7
2.0
26.7
1.0
344.3
1.9
26.8
0.8
345.6
1.5
26.8
0.7
346.8
1.4
26.9
0.6
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2018:1
2018:2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
1,826.0
1,833.3
% Ch
1.7
1.6
U.S.
144.5
144.8
% Ch
1.0
1.0
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
1,525.5
1,532.1
% Ch
1.8
1.7
U.S.
122.0
122.3
% Ch
1.0
1.0
Natural Resources and Mining
Oregon
7.5
7.5
% Ch
(1.2)
0.1
U.S.
0.7
0.7
% Ch
(3.1)
(3.2)
Construction
Oregon
89.8
90.4
% Ch
3.6
2.8
U.S.
7.9
8.0
% Ch
3.6
3.2
Manufacturing
Oregon
191.1
191.8
% Ch
1.8
1.5
U.S.
12.8
12.8
% Ch
(0.1)
0.5
Durable Manufacturing
Oregon
139.6
140.2
% Ch
2.0
1.8
U.S.
8.4
8.5
% Ch
(0.3)
0.7
Wood Products
Oregon
25.6
25.5
% Ch
0.1
(0.9)
U.S.
0.6
0.6
% Ch
1.6
1.5
M etal and M achinery
Oregon
38.0
38.2
% Ch
2.8
2.3
U.S.
3.3
3.3
% Ch
(0.3)
0.8
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
41.3
41.5
% Ch
2.3
2.4
U.S.
1.2
1.2
% Ch
1.9
2.3
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
12.5
12.5
% Ch
2.2
(0.2)
U.S.
1.6
1.6
% Ch
(3.0)
(1.6)
Other Durables
Oregon
22.2
22.4
% Ch
2.4
3.8
U.S.
2.4
2.4
% Ch
0.8
1.2
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon
51.4
51.5
% Ch
1.1
0.9
U.S.
4.4
4.4
% Ch
0.3
0.2
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
25.3
25.3
% Ch
0.7
0.7
U.S.
1.5
1.6
% Ch
1.6
1.5
Other Nondurable
Oregon
26.1
26.2
% Ch
1.4
1.2
U.S.
2.8
2.8
% Ch
(0.4)
(0.6)
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Oregon
348.0
349.1
% Ch
1.4
1.3
U.S.
26.9
26.9
% Ch
0.5
0.3
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
1,840.0
1.5
145.2
0.9
1,847.0
1.5
145.5
0.9
1,853.4
1.4
145.8
0.8
1,859.1
1.2
146.0
0.8
1,864.5
1.2
146.3
0.8
1,869.8
1.2
146.6
0.8
1,875.6
1.2
146.9
0.8
1,885.6
2.1
147.5
1.8
1,887.8
0.5
147.6
0.1
1,891.2
0.7
147.7
0.3
1,538.1
1.6
122.6
0.9
1,544.4
1.7
122.9
0.9
1,550.0
1.5
123.1
0.8
1,554.9
1.3
123.3
0.8
1,559.6
1.2
123.6
0.8
1,564.2
1.2
123.8
0.8
1,568.7
1.2
124.0
0.7
1,574.1
1.4
124.3
0.8
1,578.1
1.0
124.5
0.7
1,582.4
1.1
124.7
0.7
7.5
(0.1)
0.7
(2.9)
7.4
(0.7)
0.7
(3.2)
7.4
(0.9)
0.7
(2.7)
7.4
(1.4)
0.7
(3.8)
7.4
(1.0)
0.7
(3.3)
7.4
(1.2)
0.7
(3.5)
7.4
(0.6)
0.7
(1.2)
7.3
(0.6)
0.7
(0.9)
7.3
(0.6)
0.7
(0.9)
7.3
(0.6)
0.7
(0.9)
90.9
2.0
8.0
2.8
91.4
2.6
8.1
2.3
92.0
2.5
8.1
2.0
92.3
1.3
8.2
2.0
92.6
1.3
8.2
1.9
93.0
1.7
8.2
1.8
93.4
2.0
8.3
1.7
93.9
2.2
8.3
1.8
94.3
1.7
8.3
1.6
94.7
1.6
8.4
1.9
192.5
1.6
12.8
0.1
193.3
1.6
12.8
0.6
193.6
0.7
12.8
(0.6)
194.1
1.0
12.8
(0.1)
194.6
0.9
12.8
(0.4)
195.0
1.0
12.8
(0.1)
195.3
0.6
12.8
(0.5)
195.7
0.7
12.8
(0.1)
196.0
0.6
12.8
(0.4)
196.4
0.7
12.8
(0.2)
140.9
1.9
8.5
0.2
141.6
2.0
8.5
1.0
141.9
0.7
8.5
(0.6)
142.2
1.1
8.5
0.2
142.6
1.0
8.5
(0.1)
143.0
1.1
8.5
0.2
143.2
0.6
8.5
(0.6)
143.5
0.8
8.5
(0.0)
143.7
0.7
8.4
(0.4)
144.0
0.8
8.4
0.0
25.5
0.3
0.6
0.1
25.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
25.5
(1.2)
0.6
(1.5)
25.4
(0.4)
0.6
(0.5)
25.5
0.5
0.6
(0.6)
25.5
0.5
0.6
(0.1)
25.4
(0.9)
0.6
(1.8)
25.4
(1.0)
0.6
(1.1)
25.4
(0.4)
0.6
(2.0)
25.4
0.3
0.6
(2.0)
38.4
1.8
3.3
0.3
38.5
1.3
3.3
1.1
38.6
0.9
3.3
(0.0)
38.7
0.5
3.3
0.9
38.7
0.3
3.3
0.5
38.7
0.1
3.3
0.9
38.7
0.1
3.3
0.0
38.7
(0.0)
3.3
0.7
38.7
(0.1)
3.3
0.4
38.7
(0.1)
3.3
0.9
41.9
3.2
1.2
2.1
42.2
3.4
1.2
2.4
42.3
1.1
1.2
0.4
42.6
2.6
1.2
1.7
42.9
2.4
1.2
1.6
43.1
2.4
1.2
1.6
43.3
1.9
1.2
1.1
43.5
2.0
1.2
1.2
43.8
2.0
1.2
1.2
43.9
1.2
1.2
0.6
12.5
(0.1)
1.6
(1.7)
12.5
(1.0)
1.6
(0.5)
12.5
0.5
1.6
(2.9)
12.4
(1.8)
1.6
(2.2)
12.4
(1.1)
1.6
(2.4)
12.4
(1.5)
1.6
(1.9)
12.3
(1.0)
1.6
(3.4)
12.3
(0.5)
1.5
(2.5)
12.3
(1.7)
1.5
(2.9)
12.2
(0.8)
1.5
(2.1)
22.6
3.1
2.4
0.8
22.8
3.9
2.4
1.2
22.9
2.0
2.4
0.6
23.1
2.3
2.4
0.5
23.2
1.5
2.4
(0.0)
23.3
2.2
2.4
0.3
23.4
1.6
2.4
0.1
23.5
2.6
2.4
0.3
23.7
2.0
2.4
0.0
23.8
2.7
2.4
0.4
51.6
0.6
4.4
(0.1)
51.7
0.6
4.4
(0.1)
51.8
0.6
4.4
(0.5)
51.9
0.8
4.3
(0.6)
52.0
0.7
4.3
(0.8)
52.1
0.8
4.3
(0.8)
52.2
0.6
4.3
(0.3)
52.2
0.7
4.3
(0.4)
52.3
0.5
4.3
(0.5)
52.4
0.5
4.3
(0.5)
25.3
0.3
1.6
1.1
25.4
0.4
1.6
0.9
25.4
0.4
1.6
0.1
25.5
1.1
1.6
0.3
25.5
0.9
1.6
(0.1)
25.6
1.1
1.6
0.0
25.6
0.7
1.6
0.8
25.7
0.7
1.6
0.7
25.7
0.4
1.6
0.5
25.7
0.5
1.6
0.5
26.3
0.9
2.8
(0.6)
26.3
0.9
2.8
(0.6)
26.4
0.7
2.8
(0.9)
26.4
0.5
2.8
(1.2)
26.5
0.4
2.8
(1.2)
26.5
0.4
2.8
(1.1)
26.5
0.6
2.8
(1.2)
26.6
0.6
2.8
(1.3)
26.6
0.5
2.8
(1.3)
26.6
0.5
2.8
(1.2)
353.3
0.0
27.0
(0.2)
353.3
(0.0)
27.0
(0.1)
350.2
1.2
26.9
0.1
351.2
1.2
27.0
0.3
352.0
0.9
27.0
0.3
352.2
0.3
27.0
0.1
76
352.6
0.4
27.0
0.1
352.8
0.3
27.0
0.1
352.9
0.1
27.0
(0.0)
353.2
0.4
27.0
0.2
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2009:2
2009:3
2009:1
Retail Trade
Oregon
186.5
183.6
182.2
(2.8)
% Ch
(9.8)
(6.1)
14.5
14.5
U.S.
14.7
% Ch
(7.4)
(4.3)
(2.3)
Wholesale Trade
74.4
75.8
77.5
Oregon
% Ch
(10.1)
(8.4)
(7.2)
5.5
5.6
U.S.
5.7
% Ch
(8.0)
(7.8)
(4.6)
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oregon
55.2
53.6
52.9
(11.1)
(4.6)
(12.2)
% Ch
U.S.
4.9
4.8
4.8
(4.3)
(7.7)
(6.5)
% Ch
Information
Oregon
33.7
33.4
32.8
(6.7)
(3.2)
(8.4)
% Ch
U.S.
2.9
2.8
2.8
% Ch
(7.3)
(8.7)
(5.5)
Financial Activities
94.9
95.6
Oregon
97.4
(2.8)
% Ch
(8.3)
(7.0)
7.7
U.S.
7.9
7.8
% Ch
(6.7)
(6.1)
(2.9)
Professional and Business S ervices
179.8
177.3
Oregon
185.1
(5.6)
(11.0)
% Ch
(11.9)
16.4
16.5
U.S.
16.9
(3.2)
(8.6)
% Ch
(10.0)
Education and Health S ervices
224.4
Oregon
221.8
223.1
2.4
% Ch
(0.3)
2.4
U.S.
19.1
19.1
19.2
1.9
% Ch
1.9
1.2
Educational S ervices
30.2
30.5
31.0
Oregon
7.4
(1.6)
4.1
% Ch
3.1
3.1
U.S.
3.1
0.9
(0.6)
% Ch
3.1
Health Care and S ocial Assistance
192.6
193.4
Oregon
191.6
% Ch
(0.1)
2.2
1.6
16.0
16.1
16.1
U.S.
% Ch
1.7
1.5
2.1
Leisure and Hospitality
Oregon
163.1
162.1
165.2
(5.0)
(2.5)
% Ch
(9.3)
13.1
13.1
U.S.
13.2
(0.6)
(2.9)
% Ch
(3.8)
Other S ervices
Oregon
58.5
57.7
57.5
% Ch
(8.7)
(5.5)
(1.1)
U.S.
5.4
5.4
5.4
% Ch
(5.1)
(2.7)
(0.9)
Government
300.0
Oregon
300.6
299.3
% Ch
0.0
(1.8)
0.9
U.S.
22.6
22.6
22.5
% Ch
0.2
0.9
(1.9)
Federal Government
29.7
Oregon
30.1
30.5
% Ch
2.4
4.9
(9.8)
U.S.
2.8
2.9
2.8
% Ch
2.4
10.7
(5.5)
S tate Government, Oregon
State Total
78.1
78.0
77.8
% Ch
2.6
(0.7)
(0.9)
28.7
State Education
29.1
29.1
% Ch
4.0
0.0
(5.1)
Local Government, Oregon
Local Total
192.4
190.8
192.5
% Ch
(1.3)
(3.2)
3.4
Local Education
103.2
101.8
104.9
12.4
% Ch
(0.9)
(5.1)
2009:4
181.5
(1.7)
14.4
(2.4)
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
182.4
2.0
14.4
0.7
182.7
0.8
14.4
0.7
183.2
0.9
14.4
0.6
184.4
2.7
14.5
1.6
184.6
0.5
14.6
1.5
185.2
1.2
14.6
2.1
184.5
(1.3)
14.7
1.0
185.3
1.6
14.7
1.2
73.4
(5.5)
5.5
(3.3)
72.9
(2.5)
5.4
(3.1)
73.2
1.8
5.4
(0.4)
73.3
0.5
5.4
0.6
73.6
1.3
5.5
1.4
73.8
1.4
5.5
2.1
74.3
2.6
5.5
2.0
74.3
0.1
5.5
0.8
74.6
1.5
5.6
1.5
52.3
(4.9)
4.7
(2.0)
51.9
(2.7)
4.7
(2.2)
52.2
1.9
4.7
1.8
52.1
(0.4)
4.8
2.5
52.4
2.1
4.8
2.3
53.0
5.0
4.8
2.2
53.1
0.1
4.8
3.0
53.9
6.7
4.9
1.1
53.3
(4.8)
4.9
1.4
32.4
(4.7)
2.8
(2.7)
32.1
(4.0)
2.7
(3.3)
32.2
1.2
2.7
(3.4)
32.0
(2.3)
2.7
(1.0)
32.0
0.5
2.7
(1.6)
32.3
3.3
2.7
(2.2)
32.0
(3.8)
2.7
(0.6)
32.1
0.9
2.6
(4.0)
31.7
(4.9)
2.6
0.3
94.7
(0.9)
7.7
(1.6)
93.4
(5.4)
7.7
(1.5)
93.5
0.3
7.6
(0.5)
93.1
(1.7)
7.6
(0.2)
92.7
(1.7)
7.7
0.9
92.7
0.0
7.7
0.6
92.1
(2.7)
7.7
0.6
91.9
(1.0)
7.7
(0.3)
91.6
(1.2)
7.7
0.6
178.2
2.3
16.4
1.0
179.7
3.3
16.5
2.2
182.0
5.3
16.7
3.2
182.6
1.3
16.8
2.4
185.1
5.5
16.9
4.0
186.3
2.7
17.1
4.5
186.9
1.3
17.3
3.9
188.6
3.8
17.4
2.5
189.8
2.4
17.5
3.3
225.1
1.2
19.3
1.9
226.8
3.1
19.4
1.9
228.1
2.4
19.5
1.8
229.3
2.0
19.6
1.3
231.5
3.9
19.7
2.1
232.9
2.4
19.7
1.3
233.7
1.4
19.8
2.1
235.3
2.7
19.9
2.3
236.1
1.4
20.1
2.2
31.2
3.7
3.1
2.6
31.7
5.7
3.1
3.6
31.8
1.3
3.2
2.1
32.6
11.3
3.2
3.7
32.9
3.3
3.2
3.1
33.1
5.2
3.2
2.1
33.4
4.0
3.3
3.3
194.1
1.5
16.2
2.0
195.6
3.0
16.3
1.8
196.5
1.8
16.3
1.5
197.5
2.1
16.4
1.2
198.9
2.8
16.5
1.7
200.0
2.3
16.5
1.0
201.0
2.2
16.6
2.1
202.2
2.3
16.7
2.4
202.7
1.0
16.8
2.0
161.4
(1.5)
13.0
(2.7)
161.3
(0.3)
12.9
(1.3)
162.2
2.3
13.0
2.5
162.3
0.1
13.1
2.4
163.4
2.9
13.1
1.2
164.9
3.8
13.2
2.0
165.1
0.3
13.3
3.0
166.2
2.7
13.3
1.5
166.2
0.0
13.4
2.6
57.1
(2.9)
5.3
(2.5)
56.8
(2.1)
5.3
(0.1)
298.2
(2.3)
22.5
(0.0)
298.5
0.3
22.5
(0.4)
29.6
(0.6)
2.8
2.0
31.0
(0.9)
3.1
0.9
32.7
(3.0)
3.2
1.8
56.4
(2.4)
5.3
(0.0)
56.5
1.3
5.3
1.6
56.8
2.1
5.3
(1.0)
56.8
(0.4)
5.3
0.3
57.3
4.1
5.3
0.6
57.3
(0.4)
5.4
0.6
302.3
5.3
22.8
5.0
299.6
(3.5)
22.4
(5.9)
298.6
(1.4)
22.3
(2.6)
298.4
(0.2)
22.2
(1.0)
296.3
(2.8)
22.1
(1.4)
293.4
(3.9)
22.1
(1.6)
293.3
(0.1)
22.0
(0.8)
29.7
0.6
2.9
6.8
32.7
48.3
3.2
50.6
30.2
(27.2)
3.0
(27.3)
29.3
(11.4)
2.9
(11.3)
29.2
(2.1)
2.9
1.4
28.5
(9.4)
2.9
(1.3)
28.7
3.1
2.8
(2.7)
28.7
0.6
2.8
(1.1)
78.6
4.1
29.0
5.0
79.1
2.6
29.2
2.2
79.6
2.3
29.5
4.3
79.9
1.8
30.0
6.8
80.3
2.1
30.4
6.1
80.6
1.0
30.8
4.4
80.6
0.5
31.1
4.3
80.2
(2.0)
31.1
0.4
81.0
3.7
31.6
5.8
190.0
(5.0)
101.5
(12.1)
189.7
(0.7)
100.7
(3.0)
190.0
0.7
100.8
0.3
189.5
(1.1)
100.2
(2.4)
188.9
(1.2)
99.4
(3.3)
188.7
(0.4)
99.4
0.0
187.2
(3.1)
97.9
(5.8)
184.4
(5.8)
93.9
(15.2)
183.6
(1.9)
95.1
4.9
56.7
(0.5)
5.3
0.2
77
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2012:3
2012:1
2012:2
Retail Trade
186.8
Oregon
186.1
186.9
1.8
(0.3)
1.7
% Ch
14.8
14.8
14.7
U.S.
% Ch
0.7
0.4
1.3
Wholesale Trade
75.4
75.3
Oregon
75.0
0.6
1.7
2.1
% Ch
U.S.
5.6
5.6
5.6
1.7
2.1
2.4
% Ch
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oregon
53.5
53.5
53.6
(0.4)
1.0
% Ch
1.9
5.0
4.9
U.S.
4.9
% Ch
3.2
1.5
1.8
Information
32.3
32.2
Oregon
31.9
3.5
2.4
% Ch
2.9
U.S.
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.4
(0.5)
% Ch
(2.0)
Financial Activities
92.2
Oregon
91.6
91.8
2.2
0.7
0.1
% Ch
7.7
7.7
U.S.
7.7
0.4
% Ch
0.9
1.0
Professional and Business S ervices
194.8
Oregon
194.2
194.3
0.2
1.2
9.6
% Ch
17.7
17.8
17.9
U.S.
1.1
% Ch
4.8
1.9
Education and Health S ervices
237.9
237.8
Oregon
237.2
1.0
0.1
% Ch
1.8
20.4
20.3
U.S.
20.2
2.6
2.0
2.5
% Ch
Educational S ervices
33.4
34.0
34.3
Oregon
(9.6)
3.8
% Ch
6.9
3.3
3.3
U.S.
3.3
4.4
(0.8)
% Ch
3.4
Health Care and S ocial Assistance
204.4
203.2
203.5
Oregon
% Ch
1.0
0.6
1.9
17.1
16.9
17.0
U.S.
2.3
2.5
% Ch
2.3
Leisure and Hospitality
169.0
Oregon
167.7
168.2
1.9
1.2
% Ch
3.7
U.S.
13.5
13.6
13.6
1.9
% Ch
3.5
0.9
Other S ervices
58.2
Oregon
57.8
57.8
% Ch
3.6
(0.2)
2.8
5.4
5.4
U.S.
5.4
0.7
0.2
0.6
% Ch
Government
Oregon
292.0
290.2
288.7
% Ch
(1.7)
(2.5)
(2.1)
U.S.
22.0
22.0
21.9
% Ch
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.6)
Federal Government
27.7
27.6
Oregon
28.1
% Ch
(8.7)
(5.7)
(0.6)
U.S.
2.8
2.8
2.8
% Ch
(1.6)
(1.3)
(2.4)
S tate Government, Oregon
State Total
80.3
79.9
79.8
(3.4)
(2.0)
(0.2)
% Ch
31.8
State Education
31.4
31.6
% Ch
(1.9)
2.0
2.2
Local Government
Local Total
183.7
182.7
181.2
% Ch
0.2
(2.2)
(3.2)
Local Education
94.7
94.0
91.1
(1.3)
(3.0)
(12.0)
% Ch
2014:3
2014:4
190.3
(0.2)
14.9
(0.6)
190.7
0.7
14.9
0.1
191.2
1.1
14.9
0.3
77.8
1.7
5.8
1.5
78.1
1.7
5.8
1.3
78.5
2.0
5.8
1.6
78.9
2.2
5.9
1.9
56.1
2.9
5.1
2.6
56.5
2.4
5.2
2.0
56.8
2.2
5.2
2.3
57.0
1.7
5.2
2.6
57.3
1.8
5.3
2.8
32.9
(0.6)
2.7
3.7
33.2
2.5
2.7
1.0
33.4
3.0
2.7
2.4
33.6
2.1
2.8
1.9
33.7
0.9
2.8
0.9
33.8
1.2
2.8
1.3
94.7
4.3
7.8
0.7
95.2
2.0
7.8
1.1
95.6
1.6
7.8
0.7
95.9
1.1
7.8
(0.7)
96.2
1.4
7.8
(0.7)
96.5
1.3
7.8
(0.1)
96.8
1.1
7.8
(0.4)
197.9
4.0
18.2
4.7
199.9
4.1
18.4
3.6
201.3
3.0
18.5
2.2
202.8
3.0
18.6
2.2
204.6
3.6
18.7
3.1
207.4
5.6
19.0
5.1
210.4
5.9
19.2
5.9
213.6
6.2
19.5
5.7
240.2
2.2
20.5
0.7
241.7
2.4
20.5
0.5
243.0
2.3
20.6
1.1
244.4
2.2
20.6
1.0
245.9
2.5
20.8
2.8
247.1
1.9
20.8
1.2
248.6
2.5
20.9
0.8
250.2
2.5
20.9
1.1
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2013:3
187.8
2.2
14.9
2.1
188.8
2.1
14.9
1.1
189.7
1.8
14.9
0.2
190.2
1.2
15.0
0.7
190.6
0.8
14.9
(0.4)
190.4
(0.4)
14.9
(1.7)
75.8
2.2
5.7
1.9
76.3
2.4
5.7
1.8
76.6
1.7
5.7
1.3
77.0
2.4
5.7
2.1
77.5
2.3
5.8
1.9
54.2
4.2
5.0
2.7
54.8
4.8
5.0
3.1
55.3
4.1
5.1
3.2
55.7
2.8
5.1
3.0
32.6
2.8
2.6
2.7
32.8
3.0
2.7
2.6
33.0
2.2
2.7
3.9
92.8
2.5
7.7
0.8
93.7
4.1
7.8
1.2
196.0
2.3
18.0
3.2
239.0
1.8
20.5
1.2
33.3
(1.1)
3.3
(1.4)
33.3
(0.1)
3.3
(0.2)
33.3
(0.4)
3.3
0.3
33.3
0.1
3.3
(0.4)
2013:4
33.3
(0.1)
3.3
(1.0)
2014:1
33.3
(0.2)
3.3
(2.1)
2014:2
33.3
(0.1)
3.3
(2.8)
33.3
0.7
3.2
(3.2)
33.5
1.7
3.2
(3.6)
205.6
2.3
17.2
1.8
206.9
2.6
17.2
0.7
208.4
2.8
17.2
0.6
209.7
2.7
17.3
1.4
211.1
2.6
17.3
1.4
212.6
2.9
17.5
3.7
213.8
2.3
17.6
1.9
215.3
2.8
17.6
1.6
216.7
2.7
17.7
2.0
170.2
2.9
13.7
2.3
171.5
3.0
13.8
2.1
172.9
3.5
13.8
1.4
174.2
3.0
13.9
0.8
175.1
2.1
13.9
1.4
176.0
2.1
13.9
0.6
176.8
1.7
13.9
(0.4)
177.1
0.7
13.9
(1.0)
177.5
1.1
13.9
(0.5)
58.6
2.7
5.4
1.7
58.9
2.3
5.4
2.3
59.2
2.1
5.4
0.2
59.4
1.5
5.4
1.1
59.7
1.7
5.5
0.9
59.9
1.7
5.5
0.6
60.1
1.4
5.5
0.4
60.4
1.7
5.5
0.2
60.7
2.1
5.4
(1.8)
289.0
0.5
21.9
(0.7)
289.3
0.4
21.9
(0.4)
289.7
0.5
21.9
(0.3)
289.9
0.4
21.9
(0.2)
290.2
0.4
21.8
(0.1)
290.6
0.6
21.8
0.0
291.2
0.8
21.8
(0.0)
291.7
0.6
21.9
0.4
27.6
(0.8)
2.8
(2.7)
27.5
(0.6)
2.8
(2.6)
27.5
(0.8)
2.7
(2.8)
27.4
(0.7)
2.7
(2.8)
27.4
(0.7)
2.7
(2.8)
27.4
(0.6)
2.7
(2.8)
27.3
(0.4)
2.7
(2.5)
27.3
(0.4)
2.7
(2.3)
27.3
(0.5)
2.6
(2.1)
79.8
(0.2)
31.9
1.2
79.7
(0.4)
31.9
0.7
79.7
(0.2)
32.0
1.0
79.7
0.1
32.1
1.6
79.8
0.3
32.2
1.1
79.9
0.6
32.2
0.6
80.0
0.7
32.3
1.0
80.2
0.7
32.5
1.6
80.3
0.8
32.5
0.9
182.8
0.7
95.5
4.0
183.1
0.6
96.2
3.2
183.4
0.7
96.9
2.7
183.9
1.0
97.5
2.5
184.2
0.8
98.1
2.7
184.5
0.7
98.6
2.0
181.6
1.0
92.5
6.3
182.1
1.0
93.6
5.0
182.5
1.0
94.6
4.2
78
292.1
0.6
21.9
0.7
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2015:1
2015:2
2015:3
Retail Trade
Oregon
191.5
192.3
193.2
% Ch
0.7
1.7
1.9
U.S.
14.9
14.9
14.9
% Ch
(0.2)
0.5
0.3
Wholesale Trade
Oregon
79.3
79.6
79.9
% Ch
1.7
1.4
1.7
U.S.
5.9
5.9
5.9
% Ch
1.9
1.6
1.9
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oregon
57.7
58.1
58.5
% Ch
2.9
2.6
2.9
U.S.
5.3
5.3
5.4
% Ch
3.0
2.6
2.7
Information
Oregon
33.8
34.0
34.0
% Ch
0.7
2.0
0.2
U.S.
2.8
2.8
2.8
% Ch
1.9
1.8
0.2
Financial Activities
Oregon
96.9
97.0
97.2
% Ch
0.4
0.5
0.9
U.S.
7.8
7.8
7.8
% Ch
(0.6)
(0.6)
0.0
Professional and Business S ervices
Oregon
216.0
218.2
220.5
% Ch
4.6
4.3
4.1
U.S.
19.7
19.9
20.1
% Ch
4.4
4.0
3.8
Education and Health S ervices
Oregon
251.7
252.8
254.3
% Ch
2.5
1.8
2.4
U.S.
21.0
21.1
21.1
% Ch
1.0
1.4
1.5
Educational S ervices
Oregon
33.5
33.5
33.6
% Ch
0.8
0.1
0.7
U.S.
3.2
3.2
3.1
% Ch
(2.8)
(3.0)
(2.5)
Health Care and S ocial Assistance
Oregon
218.2
219.3
220.7
% Ch
2.8
2.0
2.7
U.S.
17.8
17.9
18.0
% Ch
1.7
2.2
2.2
Leisure and Hospitality
Oregon
178.1
178.6
179.2
% Ch
1.4
1.0
1.4
U.S.
13.9
13.8
13.8
% Ch
(0.2)
(1.1)
(0.4)
Other S ervices
Oregon
60.9
61.1
61.4
% Ch
1.7
1.3
1.3
U.S.
5.4
5.4
5.4
% Ch
(1.4)
(1.4)
(1.2)
Government
Oregon
292.6
293.3
293.8
% Ch
0.7
0.9
0.7
U.S.
21.9
22.0
22.0
% Ch
0.6
0.7
0.8
Federal Government
Oregon
27.2
27.2
27.1
% Ch
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.5)
U.S.
2.6
2.6
2.6
% Ch
(2.1)
(1.8)
(1.6)
S tate Government, Oregon
State Total
80.5
80.7
80.8
% Ch
0.9
0.9
0.8
State Education
32.6
32.7
32.9
% Ch
1.2
1.0
1.9
Local Government
Local Total
184.9
185.4
185.8
% Ch
0.8
1.1
0.8
Local Education
99.0
99.4
99.9
% Ch
1.6
1.8
1.9
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
2017:3
2017:4
194.3
2.3
14.9
0.7
195.3
2.1
15.0
0.7
196.5
2.4
15.0
0.8
197.5
2.2
15.0
0.5
198.5
1.9
15.0
0.4
199.2
1.6
15.0
(0.0)
200.0
1.6
15.0
(0.2)
200.7
1.3
15.0
(0.4)
201.3
1.2
15.0
(0.3)
80.2
1.6
6.0
1.7
80.6
1.8
6.0
1.9
81.0
1.9
6.0
2.1
81.4
2.3
6.1
2.5
81.8
2.1
6.1
2.3
82.2
1.8
6.1
2.0
82.5
1.5
6.2
1.7
82.9
1.6
6.2
1.7
83.1
1.3
6.2
1.5
58.8
2.3
5.4
2.6
59.3
3.3
5.4
2.8
59.8
3.2
5.5
3.0
60.2
3.0
5.5
3.3
60.7
3.3
5.6
3.1
61.2
3.7
5.6
2.8
61.7
3.2
5.6
2.5
62.0
2.1
5.7
2.5
62.4
2.1
5.7
2.1
34.0
(0.0)
2.8
(0.3)
34.0
(0.3)
2.8
(0.4)
34.0
0.8
2.8
0.6
34.1
1.2
2.8
1.7
34.3
2.0
2.8
1.4
34.5
2.3
2.8
1.7
34.7
2.2
2.8
1.6
34.9
2.4
2.9
1.8
35.1
2.2
2.9
1.6
97.5
1.1
7.8
(0.3)
97.7
1.0
7.7
(0.8)
97.9
0.7
7.7
(0.9)
98.2
1.4
7.7
(0.0)
98.6
1.3
7.7
0.3
98.8
1.0
7.7
0.2
99.2
1.5
7.7
0.2
99.5
1.5
7.7
0.6
99.9
1.4
7.8
0.4
222.5
3.8
20.3
3.7
224.6
3.7
20.4
3.5
226.6
3.8
20.6
3.8
228.8
3.8
20.8
3.6
230.8
3.6
21.0
3.4
232.7
3.2
21.2
3.0
234.6
3.5
21.3
3.3
236.4
3.1
21.5
2.9
238.3
3.1
21.6
2.9
255.7
2.2
21.3
2.1
257.1
2.2
21.4
2.7
258.7
2.4
21.6
3.0
260.2
2.3
21.7
2.4
261.9
2.7
21.8
2.6
263.7
2.8
21.9
1.6
265.2
2.4
22.0
2.3
266.8
2.3
22.1
1.9
268.3
2.3
22.2
1.9
33.7
1.5
3.1
(2.4)
33.8
0.5
3.1
(1.6)
33.9
1.2
3.1
(1.6)
33.9
0.8
3.1
(0.7)
34.0
1.3
3.1
(0.6)
34.2
1.4
3.1
(0.2)
34.2
0.9
3.1
(0.8)
34.3
1.1
3.1
(0.7)
34.4
1.2
3.1
(1.0)
222.0
2.3
18.1
2.9
223.4
2.5
18.3
3.5
224.8
2.6
18.5
3.8
226.2
2.6
18.6
3.0
227.8
2.9
18.7
3.1
229.5
3.0
18.8
1.9
231.0
2.7
19.0
2.8
232.4
2.5
19.1
2.3
233.8
2.4
19.2
2.4
179.5
0.6
13.8
(0.2)
179.8
0.6
13.8
(0.3)
180.1
0.9
13.8
(1.1)
180.4
0.5
13.7
(0.7)
180.4
0.1
13.7
(0.4)
180.5
0.2
13.7
(0.5)
180.4
(0.2)
13.7
(1.3)
180.4
(0.1)
13.6
(0.8)
180.4
0.1
13.6
(0.5)
61.6
1.4
5.4
(1.3)
61.8
1.6
5.4
(0.6)
62.0
1.5
5.4
(0.5)
62.2
1.3
5.4
(0.2)
62.4
1.4
5.4
(0.3)
62.6
1.2
5.4
(0.2)
62.9
1.4
5.3
(0.4)
63.0
1.2
5.3
(0.4)
63.3
1.4
5.3
(0.7)
294.3
0.7
22.1
0.7
294.8
0.7
22.1
0.8
295.4
0.7
22.1
0.8
296.0
0.9
22.2
0.8
296.7
0.9
22.2
0.8
297.4
1.0
22.3
0.7
298.2
1.1
22.3
0.8
298.9
1.0
22.4
0.9
299.7
1.1
22.4
0.9
27.1
(0.6)
2.6
(1.6)
27.1
(0.4)
2.6
(1.4)
27.1
(0.4)
2.6
(1.4)
27.0
(0.4)
2.6
(1.4)
27.0
(0.4)
2.6
(1.4)
27.0
0.1
2.5
(1.2)
27.0
0.1
2.5
(1.2)
27.0
0.1
2.5
(1.2)
27.0
0.0
2.5
(1.2)
81.0
1.0
33.0
1.2
81.3
1.1
33.1
1.5
81.4
0.8
33.2
1.7
81.6
0.9
33.4
2.1
81.8
1.1
33.5
1.6
82.1
1.1
33.7
1.5
82.3
1.0
33.8
1.9
82.5
1.0
34.0
2.2
82.7
1.2
34.1
1.7
186.1
0.7
100.3
1.4
186.5
0.8
100.7
1.7
186.9
0.9
101.1
1.6
187.4
1.1
101.6
1.8
187.8
1.0
101.9
1.4
188.3
1.1
102.3
1.3
189.0
1.3
102.6
1.5
189.5
1.1
103.1
1.7
190.0
1.2
103.4
1.3
79
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2018:1
2018:2
2018:3
Retail Trade
Oregon
201.9
202.5
203.0
% Ch
1.3
1.2
0.9
U.S.
15.0
14.9
14.9
% Ch
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.6)
Wholesale Trade
Oregon
83.4
83.6
83.8
% Ch
1.2
0.9
1.2
U.S.
6.2
6.2
6.3
% Ch
1.3
1.0
1.4
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oregon
62.7
63.0
63.4
% Ch
2.2
2.2
2.0
U.S.
5.7
5.8
5.8
% Ch
2.2
1.7
0.7
Information
Oregon
35.3
35.4
35.5
% Ch
2.0
1.3
1.5
U.S.
2.9
2.9
2.9
% Ch
2.0
1.7
1.9
Financial Activities
100.2
100.5
100.7
Oregon
% Ch
1.4
1.2
0.8
U.S.
7.8
7.7
7.7
% Ch
0.3
(0.7)
(0.3)
Professional and Business S ervices
Oregon
240.0
241.6
243.2
% Ch
2.9
2.7
2.8
U.S.
21.8
21.9
22.1
% Ch
2.7
2.6
2.6
Education and Health S ervices
Oregon
269.7
271.4
272.9
% Ch
2.1
2.6
2.2
U.S.
22.3
22.4
22.5
% Ch
1.2
2.2
1.8
Educational S ervices
Oregon
34.6
34.7
34.9
% Ch
1.3
1.9
1.7
U.S.
3.1
3.1
3.1
% Ch
(0.2)
(0.4)
(0.2)
Health Care and S ocial Assistance
Oregon
235.1
236.7
238.0
% Ch
2.2
2.7
2.2
U.S.
19.2
19.4
19.5
% Ch
1.4
2.6
2.1
Leisure and Hospitality
Oregon
180.6
180.7
180.9
% Ch
0.3
0.3
0.3
U.S.
13.6
13.6
13.5
% Ch
(0.3)
(1.1)
(0.8)
Other S ervices
Oregon
63.5
63.7
63.8
% Ch
1.7
0.9
1.0
U.S.
5.3
5.3
5.3
% Ch
(0.3)
(0.7)
(0.5)
Government
Oregon
300.5
301.2
301.9
% Ch
1.0
1.0
0.9
U.S.
22.5
22.5
22.6
% Ch
0.9
1.0
0.9
Federal Government
Oregon
27.0
27.0
27.0
% Ch
(0.2)
0.1
0.0
U.S.
2.5
2.5
2.5
% Ch
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.2)
S tate Government, Oregon
State Total
83.0
83.2
83.4
% Ch
1.2
1.1
1.0
State Education
34.3
34.5
34.7
% Ch
2.3
1.9
2.3
Local Government
Local Total
190.5
191.0
191.5
% Ch
1.1
1.1
1.0
Local Education
103.7
104.1
104.5
% Ch
1.3
1.4
1.6
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
203.5
1.0
14.9
(0.2)
203.9
0.8
14.9
(0.2)
203.9
(0.0)
14.9
(0.3)
203.9
0.1
14.9
(0.4)
204.0
0.0
14.9
(0.2)
203.8
(0.4)
14.8
(0.5)
203.9
0.2
14.8
(0.1)
203.7
(0.4)
14.8
(0.8)
203.5
(0.4)
14.8
(0.6)
84.1
1.1
6.3
1.2
84.3
1.0
6.3
1.1
84.4
0.7
6.3
0.8
84.6
0.9
6.3
1.0
84.8
0.7
6.3
0.8
84.9
0.7
6.4
0.7
85.1
0.7
6.4
0.8
85.2
0.7
6.4
0.8
85.4
0.7
6.4
0.8
63.7
1.8
5.8
0.6
63.8
1.0
5.8
0.7
63.9
0.7
5.8
0.3
64.0
0.7
5.8
0.5
64.1
0.5
5.8
0.3
64.2
0.9
5.8
0.3
64.3
0.6
5.8
0.2
64.4
0.4
5.8
0.3
64.5
0.4
5.8
0.2
35.6
1.3
2.9
1.6
35.7
1.5
2.9
1.9
35.8
0.9
2.9
1.3
35.9
1.2
2.9
1.6
36.0
1.0
3.0
1.3
36.1
1.3
3.0
1.6
36.3
1.2
3.0
1.6
36.4
1.3
3.0
1.6
36.5
1.4
3.0
1.7
100.8
0.4
7.7
(0.7)
100.9
0.5
7.7
(0.2)
101.1
0.5
7.7
0.1
101.2
0.6
7.7
0.6
101.3
0.3
7.7
0.2
101.4
0.4
7.7
0.3
101.5
0.6
7.7
0.2
101.6
0.3
7.8
0.3
101.7
0.3
7.8
0.1
245.0
3.0
22.2
2.8
246.8
2.9
22.4
2.8
248.5
2.9
22.5
2.8
250.3
2.9
22.7
2.8
252.1
2.9
22.8
2.8
253.9
2.9
23.0
2.8
255.9
3.1
23.2
3.0
257.6
2.7
23.3
2.7
259.3
2.7
23.5
2.6
274.6
2.5
22.6
1.4
276.1
2.2
22.7
0.9
277.7
2.4
22.7
1.3
279.2
2.1
22.8
1.1
280.6
2.0
22.9
1.0
281.9
2.0
22.9
0.7
283.5
2.2
22.9
0.8
284.7
1.8
23.0
0.9
286.3
2.2
23.0
0.7
35.0
1.2
3.1
(0.6)
35.1
1.5
3.1
(0.4)
35.2
1.2
3.0
(0.8)
35.3
1.7
3.0
(0.5)
35.4
1.2
3.0
(0.7)
35.6
1.3
3.0
(0.7)
35.7
1.7
3.0
(1.1)
35.9
1.7
3.0
(0.9)
36.0
1.2
3.0
(1.0)
239.6
2.6
19.6
1.7
241.0
2.3
19.6
1.1
242.5
2.6
19.7
1.7
243.8
2.2
19.8
1.4
245.1
2.2
19.8
1.3
246.4
2.0
19.9
0.9
247.7
2.3
19.9
1.1
248.9
1.8
20.0
1.2
250.3
2.3
20.0
0.9
181.0
0.2
13.5
(0.6)
181.2
0.6
13.5
0.0
181.3
0.2
13.5
(0.8)
181.3
(0.0)
13.5
(0.7)
181.2
(0.1)
13.5
(0.5)
181.3
0.2
13.4
(0.2)
181.6
0.6
13.4
(0.5)
181.6
(0.1)
13.4
(0.6)
181.6
(0.0)
13.4
(0.5)
64.4
1.1
5.3
(1.0)
64.5
0.9
5.3
(0.7)
64.7
1.1
5.3
(0.9)
64.9
1.2
5.3
(0.2)
65.1
1.3
5.2
(0.5)
65.2
0.8
5.2
(0.3)
65.4
0.9
5.2
(0.4)
64.0
1.2
5.3
(0.8)
302.6
0.9
22.6
0.8
64.2
1.2
5.3
(0.5)
303.4
1.0
22.7
0.8
304.2
1.1
22.7
0.8
304.9
0.9
22.7
0.7
305.6
1.0
22.8
0.7
306.9
1.6
22.9
1.3
311.5
6.1
23.2
7.0
309.6
(2.3)
23.1
(3.1)
308.8
(1.1)
23.0
(1.8)
27.0
0.0
2.5
(1.2)
27.0
(0.0)
2.5
(0.8)
27.0
(0.0)
2.5
(0.8)
27.0
(0.1)
2.5
(0.8)
27.0
(0.1)
2.5
(0.8)
27.4
5.6
2.5
5.1
31.3
70.0
2.9
67.8
28.8
(28.3)
2.6
(28.0)
27.1
(20.7)
2.5
(20.6)
83.6
1.1
34.9
1.8
83.9
1.2
35.0
1.7
84.1
1.0
35.2
2.0
84.3
1.0
35.4
2.4
84.5
1.1
35.6
1.9
84.8
1.2
35.7
1.7
85.0
1.0
35.9
2.0
85.2
1.0
36.1
2.4
85.4
1.1
36.3
1.9
192.0
0.9
104.9
1.3
192.5
1.1
105.2
1.2
193.1
1.3
105.5
1.4
193.6
1.0
106.0
1.6
194.1
1.1
106.3
1.3
194.7
1.3
106.6
1.2
195.2
1.0
107.0
1.4
195.7
1.0
107.4
1.6
196.2
1.1
107.7
1.2
80
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Other Economic Indicators
2009:1
2009:2
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
12,663.2
12,641.3
12,694.5
12,813.5
12,937.7
13,058.5
13,139.6
13,216.1
13,227.9
13,271.8
13,331.6
13,429.0
1.7
3.8
3.9
3.8
2.5
2.3
0.4
1.3
1.8
3.0
109.7
110.0
110.4
110.8
111.2
111.7
112.4
113.1
113.8
114.1
0.3
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.9
2.5
2.5
2.6
0.9
GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight
(in billions of $)
% Ch
(6.7)
(0.7)
Price and Wage Indicators
GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
109.7
1.7
109.6
(0.4)
Personal Consumption Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
108.2
(1.7)
108.7
1.9
109.5
3.0
110.3
2.8
110.8
1.9
110.9
0.3
111.1
1.0
111.7
1.9
112.7
3.9
113.7
3.3
114.3
2.3
114.7
1.2
Portland-Salem, OR-WA
214.0
214.2
216.8
217.6
217.3
217.8
218.5
219.9
222.2
224.0
225.5
226.7
% Ch
U.S.
(3.9)
212.4
0.5
213.5
4.8
215.4
1.6
217.0
(0.7)
217.4
0.9
217.3
1.3
218.0
2.6
219.6
4.4
222.1
3.1
224.5
2.7
226.2
2.2
227.0
% Ch
(2.5)
1.9
3.6
3.0
0.9
(0.3)
1.4
3.0
4.5
4.4
3.1
1.3
42.6
43.0
43.0
43.3
(0.6)
4.3
(0.1)
2.4
43.7
4.0
43.9
1.9
44.4
4.5
44.4
0.1
45.0
5.7
45.5
4.0
45.9
4.1
46.1
1.6
47.3
(6.6)
47.9
5.7
48.1
1.4
48.4
2.9
48.7
2.3
49.2
4.3
49.7
3.6
49.7
0.5
50.3
4.9
50.4
0.7
51.1
5.7
51.2
0.3
413.1
399.5
392.4
386.5
381.7
381.6
375.3
359.9
351.0
354.9
357.5
(12.9)
(12.5)
4.6
3.0
345.0
336.2
318.2
319.6
4.1
1.8
CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=100
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
U.S. Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Index 1987 Q1=100
% Ch
427.6
(2.1)
(6.9)
(5.9)
(4.9)
(0.1)
(6.5)
(15.4)
(9.6)
FHFA National Housing Price Index
(1980Q1=100)
% Ch
353.4
3.7
(9.1)
(9.8)
334.2
(2.4)
330.2
(4.7)
327.8
(2.9)
331.5
4.5
329.1
(2.8)
320.0
(10.6)
315.1
(6.0)
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
8.3
7.6
6.8
7.6
8.0
7.6
7.5
7.4
8.1
7.7
7.9
8.6
% Ch
U.S. (M illions)
(41.3)
0.5
(30.9)
0.5
(37.2)
0.6
57.6
0.6
22.7
0.6
(16.3)
0.6
(8.2)
0.6
(6.1)
0.5
43.5
0.6
(15.9)
0.6
8.0
0.6
44.2
0.7
(60.5)
6.8
47.0
(13.3)
40.5
(10.0)
(14.0)
(23.4)
33.8
(7.1)
32.1
49.0
10.5
2.1
8.3
1.4
11.5
1.0
9.3
1.0
11.3
(0.3)
9.6
0.4
10.9
(0.3)
9.9
0.3
11.0
0.0
9.8
(0.2)
10.8
(0.2)
9.6
(0.1)
10.5
(0.3)
9.5
(0.1)
10.3
(0.3)
9.6
0.0
9.7
(0.5)
9.0
(0.6)
9.5
(0.2)
9.0
0.0
9.5
(0.0)
9.1
0.0
9.1
(0.4)
8.7
(0.4)
86.6
(19.6)
84.0
(11.4)
85.0
5.0
86.2
5.6
87.8
7.9
89.7
8.6
91.1
6.6
91.6
2.2
92.6
4.4
92.9
1.2
94.2
5.6
95.3
5.1
3.3
(58.8)
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
% Ch
Other Indicators
Unemployment Rate (%)
Oregon
Point Change
U.S.
Point Change
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100
% Ch
Prime Rate (Percent)
% Ch
81
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Other Economic Indicators
2012:1
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2013:3
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
13,491.4
1.9
13,542.8
1.5
13,609.5
2.0
13,676.8
2.0
13,756.2
2.3
13,815.7
1.7
13,874.5
1.7
13,952.1
2.3
14,049.5
2.8
14,160.0
3.2
14,284.8
3.6
14,416.0
3.7
Price and Wage Indicators
GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
114.6
2.0
115.1
1.6
115.5
1.5
115.9
1.4
116.3
1.4
116.7
1.2
117.1
1.6
117.5
1.4
118.0
1.6
118.5
1.6
119.0
1.7
119.4
1.6
Personal Consumption Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
115.4
2.6
115.6
0.7
115.6
0.1
115.9
1.0
116.2
1.2
116.6
1.1
117.0
1.6
117.6
1.8
118.2
2.2
118.8
2.3
119.5
2.1
120.0
1.8
228.1
2.5
228.3
2.5
228.6
0.8
228.8
0.7
229.6
1.7
228.6
(0.2)
230.0
0.8
229.3
1.2
231.6
2.8
230.2
1.4
232.3
1.1
230.9
1.3
233.3
1.7
232.2
2.2
234.1
1.5
233.4
2.2
235.9
3.0
234.9
2.6
237.0
2.0
236.5
2.7
238.4
2.3
237.9
2.4
239.4
1.8
239.0
1.8
GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight
(in billions of $)
% Ch
CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=10
Portland-Salem, OR-WA
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
46.1
(0.4)
46.2
1.5
46.5
2.6
46.8
2.3
47.1
2.4
47.3
2.2
47.6
2.2
47.9
2.6
48.2
2.8
48.6
2.8
48.9
2.8
49.2
2.8
U.S. Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
51.3
1.1
51.4
0.7
51.8
2.9
52.1
2.6
52.4
2.7
52.8
2.4
53.1
2.3
53.4
2.4
53.7
2.7
54.1
2.7
54.5
2.8
54.8
2.8
Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Index 1987 Q1=100
% Ch
356.6
(1.1)
356.0
(0.7)
353.4
(2.9)
350.8
(2.9)
348.2
(2.9)
346.0
(2.5)
346.3
0.3
346.8
0.6
347.5
0.8
348.3
1.0
349.4
1.2
352.5
3.6
FHFA National Housing Price Index
(1980Q1=100)
% Ch
315.6
(5.0)
326.4
14.4
322.6
(4.5)
318.0
(5.6)
312.8
(6.5)
314.8
2.7
314.0
(1.0)
313.1
(1.2)
315.4
3.1
319.7
5.6
324.1
5.6
327.4
4.1
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
% Ch
U.S. (M illions)
% Ch
9.0
18.6
0.7
23.2
10.6
90.8
0.7
11.5
10.1
(15.2)
0.8
30.1
10.4
10.0
0.8
24.1
10.5
5.9
0.9
14.6
10.0
(18.4)
0.9
25.7
11.3
59.9
1.0
33.7
12.2
40.1
1.0
25.6
12.8
20.8
1.1
28.2
13.6
24.3
1.2
33.1
14.5
32.2
1.3
31.0
16.2
52.6
1.4
31.8
Other Indicators
Unemployment Rate (%)
Oregon
Point Change
U.S.
Point Change
8.7
(0.4)
8.3
(0.4)
8.5
(0.2)
8.2
(0.1)
8.6
0.1
8.1
(0.1)
8.4
(0.1)
8.0
(0.1)
8.3
(0.1)
8.0
(0.1)
8.1
(0.2)
8.0
(0.0)
7.9
(0.2)
7.9
(0.0)
7.7
(0.2)
7.9
(0.0)
7.6
(0.0)
7.9
(0.1)
7.6
(0.1)
7.8
(0.1)
7.4
(0.2)
7.6
(0.1)
7.3
(0.2)
7.4
(0.2)
96.6
5.6
97.4
3.1
97.7
1.2
98.3
2.3
98.9
2.6
99.4
2.3
99.9
1.9
100.5
2.2
101.3
3.5
102.3
3.9
103.4
4.5
104.5
4.3
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.5
39.6
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100
% Ch
Prime Rate (Percent)
% Ch
82
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Other Economic Indicators
2015:1
2015:2
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
2017:3
2017:4
14,530.7
3.2
14,645.3
3.2
14,758.4
3.1
14,867.8
3.0
14,978.0
3.0
15,089.2
3.0
15,203.8
3.1
15,319.4
3.1
15,426.5
2.8
15,536.4
2.9
15,646.7
2.9
15,759.1
2.9
Price and Wage Indicators
GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
120.0
1.9
120.5
1.7
121.0
1.6
121.5
1.6
122.0
1.8
122.5
1.5
122.9
1.5
123.4
1.4
123.9
1.7
124.3
1.5
124.8
1.5
125.2
1.5
Personal Consumption Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
120.6
1.9
121.1
1.8
121.6
1.8
122.2
1.8
122.7
1.7
123.2
1.7
123.7
1.6
124.2
1.6
124.7
1.7
125.2
1.6
125.7
1.6
126.2
1.6
CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=10
Portland-Salem, OR-WA
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
240.5
1.8
240.1
1.9
241.6
1.9
241.3
1.9
242.9
2.2
242.4
1.9
244.1
1.9
243.5
1.8
244.8
1.1
244.5
1.8
246.2
2.4
245.6
1.7
247.5
2.1
246.6
1.6
248.5
1.6
247.5
1.6
249.7
1.8
248.6
1.7
250.8
1.9
249.6
1.6
252.5
2.7
250.6
1.6
253.3
1.3
251.6
1.7
49.6
3.0
50.0
2.9
50.3
2.8
50.6
2.5
51.0
2.8
51.3
2.4
51.6
2.8
52.0
2.6
52.3
2.8
52.7
2.9
53.1
3.0
53.5
3.1
55.3
3.1
55.6
2.9
56.0
2.8
56.4
2.6
56.8
2.9
57.2
2.6
57.5
2.7
57.9
2.7
58.4
3.1
58.8
2.9
59.2
2.9
59.7
3.0
Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Index 1987 Q1=100
% Ch
357.2
5.4
361.4
4.8
363.7
2.6
364.1
0.4
366.1
2.2
371.2
5.7
370.7
(0.5)
369.0
(1.8)
376.4
8.3
381.4
5.4
384.3
3.1
385.0
0.7
FHFA National Housing Price Index
(1980Q1=100)
% Ch
330.2
3.6
335.8
6.9
338.4
3.1
339.9
1.8
342.5
3.1
348.2
6.8
347.4
(0.9)
345.3
(2.3)
352.6
8.7
357.6
5.7
360.4
3.2
360.9
0.6
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
% Ch
17.8
47.3
18.9
26.9
20.1
28.7
20.9
15.7
21.6
14.0
22.2
12.4
22.7
8.6
23.4
14.1
24.2
14.6
24.7
8.1
25.1
6.9
25.5
5.6
U.S. (M illions)
% Ch
1.4
24.1
1.5
21.7
1.6
16.7
1.6
9.9
1.6
6.9
1.6
4.5
1.7
6.5
1.7
8.2
1.7
5.9
1.7
3.8
1.7
1.4
1.7
0.2
Other Indicators
Unemployment Rate (%)
Oregon
Point Change
U.S.
Point Change
7.1
(0.1)
7.3
(0.2)
7.1
(0.1)
7.1
(0.2)
7.0
(0.1)
7.0
(0.1)
6.9
(0.1)
6.8
(0.1)
6.8
(0.1)
6.7
(0.1)
6.8
(0.0)
6.6
(0.1)
6.7
(0.1)
6.5
(0.1)
6.6
(0.1)
6.4
(0.1)
6.6
0.0
6.3
(0.1)
6.6
0.0
6.2
(0.1)
6.7
0.0
6.1
(0.1)
6.7
0.1
6.1
(0.1)
GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight
(in billions of $)
% Ch
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
U.S. Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100
% Ch
Prime Rate (Percent)
% Ch
105.6
4.0
106.5
3.5
107.3
3.0
108.0
2.6
108.7
2.6
109.3
2.6
110.1
2.9
110.9
3.0
111.7
2.9
112.5
2.9
113.3
2.9
114.1
2.7
4.0
72.1
4.5
57.0
5.1
56.7
5.6
49.9
6.1
43.0
6.6
32.7
7.0
25.6
7.0
2.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
83
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Other Economic Indicators
2018:1
2018:2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
15,857.5
2.5
15,959.3
2.6
16,067.3
2.7
16,178.7
2.8
16,281.9
2.6
16,388.8
2.7
16,498.7
2.7
16,610.7
2.7
16,716.7
2.6
16,836.3
2.9
16,935.3
2.4
17,040.2
2.5
125.8
1.8
126.3
1.6
126.8
1.5
127.2
1.4
127.7
1.7
128.2
1.5
128.7
1.4
129.1
1.5
129.7
1.7
130.2
1.5
130.7
1.5
131.2
1.6
126.8
127.4
127.9
128.4
129.0
129.5
130.0
130.6
131.1
131.7
132.3
132.9
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.9
Portland-Salem, OR-WA
254.4
255.7
257.2
258.5
259.7
261.0
262.5
263.8
265.1
266.4
268.0
269.4
% Ch
U.S.
1.7
252.8
2.1
253.9
2.4
255.1
2.0
256.1
1.9
257.2
2.1
258.3
2.3
259.3
2.0
260.4
1.9
261.5
2.1
262.6
2.4
263.8
2.1
265.1
% Ch
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.8
2.0
53.9
2.9
54.2
1.9
54.6
3.1
55.0
3.2
55.4
3.2
55.9
3.0
56.3
3.1
56.7
3.2
57.2
3.2
57.6
2.6
58.0
3.4
58.5
3.5
60.1
3.2
60.6
3.0
61.0
3.1
61.5
3.1
62.0
3.3
62.5
3.1
63.0
3.1
63.5
3.2
64.0
3.4
64.4
2.6
65.0
3.6
65.5
3.4
388.6
3.8
395.6
7.4
395.9
0.3
396.1
0.2
400.9
4.9
409.5
8.9
407.5
(1.9)
407.0
(0.5)
414.1
7.2
423.8
9.7
421.1
(2.5)
420.5
(0.6)
363.9
3.4
370.5
7.4
370.2
(0.3)
369.9
(0.4)
374.0
4.6
382.0
8.9
379.5
(2.7)
378.4
(1.2)
384.9
7.0
394.0
9.8
390.8
(3.2)
389.7
(1.1)
GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight
(in billions of $)
% Ch
Price and Wage Indicators
GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
Personal Consumption Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=10
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
U.S. Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Index 1987 Q1=100
% Ch
FHFA National Housing Price Index
(1980Q1=100)
% Ch
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
% Ch
U.S. (M illions)
% Ch
25.2
(3.7)
1.7
(1.2)
25.3
1.9
1.7
(1.2)
25.9
8.1
1.7
0.0
25.6
(4.1)
1.7
(0.5)
25.4
(2.1)
1.7
(0.5)
25.5
1.4
1.7
(0.6)
25.8
4.8
1.7
(0.0)
25.6
(3.6)
1.7
(0.3)
25.6
0.4
1.7
(1.1)
25.5
(2.2)
1.7
(1.4)
25.7
2.6
1.7
(0.3)
25.3
(5.3)
1.7
(1.9)
Other Indicators
Unemployment Rate (%)
Oregon
Point Change
U.S.
Point Change
6.8
0.1
6.0
(0.1)
6.8
0.0
6.0
(0.0)
6.8
(0.0)
5.9
(0.1)
6.7
(0.1)
5.9
(0.1)
6.4
(0.3)
5.8
(0.0)
6.3
(0.1)
5.8
(0.0)
6.2
(0.1)
5.7
(0.0)
6.0
(0.1)
5.7
(0.0)
5.9
(0.1)
5.6
(0.0)
5.7
(0.1)
5.6
(0.1)
5.6
(0.1)
5.5
(0.0)
5.4
(0.1)
5.5
(0.0)
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100
% Ch
Prime Rate (Percent)
% Ch
114.8
115.6
116.3
117.1
117.9
118.8
119.6
120.5
121.3
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
84
122.1
2.7
7.0
(0.0)
122.9
2.7
123.8
2.8
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
APPENDIX B:
REVENUE FORECAST DETAIL
Table B.1 General Fund Revenue Statement - 2011-13 September 2012 Forecast .................... 86
Table B.2 General Fund Revenue Forecast by Fiscal Year ........................................................ 87
Table B.3 Summary of 2011 Legislative Session Adjustments .................................................. 88
Table B.4 Oregon Personal Income Tax Revenue Forecast ........................................................ 89
Table B.5 Oregon Corporate Income Tax Revenue Forecast ..................................................... 91
Table B.6 Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Distribution .................................................................... 93
Table B.7 Revenue Distribution to Local Governments ............................................................. 94
Table B.8 Track Record for the June 2012 Forecast ................................................................... 95
Table B.9 Summary of Lottery Resources .................................................................................. 96
Table B.10 Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook .............................................................. 97
85
86
7,007,379,000
7,007,379,000
31,452,000
446,262,137
95,109,342
Notes: Corporate income tax figure includes Corporate Multistate taxes.
Other taxes include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Severance T ax, Western Oregon Severance T ax and Amusement Device T ax.
Cigarette and Other T obacco T axes are gross tax receipts. Distributions, net of administrative costs, are reported in the T able B.6.
Detailed entries may not add to totals due to rounding.
* Administrative Actions equal expenses associated with cashflow management, exclusive of internal borrowing.
Estimated Ending Balance
13,723,769,658
13,723,769,658
0
13,818,879,000
0
(14,066,000)
0
13,832,945,000
13,832,945,000
162,086,000
8,500,000
10,913,000
5,576,000
6,896,395,000
6,896,395,000
130,634,000
4,897,000
7,460,000
110,200,000
7,024,561,000
7,024,561,000
31,452,000
5,000,000
3,453,000
120,271,000
5,576,000
64,402,000
24,285,000
31,484,000
10,681,000
415,375,000
48,905,000
93,872,000
36,496,000
28,929,000
656,000
6,103,724,000
2012-13
192,791,342
13,723,769,658
13,723,769,658
0
13,916,561,000
0
(4,395,000)
0
13,920,956,000
13,920,956,000
162,086,000
9,897,000
10,913,000
230,471,000
11,152,000
133,196,000
50,800,000
68,692,000
19,545,000
11,956,608,000
0
842,577,000
96,381,000
195,638,000
74,434,000
57,016,000
1,550,000
Total
2011-13
0
97,682,000
0
9,671,000
0
88,011,000
88,011,000
0
1,397,000
0
5,555,000
0
5,201,000
737,000
3,853,000
(345,000)
36,709,000
0
28,061,000
(627,000)
8,254,000
440,000
(1,245,000)
21,000
Difference
09/1/2012 Less
6/1/2012
97,682,000
0
6,825,566,000
6,825,566,000
130,634,000
3,453,000
5,000,000
11,152,000
224,916,000
68,794,000
26,515,000
37,208,000
8,864,000
427,202,000
47,476,000
101,766,000
37,938,000
28,087,000
894,000
5,852,884,000
2011-12
Forecasts Dated: 9/1/2012
Projected Expenditures
13,562,594,263
7,460,000
3,500,000
5,576,000
114,707,000
127,995,000
50,063,000
64,839,000
19,890,000
11,919,899,000
0
814,516,000
97,008,000
187,384,000
73,994,000
58,261,000
1,529,000
Total
2011-13
0
13,562,594,263
Legislatively Adopted Budget
5,576,000
110,209,000
60,922,000
24,366,000
29,718,000
10,701,000
395,906,000
48,760,000
93,872,000
36,496,000
29,757,000
656,000
418,610,000
48,248,000
93,512,000
37,498,000
28,504,000
873,000
67,073,000
25,697,000
35,121,000
9,189,000
6,116,037,000
2012-13
5,803,862,000
2011-12
Forecasts Dated: 6/1/2012
Plus Administrative Actions
14,008,856,400
(23,135,600)
Available Resources
Plus Legislatively Adopted Actions**
Less Anticipated Administrative Actions*
0
14,031,992,000
Net General Fund Revenues
Plus Beginning Balance
14,031,992,000
60,300,000
One-time Transfers
Gross General Fund Revenues
9,913,000
15,800,000
Liquor Apportionment
Miscellaneous Revenues1
11,152,000
187,388,000
Central Service Charges
Interest Earnings
88,237,000
47,039,000
80,598,000
19,070,000
12,193,553,000
0
894,243,000
100,258,000
190,284,000
74,244,000
58,586,000
1,327,000
Fines and Fees
State Court Fees
Secretary of State Fees
Criminal Fines & Assessments
Securities Fees
Taxes
Personal Income T axes (Before Kicker)
Implicit Kicker Offset
Corporate Income T axes (Before Kicker)
Insurance T axes
Estate T axes
Cigarette T axes
Other T obacco Products T axes
Other T axes
Estimate at
COS 2011
Table B.1
General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2011-13
(253,470,795)
161,175,395
0
161,175,395
(92,295,400)
0
18,740,600
0
(111,036,000)
(111,036,000)
101,786,000
(5,903,000)
1,000,000
43,083,000
0
44,959,000
3,761,000
(11,906,000)
475,000
(236,945,000)
0
(51,666,000)
(3,877,000)
5,354,000
190,000
(1,570,000)
223,000
09/1/2012 Less
COS
Table B.1 General Fund Revenue Statement - 2011-13 September 2012 Forecast 1
87
12,521.4
171.1
8.2
198.3
4.7
458.3
10,467.2
827.6
90.5
168.9
76.8
47.3
2.5
2009-11
Biennium
6,017.1
79.5
4.1
104.4
2.8
321.4
4,943.2
359.0
51.0
92.6
37.5
20.0
1.6
6.8%
-0.7%
-6.2%
11.9%
-94.4%
360.5%
3.7%
20.9%
0.8%
-14.2%
-5.0%
37.2%
69.0%
Percent
Change
6,504.3
91.7
4.1
93.9
1.8
136.9
5,524.0
468.6
39.5
76.2
39.3
27.4
0.9
2010-11
Fiscal Year
13,921.0
272.2
11.2
230.5
10.9
172.0
11,956.6
842.6
96.4
195.6
74.4
57.0
1.6
2011-13
Biennium
6,896.4
141.4
5.6
110.2
7.5
135.5
5,852.9
427.2
47.5
101.8
37.9
28.1
0.9
2011-12
Fiscal Year
11.2%
59.1%
36.4%
16.2%
133.6%
-62.5%
14.2%
1.8%
6.5%
15.9%
-3.1%
20.5%
-37.9%
Percent
Change
7,024.6
130.9
5.6
120.3
3.5
36.5
6,103.7
415.4
48.9
93.9
36.5
28.9
0.7
2012-13
Fiscal Year
15,454.8
265.3
11.2
225.0
10.0
15.5
13,416.9
1,070.8
105.7
204.0
68.7
60.5
1.3
2013-15
Biennium
7,442.3
134.8
5.6
110.3
4.3
7.5
6,450.7
511.9
51.7
99.9
35.1
29.8
0.6
2013-14
Fiscal Year
11.0%
-2.6%
0.0%
-2.4%
-8.7%
-91.0%
12.2%
27.1%
9.7%
4.3%
-7.7%
6.1%
-18.6%
Percent
Change
8,012.6
130.5
5.6
114.8
5.6
8.0
6,966.2
558.9
54.0
104.1
33.6
30.7
0.6
2014-15
Fiscal Year
17,178.5
270.4
11.2
240.0
14.9
16.6
15,069.0
1,083.7
115.9
229.1
62.3
64.2
1.2
2015-17
Biennium
8,429.1
137.1
5.6
118.2
7.0
8.2
7,376.2
544.7
56.7
111.1
32.1
31.6
0.6
2015-16
Fiscal Year
11.2%
1.9%
0.0%
6.6%
50.0%
7.1%
12.3%
1.2%
9.6%
12.3%
-9.3%
6.1%
-2.0%
Percent
Change
8,749.4
133.3
5.6
121.8
8.0
8.4
7,692.8
539.0
59.2
118.1
30.2
32.6
0.6
2016-17
Fiscal Year
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.
Total General Fund
Licenses and Fees
Charges for Services
Liquor Apportionment
Interest Earnings
Others
Other Revenues
Personal Income
Corporate Excise & Income
Insurance
Estate Taxes
Cigarette
Other Tobacco Products
Other Taxes
Taxes
Biennial Totals
Total General Fund
Licenses and Fees
Charges for Services
Liquor Apportionment
Interest Earnings
Others
Other Revenues
Personal Income
Corporate Excise & Income
Insurance
Estate
Cigarette
Other Tobacco Products
Other Taxes
Taxes
Fiscal Years
2009-10
Fiscal Year
($Millions)
TABLE B.2
General Fund Revenue Forecast
18,791.6
276.4
11.2
254.6
29.3
16.8
16,638.4
1,056.6
125.6
256.4
56.4
68.9
1.2
2017-19
Biennium
9,144.9
140.1
5.6
125.4
11.8
8.4
8,074.2
530.3
61.8
124.1
28.8
33.8
0.6
2017-18
Fiscal Year
9.4%
2.2%
0.0%
6.1%
95.9%
1.2%
10.4%
-2.5%
8.3%
11.9%
-9.6%
7.3%
-0.4%
Percent
Change
9,646.7
136.3
5.6
129.2
17.5
8.4
8,564.2
526.3
63.8
132.3
27.5
35.1
0.6
2018-19
Fiscal Year
20,671.8
282.7
11.2
270.1
57.1
16.8
18,405.7
1,081.7
134.3
285.4
51.4
74.2
1.2
2019-21
Biennium
10,096.8
143.3
5.6
133.1
24.4
8.4
8,982.8
531.1
66.1
138.8
26.3
36.4
0.6
2019-20
Fiscal Year
10.0%
2.3%
0.0%
6.1%
95.1%
0.0%
10.6%
2.4%
6.9%
11.3%
-8.8%
7.7%
0.0%
Percent
Change
10,574.9
139.5
5.6
137.0
32.7
8.4
9,422.8
550.6
68.2
146.6
25.1
37.8
0.6
2020-21
Fiscal Year
September 2012
Table B.2 General Fund Revenue Forecast by Fiscal Year 1
Table B.3 Summary of 2011 Legislative Session Adjustments 1
Biennia
2011-13
2013-15
2015-17
2017-19
2019-21
Staff
Measure
Summary
Revenue
Impact
Statement
HB 2154
HB 2523
HB 2528
HB 3170
HB 3454
HB 3606
HB 3672
HB 2154
HB 2523
HB 2528
HB 3170
HB 3454
HB 3606
HB 3672
SB 301
SB 817
SB 301
SB 817
HB 2071
HB 2071
HB 5040
HB 2154
HB 2523
HB 2527
HB 3058
HB 3170
HB 3606
HB 3672
HB 2154
HB 2523
HB 2527
HB 3058
HB 3170
HB 3606
HB 3672
SB 301
SB 817
SB 301
SB 817
HB 2071
HB 2071
HB 5040
SB 939
Personal Income Tax Impacts (Millions)
Tax Law Change
Farmworker Credit - HB 2154
BETC Administration - HB 2523
529 College Savings - HB 2728
Diesel Engine Tax Credit - HB 3170
Net Operating Loss - HB 3454
BETC Clarification - HB 3606
Tax Credits - HB 3672
BETC
Biomass
E-commerce Zone
Film & Video
Fish Screening
Oregon Investment Advantage
Renewables
Conservation
Transportation
RETC
Federal Reconnect - SB 301
Community Jobs Initiative - SB 817
Compliance Bills
Tax Preparers E-file - HB 2071
DOR Enforcement - HB 5040
Personal Income Tax Total
-$0.01
$0.00
$0.00
$0.22
$0.80
$0.00
-$0.01
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.12
$0.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.00
$0.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.00
$0.26
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.00
$0.17
$0.00
$7.90
-$3.60
-$0.01
-$6.00
-$0.02
$0.00
-$2.00
-$2.30
-$1.00
-$7.60
$0.00
$0.00
$6.40
-$7.60
-$0.02
-$12.00
-$0.04
-$0.10
-$2.25
-$6.60
-$1.90
-$21.20
$0.00
-$4.60
$3.20
-$8.30
-$0.02
-$12.00
-$0.04
-$0.05
-$2.25
-$8.20
-$1.70
-$28.40
$0.00
-$23.30
$2.00
-$4.65
-$0.01
-$7.00
-$0.02
-$0.02
-$1.13
-$7.70
-$0.70
-$20.50
$0.00
-$25.50
$1.80
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.20
$0.00
-$0.01
$0.00
-$3.50
-$0.25
$0.00
$0.00
-$7.60
$0.00
$5.50
$0.00
$5.60
$0.00
$5.60
$0.00
$5.60
$0.00
$5.60
$-8.13
-$43.73
-$75.09
-$59.40
-$4.02
-$0.02
$0.00
$0.00
-$1.40
$0.09
$0.00
-$0.02
$0.00
-$2.80
-$1.40
$0.08
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$5.20
-$1.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$7.70
-$1.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$6.10
-$1.40
$0.00
$0.00
$11.90
-$0.30
-$0.80
-$0.04
-$0.10
-$0.80
-$0.20
-$0.01
$0.00
-$0.50
-$3.20
-$1.30
$0.00
$0.00
$10.00
-$0.60
-$1.60
-$0.08
-$0.20
-$1.70
-$0.40
-$0.01
-$0.10
-$0.75
-$9.60
-$2.90
$0.00
-$0.70
$4.80
-$0.70
-$1.60
-$0.08
-$0.20
-$2.10
-$0.40
-$0.01
-$0.05
-$0.75
-$12.10
-$2.60
$0.00
-$5.50
$3.10
-$0.50
-$1.30
-$0.06
-$0.10
-$1.70
-$0.20
-$0.01
-$0.02
-$0.38
-$10.60
-$0.90
$0.00
-$6.50
$2.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$3.50
-$0.20
$0.00
-$2.50
$0.00
$9.20
$18.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$30.52
-$3.38
-$18.49
-$18.86
-$1.80
$58.10
$0.00
$33.13
$22.20
-$7.44
$2.20
$0.00
$0.00
$40.43
$20.71
-$22.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$42.83
$22.05
-$32.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$45.40
$23.50
-$34.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$47.50
$25.50
-$34.00
$0.00
$108.19
$39.14
$32.88
$34.90
$39.00
Corporate Income Tax Impacts (Millions)
Tax Law Change
Farmworker Credit - HB 2154
BETC Administration - HB 2523
Housing Lender Credit - HB 2527
Ag CoopMin Tax - HB 3058
Diesel Engine Tax Credit - HB 3170
BETC Clarification - HB 3606
Tax Credits - HB 3672
BETC
Biomass
Fire Insurance
E-commerce Zone
Long-Term Rural EZ
R&D
Film & Video
Fish Screening
Oregon Investment Advantage
Renewables
Conservation
Transportation
Federal Reconnect - SB 301
Community Jobs Initiative - SB 817
Compliance Bills
Tax Preparers E-file - HB 2071
DOR Enforcement - HB 5040
Other Transfers - SB 939
Corporate Income Tax Total
SB 939
Other Tax/Revenue Impacts (Millions)
Other Transfers - SB 939
Inheritance Tax - HB 2541
Court Fees - HB 2710
Criminal Fine Account - HB 2712
OUS Interest Earnings - SB 242
OLCC Transfers - SB 5522
Other Tax Total
88
SB 939
HB 2541
HB 2710
HB 2712
SB 242
SB 939
HB 2541
HB 2710
HB 2712
SB 242
SB 5522
Table B.4 Oregon Personal Income Tax Revenue Forecast 1
TABLE B.4
OREGON PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted
2005:3
2005:4
2006:1
2006:2
1,064,107
8.4%
1,087,942
6.4%
1,177,488
10.5%
1,075,476
6.0%
194,848
22.4%
186,648
36.4%
224,403
11.4%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
51,797
16.8%
68,000
27.6%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
62,638
-9.4%
94,755
17.8%
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
OTHER
(149,733)
TOTAL
%CHYA
2006:4
2007:1
2007:2
4,405,013
7.8%
1,118,878
5.1%
1,172,656
7.8%
1,182,336
0.4%
1,088,108
1.2%
4,561,977
3.6%
270,754
0.3%
876,653
14.2%
231,720
18.9%
177,026
-5.2%
267,345
19.1%
363,055
34.1%
1,039,146
18.5%
88,998
13.8%
787,622
49.4%
996,416
41.7%
55,408
7.0%
89,432
31.5%
100,476
12.9%
779,577
-1.0%
1,024,893
2.9%
345,524
0.7%
358,699
-1.4%
861,617
0.6%
89,254
42.5%
126,707
33.7%
444,768
28.7%
369,456
3.0%
1,030,186
19.6%
-
176,911
27,178
1,098,381
10.9%
1,247,835
10.2%
1,145,365
14.3%
1,952,063
22.2%
2007:3
2007:4
2008:1
2008:2
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%
250,749
8.2%
217,163
22.7%
281,441
5.3%
399,475
10.0%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
57,503
3.8%
129,817
45.2%
104,841
4.3%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
71,372
-20.0%
155,912
23.0%
389,876
-12.3%
(177,781)
(1,084,201)
1,174,457
3.0%
307,689
-76.6%
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
OTHER
TOTAL
%CHYA
September 2012
2006:3
-
FY 2006
-
5,443,644
15.3%
(176,911)
-
-
177,781
FY 2007
870
1,139,841
3.8%
1,312,406
5.2%
1,105,388
-3.5%
2,039,066
4.5%
2008:3
2008:4
2009:1
2009:2
1,162,107
4.2%
1,182,763
-1.5%
1,128,994
-5.6%
1,089,305
-2.0%
4,563,169
-1.3%
1,148,828
10.6%
264,440
5.5%
174,826
-19.5%
217,305
-22.8%
263,135
-34.1%
919,707
-19.9%
971,325
24.6%
1,263,486
23.3%
70,306
22.3%
99,430
-23.4%
104,105
-0.7%
529,995
-45.4%
803,836
-36.4%
365,908
-1.0%
983,068
-4.6%
92,063
29.0%
180,329
15.7%
447,706
14.8%
404,229
10.5%
1,124,327
14.4%
FY 2008
182,322
(1,079,660)
(182,322)
1,192,938
7.9%
2,298,247
12.7%
4,973,332
-11.1%
1,222,469
4.1%
1,276,690
314.9%
1,002,698
-15.9%
1,616,726
-29.7%
-
138,521
FY 2009
(43,801)
5,118,583
2.9%
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
1,092,795
-6.0%
1,151,673
-2.6%
1,157,857
2.6%
1,116,552
2.5%
4,518,878
-1.0%
1,146,189
4.9%
1,196,214
3.9%
1,262,781
9.1%
1,218,439
9.1%
4,823,622
6.7%
176,110
-33.4%
161,759
-7.5%
186,894
-14.0%
265,703
1.0%
790,467
-14.1%
179,692
2.0%
148,589
-8.1%
207,036
10.8%
284,662
7.1%
819,978
3.7%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
63,363
-9.9%
77,013
-22.5%
105,745
1.6%
515,262
-2.8%
761,383
-5.3%
62,259
-1.7%
81,728
6.1%
114,877
8.6%
607,592
17.9%
866,456
13.8%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
96,477
4.8%
188,704
4.6%
459,550
2.6%
380,459
-5.9%
1,125,190
0.1%
92,291
-4.3%
151,515
-19.7%
432,478
-5.9%
340,652
-10.5%
1,016,937
-9.6%
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
OTHER
(138,521)
TOTAL
%CHYA
-
-
136,193
(2,328)
(136,193)
1,159,655
5.7%
1,275,015
6.1%
1,152,216
16.3%
1,935,973
17.1%
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
1,259,747
2.0%
1,329,099
3.3%
1,400,570
3.9%
1,341,507
5.7%
5,330,922
3.7%
878,797
7.2%
219,813
12.9%
205,344
10.9%
245,659
23.3%
316,456
5.6%
987,271
12.3%
627,762
3.3%
918,512
6.0%
90,738
5.6%
76,943
-11.8%
112,318
-4.5%
684,096
9.0%
964,095
5.0%
360,618
5.9%
1,112,377
9.4%
74,631
15.4%
184,050
17.8%
531,937
0.2%
388,024
7.6%
1,178,642
6.0%
1,201,740
-5.9%
2011:3
2011:4
2012:1
2012:2
1,235,508
7.8%
1,287,030
7.6%
1,348,171
6.8%
1,269,562
4.2%
5,140,271
6.6%
194,674
8.3%
185,239
24.7%
199,238
-3.8%
299,646
5.3%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
85,889
38.0%
87,233
6.7%
117,628
2.4%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
64,687
-29.9%
156,272
3.1%
530,800
22.7%
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
OTHER
TOTAL
%CHYA
(165,933)
1,285,451
10.8%
1,403,230
10.1%
1,134,237
-1.6%
FY 2011
4,943,210
-3.4%
1,097,271
-10.2%
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
990,947
-1.2%
FY 2010
-
5,596,701
2.8%
1,653,251
2.3%
FY 2012
193,614
27,681
2,029,966
4.9%
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.
89
5,852,884
6.0%
(193,614)
1,302,053
1.3%
-
1,427,335
1.7%
-
1,226,610
8.1%
165,933
193,691
2,147,726
5.8%
29,740
5,522,860
11.7%
FY 2013
77
6,103,724
4.3%
TABLE B.4
OREGON PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
REFUNDS
%CHYA
OTHER
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
REFUNDS
%CHYA
OTHER
TOTAL
%CHYA
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
REFUNDS
%CHYA
OTHER
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
OTHER
2014:1
2014:2
1,315,729
4.4%
1,367,362
2.9%
1,475,554
5.4%
1,414,476
5.4%
272,276
23.9%
216,863
5.6%
312,668
27.3%
58,826
-35.2%
81,872
6.4%
113,986
52.7%
192,242
4.5%
September 2012
2014:3
2014:4
2015:1
2015:2
5,573,122
4.5%
1,387,280
5.4%
1,441,726
5.4%
1,566,849
6.2%
1,503,786
6.3%
5,899,640
5.9%
341,739
8.0%
1,143,547
15.8%
294,029
8.0%
234,190
8.0%
337,601
8.0%
368,193
7.7%
1,234,013
7.9%
87,814
-21.8%
779,880
14.0%
1,008,391
4.6%
62,686
6.6%
87,207
6.5%
98,321
12.0%
905,439
16.1%
1,153,654
14.4%
547,822
3.0%
430,529
11.0%
1,284,580
9.0%
118,408
3.9%
197,764
2.9%
571,314
4.3%
446,834
3.8%
1,334,320
3.9%
-
-
FY 2014
203,903
10,212
1,339,154
2.8%
1,473,854
3.3%
1,328,214
8.3%
2,309,470
7.5%
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
6,450,692
5.7%
FY 2016
(203,903)
-
-
217,110
1,421,685
6.2%
1,565,358
6.2%
1,431,457
7.8%
2,547,693
10.3%
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
FY 2015
13,207
6,966,194
8.0%
FY 2017
1,474,846
6.3%
1,532,737
6.3%
1,653,665
5.5%
1,585,154
5.4%
6,246,402
5.9%
1,554,676
5.4%
1,615,692
5.4%
1,731,012
4.7%
1,657,323
4.6%
6,558,703
5.0%
316,790
7.7%
252,318
7.7%
363,024
7.5%
384,051
4.3%
1,316,182
6.7%
330,434
4.3%
263,185
4.3%
378,718
4.3%
401,626
4.6%
1,373,963
4.4%
70,680
12.8%
99,104
13.6%
106,116
7.9%
955,901
5.6%
1,231,801
6.8%
75,797
7.2%
105,757
6.7%
112,256
5.8%
997,051
4.3%
1,290,861
4.8%
124,457
5.1%
205,271
3.8%
601,308
5.2%
499,505
11.8%
1,430,541
7.2%
132,554
6.5%
216,823
5.6%
639,155
6.3%
553,101
10.7%
1,541,633
7.8%
-217,110
0
0
229,441
12,332
-229,441
0
0
240,374
10,932
1,520,749
7.0%
1,678,888
7.3%
1,521,497
6.3%
2,655,042
4.2%
7,376,176
5.9%
1,598,911
5.1%
1,767,811
5.3%
1,582,831
4.0%
2,743,272
3.3%
7,692,826
4.3%
2017:3
2017:4
2018:1
2018:2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
1,625,487
4.6%
1,689,272
4.6%
1,829,770
5.7%
1,755,142
5.9%
6,899,670
5.2%
1,721,379
5.9%
1,788,942
5.9%
1,948,238
6.5%
1,870,476
6.6%
7,329,036
6.2%
345,556
4.6%
275,230
4.6%
396,298
4.6%
424,432
5.7%
1,441,515
4.9%
365,178
5.7%
290,858
5.7%
418,653
5.6%
445,892
5.1%
1,520,581
5.5%
80,105
5.7%
111,383
5.3%
118,106
5.2%
1,040,142
4.3%
1,349,736
4.6%
84,186
5.1%
116,845
4.9%
124,293
5.2%
1,100,773
5.8%
1,426,097
5.7%
149,363
12.7%
226,532
4.5%
664,624
4.0%
590,949
6.8%
1,631,468
5.8%
156,291
4.6%
235,036
3.8%
703,262
5.8%
634,467
7.4%
1,729,056
6.0%
(240,374)
TOTAL
%CHYA
TOTAL
%CHYA
2013:4
(193,691)
TOTAL
%CHYA
REFUNDS
%CHYA
2013:3
-
-
FY 2018
255,120
14,747
1,661,411
3.9%
1,849,353
4.6%
1,679,550
6.1%
2,883,887
5.1%
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
8,074,201
5.0%
FY 2020
(255,120)
-
-
272,625
1,759,331
5.9%
1,961,610
6.1%
1,787,922
6.5%
3,055,299
5.9%
2020:3
2020:4
2021:1
2021:2
FY 2019
17,505
8,564,162
6.1%
FY 2021
1,834,470
6.6%
1,906,480
6.6%
2,050,301
5.2%
1,964,284
5.0%
7,755,535
5.8%
1,926,533
5.0%
2,002,137
5.0%
2,155,227
5.1%
2,065,148
5.1%
8,149,046
5.1%
386,641
5.9%
308,564
6.1%
442,419
5.7%
464,286
4.1%
1,601,910
5.3%
399,886
3.4%
319,114
3.4%
458,113
3.5%
489,535
5.4%
1,666,648
4.0%
92,680
10.1%
127,212
8.9%
130,303
4.8%
1,097,265
-0.3%
1,447,460
1.5%
93,695
1.1%
128,010
0.6%
135,262
3.8%
1,155,933
5.3%
1,512,900
4.5%
161,063
3.1%
247,262
5.2%
745,431
6.0%
681,813
7.5%
1,835,570
6.2%
171,531
6.5%
260,304
5.3%
769,868
3.3%
718,675
5.4%
1,920,379
4.6%
-272,625
0
0
286,132
13,507
-286,132
0
0
300,764
14,632
1,880,103
6.9%
2,094,994
6.8%
1,877,592
5.0%
3,130,154
2.5%
8,982,843
4.9%
1,962,451
4.4%
2,188,957
4.5%
1,978,733
5.4%
3,292,705
5.2%
9,422,847
4.9%
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.
90
Table B.5 Oregon Corporate Income Tax Revenue Forecast 1
TABLE B.5
OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted
2005:3
2005:4
2006:1
FY
2006
2006:2
2006:3
2006:4
2007:1
September 2012
2007:2
FY
2007
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%
588,396
12.0%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
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%
127,941
32.6%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
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%
310,480
68.9%
TOTAL
%CHYA
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%
405,857
-7.4%
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
2007:3
2007:4
2008:1
FY
2008
2008:2
2008:3
2008:4
2009:1
2009:2
FY
2009
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%
97,368
-37.3%
407,044
-27.1%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
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%
21,822
-58.1%
94,357
-39.5%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
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%
37,218
-5.5%
257,649
-5.8%
TOTAL
%CHYA
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%
81,971
-51.2%
243,753
-44.7%
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
FY
2010
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
FY
2011
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
79,579
-20.9%
163,877
12.8%
66,451
4.2%
147,313
51.3%
457,220
12.3%
115,286
44.9%
175,561
7.1%
76,405
15.0%
165,354
12.2%
532,606
16.5%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
20,404
-13.2%
24,009
-10.2%
38,412
72.1%
45,714
109.5%
128,539
36.2%
21,781
6.8%
21,206
-11.7%
35,770
-6.9%
40,805
-10.7%
119,562
-7.0%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
29,072
3.3%
137,244
9.9%
40,080
-40.6%
25,774
-30.7%
232,170
-9.9%
23,130
-20.4%
89,877
-34.5%
39,065
-2.5%
31,489
22.2%
183,562
-20.9%
TOTAL
%CHYA
70,910
-26.1%
50,642
7.3%
64,784
247.5%
167,254
104.0%
353,589
45.1%
113,936
60.7%
106,890
111.1%
73,111
12.9%
174,670
4.4%
468,606
32.5%
2011:3
1
2011:4
2012:1
FY
2012
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
FY
2013
120,766
4.8%
154,290
-12.1%
86,873
13.7%
152,866
-7.6%
514,795
-3.3%
128,346
6.3%
163,947
6.3%
88,213
1.5%
164,764
7.8%
545,270
5.9%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
19,117
-12.2%
26,841
26.6%
32,512
-9.1%
33,322
-18.3%
111,792
-6.5%
21,674
13.4%
26,516
-1.2%
36,829
13.3%
39,421
18.3%
124,440
11.3%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
34,927
51.0%
91,252
1.5%
55,051
40.9%
18,154
-42.3%
199,384
8.6%
49,714
42.3%
103,079
13.0%
63,810
15.9%
37,731
107.8%
254,334
27.6%
TOTAL1
%CHYA
104,955
-7.9%
89,878
-15.9%
64,335
-12.0%
168,034
-3.8%
427,202
-8.8%
100,306
-4.4%
87,384
-2.8%
61,232
-4.8%
166,454
-0.9%
415,375
-2.8%
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
91
TABLE B.5
OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted
2013:3
1
2013:4
2014:1
FY
2014
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
2015:1
September 2012
2015:2
FY
2015
142,085
10.7%
193,308
17.9%
99,878
13.2%
189,722
15.1%
624,993
14.6%
155,568
9.5%
202,778
4.9%
103,961
4.1%
199,142
5.0%
661,449
5.8%
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
20,253
-6.6%
28,707
8.3%
40,227
9.2%
45,185
14.6%
134,371
8.0%
25,239
24.6%
32,964
14.8%
45,298
12.6%
48,773
7.9%
152,275
13.3%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
48,246
-3.0%
95,411
-7.4%
63,757
-0.1%
40,021
6.1%
247,436
-2.7%
48,121
-0.3%
95,700
0.3%
66,371
4.1%
44,655
11.6%
254,846
3.0%
TOTAL1
%CHYA
114,091
13.7%
126,604
44.9%
76,347
24.7%
194,885
17.1%
511,928
23.2%
132,687
16.3%
140,042
10.6%
82,889
8.6%
203,260
4.3%
558,878
9.2%
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
2015:3
ADVANCE PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
2015:4
2016:1
FY
2016
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
FY
2017
159,405
2.5%
201,701
-0.5%
103,744
-0.2%
197,572
-0.8%
662,422
0.1%
157,563
-1.2%
205,023
1.6%
106,110
2.3%
200,932
1.7%
669,628
1.1%
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
28,261
12.0%
33,267
0.9%
45,095
-0.4%
47,215
-3.2%
153,838
1.0%
26,351
-6.8%
32,063
-3.6%
43,728
-3.0%
46,327
-1.9%
148,470
-3.5%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
52,736
9.6%
100,765
5.3%
71,345
7.5%
46,712
4.6%
271,557
6.6%
54,563
3.5%
103,036
2.3%
72,907
2.2%
48,565
4.0%
279,072
2.8%
TOTAL1
%CHYA
134,931
1.7%
134,204
-4.2%
77,493
-6.5%
198,074
-2.6%
544,702
-2.5%
129,352
-4.1%
134,049
-0.1%
76,931
-0.7%
198,694
0.3%
539,025
-1.0%
2017:3
1
2017:4
2018:1
FY
2018
2018:2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
FY
2019
158,855
0.8%
205,774
0.4%
106,190
0.1%
200,572
-0.2%
671,390
0.3%
157,806
-0.7%
204,202
-0.8%
106,328
0.1%
201,059
0.2%
669,395
-0.3%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
25,648
-2.7%
31,527
-1.7%
42,945
-1.8%
45,494
-1.8%
145,613
-1.9%
24,853
-3.1%
30,816
-2.3%
42,684
-0.6%
45,715
0.5%
144,068
-1.1%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
57,074
4.6%
105,137
2.0%
74,519
2.2%
49,935
2.8%
286,664
2.7%
57,768
1.2%
105,201
0.1%
74,502
0.0%
49,741
-0.4%
287,212
0.2%
127,429
-1.5%
132,164
-1.4%
74,616
-3.0%
196,131
-1.3%
530,339
-1.6%
124,890
-2.0%
129,816
-1.8%
74,510
-0.1%
197,034
0.5%
526,251
-0.8%
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
1
TOTAL
%CHYA
2019:3
1
2019:4
2020:1
FY
2020
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
2021:1
2021:2
FY
2021
158,079
0.2%
203,922
-0.1%
107,285
0.9%
200,465
-0.3%
669,752
0.1%
158,943
0.5%
205,875
1.0%
110,179
2.7%
202,661
1.1%
677,658
1.2%
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
25,435
2.3%
31,856
3.4%
43,721
2.4%
46,937
2.7%
147,950
2.7%
26,809
5.4%
33,563
5.4%
45,604
4.3%
48,994
4.4%
154,971
4.7%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
57,834
0.1%
105,398
0.2%
74,303
-0.3%
49,023
-1.4%
286,558
-0.2%
56,940
-1.5%
104,558
-0.8%
73,151
-1.6%
47,421
-3.3%
282,070
-1.6%
125,680
0.6%
130,381
0.4%
76,703
2.9%
198,380
0.7%
531,144
0.9%
128,812
2.5%
134,881
3.5%
82,632
7.7%
204,234
3.0%
550,559
3.7%
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
TOTAL
%CHYA
1
Includes adjustments for changes in tax law.
92
93
37.938
36.496
74.434
35.114
33.619
68.733
32.134
30.186
62.319
28.827
27.530
56.357
26.291
25.108
51.399
2011-12
2012-13
2011-13 Biennium
2013-14
2014-15
2013-15 Biennium
2015-16
2016-17
2015-17 Biennium
2017-18
2018-19
2017-19 Biennium
2019-20
2020-21
2019-21 Biennium
102.464
97.853
200.317
112.348
107.292
219.640
125.234
117.641
242.875
136.847
131.022
267.869
147.855
142.234
290.090
146.676
151.275
297.951
4.087
3.903
7.990
4.481
4.280
8.761
4.995
4.692
9.688
5.459
5.226
10.685
5.898
5.673
11.571
5.851
6.034
11.885
Tobacco Use
Reduction
Account
(3 cents) 2
132.842
126.864
259.706
145.656
139.102
284.758
162.363
152.520
314.882
177.419
169.867
347.287
191.691
184.403
376.095
190.043
196.629
386.673
State Total
Cigarette Tax Distribution
8.174
7.806
15.980
8.963
8.559
17.522
9.991
9.385
19.376
10.917
10.452
21.370
11.795
11.347
23.142
11.701
12.068
23.769
Cities,
Counties &
3
Public Transit
141.016
134.670
275.687
154.619
147.661
302.280
172.353
161.904
334.258
188.336
180.320
368.656
203.487
195.750
399.237
201.745
208.697
410.442
Total
36.415
37.799
74.214
33.798
35.082
68.880
31.612
32.560
64.172
29.797
30.691
60.489
28.087
28.929
57.016
19.956
27.372
47.328
State GF
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.
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.
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.
2. Measure 44 created the TURA and funded it with a 3 cents per pack tax effective February 1, 1997.
Voters approved 60 cents per pack tax increase dedicated to the Health Plan, effective November 1, 2002.
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.
37.517
39.320
76.837
Distribution Forecast*
2009-10
2010-11
2009-11 Biennium
State GF
(22 cents) 1
Health Plan
(Measure 44)
1
(87 cents)
TABLE B.6
Cigarette & Tobacco Tax Distribution (Millions of $)*
28.096
29.164
57.259
26.076
27.067
53.144
24.390
25.122
49.512
22.990
23.680
46.670
21.670
22.320
43.991
15.532
21.487
37.019
4
Health Plan
(Measure 44)
3.125
3.244
6.368
2.900
3.010
5.911
2.713
2.794
5.507
2.557
2.634
5.191
2.410
2.482
4.893
1.727
2.390
4.117
67.636
70.206
137.842
62.774
65.160
127.934
58.715
60.476
119.191
55.344
57.005
112.349
52.167
53.732
105.899
37.215
51.249
88.464
Tobacco Use
Reduction
4
Account
State Total
Other Tobacco Tax Distribution
September 2012
Table B.6 Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Distribution 1
94
227.418
448.212
234.240
241.268
475.508
248.506
255.961
504.466
2016-17
2015-17 Biennium
2017-18
2018-19
2017-19 Biennium
2019-20
2020-21
2019-21 Biennium
2
97.322
270.093
137.042
133.051
254.589
129.176
125.413
239.974
121.760
118.214
225.041
114.771
110.270
230.470
120.271
110.200
198.570
101.248
For details on cigarette revenues see TABLE B.6 on previous page
21.391
10.854
10.538
20.163
10.231
9.933
19.006
9.643
9.362
17.823
9.090
8.733
18.683
10.383
8.300
16.256
7.980
8.277
1
Mental
Health
Mental Health Alcoholism and Drug Services Account, per ORS 471.810
220.794
2015-16
1
420.320
408.106
2011-13 Biennium
214.363
214.001
2012-13
2013-15 Biennium
194.104
2011-12
2014-15
350.252
2009-11 Biennium
205.957
178.307
2013-14
171.945
2010-11
Fund (56%)
Available
2009-10
General
Total Liquor
Revenue
0.766
0.389
0.377
0.722
0.366
0.356
0.680
0.345
0.335
0.638
0.325
0.313
0.654
0.371
0.283
0.536
0.269
0.267
Wine Board
Oregon
67.523
34.261
33.263
63.647
32.294
31.353
59.994
30.440
29.554
56.260
28.693
27.567
50.368
26.402
23.966
42.920
21.895
21.025
Sharing
Revenue
96.462
48.944
47.518
90.925
46.134
44.791
85.705
43.486
42.219
80.372
40.990
39.382
71.954
37.717
34.237
61.314
31.278
30.036
Regular
City Revenue
Liquor Apportionment Distribution
Revenue Distribution to Local Governments (Millions of $)
TABLE B.7
163.985
83.204
80.781
154.572
78.428
76.144
145.699
73.926
71.773
136.632
69.682
66.950
122.321
64.118
58.203
104.233
53.172
51.061
Total
48.231
24.472
23.759
45.462
23.067
22.395
42.853
21.743
21.110
40.186
20.495
19.691
35.977
18.858
17.118
30.657
15.639
15.018
Counties
15.980
7.806
8.174
17.522
8.559
8.963
19.376
9.385
9.991
21.370
10.452
10.917
23.142
11.347
11.795
23.769
12.068
11.701
Public Transit
2
Cigarette Tax
Distribution to
Cities, Counties &
Sept 2012
Table B.7 Revenue Distribution to Local Governments 1
Table B.8 Track Record for the June 2012 Forecast 1
Table B.8 Track Record for the June 2012 Forecast
(Quarter ending June 30, 2012)
Personal Income Tax
(Millions of dollars)
Withholding
Dollar difference
Actual
Revenues
Forecast Comparison
Latest
Forecast
Year/Year Change
Prior
Percent
Change
Year
Percent
Difference
$1,269.6
$1,263.9
$5.7
0.4%
$1,218.4
$51.1
4.2%
Estimated Payments
Dollar difference
$299.6
$302.3
-$2.6
-0.9%
$284.7
$15.0
5.3%
Final Payments
Dollar difference
$627.8
$621.0
$6.7
1.1%
$607.5
$20.2
3.3%
Refunds
Dollar difference
-$360.6
-$380.2
$19.5
-5.1%
-$340.7
-$20.0
5.9%
$1,836.4
$1,807.0
$29.3
1.6%
$1,770.0
$66.4
3.7%
Total Personal Income Tax
Dollar difference
Corporate Income Tax
(Millions of dollars)
Actual
Revenues
Forecast Comparison
Latest
Forecast
Year/Year Change
Prior
Percent
Change
Year
Percent
Difference
Advanced Payments
Dollar difference
$156.7
$152.9
$3.8
2.5%
$165.4
-$8.7
-5.3%
Final Payments
Dollar difference
$33.3
$37.9
-$4.6
-12.1%
$40.8
-$7.5
-18.3%
Refunds
Dollar difference
-$18.2
-$31.3
$13.2
-42.1%
-$31.5
$13.3
-42.4%
$171.8
$159.4
$12.4
7.8%
$174.7
-$2.8
-1.6%
Total Corporate Income Tax
Dollar difference
Total Income Tax
(Millions of dollars)
Corporate and Personal Tax
Dollar difference
Forecast Comparison
Latest
Actual
Revenues
Forecast
$2,008.2
$1,966.5
$41.7
95
Percent
Difference
2.1%
Year/Year Change
Prior
Percent
Change
Year
$1,944.7
3.3%
$63.5
96
(11.402)
37.119
193.657
161.381
8.593
10.582
3.600
674.930
1,089.862
2.252
1,078.460
1,075.874
0.334
8.005
1,075.874
(11.322)
(0.209)
(52.542)
(52.421)
0.089
0.005
(52.421)
(41.105)
(11.515)
(38.924)
0.000
0.000
(3.061)
(9.436)
(2.551)
(7.863)
0.000
(0.233)
0.000
(0.391)
0.000
0.000
0.000 (731.063)
(5.612) (748.986)
(0.209)
(17.127)
(17.006)
0.089
0.000
(17.006)
(5.892)
(11.114)
(3.639)
(17.135)
(14.279)
(0.952)
(0.952)
0.000
0.000
(36.957)
(58.236)
371.329
0.000
(95.193)
35.531
188.614
157.179
10.479
10.479
3.648
272.600
678.529
2.000
1,049.858
0.000
(95.193)
0.000
0.000
(95.193)
0.000
1,047.858
1,047.858
(0.418)
(94.775)
122.479
Change from
Mar-12
925.379
Current
Forecast
2013-15
(3.566)
(16.805)
(14.004)
(0.934)
(0.934)
0.000
0.000
694.820
(57.120)
453.685
0.000
(93.363)
2.000
1,148.505
39.395
206.371
171.976
11.465
11.465
3.648
250.500
694.820
(93.363)
6. Includes Debt Service Allocations, Allocations to State School Fund and Other Agency Allocations
5. One percent of net lottery proceeds are dedicated to Collegiate Athletics and Gambling Addiction programs, respectively. Certain limits are imposed by HB 5035 for 2011-13.
4. The Parks and Natural Resources Fund Constitutional amendment requires 15% of net proceeds be transferred to this fund.
0.000
0.000
(93.363)
(92.872)
(0.490)
Change from
Mar-12
1,146.505
0.000
0.000
1,146.505
1,026.009
120.496
Current
Forecast
2015-17
3. 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.
2. Includes interest earnings on Economic Development Fund and reversions.
1. Includes planned raffles throughout the forecast period.
Note: Some totals may not foot due to rounding.
Ending Balance/Discretionary Resources
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
County Economic Development
Education Stability Fund 3
Parks and Natural Resources Fund4
OUS Sports Lottery Account 5
Gambling Addiction 5
County Fairs
Other Legilatively Adopted Allocations6
Total Distributions
Other Resources2
Total Available Resources
Transfers from Lottery
Beginning Balance
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND
Admin. Savings
Total Available to Transfer
117.184
950.685
Traditional Lottery1
Change
Current Change from from COS
Forecast
Mar-12
2011
2011-13
Video Lottery
(in millions of dollars)
LOTTERY EARNINGS
Date: 05/14/2012
TABLE B.9
Summary of Lottery Resources
553.051
(0.494)
50.095
256.280
213.566
14.238
14.238
3.648
250.500
802.564
623.212
(30.655)
2.000
1,425.776
1,423.776
0.000
0.000
1,423.776
(43.920)
(2.736)
(12.920)
(10.767)
(0.718)
(0.718)
0.000
0.000
802.564
0.000
(71.779)
(71.779)
0.000
0.000
(71.779)
(71.285)
119.105
1,304.670
Change from
Mar-12
Current
Forecast
2019-21
(1.903)
(9.016)
(7.513)
(0.501)
(0.501)
0.000
0.000
757.979
0.000
(50.089)
2.000
1,311.029
45.671
235.625
196.354
13.090
13.090
3.648
250.500
757.979
0.000
(50.089)
0.000
0.000
(50.089)
0.000
1,309.029
1,309.029
(0.496)
(49.593)
119.583
Change from
Mar-12
1,189.446
Current
Forecast
2017-19
Sept 2012 Forecast
Table B.9 Summary of Lottery Resources 1
Table B.10 Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook 1
Table B.10: Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook
Rainy Day Fund
(Millions)
Beginning Balance
Interest Earnings
1
Deposits
2
Ending Balance
Education Stability Fund3
(Millions)
Beginning Balance
4
Interest Earnings
5
Deposits
Distributions
Oregon Education Fund
State Scholarship Commission
Withdrawals
Ending Balance
Total Reserves
(Millions)
Ending Balances
Percent of GF Revenues
2007-09
September 2012
2009-11
2011-13
2013-15
2015-17
2017-19
2019-21
$0.0
$112.5
$10.4
$61.8 #
$262.2
$508.5
$797.0
$18.3
$1.3
$0.6
$2.9 #
$29.2
$57.9
$84.6
$94.3
-$103.4
$50.8
$197.5 #
$217.0
$230.7
$248.8
$112.5
$10.4
$61.8
$262.2 #
$508.5
$797.0
$1,130.4
2007-09
2009-11
2011-13
2013-15
2015-17
2017-19
2019-21
$178.9
$0.0
$5.1
$6.9
$186.1
$382.2
$605.9
$17.2
$1.0
$0.6
$1.8
$21.2
$43.0
$63.2
-$178.9
$101.4
$184.2
$179.2
$196.1
$223.7
$244.6
-$17.1
-$12.8
-$4.3
$0.0
-$97.4
-$0.7
-$0.2
-$96.4
-$182.9
-$0.5
-$0.2
-$182.2
-$1.8
-$1.4
-$0.5
$0.0
-$21.2
-$15.9
-$5.3
$0.0
-$43.0
-$32.2
-$10.7
$0.0
-$63.2
-$47.4
-$15.8
$0.0
$0.0
$5.1
$6.9
$186.1
$382.2
$605.9
$850.5
2007-09
2009-11
2011-13
2013-15
2015-17
2017-19
2019-21
$112.6
$15.5
$68.7
$448.4
$890.7
$1,402.9
$1,980.8
1.0%
0.1%
0.5%
2.9%
5.2%
7.5%
9.6%
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.
Starting with 2013-15, projected corporate income taxes above the rate of 6.6% for the biennium are deposited on or before June 30 of each odd-numbered year.
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. For FY 2012-13, includes
withdrawals totally $182.2 million to the School Year Subaccount.
97
APPENDIX C:
POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX
Table C.1 Population Forecasts Component of Change 1980-2020 ......................................... 100
Table C.2 Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000-2020 ................................................... 101
Table C.3 Population of Oregon: 1980-2020 ............................................................................ 102
Table C.4 Children: Ages 0-4 ................................................................................................... 102
Table C.5 School Age Population: Ages 5-17 .......................................................................... 102
Table C.6 Young Adult Population: Ages 18-24 ...................................................................... 102
Table C.7 Criminally At Risk Population: Males Ages 15-39 .................................................. 103
Table C.8 Prime Wage Earners: Ages 25-44 ............................................................................ 103
Table C.9 Older Wage Earners: Ages 45-64 ............................................................................. 103
Table C.10 Elderly Population by Age Group .......................................................................... 103
98
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 estimated population of July 1, 2010 based on
the most recent decennial census is the base for the forecast. 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 agesex-specific birth and migration rates to the mid-period population. Further iterations subject the inand-out migrants to the same mortality and fertility rates.
Populations by age-sex detail for the years 2000 through 2009, called intercensal estimates, in the
following tables are developed by OEA based on 2000 and 2010 censuses and intercensal totals
from the Population Research Center, Portland State University. The numbers of births and deaths
through 2009-10 are from Oregon's Center for Health Statistics. The total populations for the
period 2012 to 2020 are generated as part of the economic and revenue forecast of OEA.
Annual numbers of births are determined based on the age-specific fertility rates projected based on
Oregon's past trends and past and projected national trends. Oregon's total fertility rate is assumed
to remain below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman during the forecast period,
tracking at slightly lower than the national rate.
Life Table survival rates are developed for the year 2008. Male and female life expectancies for the
2010-2020 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 at births of 77.1 and the female life expectancy of 81.7 in 2010 are
projected to improve to 78.2 years for males and 82.7 years for females by the year 2020.
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 migration forecasting model uses Oregon’s employment, unemployment rates and
income/wage data from Oregon and other states. Distribution of migrants by age and sex is based on
detailed data from the American Community Survey. The annual net migration between 2010 and
2020 is expected to remain in the range of 7,250 to 37,000, averaging 27,500 persons annually.
Slowdown in Oregon’s economy in the recent years resulted in smaller net migration and slow
population growth. Estimated population growth and net migration rates in 2011 are the lowest in
over two decades. This slow population growth, as a result of slow economy and high
unemployment rate, is expected to continue in the near future. Migration is intrinsically related to
economy and employment situation of the state. Still, current high unemployment and job loss have
impacted net migration and population growth, but not to the extent in the early 1980s. Main reason
for this is the fact that other states of potential destination for Oregon out-migrants are not faring
any better either. Hence the potential out-migrants have very limited destination choices.
99
Table C.1 Population Forecasts Component of Change 1980-2020 1
100
Table C.2 Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000-2020 1
State of Oregon
Oregon's Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2001-2020 (July 1 population)
(July 1 Population)
Age
0-4
5- 9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Total
Mdn. Age
Age
0-4
5- 9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Total
Mdn. Age
Male
114,742
118,879
125,950
127,311
120,814
119,436
125,882
125,463
134,585
136,214
125,826
89,314
67,383
53,861
48,249
40,503
27,465
19,293
2001
Female
109,903
113,240
119,470
119,879
115,792
111,809
117,768
122,883
136,761
138,948
127,295
91,758
70,539
59,438
57,290
54,397
41,513
40,549
1,721,170
35.3
1,749,230
37.8
Male
118,832
119,959
124,400
131,680
129,625
128,110
126,016
128,779
126,728
135,135
136,187
124,581
87,811
64,860
49,222
40,359
29,996
23,554
2006
Female
113,050
115,315
118,240
124,886
123,869
125,220
119,767
122,827
126,664
139,543
140,978
129,098
92,304
69,850
55,999
51,026
44,406
46,323
1,825,834
36.3
1,859,366
38.6
Male
121,083
121,757
124,066
129,073
130,569
133,288
133,507
125,920
128,968
127,763
134,686
134,058
121,431
84,431
59,397
41,519
30,440
27,736
Female
115,073
115,891
119,042
121,921
126,669
130,820
130,750
121,786
125,347
128,559
140,684
142,355
127,819
90,854
65,614
50,113
42,286
52,349
1,909,692
37.4
1,947,933
39.7
Male
123,427
124,489
123,279
127,252
135,244
140,216
141,377
136,948
127,987
130,155
127,115
132,986
131,865
115,980
77,059
50,470
32,164
31,205
Female
116,651
117,358
117,991
120,912
129,686
139,577
138,518
132,557
123,486
126,226
129,783
141,675
141,484
124,347
85,193
58,663
41,063
54,716
2,009,217
38.2
2,039,883
40.3
Total
224,645
232,119
245,421
247,190
236,605
231,245
243,651
248,346
271,346
275,162
253,120
181,072
137,922
113,299
105,539
94,900
68,978
59,843
3,470,400
36.6
Total
231,882
235,274
242,639
256,567
253,494
253,330
245,782
251,606
253,391
274,678
277,165
253,680
180,115
134,710
105,221
91,385
74,402
69,877
3,685,200
37.3
Male
115,219
117,908
126,474
127,250
122,925
119,216
127,842
123,019
133,102
136,992
126,548
98,235
70,666
54,996
47,788
40,508
28,398
19,854
2002
Female
109,865
112,625
120,344
119,862
118,001
112,937
119,417
119,340
135,121
140,305
128,354
100,967
74,175
60,295
56,535
53,697
42,507
41,313
1,736,939
35.5
1,765,661
38.0
Male
121,058
120,925
124,017
133,027
129,491
131,446
126,936
131,387
124,917
134,349
137,589
125,683
97,117
68,563
50,569
40,218
30,251
24,585
2007
Female
115,102
115,818
118,145
126,562
124,047
128,889
121,971
125,260
123,759
138,533
142,901
130,760
102,054
73,945
57,052
50,594
44,085
47,794
1,852,129
36.5
1,887,271
38.7
Male
120,073
122,677
123,568
127,466
132,739
132,299
135,581
125,966
130,740
125,326
133,421
134,431
122,864
92,061
62,307
42,558
30,443
28,539
Female
113,899
116,865
118,260
120,539
128,606
129,747
133,268
122,258
126,559
124,979
139,196
143,024
129,506
98,771
69,024
50,756
41,801
52,981
1,923,061
37.6
1,960,039
39.9
Male
125,450
124,170
124,546
127,206
134,584
144,361
142,069
140,028
128,608
132,533
125,174
132,190
132,996
117,988
84,476
53,101
33,189
31,884
Female
118,470
116,593
119,397
120,403
129,247
144,120
139,150
135,642
124,351
127,818
126,668
140,839
142,800
126,497
92,963
61,886
41,743
55,061
2,034,552
38.3
2,063,648
40.3
2011
Age
0-4
5- 9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Total
Mdn. Age
Total
Mdn. Age
3,502,600
36.8
Total
236,160
236,743
242,162
259,588
253,538
260,335
248,907
256,647
248,677
272,882
280,489
256,444
199,171
142,509
107,622
90,812
74,336
72,379
3,739,400
37.5
Male
116,118
117,595
127,007
126,490
125,433
120,690
128,373
121,225
131,876
136,336
129,544
103,863
75,490
56,889
47,448
40,627
28,798
20,727
2003
Female
110,533
112,522
120,408
120,236
119,922
114,847
120,485
116,792
133,467
140,343
132,212
106,596
79,114
62,083
55,941
52,917
43,326
42,323
1,754,532
35.7
1,784,068
38.2
Male
122,723
121,906
124,144
134,019
128,090
134,251
128,841
132,046
123,362
133,523
137,266
128,665
102,948
73,612
52,510
40,073
30,464
25,325
2008
Female
116,618
116,639
118,401
127,039
124,102
131,308
124,231
126,581
121,440
137,181
143,176
134,868
107,873
79,164
58,915
50,211
43,606
49,078
1,873,769
36.7
1,910,431
38.8
Male
119,712
123,902
123,317
126,516
135,041
132,144
137,054
128,561
131,363
123,673
132,007
134,353
124,843
97,871
66,905
44,041
30,615
29,191
Female
113,227
117,872
118,141
119,782
130,328
129,973
134,891
124,299
127,340
122,157
137,497
142,662
132,718
105,025
73,734
52,131
41,241
53,574
1,941,109
37.8
1,976,591
40.0
Male
127,441
124,263
126,004
127,258
134,245
148,081
143,019
142,158
131,637
133,537
123,840
131,093
133,432
120,335
90,174
57,188
34,519
32,538
Female
120,287
116,181
120,695
120,472
129,123
147,641
140,536
137,627
126,682
128,851
124,127
139,550
142,879
129,997
99,104
66,272
43,005
55,310
2,060,762
38.5
2,088,338
40.4
2012
Total
236,155
237,648
243,108
250,995
257,238
264,108
264,258
247,706
254,315
256,322
275,370
276,413
249,250
175,285
125,011
91,632
72,725
80,085
3,857,625
38.5
2016
Age
0-4
5- 9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Total
225,084
230,533
246,818
247,112
240,926
232,153
247,259
242,360
268,224
277,297
254,902
199,202
144,841
115,291
104,323
94,204
70,905
61,167
4,049,100
39.2
3,538,600
36.9
Total
239,340
238,545
242,545
261,058
252,192
265,559
253,072
258,627
244,802
270,705
280,443
263,533
210,821
152,776
111,425
90,285
74,069
74,403
3,784,200
37.8
Male
117,038
118,055
126,169
127,484
127,001
122,799
127,650
121,489
131,106
134,864
132,767
109,932
80,095
59,083
47,523
40,403
29,266
21,444
2004
Female
111,315
112,983
119,728
121,227
121,951
117,484
119,951
116,438
132,016
139,381
136,330
112,923
83,740
64,273
55,493
52,009
44,164
43,325
1,774,167
35.8
1,804,733
38.4
Male
123,056
122,109
124,495
133,094
128,034
134,893
130,499
130,807
123,395
132,802
135,862
131,454
108,952
78,191
54,604
40,236
30,361
26,014
2009
Female
116,873
116,793
118,646
126,245
124,294
132,724
126,264
125,534
120,853
135,635
142,064
138,782
114,138
83,768
61,042
49,905
43,011
50,369
1,888,859
37.0
1,926,941
39.1
Male
120,121
124,460
123,254
126,532
136,131
133,714
139,270
130,563
130,761
123,961
131,374
133,182
127,547
103,293
70,924
46,141
30,833
29,738
Female
113,710
117,844
118,301
119,766
131,229
131,823
136,915
126,452
126,438
121,367
135,958
141,803
136,590
110,375
78,226
54,184
40,802
53,919
1,961,799
37.9
1,995,701
40.1
Male
129,440
125,006
126,713
127,370
134,676
150,068
145,480
144,852
133,938
133,174
124,366
130,672
132,609
123,250
95,398
60,740
36,293
33,128
Female
122,141
116,858
120,842
120,753
129,519
149,691
143,341
139,911
129,044
128,102
123,527
138,267
142,312
134,029
104,306
70,428
44,798
55,457
2,087,174
38.6
2,113,326
40.5
2013
Total
233,972
239,542
241,828
248,005
261,345
262,046
268,849
248,224
257,299
250,305
272,617
277,455
252,371
190,832
131,331
93,313
72,244
81,520
3,883,100
38.7
2017
Total
240,078
241,847
241,270
248,163
264,930
279,793
279,894
269,505
251,473
256,382
256,898
274,661
273,349
240,327
162,252
109,132
73,227
85,921
Total
226,652
230,117
247,415
246,726
245,356
235,536
248,858
238,017
265,343
276,679
261,756
210,460
154,604
118,972
103,389
93,545
72,124
63,050
4,098,200
39.3
101
3,578,900
37.1
Male
117,847
118,737
124,732
129,634
128,090
125,208
126,179
124,789
129,401
134,310
135,022
117,120
84,062
61,643
48,249
40,366
29,725
22,398
2005
Female
112,161
113,851
118,604
122,978
122,777
121,121
119,324
119,125
129,428
139,320
138,899
120,794
88,300
66,384
55,650
51,512
44,474
44,689
1,797,511
36.0
1,829,389
38.5
Male
122,327
121,539
124,508
131,126
128,787
134,019
131,489
128,070
125,969
130,825
135,129
133,011
115,236
81,854
56,925
40,932
30,391
26,800
Female
116,130
116,369
118,732
124,540
124,903
131,816
128,325
123,596
122,843
132,538
141,565
140,802
121,045
87,917
62,949
50,101
42,734
51,458
1,898,938
37.2
1,938,362
39.4
Male
121,276
124,949
122,690
127,096
136,077
136,189
140,139
133,861
129,471
126,454
129,595
132,864
129,954
109,478
74,404
48,230
31,478
30,450
Female
114,757
117,923
117,993
120,237
131,025
134,850
137,607
129,552
124,832
123,280
133,155
141,762
139,212
117,290
82,212
56,121
40,907
54,231
3,917,700
38.8
1,984,655
38.1
2,016,945
40.2
3,815,800
38.0
Male
131,427
126,396
127,289
126,865
135,486
150,431
148,653
146,029
137,465
132,020
127,039
129,021
132,512
125,788
101,233
63,808
38,071
34,110
Female
124,002
118,036
121,018
120,494
130,222
150,012
147,177
140,772
132,293
126,579
125,585
135,574
142,460
136,760
110,931
74,079
46,491
55,970
4,149,100
39.4
2,113,645
38.8
2,138,455
40.6
3,626,900
37.2
Total
238,457
237,908
243,241
255,667
253,689
265,835
259,814
251,665
248,811
263,363
276,693
273,812
236,281
169,771
119,874
91,034
73,126
78,258
3,837,300
38.3
2015
Total
233,831
242,304
241,555
246,298
267,360
265,537
276,184
257,015
257,198
245,329
267,332
274,985
264,137
213,668
149,150
100,326
71,635
83,657
3,957,500
39.0
2019
Total
247,728
240,444
246,699
247,731
263,369
295,721
283,555
279,785
258,319
262,388
247,968
270,643
276,310
250,332
189,278
123,460
77,523
87,848
Total
230,008
232,588
243,336
252,612
250,867
246,329
245,503
243,914
258,829
273,629
273,921
237,914
172,361
128,027
103,899
91,878
74,199
67,087
2010
Total
239,929
238,901
243,140
259,339
252,328
267,617
256,763
256,341
244,249
268,437
277,926
270,236
223,090
161,959
115,646
90,141
73,372
76,383
2014
Total
232,939
241,774
241,458
246,298
265,369
262,117
271,944
252,860
258,703
245,830
269,504
277,015
257,561
202,896
140,639
96,173
71,856
82,766
2018
Total
243,920
240,763
243,944
247,608
263,831
288,481
281,219
275,670
252,960
260,351
251,842
273,028
275,796
244,485
177,439
114,987
74,932
86,945
Total
228,353
231,038
245,898
248,711
248,952
240,282
247,601
237,927
263,121
274,245
269,097
222,855
163,835
123,356
103,016
92,412
73,430
64,769
Total
236,034
242,872
240,683
247,333
267,102
271,039
277,746
263,413
254,303
249,734
262,751
274,626
269,166
226,768
156,616
104,351
72,385
84,681
4,001,600
39.1
2020
Total
251,581
241,864
247,555
248,123
264,195
299,759
288,822
284,763
262,983
261,277
247,892
268,939
274,922
257,278
199,704
131,168
81,091
88,584
4,200,500
39.5
Total
255,429
244,432
248,307
247,359
265,708
300,443
295,830
286,801
269,758
258,599
252,624
264,596
274,972
262,548
212,164
137,887
84,563
90,080
4,252,100
39.7
Table C.3 Population of Oregon: 1980-2020 1
Population of Oregon: 1990-2020
Year
Total Change from previous year
Population
Number
Percent
--------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------1990
2,860,400
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
3,431,100
37,200
1.10%
2001
3,470,400
39,300
1.15%
2002
3,502,600
32,200
0.93%
2003
3,538,600
36,000
1.03%
2004
3,578,900
40,300
1.14%
2005
3,626,900
48,000
1.34%
2006
3,685,200
58,300
1.61%
2007
3,739,400
54,200
1.47%
2008
3,784,200
44,800
1.20%
2009
3,815,800
31,600
0.84%
2010
3,837,300
21,500
0.56%
2011
3,857,625
20,325
0.53%
2012
3,883,100
25,475
0.66%
2013
3,917,700
34,600
0.89%
2014
3,957,500
39,800
1.02%
2015
4,001,600
44,100
1.11%
2016
4,049,100
47,500
1.19%
2017
4,098,200
49,101
1.21%
2018
4,149,100
50,899
1.24%
2019
4,200,500
51,400
1.24%
2020
4,252,100
51,599
1.23%
(July 1)
Oregon's Population and Annual Percent Change, 1950-2020
4,500,000
4,000,000
3.0
3,500,000
3,000,000
1.0
2,500,000
Percent Change
Population
2.0
0.0
2,000,000
Total Population
-1.0
1,500,000
Forecast
-2.0
1,000,000
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Table C.4 Children: Ages 0-4 1
Children: Ages 0-4
Year
4.0
Annual Percent Change
% Change from previous decade/yr.
Year
Table C.5 School Age
Population: Ages 5-17 1
School Age Population: Ages 5-17
% Change from previous decade/yr.
Table C.6 Young Adult
Population: Ages 18-24 1
Young Adult Population: Ages 18-24
% Change from previous decade/yr.
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
223,207
13,569
6.47%
624,316
91,589
17.19%
330,328
62,194
23.20%
2001
224,645
1,438
0.64%
624,675
358
0.06%
336,660
6,333
1.92%
2002
225,084
439
0.20%
624,611
-64
-0.01%
340,778
4,118
1.22%
2003
226,652
1,568
0.70%
624,349
-262
-0.04%
345,266
4,487
1.32%
2004
228,353
1,701
0.75%
625,461
1,112
0.18%
349,138
3,873
1.12%
2005
230,008
1,655
0.72%
628,326
2,865
0.46%
351,076
1,938
0.55%
2006
231,882
1,874
0.81%
633,646
5,320
0.85%
354,328
3,252
0.93%
2007
236,160
4,278
1.85%
635,720
2,074
0.33%
356,311
1,983
0.56%
2008
239,340
3,180
1.35%
635,372
-348
-0.05%
358,967
2,656
0.75%
2009
239,929
589
0.25%
633,575
-1,797
-0.28%
360,134
1,166
0.32%
2010
238,457
-1,472
-0.61%
630,741
-2,835
-0.45%
359,764
-370
-0.10%
2011
236,155
-2,302
-0.97%
628,338
-2,403
-0.38%
360,651
887
0.25%
2012
233,972
-2,183
-0.92%
628,481
143
0.02%
362,239
1,588
0.44%
2013
232,939
-1,034
-0.44%
629,713
1,232
0.20%
365,186
2,946
0.81%
2014
233,831
892
0.38%
630,723
1,010
0.16%
366,794
1,608
0.44%
2015
236,034
2,203
0.94%
631,239
516
0.08%
366,750
-43
-0.01%
2016
240,078
4,044
1.71%
631,588
349
0.06%
364,621
-2,129
-0.58%
2017
243,920
3,842
1.60%
632,478
890
0.14%
363,668
-953
-0.26%
2018
247,728
3,808
1.56%
633,537
1,059
0.17%
364,705
1,037
0.29%
2019
251,581
3,853
1.56%
635,962
2,425
0.38%
365,774
1,070
0.29%
2020
255,429
3,848
1.53%
640,063
4,100
0.64%
365,743
-31
-0.01%
(July 1)
102
Table C.7 Criminally At Risk
Population: Males Ages 15-39 1
Criminally "At Risk" Population:
Males Ages 15-39
Year
Table C.8 Prime Wage
Earners: Ages 25-44 1
Table C.9 Older Wage
Earners: Ages 45-64 1
Prime Wage Earners: Ages 25-44
% Change from previous decade/yr.
% Change from previous decade/yr.
Older Wage Earners: Ages 45-64
% Change from previous decade/yr.
Population
Number
Percent
Population
Number
Percent
Population
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
616,988
72,250
13.26%
996,500
70,174
7.58%
817,510
286,329
53.90%
2001
618,906
1,918
0.31%
994,587
-1,913
-0.19%
847,276
29,766
3.64%
2002
620,252
1,347
0.22%
989,996
-4,591
-0.46%
876,242
28,966
3.42%
2003
622,211
1,959
0.32%
987,755
-2,241
-0.23%
903,499
27,257
3.11%
2004
626,423
4,212
0.68%
988,932
1,177
0.12%
930,032
26,533
2.94%
2005
633,901
7,478
1.19%
994,575
5,644
0.57%
957,826
27,793
2.99%
2006
644,210
10,309
1.63%
1,004,110
9,535
0.96%
985,638
27,813
2.90%
2007
652,287
8,077
1.25%
1,014,565
10,455
1.04%
1,008,986
23,348
2.37%
2008
657,248
4,961
0.76%
1,022,060
7,495
0.74%
1,025,501
16,515
1.64%
2009
657,327
79
0.01%
1,024,971
2,911
0.28%
1,039,689
14,188
1.38%
2010
653,491
-3,836
-0.58%
1,026,126
1,155
0.11%
1,050,150
10,461
1.01%
2011
652,358
-1,134
-0.17%
1,030,387
4,261
0.42%
1,057,355
7,205
0.69%
2012
654,052
1,694
0.26%
1,036,418
6,032
0.59%
1,052,748
-4,607
-0.44%
2013
659,315
5,263
0.80%
1,045,624
9,206
0.89%
1,049,910
-2,838
-0.27%
2014
666,210
6,895
1.05%
1,055,935
10,311
0.99%
1,051,782
1,873
0.18%
2015
673,362
7,152
1.07%
1,066,500
10,565
1.00%
1,056,276
4,494
0.43%
2016
681,036
7,675
1.14%
1,080,665
14,165
1.33%
1,061,289
5,013
0.47%
2017
688,248
7,211
1.06%
1,098,330
17,664
1.63%
1,061,017
-271
-0.03%
2018
694,761
6,513
0.95%
1,117,380
19,051
1.73%
1,057,309
-3,708
-0.35%
2019
702,446
7,685
1.11%
1,136,326
18,946
1.70%
1,053,030
-4,279
-0.40%
2020
707,464
5,019
0.71%
1,152,832
16,505
1.45%
1,050,791
-2,239
-0.21%
(July 1)
Table C.10 Elderly Population by Age Group 1
Elderly Population by Age Group
%Change from
%Change from
%Change from
%Change from
previous
previous
Year
previous
previous
decade/yr.
decade/yr.
(July 1)
Ages 65+
Ages 65-74
decade/yr.
Ages 75-84
Ages 85+
decade/yr.
--------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------185,863
--91,137
--28,841
--1980
305,841
128,813
41.34%
38,784
34.48%
1990
392,369
28.29%
224,772
20.93%
2000
439,239
11.95%
218,997
-2.57%
162,187
25.91%
58,055
49.69%
2001
442,558
0.76%
218,838
-0.07%
163,878
1.04%
59,843
3.08%
165,109
0.75%
61,167
2.21%
2002
445,890
0.75%
219,614
0.35%
2003
451,080
1.16%
222,361
1.25%
165,669
0.34%
63,050
3.08%
2004
456,984
1.31%
226,373
1.80%
165,842
0.10%
64,769
2.73%
0.14%
67,087
3.58%
2005
465,089
1.77%
231,926
2.45%
166,077
2006
475,596
2.26%
239,931
3.45%
165,787
-0.17%
69,877
4.16%
2007
487,657
2.54%
250,131
4.25%
165,148
-0.39%
72,379
3.58%
3.14%
264,201
5.63%
164,354
-0.48%
74,403
2.80%
2008
502,959
2009
517,502
2.89%
277,606
5.07%
163,513
-0.51%
76,383
2.66%
78,258
2.45%
2010
532,062
2.81%
289,645
4.34%
164,159
0.40%
2011
544,739
2.38%
300,296
3.68%
164,357
0.12%
80,085
2.34%
81,520
1.79%
2012
569,241
4.50%
322,164
7.28%
165,557
0.73%
2013
594,330
4.41%
343,535
6.63%
168,029
1.49%
82,766
1.53%
2014
618,435
4.06%
362,818
5.61%
171,960
2.34%
83,657
1.08%
84,681
1.22%
2015
644,801
4.26%
383,383
5.67%
176,737
2.78%
670,859
4.04%
402,578
5.01%
182,359
3.18%
85,921
1.47%
2016
2017
698,787
4.16%
421,924
4.81%
189,918
4.15%
86,945
1.19%
87,848
1.04%
2018
728,441
4.24%
439,610
4.19%
200,983
5.83%
2019
757,826
4.03%
456,982
3.95%
212,260
5.61%
88,584
0.84%
2020
787,242
3.88%
474,712
3.88%
222,449
4.80%
90,080
1.69%
103
Revenue Forecast
September 2012
Volume XXXII, No. 3
Release Date: August 29, 2012
Michael Jordan
Chief Operating Officer
DAS Director
John A. Kitzhaber, MD
Governor
Prepared By:
Office of Economic Analysis
Department of Administrative Services
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:
Download from the Web
OEA will post all forecasts online at http://oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/economic.shtml. To receive an
e-mail notice of new postings sign up at the following Web site.
http://oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/listserv.shtml
Department of Administrative Services
Michael Jordan
DAS Director
Chief Operating Officer
Office of Economic Analysis
Mark McMullen, State Economist
Kanhaiya Vaidya, Senior Demographer
Damon Bell, Senior Analyst
Josh Lehner, Economist
Kris Klemm, Administrative Specialist
http://oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/OR_EconAnalysis
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 the 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.
Michael Jordan
DAS Director
Chief Operating Officer
iii
iv
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 6
I.
ECONOMIC FORECAST ............................................................................................. 13
A.
National Economic Review and Forecast ..................................................................... 13
B.
International Review and Outlook ................................................................................ 17
C.
Western Region ............................................................................................................... 23
D.
Oregon Economic Review and Forecast ....................................................................... 27
II.
REVENUE FORECAST ................................................................................................ 56
A.
2011-13 General Fund Revenues ................................................................................... 56
B.
Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook ................................................................... 59
C.
Tax Law Assumptions .................................................................................................... 59
D.
Forecast Risks.................................................................................................................. 60
E.
Lottery Earnings Forecast ............................................................................................. 61
F.
Overview of Budgetary Reserves ................................................................................... 62
APPENDIX A: ECONOMIC FORECAST DETAIL ............................................................ 64
APPENDIX B: REVENUE FORECAST DETAIL ............................................................... 85
APPENDIX C: POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX.................................... 98
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
September 2012
Oregon Economic Forecast
Current Conditions
Oregon’s economic expansion is still intact for now, but remains at risk, and is losing steam due
to weakness in global demand for our products. To date, local labor markets have slowly
improved along with the nation overall, resulting in a slowly declining unemployment rate.
Although economic growth in Oregon has continued at roughly the same slow pace since the
recovery began, the forces driving this growth have recently changed. In particular, the regional
housing market is beginning to show signs of life, which is helping to offset weaker market
conditions among many of Oregon’s major manufacturers and exporters.
The fact that improvement continues is encouraging. However, the threat of external shocks has
placed a burden on businesses and households, leading many to pull back on their spending out
of caution. The euro zone recession – and potential crisis – in addition to the slowdown in China
and an uncertain U.S. federal policy environment represent three very large risks to the global
outlook. These risks are hard to handicap from a planning perspective and have created an
exorbitant amount of uncertainty about the future. As a result, future plans are being delayed
with businesses and individuals holding off on making long-term investments.
Outlook
Despite all of the uncertainty, the economic outlook for Oregon remains positive. It is likely that
the U.S. economic recovery can survive any one of these external shocks if faced in isolation.
However, even if all of the external threats facing Oregon are resolved in a painless manner, the
uncertainty they have caused can be expected to weigh on growth. By taking a wait-and-see
approach, firms and households are ensuring that some degree of a slowdown will occur. Should
they not see anything too drastic; the expected slowdown will remain just that, and not transition
into something worse.
Due to a recent string of weak manufacturing, consumer spending, and trade data, a broad
consensus of economic forecasters has become more pessimistic about future growth prospects.
Similarly, the Office of Economic Analysis outlook reflects somewhat weaker expectations for
growth over the next two years. Despite the revised growth rates, the general character of
Oregon’s lackluster economic outlook has not changed, with more of the same, slow
improvement expected going forward.
During the recovery so far, Oregon’s employment has grown at just under the state’s long run
trend rate, or approximately 1.2 percent annually. While growing at trend – which includes both
6
expansions and recessions – is better than not, this is less than half of a typical expansion year’s
growth. The private sector has added jobs at a 1.5 percent pace since late 2010, which again is
just about half of the past two expansions’ pace.
The economy has faced two major drags in recent years: housing and government. After
contracting 30 percent during the recession and losing a further 1.5 percent from early 2010 to
early 2011, housing-related jobs have begun to grow again. While the pace of hiring is slow,
simply having the housing sector turn from a negative aspect of the economy to a neutral or
slightly positive aspect is more than welcome news. The news is less good on the public sector
side. Government job cuts have not ended, holding down the headline employment numbers
statewide. Although the losses have not stopped, government job cuts in recent months have
been less severe than a year ago.
The vast majority of the public sector cuts have occurred at the local government education level
– K-12 and community colleges – and the economic outlook calls for another round of cuts this
coming school year. Next year, expectations are for public sector employment to stabilize with
the sector gradually turning from a negative to a positive contributor to employment growth.
Growth in housing-related industries and a stabilization of government payrolls is particularly
good news for rural Oregon. Recent differences in the economic performance of counties across
Oregon are expected to lessen going forward. As the housing market continues to heal and state
and local governments stop cutting back, drags on economic growth in rural areas will lessen.
Farm income remains healthy, and market conditions are stabilizing for many wood product
firms. Expectations are not for strong growth, but at least a sustained upturn in many areas that
have missed out on the recovery thus far.
All told, slow growth will continue to be the norm. The manufacturing cycle is past its peak, and
Oregon’s major trading partners are ordering fewer of our goods. Consumers will not save the
day, since many still need to fix their household balance sheets by saving more or paying down
debt. Recent improvements in labor markets and housing markets will help the expansion persist,
but will not be enough to generate strong growth.
Summary of Recent Trends
Getting a handle on the health of Oregon’s labor market is being somewhat complicated by
technical issues within the underlying payroll jobs data. Technical issues aside, employment in
Oregon continues to increase at a slow, subdued pace through early 2012, approximately in line
with the gains seen at the U.S. level.
The employment data discussed in this report is adjusted for two important technical purposes:
seasonality and the upcoming benchmark revisions 1.After adjustments, the data reveals a state
that continues to expand slowly, adding nearly 19,000 jobs in the past year (1.2% through
2012q2), instead of a state that is close to stagnating, adding only 11,500 jobs in the past year
(0.7%).
1
See the full forecast report for additional detail
7
Over the past year, job growth has been widespread across industries, with only transportation
equipment manufacturers and financial service firms seeing small declines in the private sector.
Public sector employment fell by more than 2.0 percent over the same period. The largest gains
have been in professional and business services and leisure and hospitality, which increased by
approximately 7,400 and 3,100, respectively, from 2011q2 to 2012q2. Health services and
construction each added between 2,500 and 3,000 jobs over the past year. These four main
industry groups account for approximately 63 percent of all private sector gains, with
manufacturing accounting for another 13 percent, or 3,200 jobs. Within manufacturing, gains
were led by durable goods, particularly metals and machinery.
Similar to the employment data, leading indicators for Oregon have moved in fits and starts in
recent years. Following growth in late 2011 through early 2012, Oregon’s leading indicators
declined sharply in June. However, the index remains positive on a six-month growth basis,
which is consistent with an expanding economy in the near future. The overall index was led
downward by large movements in a handful of indicators most affected by the global economic
weakness Most indicators, including measures of the health of Oregon’s job market, point to
continued growth.
Demographic Forecast
Oregon’s population count on April 1, 2010 was 3,831,074. Oregon gained 409,550 persons
between the years 2000 and 2010. The population growth during the decade of 2000 to 2010 was
12.0 percent, down from 20.4 percent growth from the previous decade. Oregon’s rankings in
terms of decennial growth rate dropped from 11th between 1990-2000 to 18th between 2000 and
2010. Slow population growth during the most recent decade due to double recessions probably
cost Oregon one additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Actually, Oregon’s
decennial population growth rate during the most recent decade was the second lowest since
1900. The slowest, actually negative, was during the 1980s when Oregon was hit hard by another
recession. As a result of recent economic downturn and sluggish recovery, Oregon’s population
is expected to continue a slow pace of growth in the near future. Based on the current forecast,
Oregon’s population will reach 4.25 million in the year 2020 with an annual rate of growth of
1.03 percent between 2010 and 2020.
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 national and
international labor market. As Oregon’s total fertility rate remains below the replacement level
and deaths continue to rise due to ageing population, long-term growth comes mainly from net
in-migration. Working-age adults come to Oregon as long as we have favorable economic and
employment environments. During the 1980s, which 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
economy of 1990s. This share of migration to population change declined to 56 percent in 2002
and it was further down to 32 percent in 2010. As a sign of slow to modest economic gain, the
ratio of net migration-to-population change will increase gradually and will reach 72 percent by
the end of the forecast horizon. Although economy and employment situation in Oregon look
stagnant at this time, migration situation is not expected to replicate the early 1980s pattern of
8
negative net migration. Potential Oregon out-migrants have no better place to go since other
states are also in the same boat in terms of economy and employment.
Age structure and its change affect employment, state revenue, and expenditure. Demographics
are the major budget drivers, which are modified by policy choices on service coverage and
delivery. Growth in many age groups will show the effects of the baby-boom and their echo
generations during the period of 2010-2020. 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 during the 1990s and early 2000s, the elderly
population (65+) has picked up a faster pace of growth and will surge as the baby-boom
generation continue to enter this age group. The average annual growth of the elderly population
will be 3.9 percent during the forecast period as the boomers continue to enter retirement age.
However, the youngest elderly (aged 65-74) will grow at an extremely fast pace during the
forecast period, averaging 4.9 percent annual rate of growth due to the direct impact of the babyboom generation entering the retirement age. Reversing several years of shrinking population,
the elderly aged 75-84 will start a positive growth as the effect of depression era birth-cohort will
dissipate. A faster pace of growth of population in this age group will begin once the baby-boom
generation starts to mature. The oldest elderly (aged 85+) will continue to grow at a moderately
but steady rate due to the combination of cohort change, continued positive net migration, and
improving longevity. The average annual rate of growth for this oldest elderly over the forecast
horizon will be 1.4 percent.
As the baby-boom generation matures out of oldest working-age cohort combined with slowing
net migration, the once fast-paced growth of population aged 45-64 will gradually taper off to
below zero percent rate of growth by 2012 and will remain at slow or below zero growth phase
for several years. The size of this older working-age population will remain virtually unchanged
at the beginning to the end of the decade. The 25-44 age group population is recovering from
several years of declining and slow growing trend. The decline was mainly due to the exiting
baby-boom cohort. This age group has seen positive growth starting in the year 2004 and will
increase by 1.2 percent annual average rate during the forecast horizon. The young adult
population (aged 18-24) will change only a little over the forecast period and remain virtually
unchanged for most of the years into the future. Although the slow or stagnant growth of collegeage population (age 18-24), in general, tend to ease the pressure on public spending on higher
education, college enrollment typically goes up during the time of high unemployment and
scarcity of well-paying jobs when even the older people flock back to college to better position
themselves in a tough job market. The growth in K-12 population (aged 5-17) will remain low
which will translate into slow growth in school enrollments. This school-age population has
actually declined in size in recent years and will grow in the future at well below the state
average. The growth rate for children under the age of five will remain below zero percent in the
near future and will see positive growth only after 2013. Although the number of children under
the age of five will decline slightly in the near future, the demand for child care services and preKindergarten program will be additionally determined by the labor force participation and
poverty rates of the parents. Overall, elderly population over age 65 will increase rapidly
whereas population groups under age 65 will experience slow growth in the coming decade.
Hence, based solely on demographics of Oregon, demand for public services geared towards
9
children and young adults will likely to increase at a slower pace, whereas demand for elderly
care and services will increase rapidly.
Revenue Forecast
Summary
The weaker outlook for economic growth translates directly into a weaker outlook for Oregon’s
primary General Fund revenue sources. Most notably, personal income tax collections are
expected to be more than 2% smaller over the extended forecast horizon than what was reflected
in the June 2012 forecast.
With fewer jobs expected, taxes related to labor income are expected to grow at a slower rate.
Reductions in the outlook for taxes withheld out of workers’ paychecks mirror reductions in the
outlook for wage earnings. Forecasts have been reduced by much more for some volatile income
tax sources including capital gains and corporate excise taxes. In addition to personal income
taxes, consumer spending on video lottery and tobacco products is also now expected to be
weaker than what was reflected in the June 2012 forecast.
Although the long-term revenue forecast has been reduced significantly, the outlook for the
current biennium remains on track. Over the last three months, General Fund revenue collections
have come in somewhat stronger than expected. Also, it will take several months before the
expected weakness in economic growth becomes fully reflected in lower tax collections.
Overall, General Fund revenue growth is expected to remain slow, growing by 11% during 201113 and in each of the next two biennia. During past periods of economic expansion in Oregon,
revenues have grown by 15% to 20% in a typical biennium.
Revenue growth in Oregon and other states will face considerable downward pressure over the
10-year extended forecast horizon. As the baby boom population cohort works less and spends
less, traditional state tax instruments such as personal income taxes and general sales taxes will
become less effective, and revenue growth will fail to match the pace seen in the past.
2011-13 General Fund Revenues
Growth in general fund revenues has not been remarkable over the summer months, but it has
been healthy. Personal income taxes are growing due to a mix of both labor and investment
income, and corporate excise taxes appear to have stabilized after dropping sharply early in the
biennium.
Collections of most major revenue types came in stronger than what was expected over the
summer. Although a weaker economy is already manifesting itself in tax collections, it will take
some time before slower economic growth is fully reflected in the revenue outlook. As a result,
the revenue outlook for the 2011-13 biennium is somewhat stronger than what was predicted in
the June 2012 forecast. The forecast for General Fund revenues for 2011-13 is now $13,921
million. This represents an increase of $88 million (0.6%) from the June 2012 forecast.
10
Table R.1
2011-13 General Fund Forecast Summary
(Millions)
June 2012
Forecast
September 2012
Forecast
Structural Revenues
Personal Income T ax
$12,193.6
$11,919.9
$11,956.6
$36.7
-$236.9
Corporate Income T ax
$894.2
$814.5
$842.6
$28.1
-$51.7
All Other Revenues
$944.2
$1,098.5
$1,121.8
$23.2
$177.6
Gross GF Revenues
$14,032.0
$13,832.9
$13,921.0
$88.0
-$111.0
Administrative Actions1
-$23.1
-$14.1
-$4.4
$9.7
$18.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$14,008.9
$13,818.9
$13,916.6
$97.7
-$92.3
Legislative Actions
Net Available Resources
Change from
Prior Forecast
Change from
COS Forecast
2011 COS
Forecast
Confidence Intervals
67% Confidence
95% Confidence
+/- 4.0%
+/- 7.9%
$552.0
$1,104.0
$13.37B to $14.47B
$12.82B to $15.02B
1 Reflects cost of cashflow management actions, ex clusiv e of internal borrowing.
The forecast for the 2011-13 biennium is now $111 million below the Close of Session forecast.
Given the strong employment gains seen in early 2011, the Close of Session forecast is more
optimistic than other versions produced before or since. Nevertheless, given lackluster near-term
expectations for revenue growth, a strong April 2013 of tax collections would put us back on
track with the Close of Session’s relatively optimistic outlook. If we see a boom similar to the
last revenue cycle, the personal income tax kicker may yet come into play.
Personal Income Tax
Personal income tax collections were $1,836 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012,
$29.4 million (1.6%) above the latest forecast. Compared to the year-ago level, total personal
income tax collections grew by 3.7% relative to a forecast that called for 2.1% growth. Personal
income tax collections have continued to come in higher than forecast during the current quarter.
Appendix B presents a comparison of actual and projected personal income tax revenues for the
fourth quarter of 2012.
Personal income tax collections are expected to remain weak until the April 2013 filing season
when the gains seen in stock markets this year are realized for tax purposes. Further taxable
capital gains realizations will be generated by taxpayers attempting to move their assets ahead of
potential federal tax increases in 2013. Very few collections related to filers who receive
extensions are expected this year, with payments expected to fall and refunds to rise.
11
Corporate Excise Tax
Corporate excise tax collections equaled $172 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012,
$12.4 million above the June forecast. Compared to one year ago, net corporate receipts were
down 1.6% with the forecast calling for an 8.7% decline.
Corporate tax collections are expected to continue to decline throughout fiscal year 2013, as they
remain very large from an historical perspective. Very strong growth is expected during the
2013-15 biennium, since corporate tax collections are prone to boom-bust cycles. However,
growth rates, while large, will remain less than half of what has been seen during recent profit
booms.
Other Sources of Revenue
All other General Fund revenues are expected to total $1,122 million for the 2011-13 biennium,
an increase of $23 million (2.1%). Most revenue sources are tracking ahead of the June forecast,
including large contributions from estate taxes, judicial-related revenues and liquor
apportionment. Only revenues from the sale of tobacco products and video lottery sales are
tracking significantly below forecast. 2
Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook
Table R.2 exhibits the long-run forecast for General Fund revenues through the 2019-21
biennium. Users should note that the potential for error in the forecast increases substantially the
further ahead we look.
Table R.2
General Fund Revenue Forecast Summary (Millions of Dollars, Current Law)
Forecast
Revenue Source
Personal Income Taxes
Corporate Income Taxes
All Others
Total General Fund
Kicker Distributions
Total Revenue
Forecast
2009-11
%
Biennium
Chg
10,467.2
2011-13
Forecast
%
Biennium Chg
3.7% 11,956.6
20.9%
842.6
1.8%
1,226.6
29.8%
1,121.8
-8.5%
12,521.4
12,521.4
6.8% 13,921.0
%
Biennium
Chg
14.2% 13,416.9
827.6
1,070.8
2015-17
Forecast
%
2017-19
Forecast
%
2019-21
%
Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg
12.2% 15,069.0 12.3% 16,638.4 10.4% 18,405.7
10.6%
27.1%
1,083.7
1.2%
1,056.6 -2.5%
1,081.7
2.4%
967.2 -13.8%
1,025.8
6.1%
1,096.6
1,184.4
8.0%
9.4% 20,671.8
10.0%
11.2% 15,454.8
-2.2% 13,921.0
Forecast
2013-15
11.2% 15,454.8
11.0% 17,178.5 11.2% 18,791.6
-
-
11.0% 17,178.5 11.2% 18,791.6
6.9%
9.4% 20,671.8
10.0%
Other tax es include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Sev erance Tax , Western Oregon Sev erance Tax and Amusement Dev ice Tax .
Commercial Fish Licenses & Fees and Pari-mutual Receipts are included in Other Rev enues
2
Lottery transfers into the General Fund are not included in the total. See the full forecast document for a
discussion of the lottery forecast.
12
General Fund revenues will total $15,455 million in 2013-15, an increase of 11.0% percent from
the prior period, and $223 million (-1.4%) below the March forecast. In 2015-17, revenue growth
is expected to remain stable at 11.2%, followed by slower rates of 9% to 10% in subsequent
biennia. The slowdown in long-run revenue growth is largely due to the impact of demographic
changes.
I.
ECONOMIC FORECAST
September 2012
While economic growth continues in fits and starts, an underlying positive trend remains intact.
The nation’s GDP has grown about 2 percent per year for the past three years and payroll
employment gains have averaged 150,000 per month. Certainly, these figures make for a
disappointing recovery, but they do not make for a disaster.
This edition of the National Economic Review and Forecast contains excerpts from Nigel Gault,
U.S. Economy: Current Situation: Forecast Flash, IHS Global Insight, July 2012. This
publication summarizes Global Insight’s baseline national forecast that OEA uses as a starting
point for the Oregon economic and revenue models. OEA summarizes the Forecast Flash and is
our interpretation of this document. Any errors or misrepresentations are attributable to OEA.
A.
National Economic Review and Forecast
Slowdown or Something Worse?
The U.S. manufacturing sector in June and July finally felt the global slowdown as the ISM
manufacturing index dropped below the breakeven point of 50. While most manufacturing
indices around the world had already slowed, the U.S. held up longer than the majority of the
advanced economies. The nonmanufacturing ISM index remained above 50 but did show signs
of slowing. Central banks, such as China and the ECB, are cutting interest rates, or extending
unconventional easing, such as the Bank of England, but the potency of these actions is unclear.
Worse to Come? Do these data point to worse things to come? Or are we, once again, in a
temporary soft patch in the recovery? IHS Global Insight and the general economic consensus
take the latter view. The U.S. economy is still above recessionary readings and not all of the
news is bad. Both residential and nonresidential construction activity is increasing. The gasoline
price drop from April through June was a welcomed boost to consumers to the tune of about
0.5% of disposable income – although prices are once again rising. Overall economic and
employment growth is likely to remain modest. The macroeconomic outlook has been nudged
slightly lower and the probability of recession in the near term has risen to 25%.
Second Quarter GDP Growth Now Pegged at Just 1.5% IHS Global Insight lowered its
projected in second quarter growth to just 1.5% ahead of the official data release, which showed
the domestic economy expanding at 1.5%. IHS Global Insight expects GDP growth to average
2% in the second half of the year, led by consumer spending and housing activity.
External Shocks Remain the Biggest Risk. The baseline forecast continues to assume Greece
exits the European Monetary Union in 2013; an earlier exit would threaten turmoil as it would
13
likely intensify pressure on both Italy and Spain. Even without an early Grexit, the Eurozone
crisis could worsen particularly if the economic data continues to be bad. The slowdown in
China could also intensify. And a confrontation with Iran has not disappeared from a geopolitical risk, which would impact oil prices. Within the U.S. the “fiscal cliff” continues to cloud
the outlook but remains an entirely avoidable calamity. IHS Global Insight estimates that under
the worse case “cliff” scenario that the economy would contract 0.3% in 2013. Given the
severity of the cliff’s consequences, it is expected that an extension of current policies remains
the likely outcome. Meaning that the baseline forecast assumes neither the Bush tax cuts nor the
payroll tax cut expire in 2013 and the sequestration does not go ahead.
Healthcare Reform Survives for Now. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the healthcare reform has
no impact of the baseline forecast. The reform may still unravel, of course, if Republicans are
sufficiently powerful after the November elections. Or if many states opt out of the Medicaid
expansion.
The Fed: More Quantitative Easing Still on the Table. The Federal Reserve has again lowered
its economic outlook, including inflation, and has also extended “Operation Twist” through the
end of 2012. “Twist” – as you may recall – is the process in which the Fed buys longer term
government securities and sells shorter term securities. IHS Global Insight believes the Fed
continues to be too optimistic on growth and will likely follow up with more action once the
twist expires. The forecast assumes $500 billion worth of quantitative easing in 2013. Should
growth be even weaker in 2012 of if the Eurozone crisis intensifies, this easing is likely to be
brought forward.
Figure N.1*
Quarterly
AR)
Real GDP (%,
Federal Funds
Rate
10 Year T-Bill
Oil Prices,
Refiner Acquisition
Cost ($)
Consumer Price
Index (Y/Y %)
Housing Starts
(millions)
Consumer
Sentiment (Univ. of
Michigan)
Unemployment
Rate (Percent)
Annual
1
Q 12
1.
9
0.
10
2.
04
2
Q 12
1.
5
0.
15
1.
83
3
Q12
2.
0
0.
16
1.
69
4
Q12
2.
0
0.
16
1.
79
2
011
1
.7
0
.10
2
.79
2
012
2
.0
0
.14
1
.83
2
013
2
.0
0
.16
2
.22
2
014
2
.7
0
.26
3
.02
2
015
3
.3
1
.81
3
.91
10
8
10
1
88
88
1
02
9
6
8
9
9
7
9
6
2.
8
1.
9
1.
1
1.
1
3
.1
1
.7
1
.3
2
.3
2
.0
0.
71
0.
73
0.
78
0.
83
0
.61
0
.77
0
.94
1
.22
1
.52
76
76
76
77
6
7
7
6
7
9
8
0
8
2
8.
2
8.
2
8.
1
8.
0
9
.0
8
.1
8
.0
7
.7
7
.1
*Figure N.1 was taken from Nigel Gault, U.S. Economy: Current Situation: Forecast Flash, IHS Global Insight, July 2012
14
Graph N.1
U.S. Economic History and Forecast
Interest Rates
Real GDP, Percent Change
2005 Dollars, Chain Weighted
5
Prime
11
3M Treasury
10 Yr Treasury
10
4
9
Percent
3
Percent Change
2
1
8
7
6
5
0
1996
-1
1999
2005
2002
2008
2011
2014
2017
4
2020
3
2
-2
1
-3
0
1996
-4
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
Housing Starts
Unemployment Rate
11
Total
2.5
10
Single Family
Multi-Family
9
2.0
8
Percent
Millions
7
1.5
6
5
1.0
4
3
0.5
2
1
0.0
0
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
1996
2020
Year-Over-Year Percent Chnage
6
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2020
2017
Real Exchange Rate
Consumer Price Index
All Items
1999
Major Trading Partners
Excluding Food & Energy
Other Important Partners
1.30
5
1.20
4
1.10
3
1.00
2
0.90
1
0.80
0
0.70
-1
0.60
0.50
-2
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
1996
2020
1999
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
Consumer Confidence & Spending
Standard and Poor's 500 Index
2,000
2002
1,800
Real Consumer Spending (Left Axis)
Consumer Sentiment (Univ of Mich, Right Axis)
8
1,600
6
100
4
90
2
80
0
70
-2
60
Percent Chnage
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
-4
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
15
110
50
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
TABLE N. 1
U.S. Forecast Summary 2009-2017 (Jul 2012 U.S. Forecast, IHS Global Insight)
GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight
% Ch
2011:4
2012:1
13,429
3.0
13,491
1.9
Quarterly
2012:2 2012:3
13,543
1.5
13,610
2.0
2012:4
2013:1
2009
2010
2011
2012
Annual
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
13,677
2.0
13,756
2.3
12,703
(3.5)
13,088
3.0
13,315
1.7
13,580
2.0
13,850
2.0
14,228
2.7
14,701
3.3
15,148
3.0
15,592
2.9
Personal Income (Bil of $)
% Ch
13,106
1.5
13,228
3.8
13,340
3.4
13,475
4.1
13,604
3.9
13,715
3.3
11,930
(4.3)
12,374
3.7
12,991
5.0
13,412
3.2
13,908
3.7
14,544
4.6
15,278
5.0
16,068
5.2
16,803
4.6
Nonagricultural Employment (Millions)
% Ch
132.0
1.4
132.7
2.1
133.0
1.0
133.3
1.0
133.8
1.3
134.2
1.4
130.8
(4.4)
129.9
(0.7)
131.4
1.2
133.2
1.4
134.9
1.3
136.8
1.4
139.1
1.7
141.5
1.7
143.5
1.4
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
8.7
(15.2)
8.3
(18.5)
8.2
(4.8)
8.1
(2.5)
8.0
(4.1)
8.0
(2.6)
9.3
59.9
9.6
3.8
8.9
(7.0)
8.1
(9.0)
8.0
(2.4)
Industrial Production Index (2007=100)
% Ch
95.3
5.1
96.6
5.6
97.4
3.1
97.7
1.2
98.3
2.3
98.9
2.6
85.4
(11.4)
90.1
5.4
93.7
4.1
97.5
4.0
99.7
2.2
Corporate Profits (Bil of $)
% Ch
1,905
(1.7)
2,139
59.1
2,059
(14.1)
2,078
3.7
2,114
7.2
2,363
56.0
1,456
7.0
1,819
25.0
1,896
4.2
2,098
10.6
2,353
12.2
2,326
(1.1)
2,270
(2.4)
2,215
(2.4)
2,168
(2.1)
Money Supply (M2) (Bil of $)
% Ch
9,571
7.5
9,771
8.6
9,877
4.4
9,971
3.9
10,061
3.6
10,159
4.0
8,450
5.3
8,728
3.3
9,571
9.7
10,061
5.1
10,412
3.5
10,911
4.8
11,368
4.2
11,752
3.4
12,147
3.4
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
(36.1)
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.32
2.2
4.81
44.9
6.67
38.6
7.00
5.0
Prime Rate
% Ch
Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100)
% Ch
227.0
1.3
228.3
2.5
228.8
0.7
228.6
(0.2)
229.3
1.2
230.2
1.4
214.6
(0.3)
218.1
1.6
224.9
3.1
228.8
1.7
231.7
1.3
7.7
(3.5)
102.9
3.2
237.1
2.3
7.1
(8.0)
106.8
3.8
241.8
2.0
6.6
(7.1)
109.8
2.8
246.1
1.8
6.2
(5.7)
112.9
2.9
250.1
1.6
Federal Budget (unified) (Bil of $, Fed FY
(321.7)
(457.2)
(103.2)
(251.8)
(281.2)
(330.2)
Current Account Balance (Bil of $)
% Ch
(474.6)
44.85
(549.3)
79.34
(534.3)
(10.47)
(487.4)
(30.74)
(459.1)
(21.27)
(436.1)
(18.59)
(1,471.3) (1,275.1) (1,249.6) (1,093.4) (743.6) (632.2) (570.9) (574.5) (562.5)
(381.9)
(43.6)
(442.0)
15.7
(465.9)
5.4
(507.5) (460.4) (517.3) (544.2) (580.1) (570.0)
8.9
(9.3)
12.4
5.2
6.6
(1.7)
Population (Millions)
% Ch
313.41
1.0
314.17
1.0
314.93
1.0
315.69
1.0
316.46
1.0
317.22
1.0
307.58
0.9
310.06
0.8
312.38
0.7
315.31
0.9
318.38
1.0
321.48
1.0
324.59
1.0
327.73
1.0
330.89
1.0
2009
2010
2011
2012
Annual
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
12,703
0.0
13,088
0.0
13,315
0.0
TABLE N. 2
U.S. Forecast Change - (Current Forecast Jul 2012 vs. Last Forecast Apr 2012)
2011:4
2012:1
Quarterly
2012:2 2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight
% Change From Last Forecast
13,429
0.0
13,491
(0.0)
13,543
(0.2)
13,610
(0.2)
13,677
(0.3)
13,756
(0.2)
Personal Income (Bil of $)
% Change From Last Forecast
13,106
(0.4)
13,228
(0.2)
13,340
(0.4)
13,475
(0.7)
13,604
(0.8)
13,715
(0.9)
11,930
0.0
12,374
0.0
12,991
(0.1)
13,412
(0.5)
13,908
(1.0)
14,544
(1.4)
15,278
(1.2)
16,068
(1.0)
16,803
(0.8)
132.0
0.0
132.7
(0.0)
133.0
(0.1)
133.3
(0.3)
133.8
(0.4)
134.2
(0.5)
130.8
0.0
129.9
0.0
131.4
0.0
133.2
(0.2)
134.9
(0.6)
136.8
(1.0)
139.1
(1.0)
141.5
(0.8)
143.5
(0.5)
8.7
0.0
8.3
(0.0)
8.2
(0.1)
8.1
(0.1)
8.0
(0.0)
8.0
(0.0)
9.3
0.0
9.6
0.0
8.9
0.0
8.1
(0.0)
8.0
0.1
7.7
0.4
7.1
0.5
6.6
0.4
6.2
0.2
Industrial Production Index (2007=100)
% Change From Last Forecast
95.3
0.2
96.6
0.3
97.4
(0.4)
97.7
(1.0)
98.3
(1.0)
98.9
(1.0)
85.4
0.0
90.1
0.0
93.7
0.0
97.5
(0.5)
99.7
(1.3)
102.9
(1.6)
106.8
(0.9)
109.8
(0.8)
112.9
(0.3)
Corporate Profits (Bil of $)
% Change From Last Forecast
1,905
0.0
2,139
5.9
2,059
3.9
2,078
5.8
2,114
7.6
2,363
10.7
1,456
0.0
1,819
0.0
1,896
0.0
2,098
5.8
2,353
9.4
2,326
2.9
2,270
3.6
2,215
4.3
2,168
5.1
Money Supply (M2) (Bil of $)
% Change From Last Forecast
9,571
(0.3)
9,771
(0.1)
9,877
0.2
9,971
0.1
10,061
0.0
10,159
0.0
8,450
(0.5)
8,728
(0.4)
9,571
(0.3)
10,061
0.0
10,412
(0.8)
10,911
(1.2)
11,368
(1.3)
11,752
(1.2)
12,147
(0.9)
Prime Rate
% Change From Last Forecast
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.25
0.0
3.32
2.2
4.81
13.6
6.67
6.4
7.00
(0.0)
228.8
(0.5)
231.7
(0.9)
237.1
(0.4)
241.8
(0.3)
246.1
(0.5)
250.1
(0.5)
Nonagricultural Employment (Millions)
% Change From Last Forecast
Unemployment Rate
Point Change From Last Forecast
Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100)
% Change From Last Forecast
227.0
0.0
228.3
0.0
228.8
(0.3)
228.6
(0.8)
229.3
(0.9)
230.2
(1.0)
Federal Budget (unified) (Bil of $, Fed FY (321.7)
(457.2)
(103.2)
(251.8)
(281.2)
(330.2)
Current Account Balance (Bil of $)
% Change From Last Forecast
(474.6)
(4.39)
(549.3)
0.30
(534.3)
(6.97)
(487.4)
(13.91)
(459.1)
(16.03)
(436.1)
(15.56)
(381.9)
1.4
(442.0)
(6.1)
(465.9)
(1.6)
(507.5) (460.4) (517.3) (544.2) (580.1) (570.0)
(9.2) (10.0)
3.3
2.4
2.4
2.5
Population (Millions)
% Change From Last Forecast
313.41
(0.4)
314.17
(0.4)
314.93
(0.4)
315.69
(0.4)
316.46
(0.4)
317.22
(0.4)
307.58
(0.1)
310.06
(0.1)
312.38
(0.3)
315.31 318.38 321.48 324.59 327.73 330.89
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.3)
16
214.6
0.0
218.1
0.0
224.9
0.0
13,580 13,850 14,228 14,701 15,148 15,592
(0.2)
(0.6)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(0.9)
(0.6)
(1,471.3) (1,275.1) (1,249.6) (1,093.4) (743.6) (632.2) (570.9) (574.5) (562.5)
B.
International Review and Outlook
This edition of the International Review and Outlook contains information written by Payton Odom,
Research Analyst, and Valerie Grossman, Research Assistant, with the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas. The following section was originally published as the International Economic Update, dated
August 3, 20123, and is reprinted here in accordance with the Bank’s disclaimer and privacy policy.
Near-term forecasts for global gross domestic product (GDP) growth have been revised downward
in most advanced and emerging economies, with uncertainty surrounding the euro area continuing
to restrain growth prospects.
With Spain’s and Italy’s financial stability in question and China’s second-quarter growth rates
lower than expected, central banks in advanced and emerging economies have lowered benchmark
policy rates to stimulate flagging midyear output and employment growth numbers. While the
United States is experiencing a positive, albeit moderate, recovery from the global financial crisis,
the threat of sovereign debt contagion in the euro area is tempering growth and feeding uncertainty.
Financial imbalances, structural impediments to growth and policy uncertainty continue to
contribute to a negative outlook for the euro area. The 17 euro-area states have widely varying
financial situations. An examination of balances in the region’s TARGET cross-border central bank
payment system provides evidence that periphery economies such as Spain and Italy are relying on
the European Central Bank and core members such as Germany for bank liquidity. This reliance has
created large payment deficits between debtor and creditor countries, exacerbating political tensions
and revealing the need for structural reform.
Core countries have not escaped the threat of sovereign debt contagion, however: Moody’s has
lowered its outlook for Germany from stable to negative amid concerns that Greece may leave the
euro area and that Germany may be charged with the responsibility of providing more funds to the
euro-area periphery.
After reaching a yield of 7.18 percent on June 18, rates for Spain’s 10-year government bond
hovered slightly below the 7 percent mark for much of June and July, rose to a record high of 7.63
percent on July 24 and then fell back under 7 percent. Italy has also experienced rising borrowing
costs. The rise in yields has drawn attention to these two countries’ financial situations. European
finance ministers agreed to a bailout for the Spanish government of up to €100 billion, but several
regional governments, unable to pay civil-service wages or service debt payments, are now asking
for assistance from Madrid as well. The size of Spain’s and Italy’s debt markets in comparison to
those in Greece and Portugal suggests a higher capacity to absorb increased debt servicing costs and
avoid default.
Adding to the global uncertainty stemming from the euro area are recent allegations that major
investment banks manipulated the benchmark London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) to
misrepresent their risk portfolios. LIBOR is the most commonly used benchmark for short-term
interest rates, serving as the base rate for $800 trillion in mortgages, loans and investments. Doubts
concerning the accuracy of benchmark rates could serve as an additional drag on investor
confidence in the region.
3
http://www.dallasfed.org/institute/update/2012/int1205.cfm
17
Monetary Policy Eases with Global Inflation Pressures
With inflationary pressures mostly low across advanced and emerging economies, monetary
authorities in many countries are responding to the recent growth slowdown by lowering benchmark
policy rates. The Bank of England, which already has a record low rate of 0.5 percent, has little
room to enact rate changes. The bank left its rate unchanged and instead pledged a round of
quantitative easing on July 5, adding £50 billion to an asset-purchase program that now totals £375
billion. The European Central Bank followed suit, lowering its main lending rate 25 basis points to
0.75 percent and its deposit rate to zero.
Emerging economies also tried to stave off spillover effects from the euro-area crisis by easing
monetary policy. On July 5, China unexpectedly lowered its lending rate 31 basis points to 6
percent and its deposit rate 25 basis points to 3 percent following a rate cut in June. Brazil cut its
policy rate to a record low of 8 percent on July 11; South Africa unexpectedly lowered its policy
rate 50 basis points to a record low of 5 percent on July 19.
Major Emerging Economies Still Feel Chill from Euro Area
A closer examination of the impetus for China’s policy rate cuts reveals that the pace of economic
growth in China is slowing. China’s manufacturing purchasing managers index, though up to 49.5
from 48.2 in June, still lies in contractionary territory. Moreover, in the second quarter, China’s
year-over-year GDP growth rate dropped to 7.6 percent, a pace last seen in 2009. The International
Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts real GDP growth rates slightly above 8 percent for China through
2017.
With declining inflationary pressures accompanying softer GDP growth, investors remain uncertain
as to whether China’s slowdown is indicative of a soft landing or a more pronounced trend. China
isn’t the only emerging-market economy experiencing slowing growth. While emerging economies
are seeing stronger growth than advanced economies, economic activity has decelerated, and the
IMF revised its 2012 and 2013 growth forecasts downward for the BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia,
India and China) in July.
Global Problem Depends on European Solution
The wide-reaching effects of the euro-area crisis are evident through trade and financial linkages
across the globe, and GDP growth forecasts have been lowered in response to continued uncertainty
in the region. Resolution of the region’s most pressing problems is riding on credible fiscal and
structural reform commitments in the euro area, and a renewed pace of growth appears unlikely
without momentum from cooperative commitments between the area’s member governments. In the
second half of the year, both advanced and emerging economies are expected to see continued
modest growth, accompanied by low and stable inflationary pressures.
- Payton Odom and Valerie Grossman
18
Oregon Exports
Overview
As discussed in the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report, global growth has slowed – particularly
manufacturing activity. One result is a slowdown in international trade, including Oregon’s exports.
Overall, Oregon exports through the first half of 2012 are down 5.1 percent relative to their 2011
Graph I.1
Oregon Export Growth, Top 50 Countries
2010
2011
2012 June YTD
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
Total
China &
Malaysia
Japan & S.
Korea
Other Asia
North
America
Eurozone
Other Europe
All Other
levels. As seen in Graph I.1, exports to some regions have held up. However, exports to Oregon’s
largest trading partners are flat or declining.
Given the state’s geographic location, it is no surprise that Oregon trades largely with fellow Pacific
Rim countries. For Asia, the manufacturing slowdown is clearly seen in Oregon’s export data.
Exports to China and Malaysia accounted for nearly 30 percent of all exports in 2011 and are
currently down over 28 percent so far through the first half of 2012. Exports to Japan and South
Korea represent 15 percent of the state’s total and are, effectively, flat on the year. All other Asian
exports – another 15 percent of all exports – have increased 6 percent in the past year due to
increased shipments of Computer and Electronic Products to Vietnam. All Asian economies
combined, representing 59 percent of Oregon export markets, have seen trade fall nearly 14 percent
so far in 2012.
Oregon exports to the rest of North America accounted for 19 percent of all exports in 2011, with
Canada representing over 70 percent of this segment. These exports continue to grow strongly so far
in 2012 to all three major North American destinations: Canada (+11%), Costa Rica (+57%) and
Mexico (+70%). Many of these regional exports are related to farm and mining equipment.
However, even if commodity prices come down, trade in the Americas should continue to increase
due to the relative strength of both the Canadian and Mexican economies.
Where Oregon export trends are most interesting is regarding trade with Europe. The euro zone has
fallen back into recession and the euro is weakening relative to the dollar and many other
currencies. Given the economic weakness in the monetary union, demand is falling. A depreciating
currency makes Oregon’s exports more expensive for Europeans, thus a decline in exports to the
19
region is not surprising. Conversely, Eurpoean countries not in the euro zone have seen their
currencies strengthen, and Oregon’s exports become more affordable. Generally, these economies
are doing better than their euro zone neighbors, and demand is increasing. However, the largest
gains in this category are exports to the United Kingdom. Given that the U.K. economy, while not
officially falling back into recession, is weaker than the U.S. economy, this significant increase may
be a blip related to the recent Olympics. Overall, Oregon exports to Europe represent approximately
11 percent of all exports in 2011 with the euro zone comprising two-thirds of this total.
Finally, exports to the rest of the world continue to increase, however represent a small portion of
Oregon’s total trade flows. Recent increases in exports to Australia represent the largest increase in
this category, primarily due to gains in motor vehicle shipments. The remainder of the increases
relate to gains in exports to both the Middle East (Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, U.A.E.) and South
America (Argentian, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru).
Export Trends
$ millions
Graph I.2 illustrates Oregon’s Graph I.2
total exports and the growth rate
Oregon Total Exports
from 1997 through 2012q2.
Total Exports (Left Axis)
Year-over-Year Change (Right Axis)
45%
6,000
After robust growth in 2009 and
into early 2010, Oregon’s export
5,000
30%
gains have certainly slowed. In
2011, Oregon’s export growth of
4,000
15%
3.5 percent ranked 4th slowest
among all states. While it is true
3,000
0%
that
Oregon
typically
2,000
-15%
experiences
more
volatile
movements than the US overall
1,000
-30%
– during booms exports increase
more than the nation and during
0
-45%
recessions they decrease more
Q1 1997 Q1 1999 Q1 2001 Q1 2003 Q1 2005 Q1 2007 Q1 2009 Q1 2011
than the nation – the current
expansion is somewhat different given the nature of Oregon’s exports. As seen in Graph I.3 there
are essentially three trends going on in the detailed data that are masked by the total export figures.
High dollar value computer and
electronic
product
exports
typically compose around 40-45
percent of the state’s total value
of exports, and thus, movements
within the high tech sector swing
the statewide totals. In the first
year and a half of the export
recovery, exports of computer
and
electronic
products
increased over 70 percent from
their recessionary lows, driving
the state’s overall export growth.
Since then, these exports have
fallen from historic highs reach
Graph I.3
Export Growth in Recovery
Computer And Electronic Products
Agricultural Products
All Other
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
Q1 2009
Q1 2010
20
Q1 2011
Q1 2012
in 2010; however the past recent quarter saw another large gain and the industry is currently
exporting 40 percent more than during the depths of the recession.
The second underlying trend has been the overall strength in agricultural exports, even though they
remain very volatile due to commodity prices. Agricultural exports, chiefly grains, have remained
relatively steady in terms of the volume of exports, which is important from an economic impact
sense as the number of containers or barges loaded impacts the number of longshoremen or truck
drivers or warehouse space needed, rather than just the dollar value of exports. Even though the
quantity of exports has remained comparatively stable, the dollar value has not due to the large
commodity price swings experienced in recent years as can be seen in both Graph I.3 above and I.4
below.
The third main trend in Oregon exports has to do with all other industries. While these products
may not have driven export growth initially, they are now the state’s strongest due to their slow and
steady growth in the past three years. Currently, exports from all industries outside of agriculture
and computer and electronic products are over 70 percent above their recessionary lows and the
gains are broad based across industries. Both Chemicals and Machinery have each contributed 16
percentage points to Oregon’s overall export growth, while Wood Products and Paper Products
have contributed a further 9 percent. These four industries’ growth outpaces the combined growth
of Agriculture and Computer and Electronic Products (33 percent). Over the past three years, only
three industries (out of 32) have registered losses over the period and none have seen declines larger
than 0.7 percent.
All told, Oregon exports have
rebounded
strongly
from
recessionary lows in recent years,
and have reached a plateau at a
high level the past two years.
Expectations are for continued
growth across all industries in the
near future as global demand
picks up following the recent
slowdown.
Table I.1
Oregon Exports by Industry
($ millions, current prices)
Total All Industries
2011q2
YTD
9,515.6
2012q2
YTD
9,034.6
y/y %
change
-5.1%
Share out
of Total
100.0%
Computer And Electronic Products
Agricultural Products
Machinery, Except Electrical
Chemicals
Transportation Equipment
Waste And Scrap
Food And Kindred Products
Primary Metal Manufacturing
Wood Products
Paper
Electrical Equipment, Appliances, And Component
Miscellaneous Manufactured Commodities
Fabricated Metal Products, Nesoi
Plastics And Rubber Products
Petroleum And Coal Products
3,472.1
1,507.2
827.3
974.7
424.7
280.3
258.2
313.2
266.9
235.3
142.6
148.9
147.6
91.7
75.3
3,102.6
1,187.0
949.3
855.0
562.1
315.3
298.7
281.5
256.8
244.0
176.3
153.5
135.6
104.2
91.7
-10.6%
-21.2%
14.8%
-12.3%
32.3%
12.5%
15.7%
-10.1%
-3.8%
3.7%
23.6%
3.1%
-8.1%
13.7%
21.8%
34.3%
13.1%
10.5%
9.5%
6.2%
3.5%
3.3%
3.1%
2.8%
2.7%
2.0%
1.7%
1.5%
1.2%
1.0%
Table I.1 shows Oregon’s dollar
value of exports and year-overyear growth rates for the first half
of 2012. Graph I.4 illustrates
exports by major industry since
1997. For Table I.1, these are the
top fifteen industries by export
Source: WISER, August 2012
volume (in value). annual growth
is positive for nine of the top fifteen export industries. As mentioned above, computer and
electronic products have decreased over the past two years. Exports to the top three partner
countries in the industry (China, Costa Rica and Malaysia) account for almost two-thirds of
shipments, and fell sharply in 2011. So far in 2012 exports to China and Malaysia continue to
decline, while Costa Rica has seen gains. Overall, this industry is Oregon’s largest and most
important export sector, driven by the state’s cluster of high technology firms.
21
Graph I.4
Exports of Transportation Equipment,
Electrical Equipment and Petroleum
and Coal all increased over 20 percent
in the first half of 2012, while
Machinery, Waste and Scrap, Food
and Plastics have seen double digit
gains.
Table I.2 charts exports of Oregon
products to major destinations. For the
first six months of 2012, only seven
out of the top fifteen export markets
saw increases in trade. As discussed
previously, exports to China and
Malaysia have declined considerably
in recent years – partially a result of
within firm movements but also due to
the global high technology industry
cycle and weaker demand for
computer products. Exports to many
other countries have experienced a
slowdown. However, export gains to
Canada continue more or less
unabated, as seen in Graph I.5.
Canada was Oregon’s largest export
market for much of the past two
decades before being overtaken in
recent years by China. The Great
Recession took a heavy toll on
Canadian bound exports as the
dominant industries have traditionally
been transportation equipment and
wood products--two industries hit
especially hard by the financial crisis
and its aftermath. Growth in 2011 was
predominately driven by increases in
Transportation
Equipment
and
Computer and Electronic Products,
while Primary Metal Manufacturing,
Chemicals, Food and Paper also saw
strong gains. So far in 2012, the gains
are driven by manufactured machinery
primarily used for agriculture,
construction or mining and oil and gas.
Oregon Exports by Major Industry ($ millions)
$2,400
Computer And Electronic Products
Agricultural Products
Machinery, Except Electrical
Chemicals
Transportation Equipment
$2,000
$1,600
$1,200
$800
$400
$0
Q1 1997
Q1 1999
Q1 2001
Q1 2003
Q1 2005
Q1 2007
Q1 2009
Q1 2011
Table I.2
Oregon Exports to Major Trading Partners
($ millions, current prices)
2011q2
YTD
Total All Countries
9,515.6
2012q2 y/y %
YTD change
9,034.6 -5.1%
Canada
China
Malaysia
Japan
Korea, Republic Of
Costa Rica
Taiwan
Brazil
Vietnam
Germany
Australia
Mexico
United Kingdom
Singapore
Philippines
1,480.9
1,171.2
910.9
792.6
620.8
380.5
368.1
298.9
254.8
251.3
230.3
210.7
192.8
181.2
171.4
1,328.7
1,641.7
1,269.6
899.8
538.8
241.6
422.9
329.6
111.7
273.4
153.2
124.1
134.7
194.0
190.9
Share out
of Total
100.0%
11.5%
-28.7%
-28.3%
-11.9%
15.2%
57.5%
-13.0%
-9.3%
128.2%
-8.1%
50.3%
69.8%
43.2%
-6.6%
-10.2%
16.4%
13.0%
10.1%
8.8%
6.9%
4.2%
4.1%
3.3%
2.8%
2.8%
2.5%
2.3%
2.1%
2.0%
1.9%
Source: WISER, August 2012
Graph I.5
$1,200
Canada
Oregon Exports by Country ($ millions)
China
Malaysia
Japan
Korea, Republic Of
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
Q1 1997
22
Q1 1999
Q1 2001
Q1 2003
Q1 2005
Q1 2007
Q1 2009
Q1 2011
C.
Western Region
This section of the September 2012 forecast examines the economies of seven western states and
their relative performance to the U.S. overall. Gauging the health of local economies is important
for business planning purposes and looking at a wide range of data points can be useful. Below, you
will find tables analyzing how Oregon’s economy is fairing compared to the following western
states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Washington.
A little over three years removed from the depths of the 2008 recession, the regional economy is
pushing forward cautiously. Below are data tables, graphs, and accompanying descriptions covering
six important state-level economic indicators: employment, state coincident indexes (which are a
more complete measure of labor market health), state leading indexes, housing prices, exports, and
tax revenue.
Employment
The recession raised the Graph W.1
unemployment rate in
Unemployment Rate (U-6)
all western states to 30Arizona
California
14
year highs, and the
Idaho
subsequent labor market
Nevada
Oregon
recovery
has
been
12
Utah
lackluster. Currently, at
Washington
8.5 percent in June,
U.S.
10
Oregon has the 3rd
highest
seasonally
8
adjusted unemployment
rate of the seven
Western states (U.S.
6
rate is 8.2%). Given the
mobile nature of its
4
labor force and the local
mix
of
industries,
2
Oregon tends to have a
Jan-07
Jan-08
Jan-09
Jan-10
Jan-11
higher unemployment
rate than most states in
both good times and bad. See Graph W.1.
Jan-12
Nearly all employment sectors showed positive growth on the year (Q2 2011 to Q2 2012), with the
exception of the public sector which declined in all western states except Arizona and Utah. While
the public sector remains a drag in most states, the recent trends are for smaller public sector cuts--a
hopeful sign that budgets are beginning to stabilize across the region.
Coincident Index
One useful local economic summary measure is the State Coincident Index, produced by the
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Each month the bank compiles and indexes data for each
state that combines nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing, the
unemployment rate, and real wage and salary disbursements. As a coincident index, the data is
designed to report current economic conditions on a monthly basis, and is not a leading or a lagging
indicator.
23
Figure W.1
The economic activity go-light is a
faint green for Oregon and its
neighbors, while the country overall
has experienced slowing growth (see
Figure W.1). Much like the past two
years, economic growth in 2012 is
coming in fits and starts. A few
strong months followed by a few
weak months, even if the underlying
trend is slow and steady. Over the
past quarter, 47 states saw
increasing indexes. However, the
more recent one-month trends are
weak. In June, 35 states saw positive
month-over-month growth while in
July, only 22 saw positive growth. Table W.2
On a quarterly basis, Oregon’s
Economic Coincident Index for 2012 Q2
growth ranked 10th best nationally,
Q/Q Percent Y/Y Percent 5 Year Percent
Change
Index Value Change (AR)
Change
and outpaced all other western
2.5%
-11.7%
178.79
2.6%
Arizona
states. On a year-over-year basis,
-0.7%
3.2%
3.1%
California
152.51
th
Oregon’s growth ranked 11 best
3.2%
-12.9%
Idaho
192.77
2.7%
nationally, and trailed both Utah and
-22.5%
0.3%
0.2%
Nevada
178.59
-2.3%
3.2%
Oregon
201.58
3.3%
Washington among western states.
0.4%
Utah
189.63
2.7%
3.3%
Examining the monthly data reveals
3.6%
-3.7%
Washington
152.96
2.8%
Oregon’s coincident index improved
1.6%
150.44
2.6%
2.7%
United States
strongly in late 2011 and early 2012,
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Index = 100 in July 1992
and has slowed somewhat in the
months since. Current growth in the index is being driven by gains in statewide employment and
wage growth as both hours worked among manufacturing employees and the unemployment rate
have leveled off in recent months.
Figure W.2
Leading Indexes
The leading index is also compiled
monthly by the Federal Reserve Bank
of Philadelphia and is designed to
predict the six-month growth rate of
each state’s coincident index. In
addition to the coincident index, the
leading index includes state-level
housing
permits,
initial
unemployment insurance claims,
delivery times from the Institute of
Supply Management’s manufacturing
survey, and the interest rate spread
between the 10-year and 3-month
treasuries.
In June, 33 states’ leading indexes
were positive, indicating future
Table W.3
Housing Price Index (2012 Q1)
Arizona
California
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington
United States
24
Index Q/Q Percent Y/Y Percent Percent Change
Value Change (AR)
Change
Since Peak
169.92
10.2%
2.5%
-46.3%
152.28
4.0%
-1.3%
-43.7%
186.32
5.4%
2.6%
-28.3%
111.36
8.1%
-6.9%
-57.9%
247.28
-1.1%
-0.2%
-26.7%
245.27
12.9%
3.0%
-20.9%
204.55
-0.4%
-5.4%
-26.1%
181.03
2.2%
0.5%
-19.4%
Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)
growth over the coming six months. In March, 48 states had positive indices. Oregon’s leading
index was negative in June, which is consistent with -0.06 percent growth over the next six months,
compared to the nation’s projected growth of 1.0 percent. Oregon’s projected slowdown is primarily
driven by a decrease in housing permits issued in June. However this is not a grave concern given
that the sustained, underlying trend in permits is positive. May happened to be an exceptionally
large month for permits in Oregon, and when June’s figures fell back to trend, the state registered a
large negative over the month. Initial claims for unemployment insurance in Oregon continue to
decline. Across the region, California (1.6 percent), Utah (1.8 percent) and Washington (1.8
percent) are expected to grow faster than the nation, while Arizona (1.0 percent) and Idaho (0.8
percent) are projected to grow slightly slower.
Housing Price Index
One of the 2008 recession’s salient features was a brutal decline in home prices and new
construction activity. The property market crash has weighed heavily on housing-related
employment, and has also caused large drops in consumer wealth (restraining household spending),
and reduced the collateral available for entrepreneurship. Multiple levels of government stepped in
to prop up housing prices (re-zoning, encouraging immigration, house owner assistance, etc.), but
not until recently have the western states’ real-estate markets begun to reverse their declining trend.
Table W.3 shows the
Federal Housing Finance Graph W.2
Agency’s home price index
FHFA Home Price Index (Purchase Only)
for each western state.
Arizona
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Graph W.2 shows the
California
Nevada
Utah
U.S.
FHFA Housing Price Index
240
for each of the western
220
states since 2000.
200
Western states can be
180
divided into two groups
160
(see table W.3 above). One
140
group (Arizona, Nevada,
120
and California) experienced
a very steep and deep
100
housing market decline.
80
The other four western
2006Q1
2010Q1
2000Q1
2002Q1
2004Q1
2008Q1
2012Q1
states experienced a smaller
bubble than did the former group, with house prices falling more gradually and less overall. Oregon
experienced a slight decline in average house prices during the first quarter. However, prices in the
state have remained relatively steady the past year.
Table W.4
Exports
Total Exports (2012q2 YTD)
The global recession caused a sharp decline in international
trade throughout late 2008 and early 2009. However, exports
have since rebounded strongly for all western states. All
western states except Idaho and Oregon have seen export
growth through the first half of the year. Idaho’s figures are a
result of a slowdown in Computer and Electronic Products and
also a nearly 85 percent drop in Metal Ores. Conversely,
Arizona
California
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington
United States
Y/Y Percent
Exports ($ mill) Change
$9,204
2.4%
$81,965
6.0%
$2,751
-9.6%
$4,977
39.2%
$9,035
-5.1%
$9,708
14.0%
$35,102
16.0%
$773,351
7.0%
Source: WiserTrade, August 2012
25
Nevada’s exceptional growth is due to gains in nonferrous metal production and processing,
excluding aluminum, the bulk of which goes to Switzerland. Overall, exports from Arizona, Idaho
and Oregon have yet to reach their pre-recession peak levels, although they are close. All other
western states and the nation have surpassed their pre-recession levels.
Tax Revenue
After being hit hard by the Great Recession, state and local tax revenues rebounded substantially in
2010 and 2011. However, early 2012 data is mixed across states (see Table W.5). Generally
speaking, personal income tax states have reached their pre-recession levels in terms of revenue
while most sales tax states have not quite recovered completely. Utah continued to see strong
revenue gains in 2012q1 due to increases in motor vehicles, personal income taxes and corporate
income taxes. Washington’s growth over the year is largely driven by general sales and gross
receipts taxes. All other western states experienced drops in revenue relative to 2011q1. However,
for the states that levy personal income taxes, like Arizona, California, Idaho, Oregon and Utah, the
second quarter is more important given the tax filing season.
Table W.5
State and Local Tax Revenue (2012 Q1)
Total Taxes
Y/Y Percent Change
Property tax
Y/Y Percent Change
General sales and gross receipts
Y/Y Percent Change
Motor fuel sales taxes
Y/Y Percent Change
Alcoholic beverages
Y/Y Percent Change
Public utilities
Y/Y Percent Change
Insurance
Y/Y Percent Change
Tobacco products
Y/Y Percent Change
Amusements
Y/Y Percent Change
Motor vehicles
Y/Y Percent Change
Corporations in general
Y/Y Percent Change
Occupation and business licenses
Y/Y Percent Change
Individual income taxes
Y/Y Percent Change
Corporation net income taxes
Y/Y Percent Change
Arizona
2,458,513
-2.6%
189,576
-2.1%
1,199,499
-17.2%
192,284
-3.4%
12,291
-33.2%
4,934
-7.8%
111,105
1.5%
72,929
-7.4%
133
-95.6%
43,718
-0.7%
2,848
20.5%
30,180
6.7%
424,087
64.7%
111,363
33.3%
California
27,077,864
-0.2%
494,035
-32.3%
7,892,105
-4.2%
1,363,206
-1.0%
82,607
7.9%
215,147
35.5%
107,141
-15.1%
240,333
-7.0%
X
X
772,653
-0.6%
13,024
-1.5%
1,055,109
3.8%
11,978,459
-0.6%
1,624,161
-21.3%
Nevada
Oregon
Utah Washington
Idaho
737,304 1,494,357 1,703,406 1,322,104 4,543,036
-1.1%
-5.3%
-2.6%
10.0%
3.7%
49,111
-3,260
X
815,069
X
X
-43.0%
-161.3%
X
1.3%
475,582 2,609,751
294,855
675,274 X
-3.8%
-2.1%
X
1.3%
5.2%
58,442
68,907
113,385
83,136
279,419
-1.2%
4.9%
-4.7%
-1.4%
6.7%
84,998
1,813
10,505
3,925
19,091
4.2%
4.0%
1.8%
9.6%
70.5%
3,618
7,470
5,023
132,079
677
-21.2%
62.3%
-1.7%
12.2%
21.8%
27,189
9,499
58,479
20,943
54,303
5.7%
3.1%
23.7%
28.7%
15.4%
23,813
60,167
28,493
106,146
10,957
-9.8%
0.8%
8.5%
-3.7%
-1.4%
X
11,025
29
X
0
X
3.2%
70.6%
X
NA
36,826
41,989
144,109
84,206
117,970
-3.4%
4.1%
2.0%
72.9%
-0.5%
540
17,827
0
151
8,464
1.7%
-4.9%
-100.0%
-93.0%
11.5%
21,955
162,056
75,487
11,761
60,479
9.2%
-7.2%
-43.2%
-2.7%
2.9%
220,908
X 1,134,237
491,125
X
-1.6%
9.4%
X
-2.3%
X
30,322
X
64,335
46,560
X
X
-18.2%
X
-12.0%
70.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ($ 000s)
26
D.
Oregon Economic Review and Forecast
Current Conditions
Oregon’s economic expansion is still intact for now, but remains at risk, and is losing steam due to
weakness in global demand for our products. To date, local labor markets have slowly improved
along with the nation overall, resulting in a slowly declining unemployment rate.
Although economic growth in Oregon has continued at roughly the same slow pace since the
recovery began, the forces driving this growth have recently changed. In particular, the regional
housing market is beginning to show signs of life, which is helping to offset weaker market
conditions among many of Oregon’s major manufacturers and exporters.
The fact that improvement continues is encouraging. However, the threat of external shocks has
placed a burden on businesses and households, leading many to pull back on their spending out of
caution. The euro zone recession – and potential crisis – in addition to the slowdown in China and
the uncertain U.S. federal policy environment represent three very large risks to the global outlook.
These risks are hard to handicap from a planning perspective and have created an exorbitant amount
of uncertainty about the future. As a result, future plans are being delayed with businesses and
individuals holding off on making long-term investments.
Outlook
Despite all of the uncertainty, the economic outlook for Oregon remains positive. It is likely that the
U.S. economic recovery can survive any one of these external shocks if faced in isolation.
However, even if all of the external threats facing Oregon are resolved in a painless manner, the
uncertainty they have caused can be expected to weigh on growth. By taking a wait-and-see
approach, firms and households are ensuring that some degree of a slowdown will occur. Should
they not see anything too drastic; the expected slowdown will remain just that, and not transition
into something worse.
Due to a recent string of weak manufacturing, consumer spending, and trade data, a broad
consensus of economic forecasters has become more pessimistic about future growth prospects.
Similarly, the Office of Economic Analysis outlook reflects somewhat weaker expectations for
growth over the next two years. Despite the revised growth rates, the general character of Oregon’s
lackluster economic outlook has not changed, with more of the same, slow improvement expected
going forward.
During the recovery so far, Oregon’s employment has grown at just under the state’s long run trend
rate, or approximately 1.2 percent annually. While growing at trend – which includes both
expansions and recessions – is better than not, this is less than half of a typical expansion year’s
growth. The private sector has added jobs at a 1.5 percent pace since late 2010, which again is just
about half of the past two expansions’ pace.
The economy has faced two major drags in recent years: housing and government. After contracting
30 percent during the recession and losing a further 1.5 percent from early 2010 to early 2011,
housing-related jobs have begun to grow again. While the pace of hiring is slow, simply having the
housing sector turn from a negative aspect of the economy to a neutral or slightly positive aspect is
more than welcome news. The news is less good on the public sector side. Government job cuts
27
have not ended, holding down the headline employment numbers statewide. Although the losses
have not stopped, government job cuts in recent months have been less severe than a year ago.
The vast majority of the public sector cuts have occurred at the local government education level –
K-12 and community colleges – and the economic outlook calls for another round of cuts this
coming school year. Next year, expectations are for public sector employment to stabilize with the
sector gradually turning from a negative to a positive contributor to employment growth. For more
information on Oregon’s housing market or public sector employment trends, please visit out
office’s blog 4.
Summary of Recent Trends
Oregon’s Employment Trends
Getting a handle on the health of Oregon’s labor market is being somewhat complicated by
technical issues within the underlying payroll jobs data. Technical issues aside, employment in
Oregon continues to increase at a slow, subdued pace through early 2012, approximately in line
with the gains seen at the U.S. level.
The employment data discussed in this report is adjusted for two important technical purposes:
seasonality and the upcoming benchmark revisions 5. Given the relative strength of employment as
measured by data collected through the unemployment insurance program, it is clear that
preliminary payroll job counts will be revised upward significantly when benchmark adjustments
are made next year. Such preliminary revisions to the payroll survey data are regularly published in
some states, and are currently a topic of discussion at the Oregon Employment Department.
After adjustments, the data reveals a state that continues to expand slowly, adding nearly 19,000
jobs in the past year (1.2% through 2012q2), instead of a state that is close to stagnating, adding
only 11,500 jobs in the past year (0.7%).
Over the past year, job growth has been widespread across industries, with only transportation
equipment manufacturers and financial service firms seeing small declines in the private sector.
Public sector employment fell by more than 2.0 percent over the same period. The largest gains
have been in professional and business services and leisure and hospitality, which increased by
approximately 7,400 and 3,100, respectively, from 2011q2 to 2012q2. Health services and
construction each added between 2,500 and 3,000 jobs over the past year. These four main industry
groups account for approximately 63 percent of all private sector gains, with manufacturing
4
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/update-on-housing/
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/oregon-employment-public-sector-trends/
5
Each year the Oregon Employment Department and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics revise the employment data –
a process known as benchmarking. The current establishment survey (CES), also known as the monthly payroll survey,
is benchmarked against the quarterly census of employment and wages (QCEW), a series that contains all employees
covered by unemployment insurance. The monthly CES is based on a sample of firms, whereas the QCEW contains
approximately 96 percent of all employees, or nearly a complete count of employment in Oregon. The greatest benefit
of the CES is the timeliness – monthly employment estimates are available with only a one month lag – and these
estimates are reasonably accurate. However the further removed from the latest benchmark, the larger the errors. The
QCEW is less timely as the data is released publically approximately 3-4 months following the end of the quarter. The
greatest benefit of the QCEW is that is a near 100 percent count of statewide employment. For these reasons, the CES is
usually used to discuss recent monthly employment trends, however once a year the data is revised to match the
historical QCEW employment trends. The last month of official benchmark data is June 2011. The QCEW is currently
available through March 2012, thus the preliminary benchmark used here covers the July 2011 – March 2012 period.
28
accounting for another 13 percent, or 3,200 jobs. Within manufacturing, gains were led by durable
goods, particularly metals and machinery.
Labor Market Rankings
The Office of Economic Analysis examines four main sources for jobs data: the monthly payroll
employment survey, the monthly household employment survey, monthly withholding tax receipts
and the quarterly census of employment and wages. Right now, all four of the sources are indicating
continued growth, although the monthly payroll employment survey is lagging somewhat relative to
the other data. Oregon’s labor market is improving right along with the nation overall, if not a little
bit faster.
The most recent job growth Figure O.1
rankings, published by Arizona
State University’s W.P. Carey
School of Business, places Oregon
26th in the nation for job growth.
Between July 2011 and July 2012, Oregon: 26th
jobs increased by 16,600, or 1.03
percent. Last July, Oregon ranked
27th. Washington’s growth has been
even stronger; measuring 1.9
percent of the past year. This ranks
13th best among all states. The
relative performance of the fifty
states is shown in Figure O.1.
Nonfarm Job Growth by State
July 2012 over July 2011
(Ranked by Percent Change)
North Dakota retained the 1st ranked
position with job growth of 6.88
Bottom 10
Fourth 10
Middle 10
Second 10
Top 10
Source: Blue Chip Job Growth Update, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University
percent, a ranking it also held a year
ago. Elsewhere in the region, California’s job gains ranked 2nd and Idaho’s 22nd among the 50
states.
Employment Growth by Metropolitan Size
Last quarter, part of our analysis focused on the differences between Portland and the rest of the
state. It was argued that much of rural Oregon has missed out on the economic recovery due to the
mix of industries in these areas. This quarter, the regional focus is on the different employment
growth patterns experienced by metropolitan areas. How much, if at all, does city size help explain
economic performance over the business cycle? Also, how do Oregon’s MSAs compare relative to
their national peers of similar size?
Portland is driving Oregon’s statewide employment growth while the other metropolitan areas and
more rural areas have yet to fully share in the recovery, if at all. Seattle and Washington largely
follow the same pattern. Portland and Seattle are large, urban centers that represent over 50 percent
of all jobs in their respective states. How have the other large metropolitan areas across the country
fared economically? Examining the 29 largest MSAs in the country – all metros with a population
larger than 2 million – reveals that each one has seen employment growth in recovery. Over twothirds of the largest cities, 20 out of 29, have experienced growth at least as strong as the national
average, with 8 cities – Portland and Seattle included – growing at least 50 percent stronger than the
national average in recovery.
29
Broadening the analysis to examine all U.S. metropolitan areas (totaling more than 370) reveals that
the representative (median) city from each size group have fared about the same. However, the
smaller cities – employment less than 50,000 – did lose more jobs during the recession than the
national average. Cities in the three largest groups – employment greater than 600,000 – also
typically saw larger losses, but also stronger gains so far in recovery. One reason for this is the fact
that larger cities turned around first, relative to cities of other sizes.
As seen in Graph O.2, it
does not appear that city size
had any particular affect on
when an MSA began losing
jobs as the Great Recession
was an equal opportunity
disaster. However, within
these groups there is
variation and those cities
that experienced a larger
housing boom and bust
typically went down first.
Graph O.2
Employment Peak Date
Employment Trough Date
100%
100%
80%
80%
< 50k
50-100k
60%
< 50k
60%
50-100k
100-200k
100-200k
200-400k
400-600k
40%
200-400k
40%
400-600k
600k - 1 m
600k - 1 m
1-2 m
> 2m
20%
1-2 m
20%
> 2m
0%
0%
Before or At U.S.
Peak
Before or at U.S.
Trough
After U.S.
After U.S.
Two factors likely playing a
role in recovery are a city’s exposure to both housing and government, as previously discussed, the
two main economic drags this business cycle. Smaller cities have a larger share of their workforce
in both construction and government not because they have so many of these jobs, but rather
because they do not have as many other types of jobs (advertising firms and ballet dancers, as two
examples) to offset these industries. Given the severity of the housing downturn and government
austerity in recent years, having more local exposure to these two sectors has typically resulted in a
deeper recession and/or a slower recovery.
Turning to Oregon, Graph O.3 compares the economic performance of each Oregon MSA relative
to its national peers, based on city size. The red bars are the median city nationwide in each cohort.
Corvallis is outperforming its small metro peers. Portland is slightly more volatile than its peers, but
overall has fared just about the same as other large cities. Oregon differs most in its small to
Graph O.3
5%
4%
3%
< 50k
30
50-100k
100-200k
Portland
0%
-18%
Salem
1%
-15%
Eugene
-12%
Bend
2%
Medf ord
Portland
Salem
Bend
600k - 1 m
Corvallis
-9%
Employment Gains by City Size
100-200k
U.S. Median
-6%
Corvallis
-3%
U.S. Median
0%
Medf ord
50-100k
Eugene
Employment Losses by City Size
< 50k
600k - 1 m
medium sized metros. Bend and Medford took an outsized hit during the recession – largely the
aftermath of their substantial housing downturns 6 – and have only come back slightly from their
employment lows. A similar story can be told for Eugene and Salem, however not quite as severe.
Stepping back and examining Bend, Eugene and Medford’s employment, it appears that they’re
continuing to bounce along the bottom with no sustained improvement. From their lowest points
each city has seen 1-2 percent employment growth. Salem is somewhat of a different story as it is
now clearly losing jobs again. Salem still has seen some job gains for the recovery as a whole, but
the recent trend is certainly negative.
The regional differences in economic performance across Oregon are expected to lessen going
forward. As the housing market continues to heal and state and local governments stop cutting back,
drags on economic growth in rural areas will lessen. Farm income remains healthy, and market
conditions are stabilizing for many wood product firms. Expectations are not for strong growth, but
at least a sustained upturn in many areas. 7
Employment in the Most Recent Quarter
Table O.1 shows a comparison of preliminary estimates for second quarter Oregon employment
growth compared to the June 2012 forecast. Unless noted otherwise, all percentage rates discussed
reflect annualized rates of change for second quarter 2012. 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 preliminary estimate for second
quarter employment was slightly higher than forecast, however the growth rate was slightly lower
than forecast. This arises due to employment revisions to prior months, in particular, the preliminary
benchmark employment figures for the first quarter. Overall employment was 1,900 above forecast
for the quarter for an error of 0.1 percent. The second quarter continues the slow growth trend that
both Oregon and the U.S. have experienced since the depths of the recession in 2009. Some quarters
have exhibited stronger growth, and others weak, however the trend has been relatively steady for
the past two years.
6
7
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/more-on-home-prices/
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/employment-by-metro/
31
Table O.1
Total Nonfarm Employment, 2nd quarter 2012
(Employment in thousands, Annualized Percent Change)
Preliminary
Estimate
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
1,638.1
1,347.9
7.3
71.6
171.4
121.1
19.6
34.8
37.0
10.8
19.0
50.3
24.9
25.4
315.7
186.9
75.3
53.5
32.2
91.8
194.3
237.8
34.3
203.5
168.2
57.8
290.2
27.7
79.9
31.6
182.7
94.0
0.6
1.3
(1.0)
3.7
2.4
2.6
3.4
6.1
3.5
(3.7)
(2.4)
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.8
1.7
(0.4)
3.5
0.7
0.2
1.0
3.8
0.6
1.2
(0.2)
(2.5)
(5.7)
(2.0)
2.0
(2.2)
(3.0)
Forecast
Forecast Error
level % ch
level
%
Y/Y
Change
% ch
1,636.2
1.0
1,345.2
1.6
7.3
2.5
68.4 (1.5)
171.2 (1.0)
121.5
0.7
19.3
3.8
34.9
6.6
37.5
8.1
11.1 (2.7)
18.7 (21.7)
49.6 (4.9)
24.3 (11.8)
25.4
2.5
315.9 (1.1)
186.7
1.0
75.1
1.2
54.1
0.7
31.8 (0.5)
92.5
1.4
194.2
5.1
236.8 (1.0)
32.4 (9.6)
204.4
2.9
169.1
3.6
58.0
3.1
290.9 (2.0)
28.2 (2.2)
80.2 (0.6)
31.5
1.1
182.6 (2.6)
93.4 (5.5)
1.9
2.6
0.0
3.1
0.3
(0.4)
0.3
(0.1)
(0.5)
(0.3)
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.1
(0.2)
0.2
0.2
(0.6)
0.4
(0.7)
0.1
1.0
1.9
(0.9)
(1.0)
(0.2)
(0.7)
(0.5)
(0.3)
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.1
4.5
0.2
(0.3)
1.4
(0.3)
(1.4)
(2.8)
1.6
1.3
2.4
0.3
(0.1)
0.1
0.3
(1.2)
1.1
(0.8)
0.0
0.4
5.7
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.4)
(0.3)
(1.9)
(0.4)
0.2
0.1
0.7
1.2
1.9
5.9
4.1
1.9
2.0
1.3
4.6
1.8
(1.2)
0.3
1.6
2.8
0.6
1.0
0.9
1.4
0.8
0.5
(0.4)
3.9
1.8
5.0
1.2
1.9
1.8
(2.1)
(2.8)
(1.0)
1.6
(2.4)
(3.9)
Regional Trends
Total nonfarm employment in Oregon rose by 0.7 percent from the second quarter of 2011 to the
second quarter of 2012. This marked the state’s seventh consecutive quarter of positive year-overyear employment growth. Employment growth varied from one region of Oregon to the next. In the
second quarter of 2012, four regions experienced quarterly employment gains from the previous
year: the Portland area; Central Oregon; Southern Oregon; and the Northeastern region.
Employment declined between the second quarters of 2011 and 2012 in the Willamette Valley, the
South Central-Southeast region, the Columbia Gorge, and along the North Coast. Employment was
essentially flat over the year for the South Coast region.
32
Every region posted lower
unemployment
rates
(not
seasonally adjusted) in the
second quarter of 2012 than
during the second quarter of
2011. Rates ranged from a low of
7.4 percent in the Oregon portion
of the Portland metropolitan area
to a high of 11.1 percent in
Southern Oregon during the
second
quarter
of
2012.
Statewide,
the
unadjusted
unemployment rate was 8.4
percent.
Unemployment Rates Fell in All Regions, 2Q2011 to 2Q2012
Not Seasonally Adjusted
16.0%
2Q2012
2Q2011
12.0%
8.0%
4.0%
0.0%
Portland 5County
Columbia North Coast Northeast
Gorge
Willamette South Coast
South
Valley
Central - SE
Central
Southern
Portland Area:
Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill counties
Year-over-year employment growth resumed in the Portland area during the third quarter of 2010.
The region has outpaced statewide job growth for eight consecutive quarters. Moreover, the
Portland area is the only region in the state that has sustained quarterly job growth over the last two
years. The Portland area experienced an employment gain of 1.6 percent between the second
quarters of 2011 and 2012.
By county, second quarter
employment growth was fastest in
Yamhill
County
(+3.1%),
followed by Washington County
(+1.5%). Multnomah (+0.9%),
Clackamas
(+0.8%),
and
Columbia (+0.7%) experienced
smaller gains over the year.
Portland Unemployment Rate
14%
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Portland MSA
12%
10%
8%
The
second
quarter
6%
unemployment rate in the
Portland area was 7.4 percent, 4%
compared with 8.3 percent in the
second quarter of 2011. The 2%
unemployment rate in the region
is now significantly below both 0%
Jan-90
Jan-94
Jan-98
Jan-02
Jan-06
Jan-10
the statewide average and the
national average. Given that the Portland MSA is driving the statewide employment growth, this
pattern in the unemployment rate is expected. Furthermore, the Portland region is the only region in
the state to see sustained growth in the labor force. The employment gains have been strong enough
to accommodate the influx of new workers and bring the unemployment rate down in the past two
years.
33
Willamette Valley:
Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion and Polk counties
The Willamette Valley posted its first over-the-year job loss in the third quarter of 2008, the same
time employment growth turned negative statewide. While Oregon’s employment trend resumed
positive growth in the fourth quarter of 2010, Willamette Valley employment has generally
continued to decline. In the second quarter of 2012, employment fell by 1.2 percent in the
Willamette Valley from the previous year.
In the second quarter of 2012, job losses were dispersed throughout the region. Linn County
(-1.7%) experienced the largest rate of employment decline, followed by Lane County (-1.2%). The
Salem metro area – which consists of Marion and Polk counties – posted a job loss of 1.1 percent.
In Benton County, losses totaled 1.0 percent.
In the second quarter of 2012, the Willamette Valley’s unemployment rate was 8.6 percent. The rate
dropped 0.9 percentage point from the previous year. The decrease was driven by a reduction in the
region’s labor force, rather than a
Willamette Valley Unemployment Rate
rise
in
employment.
The
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Willamette Valley
Willamette Valley, and Salem in 14%
particular, is having a difficult
recovery, given there have been no 12%
sustained job gains. Benton County
(Corvallis) has done comparatively 10%
well this business cycle, however 8%
Lane (Eugene) and Marion and
Polk counties (Salem) have 6%
experienced both larger job losses
and no real employment gains. 4%
While most counties have at least
stopped losing jobs, the Salem 2%
MSA has turned downward again, 0%
as noted above, with job losses in
Jan-90
Jan-94
Jan-98
Jan-02
Jan-06
Jan-10
the past six months.
The region has largely followed the statewide figures over the past two decades. However with the
slow to no job growth, the unemployment rate is now above the statewide average in 2012 as seen
in the graph above.
North Coast:
Clatsop, Lincoln and Tillamook counties
Employment declines in Oregon’s northern coastal counties began in the fourth quarter of 2008.
After 12 quarters of year-over-year job losses, the North Coast returned to employment gains
(+0.4%) in the fourth quarter of 2011 and the first quarter of 2012 (+0.8). However, the region
posted a slight decline (-0.2%) in the second quarter of 2012. Employment rose in Clatsop County
(+1.0%), but declined in Lincoln (-1.0%) and Tillamook (-1.0%) counties.
34
The North Coast region’s jobless rate was 8.3 percent in the second quarter of 2012, an
improvement from 8.9 percent
Northern Coast Unemployment Rate
in the second quarter of 2011.
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
North Coast
The graph on the right compares 14%
the
Northern
Coast’s
unemployment rate with both 12%
the statewide and national
averages since 1990. After 10%
outperforming the state during
8%
the recession – and matching the
national figures – the North 6%
Coast’s unemployment rate now
is comparable to the state’s rate. 4%
The unemployment rate in the
region has improved nearly 2 2%
percentage points; however this
0%
movement is smaller than the
Jan-90
Jan-94
Jan-06
Jan-10
Jan-98
Jan-02
state’s improvement.
Southern Oregon:
Douglas, Jackson and Josephine counties
After 13 consecutive quarters of
Southern Oregon Unemployment Rate
over-the-year
employment
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Southern Oregon
declines – which began in the 16%
third quarter of 2007 – year-to- 14%
year job growth leveled off in
Southern Oregon during the 12%
fourth quarter of 2010. Since 10%
then, the region has experienced
modest employment changes, 8%
both positive and negative. 6%
During the second quarter of
2012, Southern Oregon posted 4%
its best positive year-to-year job
2%
growth reading in 20 quarters,
growing 0.8 percent. Preliminary 0%
Jan-94
Jan-02
Jan-90
Jan-98
Jan-06
Jan-10
estimates show a higher rate of
growth in Jackson County
(+1.3%) than in Josephine (+0.2%) or Douglas (+0.1%) counties.
Southern Oregon posted an unemployment rate of 11.1 percent in the second quarter of 2012, 1.2
percentage points below the level one year prior. As seen in the graph above, Southern Oregon’s
unemployment rate has generally been above both the state and national figures. The improvement
in the unemployment rate has largely matched the state’s improvement, however there has yet to be
a sustained upturn in the number of jobs in the region. Even though the region has stopped losing
jobs, the small gains in employment are not enough to drive down the unemployment rate quickly.
35
South Coast:
Coos and Curry counties
Quarterly employment declines began relatively early for the South Coast region, which posted its
first over-the-year loss in the fourth quarter of 2006. After reaching a maximum job loss of 6.9
percent over the year in the middle of 2009, declines eased, then quarterly job gains resumed in the
third quarter of 2010. Growth turned again though, and the South Coast posted four consecutive
quarters of year-to-year job declines. After coming back with year-to-year job gains of 1.3 percent
in the fourth quarter of 2011 and 1.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012, employment growth has
fallen off again. In the second quarter of 2012, employment was essentially flat from its level one
year prior.
Southern Coast Unemployment Rate
The South Coast had an
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
South Coast
unemployment rate of 10.6 16%
percent, an improvement of 0.8
percentage point from the level 14%
one year prior. The graph on 12%
the right compares the Southern
Coasts’ unemployment rate for 10%
the past 22 years to those of the 8%
state and nation. In every single
year, the unemployment rate 6%
has been above both of these
4%
other measures and given the
severe job losses in the early 2%
1980s recession, likely that
0%
decade as well. The declining
Jan-90
Jan-06
Jan-94
Jan-98
Jan-02
Jan-10
unemployment rate today is a
mixture of both good and bad factors. Jobs have improved slightly, the number of unemployment is
also declining, however so too is the labor force.
Columbia Gorge:
Gilliam, Hood River, Sherman,
Wasco and Wheeler counties
The Columbia Gorge saw
comparatively light employment
impacts during the recession.
Quarterly employment declined
over the year from the first
quarter of 2009 through the first
quarter of 2010. After three
consecutive quarters of year-toyear job gains, employment
declined by 0.6 percent in the
Gorge between the second
quarters of 2011 and 2012.
Columbia Gorge Unemployment Rate
16%
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Columbia Gorge
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Jan-90
Jan-94
36
Jan-98
Jan-02
Jan-06
Jan-10
Employment trends varied among the region’s five counties. While Wheeler (+0.6%) and Hood
River (+0.2%) counties experienced gains, employment dropped over the year in Sherman (-0.6%),
Wasco (-1.1%), and Gilliam (-5.6%) counties.
The unemployment rate for the Columbia Gorge was 7.8 percent in the second quarter of 2012,
compared with 8.6 percent the previous year. As seen in the graph above, the region‘s
unemployment rate has been lower than both the nation’s and state’s rates this business cycle. The
current recession has not had a severe impact on employment in the region, unlike the rest of the
state. For more information on the region, please see our office’s blog post:
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/columbia-river-gorge/
Central Oregon:
Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties
After 13 consecutive quarters of year-over-year employment declines – some as steep as 11.1
percent – during the recession, employment growth has returned to Central Oregon. In the second
quarter of 2012, the region posted an employment gain of 1.2 percent, the fourth consecutive yearto-year improvement for the region.
Jefferson County (+3.3%) had the fastest year-over-year job growth in the second quarter of 2012.
Employment rose by 2.4 percent
Central Oregon Unemployment Rate
in
Crook
County,
while
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Central Oregon
Deschutes County posted a job 18%
gain of 0.8 percent.
16%
The region’s 11.0 percent 14%
unemployment rate in the second 12%
quarter of 2012 improved from
12.3 percent the previous year. 10%
As seen in the graph of the 8%
region’s unemployment rate, the 6%
improvement in the region has
significantly outpaced both the 4%
state and nation’s decline. 2%
Unfortunately this is partially due 0%
to the fact that the region suffered
Jan-90
Jan-98
Jan-94
such severe job losses during the
recession it has much further to go to reach pre-recession levels.
Jan-02
Jan-06
Jan-10
For a more thorough look at the region’s employment history and recession comparison, please see
our office’s blog post: http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/central-oregon/
37
Northeastern Oregon:
Baker, Grant, Morrow, Umatilla, Union and Wallowa counties
The Northeast Oregon counties first saw quarterly over-the-year job losses at the beginning of 2008.
Losses did not reach the steep levels seen in other regions, but did persist through the fourth quarter
of 2010. After modest movements through most of 2011, year-over-year job gains picked up in the
fourth quarter of 2011 (+0.9%) and the first quarter of 2012 (+1.0%). In the second quarter of 2012,
the region’s employment improved from the previous year, but at a more modest 0.4 percent.
Employment growth in the second quarter of 2012 was concentrated in Umatilla (+1.3%) and Union
(+0.6%) counties. The rest of the Northeastern Oregon counties posted employment losses. The
biggest decline occurred in Grant
Northeast Oregon Unemployment Rate
County (-3.1%), followed by
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Northeast Oregon
Morrow (-1.7%), Baker (-0.9%), 14%
and Wallowa (-0.9%) counties.
12%
In the second quarter of 2012, the
unemployment rate in Northeast 10%
Oregon was 8.6 percent, down
from 9.3 percent the previous 8%
year. The graph illustrates the
6%
region’s unemployment rate since
1990. After experiencing a 4%
significantly higher rate of
unemployment throughout the 2%
1990s the regional rate has
largely matched the statewide 0%Jan-90
Jan-94
Jan-98
Jan-02
Jan-06
Jan-10
figures in recent years. The
recessionary increase and subsequent slow decline in the unemployment rate has mirrored the rest
of the state.
South Central and Southeast Oregon:
Harney, Klamath, Lake and Malheur counties
In the third quarter of 2010, South
Central and Southeast Oregon
broke 11 consecutive quarters of
year-over-year
employment
declines with a modest gain of 0.6
percent. Since then, the region has
seen job declines in almost every
quarter. In the second quarter of
2012, employment fell by 0.7
percent from the previous year.
Klamath (+0.1%) was the only
county to register an employment
gain between the second quarters
of 2011 and 2012. Harney County
S. Central and SE Oregon Unemployment Rate
16%
Recession
U.S.
Oregon
Southeast Oregon
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Jan-90
Jan-94
38
Jan-98
Jan-02
Jan-06
Jan-10
(-4.3%) experienced the largest decline, followed by Lake (-3.9%) and Malheur (-0.9%) counties.
The unemployment rate was 10.9 percent in the second quarter of 2012 for South Central and
Southeastern Oregon. The rate declined by 0.8 percentage point from the previous year, but that
decline resulted from reductions in the labor force rather than employment gains.
Information on employment in Oregon’s 15 workforce regions and 36 counties is available at
www.QualityInfo.org. For more information, contact Gail Kiles Krumenauer, Economist,
[email protected] 503-947-1873.
39
Oregon Index of Leading Indicators
Index Value
Similar to the overall economy, the two leading indicator series for Oregon both have moved in fits
and starts in recent years. Following growth in late 2011 through early 2012, both indices declined
sharply in June. Graph O.4
However,
both
Oregon Economic Indexes (Jan 2005 = 100)
120
100%
remain positive on a
six-month
growth
90%
115
basis,
which
is
consistent with an
80%
110
expanding economy
70%
in the near future.
105
OEA’s
Oregon
60%
Index of Leading
100
50%
Indicators 8 was led
downward by large
40%
95
movements in a few
30%
indicators,
while
90
most
indicators
20%
Recession Probability (Right)
point to continued
Coincident Index (Philadelphia Fed)
85
Total Nonfarm Employment
10%
growth.
UO Index of Economic Indicators
Oregon Index of Leading Indicators
80
0%
The
overall
Jan-05 Jul-05 Jan-06 Jul-06 Jan-07 Jul-07 Jan-08 Jul-08 Jan-09 Jul-09 Jan-10 Jul-10 Jan-11 Jul-11 Jan-12
weakness in OEA’s
OILI is being led by the Graph O.5
Oregon Indexes
indicators most affected
(Six Month Annualized Percent Change, through June 2011)
100%
by the global economic 20%
weakness,
particularly
related
to
the
10%
80%
manufacturing sector. The
Purchasing
Managers
Index declined sharply in
0%
60%
June to just below the
breakeven point between
40%
a
manufacturing -10%
expansion and contraction
and remained there in
20%
July. The Semiconductor -20%
book-to-bill ratio for
equipment makers has -30%
0%
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-10 Jan-11 Jan-12
also declined to just
Recession Probability (R)
OEA
UO Index
Total Nonfarm Employment
below its breakeven point
8
The OILI applies the Conference Board’s methodology for the U.S. National Leading Index to Oregon-specific components. The eleven components
incorporated in the OILI include: Semiconductor book-to-bill ratio, Oregon housing permits, Institute for Supply Management’s purchasing
managers index, University of Michigan consumer sentiment index, Oregon withholding, new Oregon incorporations, Oregonian help-wanted index,
Portland International Airport air freight tonnage, Oregon trade-weighted dollar index, Industrial Production Index, and initial Oregon
unemployment claims.
40
in June. The Oregon Dollar Index is again appreciating relative to our major trading partners. All
three indicators are reflecting the global manufacturing slowdown. Given that Oregon remains a
manufacturing state and an export-heavy state, these indicators are worrisome.
On the positive side, the health of the Oregon labor market continues to improve. New claims for
unemployment insurance continue to fall, while withholdings out of Oregonians’ paychecks
continue to increase. The gains in new housing permits should further aid future growth in the state.
Overall, the state’s leading indicators continue to signal growth in the near term.
Short-Term Outlook
Overview
Slow growth will continue to be the norm. The manufacturing cycle is past its peak, and Oregon’s
major trading partners are ordering fewer of our goods. Consumers will not save the day, since
many still need to fix their household balance sheets by saving more/paying down debt. Recent
improvements in labor markets and housing markets will help the expansion persist, but will not be
enough to generate strong growth.
Oregon Forecast Comparisons
Table O.2 compares OEA’s forecast to other published forecasts. While most forecasters see
improvements in jobs for 2012, our office predicts a more subdued increase than the consensus. The
local forecasts are available via the Western Blue Chip Economic Forecast published by Arizona
State University’s W.P. Carey School of Business for all forecasters except IHS Global Insight. A
similar story is apparent in the personal income forecasts, which the consensus expects, more or
less, constant growth in coming years, while our office has an income growth slowdown in 2012
built into the forecast.
Table O.2
Oregon Total Nonfarm Employment and Personal Income Growth
Employment
Forecaster
IHS Global Insight
July 2012
Conerly Consulting
August 2012
1.1
3.1
3.6
4.5
Forefront Economics
August 2012
1.9
2.7
4.1
4.5
John Mitchell
August 2012
1.7
Portland General Electric
August 2012
1.8
2.3
4.8
5.5
Wells Fargo & Co.
August 2012
1.4
1.6
4.3
4.5
Oregon Office of Economic Analysis
August 2012
1.2
1.8
2.9
3.7
August 2012
1.6
2.5
4.2
4.5
Consensus*
2013
1.5
Personal Income
2012
0.9
Date of Forecast
2014
1.9
2012
3.5
2013
3.9
2014
5.0
4.9
1.9
4.9
*Consensus forecast from Western Blue Chip forecast
Oregon Forecast Summary
Table O.3 provides a quick summary of the latest economic forecast in the near term on both a
quarterly and annual frequency.
41
Table O.3
Oregon Forecast Summary
Annual
Quarterly
2012:1
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Personal Income ($ billions)
Nominal Personal Income
% change
149.4
3.4
150.5
3.2
151.4
2.4
152.9
4.0
154.4
3.9
139.4
3.2
146.8
5.3
151.1
2.9
156.6
3.7
164.4
4.9
173.6
5.6
Real Personal Income (base year=2005)
% change
129.4
0.8
130.2
2.5
131.0
2.3
131.9
3.0
132.8
2.6
125.5
1.4
128.9
2.8
130.6
1.3
134.1
2.6
138.0
2.9
143.0
3.6
76.4
2.3
76.7
1.8
77.3
3.1
78.1
4.4
79.0
4.7
71.6
1.9
75.0
4.7
77.1
2.9
80.3
4.1
84.0
4.6
88.3
5.0
Nominal Wages and Salaries
% change
Other Indicators
Per Capita Income ($1,000)
% change
38.5
2.8
38.8
2.5
38.9
1.3
39.2
3.2
39.5
3.1
36.3
2.6
38.0
4.7
38.8
2.2
39.9
2.8
41.5
3.9
43.3
4.4
Average Wage rate ($1,000)
% change
46.1
(0.4)
46.2
1.5
46.5
2.6
46.8
2.3
47.1
2.4
44.1
2.6
45.6
3.5
46.4
1.7
47.5
2.3
48.7
2.6
50.1
2.8
Population (Millions)
% change
3.88
0.6
3.88
0.7
3.89
1.1
3.90
0.8
3.91
0.8
3.84
0.6
3.86
0.6
3.89
0.7
3.92
0.9
3.96
1.0
4.01
1.1
Housing Starts (Thousands)
% change
9.0
18.6
10.6
90.8
10.1
(15.2)
10.4
10.0
10.5
5.9
7.6
0.5
8.1
5.9
10.0
24.3
11.0
9.9
14.3
29.6
19.4
36.1
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
8.7
(0.4)
8.5
(0.2)
8.6
0.1
8.4
(0.1)
8.3
(0.1)
10.8
(0.3)
9.5
(1.3)
8.5
(0.9)
8.0
(0.5)
7.5
(0.5)
7.0
(0.5)
Employment (Thousands)
Total Nonfarm
% change
1,635.6
2.7
1,638.1
0.6
1,640.2
0.5
1,648.6
2.1
1,657.7
2.2
1,601.9 1,620.8
(0.7)
1.2
1,640.6
1.2
1,670.4
1.8
1,702.6
1.9
1,738.4
2.1
1,343.5
3.6
1,347.9
1.3
1,351.5
1.1
1,359.6
2.4
1,368.4
2.6
1,302.2 1,325.4
(0.9)
1.8
1,350.6
1.9
1,380.6
2.2
1,411.2
2.2
1,444.9
2.4
70.9
8.2
71.6
3.7
72.0
2.7
73.1
5.9
73.4
1.5
67.6
(8.7)
68.6
1.5
71.9
4.8
73.7
2.5
76.4
3.6
80.9
5.9
170.4
2.8
171.4
2.4
171.8
0.9
172.3
1.0
172.7
1.0
163.8
(2.0)
168.3
2.7
171.5
1.9
173.9
1.4
177.4
2.0
181.4
2.3
120.4
3.2
121.1
2.6
122.1
3.1
122.4
1.1
122.9
1.6
114.9
(2.6)
118.7
3.3
121.5
2.4
124.1
2.1
127.1
2.4
130.8
2.9
Wood Product Manufacturing
% change
19.4
6.6
19.6
3.4
19.8
3.2
19.9
3.2
20.3
9.0
20.0
(4.7)
19.3
(3.3)
19.7
1.9
21.0
6.7
22.2
5.8
23.8
6.9
High Tech Manufacturing
% change
36.7
(1.5)
37.0
3.5
37.3
2.8
37.4
1.5
37.2
(1.7)
35.0
(1.3)
36.5
4.2
37.1
1.8
37.2
0.2
37.7
1.4
38.6
2.4
Transportation Equipment
% change
10.9
(3.1)
10.8
(3.7)
10.8
(1.3)
10.7
(2.1)
10.7
(1.0)
10.2
(0.0)
10.9
6.6
10.8
(0.9)
10.8
0.2
11.4
5.2
12.0
5.1
50.1
1.7
50.3
1.8
49.7
(4.4)
49.8
0.7
49.8
(0.6)
48.9
(0.7)
49.6
1.4
50.0
0.8
49.9
(0.2)
50.3
0.9
50.6
0.5
1,173.8
3.8
1,176.4
0.9
1,138.4 1,157.1
(0.7)
1.6
1,179.3
1.9
1,206.7
2.3
1,233.8
2.2
1,263.5
2.4
186.1
1.7
186.9
1.8
75.0
2.1
Private Nonfarm
% change
Construction
% change
Manufacturing
% change
Durable Manufacturing
% change
Nondurable Manufacturing
% change
Private nonmanufacturing
% change
1,187.3
2.6
1,195.7
2.9
186.8
(0.3)
187.8
2.2
188.8
2.1
183.2
(0.2)
184.9
0.9
186.9
1.1
189.8
1.6
190.7
0.4
192.9
1.2
75.3
1.7
75.4
0.6
75.8
2.2
76.3
2.4
73.3
(2.7)
74.3
1.4
75.4
1.5
76.9
1.9
78.3
1.9
79.7
1.8
31.9
2.9
32.2
3.5
32.3
2.4
32.6
2.8
32.8
3.0
32.1
(3.0)
32.0
(0.2)
32.2
0.8
33.0
2.3
33.6
1.9
33.9
1.0
Professional and Business Services
% change
194.2
9.6
194.3
0.2
194.8
1.2
196.0
2.3
197.9
4.0
182.3
1.2
187.9
3.0
194.8
3.7
200.5
2.9
209.0
4.2
219.3
4.9
Health Services
% change
203.2
1.0
203.5
0.6
204.4
1.9
205.6
2.3
206.9
2.6
197.1
2.2
201.5
2.2
204.2
1.3
209.0
2.4
214.6
2.7
220.0
2.5
Leisure and Hospitality
% change
167.7
3.7
168.2
1.2
169.0
1.9
170.2
2.9
171.5
3.0
162.3
(0.4)
165.6
2.0
168.7
1.9
173.4
2.8
176.8
2.0
178.8
1.1
292.0
(1.7)
290.2
(2.5)
288.7
(2.1)
289.0
0.5
289.3
0.4
299.7
0.1
295.4
(1.5)
290.0
(1.8)
289.8
(0.1)
291.4
0.6
293.5
0.7
Retail Trade
% change
Wholesale Trade
% change
Information
% change
Government
% change
1,179.7
1.1
42
Forecast Changes Relative to the June 2012 Forecast
Table O.4 provides a summary of forecast changes compared to the June 2012 forecast. The
character of the forecast remains the same however the short and medium term growth outlooks
have been lowered due to a more subdued forecast. The baseline still remains a slight improvement
in growth rates in 2013 through 2015 relative to 2011 and 2012 figures; however this improvement
is not quite as strong as predicted a few months ago.
The employment outlook in Oregon is essentially unchanged for 2012; however the downward
revisions are 0.8 percent in 2013 and 1.1 percent in 2014, before lessening over the rest of the
decade. The revisions are less industry specific in nature and reflect a more general weakness in the
outlook.
Personal income was lowered approximately one percent over the forecast horizon primarily due to
reduced forecasts for wages and salaries, a result of the lowered employment outlook. Overall, real
personal income was lowered by a smaller degree than total nominal personal income, due to the
slightly lower forecast for inflation. A reduced overall global economic outlook keeps downward
pressure on commodity prices and inflation more generally. It is important to point out that the
inflation outlook remains subdued by historical standards.
Housing starts in early 2012 have come in above forecast, leading to an upward revision to the very
near term outlook. The June forecast called for 8,600 housing starts in 2012, while the September
forecast now calls for 10,000 starts, an increase of 16 percent. However the medium and longer
term outlook for housing remains largely the same, with housing starts returning to their long-run
average level in 2016. Even with the near term upward revision, OEA still expects a very subdued
housing starts forecast. While housing construction is on the upswing (multi-family is strong and
single family is just beginning to improve somewhat), real improvements will not materialize until
late 2013 or early 2014 according to our forecast.
Similar to housing starts, the construction industry is gaining jobs faster than initially projected. The
outlook has been revised upward in the near term reflecting this strength. Our office’s outlook for
the sector as a whole remains stable. Even with job gains each year from 2011 through 2020, the
number of jobs in 2020 in the construction industry is still projected to be lower than the level of
jobs prior to the recession.
The manufacturing outlook has been lowered throughout the forecast horizon – from 2012 through
2021. While the sector continues to add jobs in Oregon today, the global manufacturing slowdown
will wash up on our shores, leading to a more subdued outlook.
Private nonmanufacturing employment has been lowered more than one percent from 2014-2020.
The downward revisions are largely across-the-board, but driven by the larger sectors. Retail Trade,
Professional and Business Services and Health Services all have weaker outlooks. The retail trade
revisions reflect a more subdued outlook for consumer purchases in brick and mortar stores. The
health services revisions reflect a slightly slower trend growth rate in the future. In recent decades,
employment growth in health services routinely topped 3 percent per annum. Over the forecast
horizon, this growth rate is lowered to approximately 2.5 percent. Health service remains the largest
employment sector in Oregon and a key driver of employment growth in the state, so any changes
made to the industry forecast are certainly seen in the top line numbers as well.
43
Government sector employment has similarly been revised downward approximately one half of
one percent. The demand for public services generally increases with population, and as such, a
lower population outlook results in slower increases in public sector growth.
Table O.4
Oregon Forecast Change (Current vs. Last)
Quarterly
2012:1
2012:2
2012:3
Annual
2012:4
2013:1
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
139.4
0.0
125.5
0.0
71.6
0.0
146.8
0.0
128.9
0.0
75.0
(0.0)
151.1
(0.3)
130.6
(0.0)
77.1
(1.4)
156.6
(1.0)
134.1
(0.3)
80.3
(1.9)
164.4
(1.3)
138.0
(0.8)
84.0
(2.4)
173.6
(1.0)
143.0
(0.6)
88.3
(2.6)
36.3
(0.0)
44.1
(0.0)
3.84
0.0
7.6
(0.1)
10.8
0.0
38.0
0.0
45.6
(0.2)
3.86
(0.0)
8.1
0.2
9.5
0.0
38.8
(0.2)
46.4
(1.3)
3.89
(0.1)
10.0
16.0
8.5
(0.0)
39.9
(0.8)
47.5
(1.3)
3.92
(0.2)
11.0
4.3
8.0
0.0
41.5
(1.1)
48.7
(1.4)
3.96
(0.2)
14.3
(0.5)
7.5
0.0
43.3
(0.7)
50.1
(1.5)
4.01
(0.3)
19.4
0.0
7.0
0.0
Personal Income ($ billions)
Nominal Personal Income
% change
Real Personal Income (base year=2005)
% change
Nominal Wages and Salaries
% change
Per Capita Income ($1,000)
% change
Average Wage rate ($1,000)
% change
Population (Millions)
% change
Housing Starts (Thousands)
% change
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
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
149.4
(0.1)
129.4
(0.2)
76.4
(0.9)
150.5
0.0
130.2
0.2
76.7
(1.3)
151.4
152.9
(0.6)
(0.7)
131.0
131.9
(0.1)
(0.1)
77.3
78.1
(1.7)
(1.7)
Other Indicators
38.5
(0.0)
46.1
(1.2)
3.88
(0.1)
9.0
(0.1)
8.7
0.0
38.8
0.1
46.2
(1.4)
3.88
(0.1)
10.6
31.1
8.5
(0.2)
38.9
39.2
(0.5)
(0.6)
46.5
46.8
(1.4)
(1.3)
3.89
3.9
(0.1)
(0.1)
10.1
10.4
18.0
16.7
8.6
8.4
0.0
0.0
Employment (Thousands)
1,635.6
0.2
1,343.5
0.3
70.9
3.2
170.4
(0.7)
120.4
(0.8)
19.4
1.5
36.7
(0.3)
10.9
(2.6)
50.1
(0.4)
1,173.8
0.6
186.1
(0.1)
75.0
0.1
31.9
0.2
194.2
1.3
203.2
0.1
167.7
0.0
292.0
(0.1)
1,638.1
0.1
1,347.9
0.2
71.6
4.5
171.4
0.2
121.1
(0.3)
19.6
1.4
37.0
(1.4)
10.8
(2.8)
50.3
1.3
1,176.4
(0.2)
186.9
0.1
75.3
0.3
32.2
1.1
194.3
0.0
203.5
(0.4)
168.2
(0.6)
290.2
(0.3)
1,640.2
(0.3)
1,351.5
(0.2)
72.0
4.8
171.8
(0.6)
122.1
(0.8)
19.8
1.3
37.3
(2.6)
10.8
(2.9)
49.7
(0.1)
1,179.7
(0.6)
186.8
(0.5)
75.4
0.1
32.3
3.6
194.8
(0.5)
204.4
(0.7)
169.0
(1.0)
288.7
(0.8)
1,648.6
(0.4)
1,359.6
(0.3)
73.1
5.3
172.3
(1.1)
122.4
(1.4)
19.9
1.3
37.4
(2.9)
10.7
(4.8)
49.8
(0.3)
1,187.3
(0.7)
187.8
(0.5)
75.8
(0.1)
32.6
3.3
196.0
(0.7)
205.6
(0.8)
170.2
(1.0)
289.0
(0.7)
44
154.4
(0.9)
132.8
(0.2)
79.0
(1.8)
39.5
(0.7)
47.1
(1.3)
3.9
(0.1)
10.5
10.6
8.3
0.0
1,657.7
(0.5)
1,368.4
(0.5)
73.4
4.8
172.7
(1.8)
122.9
(2.3)
20.3
0.1
37.2
(4.3)
10.7
(6.8)
49.8
(0.6)
1,195.7
(0.8)
188.8
(0.5)
76.3
(0.2)
32.8
2.3
197.9
(0.4)
206.9
(0.8)
171.5
(1.0)
289.3
(0.7)
1,601.9 1,620.8 1,640.6 1,670.4 1,702.6 1,738.4
0.0
0.1
(0.1)
(0.7)
(1.1)
(1.2)
1,302.2 1,325.4 1,350.6 1,380.6 1,411.2 1,444.9
0.0
0.0
(0.0)
(0.7)
(1.2)
(1.3)
67.6
68.6
71.9
73.7
76.4
80.9
0.0
0.0
4.5
3.3
(1.1)
(3.4)
163.8
168.3
171.5
173.9
177.4
181.4
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.5)
(2.1)
(2.1)
(1.8)
114.9
118.7
121.5
124.1
127.1
130.8
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.8)
(2.7)
(2.9)
(2.5)
20.0
19.3
19.7
21.0
22.2
23.8
0.0
0.0
1.4
(0.9)
(4.4)
(4.7)
35.0
36.5
37.1
37.2
37.7
38.6
(0.0)
(0.0)
(1.8)
(4.5)
(2.7)
(1.8)
10.2
10.9
10.8
10.8
11.4
12.0
(0.0)
(0.0)
(3.3)
(8.4)
(9.0)
(7.3)
48.9
49.6
50.0
49.9
50.3
50.6
(0.0)
0.0
0.1
(0.4)
0.0
0.1
1,138.4 1,157.1 1,179.3 1,206.7 1,233.8 1,263.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
(0.4)
(1.0)
(1.2)
183.2
184.9
186.9
189.8
190.7
192.9
0.0
0.0
(0.2)
(0.7)
(1.5)
(1.7)
73.3
74.3
75.4
76.9
78.3
79.7
0.0
0.0
0.1
(0.5)
(0.8)
(0.6)
32.1
32.0
32.2
33.0
33.6
33.9
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.3
2.5
1.3
182.3
187.9
194.8
200.5
209.0
219.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
(0.4)
(1.4)
(1.6)
197.1
201.5
204.2
209.0
214.6
220.0
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.5)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.8)
162.3
165.6
168.7
173.4
176.8
178.8
0.0
0.0
(0.6)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(1.0)
299.7
295.4
290.0
289.8
291.4
293.5
0.0
0.3
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.4)
-15.0
Select Industry Employment
High Tech Mfg
15
40
10
30
20
0
10
45
2020
-10
2020
-5
2018
0
2018
5
2016
Repeat Purcahse Index, Oregon vs U.S. Avg
2016
Housing Prices
2014
-12.5
2014
-7.5
2012
-10.0
2012
-5.0
2010
0.0
2010
2.5
2008
5.0
2008
Manufacturing Employment
2006
-7
2006
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
-5
2004
-4
2004
-3
2004
0
2002
1
2002
2
2002
3
2000
4
2000
5
2000
Total Nonfarm Employment
-1
1998
0
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
6
1998
-6
1996
Percent Change
2
Percent Change
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
4
1996
-2.5
Percent Change
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
8
1998
50
Percent Change
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
Percent Change
Total Personal Income
1996
2020
2018
2016
2014
Wood Product
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
60
2002
2000
1998
-2
1996
Percent Change
-1
1998
1996
Percent Change
-2
1996
Employment (000s)
Graph O.6
Oregon and U.S. Economic Forecasts
Oregon
U.S.
Real Total Personal Income
2005 Chain Weighted Dollars
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-2
Population
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Private Non-manufacturing Employment
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
-6.0
-7.0
Comparison of Last Three Forecasts
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2003
2002
2001
2005
Employment Growth
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
2000
Percent
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2002
2003
2001
Sep 2012
2004
Jun 2012
Personal Income Growth
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
2000
Percent
Mar 2012
Alternative Scenarios
The baseline forecast is our projection of the most likely outcome for the Oregon economy. As with
any forecast, however, many other scenarios are possible. Currently, risks are heightened
considerably and concentrated on the downside. The Optimistic scenario is one in which the
expansion gathers steam and employment and income growth accelerate throughout 2012 and into
2013. The Pessimistic scenario is one in which the U.S. (and Oregon) falls back into recession with
declining consumer spending and job losses. These scenarios are not based on statistical error band
calculations around the baseline forecast, but rather are based on business cycles that reflect likely
avenues for growth or potential causes of weakness in the near term.
Optimistic Scenario: The recovery gathers steam and pulls the economy away from recession and
into a stronger cyclical expansion. The economic lull seen in the second quarter proves temporary
and the U.S. economy builds momentum through the second half of the year. The economy is soon
firing on all cylinders. Economic growth is above potential in 2012 and 2013, resulting in stronger
job and income gains. The fiscal cliff is averted in 2013. U.S. policy makers extend both the payroll
tax cut and the emergency unemployment benefit program, providing a vital source of income for
liquidity-constrained households. Overall, stronger growth leads to more consumer spending and
more business investment.
In Oregon, job gains are broad based with strong growth in all private sector industries. Public
sector employment still contracts somewhat in the near term given the fixed budget outlook;
however, losses are smaller than in the baseline as improving tax revenues prevent the most severe
cutbacks. The unemployment rate declines faster than under the baseline scenario as individuals are
able to find employment more readily and income growth accelerates. The increase in employment
and income support a self-sustaining economic expansion in which new income fuels increased
consumer spending (and debt reduction) which begets further increases in employment. Such an
expansion increases housing demand as newly employed households (and increasing income for
existing households) find their own homes after doubling-up with family and friends during the
recession. This results in working down the existing inventory overhang more quickly and new
construction returns to normal levels by early 2015.
Pessimistic Scenario: A return to recession with declining GDP and job losses. While this scenario
would be categorized as a new recession, per the National Bureau of Economic Research, it will
feel more like a long, drawn-out double-dip given that the U.S. economy has not returned to
previous trends. The soft patch in the second quarter reflects fundamental weakness and is not
temporary. Errors on both sides of the Atlantic – from U.S. and European policy makers – turn the
46
fleeting recovery into recession. The current mild euro zone recession worsens, leading to financial
panic and contagion. Worldwide credit markets freeze, leading to declining consumer and business
confidence. In the U.S., Congress does not anticipate the dangers and political gridlock results in
premature austerity. The U.S. runs off the fiscal cliff, hereby leading to economic contraction in
early 2013.
Oregon would certainly join in any recession at the U.S. level. Although the likelihood of a
recession is uncomfortably high, a near term downturn would probably not be very pronounced.
Given the lackluster expansion to date, we do not have very far to fall. Few excesses have been built
up, and many cyclically sensitive industries such as construction have yet to recover at all.
As such, the magnitude of the recession would likely be fairly mild by historical standards.
However it certainly will not go unnoticed, especially given the underwhelming expansion to date.
Employment would decline throughout 2012 and into early 2013 with job losses of approximately
30,000, or 1.8 percent. This decline would roughly be on par with the 1990 recession in Oregon and
approximately half the depth of the 2001 recession in the state. However, this employment decline
would nearly erase all the job gains the state has seen in the past two and a half years. The
unemployment rate rises back to nearly 10 percent and remains above 9 percent through early 2015.
The unemployment rate does not fall below 8 percent until 2018, which would mark over eight full
years above that level.
Furthermore, the housing market would take longer to recover. Home prices decline another 11
percent, while new home construction’s rebound is delayed another year, resulting in further
sluggish growth in the near term. On the bright side, when construction does rebound, it will result
in a surge of new home building that will rise above the state’s long term average level of building
due to pent-up demand for housing and the fact that the state will have under built housing during
this time period.
Table O.5 details both the quarterly and annual outlook for select Oregon economic variables under
the two alternative scenarios. Graph O.7 illustrates these near-term scenarios for each of the
variables.
47
Table O.5
Alternative Scenario Summary
Annual
2012:1
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Baseline
Total Nonfarm Employment (thousands)
% change
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
Total Personal Income ($ billions)
% change
Nonfarm Proprietors' Income ($ billions)
% change
Housing Starts
% change
Housing Price Index (1980 Q1 = 100)
% change
1,635.6 1,638.1 1,640.2 1,648.6 1,657.7 1,667.2
2.7%
0.6%
0.5%
2.1%
2.2%
2.3%
8.7
8.5
8.6
8.4
8.3
8.1
(0.4)
(0.2)
0.1
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.2)
149.4
150.5
151.4
152.9
154.4
155.9
3.4%
3.2%
2.4%
4.0%
3.9%
3.9%
11.2
11.3
11.6
11.7
11.9
12.0
3.5%
3.9%
7.6%
5.9%
5.5%
4.3%
8,988.4 10,563.6 10,136.2 10,379.7 10,529.2 10,006.9
18.6%
90.8% -15.2%
10.0%
5.9% -18.4%
356.6
356.0
353.4
350.8
348.2
346.0
-1.1%
-0.7%
-2.9%
-2.9%
-2.9%
-2.5%
Total Nonfarm Employment (thousands)
% change
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
Total Personal Income ($ billions)
% change
Nonfarm Proprietors' Income ($ billions)
% change
Housing Starts
% change
Housing Price Index (1980 Q1 = 100)
% change
1,635.6 1,638.1 1,648.8 1,664.5 1,686.6 1,702.3
2.7%
0.6%
2.6%
3.9%
5.4%
3.8%
8.7
8.5
8.0
7.7
7.4
7.0
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.5)
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.3)
149.4
150.5
155.0
157.3
159.6
162.2
3.4%
3.2%
12.4%
6.1%
6.1%
6.7%
11.2
11.3
11.8
12.1
12.4
12.6
3.5%
3.9%
17.2%
11.2%
9.8%
6.8%
8,988.4 10,563.6 11,605.2 11,983.5 12,667.0 12,020.4
18.6%
90.8%
45.7%
13.7%
24.8% -18.9%
356.6
356.0
361.7
360.2
357.4
355.0
-1.1%
-0.7%
6.6%
-1.7%
-3.0%
-2.6%
1,601.9
-0.7%
10.6
(0.4)
139.4
3.2%
10.3
6.8%
7,611.1
0.5%
381.2
-6.6%
1,620.8 1,640.6 1,670.4 1,702.6
1.2%
1.2%
1.8%
1.9%
9.5
8.5
8.0
7.5
(1.2)
(0.9)
(0.5)
(0.5)
146.8
151.1
156.6
164.4
5.3%
2.9%
3.7%
4.9%
11.0
11.5
12.1
12.7
6.3%
4.6%
5.3%
5.4%
8,057.8 10,017.0 11,007.7 14,266.8
5.9%
24.3%
9.9%
29.6%
355.8
354.2
346.8
349.4
-6.7%
-0.5%
-2.1%
0.8%
1,601.9
-0.7%
10.6
(0.4)
139.4
3.2%
10.3
6.8%
7,611.1
0.5%
381.2
-6.6%
1,620.8 1,646.8 1,712.3 1,757.0
1.2%
1.6%
4.0%
2.6%
9.5
8.2
6.9
6.1
(1.2)
(1.3)
(1.3)
(0.8)
146.8
153.0
163.4
172.9
5.3%
4.3%
6.8%
5.8%
11.0
11.6
12.7
13.4
6.3%
6.1%
9.2%
5.3%
8,057.8 10,785.2 12,909.0 16,844.0
5.9%
33.8%
19.7%
30.5%
355.8
358.6
358.1
369.1
-6.7%
0.8%
-0.2%
3.1%
1,601.9
-0.7%
10.6
(0.4)
139.4
3.2%
10.3
6.8%
7,611.1
0.5%
381.2
-6.6%
1,620.8
1.2%
9.5
(1.2)
146.8
5.3%
11.0
6.3%
8,057.8
5.9%
355.8
-6.7%
Optimistic Scenario
Pessimistic Scenario
Total Nonfarm Employment (thousands)
% change
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
Total Personal Income ($ billions)
% change
Nonfarm Proprietors' Income ($ billions)
% change
Housing Starts
% change
Housing Price Index (1980 Q1 = 100)
% change
1,635.6 1,638.1
2.7%
0.6%
8.7
8.5
(0.4)
(0.2)
149.4
150.5
3.4%
3.2%
11.2
11.3
3.5%
3.9%
8,988.4 10,563.6
18.6%
90.8%
356.6
356.0
-1.1%
-0.7%
1,635.0
-0.7%
8.6
0.2
149.9
-1.7%
11.2
-3.6%
8,402.9
-60.0%
347.0
-9.7%
1,629.0
-1.5%
8.9
0.2
149.6
-0.7%
11.2
0.0%
7,803.4
-25.6%
336.0
-12.1%
48
1,617.5
-2.8%
9.3
0.4
149.2
-1.1%
11.2
-2.2%
8,280.7
26.8%
329.0
-8.1%
1,609.1
-2.0%
9.8
0.5
149.9
1.7%
11.2
1.2%
7,637.6
-27.6%
323.8
-6.2%
1,634.4
0.8%
8.7
(0.8)
149.9
2.1%
11.3
2.8%
8,939.6
10.9%
348.9
-1.9%
1,612.0
-1.4%
9.6
0.9
150.5
0.4%
11.2
-0.6%
8,052.0
-9.9%
322.1
-7.7%
1,629.5
1.1%
9.4
(0.2)
157.8
4.8%
11.6
3.6%
9,422.1
17.0%
321.6
-0.2%
Graph O.7
Total Nonfarm Employment
Recession
1,900,000
Optimistic
Pessimistic
Baseline
Recession
$190,000
Total Personal Income
Optimistic
Pessimistic
Baseline
$180,000
1,850,000
$170,000
1,800,000
$160,000
1,750,000
$150,000
1,700,000
$140,000
1,650,000
$130,000
$120,000
1,600,000
$110,000
1,550,000
$100,000
1,500,000
$90,000
2000
2002
Recession
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Unemployment Rate
Optimistic
Pessimistic
2014
Baseline
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Nonfarm Proprietors' Income
Recession
$14,000
Optimistic
Pessimistic
2014
Baseline
12
$13,000
10
$12,000
8
$11,000
6
4
$10,000
2
$9,000
0
$8,000
2000
36,000
2002
Recession
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Total Housing Starts
Optimistic
Pessimistic
2014
Baseline
32,000
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Housing Price Index (FHFA)
Recession
500
Optimistic
Pessimistic
2014
Baseline
450
28,000
400
24,000
20,000
350
16,000
300
12,000
250
8,000
4,000
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
200
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Forecast Risks
The economic and revenue outlook is never certain. We will continue to monitor and recognize the
potential impacts of risk factors on the Oregon economy. Although far from comprehensive, we
have identified several major risks now facing the Oregon economy in the list below:
•
Contagion of the European debt problems and financial market instability. The European
crisis looms large as a potentially catastrophic scenario. Credit markets are easing, but
consumers and businesses still have difficulty getting loans. To the extent that credit markets
take longer to come back to some sort of state of normalcy, the current recovery could be
49
slower than projected or thrown off track. In such a scenario, Oregon will suffer the
consequences along with the rest of the nation.
•
Prolonged housing market instability. Signs are starting to emerge that the housing market
has hit bottom, certainly in terms of housing starts, and increasingly so in prices, although
they may have further to fall. Foreclosures and delinquency rates are still relatively high.
Oregon, with the rest of the nation, will still see improvements to construction activity in
2012, but it will be many months yet before a tangible housing recovery kicks in. Until this
happens, the housing market will remain a barrier to a sustained economic recovery in
Oregon.
•
Commodity price inflation. Prices for many major commodities are trending down, but remain
atypically high. Future commodity prices will be tied to growth. Should the global expansion
pick up speed, a return to high rates of commodity inflation is possible.
•
Loss of federal timber payments to Oregon counties. While a temporary reinstatement will
help cover budgets for Oregon counties this year, replacing this dwindling revenue source is
imperative. The potential for large reductions in public services could have adverse impacts on
property values and economic activity. For more information from a historical perspective, see
this recent OEA blog post on the Wood Products industry in Oregon 9.
•
Global Spillovers Both Up and Down. The international list of risks seems to change by the
day: sovereign debt problems in Europe, equity and property bubbles in places like South
America and Asia, political unrest in the Middle East, and commodity price spikes and
inflationary pressures in emerging markets. In particular, with China now the top destination
for Oregon exports, the state of the Chinese economy has spillover effects to the Oregon
economy. The looming slowdown across much of Asia is a growing threat to the Pacific
Northwest’s growth prospects.
•
Undoing the Federal Policy Used to Combat the Financial Crisis and Recession. Bailouts,
tax cuts, monetary quantitative easing, and other fiscal packages most likely prevented a more
serious economic downturn. But the clean-up after the storm can have its own risks to the
economy. Exit strategies will have to be carefully implemented to prevent premature
tightening and choking off the recovery or acting too late to avoid an inflationary
environment. All states, including Oregon, face the same risks.
•
Initiatives, referendums, and referrals. Generally, the ballot box and legislative changes bring
a number of unknowns that could have sweeping impacts on the Oregon economy and
revenue picture.
9
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/historical-look-at-oregons-wood-product-industry
50
Extended Outlook
IHS Global Insight projects Oregon’s economy to fare well relative to the rest of the country in the
coming years – 2012 through 2016. The state’s Real Gross State Product is projected to be the
eighth strongest with gains averaging nearly 3 percent. Total employment is expected to be the
seventh strongest among all states while manufacturing employment will lead the nation.
OEA is somewhat less bullish, but expects Oregon to maintain a growth advantage relative to other
states. However, this advantage will be somewhat smaller than the state has enjoyed in past
decades.
Oregon has typically benefitted from an influx of households from other states, including an ample
supply of skilled workers. Households continue to move to Oregon even when local jobs are scarce,
as long as the unemployment rate is equally bad elsewhere (particularly in California).
In addition to its dynamic labor supply, Oregon also enjoys the long-term advantages of low
electricity costs, a central location between the large markets of California, Vancouver and Asia,
clean water, low business rents and living costs, and an increasingly diverse industrial base.
The primary long-run concern for Oregon’s economy is that very little progress on raising per capita
income is projected out to 2020.
The Oregon Employment Department has published a detailed look at Oregon’s per capita personal
income entitled Why Oregon Trails the Nation; it can be found at:
http://olmis.emp.state.or.us/olmisj/PubReader?itemid=00007366
Oregon Regional Profile
The accompanying regional and county tables (Table O.6 through O.9) highlight the social,
economic, and demographic diversity in the state. This section is a regular feature following the
Oregon Economic Review and Forecast.
51
Table O.6
Oregon's Economic Profile by County and Region
2010
Geography
OREGON
2011
2010
Total Employment
2011
Unemployment Rate
2010
2011
Per capita
personal income
Average wage
per job
1,772,216
1,803,602
10.7%
9.5%
$36,191
$43,092
Portland PMSA
Clackamas
Columbia
Multnomah
Washington
Yamhill
872,347
179,827
21,653
362,732
264,494
43,641
896,453
184,796
22,251
372,756
271,803
44,847
9.7%
10.0%
12.0%
9.8%
8.9%
10.5%
8.4%
8.7%
10.3%
8.5%
7.7%
9.2%
$40,617
$44,954
$33,445
$39,945
$40,606
$32,768
$49,424
$43,398
$32,709
$48,683
$56,604
$35,190
Willamette Valley
Benton
Lane
Linn
Marion
Polk
430,215
40,915
162,668
49,028
141,848
35,756
433,173
41,911
164,025
49,236
142,165
35,836
10.8%
7.4%
11.0%
13.2%
11.0%
9.2%
9.6%
6.6%
9.5%
10.1%
10.2%
8.7%
$33,057
$37,333
$33,277
$29,197
$33,605
$30,877
$37,346
$43,647
$36,773
$36,294
$37,385
$31,282
Northern Coast
Clatsop
Lincoln
Tillamook
51,844
19,127
20,859
11,858
52,054
19,242
21,003
11,809
9.9%
9.2%
10.6%
9.6%
9.1%
8.5%
9.9%
8.9%
$33,636
$34,007
$33,681
$33,011
$31,699
$32,434
$30,947
$31,790
Southern Coast
Coos
Curry
33,360
25,086
8,274
33,635
25,462
8,173
12.6%
12.5%
12.7%
11.6%
11.4%
12.0%
$31,361
$31,272
$31,611
$32,875
$31,812
$36,993
159,582
39,856
89,702
30,024
160,990
40,141
90,455
30,394
13.3%
14.6%
12.5%
14.1%
12.2%
13.1%
11.5%
12.6%
$31,955
$29,601
$34,168
$29,580
$34,191
$34,049
$35,152
$31,219
Central Oregon
Crook
Deschutes
Jefferson
85,193
7,603
69,492
8,098
86,238
7,787
70,299
8,152
14.4%
16.9%
14.1%
14.3%
12.7%
14.8%
12.4%
13.2%
$34,761
$29,761
$36,449
$27,278
$35,971
$36,993
$36,147
$33,215
Columbia Gorge
Gilliam
Hood River
Sherman
Wasco
Wheeler
29,024
1,148
13,274
964
13,001
637
29,370
1,130
13,419
987
13,215
619
8.7%
7.0%
8.2%
9.8%
9.3%
10.4%
8.1%
7.3%
7.7%
9.0%
8.5%
9.9%
$34,204
$38,204
$34,070
$52,530
$33,185
$26,510
$31,324
$41,821
$29,317
$37,592
$32,510
$25,497
Northeast Oregon
Baker
Grant
Morrow
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
65,331
6,893
3,050
5,025
35,655
11,348
3,360
66,142
6,795
3,047
5,133
36,421
11,390
3,356
10.2%
10.0%
13.4%
9.3%
9.9%
10.4%
11.9%
9.5%
10.4%
13.4%
8.5%
9.0%
9.8%
11.2%
$30,469
$29,967
$29,546
$35,021
$29,554
$30,899
$33,665
$33,667
$30,280
$31,944
$39,418
$34,559
$31,701
$28,636
S Central/SE Oregon
Harney
Klamath
Lake
Malheur
45,321
3,016
26,877
3,273
12,155
45,548
2,950
27,124
3,288
12,186
12.7%
15.5%
13.2%
13.5%
10.5%
11.9%
14.4%
12.2%
12.9%
10.1%
$27,999
$28,463
$29,419
$29,498
$24,503
$32,284
$31,190
$33,417
$33,886
$30,240
Southern Oregon
Douglas
Jackson
Josephine
Sources: Total employment and unemployment rate: Oregon Employment Department;
per capita personal income: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;
average wage per job: Oregon Employment Department.
Statewide total employment may not equal sum due to rounding
52
Table O.7
Oregon's Gross Farm & Ranch Sales By County and Region for 2010 and 2011 (in 1,000 $)
STATE/COUNTY
State Total
Year 2011
Livestock &
All Crops
Poultry
3,521,242
1,734,424
All Crop &
Livestock
5,255,666
Year 2010
Livestock &
All Crops
Poultry
2,938,177
1,428,868
2010 to 2011
All Crop &
Livestock
4,367,044
Change in
total sales
20.3%
Portland-area
Clackamas
Columbia
Multnomah
Washington
Yamhill
813,771
262,507
21,776
51,598
265,249
212,641
144,532
70,433
4,693
3,505
19,529
46,372
958,305
332,940
26,470
55,104
284,778
259,013
724,933
244,243
19,069
49,371
233,701
178,549
126,744
63,687
3,725
3,138
16,830
39,364
851,676
307,930
22,794
52,509
250,530
217,913
12.5%
8.1%
16.1%
4.9%
13.7%
18.9%
Willamette Valley
Benton
Lane
Linn
Marion
Polk
944,165
82,282
88,969
210,697
458,174
104,043
332,223
15,686
36,093
68,883
158,693
52,868
1,276,390
97,968
125,063
279,581
616,867
156,911
842,155
69,929
81,265
182,351
423,775
84,835
290,712
12,831
31,236
58,872
144,414
43,359
1,132,867
82,760
112,501
241,223
568,189
128,194
12.7%
18.4%
11.2%
15.9%
8.6%
22.4%
Northern Coast
Clatsop
Lincoln
Tillamook
24,061
5,043
13,407
5,611
248,912
68,223
47,898
132,791
272,973
73,266
61,305
138,402
15,424
2,743
8,150
4,531
139,363
15,999
3,780
119,584
154,787
18,742
11,930
124,115
76.4%
290.9%
413.9%
11.5%
Southern Coast
Coos
Curry
27,903
15,599
12,304
71,424
55,521
15,903
99,327
71,120
28,207
21,216
12,081
9,135
21,686
18,188
3,498
42,901
30,268
12,633
131.5%
135.0%
123.3%
103,513
47,803
44,476
11,234
64,732
31,364
23,146
10,222
168,244
79,167
67,622
21,455
88,437
36,621
42,739
9,077
56,389
25,415
21,898
9,076
144,826
62,036
64,637
18,153
16.2%
27.6%
4.6%
18.2%
Central Oregon
Crook
Deschutes
Jefferson
96,306
24,216
14,015
58,075
52,375
25,080
11,349
15,946
148,682
49,296
25,365
74,021
75,946
15,264
11,677
49,005
46,363
22,059
10,178
14,126
122,309
37,323
21,855
63,131
21.6%
32.1%
16.1%
17.2%
Columbia Gorge
Gilliam
Hood River
Sherman
Wasco
Wheeler
276,708
25,509
78,904
63,472
107,024
1,799
33,402
10,115
400
3,225
6,568
13,094
310,110
35,624
79,304
66,697
113,592
14,893
231,408
16,141
87,198
45,671
80,465
1,933
31,744
9,523
400
3,945
6,786
11,090
263,153
25,664
87,598
49,616
87,252
13,023
17.8%
38.8%
-9.5%
34.4%
30.2%
14.4%
Northeast Oregon
Baker
Grant
Morrow
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
863,163
29,797
9,712
308,274
415,305
69,767
30,308
401,051
50,820
45,076
168,858
87,905
21,769
26,623
1,264,215
80,617
54,789
477,132
503,210
91,536
56,931
647,347
18,654
6,558
223,228
326,466
50,065
22,376
365,177
42,886
39,524
172,578
70,541
17,564
22,084
1,012,525
61,539
46,082
395,806
397,008
67,630
44,460
24.9%
31.0%
18.9%
20.5%
26.8%
35.3%
28.0%
S Central/SE Oregon
Harney
Klamath
Lake
Malheur
371,647
27734
141795
58168
143950
385,773
55934
141938
35706
152195
757,420
83668
283733
93874
296145
291,310
21623
88709
42851
138127
350,690
45757
139281
30686
134966
642,001
67380
227991
73537
273093
18.0%
24.2%
24.4%
27.7%
8.4%
Southern Oregon
Douglas
Jackson
Josephine
Source:Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN). Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University.
53
Table O.8
Oregon's Public Elementary and Secondary School Enrollment Statistics
Enrollment
STATE/COUNTY
Oct. 1, 2011
% change
Oct. 1, 2010
2010-2011
2010
2010-2011
% receiving free or Operating expenditure
per student
reduced price lunch
OREGON
560,946
561,328
-0.1%
50.5%
$9,322
Portland PMSA
Clackamas
Columbia
Multnomah
Washington
Yamhill
260,245
57,845
8,142
92,251
85,569
16,438
260,016
58,138
8,244
91,879
85,224
16,531
0.1%
-0.5%
-1.2%
0.4%
0.4%
-0.6%
44.4%
35.3%
42.8%
53.9%
39.0%
51.4%
$9,293
$8,446
$8,568
$10,346
$8,879
$8,923
Willamette Valley
Benton
Lane
Linn
Marion
Polk
142,417
8,635
45,329
21,559
60,325
6,569
142,835
8,791
45,486
21,406
60,479
6,673
-0.3%
-1.8%
-0.3%
0.7%
-0.3%
-1.6%
53.1%
37.4%
51.5%
47.0%
59.2%
51.3%
$9,246
$9,597
$9,490
$8,027
$9,498
$8,788
Northern Coast
Clatsop
Lincoln
Tillamook
13,168
4,853
5,083
3,232
13,318
4,898
5,181
3,239
-1.1%
-0.9%
-1.9%
-0.2%
58.4%
51.5%
62.9%
61.6%
$10,461
$10,620
$9,750
$11,360
Southern Coast
Coos
Curry
11,619
9,243
2,376
10,940
8,471
2,469
6.2%
9.1%
-3.8%
55.7%
54.6%
59.8%
$9,536
$9,552
$9,483
Southern Oregon
Douglas
Jackson
Josephine
53,617
14,448
28,424
10,745
54,049
14,699
28,443
10,907
-0.8%
-1.7%
-0.1%
-1.5%
57.3%
59.7%
54.6%
60.8%
$8,982
$9,270
$8,798
$9,070
Central Oregon
Crook
Deschutes
Jefferson
30,935
3,010
24,456
3,469
30,863
2,932
24,470
3,461
0.2%
2.7%
-0.1%
0.2%
55.9%
60.8%
51.9%
79.6%
$8,705
$8,607
$8,304
$11,622
Columbia Gorge
Gilliam
Hood River
Sherman
Wasco
Wheeler
8,372
267
4,076
231
3,526
272
8,207
247
3,989
234
3,514
223
2.0%
8.1%
2.2%
-1.3%
0.3%
22.0%
57.6%
48.2%
58.4%
54.7%
57.4%
61.0%
$11,247
$18,530
$10,921
$18,115
$10,216
$18,037
Northeast Oregon
Baker
Grant
Morrow
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
23,913
2,356
911
2,366
13,658
3,751
871
24,171
2,354
962
2,389
13,736
3,854
876
-1.1%
0.1%
-5.3%
-1.0%
-0.6%
-2.7%
-0.6%
59.7%
51.6%
51.4%
69.4%
63.4%
50.6%
46.3%
$9,479
$9,831
$14,387
$10,731
$8,792
$9,349
$11,085
S Central/SEast Oregon
Harney
Klamath
Lake
Malheur
16,660
1,101
9,524
1,085
4,950
16,929
1,156
9,664
1,068
5,041
-1.6%
-4.8%
-1.4%
1.6%
-1.8%
64.8%
51.0%
66.5%
42.5%
69.4%
$10,429
$11,947
$10,035
$11,153
$10,685
Source: Oregon Department of Education
NOTE: Operating expenditure per student calculated by dividing school-year expenditure by October 1 enrollment count.
County/region total do not add to the state total due to county not assigned cases.
54
Table O.9
2011 Annual Average Covered Employment
Region
Employment
Natural Resources & Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional & Business Services
Education & Health Services
Leisure & Hospitality
Other Services
Government
Total
Oregon
Portland 5- Willamette
County
Valley
Northern
Coast
Southern
Coast
Southern
Oregon
Central Columbia Northeast S Central/SE
Oregon
Gorge
Oregon
Oregon
50,372
72,612
167,816
326,154
33,316
81,428
191,637
368,650
174,431
62,544
87,008
12,179
39,061
99,027
174,307
20,363
50,540
120,697
183,610
86,323
33,223
31,434
16,528
16,212
33,773
65,514
5,830
15,165
32,933
93,082
35,157
13,856
29,110
1,608
1,702
4,190
7,870
395
1,414
2,096
7,942
9,930
1,683
3,005
1251
1,064
2,019
5,637
311
1,011
2,555
7,054
3,907
861
1,837
4,497
5,202
12,528
29,255
2,315
5,583
10,905
34,063
15,395
5,089
6,764
1,684
3,516
5,330
14,658
1,602
3,310
7,057
15,320
10,803
2,724
4,584
4,228
897
1,777
4,617
238
607
1,847
5,651
3,505
689
1,102
5,248
2,101
6,256
10,548
512
1,508
3,676
11,317
5,002
1,561
4,963
3,040
1,232
2,770
8,196
383
1,121
2,823
9,467
4,098
1,204
4,194
1,616,622
851,063
357,242
41,843
27,511
131,623
70,628
25,164
52,706
38,535
3.1%
4.5%
10.4%
20.2%
2.1%
5.0%
11.9%
22.8%
10.8%
3.9%
5.4%
1.4%
4.6%
11.6%
20.5%
2.4%
5.9%
14.2%
21.6%
10.1%
3.9%
3.7%
4.6%
4.5%
9.5%
18.3%
1.6%
4.2%
9.2%
26.1%
9.8%
3.9%
8.1%
3.8%
4.1%
10.0%
18.8%
0.9%
3.4%
5.0%
19.0%
23.7%
4.0%
7.2%
4.5%
3.9%
7.3%
20.5%
1.1%
3.7%
9.3%
25.6%
14.2%
3.1%
6.7%
3.4%
4.0%
9.5%
22.2%
1.8%
4.2%
8.3%
25.9%
11.7%
3.9%
5.1%
2.4%
5.0%
7.5%
20.8%
2.3%
4.7%
10.0%
21.7%
15.3%
3.9%
6.5%
16.8%
3.6%
7.1%
18.3%
0.9%
2.4%
7.3%
22.5%
13.9%
2.7%
4.4%
10.0%
4.0%
11.9%
20.0%
1.0%
2.9%
7.0%
21.5%
9.5%
3.0%
9.4%
7.9%
3.2%
7.2%
21.3%
1.0%
2.9%
7.3%
24.6%
10.6%
3.1%
10.9%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Distribution
Natural Resources & Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional & Business Services
Education & Health Services
Leisure & Hospitality
Other Services
Government
Total
Source: Oregon Employment Department
Note: Employment includes only covered employment.
Oregon total includes multi-county employment not shown in individual regions.
Total includes a small number of non-classifiable jobs not shown in individual industries.
Definition of regions:
Portland 5-County: Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill counties
Willamette Valley: Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion, and Polk counties
North Coast: Clatsop, Lincoln, and Tillamook counties
South Coast: Coos and Curry counties
Southern: Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties
Gorge: Gilliam, Hood River, Sherman, Wasco, and Wheeler counties
Central: Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson counties
Northeast: Baker, Grant, Morrow, Union, Umatilla, and Wallowa counties
South Central-SE: Harney, Klamath, Lake, and Malheur counties
55
II.
REVENUE FORECAST
Summary
The weaker outlook for economic growth translates directly into a weaker outlook for Oregon’s
primary General Fund revenue sources. Most notably, personal income tax collections are expected
to be more than 2% smaller over the extended forecast horizon than what was reflected in the June
2012 forecast.
With fewer jobs expected, taxes related to labor income are expected to grow at a slower rate.
Reductions in the outlook for taxes withheld out of workers’ paychecks mirror reductions in the
outlook for wage earnings. Forecasts have been reduced by much more for some volatile income
tax sources including capital gains and corporate excise taxes. In addition to personal income taxes,
consumer spending on video lottery and tobacco products is also now expected to be weaker than
what was reflected in the June 2012 forecast.
Although the long-term revenue forecast has been reduced significantly, the outlook for the current
biennium remains on track. Over the last three months, General Fund revenue collections have
come in somewhat stronger than expected. Also, it will take several months before the expected
weakness in economic growth becomes fully reflected in lower tax collections.
Overall, General Fund revenue growth is expected to remain slow, growing by 11% during 2011-13
and in each of the next two biennia. During past periods of economic expansion in Oregon,
revenues have grown by 15% to 20% in a typical biennium.
Revenue growth in Oregon and other states will face considerable downward pressure over the 10year extended forecast horizon. As the baby boom population cohort works less and spends less,
traditional state tax instruments such as personal income taxes and general sales taxes will become
less effective, and revenue growth will fail to match the pace seen in the past.
A.
2011-13 General Fund Revenues
Growth in general fund revenues has not been remarkable over the summer months, but it has been
healthy. Personal income taxes are growing due to a mix of both labor and investment income, and
corporate excise taxes appear to have stabilized after dropping sharply early in the biennium.
56
Table R.1
2011-13 General Fund Forecast Summary
(Millions)
2011 COS
Forecast
March 2012
Forecast
June 2012
Forecast
Structural Revenues
Personal Income Tax
$12,193.6
$11,969.2
$11,919.9
-$49.3
-$273.7
Corporate Income Tax
$894.2
$812.6
$814.5
$1.9
-$79.7
All Other Revenues
$944.2
$944.6
$1,098.5
$153.9
$154.3
Gross GF Revenues
$14,032.0
$13,726.5
$13,832.9
$106.5
-$199.0
Administrative Actions1
-$23.1
-$23.1
-$14.1
$9.1
$9.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$14,008.9
$13,703.3
$13,818.9
$115.5
-$190.0
Legislative Actions
Net Available Resources
Confidence Intervals
67% Confidence
95% Confidence
+/- 5.2%
+/- 10.4%
$719.3
$1,438.6
Change from Change from
Prior Forecast COS Forecast
$13.11B to $14.55B
$12.39B to $15.27B
1 Reflects cost of cashflow management actions, ex clusiv e of internal borrow ing.
Collections of most major revenue types came in stronger than what was expected over the summer.
Although a weaker economy is already manifesting itself in tax collections, it will take some time
before slower economic growth is fully reflected in the revenue outlook. As a result, the revenue
outlook for the 2011-13 biennium is somewhat stronger than what was predicted in the June 2012
forecast. The forecast for General Fund revenues for 2011-13 is now $13,921 million. This
represents an increase of $88 million (0.6%) from the June 2012 forecast.
The forecast for the 2011-13 biennium is now $111 million below the Close of Session forecast.
Given the strong employment gains seen in early 2011, the Close of Session forecast is more
optimistic than other versions produced before or since. Nevertheless, given lackluster near-term
expectations for revenue growth, a strong April 2013 of tax collections would put us back on track
with the Close of Session’s relatively optimistic outlook. If we see a boom similar to the last
revenue cycle, the personal income tax kicker may yet come into play.
Personal Income Tax
Personal income tax collections were $1,836 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012, $29.4
million (1.6%) above the latest forecast. Compared to the year-ago level, total personal income tax
collections grew by 3.7% relative to a forecast that called for 2.1% growth. Personal income tax
collections have continued to come in higher than forecast during the current quarter. Appendix B
presents a comparison of actual and projected personal income tax revenues for the fourth quarter of
2012.
Personal income tax collections are expected to remain weak until the April 2013 filing season
when the gains seen in stock markets this year are realized for tax purposes. Further taxable capital
gains realizations will be generated by taxpayers attempting to move their assets ahead of potential
federal tax increases in 2013. Very few collections related to filers who receive extensions are
expected this year, with payments expected to fall and refunds to rise.
57
Corporate Excise Tax
Corporate excise tax collections equaled $172 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012,
$12.4 million above the June forecast. Compared to one year ago, net corporate receipts were down
1.6% with the forecast calling for an 8.7% decline.
Corporate tax collections are expected to continue to decline throughout fiscal year 2013, as they
remain very large from an historical perspective. Very strong growth is expected during the 2013-15
biennium, since corporate tax collections are prone to boom-bust cycles. However, growth rates,
while large, will remain less than half of what has been seen during recent profit booms.
Other Sources of Revenue
All other General Fund revenues are expected to total $1,122 million for the 2011-13 biennium, an
increase of $23 million (2.1%). Most revenue sources are tracking ahead of the June forecast,
including large contributions from estate taxes, judicial-related revenues and liquor apportionment.
Only revenues from the sale of tobacco products and video lottery sales are tracking significantly
below forecast. 10
10
Lottery transfers into the General Fund are not included in the total. See section E for a discussion of the lottery
forecast.
58
B.
Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook
Table R.2 exhibits the long-run forecast for General Fund revenues through the 2019-21 biennium.
Users should note that the potential for error in the forecast increases substantially the further ahead
we look.
Table R.2
General Fund Revenue Forecast Summary (Millions of Dollars, Current Law)
Forecast
Revenue Source
Personal Income Taxes
Corporate Income Taxes
All Others
Total General Fund
Kicker Distributions
Total Revenue
Forecast
2009-11
%
Biennium
Chg
10,467.2
2011-13
Forecast
%
Biennium Chg
3.7% 11,956.6
20.9%
842.6
1.8%
1,226.6
29.8%
1,121.8
-8.5%
12,521.4
6.8% 13,921.0
12,521.4
-2.2% 13,921.0
%
Biennium
Chg
14.2% 13,416.9
827.6
Forecast
2013-15
1,070.8
2015-17
Forecast
%
2017-19
Forecast
%
2019-21
%
Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg
12.2% 15,069.0 12.3% 16,638.4 10.4% 18,405.7
10.6%
27.1%
1,083.7
1.2%
1,056.6 -2.5%
1,081.7
2.4%
967.2 -13.8%
1,025.8
6.1%
1,096.6
1,184.4
8.0%
9.4% 20,671.8
10.0%
11.2% 15,454.8
11.2% 15,454.8
11.0% 17,178.5 11.2% 18,791.6
-
-
11.0% 17,178.5 11.2% 18,791.6
6.9%
9.4% 20,671.8
10.0%
Other tax es include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Sev erance Tax , Western Oregon Sev erance Tax and Amusement Dev ice Tax .
Commercial Fish Licenses & Fees and Pari-mutual Receipts are included in Other Rev enues
General Fund revenues will total $15,455 million in 2013-15, an increase of 11.0% percent from the
prior period, and $223 million (-1.4%) below the March forecast. In 2015-17, revenue growth is
expected to remain stable at 11.2%, followed by slower rates of 9% to 10% in subsequent biennia.
The slowdown in long-run revenue growth is largely due to the impact of demographic changes.
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 2011 and
2012 Oregon Legislative Sessions. 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 actions taken during the 2011 Legislative
Session can be found in Appendix B Table B.3. For a detailed treatment of the components of the
February 2012 Rebalance Plan, see: 2012 Budget Highlights, Legislative Fiscal Office.
The treatment of the corporate taxes represents an important current area of policy uncertainty.
Policymakers and the court system are currently determining whether or not Oregon tax credits can
be used to offset liability from the corporate minimum tax, and also whether firms can be asked to
pay excise taxes based on a single sales apportionment factor. There is also a citizens’ initiative on
the ballot that would redirect future corporate kicker payments.
59
Other recent tax law changes involve the treatment of court fees and criminal fines. These changes
have significantly increased the amount of judicial related funds flowing into the General Fund, but
the exact magnitude of the impact remains unclear.
Although based on current law, many of the tax policies that impact the revenue forecast are not set
in stone. In particular, sunset dates for many large tax credits have been scheduled. As credits are
allowed to disappear, considerable support is lent to the revenue outlook in the outer years of the
forecast. To the extent that tax credits are extended and not allowed to expire when their sunset
dates arrive, the outlook for revenue growth will be reduced. The current forecast relies on August
2012 estimates from the Legislative Revenue Office of the size of future tax credits.
D.
Forecast Risks
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
projection.
Currently, the overwhelming risk facing the revenue outlook is the threat that the U.S. economy will
slip back into recession in the near term. Such a scenario, however it played out, would result in
drastic revenue losses.
In our recessionary scenario, job cuts and income losses begin across a range of industries this fall.
Over the next year, most of the jobs Oregon gained since the previous trough in 2009 would be lost.
A recession of this magnitude would not be a severe one, with job losses around half the size of
what were seen in 2001-03. The working assumption is that there are few excesses to be wrung out,
with auto sales, construction activity, business inventories and the like all fairly lean. Job losses
would be most concentrated among manufacturing, leisure/hospitality, retailing and government
enterprises.
In the recessionary scenario, it is assumed that a stock market correction will occur before the end
of the year. Should a recession of this nature ensue, FY2011-13 biennial income tax revenues
would be reduced on the order $239 million. In addition to income taxes, which we can formally
model under alternative scenarios, other general fund taxes would also decline, lowering the general
fund by an additional $50 to $100 million in 2011-13. Given the timing of such a recession – the
2011-13 BN is nearly halfway completed – the largest revenue reductions, relative to the baseline,
would be the 2013-15 BN. Personal and Corporate Income Tax revenues would be more than $1.0
billion below baseline.
60
Table R.2a
R.2a Alternative Scenarios for Major General Fund Revenues
Baseline
Compared to Baseline
Pessimistic Losses Optimistic
Gains
Growth Rates
Baseline Pessimistic Optimistic
Personal Income Taxes
($ thousands)
FY 2012
5,852,884
5,852,884
0
5,852,884
0
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
FY 2013
6,103,724
5,898,883
-204,841
6,278,658
174,934
4.3%
0.8%
7.3%
FY 2014
6,450,692
5,905,149
-545,543
7,042,303
591,611
5.7%
0.1%
12.2%
FY 2015
6,966,194
6,400,620
-565,574
7,587,194
621,000
8.0%
8.4%
7.7%
FY 2016
7,376,176
6,925,834
-450,342
7,864,734
488,558
5.9%
8.2%
3.7%
FY 2017
7,692,826
7,292,663
-400,163
8,122,361
429,535
4.3%
5.3%
3.3%
FY 2012
427,202
427,202
0
427,202
0
-8.8%
-8.8%
-8.8%
FY 2013
415,375
380,822
-34,553
450,583
35,207
-2.8%
-10.9%
5.5%
FY 2014
511,928
460,400
-51,528
566,167
54,239
23.2%
20.9%
25.7%
FY 2015
558,878
500,261
-58,617
616,906
58,029
9.2%
8.7%
9.0%
FY 2016
544,702
485,801
-58,901
593,907
49,205
-2.5%
-2.9%
-3.7%
FY 2017
539,025
488,082
-50,943
582,361
43,336
-1.0%
0.5%
-1.9%
Corporate Excise Taxes
($ thousands)
Note: Optimistic and Pessimistic alternatives do not reflect statistical ranges, but rather likely scenarios for near term business cycles that are stronger/weaker
than the baseline.
E.
Lottery Earnings Forecast
Table R.3 presents a summary of lottery earnings and distribution for the 2011-13 biennium.
Projected lottery earnings will total $1,075.9 million, a decrease of $17.0 million from the prior
forecast. Overall lackluster collections stem from slower than expected video lottery sales, which
dominate overall lottery earnings. Although growth has been relatively slow, lottery revenues have
stabilized the gains continued in FY12. Revenue fell sharply in the wake of the recession and
enactment of the smoking ban. Including the beginning balance and other earnings, total available
resources equal $1,078.5 million. After adjusting for programs that receive a strict percentage of
lottery transfers and incorporating changes to distributions made during the 2012 session, the
current forecast for the ending balance is -$11.4 million.
In the current biennium, video lottery sales are forecasted to grow slowly as employment and
income growth is likewise relatively slow. Over the extended forecast horizon, video lottery sales
are expected to grow at rates just under personal income gains for Oregonians. Even with the video
lottery sales increases the past three fiscal years, the gains have not been quite as strong as the
underlying economic conditions. Consumers remain cautious with their disposable income and
while their overall entertainment spending is increasing, the share of their budgets spent on these
activities has not increased. This has not been the case in past years with gains in video lottery
having outstripped spending on other items throughout the Lottery’s history. Eventually as video
games lose some of their novelty, sales growth will slow to more sustainable levels.
61
Another major item affecting Lottery transfers for state revenue purposes is the capital replacement
plan that Lottery will implement over the FY2014-2017 time frame. During the next two biennia,
Lottery will replace the 12,000 existing video lottery terminals throughout the state, some of which
will be nine years old when they are replaced. Due to advancements in technology, like a lot of
industries, the current
machines
are Table R.3
becoming obsolete in 2011-13 Lottery Fund Forecast Summary
Changes from:
the marketplace. This
Close of 2011 Jun 2012 Sep 2012
Jun 2012 Close of 2011
replacement plan is
Session Forecast Forecast
Forecast
Session
expected to cost Transfers of Lottery Earnings
approximately $215
Traditional Games
$128.5
$128.3
$117.2
-$11.1
-$11.3
Video
Lottery
$991.8
$956.6
$950.7
-$5.9
-$41.1
million over four
Administrative Savings
$8.0
$8.0
$8.0
$0.0
$0.0
years,
of
which
Total Transfers
$1,128.3
$1,092.9 $1,075.9
-$17.0
-$52.4
Lottery will self-fund
$85 million. The
Economic Development Fund
remaining
$130
Beginning Balance
$0.2
$0.3
$0.3
$0.0
$0.1
million
will
be
Transfers from Lottery
$1,128.3
$1,092.9 $1,075.9
-$17.0
-$52.4
deducted
from
$2.5
$2.5
$2.3
-$0.2
-$0.2
Other earnings1
Total Available Resources
$1,131.0
$1,095.7 $1,078.5
-$17.2
-$52.5
Lottery earnings prior
to being transferred
$432.9
$420.5
$414.9
-$5.6
-$17.9
Dedicated Distributions2
for general revenue
Other Legislatively Adopted Allocations
$674.9
$674.9
$674.9
$0.0
$0.0
purposes. To this end,
Total Distributions
$1,107.8
$1,095.5 $1,089.9
-$5.6
-$17.9
the
forecast
for
Lottery
available
Ending Balance
$23.2
$0.2
-$11.4
-$11.6
-$34.6
resources
in
the
upcoming
2013-15 Footnotes:
1. Includes interest earnings and rev ersions.
biennium has been 2. Includes Education Stability Fund (18%), Parks and Natural Resources Fund (15%), Sports Lottery (1%), Gambling Addiction (1%), and
lowered $95.2 million County Distributions
relative to the prior
forecast. Three-quarters of this decrease is due to the capital replacement plan while the remaining
25 percent of the decrease is due to downgraded sales outlook. The full extended outlook for lottery
earnings can be found in Table B.9 in Appendix B.
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 recalculates the outlook
for these funds based on the December revenue forecast.
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.
62
The ESF gained its current reserve structure and mechanics via constitutional amendment in 2002.
The ESF receives 18 percent of lottery earnings 11, deposited on a quarterly basis. The ESF does not
retain interest earnings. The ESF has similar triggers as the ORDF (in fact, the 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.
Budgetary Reserve Outlook
Table R.4 presents projected balances for the ORDF and ESF. In 2009-11, $115.7 million from the
ORDF and $84.3 million from the ESF were transferred to the State School Fund. The ORDF ended
2009-11 with a balance of $10.4 million, while the ESF ended the biennium with a balance of $5.1
million. The General Fund ending balance for 2009-11, $35.2 million, was deposited into the ORDF
at the beginning of the 2011-13 BN. As the financials and accounting reports for the 2009-11 BN
are finalized, agency revisions along with TANS savings resulted in additional $15.6 million being
deposited into the ORDF, bringing the total deposits into the Rainy Day Fund to $50.8 million for
the 2011-13 BN.
Table R.4
In 2011-13, the ESF is expected to see
deposits of $185.0 million based on
Lottery
sales,
while
scheduled
distributions this biennium total $182.9
million. The projected ending balances for
both the ORDF and ESF total $69.6
million this biennium.
B.10 in Appendix B provides more details
for Oregon’s budgetary reserves.
Oregon's Budgetary Reserves
(Millions)
Rainy Day Fund
Beginning Balance
Net Deposits3
Interest
Ending Balance1
Education Stability Fund
Beginning Balance
Net Deposits
Interest2
Withdrawals
Ending Balance
Total Reserves
2009-11
Biennium
2011-13
Biennium
2013-15
Biennium
$112.5
$10.4
$61.8
-$103.4
$1.3
$50.8
$0.6
$197.5
$2.9
$10.4
$61.8
$262.2
$0.0
$101.4
$5.1
$184.2
$6.9
$179.2
$1.0
-$97.4
$5.1
$0.6
-$182.9
$6.9
$1.8
-$1.8
$186.1
$15.5
$68.7
$448.4
Footnotes:
1. Under current law, only 2/3rds of the beginning balance is available for withdrawal. Withdrawal subject to economic and financial triggers.
2. Education Stability Fund interest is distributed to the Oregon Education Fund (75% ) and the State Scholarship Commission (25% ).
3. Includes transfer of ending General Fund balances, up to 1% of budgeted appropriations, as well as private donations.
11
Five 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.
63
APPENDIX A:
ECONOMIC FORECAST DETAIL
Table A.1 Annual Forecast .......................................................................................................................65
Table A.2 Quarterly Forecast ...................................................................................................................69
64
Table A.1 Annual Forecast 1
TABLE A.1
Sep 2012 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2009
Total Personal Income*
Oregon
135.1
% Ch
(4.2)
U.S.
11,930.2
% Ch
(4.3)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
139.4
3.2
12,373.5
3.7
146.8
5.3
12,991.2
5.0
151.1
2.9
13,411.7
3.2
156.6
3.7
13,908.3
3.7
164.4
4.9
14,544.4
4.6
173.6
5.6
15,278.1
5.0
183.3
5.6
16,068.2
5.2
192.6
5.0
16,803.0
4.6
202.2
5.0
17,591.5
4.7
212.0
4.9
18,401.6
4.6
222.3
4.8
19,252.7
4.6
Wage and Salary
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
70.3
(5.3)
6,270.4
(4.3)
71.6
1.9
6,408.2
2.2
75.0
4.7
6,668.2
4.1
77.1
2.9
6,878.6
3.2
80.3
4.1
7,136.9
3.8
84.0
4.6
7,425.5
4.0
88.3
5.0
7,766.3
4.6
92.5
4.8
8,114.4
4.5
96.9
4.8
8,465.5
4.3
101.3
4.5
8,816.1
4.1
105.8
4.5
9,170.4
4.0
110.5
4.4
9,540.7
4.0
Other Labor Income
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
17.2
(1.0)
1,073.1
2.0
17.7
2.7
1,090.0
1.6
18.4
4.0
1,111.0
1.9
18.9
2.4
1,134.3
2.1
19.7
4.2
1,183.0
4.3
20.6
5.0
1,248.9
5.6
21.8
5.6
1,321.3
5.8
23.0
5.4
1,396.0
5.7
24.2
5.3
1,471.4
5.4
25.4
4.9
1,542.2
4.8
26.5
4.5
1,609.2
4.3
27.7
4.5
1,677.4
4.2
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
9.7
% Ch
(14.0)
U.S.
902.0
% Ch
(13.8)
10.3
6.8
984.2
9.1
11.0
6.3
1,043.0
6.0
11.5
4.6
1,092.1
4.7
12.1
5.3
1,150.8
5.4
12.7
5.4
1,223.9
6.4
13.4
5.3
1,301.2
6.3
13.9
3.7
1,358.1
4.4
14.4
3.8
1,418.3
4.4
15.1
4.5
1,493.4
5.3
15.7
4.4
1,572.3
5.3
16.4
4.4
1,655.8
5.3
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
25.3
% Ch
(16.3)
U.S.
2,013.6
% Ch
(16.0)
26.0
2.9
2,071.4
2.9
27.7
6.3
2,193.9
5.9
29.2
5.6
2,315.0
5.5
30.5
4.4
2,416.1
4.4
31.7
4.0
2,524.4
4.5
33.7
6.3
2,701.6
7.0
36.1
7.0
2,911.0
7.8
38.1
5.7
3,088.5
6.1
39.9
4.5
3,255.8
5.4
41.8
4.9
3,425.0
5.2
43.8
4.7
3,594.0
4.9
Transfer Payments
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
28.8
6.2
2,259.0
7.7
29.3
2.0
2,335.6
3.4
29.7
1.2
2,402.6
2.9
30.7
3.4
2,498.4
4.0
32.7
6.6
2,668.8
6.8
34.8
6.3
2,842.7
6.5
37.0
6.5
3,052.9
7.4
38.9
5.1
3,246.1
6.3
40.7
4.5
3,454.0
6.4
43.0
5.8
3,671.7
6.3
45.6
6.1
3,904.4
6.3
12.9
6.1
444.4
4.1
14.0
9.0
492.9
10.9
14.8
5.7
536.1
8.8
15.6
5.2
619.7
15.6
16.2
4.1
681.6
10.0
17.0
4.5
754.6
10.7
17.0
0.3
791.2
4.8
17.8
4.3
828.2
4.7
18.5
4.2
867.0
4.7
27.1
18.9
2,096.8
14.4
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
12.2
% Ch
(3.5)
U.S.
506.1
% Ch
(2.1)
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
% Ch
(2.2)
(9.9)
12.7
3.8
513.6
1.5
(2.4)
5.8
12.1
(4.5)
427.0
(16.9)
(2.6)
8.4
(2.6)
0.6
(2.7)
2.5
(2.8)
4.0
(2.9)
4.4
(3.0)
4.0
(3.1)
3.9
(3.2)
3.4
(3.3)
3.3
(3.4)
3.2
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
0.0
% Ch
(89.1)
0.1
68.9
0.2
170.6
0.1
(18.6)
0.1
(33.9)
0.1
28.3
0.1
13.5
0.1
7.3
0.1
2.1
0.2
82.1
0.2
(1.1)
0.2
(1.5)
Per Capita Income (Thousands of $)
Oregon
35.4
% Ch
(4.9)
U.S.
38.8
% Ch
(5.1)
36.3
2.6
39.9
2.9
38.0
4.7
41.6
4.2
38.8
2.1
42.5
2.3
39.9
2.7
43.7
2.7
41.4
3.8
45.2
3.6
43.2
4.4
47.1
4.0
45.1
4.3
49.0
4.2
46.8
3.8
50.8
3.6
48.5
3.7
52.7
3.7
50.2
3.5
54.6
3.6
52.0
3.5
56.6
3.6
* Personal Income includes all classes of income minus Contributions for Social Security
65
TABLE A.1
Sep 2012 - Employment By Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2009
2010
2011
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
1,612.9
1,601.9
1,620.8
% Ch
(6.2)
(0.7)
1.2
U.S.
130.8
129.9
131.4
% Ch
(4.4)
(0.7)
1.2
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
1,313.4
1,302.2
1,325.4
% Ch
(7.6)
(0.9)
1.8
U.S.
108.2
107.4
109.3
% Ch
(5.3)
(0.8)
1.8
Natural Resources and Mining
Oregon
6.8
6.7
6.9
% Ch
(21.3)
(1.8)
3.4
U.S.
0.7
0.7
0.8
% Ch
(9.3)
1.5
11.3
Construction
74.1
Oregon
67.6
68.6
% Ch
(21.3)
(8.7)
1.5
U.S.
6.0
5.5
5.5
% Ch
(16.0)
(8.2)
(0.3)
Manufacturing
Oregon
167.2
163.8
168.3
% Ch
(14.3)
(2.0)
2.7
U.S.
11.8
11.5
11.7
% Ch
(11.6)
(2.7)
1.8
Durable Manufacturing
Oregon
117.9
114.9
118.7
% Ch
(17.4)
(2.6)
3.3
U.S.
7.3
7.1
7.3
% Ch
(13.9)
(3.0)
3.0
Wood Products
Oregon
21.0
20.0
19.3
% Ch
(21.5)
(4.7)
(3.3)
U.S.
0.4
0.3
0.3
% Ch
(21.3)
(5.0)
(2.1)
M etal and M achinery
Oregon
32.0
31.2
33.3
% Ch
(17.6)
(2.5)
6.8
U.S.
2.7
2.6
2.8
% Ch
(14.4)
(2.3)
5.7
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
35.4
35.0
36.5
% Ch
(8.8)
(1.3)
4.2
U.S.
1.1
1.1
1.1
% Ch
(8.6)
(3.7)
1.1
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
10.2
10.2
10.9
% Ch
(32.3)
(0.0)
6.6
U.S.
1.3
1.3
1.4
% Ch
(16.2)
(1.1)
3.7
Other Durables
Oregon
19.4
18.6
18.8
% Ch
(17.3)
(4.1)
1.1
U.S.
2.1
2.0
2.0
% Ch
(14.6)
(4.6)
1.7
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon
49.3
48.9
49.6
% Ch
(5.8)
(0.7)
1.4
U.S.
4.6
4.5
4.5
% Ch
(7.7)
(2.2)
(0.1)
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
23.3
23.8
24.3
% Ch
(0.6)
2.3
1.9
U.S.
1.5
1.5
1.5
% Ch
(1.6)
(0.4)
0.4
Other Nondurable
Oregon
26.0
25.1
25.3
% Ch
(10.1)
(3.4)
0.9
U.S.
3.1
3.0
3.0
% Ch
(10.2)
(3.1)
(0.4)
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Oregon
312.2
308.6
312.5
% Ch
(7.1)
(1.2)
1.3
U.S.
24.9
24.6
25.0
% Ch
(5.3)
(1.1)
1.5
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
1,640.6
1.2
133.2
1.4
1,670.4
1.8
134.9
1.3
1,702.6
1.9
136.8
1.4
1,738.4
2.1
139.1
1.7
1,773.0
2.0
141.5
1.7
1,806.6
1.9
143.5
1.4
1,836.6
1.7
145.0
1.1
1,861.7
1.4
146.2
0.8
1,885.0
1.3
147.4
0.8
1,350.6
1.9
111.2
1.8
1,380.6
2.2
113.0
1.6
1,411.2
2.2
114.9
1.7
1,444.9
2.4
117.1
1.9
1,477.2
2.2
119.3
1.9
1,508.0
2.1
121.1
1.5
1,535.0
1.8
122.4
1.1
1,557.2
1.4
123.5
0.8
1,575.8
1.2
124.4
0.7
7.4
6.2
0.8
5.4
7.5
1.5
0.8
(5.7)
7.6
1.3
0.8
(0.5)
7.6
0.8
0.8
(1.0)
7.6
(0.5)
0.8
(2.2)
7.5
(0.9)
0.7
(3.0)
7.5
(0.8)
0.7
(3.3)
7.4
(0.8)
0.7
(3.2)
7.3
(0.8)
0.7
(2.0)
71.9
4.8
5.5
0.7
73.7
2.5
5.6
1.7
76.4
3.6
6.0
6.4
80.9
5.9
6.7
11.0
85.0
5.1
7.3
9.3
87.9
3.5
7.7
6.0
90.6
3.1
8.0
3.7
92.5
2.0
8.2
2.2
94.1
1.8
8.3
1.8
171.5
1.9
11.9
1.8
173.9
1.4
12.1
1.2
177.4
2.0
12.4
2.4
181.4
2.3
12.6
1.9
184.9
1.9
12.8
1.1
188.7
2.1
12.8
0.3
192.2
1.8
12.8
0.2
194.3
1.1
12.8
(0.1)
195.9
0.8
12.8
(0.3)
121.5
2.4
7.5
2.7
124.1
2.1
7.6
2.3
127.1
2.4
8.0
4.2
130.8
2.9
8.2
3.4
134.1
2.5
8.4
1.9
137.6
2.6
8.4
0.6
140.6
2.2
8.5
0.2
142.4
1.3
8.5
0.1
143.6
0.8
8.5
(0.2)
19.7
1.9
0.3
1.3
21.0
6.7
0.4
12.9
22.2
5.8
0.5
20.1
23.8
6.9
0.5
16.0
24.6
3.7
0.6
4.8
25.4
2.9
0.6
3.0
25.5
0.7
0.6
1.9
25.5
(0.2)
0.6
(0.4)
25.4
(0.3)
0.6
(1.2)
34.9
4.8
2.9
4.3
35.8
2.5
3.0
2.2
35.8
(0.1)
3.1
3.6
35.8
0.0
3.2
2.7
36.4
1.7
3.2
2.3
37.4
2.7
3.3
0.8
38.3
2.5
3.3
0.2
38.7
1.0
3.3
0.6
38.7
0.1
3.3
0.5
37.1
1.8
1.1
0.1
37.2
0.2
1.1
(0.8)
37.7
1.4
1.1
0.7
38.6
2.4
1.1
2.2
39.5
2.4
1.1
1.4
40.6
2.7
1.2
2.6
41.7
2.8
1.2
2.4
42.7
2.4
1.2
1.6
43.6
2.1
1.2
1.3
10.8
(0.9)
1.4
4.5
10.8
0.2
1.5
3.8
11.4
5.2
1.6
6.0
12.0
5.1
1.7
4.3
12.3
2.5
1.7
2.0
12.4
1.4
1.7
(2.0)
12.5
0.6
1.6
(2.4)
12.4
(0.7)
1.6
(2.0)
12.3
(1.1)
1.5
(2.6)
19.0
1.4
2.2
6.0
19.3
1.5
2.3
6.2
20.0
3.7
2.3
1.6
20.7
3.3
2.3
0.8
21.3
2.9
2.4
0.4
21.9
2.7
2.4
0.6
22.5
3.0
2.4
1.0
23.1
2.6
2.4
0.7
23.6
2.1
2.4
0.2
50.0
0.8
4.5
0.2
49.9
(0.2)
4.4
(0.5)
50.3
0.9
4.4
(0.6)
50.6
0.5
4.4
(0.9)
50.8
0.3
4.4
(0.5)
51.1
0.7
4.4
(0.2)
51.6
0.9
4.4
0.1
51.9
0.7
4.3
(0.4)
52.3
0.6
4.3
(0.5)
24.6
1.3
1.5
0.2
24.4
(0.5)
1.5
1.2
24.7
1.1
1.5
1.3
24.9
0.8
1.5
0.4
25.0
0.4
1.5
1.1
25.1
0.6
1.5
1.1
25.3
0.7
1.6
1.4
25.5
0.6
1.6
0.5
25.7
0.8
1.6
0.4
25.4
0.3
3.0
0.1
25.4
0.1
3.0
(0.5)
25.6
0.7
2.9
(1.5)
25.7
0.3
2.9
(1.4)
25.8
0.3
2.9
(1.2)
26.0
0.7
2.8
(0.7)
26.2
1.1
2.8
(0.5)
26.4
0.7
2.8
(0.9)
26.6
0.5
2.8
(1.2)
316.0
1.1
25.4
1.4
322.2
2.0
25.7
1.5
325.9
1.2
25.9
0.6
66
330.9
1.5
26.2
1.0
338.1
2.2
26.5
1.4
344.8
2.0
26.8
1.1
349.6
1.4
26.9
0.5
352.4
0.8
27.0
0.2
353.2
0.2
27.0
0.0
TABLE A.1
Sep 2012 - Employment By Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2009
2010
2011
Retail Trade
Oregon
183.4
183.2
184.9
% Ch
(6.8)
(0.2)
0.9
U.S.
14.5
14.4
14.6
1.4
(0.5)
% Ch
(5.0)
Wholesale Trade
Oregon
75.3
73.3
74.3
% Ch
(6.5)
(2.7)
1.4
5.5
U.S.
5.6
5.5
1.4
(2.4)
(6.0)
% Ch
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oregon
53.5
52.2
53.3
% Ch
(8.8)
(2.5)
2.2
4.8
U.S.
4.8
4.7
2.2
(1.2)
% Ch
(5.3)
Information
Oregon
33.1
32.1
32.0
% Ch
(7.1)
(3.0)
(0.2)
2.7
2.7
U.S.
2.8
(3.4)
(1.8)
(6.0)
% Ch
Financial Activities
Oregon
92.1
95.7
93.2
(1.2)
(2.6)
% Ch
(6.1)
U.S.
7.8
7.7
7.7
0.4
(1.5)
% Ch
(4.6)
Professional and Business S ervices
Oregon
180.1
182.3
187.9
1.2
3.0
% Ch
(8.2)
U.S.
16.6
16.7
17.3
3.6
0.9
(6.6)
% Ch
Education and Health S ervices
234.5
228.9
Oregon
223.6
2.4
2.4
% Ch
1.8
U.S.
19.2
19.5
19.9
1.8
1.8
% Ch
1.9
Educational S ervices
33.0
31.8
Oregon
30.7
% Ch
1.6
3.8
3.7
3.2
U.S.
3.1
3.2
% Ch
1.6
2.0
2.8
Health Care and S ocial Assistance
201.5
192.9
197.1
Oregon
% Ch
1.9
2.2
2.2
16.6
U.S.
16.1
16.4
% Ch
1.9
1.7
1.6
Leisure and Hospitality
162.3
165.6
Oregon
162.9
% Ch
(5.7)
(0.4)
2.0
13.0
13.3
U.S.
13.1
% Ch
(2.7)
(0.2)
2.1
Other S ervices
57.1
Oregon
57.7
56.6
(1.9)
0.8
% Ch
(5.0)
5.3
U.S.
5.4
5.3
% Ch
(2.7)
(0.7)
0.2
Government
299.7
295.4
Oregon
299.5
0.5
0.1
(1.5)
% Ch
22.1
U.S.
22.6
22.5
(1.7)
% Ch
0.2
(0.3)
Federal Government
Oregon
30.0
30.5
28.8
% Ch
1.4
1.8
(5.7)
3.0
2.9
U.S.
2.8
(4.0)
% Ch
2.5
5.1
S tate Government, Oregon
State Total
78.2
79.7
80.6
% Ch
2.0
2.0
1.1
29.8
31.1
State Education
29.0
% Ch
2.3
2.8
4.5
Local Government, Oregon
Local Total
191.4
189.5
186.0
% Ch
(0.3)
(1.0)
(1.9)
Local Education
102.8
100.3
96.6
(2.5)
(3.7)
% Ch
0.5
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
186.9
1.1
14.8
1.0
189.8
1.6
14.9
1.0
190.7
0.4
14.9
(0.5)
192.9
1.2
14.9
0.2
197.0
2.1
15.0
0.6
200.3
1.7
15.0
0.1
202.7
1.2
14.9
(0.4)
203.9
0.6
14.9
(0.3)
203.7
(0.1)
14.8
(0.4)
75.4
1.5
5.6
1.9
76.9
1.9
5.7
1.8
78.3
1.9
5.8
1.6
79.7
1.8
5.9
1.8
81.2
1.8
6.0
2.0
82.7
1.8
6.2
2.0
83.7
1.2
6.3
1.4
84.5
1.0
6.3
1.1
85.1
0.7
6.4
0.8
53.7
0.7
4.9
2.0
55.5
3.4
5.1
2.7
56.9
2.5
5.2
2.5
58.3
2.4
5.3
2.7
60.0
3.0
5.5
2.8
61.8
3.1
5.7
2.8
63.2
2.2
5.8
1.9
64.0
1.2
5.8
0.6
64.4
0.6
5.8
0.3
32.2
0.8
2.6
(0.9)
33.0
2.3
2.7
2.5
33.6
1.9
2.8
2.0
33.9
1.0
2.8
1.3
34.1
0.5
2.8
0.4
34.8
2.0
2.8
1.6
35.4
1.8
2.9
1.8
35.9
1.3
2.9
1.7
36.3
1.2
3.0
1.5
92.1
0.0
7.7
0.6
94.8
3.0
7.8
0.9
96.3
1.6
7.8
(0.0)
97.1
0.8
7.8
(0.4)
98.1
1.0
7.7
(0.5)
99.4
1.3
7.7
0.2
100.6
1.2
7.7
0.0
101.1
0.6
7.7
(0.1)
101.6
0.4
7.8
0.3
194.8
3.7
17.9
3.1
200.5
2.9
18.4
3.1
209.0
4.2
19.1
3.7
219.3
4.9
20.0
4.7
227.7
3.8
20.7
3.7
235.5
3.4
21.4
3.2
242.4
2.9
22.0
2.8
249.4
2.9
22.6
2.8
256.7
2.9
23.2
2.8
237.9
1.5
20.3
2.3
242.3
1.8
20.6
1.1
247.9
2.3
20.9
1.5
253.6
2.3
21.1
1.2
259.4
2.3
21.6
2.4
266.0
2.5
22.1
2.2
272.1
2.3
22.5
1.8
278.4
2.3
22.8
1.3
284.1
2.1
23.0
0.9
33.8
2.2
3.3
2.5
33.3
(1.4)
3.3
(0.2)
33.3
0.1
3.3
(1.9)
33.6
0.8
3.2
(3.0)
33.9
0.9
3.1
(1.8)
34.3
1.2
3.1
(0.7)
34.8
1.4
3.1
(0.5)
35.3
1.4
3.0
(0.5)
35.8
1.4
3.0
(0.8)
204.2
1.3
17.0
2.2
209.0
2.4
17.2
1.4
214.6
2.7
17.6
2.1
220.0
2.5
18.0
2.0
225.5
2.5
18.5
3.1
231.7
2.7
19.0
2.6
237.4
2.5
19.4
2.1
243.1
2.4
19.7
1.6
248.3
2.1
19.9
1.1
168.7
1.9
13.6
2.3
173.4
2.8
13.9
1.7
176.8
2.0
13.9
0.4
178.8
1.1
13.8
(0.6)
180.2
0.7
13.8
(0.5)
180.4
0.1
13.7
(0.7)
180.8
0.2
13.6
(0.7)
181.3
0.3
13.5
(0.5)
181.5
0.2
13.4
(0.5)
58.1
1.8
5.4
0.6
59.3
2.1
5.4
1.2
60.3
1.7
5.5
0.4
61.3
1.6
5.4
(1.1)
62.1
1.4
5.4
(0.8)
62.9
1.3
5.3
(0.3)
63.8
1.3
5.3
(0.5)
64.5
1.1
5.3
(0.7)
65.2
1.1
5.2
(0.5)
290.0
(1.8)
21.9
(0.7)
289.8
(0.1)
21.9
(0.4)
291.4
0.6
21.9
0.0
27.7
(3.6)
2.8
(1.7)
27.5
(1.0)
2.7
(2.6)
27.3
(0.6)
2.7
(2.6)
27.2
(0.5)
2.6
(2.0)
27.0
(0.5)
2.6
(1.5)
27.0
(0.1)
2.5
(1.3)
27.0
(0.0)
2.5
(1.2)
27.0
(0.0)
2.5
(0.9)
28.6
6.0
2.6
5.4
79.9
(0.8)
31.7
1.6
79.7
(0.3)
32.1
1.3
80.1
0.5
32.4
1.1
80.8
0.8
32.8
1.2
81.5
1.0
33.3
1.6
82.4
1.0
33.9
1.8
83.3
1.1
34.6
2.1
84.2
1.1
35.3
2.0
85.1
1.1
36.0
2.0
184.0
0.8
97.8
3.0
185.6
0.8
99.7
1.9
187.1
0.9
101.3
1.7
189.2
1.1
102.8
1.5
191.3
1.1
104.3
1.4
193.3
1.1
105.7
1.4
195.5
1.1
107.2
1.3
182.3
(2.0)
93.1
(3.6)
182.6
0.2
95.0
2.0
67
293.5
0.7
22.0
0.6
295.7
0.8
22.2
0.8
298.6
1.0
22.3
0.8
301.6
1.0
22.5
0.9
304.5
1.0
22.7
0.8
309.2
1.5
23.0
1.4
TABLE A.1
Sep 2012 - Other Economic Indicators
2009
GDP (Bil of 2005 $),
Chain Weight (in billions of $) 12,703.1
% Ch
(3.5)
2010
13,088.0
3.0
2011
13,315.1
1.7
2012
13,580.1
2.0
2013
13,849.6
2.0
2014
14,227.6
2.7
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
14,700.6
3.3
15,147.6
3.0
15,592.2
2.9
16,015.7
2.7
16,445.0
2.7
16,882.1
2.7
Price and Wage Indicators
GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=10
% Ch
109.7
1.1
111.0
1.2
113.3
2.1
115.3
1.7
116.9
1.4
118.7
1.6
120.7
1.7
122.7
1.6
124.5
1.5
126.5
1.6
128.4
1.5
130.4
1.6
Personal Consumption Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
109.2
0.2
111.1
1.8
113.8
2.5
115.6
1.6
116.8
1.1
119.1
2.0
121.4
1.9
123.5
1.7
125.5
1.6
127.7
1.7
129.8
1.7
132.0
1.7
CPI, Urban Consumers,
1982-84=100
Portland-Salem, OR-WA
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
215.6
0.1
214.6
(0.3)
218.3
1.3
218.1
1.6
224.6
2.9
224.9
3.1
229.1
2.0
228.8
1.7
232.8
1.6
231.7
1.3
237.7
2.1
237.1
2.3
242.3
1.9
241.8
2.0
246.8
1.9
246.1
1.8
251.6
1.9
250.1
1.6
256.4
1.9
254.5
1.8
261.8
2.1
258.8
1.7
267.2
2.1
263.3
1.7
Oregon Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
43.0
0.9
44.1
2.6
45.6
3.5
46.4
1.7
47.5
2.3
48.7
2.6
50.1
2.8
51.5
2.7
52.9
2.8
54.4
2.8
56.1
3.1
57.8
3.1
U.S. Average Wage
Wage Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
47.9
0.1
49.3
2.9
50.8
2.9
51.6
1.7
52.9
2.5
54.3
2.6
55.8
2.9
57.4
2.7
59.0
2.9
60.8
3.0
62.7
3.2
64.7
3.2
Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Housing Index 1987 Q1=100
408.1
% Ch
(7.8)
381.2
(6.6)
355.8
(6.7)
354.2
(0.5)
346.8
(2.1)
349.4
0.8
361.6
3.5
369.3
2.1
381.8
3.4
394.1
3.2
406.2
3.1
419.9
3.4
FHFA National Housing Price Index
(1980Q1=100)
342.2
% Ch
(4.8)
329.7
(3.7)
318.2
(3.5)
320.7
0.8
313.7
(2.2)
321.7
2.6
336.1
4.5
345.8
2.9
357.9
3.5
368.6
3.0
378.5
2.7
389.8
3.0
7.6
0.5
0.6
5.7
8.1
5.9
0.6
4.5
10.0
24.3
0.8
25.0
11.0
9.9
0.9
23.2
14.3
29.6
1.2
29.8
19.4
36.1
1.5
24.3
22.5
15.7
1.7
9.0
24.9
10.8
1.7
5.0
25.5
2.5
1.7
(0.1)
25.6
0.4
1.7
(0.4)
25.5
(0.3)
1.7
(0.8)
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
% Ch
U.S. (Millions)
% Ch
7.6
(40.8)
0.6
(38.4)
Other Indicators
Unemployment Rate (%)
Oregon
Point Change
U.S.
Point Change
11.1
4.5
9.3
3.5
10.6
(0.4)
9.6
0.3
9.5
(1.2)
8.9
(0.7)
8.5
(0.9)
8.1
(0.8)
8.0
(0.5)
8.0
(0.2)
7.5
(0.5)
7.7
(0.3)
7.0
(0.5)
7.1
(0.6)
6.7
(0.3)
6.6
(0.5)
6.7
(0.0)
6.2
(0.4)
6.8
0.1
5.9
(0.3)
6.2
(0.5)
5.8
(0.2)
5.7
(0.6)
5.6
(0.2)
Industrial Production Index
U.S, 2002 = 100
% Ch
85.4
(11.4)
90.1
5.4
93.7
4.1
97.5
4.0
99.7
2.2
102.9
3.2
106.8
3.8
109.8
2.8
112.9
2.9
116.0
2.7
119.2
2.8
122.5
2.8
Prime Rate (Percent)
% Ch
3.3
(36.1)
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
2.2
4.8
44.9
6.7
38.6
7.0
5.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
(0.0)
Population (Millions)
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
3.82
0.8
307.6
0.9
3.84
0.6
310.1
0.8
3.86
0.6
312.4
0.7
3.89
0.7
315.3
0.9
3.92
0.9
318.4
1.0
3.96
1.0
321.5
1.0
4.01
1.1
324.6
1.0
4.06
1.2
327.7
1.0
4.11
1.2
330.9
1.0
4.16
1.2
334.1
1.0
4.21
1.2
337.3
1.0
4.26
1.2
340.5
0.9
Timber Harvest (Mil Bd Ft)
Oregon
% Ch
2,820.0
(18.0)
3,210.0
13.8
3,390.0
5.6
3,637.3
7.3
3,956.7
8.8
68
4,139.9
4.6
4,248.6
2.6
4,266.6
0.4
4,337.4
1.7
4,401.4
1.5
4,466.4
1.5
4,499.7
0.7
Table A.2 Quarterly Forecast 1
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2009:1
Total Personal Income
Oregon
135.7
% Ch
(10.9)
U.S.
11,964.4
% Ch
(11.6)
2009:2
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
135.4
(0.9)
11,944.1
(0.7)
134.3
(3.3)
11,874.1
(2.3)
134.9
1.7
11,938.2
2.2
137.0
6.4
12,137.7
6.9
138.6
4.7
12,325.6
6.3
140.2
5.0
12,453.2
4.2
141.8
4.5
12,577.6
4.1
145.0
9.3
12,846.9
8.8
146.8
5.0
12,955.3
3.4
147.3
1.4
13,056.8
3.2
148.1
2.3
13,105.7
1.5
Wage and Salary
Oregon
70.9
% Ch
(11.4)
U.S.
6,280.5
% Ch
(12.7)
70.4
(2.9)
6,278.2
(0.1)
69.8
(3.1)
6,251.3
(1.7)
69.9
0.3
6,271.4
1.3
70.6
4.1
6,301.6
1.9
71.4
4.5
6,399.8
6.4
72.1
4.0
6,454.5
3.5
72.4
1.9
6,477.0
1.4
73.8
8.0
6,578.2
6.4
74.6
4.3
6,617.1
2.4
75.5
4.6
6,724.3
6.6
75.9
2.6
6,753.2
1.7
Other Labor Income
Oregon
17.4
% Ch
(2.7)
U.S.
1,071.0
% Ch
0.2
17.2
(2.4)
1,071.7
0.3
17.2
(1.2)
1,073.5
0.7
17.2
0.0
1,076.2
1.0
17.5
8.3
1,083.4
2.7
17.6
2.4
1,087.6
1.6
17.8
2.9
1,092.0
1.6
17.9
2.8
1,096.8
1.8
18.2
8.0
1,103.0
2.3
18.4
3.6
1,108.7
2.1
18.4
0.4
1,112.6
1.4
18.6
3.7
1,119.6
2.5
9.9
2.4
937.1
14.0
10.2
16.5
979.7
19.5
10.5
8.8
998.7
8.0
10.7
10.2
1,021.4
9.4
10.8
3.5
1,029.5
3.2
10.9
5.0
1,039.2
3.8
11.0
1.5
1,046.2
2.7
11.1
6.4
1,057.0
4.2
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
9.8
9.5
% Ch
(33.5)
(9.8)
U.S.
923.1
888.2
% Ch
(28.0)
(14.3)
9.6
3.6
889.9
0.8
9.8
8.8
907.0
7.9
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
26.9
25.3
% Ch
(31.6)
(21.9)
U.S.
2,130.3
2,007.2
% Ch
(30.3)
(21.2)
24.5
(11.1)
1,955.0
(10.0)
24.5
(0.1)
1,961.9
1.4
25.5
16.4
2,037.4
16.3
26.0
8.5
2,073.6
7.3
26.2
2.3
2,076.1
0.5
26.5
5.0
2,098.3
4.3
27.3
12.5
2,162.2
12.7
27.7
6.6
2,199.2
7.0
27.8
0.7
2,200.5
0.2
28.0
3.1
2,213.5
2.4
Transfer Payments
Oregon
25.4
% Ch
37.0
U.S.
1,987.2
% Ch
31.0
27.5
(0.7)
2,123.4
(0.1)
27.8
5.3
2,152.5
5.6
28.4
8.4
2,208.9
10.9
28.3
(1.0)
2,249.1
7.5
28.8
7.4
2,279.2
5.5
29.5
9.2
2,298.9
3.5
29.2
(3.6)
2,309.0
1.8
29.6
5.4
2,327.3
3.2
29.3
(3.4)
2,357.0
5.2
29.2
(1.4)
2,349.1
(1.3)
12.8
4.5
515.7
2.1
12.9
2.8
517.2
1.1
12.0
(25.8)
420.1
(56.5)
12.1
4.5
423.4
3.2
12.2
4.5
431.0
7.3
12.3
2.5
433.4
2.2
27.5
36.7
2,124.1
30.5
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
12.3
12.3
% Ch
(6.7)
(2.6)
U.S.
507.4
507.5
% Ch
(6.4)
0.0
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
(2.3)
% Ch
(20.9)
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
(0.0)
% Ch
(100.0)
12.2
(2.4)
505.0
(1.9)
12.2
0.4
504.6
(0.3)
12.5
10.7
508.5
3.1
12.6
4.6
513.1
3.7
(2.2)
(7.0)
(2.2)
(4.2)
(2.2)
0.4
(2.3)
22.7
(2.4)
5.9
(2.4)
2.5
(2.4)
0.3
(0.0)
62,400.0
0.1
##########
0.1
(89.7)
(0.0)
(84.5)
0.0
(99.4)
0.1
#########
0.1
(73.2)
69
(2.5)
27.3
0.2
339.2
(2.6)
5.0
0.2
134.0
(2.6)
2.4
(2.6)
0.9
0.2
(55.0)
0.1
(59.3)
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2012:1
Total Personal Income
Oregon
149.4
% Ch
3.4
U.S.
13,227.8
% Ch
3.8
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2013:3
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
150.5
3.2
13,339.9
3.4
151.4
2.4
13,475.2
4.1
152.9
4.0
13,604.0
3.9
154.4
3.9
13,714.7
3.3
155.9
3.9
13,844.0
3.8
157.4
3.9
13,971.4
3.7
159.0
4.1
14,103.2
3.8
161.4
6.3
14,294.9
5.5
163.3
4.6
14,452.2
4.5
165.3
5.1
14,624.6
4.9
167.4
5.2
14,805.9
5.0
Wage and Salary
Oregon
76.4
% Ch
2.3
U.S.
6,806.9
% Ch
3.2
76.7
1.8
6,836.6
1.8
77.3
3.1
6,902.4
3.9
78.1
4.4
6,968.7
3.9
79.0
4.7
7,040.0
4.2
79.9
4.6
7,105.2
3.8
80.7
4.1
7,168.9
3.6
81.6
4.4
7,233.7
3.7
82.5
4.7
7,307.5
4.1
83.5
4.8
7,381.9
4.1
84.5
4.9
7,463.3
4.5
85.6
5.1
7,549.5
4.7
Other Labor Income
Oregon
18.7
% Ch
2.3
U.S.
1,125.1
% Ch
2.0
18.8
1.6
1,129.7
1.6
18.9
2.5
1,135.5
2.1
19.1
4.5
1,147.0
4.1
19.3
5.2
1,161.0
5.0
19.5
4.4
1,174.7
4.8
19.7
4.2
1,190.4
5.5
20.0
4.6
1,205.7
5.2
20.3
5.8
1,223.4
6.0
20.5
4.6
1,240.3
5.6
20.7
4.9
1,257.0
5.5
21.0
6.1
1,274.8
5.8
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
11.2
11.3
% Ch
3.5
3.9
U.S.
1,071.7
1,082.7
% Ch
5.7
4.2
11.6
7.6
1,099.5
6.3
11.7
5.9
1,114.6
5.6
11.9
5.5
1,129.2
5.3
12.0
4.3
1,143.8
5.2
12.1
4.1
1,157.7
4.9
12.3
4.3
1,172.3
5.2
12.4
5.0
1,189.3
5.9
12.6
7.3
1,213.7
8.5
12.8
6.2
1,235.1
7.2
13.0
6.3
1,257.5
7.5
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
28.4
29.1
% Ch
6.6
9.3
U.S.
2,252.5
2,306.9
% Ch
7.2
10.0
29.6
7.1
2,338.4
5.6
29.9
4.3
2,362.1
4.1
30.1
3.4
2,385.2
4.0
30.4
3.4
2,405.9
3.5
30.6
3.2
2,423.9
3.0
30.9
3.8
2,449.4
4.3
31.2
4.1
2,477.9
4.7
31.5
3.8
2,503.0
4.1
31.9
5.3
2,539.5
6.0
32.3
5.2
2,577.3
6.1
Transfer Payments
Oregon
29.4
% Ch
2.8
U.S.
2,374.4
% Ch
4.4
29.6
2.0
2,390.2
2.7
29.8
2.5
2,411.9
3.7
30.0
3.2
2,434.0
3.7
30.3
3.9
2,464.1
5.0
30.6
3.6
2,487.8
3.9
30.8
3.7
2,509.5
3.5
31.1
3.5
2,532.0
3.6
32.2
15.3
2,627.5
16.0
32.6
4.2
2,654.9
4.2
32.9
4.3
2,682.6
4.2
33.2
4.0
2,710.3
4.2
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
12.4
12.5
% Ch
4.8
2.2
U.S.
439.0
441.3
% Ch
5.3
2.1
13.2
22.4
446.1
4.4
13.4
7.6
451.2
4.7
13.8
11.4
487.2
35.9
14.0
6.7
491.5
3.6
14.1
3.4
493.9
1.9
14.3
4.5
499.1
4.3
14.6
9.9
528.0
25.3
14.8
4.8
533.2
4.0
14.9
3.4
538.3
3.9
15.1
4.4
544.8
4.9
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
(2.6)
% Ch
(0.2)
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
0.2
% Ch
851.0
(2.6)
0.5
(2.6)
(3.2)
(2.6)
3.7
(2.6)
3.2
(2.6)
4.0
(2.7)
3.4
(2.7)
3.8
(2.7)
3.7
(2.7)
4.5
(2.8)
4.5
(2.8)
4.7
0.2
(76.5)
0.1
(96.6)
0.1
47.5
0.1
35.5
0.1
25.9
0.1
12.4
0.1
29.7
0.1
44.4
0.1
27.8
0.1
21.2
0.1
16.2
70
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2015:1
Total Personal Income
Oregon
170.3
% Ch
6.9
U.S.
14,998.0
% Ch
5.3
2015:2
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
2017:3
2017:4
172.5
5.3
15,186.0
5.1
174.7
5.3
15,371.4
5.0
176.8
4.9
15,556.9
4.9
180.0
7.3
15,783.9
6.0
182.2
5.1
15,975.9
5.0
184.4
4.9
16,162.6
4.8
186.6
4.8
16,350.3
4.7
189.1
5.4
16,519.8
4.2
191.4
5.0
16,707.2
4.6
193.7
4.9
16,896.4
4.6
196.0
4.9
17,088.8
4.6
Wage and Salary
Oregon
86.7
% Ch
5.1
U.S.
7,638.4
% Ch
4.8
87.7
5.0
7,723.8
4.6
88.8
5.0
7,809.1
4.5
89.8
4.5
7,893.8
4.4
90.9
4.9
7,984.5
4.7
91.9
4.5
8,070.7
4.4
93.0
4.8
8,157.6
4.4
94.0
4.7
8,244.9
4.4
95.2
4.8
8,336.0
4.5
96.3
4.8
8,422.0
4.2
97.4
4.8
8,508.2
4.2
98.6
4.9
8,595.5
4.2
Other Labor Income
Oregon
21.3
% Ch
6.0
U.S.
1,293.8
% Ch
6.1
21.6
5.5
1,311.9
5.7
21.9
5.3
1,330.2
5.7
22.2
5.5
1,349.2
5.8
22.5
5.5
1,367.5
5.6
22.8
5.4
1,386.2
5.6
23.1
5.5
1,405.3
5.6
23.4
5.5
1,424.8
5.7
23.7
5.4
1,443.9
5.5
24.0
5.2
1,462.1
5.1
24.3
5.2
1,480.6
5.1
24.6
5.1
1,498.9
5.0
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
13.2
13.3
% Ch
4.8
5.3
U.S.
1,275.3
1,295.4
% Ch
5.8
6.5
13.5
3.7
1,310.1
4.6
13.6
3.5
1,324.2
4.4
13.7
3.5
1,337.0
3.9
13.8
4.2
1,352.6
4.7
13.9
3.0
1,364.2
3.5
14.1
3.6
1,378.6
4.3
14.2
3.3
1,391.9
3.9
14.3
4.7
1,410.5
5.5
14.5
3.7
1,425.5
4.3
14.7
4.8
1,445.3
5.7
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
32.9
33.4
% Ch
6.8
6.9
U.S.
2,625.9
2,674.9
% Ch
7.8
7.7
34.0
7.6
2,726.4
7.9
34.6
6.7
2,779.1
8.0
35.2
7.0
2,833.0
8.0
35.8
7.4
2,887.8
8.0
36.4
6.9
2,938.8
7.3
36.9
5.9
2,984.5
6.4
37.4
5.2
3,026.1
5.7
37.9
5.2
3,066.5
5.5
38.4
5.7
3,110.0
5.8
38.9
5.0
3,151.3
5.4
Transfer Payments
Oregon
34.3
% Ch
13.9
U.S.
2,800.2
% Ch
13.9
34.6
3.6
2,827.1
3.9
34.9
3.6
2,856.6
4.2
35.2
3.6
2,886.8
4.3
36.6
15.8
2,999.3
16.5
36.9
3.3
3,033.8
4.7
37.2
3.4
3,069.5
4.8
37.5
3.9
3,109.1
5.3
38.3
8.4
3,184.4
10.0
38.7
4.2
3,224.9
5.2
39.1
4.4
3,266.4
5.2
39.5
4.5
3,308.7
5.3
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
15.4
15.5
% Ch
9.2
3.8
U.S.
610.4
616.5
% Ch
57.6
4.1
15.7
3.8
622.5
3.9
15.8
3.3
629.3
4.5
16.0
6.0
672.2
30.2
16.1
2.2
678.4
3.7
16.3
4.6
684.4
3.6
16.5
4.5
691.3
4.1
16.8
6.7
745.3
35.1
16.9
2.5
751.4
3.3
17.0
4.6
757.3
3.2
17.2
4.7
764.2
3.7
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
(2.8)
% Ch
4.1
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
0.1
% Ch
13.1
(2.9)
4.5
(2.9)
4.4
(2.9)
3.8
(3.0)
4.2
(3.0)
3.5
(3.0)
4.0
(3.0)
3.9
(3.1)
4.0
(3.1)
4.0
(3.1)
3.9
(3.2)
4.0
0.1
9.8
0.1
7.5
0.1
5.5
0.1
14.9
0.1
3.4
0.1
2.9
0.1
2.4
0.1
2.0
0.1
1.7
0.1
1.3
0.1
0.9
71
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2018:1
Total Personal Income
Oregon
198.8
% Ch
5.7
U.S.
17,300.9
% Ch
5.1
2018:2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
201.0
4.5
17,493.9
4.5
203.3
4.7
17,687.8
4.5
205.7
4.8
17,883.4
4.5
208.4
5.4
18,105.0
5.1
210.8
4.7
18,301.0
4.4
213.2
4.6
18,499.3
4.4
215.6
4.6
18,701.0
4.4
218.5
5.4
18,937.0
5.1
221.1
5.0
19,155.2
4.7
223.5
4.4
19,356.9
4.3
226.0
4.5
19,561.5
4.3
Wage and Salary
Oregon
99.7
% Ch
4.6
U.S.
8,686.4
% Ch
4.3
100.6
3.6
8,772.1
4.0
101.7
4.6
8,858.8
4.0
102.9
4.8
8,946.9
4.0
104.1
4.6
9,038.8
4.2
105.2
4.3
9,125.7
3.9
106.4
4.3
9,213.7
3.9
107.5
4.4
9,303.3
3.9
108.7
4.5
9,399.6
4.2
110.0
4.9
9,501.6
4.4
111.1
3.9
9,586.7
3.6
112.2
4.3
9,674.7
3.7
Other Labor Income
Oregon
24.9
% Ch
4.9
U.S.
1,516.4
% Ch
4.8
25.2
4.6
1,533.9
4.7
25.5
4.7
1,550.8
4.5
25.8
4.7
1,567.9
4.5
26.1
4.6
1,584.6
4.3
26.4
4.5
1,601.2
4.3
26.7
4.3
1,617.3
4.1
26.9
4.4
1,633.8
4.1
27.2
4.4
1,650.6
4.2
27.5
4.5
1,667.6
4.2
27.9
4.7
1,687.0
4.7
28.2
4.4
1,704.3
4.2
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
14.8
15.0
% Ch
4.0
5.0
U.S.
1,462.3
1,483.6
% Ch
4.8
6.0
15.1
4.5
1,503.1
5.4
15.3
4.9
1,524.5
5.8
15.5
4.2
1,543.5
5.1
15.7
4.4
1,563.4
5.3
15.8
3.9
1,581.5
4.7
16.0
4.1
1,600.8
5.0
16.1
4.7
1,622.8
5.6
16.4
5.1
1,646.8
6.1
16.5
4.0
1,666.1
4.8
16.7
4.3
1,687.5
5.2
Dividend, Interest and Rent
Oregon
39.1
39.6
% Ch
2.8
4.9
U.S.
3,193.5
3,234.2
% Ch
5.5
5.2
40.1
5.2
3,276.7
5.4
40.6
4.8
3,318.6
5.2
41.1
4.9
3,362.2
5.4
41.6
4.7
3,402.7
4.9
42.1
5.0
3,445.6
5.1
42.6
4.8
3,489.3
5.2
43.1
4.6
3,532.0
5.0
43.5
4.5
3,572.8
4.7
44.0
4.7
3,614.6
4.8
44.5
4.4
3,656.7
4.7
Transfer Payments
Oregon
40.0
% Ch
4.6
U.S.
3,388.5
% Ch
10.0
40.4
4.5
3,431.8
5.2
40.9
4.5
3,475.7
5.2
41.3
4.5
3,519.9
5.2
42.2
9.0
3,603.8
9.9
42.7
4.9
3,648.6
5.1
43.2
4.9
3,694.0
5.1
43.8
4.9
3,740.4
5.1
44.8
9.5
3,832.3
10.2
45.3
5.0
3,880.3
5.1
45.9
4.9
3,928.1
5.0
46.4
5.0
3,976.9
5.1
Contributions for Social Security
Oregon
16.8
16.9
% Ch
(8.9)
1.4
U.S.
781.9
788.0
% Ch
9.6
3.1
17.1
4.4
793.9
3.0
17.3
4.5
800.8
3.5
17.6
6.5
818.9
9.3
17.6
2.1
825.0
3.0
17.8
4.1
831.0
2.9
18.0
4.2
838.1
3.4
18.3
6.3
856.8
9.3
18.4
2.6
864.3
3.5
18.6
3.7
870.1
2.7
18.8
4.1
877.0
3.2
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
(3.2)
% Ch
3.3
(3.2)
2.5
(3.2)
3.5
(3.3)
3.7
(3.3)
3.4
(3.3)
3.2
(3.3)
3.1
(3.4)
3.2
(3.4)
3.2
(3.4)
3.4
(3.5)
2.7
(3.5)
3.0
Farm Proprietor's Income
Oregon
0.2
% Ch
996.7
0.2
(0.8)
0.2
(0.9)
0.2
(1.1)
0.2
(1.2)
0.2
(1.2)
0.2
(1.3)
0.2
(1.4)
0.2
(1.3)
0.2
(1.6)
0.2
(1.8)
0.2
(2.0)
72
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2009:1
2009:2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
1,643.6
1,613.8
% Ch
(10.0)
(7.1)
U.S.
132.8
130.9
% Ch
(6.6)
(5.5)
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
1,342.9
1,314.5
% Ch
(12.1)
(8.2)
U.S.
110.2
108.3
% Ch
(7.9)
(6.8)
Natural Resources and Mining
Oregon
7.4
6.8
% Ch
(42.4)
(26.1)
U.S.
0.7
0.7
% Ch
(13.8)
(24.2)
Construction
Oregon
79.9
74.5
% Ch
(27.8)
(24.2)
U.S.
6.4
6.1
% Ch
(21.1)
(20.0)
Manufacturing
Oregon
174.9
167.5
% Ch
(24.6)
(15.9)
U.S.
12.4
11.9
% Ch
(17.8)
(15.4)
Durable Manufacturing
Oregon
124.8
118.3
% Ch
(29.0)
(19.4)
U.S.
7.7
7.3
% Ch
(21.1)
(19.3)
Wood Products
Oregon
22.2
21.1
% Ch
(35.2)
(18.6)
U.S.
0.4
0.4
% Ch
(33.5)
(20.5)
M etal and M achinery
Oregon
34.7
32.1
% Ch
(27.8)
(26.8)
U.S.
2.9
2.7
% Ch
(21.6)
(23.2)
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
36.3
35.4
% Ch
(12.1)
(9.2)
U.S.
1.2
1.1
% Ch
(11.4)
(13.9)
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
10.8
10.1
% Ch
(58.6)
(24.0)
U.S.
1.4
1.3
% Ch
(26.1)
(19.4)
Other Durables
Oregon
20.8
19.6
% Ch
(28.5)
(21.9)
U.S.
2.2
2.1
% Ch
(21.3)
(16.6)
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon
50.1
49.2
% Ch
(12.1)
(6.8)
U.S.
4.7
4.6
% Ch
(12.0)
(8.8)
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
23.2
23.1
% Ch
(7.4)
(0.4)
U.S.
1.5
1.5
% Ch
(4.8)
(0.4)
Other Nondurable
Oregon
26.9
26.1
% Ch
(15.8)
(12.0)
U.S.
3.2
3.1
% Ch
(14.8)
(12.2)
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Oregon
319.2
313.0
% Ch
(10.3)
(7.6)
U.S.
25.3
25.0
% Ch
(7.4)
(5.8)
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
1,601.3
(3.1)
129.9
(3.0)
1,593.1
(2.0)
129.4
(1.5)
1,593.2
0.0
129.3
(0.4)
1,603.6
2.6
130.0
2.0
1,601.8
(0.4)
129.9
(0.1)
1,609.2
1.9
130.2
0.9
1,617.3
2.0
130.7
1.4
1,619.3
0.5
131.2
1.7
1,621.7
0.6
131.5
0.9
1,624.9
0.8
132.0
1.4
1,301.3
(3.9)
107.4
(3.3)
1,294.9
(2.0)
106.9
(1.8)
1,294.8
(0.0)
106.8
(0.4)
1,301.2
2.0
107.2
1.4
1,302.2
0.3
107.5
1.1
1,310.6
2.6
108.0
1.7
1,318.8
2.5
108.5
1.9
1,323.0
1.3
109.1
2.3
1,328.3
1.6
109.5
1.4
1,331.6
1.0
110.0
1.8
6.6
(14.3)
0.7
(14.3)
6.5
(4.3)
0.7
(5.1)
6.6
8.0
0.7
8.3
6.7
6.0
0.7
12.6
6.8
3.6
0.7
11.2
6.7
(8.0)
0.7
10.3
6.8
7.6
0.7
7.3
6.9
7.6
0.8
18.3
6.9
2.4
0.8
11.8
7.1
9.9
0.8
8.4
72.1
(12.4)
5.8
(14.6)
69.8
(12.1)
5.7
(10.7)
67.9
(10.4)
5.6
(8.7)
67.6
(2.0)
5.5
(2.1)
67.6
(0.0)
5.5
(2.2)
67.5
(0.5)
5.5
(0.7)
67.7
1.4
5.5
(0.6)
68.7
6.1
5.5
1.1
68.5
(1.3)
5.5
1.1
69.5
5.9
5.5
1.2
164.0
(8.1)
11.6
(8.3)
162.4
(3.8)
11.5
(4.2)
162.9
1.1
11.5
(1.2)
164.0
2.8
11.5
2.3
163.6
(1.0)
11.6
1.0
164.9
3.3
11.6
0.2
166.9
4.9
11.7
3.4
168.3
3.4
11.7
2.3
168.7
1.1
11.8
1.4
169.3
1.3
11.8
0.7
115.0
(10.6)
7.1
(10.2)
113.6
(4.9)
7.0
(5.2)
114.1
1.9
7.0
(0.9)
115.0
3.0
7.1
3.4
114.9
(0.1)
7.1
2.0
115.6
2.3
7.1
0.9
117.5
6.7
7.2
5.4
118.8
4.6
7.3
3.5
119.2
1.2
7.3
2.2
119.4
0.9
7.3
1.9
20.5
(10.9)
0.4
(11.4)
20.2
(5.2)
0.3
(3.2)
20.1
(2.0)
0.3
(4.8)
20.3
4.7
0.3
4.0
19.9
(8.4)
0.3
(5.6)
19.6
(4.8)
0.3
(4.6)
19.7
0.8
0.3
4.9
19.3
(6.4)
0.3
(5.6)
19.1
(5.2)
0.3
(7.4)
19.1
0.9
0.3
1.8
30.7
(16.1)
2.6
(12.9)
30.3
(6.0)
2.6
(5.0)
30.4
2.2
2.6
0.3
31.0
7.6
2.6
6.6
31.4
4.8
2.7
4.8
31.9
6.9
2.7
3.6
32.7
10.7
2.7
8.1
33.3
6.7
2.8
7.3
33.6
4.4
2.8
3.6
33.6
0.3
2.8
3.6
35.1
(3.6)
1.1
(10.4)
34.9
(2.6)
1.1
(5.0)
35.0
1.0
1.1
(1.9)
34.9
(1.1)
1.1
(0.2)
34.9
0.9
1.1
0.4
35.1
2.3
1.1
0.2
35.8
7.8
1.1
2.2
36.4
6.4
1.1
1.9
36.8
4.6
1.1
1.7
36.8
0.5
1.1
(1.0)
10.0
(5.7)
1.3
(4.1)
9.9
(0.9)
1.3
(3.6)
10.1
8.1
1.3
1.7
10.2
4.2
1.3
4.1
10.2
(2.7)
1.3
3.4
10.3
5.1
1.3
(1.5)
10.7
17.0
1.4
7.1
10.9
8.6
1.4
3.7
10.9
(0.4)
1.4
3.9
11.0
2.4
1.4
5.8
18.8
(15.5)
2.1
(10.6)
18.3
(9.3)
2.0
(7.2)
18.5
4.3
2.0
(2.7)
18.5
0.9
2.0
1.1
18.6
1.1
2.0
(1.4)
18.6
0.6
2.0
(0.6)
18.6
(1.2)
2.0
2.6
18.9
7.3
2.0
4.0
18.7
(3.1)
2.0
3.7
18.8
1.8
2.1
1.2
49.0
(2.0)
4.5
(5.1)
48.8
(1.1)
4.5
(2.6)
48.7
(0.8)
4.5
(1.6)
49.0
2.4
4.5
0.5
48.6
(3.1)
4.5
(0.6)
49.3
5.9
4.5
(0.8)
49.4
0.7
4.5
0.4
49.5
0.5
4.5
0.4
49.6
0.7
4.5
0.2
49.9
2.4
4.5
(1.3)
23.4
4.3
1.5
0.1
23.4
0.3
1.5
(0.6)
23.6
3.4
1.4
(2.4)
23.9
5.7
1.5
1.9
23.6
(5.9)
1.5
0.5
24.2
10.5
1.5
(1.0)
24.2
0.9
1.5
2.5
24.2
(0.3)
1.5
0.4
24.2
(0.4)
1.5
(1.2)
24.4
4.3
1.4
(2.4)
25.6
(7.3)
3.1
(7.4)
25.4
(2.4)
3.0
(3.8)
25.1
(4.5)
3.0
(1.4)
25.1
(0.5)
3.0
0.0
25.1
(0.3)
3.0
(1.1)
25.2
1.7
3.0
(1.5)
25.2
0.5
3.0
(1.0)
25.3
1.3
3.0
1.9
25.4
1.7
3.0
(0.1)
25.4
0.6
3.0
(1.1)
309.6
(4.2)
24.7
(3.2)
307.1
(3.2)
24.6
(2.5)
307.2
0.1
24.6
(0.7)
308.1
1.2
24.6
0.7
73
308.6
0.6
24.7
0.9
310.3
2.2
24.8
1.7
311.5
1.5
24.9
1.8
312.5
1.3
25.0
2.3
312.8
0.3
25.1
1.0
313.1
0.5
25.1
1.3
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2012:1
2012:2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
1,635.6
1,638.1
% Ch
2.7
0.6
U.S.
132.7
133.0
% Ch
2.1
1.0
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
1,343.5
1,347.9
% Ch
3.6
1.3
U.S.
110.7
111.0
% Ch
2.6
1.3
Natural Resources and Mining
Oregon
7.3
7.3
% Ch
13.0
(1.0)
U.S.
0.8
0.8
% Ch
9.8
1.6
Construction
Oregon
70.9
71.6
% Ch
8.2
3.7
U.S.
5.6
5.5
% Ch
2.2
(2.5)
Manufacturing
Oregon
170.4
171.4
% Ch
2.8
2.4
U.S.
11.9
12.0
% Ch
3.6
1.9
Durable Manufacturing
Oregon
120.4
121.1
% Ch
3.2
2.6
U.S.
7.4
7.5
% Ch
5.1
2.7
Wood Products
Oregon
19.4
19.6
% Ch
6.6
3.4
U.S.
0.3
0.3
% Ch
2.6
(2.3)
M etal and M achinery
Oregon
34.3
34.8
% Ch
7.7
6.1
U.S.
2.9
2.9
% Ch
6.8
4.3
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
36.7
37.0
% Ch
(1.5)
3.5
U.S.
1.1
1.1
% Ch
0.0
0.6
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
10.9
10.8
% Ch
(3.1)
(3.7)
U.S.
1.4
1.5
% Ch
7.6
5.6
Other Durables
Oregon
19.1
19.0
% Ch
5.3
(2.4)
U.S.
2.1
2.1
% Ch
4.2
12.2
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon
50.1
50.3
% Ch
1.7
1.8
U.S.
4.5
4.5
% Ch
1.3
0.8
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
24.8
24.9
% Ch
5.3
1.9
U.S.
1.5
1.5
% Ch
0.6
2.2
Other Nondurable
Oregon
25.3
25.4
% Ch
(1.7)
1.7
U.S.
3.0
3.0
% Ch
0.3
0.6
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Oregon
314.6
315.7
% Ch
1.8
1.4
U.S.
25.2
25.3
% Ch
1.6
1.0
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2013:3
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
1,640.2
0.5
133.3
1.0
1,648.6
2.1
133.8
1.3
1,657.7
2.2
134.2
1.4
1,667.2
2.3
134.7
1.4
1,674.7
1.8
135.1
1.3
1,682.0
1.8
135.5
1.2
1,689.7
1.8
136.0
1.4
1,697.7
1.9
136.5
1.4
1,706.6
2.1
137.1
1.7
1,716.3
2.3
137.7
1.8
1,351.5
1.1
111.4
1.3
1,359.6
2.4
111.9
1.7
1,368.4
2.6
112.4
1.8
1,377.5
2.7
112.8
1.7
1,384.8
2.1
113.3
1.6
1,391.8
2.0
113.7
1.5
1,399.1
2.1
114.2
1.6
1,406.5
2.1
114.6
1.7
1,414.9
2.4
115.2
1.9
1,424.2
2.6
115.8
2.1
7.4
4.5
0.8
(5.1)
7.4
1.2
0.8
(9.4)
7.4
1.2
0.8
(8.3)
7.5
1.6
0.8
(5.8)
7.5
0.8
0.8
(1.6)
7.5
1.0
0.8
(0.2)
7.5
0.4
0.8
(1.0)
7.6
2.3
0.8
1.2
7.6
1.8
0.8
0.9
7.6
1.5
0.8
0.1
72.0
2.7
5.5
1.0
73.1
5.9
5.6
1.6
73.4
1.5
5.6
1.9
73.6
1.5
5.6
1.6
73.8
0.7
5.6
2.9
74.1
1.8
5.7
5.4
74.9
4.5
5.8
6.2
75.8
5.0
5.9
7.7
76.9
5.7
6.1
9.6
77.8
4.7
6.2
11.0
171.8
0.9
12.0
0.9
172.3
1.0
12.0
(0.7)
172.7
1.0
12.0
(0.1)
173.4
1.7
12.1
3.9
174.4
2.2
12.1
2.5
175.3
2.1
12.2
2.3
176.3
2.3
12.3
2.5
176.8
1.1
12.4
2.1
177.6
1.9
12.4
2.1
178.8
2.8
12.5
2.3
122.1
3.1
7.5
1.4
122.4
1.1
7.5
(0.8)
122.9
1.6
7.5
0.8
123.6
2.4
7.6
6.2
124.4
2.5
7.7
4.2
125.3
2.8
7.8
3.9
126.1
2.7
7.9
4.4
126.5
1.2
7.9
3.7
127.2
2.4
8.0
3.8
128.4
3.7
8.1
4.1
19.8
3.2
0.3
12.6
19.9
3.2
0.4
10.1
20.3
9.0
0.4
11.5
20.8
9.8
0.4
17.5
21.3
9.0
0.4
18.4
21.5
5.0
0.4
19.1
21.7
3.4
0.4
20.0
22.0
4.4
0.4
19.9
22.3
7.3
0.5
23.4
22.9
9.6
0.5
23.1
35.2
4.5
2.9
1.9
35.5
3.5
2.9
(0.1)
35.7
2.4
2.9
(0.4)
35.7
0.6
3.0
6.1
35.8
1.3
3.0
4.3
35.9
0.4
3.0
3.6
35.8
(0.4)
3.1
3.7
35.8
(0.7)
3.1
2.9
35.7
(0.7)
3.1
2.6
35.7
(0.3)
3.1
3.2
37.3
2.8
1.1
0.1
37.4
1.5
1.1
(2.4)
37.2
(1.7)
1.1
0.7
37.1
(1.3)
1.1
(0.3)
37.0
(1.1)
1.1
(3.5)
37.3
2.7
1.1
(0.5)
37.6
3.6
1.1
1.9
37.5
(0.8)
1.1
1.7
37.7
1.3
1.1
2.6
37.9
3.1
1.1
2.9
10.8
(1.3)
1.5
(0.5)
10.7
(2.1)
1.4
(2.7)
10.7
(1.0)
1.5
2.9
10.7
1.0
1.5
10.9
10.8
5.1
1.5
7.6
11.0
6.9
1.5
6.0
11.2
5.3
1.6
6.2
11.3
5.1
1.6
5.0
11.4
4.5
1.6
4.3
11.6
6.3
1.6
4.2
19.1
3.8
2.2
9.5
18.9
(4.0)
2.2
8.2
19.0
0.6
2.3
6.6
19.2
6.0
2.3
3.5
19.4
4.0
2.3
2.4
19.6
2.7
2.3
2.2
19.8
4.4
2.3
1.3
19.9
2.8
2.3
1.0
20.1
3.8
2.3
0.8
20.3
4.0
2.3
0.5
49.7
(4.4)
4.5
0.1
49.8
0.7
4.5
(0.5)
49.8
(0.6)
4.5
(1.6)
49.8
0.2
4.5
0.0
50.0
1.4
4.4
(0.2)
50.0
0.5
4.4
(0.4)
50.2
1.4
4.4
(0.7)
50.3
0.8
4.4
(0.8)
50.4
0.6
4.4
(1.0)
50.4
0.6
4.4
(1.0)
24.3
(9.0)
1.5
1.5
24.4
1.1
1.5
1.1
24.4
0.1
1.5
0.0
24.4
0.5
1.5
1.8
24.5
1.3
1.5
1.6
24.5
1.2
1.5
1.9
24.6
1.2
1.5
1.5
24.7
1.1
1.5
0.7
24.7
0.8
1.5
0.3
24.8
0.7
1.5
0.6
25.4
0.2
3.0
0.2
25.5
0.4
3.0
(0.4)
25.4
(1.3)
3.0
(0.2)
25.4
(0.1)
3.0
(1.0)
25.5
1.6
3.0
(1.3)
25.5
(0.1)
3.0
(1.2)
25.6
1.5
3.0
(1.9)
25.6
0.4
2.9
(1.6)
25.6
0.5
2.9
(1.7)
25.7
0.5
2.9
(1.5)
315.8
0.2
25.4
1.5
317.8
2.6
25.5
2.2
319.9
2.6
25.6
1.6
321.6
2.2
25.7
1.0
74
323.0
1.8
25.8
1.5
324.2
1.5
25.8
0.7
324.7
0.6
25.8
(0.3)
325.2
0.7
25.9
0.4
326.2
1.2
25.9
0.9
327.4
1.5
26.0
1.1
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2015:1
2015:2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
1,725.1
1,733.9
% Ch
2.1
2.1
U.S.
138.2
138.8
% Ch
1.7
1.6
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
1,432.4
1,440.6
% Ch
2.3
2.3
U.S.
116.3
116.8
% Ch
1.9
1.8
Natural Resources and Mining
Oregon
7.6
7.6
% Ch
0.6
(0.1)
U.S.
0.8
0.8
% Ch
(1.0)
(2.6)
Construction
Oregon
78.9
80.3
% Ch
6.0
7.5
U.S.
6.4
6.6
% Ch
11.9
11.8
Manufacturing
Oregon
179.9
180.9
% Ch
2.4
2.2
U.S.
12.5
12.6
% Ch
2.0
1.6
Durable Manufacturing
Oregon
129.4
130.3
% Ch
3.2
2.8
U.S.
8.1
8.2
% Ch
3.4
3.1
Wood Products
Oregon
23.3
23.6
% Ch
7.9
5.3
U.S.
0.5
0.5
% Ch
15.8
12.0
M etal and M achinery
Oregon
35.7
35.7
% Ch
(0.1)
0.3
U.S.
3.1
3.2
% Ch
2.7
2.4
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
38.2
38.5
% Ch
2.7
2.9
U.S.
1.1
1.1
% Ch
2.9
2.1
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
11.8
11.9
% Ch
6.3
4.9
U.S.
1.6
1.6
% Ch
3.6
4.6
Other Durables
Oregon
20.4
20.6
% Ch
2.9
3.3
U.S.
2.3
2.3
% Ch
1.3
0.6
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon
50.5
50.6
% Ch
0.6
0.7
U.S.
4.4
4.4
% Ch
(0.7)
(1.1)
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
24.8
24.9
% Ch
1.1
0.7
U.S.
1.5
1.5
% Ch
0.5
(0.1)
Other Nondurable
Oregon
25.7
25.7
% Ch
0.1
0.6
U.S.
2.9
2.9
% Ch
(1.1)
(1.3)
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Oregon
328.5
330.0
% Ch
1.3
1.8
U.S.
26.1
26.1
% Ch
0.9
1.2
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
2017:3
2017:4
1,743.1
2.1
139.4
1.7
1,751.4
1.9
140.0
1.8
1,759.8
1.9
140.6
1.7
1,768.6
2.0
141.2
1.7
1,777.3
2.0
141.8
1.7
1,786.1
2.0
142.3
1.6
1,794.7
1.9
142.8
1.3
1,802.7
1.8
143.3
1.3
1,810.5
1.7
143.7
1.2
1,818.4
1.8
144.1
1.2
1,449.3
2.4
117.4
1.8
1,457.1
2.2
117.9
2.0
1,465.0
2.2
118.5
1.9
1,473.2
2.3
119.0
1.9
1,481.3
2.2
119.6
1.8
1,489.4
2.2
120.1
1.8
1,497.2
2.1
120.5
1.4
1,504.5
2.0
120.9
1.4
1,511.6
1.9
121.3
1.3
1,518.7
1.9
121.7
1.2
7.6
(0.1)
0.8
(2.5)
7.6
(0.2)
0.8
(2.4)
7.6
(1.1)
0.8
(2.1)
7.6
(0.4)
0.8
(1.9)
7.6
(0.6)
0.7
(1.5)
7.6
(0.9)
0.7
(2.7)
7.6
(0.5)
0.7
(3.0)
7.5
(1.2)
0.7
(3.9)
7.5
(1.2)
0.7
(3.6)
7.5
(1.2)
0.7
(3.7)
81.6
6.6
6.7
11.1
82.6
5.0
6.9
10.5
83.8
5.6
7.1
9.5
84.6
4.0
7.2
8.4
85.3
3.5
7.3
7.2
86.2
4.1
7.5
6.3
86.9
3.4
7.6
6.0
87.5
2.7
7.7
5.6
88.2
3.2
7.8
4.7
89.0
3.6
7.8
4.2
181.9
2.2
12.6
1.3
182.8
2.0
12.7
1.8
183.5
1.6
12.7
1.0
184.4
2.0
12.7
0.6
185.3
1.8
12.8
0.6
186.2
2.0
12.8
0.4
187.3
2.3
12.8
0.4
188.1
1.8
12.8
(0.0)
189.2
2.3
12.8
0.1
190.2
2.2
12.8
0.2
131.3
3.0
8.3
2.5
132.1
2.6
8.3
2.9
132.8
2.1
8.4
1.8
133.7
2.6
8.4
1.0
134.5
2.5
8.4
1.3
135.4
2.7
8.4
0.9
136.3
2.9
8.4
0.6
137.1
2.2
8.4
(0.0)
138.1
2.9
8.4
0.1
138.9
2.5
8.4
0.2
23.9
5.5
0.5
9.0
24.2
5.0
0.6
6.7
24.4
2.3
0.6
3.2
24.5
2.5
0.6
2.5
24.7
3.5
0.6
2.8
25.0
4.7
0.6
2.4
25.2
2.6
0.6
3.4
25.3
1.4
0.6
3.1
25.5
3.2
0.6
3.5
25.5
1.5
0.6
3.0
35.8
1.0
3.2
2.0
35.9
1.2
3.2
3.3
36.0
1.5
3.2
2.3
36.3
2.4
3.2
1.6
36.5
2.4
3.2
2.1
36.7
2.4
3.3
1.8
37.0
2.8
3.3
0.6
37.2
2.9
3.3
(0.1)
37.5
2.9
3.3
0.0
37.8
3.0
3.3
0.1
38.8
3.3
1.1
0.3
39.0
1.8
1.1
0.7
39.2
2.4
1.1
1.6
39.5
3.2
1.1
1.7
39.6
1.4
1.2
2.0
39.8
1.9
1.2
1.6
40.2
3.6
1.2
3.5
40.4
2.5
1.2
3.1
40.8
3.3
1.2
2.8
41.1
3.0
1.2
2.6
12.0
3.4
1.7
4.7
12.1
2.2
1.7
4.2
12.1
1.8
1.7
1.8
12.2
2.2
1.7
0.1
12.3
3.4
1.7
(0.6)
12.4
1.8
1.7
(1.2)
12.4
0.9
1.7
(2.2)
12.4
0.7
1.7
(3.2)
12.4
0.6
1.6
(3.2)
12.5
0.5
1.6
(2.9)
20.8
2.9
2.3
0.9
21.0
3.9
2.3
(0.1)
21.1
2.6
2.3
0.5
21.2
2.0
2.4
0.5
21.3
2.9
2.4
0.0
21.5
2.6
2.4
0.3
21.7
3.1
2.4
0.8
21.8
2.2
2.4
0.8
21.9
3.0
2.4
0.9
22.1
3.2
2.4
1.2
50.6
0.0
4.4
(0.9)
50.6
0.3
4.4
(0.3)
50.7
0.4
4.4
(0.3)
50.8
0.5
4.4
(0.2)
50.8
0.2
4.4
(0.5)
50.8
0.3
4.4
(0.6)
50.9
0.8
4.4
(0.0)
51.0
0.9
4.4
0.0
51.1
0.9
4.4
(0.0)
51.3
1.1
4.4
0.2
24.9
0.3
1.5
0.3
24.9
0.5
1.5
1.3
25.0
0.5
1.5
1.4
25.0
0.4
1.5
1.4
25.0
0.1
1.5
1.0
25.0
0.5
1.5
0.8
25.1
0.5
1.5
1.1
25.1
0.7
1.5
1.3
25.2
0.7
1.5
1.2
25.2
1.2
1.5
1.5
25.7
(0.2)
2.9
(1.3)
25.7
0.1
2.9
(1.1)
25.7
0.4
2.9
(1.4)
25.8
0.5
2.9
(1.2)
25.8
0.3
2.9
(1.0)
25.8
0.2
2.9
(1.0)
25.9
1.0
2.9
(0.5)
25.9
1.0
2.8
(0.5)
26.0
1.0
2.8
(0.5)
26.1
1.1
2.8
(0.3)
331.6
2.0
26.2
1.2
333.4
2.1
26.3
1.3
335.2
2.2
26.4
1.4
337.2
2.4
26.5
1.5
75
339.2
2.3
26.6
1.5
341.0
2.2
26.7
1.4
342.7
2.0
26.7
1.0
344.3
1.9
26.8
0.8
345.6
1.5
26.8
0.7
346.8
1.4
26.9
0.6
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2018:1
2018:2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
1,826.0
1,833.3
% Ch
1.7
1.6
U.S.
144.5
144.8
% Ch
1.0
1.0
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
1,525.5
1,532.1
% Ch
1.8
1.7
U.S.
122.0
122.3
% Ch
1.0
1.0
Natural Resources and Mining
Oregon
7.5
7.5
% Ch
(1.2)
0.1
U.S.
0.7
0.7
% Ch
(3.1)
(3.2)
Construction
Oregon
89.8
90.4
% Ch
3.6
2.8
U.S.
7.9
8.0
% Ch
3.6
3.2
Manufacturing
Oregon
191.1
191.8
% Ch
1.8
1.5
U.S.
12.8
12.8
% Ch
(0.1)
0.5
Durable Manufacturing
Oregon
139.6
140.2
% Ch
2.0
1.8
U.S.
8.4
8.5
% Ch
(0.3)
0.7
Wood Products
Oregon
25.6
25.5
% Ch
0.1
(0.9)
U.S.
0.6
0.6
% Ch
1.6
1.5
M etal and M achinery
Oregon
38.0
38.2
% Ch
2.8
2.3
U.S.
3.3
3.3
% Ch
(0.3)
0.8
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon
41.3
41.5
% Ch
2.3
2.4
U.S.
1.2
1.2
% Ch
1.9
2.3
Transportation Equipment
Oregon
12.5
12.5
% Ch
2.2
(0.2)
U.S.
1.6
1.6
% Ch
(3.0)
(1.6)
Other Durables
Oregon
22.2
22.4
% Ch
2.4
3.8
U.S.
2.4
2.4
% Ch
0.8
1.2
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon
51.4
51.5
% Ch
1.1
0.9
U.S.
4.4
4.4
% Ch
0.3
0.2
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
25.3
25.3
% Ch
0.7
0.7
U.S.
1.5
1.6
% Ch
1.6
1.5
Other Nondurable
Oregon
26.1
26.2
% Ch
1.4
1.2
U.S.
2.8
2.8
% Ch
(0.4)
(0.6)
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Oregon
348.0
349.1
% Ch
1.4
1.3
U.S.
26.9
26.9
% Ch
0.5
0.3
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
1,840.0
1.5
145.2
0.9
1,847.0
1.5
145.5
0.9
1,853.4
1.4
145.8
0.8
1,859.1
1.2
146.0
0.8
1,864.5
1.2
146.3
0.8
1,869.8
1.2
146.6
0.8
1,875.6
1.2
146.9
0.8
1,885.6
2.1
147.5
1.8
1,887.8
0.5
147.6
0.1
1,891.2
0.7
147.7
0.3
1,538.1
1.6
122.6
0.9
1,544.4
1.7
122.9
0.9
1,550.0
1.5
123.1
0.8
1,554.9
1.3
123.3
0.8
1,559.6
1.2
123.6
0.8
1,564.2
1.2
123.8
0.8
1,568.7
1.2
124.0
0.7
1,574.1
1.4
124.3
0.8
1,578.1
1.0
124.5
0.7
1,582.4
1.1
124.7
0.7
7.5
(0.1)
0.7
(2.9)
7.4
(0.7)
0.7
(3.2)
7.4
(0.9)
0.7
(2.7)
7.4
(1.4)
0.7
(3.8)
7.4
(1.0)
0.7
(3.3)
7.4
(1.2)
0.7
(3.5)
7.4
(0.6)
0.7
(1.2)
7.3
(0.6)
0.7
(0.9)
7.3
(0.6)
0.7
(0.9)
7.3
(0.6)
0.7
(0.9)
90.9
2.0
8.0
2.8
91.4
2.6
8.1
2.3
92.0
2.5
8.1
2.0
92.3
1.3
8.2
2.0
92.6
1.3
8.2
1.9
93.0
1.7
8.2
1.8
93.4
2.0
8.3
1.7
93.9
2.2
8.3
1.8
94.3
1.7
8.3
1.6
94.7
1.6
8.4
1.9
192.5
1.6
12.8
0.1
193.3
1.6
12.8
0.6
193.6
0.7
12.8
(0.6)
194.1
1.0
12.8
(0.1)
194.6
0.9
12.8
(0.4)
195.0
1.0
12.8
(0.1)
195.3
0.6
12.8
(0.5)
195.7
0.7
12.8
(0.1)
196.0
0.6
12.8
(0.4)
196.4
0.7
12.8
(0.2)
140.9
1.9
8.5
0.2
141.6
2.0
8.5
1.0
141.9
0.7
8.5
(0.6)
142.2
1.1
8.5
0.2
142.6
1.0
8.5
(0.1)
143.0
1.1
8.5
0.2
143.2
0.6
8.5
(0.6)
143.5
0.8
8.5
(0.0)
143.7
0.7
8.4
(0.4)
144.0
0.8
8.4
0.0
25.5
0.3
0.6
0.1
25.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
25.5
(1.2)
0.6
(1.5)
25.4
(0.4)
0.6
(0.5)
25.5
0.5
0.6
(0.6)
25.5
0.5
0.6
(0.1)
25.4
(0.9)
0.6
(1.8)
25.4
(1.0)
0.6
(1.1)
25.4
(0.4)
0.6
(2.0)
25.4
0.3
0.6
(2.0)
38.4
1.8
3.3
0.3
38.5
1.3
3.3
1.1
38.6
0.9
3.3
(0.0)
38.7
0.5
3.3
0.9
38.7
0.3
3.3
0.5
38.7
0.1
3.3
0.9
38.7
0.1
3.3
0.0
38.7
(0.0)
3.3
0.7
38.7
(0.1)
3.3
0.4
38.7
(0.1)
3.3
0.9
41.9
3.2
1.2
2.1
42.2
3.4
1.2
2.4
42.3
1.1
1.2
0.4
42.6
2.6
1.2
1.7
42.9
2.4
1.2
1.6
43.1
2.4
1.2
1.6
43.3
1.9
1.2
1.1
43.5
2.0
1.2
1.2
43.8
2.0
1.2
1.2
43.9
1.2
1.2
0.6
12.5
(0.1)
1.6
(1.7)
12.5
(1.0)
1.6
(0.5)
12.5
0.5
1.6
(2.9)
12.4
(1.8)
1.6
(2.2)
12.4
(1.1)
1.6
(2.4)
12.4
(1.5)
1.6
(1.9)
12.3
(1.0)
1.6
(3.4)
12.3
(0.5)
1.5
(2.5)
12.3
(1.7)
1.5
(2.9)
12.2
(0.8)
1.5
(2.1)
22.6
3.1
2.4
0.8
22.8
3.9
2.4
1.2
22.9
2.0
2.4
0.6
23.1
2.3
2.4
0.5
23.2
1.5
2.4
(0.0)
23.3
2.2
2.4
0.3
23.4
1.6
2.4
0.1
23.5
2.6
2.4
0.3
23.7
2.0
2.4
0.0
23.8
2.7
2.4
0.4
51.6
0.6
4.4
(0.1)
51.7
0.6
4.4
(0.1)
51.8
0.6
4.4
(0.5)
51.9
0.8
4.3
(0.6)
52.0
0.7
4.3
(0.8)
52.1
0.8
4.3
(0.8)
52.2
0.6
4.3
(0.3)
52.2
0.7
4.3
(0.4)
52.3
0.5
4.3
(0.5)
52.4
0.5
4.3
(0.5)
25.3
0.3
1.6
1.1
25.4
0.4
1.6
0.9
25.4
0.4
1.6
0.1
25.5
1.1
1.6
0.3
25.5
0.9
1.6
(0.1)
25.6
1.1
1.6
0.0
25.6
0.7
1.6
0.8
25.7
0.7
1.6
0.7
25.7
0.4
1.6
0.5
25.7
0.5
1.6
0.5
26.3
0.9
2.8
(0.6)
26.3
0.9
2.8
(0.6)
26.4
0.7
2.8
(0.9)
26.4
0.5
2.8
(1.2)
26.5
0.4
2.8
(1.2)
26.5
0.4
2.8
(1.1)
26.5
0.6
2.8
(1.2)
26.6
0.6
2.8
(1.3)
26.6
0.5
2.8
(1.3)
26.6
0.5
2.8
(1.2)
353.3
0.0
27.0
(0.2)
353.3
(0.0)
27.0
(0.1)
350.2
1.2
26.9
0.1
351.2
1.2
27.0
0.3
352.0
0.9
27.0
0.3
352.2
0.3
27.0
0.1
76
352.6
0.4
27.0
0.1
352.8
0.3
27.0
0.1
352.9
0.1
27.0
(0.0)
353.2
0.4
27.0
0.2
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2009:2
2009:3
2009:1
Retail Trade
Oregon
186.5
183.6
182.2
(2.8)
% Ch
(9.8)
(6.1)
14.5
14.5
U.S.
14.7
% Ch
(7.4)
(4.3)
(2.3)
Wholesale Trade
74.4
75.8
77.5
Oregon
% Ch
(10.1)
(8.4)
(7.2)
5.5
5.6
U.S.
5.7
% Ch
(8.0)
(7.8)
(4.6)
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oregon
55.2
53.6
52.9
(11.1)
(4.6)
(12.2)
% Ch
U.S.
4.9
4.8
4.8
(4.3)
(7.7)
(6.5)
% Ch
Information
Oregon
33.7
33.4
32.8
(6.7)
(3.2)
(8.4)
% Ch
U.S.
2.9
2.8
2.8
% Ch
(7.3)
(8.7)
(5.5)
Financial Activities
94.9
95.6
Oregon
97.4
(2.8)
% Ch
(8.3)
(7.0)
7.7
U.S.
7.9
7.8
% Ch
(6.7)
(6.1)
(2.9)
Professional and Business S ervices
179.8
177.3
Oregon
185.1
(5.6)
(11.0)
% Ch
(11.9)
16.4
16.5
U.S.
16.9
(3.2)
(8.6)
% Ch
(10.0)
Education and Health S ervices
224.4
Oregon
221.8
223.1
2.4
% Ch
(0.3)
2.4
U.S.
19.1
19.1
19.2
1.9
% Ch
1.9
1.2
Educational S ervices
30.2
30.5
31.0
Oregon
7.4
(1.6)
4.1
% Ch
3.1
3.1
U.S.
3.1
0.9
(0.6)
% Ch
3.1
Health Care and S ocial Assistance
192.6
193.4
Oregon
191.6
% Ch
(0.1)
2.2
1.6
16.0
16.1
16.1
U.S.
% Ch
1.7
1.5
2.1
Leisure and Hospitality
Oregon
163.1
162.1
165.2
(5.0)
(2.5)
% Ch
(9.3)
13.1
13.1
U.S.
13.2
(0.6)
(2.9)
% Ch
(3.8)
Other S ervices
Oregon
58.5
57.7
57.5
% Ch
(8.7)
(5.5)
(1.1)
U.S.
5.4
5.4
5.4
% Ch
(5.1)
(2.7)
(0.9)
Government
300.0
Oregon
300.6
299.3
% Ch
0.0
(1.8)
0.9
U.S.
22.6
22.6
22.5
% Ch
0.2
0.9
(1.9)
Federal Government
29.7
Oregon
30.1
30.5
% Ch
2.4
4.9
(9.8)
U.S.
2.8
2.9
2.8
% Ch
2.4
10.7
(5.5)
S tate Government, Oregon
State Total
78.1
78.0
77.8
% Ch
2.6
(0.7)
(0.9)
28.7
State Education
29.1
29.1
% Ch
4.0
0.0
(5.1)
Local Government, Oregon
Local Total
192.4
190.8
192.5
% Ch
(1.3)
(3.2)
3.4
Local Education
103.2
101.8
104.9
12.4
% Ch
(0.9)
(5.1)
2009:4
181.5
(1.7)
14.4
(2.4)
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
182.4
2.0
14.4
0.7
182.7
0.8
14.4
0.7
183.2
0.9
14.4
0.6
184.4
2.7
14.5
1.6
184.6
0.5
14.6
1.5
185.2
1.2
14.6
2.1
184.5
(1.3)
14.7
1.0
185.3
1.6
14.7
1.2
73.4
(5.5)
5.5
(3.3)
72.9
(2.5)
5.4
(3.1)
73.2
1.8
5.4
(0.4)
73.3
0.5
5.4
0.6
73.6
1.3
5.5
1.4
73.8
1.4
5.5
2.1
74.3
2.6
5.5
2.0
74.3
0.1
5.5
0.8
74.6
1.5
5.6
1.5
52.3
(4.9)
4.7
(2.0)
51.9
(2.7)
4.7
(2.2)
52.2
1.9
4.7
1.8
52.1
(0.4)
4.8
2.5
52.4
2.1
4.8
2.3
53.0
5.0
4.8
2.2
53.1
0.1
4.8
3.0
53.9
6.7
4.9
1.1
53.3
(4.8)
4.9
1.4
32.4
(4.7)
2.8
(2.7)
32.1
(4.0)
2.7
(3.3)
32.2
1.2
2.7
(3.4)
32.0
(2.3)
2.7
(1.0)
32.0
0.5
2.7
(1.6)
32.3
3.3
2.7
(2.2)
32.0
(3.8)
2.7
(0.6)
32.1
0.9
2.6
(4.0)
31.7
(4.9)
2.6
0.3
94.7
(0.9)
7.7
(1.6)
93.4
(5.4)
7.7
(1.5)
93.5
0.3
7.6
(0.5)
93.1
(1.7)
7.6
(0.2)
92.7
(1.7)
7.7
0.9
92.7
0.0
7.7
0.6
92.1
(2.7)
7.7
0.6
91.9
(1.0)
7.7
(0.3)
91.6
(1.2)
7.7
0.6
178.2
2.3
16.4
1.0
179.7
3.3
16.5
2.2
182.0
5.3
16.7
3.2
182.6
1.3
16.8
2.4
185.1
5.5
16.9
4.0
186.3
2.7
17.1
4.5
186.9
1.3
17.3
3.9
188.6
3.8
17.4
2.5
189.8
2.4
17.5
3.3
225.1
1.2
19.3
1.9
226.8
3.1
19.4
1.9
228.1
2.4
19.5
1.8
229.3
2.0
19.6
1.3
231.5
3.9
19.7
2.1
232.9
2.4
19.7
1.3
233.7
1.4
19.8
2.1
235.3
2.7
19.9
2.3
236.1
1.4
20.1
2.2
31.2
3.7
3.1
2.6
31.7
5.7
3.1
3.6
31.8
1.3
3.2
2.1
32.6
11.3
3.2
3.7
32.9
3.3
3.2
3.1
33.1
5.2
3.2
2.1
33.4
4.0
3.3
3.3
194.1
1.5
16.2
2.0
195.6
3.0
16.3
1.8
196.5
1.8
16.3
1.5
197.5
2.1
16.4
1.2
198.9
2.8
16.5
1.7
200.0
2.3
16.5
1.0
201.0
2.2
16.6
2.1
202.2
2.3
16.7
2.4
202.7
1.0
16.8
2.0
161.4
(1.5)
13.0
(2.7)
161.3
(0.3)
12.9
(1.3)
162.2
2.3
13.0
2.5
162.3
0.1
13.1
2.4
163.4
2.9
13.1
1.2
164.9
3.8
13.2
2.0
165.1
0.3
13.3
3.0
166.2
2.7
13.3
1.5
166.2
0.0
13.4
2.6
57.1
(2.9)
5.3
(2.5)
56.8
(2.1)
5.3
(0.1)
298.2
(2.3)
22.5
(0.0)
298.5
0.3
22.5
(0.4)
29.6
(0.6)
2.8
2.0
31.0
(0.9)
3.1
0.9
32.7
(3.0)
3.2
1.8
56.4
(2.4)
5.3
(0.0)
56.5
1.3
5.3
1.6
56.8
2.1
5.3
(1.0)
56.8
(0.4)
5.3
0.3
57.3
4.1
5.3
0.6
57.3
(0.4)
5.4
0.6
302.3
5.3
22.8
5.0
299.6
(3.5)
22.4
(5.9)
298.6
(1.4)
22.3
(2.6)
298.4
(0.2)
22.2
(1.0)
296.3
(2.8)
22.1
(1.4)
293.4
(3.9)
22.1
(1.6)
293.3
(0.1)
22.0
(0.8)
29.7
0.6
2.9
6.8
32.7
48.3
3.2
50.6
30.2
(27.2)
3.0
(27.3)
29.3
(11.4)
2.9
(11.3)
29.2
(2.1)
2.9
1.4
28.5
(9.4)
2.9
(1.3)
28.7
3.1
2.8
(2.7)
28.7
0.6
2.8
(1.1)
78.6
4.1
29.0
5.0
79.1
2.6
29.2
2.2
79.6
2.3
29.5
4.3
79.9
1.8
30.0
6.8
80.3
2.1
30.4
6.1
80.6
1.0
30.8
4.4
80.6
0.5
31.1
4.3
80.2
(2.0)
31.1
0.4
81.0
3.7
31.6
5.8
190.0
(5.0)
101.5
(12.1)
189.7
(0.7)
100.7
(3.0)
190.0
0.7
100.8
0.3
189.5
(1.1)
100.2
(2.4)
188.9
(1.2)
99.4
(3.3)
188.7
(0.4)
99.4
0.0
187.2
(3.1)
97.9
(5.8)
184.4
(5.8)
93.9
(15.2)
183.6
(1.9)
95.1
4.9
56.7
(0.5)
5.3
0.2
77
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2012:3
2012:1
2012:2
Retail Trade
186.8
Oregon
186.1
186.9
1.8
(0.3)
1.7
% Ch
14.8
14.8
14.7
U.S.
% Ch
0.7
0.4
1.3
Wholesale Trade
75.4
75.3
Oregon
75.0
0.6
1.7
2.1
% Ch
U.S.
5.6
5.6
5.6
1.7
2.1
2.4
% Ch
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oregon
53.5
53.5
53.6
(0.4)
1.0
% Ch
1.9
5.0
4.9
U.S.
4.9
% Ch
3.2
1.5
1.8
Information
32.3
32.2
Oregon
31.9
3.5
2.4
% Ch
2.9
U.S.
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.4
(0.5)
% Ch
(2.0)
Financial Activities
92.2
Oregon
91.6
91.8
2.2
0.7
0.1
% Ch
7.7
7.7
U.S.
7.7
0.4
% Ch
0.9
1.0
Professional and Business S ervices
194.8
Oregon
194.2
194.3
0.2
1.2
9.6
% Ch
17.7
17.8
17.9
U.S.
1.1
% Ch
4.8
1.9
Education and Health S ervices
237.9
237.8
Oregon
237.2
1.0
0.1
% Ch
1.8
20.4
20.3
U.S.
20.2
2.6
2.0
2.5
% Ch
Educational S ervices
33.4
34.0
34.3
Oregon
(9.6)
3.8
% Ch
6.9
3.3
3.3
U.S.
3.3
4.4
(0.8)
% Ch
3.4
Health Care and S ocial Assistance
204.4
203.2
203.5
Oregon
% Ch
1.0
0.6
1.9
17.1
16.9
17.0
U.S.
2.3
2.5
% Ch
2.3
Leisure and Hospitality
169.0
Oregon
167.7
168.2
1.9
1.2
% Ch
3.7
U.S.
13.5
13.6
13.6
1.9
% Ch
3.5
0.9
Other S ervices
58.2
Oregon
57.8
57.8
% Ch
3.6
(0.2)
2.8
5.4
5.4
U.S.
5.4
0.7
0.2
0.6
% Ch
Government
Oregon
292.0
290.2
288.7
% Ch
(1.7)
(2.5)
(2.1)
U.S.
22.0
22.0
21.9
% Ch
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.6)
Federal Government
27.7
27.6
Oregon
28.1
% Ch
(8.7)
(5.7)
(0.6)
U.S.
2.8
2.8
2.8
% Ch
(1.6)
(1.3)
(2.4)
S tate Government, Oregon
State Total
80.3
79.9
79.8
(3.4)
(2.0)
(0.2)
% Ch
31.8
State Education
31.4
31.6
% Ch
(1.9)
2.0
2.2
Local Government
Local Total
183.7
182.7
181.2
% Ch
0.2
(2.2)
(3.2)
Local Education
94.7
94.0
91.1
(1.3)
(3.0)
(12.0)
% Ch
2014:3
2014:4
190.3
(0.2)
14.9
(0.6)
190.7
0.7
14.9
0.1
191.2
1.1
14.9
0.3
77.8
1.7
5.8
1.5
78.1
1.7
5.8
1.3
78.5
2.0
5.8
1.6
78.9
2.2
5.9
1.9
56.1
2.9
5.1
2.6
56.5
2.4
5.2
2.0
56.8
2.2
5.2
2.3
57.0
1.7
5.2
2.6
57.3
1.8
5.3
2.8
32.9
(0.6)
2.7
3.7
33.2
2.5
2.7
1.0
33.4
3.0
2.7
2.4
33.6
2.1
2.8
1.9
33.7
0.9
2.8
0.9
33.8
1.2
2.8
1.3
94.7
4.3
7.8
0.7
95.2
2.0
7.8
1.1
95.6
1.6
7.8
0.7
95.9
1.1
7.8
(0.7)
96.2
1.4
7.8
(0.7)
96.5
1.3
7.8
(0.1)
96.8
1.1
7.8
(0.4)
197.9
4.0
18.2
4.7
199.9
4.1
18.4
3.6
201.3
3.0
18.5
2.2
202.8
3.0
18.6
2.2
204.6
3.6
18.7
3.1
207.4
5.6
19.0
5.1
210.4
5.9
19.2
5.9
213.6
6.2
19.5
5.7
240.2
2.2
20.5
0.7
241.7
2.4
20.5
0.5
243.0
2.3
20.6
1.1
244.4
2.2
20.6
1.0
245.9
2.5
20.8
2.8
247.1
1.9
20.8
1.2
248.6
2.5
20.9
0.8
250.2
2.5
20.9
1.1
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2013:3
187.8
2.2
14.9
2.1
188.8
2.1
14.9
1.1
189.7
1.8
14.9
0.2
190.2
1.2
15.0
0.7
190.6
0.8
14.9
(0.4)
190.4
(0.4)
14.9
(1.7)
75.8
2.2
5.7
1.9
76.3
2.4
5.7
1.8
76.6
1.7
5.7
1.3
77.0
2.4
5.7
2.1
77.5
2.3
5.8
1.9
54.2
4.2
5.0
2.7
54.8
4.8
5.0
3.1
55.3
4.1
5.1
3.2
55.7
2.8
5.1
3.0
32.6
2.8
2.6
2.7
32.8
3.0
2.7
2.6
33.0
2.2
2.7
3.9
92.8
2.5
7.7
0.8
93.7
4.1
7.8
1.2
196.0
2.3
18.0
3.2
239.0
1.8
20.5
1.2
33.3
(1.1)
3.3
(1.4)
33.3
(0.1)
3.3
(0.2)
33.3
(0.4)
3.3
0.3
33.3
0.1
3.3
(0.4)
2013:4
33.3
(0.1)
3.3
(1.0)
2014:1
33.3
(0.2)
3.3
(2.1)
2014:2
33.3
(0.1)
3.3
(2.8)
33.3
0.7
3.2
(3.2)
33.5
1.7
3.2
(3.6)
205.6
2.3
17.2
1.8
206.9
2.6
17.2
0.7
208.4
2.8
17.2
0.6
209.7
2.7
17.3
1.4
211.1
2.6
17.3
1.4
212.6
2.9
17.5
3.7
213.8
2.3
17.6
1.9
215.3
2.8
17.6
1.6
216.7
2.7
17.7
2.0
170.2
2.9
13.7
2.3
171.5
3.0
13.8
2.1
172.9
3.5
13.8
1.4
174.2
3.0
13.9
0.8
175.1
2.1
13.9
1.4
176.0
2.1
13.9
0.6
176.8
1.7
13.9
(0.4)
177.1
0.7
13.9
(1.0)
177.5
1.1
13.9
(0.5)
58.6
2.7
5.4
1.7
58.9
2.3
5.4
2.3
59.2
2.1
5.4
0.2
59.4
1.5
5.4
1.1
59.7
1.7
5.5
0.9
59.9
1.7
5.5
0.6
60.1
1.4
5.5
0.4
60.4
1.7
5.5
0.2
60.7
2.1
5.4
(1.8)
289.0
0.5
21.9
(0.7)
289.3
0.4
21.9
(0.4)
289.7
0.5
21.9
(0.3)
289.9
0.4
21.9
(0.2)
290.2
0.4
21.8
(0.1)
290.6
0.6
21.8
0.0
291.2
0.8
21.8
(0.0)
291.7
0.6
21.9
0.4
27.6
(0.8)
2.8
(2.7)
27.5
(0.6)
2.8
(2.6)
27.5
(0.8)
2.7
(2.8)
27.4
(0.7)
2.7
(2.8)
27.4
(0.7)
2.7
(2.8)
27.4
(0.6)
2.7
(2.8)
27.3
(0.4)
2.7
(2.5)
27.3
(0.4)
2.7
(2.3)
27.3
(0.5)
2.6
(2.1)
79.8
(0.2)
31.9
1.2
79.7
(0.4)
31.9
0.7
79.7
(0.2)
32.0
1.0
79.7
0.1
32.1
1.6
79.8
0.3
32.2
1.1
79.9
0.6
32.2
0.6
80.0
0.7
32.3
1.0
80.2
0.7
32.5
1.6
80.3
0.8
32.5
0.9
182.8
0.7
95.5
4.0
183.1
0.6
96.2
3.2
183.4
0.7
96.9
2.7
183.9
1.0
97.5
2.5
184.2
0.8
98.1
2.7
184.5
0.7
98.6
2.0
181.6
1.0
92.5
6.3
182.1
1.0
93.6
5.0
182.5
1.0
94.6
4.2
78
292.1
0.6
21.9
0.7
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2015:1
2015:2
2015:3
Retail Trade
Oregon
191.5
192.3
193.2
% Ch
0.7
1.7
1.9
U.S.
14.9
14.9
14.9
% Ch
(0.2)
0.5
0.3
Wholesale Trade
Oregon
79.3
79.6
79.9
% Ch
1.7
1.4
1.7
U.S.
5.9
5.9
5.9
% Ch
1.9
1.6
1.9
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oregon
57.7
58.1
58.5
% Ch
2.9
2.6
2.9
U.S.
5.3
5.3
5.4
% Ch
3.0
2.6
2.7
Information
Oregon
33.8
34.0
34.0
% Ch
0.7
2.0
0.2
U.S.
2.8
2.8
2.8
% Ch
1.9
1.8
0.2
Financial Activities
Oregon
96.9
97.0
97.2
% Ch
0.4
0.5
0.9
U.S.
7.8
7.8
7.8
% Ch
(0.6)
(0.6)
0.0
Professional and Business S ervices
Oregon
216.0
218.2
220.5
% Ch
4.6
4.3
4.1
U.S.
19.7
19.9
20.1
% Ch
4.4
4.0
3.8
Education and Health S ervices
Oregon
251.7
252.8
254.3
% Ch
2.5
1.8
2.4
U.S.
21.0
21.1
21.1
% Ch
1.0
1.4
1.5
Educational S ervices
Oregon
33.5
33.5
33.6
% Ch
0.8
0.1
0.7
U.S.
3.2
3.2
3.1
% Ch
(2.8)
(3.0)
(2.5)
Health Care and S ocial Assistance
Oregon
218.2
219.3
220.7
% Ch
2.8
2.0
2.7
U.S.
17.8
17.9
18.0
% Ch
1.7
2.2
2.2
Leisure and Hospitality
Oregon
178.1
178.6
179.2
% Ch
1.4
1.0
1.4
U.S.
13.9
13.8
13.8
% Ch
(0.2)
(1.1)
(0.4)
Other S ervices
Oregon
60.9
61.1
61.4
% Ch
1.7
1.3
1.3
U.S.
5.4
5.4
5.4
% Ch
(1.4)
(1.4)
(1.2)
Government
Oregon
292.6
293.3
293.8
% Ch
0.7
0.9
0.7
U.S.
21.9
22.0
22.0
% Ch
0.6
0.7
0.8
Federal Government
Oregon
27.2
27.2
27.1
% Ch
(0.5)
(0.6)
(0.5)
U.S.
2.6
2.6
2.6
% Ch
(2.1)
(1.8)
(1.6)
S tate Government, Oregon
State Total
80.5
80.7
80.8
% Ch
0.9
0.9
0.8
State Education
32.6
32.7
32.9
% Ch
1.2
1.0
1.9
Local Government
Local Total
184.9
185.4
185.8
% Ch
0.8
1.1
0.8
Local Education
99.0
99.4
99.9
% Ch
1.6
1.8
1.9
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
2017:3
2017:4
194.3
2.3
14.9
0.7
195.3
2.1
15.0
0.7
196.5
2.4
15.0
0.8
197.5
2.2
15.0
0.5
198.5
1.9
15.0
0.4
199.2
1.6
15.0
(0.0)
200.0
1.6
15.0
(0.2)
200.7
1.3
15.0
(0.4)
201.3
1.2
15.0
(0.3)
80.2
1.6
6.0
1.7
80.6
1.8
6.0
1.9
81.0
1.9
6.0
2.1
81.4
2.3
6.1
2.5
81.8
2.1
6.1
2.3
82.2
1.8
6.1
2.0
82.5
1.5
6.2
1.7
82.9
1.6
6.2
1.7
83.1
1.3
6.2
1.5
58.8
2.3
5.4
2.6
59.3
3.3
5.4
2.8
59.8
3.2
5.5
3.0
60.2
3.0
5.5
3.3
60.7
3.3
5.6
3.1
61.2
3.7
5.6
2.8
61.7
3.2
5.6
2.5
62.0
2.1
5.7
2.5
62.4
2.1
5.7
2.1
34.0
(0.0)
2.8
(0.3)
34.0
(0.3)
2.8
(0.4)
34.0
0.8
2.8
0.6
34.1
1.2
2.8
1.7
34.3
2.0
2.8
1.4
34.5
2.3
2.8
1.7
34.7
2.2
2.8
1.6
34.9
2.4
2.9
1.8
35.1
2.2
2.9
1.6
97.5
1.1
7.8
(0.3)
97.7
1.0
7.7
(0.8)
97.9
0.7
7.7
(0.9)
98.2
1.4
7.7
(0.0)
98.6
1.3
7.7
0.3
98.8
1.0
7.7
0.2
99.2
1.5
7.7
0.2
99.5
1.5
7.7
0.6
99.9
1.4
7.8
0.4
222.5
3.8
20.3
3.7
224.6
3.7
20.4
3.5
226.6
3.8
20.6
3.8
228.8
3.8
20.8
3.6
230.8
3.6
21.0
3.4
232.7
3.2
21.2
3.0
234.6
3.5
21.3
3.3
236.4
3.1
21.5
2.9
238.3
3.1
21.6
2.9
255.7
2.2
21.3
2.1
257.1
2.2
21.4
2.7
258.7
2.4
21.6
3.0
260.2
2.3
21.7
2.4
261.9
2.7
21.8
2.6
263.7
2.8
21.9
1.6
265.2
2.4
22.0
2.3
266.8
2.3
22.1
1.9
268.3
2.3
22.2
1.9
33.7
1.5
3.1
(2.4)
33.8
0.5
3.1
(1.6)
33.9
1.2
3.1
(1.6)
33.9
0.8
3.1
(0.7)
34.0
1.3
3.1
(0.6)
34.2
1.4
3.1
(0.2)
34.2
0.9
3.1
(0.8)
34.3
1.1
3.1
(0.7)
34.4
1.2
3.1
(1.0)
222.0
2.3
18.1
2.9
223.4
2.5
18.3
3.5
224.8
2.6
18.5
3.8
226.2
2.6
18.6
3.0
227.8
2.9
18.7
3.1
229.5
3.0
18.8
1.9
231.0
2.7
19.0
2.8
232.4
2.5
19.1
2.3
233.8
2.4
19.2
2.4
179.5
0.6
13.8
(0.2)
179.8
0.6
13.8
(0.3)
180.1
0.9
13.8
(1.1)
180.4
0.5
13.7
(0.7)
180.4
0.1
13.7
(0.4)
180.5
0.2
13.7
(0.5)
180.4
(0.2)
13.7
(1.3)
180.4
(0.1)
13.6
(0.8)
180.4
0.1
13.6
(0.5)
61.6
1.4
5.4
(1.3)
61.8
1.6
5.4
(0.6)
62.0
1.5
5.4
(0.5)
62.2
1.3
5.4
(0.2)
62.4
1.4
5.4
(0.3)
62.6
1.2
5.4
(0.2)
62.9
1.4
5.3
(0.4)
63.0
1.2
5.3
(0.4)
63.3
1.4
5.3
(0.7)
294.3
0.7
22.1
0.7
294.8
0.7
22.1
0.8
295.4
0.7
22.1
0.8
296.0
0.9
22.2
0.8
296.7
0.9
22.2
0.8
297.4
1.0
22.3
0.7
298.2
1.1
22.3
0.8
298.9
1.0
22.4
0.9
299.7
1.1
22.4
0.9
27.1
(0.6)
2.6
(1.6)
27.1
(0.4)
2.6
(1.4)
27.1
(0.4)
2.6
(1.4)
27.0
(0.4)
2.6
(1.4)
27.0
(0.4)
2.6
(1.4)
27.0
0.1
2.5
(1.2)
27.0
0.1
2.5
(1.2)
27.0
0.1
2.5
(1.2)
27.0
0.0
2.5
(1.2)
81.0
1.0
33.0
1.2
81.3
1.1
33.1
1.5
81.4
0.8
33.2
1.7
81.6
0.9
33.4
2.1
81.8
1.1
33.5
1.6
82.1
1.1
33.7
1.5
82.3
1.0
33.8
1.9
82.5
1.0
34.0
2.2
82.7
1.2
34.1
1.7
186.1
0.7
100.3
1.4
186.5
0.8
100.7
1.7
186.9
0.9
101.1
1.6
187.4
1.1
101.6
1.8
187.8
1.0
101.9
1.4
188.3
1.1
102.3
1.3
189.0
1.3
102.6
1.5
189.5
1.1
103.1
1.7
190.0
1.2
103.4
1.3
79
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2018:1
2018:2
2018:3
Retail Trade
Oregon
201.9
202.5
203.0
% Ch
1.3
1.2
0.9
U.S.
15.0
14.9
14.9
% Ch
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.6)
Wholesale Trade
Oregon
83.4
83.6
83.8
% Ch
1.2
0.9
1.2
U.S.
6.2
6.2
6.3
% Ch
1.3
1.0
1.4
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities
Oregon
62.7
63.0
63.4
% Ch
2.2
2.2
2.0
U.S.
5.7
5.8
5.8
% Ch
2.2
1.7
0.7
Information
Oregon
35.3
35.4
35.5
% Ch
2.0
1.3
1.5
U.S.
2.9
2.9
2.9
% Ch
2.0
1.7
1.9
Financial Activities
100.2
100.5
100.7
Oregon
% Ch
1.4
1.2
0.8
U.S.
7.8
7.7
7.7
% Ch
0.3
(0.7)
(0.3)
Professional and Business S ervices
Oregon
240.0
241.6
243.2
% Ch
2.9
2.7
2.8
U.S.
21.8
21.9
22.1
% Ch
2.7
2.6
2.6
Education and Health S ervices
Oregon
269.7
271.4
272.9
% Ch
2.1
2.6
2.2
U.S.
22.3
22.4
22.5
% Ch
1.2
2.2
1.8
Educational S ervices
Oregon
34.6
34.7
34.9
% Ch
1.3
1.9
1.7
U.S.
3.1
3.1
3.1
% Ch
(0.2)
(0.4)
(0.2)
Health Care and S ocial Assistance
Oregon
235.1
236.7
238.0
% Ch
2.2
2.7
2.2
U.S.
19.2
19.4
19.5
% Ch
1.4
2.6
2.1
Leisure and Hospitality
Oregon
180.6
180.7
180.9
% Ch
0.3
0.3
0.3
U.S.
13.6
13.6
13.5
% Ch
(0.3)
(1.1)
(0.8)
Other S ervices
Oregon
63.5
63.7
63.8
% Ch
1.7
0.9
1.0
U.S.
5.3
5.3
5.3
% Ch
(0.3)
(0.7)
(0.5)
Government
Oregon
300.5
301.2
301.9
% Ch
1.0
1.0
0.9
U.S.
22.5
22.5
22.6
% Ch
0.9
1.0
0.9
Federal Government
Oregon
27.0
27.0
27.0
% Ch
(0.2)
0.1
0.0
U.S.
2.5
2.5
2.5
% Ch
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.2)
S tate Government, Oregon
State Total
83.0
83.2
83.4
% Ch
1.2
1.1
1.0
State Education
34.3
34.5
34.7
% Ch
2.3
1.9
2.3
Local Government
Local Total
190.5
191.0
191.5
% Ch
1.1
1.1
1.0
Local Education
103.7
104.1
104.5
% Ch
1.3
1.4
1.6
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
203.5
1.0
14.9
(0.2)
203.9
0.8
14.9
(0.2)
203.9
(0.0)
14.9
(0.3)
203.9
0.1
14.9
(0.4)
204.0
0.0
14.9
(0.2)
203.8
(0.4)
14.8
(0.5)
203.9
0.2
14.8
(0.1)
203.7
(0.4)
14.8
(0.8)
203.5
(0.4)
14.8
(0.6)
84.1
1.1
6.3
1.2
84.3
1.0
6.3
1.1
84.4
0.7
6.3
0.8
84.6
0.9
6.3
1.0
84.8
0.7
6.3
0.8
84.9
0.7
6.4
0.7
85.1
0.7
6.4
0.8
85.2
0.7
6.4
0.8
85.4
0.7
6.4
0.8
63.7
1.8
5.8
0.6
63.8
1.0
5.8
0.7
63.9
0.7
5.8
0.3
64.0
0.7
5.8
0.5
64.1
0.5
5.8
0.3
64.2
0.9
5.8
0.3
64.3
0.6
5.8
0.2
64.4
0.4
5.8
0.3
64.5
0.4
5.8
0.2
35.6
1.3
2.9
1.6
35.7
1.5
2.9
1.9
35.8
0.9
2.9
1.3
35.9
1.2
2.9
1.6
36.0
1.0
3.0
1.3
36.1
1.3
3.0
1.6
36.3
1.2
3.0
1.6
36.4
1.3
3.0
1.6
36.5
1.4
3.0
1.7
100.8
0.4
7.7
(0.7)
100.9
0.5
7.7
(0.2)
101.1
0.5
7.7
0.1
101.2
0.6
7.7
0.6
101.3
0.3
7.7
0.2
101.4
0.4
7.7
0.3
101.5
0.6
7.7
0.2
101.6
0.3
7.8
0.3
101.7
0.3
7.8
0.1
245.0
3.0
22.2
2.8
246.8
2.9
22.4
2.8
248.5
2.9
22.5
2.8
250.3
2.9
22.7
2.8
252.1
2.9
22.8
2.8
253.9
2.9
23.0
2.8
255.9
3.1
23.2
3.0
257.6
2.7
23.3
2.7
259.3
2.7
23.5
2.6
274.6
2.5
22.6
1.4
276.1
2.2
22.7
0.9
277.7
2.4
22.7
1.3
279.2
2.1
22.8
1.1
280.6
2.0
22.9
1.0
281.9
2.0
22.9
0.7
283.5
2.2
22.9
0.8
284.7
1.8
23.0
0.9
286.3
2.2
23.0
0.7
35.0
1.2
3.1
(0.6)
35.1
1.5
3.1
(0.4)
35.2
1.2
3.0
(0.8)
35.3
1.7
3.0
(0.5)
35.4
1.2
3.0
(0.7)
35.6
1.3
3.0
(0.7)
35.7
1.7
3.0
(1.1)
35.9
1.7
3.0
(0.9)
36.0
1.2
3.0
(1.0)
239.6
2.6
19.6
1.7
241.0
2.3
19.6
1.1
242.5
2.6
19.7
1.7
243.8
2.2
19.8
1.4
245.1
2.2
19.8
1.3
246.4
2.0
19.9
0.9
247.7
2.3
19.9
1.1
248.9
1.8
20.0
1.2
250.3
2.3
20.0
0.9
181.0
0.2
13.5
(0.6)
181.2
0.6
13.5
0.0
181.3
0.2
13.5
(0.8)
181.3
(0.0)
13.5
(0.7)
181.2
(0.1)
13.5
(0.5)
181.3
0.2
13.4
(0.2)
181.6
0.6
13.4
(0.5)
181.6
(0.1)
13.4
(0.6)
181.6
(0.0)
13.4
(0.5)
64.4
1.1
5.3
(1.0)
64.5
0.9
5.3
(0.7)
64.7
1.1
5.3
(0.9)
64.9
1.2
5.3
(0.2)
65.1
1.3
5.2
(0.5)
65.2
0.8
5.2
(0.3)
65.4
0.9
5.2
(0.4)
64.0
1.2
5.3
(0.8)
302.6
0.9
22.6
0.8
64.2
1.2
5.3
(0.5)
303.4
1.0
22.7
0.8
304.2
1.1
22.7
0.8
304.9
0.9
22.7
0.7
305.6
1.0
22.8
0.7
306.9
1.6
22.9
1.3
311.5
6.1
23.2
7.0
309.6
(2.3)
23.1
(3.1)
308.8
(1.1)
23.0
(1.8)
27.0
0.0
2.5
(1.2)
27.0
(0.0)
2.5
(0.8)
27.0
(0.0)
2.5
(0.8)
27.0
(0.1)
2.5
(0.8)
27.0
(0.1)
2.5
(0.8)
27.4
5.6
2.5
5.1
31.3
70.0
2.9
67.8
28.8
(28.3)
2.6
(28.0)
27.1
(20.7)
2.5
(20.6)
83.6
1.1
34.9
1.8
83.9
1.2
35.0
1.7
84.1
1.0
35.2
2.0
84.3
1.0
35.4
2.4
84.5
1.1
35.6
1.9
84.8
1.2
35.7
1.7
85.0
1.0
35.9
2.0
85.2
1.0
36.1
2.4
85.4
1.1
36.3
1.9
192.0
0.9
104.9
1.3
192.5
1.1
105.2
1.2
193.1
1.3
105.5
1.4
193.6
1.0
106.0
1.6
194.1
1.1
106.3
1.3
194.7
1.3
106.6
1.2
195.2
1.0
107.0
1.4
195.7
1.0
107.4
1.6
196.2
1.1
107.7
1.2
80
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Other Economic Indicators
2009:1
2009:2
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
12,663.2
12,641.3
12,694.5
12,813.5
12,937.7
13,058.5
13,139.6
13,216.1
13,227.9
13,271.8
13,331.6
13,429.0
1.7
3.8
3.9
3.8
2.5
2.3
0.4
1.3
1.8
3.0
109.7
110.0
110.4
110.8
111.2
111.7
112.4
113.1
113.8
114.1
0.3
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.9
2.5
2.5
2.6
0.9
GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight
(in billions of $)
% Ch
(6.7)
(0.7)
Price and Wage Indicators
GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
109.7
1.7
109.6
(0.4)
Personal Consumption Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
108.2
(1.7)
108.7
1.9
109.5
3.0
110.3
2.8
110.8
1.9
110.9
0.3
111.1
1.0
111.7
1.9
112.7
3.9
113.7
3.3
114.3
2.3
114.7
1.2
Portland-Salem, OR-WA
214.0
214.2
216.8
217.6
217.3
217.8
218.5
219.9
222.2
224.0
225.5
226.7
% Ch
U.S.
(3.9)
212.4
0.5
213.5
4.8
215.4
1.6
217.0
(0.7)
217.4
0.9
217.3
1.3
218.0
2.6
219.6
4.4
222.1
3.1
224.5
2.7
226.2
2.2
227.0
% Ch
(2.5)
1.9
3.6
3.0
0.9
(0.3)
1.4
3.0
4.5
4.4
3.1
1.3
42.6
43.0
43.0
43.3
(0.6)
4.3
(0.1)
2.4
43.7
4.0
43.9
1.9
44.4
4.5
44.4
0.1
45.0
5.7
45.5
4.0
45.9
4.1
46.1
1.6
47.3
(6.6)
47.9
5.7
48.1
1.4
48.4
2.9
48.7
2.3
49.2
4.3
49.7
3.6
49.7
0.5
50.3
4.9
50.4
0.7
51.1
5.7
51.2
0.3
413.1
399.5
392.4
386.5
381.7
381.6
375.3
359.9
351.0
354.9
357.5
(12.9)
(12.5)
4.6
3.0
345.0
336.2
318.2
319.6
4.1
1.8
CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=100
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
U.S. Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Index 1987 Q1=100
% Ch
427.6
(2.1)
(6.9)
(5.9)
(4.9)
(0.1)
(6.5)
(15.4)
(9.6)
FHFA National Housing Price Index
(1980Q1=100)
% Ch
353.4
3.7
(9.1)
(9.8)
334.2
(2.4)
330.2
(4.7)
327.8
(2.9)
331.5
4.5
329.1
(2.8)
320.0
(10.6)
315.1
(6.0)
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
8.3
7.6
6.8
7.6
8.0
7.6
7.5
7.4
8.1
7.7
7.9
8.6
% Ch
U.S. (M illions)
(41.3)
0.5
(30.9)
0.5
(37.2)
0.6
57.6
0.6
22.7
0.6
(16.3)
0.6
(8.2)
0.6
(6.1)
0.5
43.5
0.6
(15.9)
0.6
8.0
0.6
44.2
0.7
(60.5)
6.8
47.0
(13.3)
40.5
(10.0)
(14.0)
(23.4)
33.8
(7.1)
32.1
49.0
10.5
2.1
8.3
1.4
11.5
1.0
9.3
1.0
11.3
(0.3)
9.6
0.4
10.9
(0.3)
9.9
0.3
11.0
0.0
9.8
(0.2)
10.8
(0.2)
9.6
(0.1)
10.5
(0.3)
9.5
(0.1)
10.3
(0.3)
9.6
0.0
9.7
(0.5)
9.0
(0.6)
9.5
(0.2)
9.0
0.0
9.5
(0.0)
9.1
0.0
9.1
(0.4)
8.7
(0.4)
86.6
(19.6)
84.0
(11.4)
85.0
5.0
86.2
5.6
87.8
7.9
89.7
8.6
91.1
6.6
91.6
2.2
92.6
4.4
92.9
1.2
94.2
5.6
95.3
5.1
3.3
(58.8)
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
% Ch
Other Indicators
Unemployment Rate (%)
Oregon
Point Change
U.S.
Point Change
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100
% Ch
Prime Rate (Percent)
% Ch
81
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Other Economic Indicators
2012:1
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2013:3
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
13,491.4
1.9
13,542.8
1.5
13,609.5
2.0
13,676.8
2.0
13,756.2
2.3
13,815.7
1.7
13,874.5
1.7
13,952.1
2.3
14,049.5
2.8
14,160.0
3.2
14,284.8
3.6
14,416.0
3.7
Price and Wage Indicators
GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
114.6
2.0
115.1
1.6
115.5
1.5
115.9
1.4
116.3
1.4
116.7
1.2
117.1
1.6
117.5
1.4
118.0
1.6
118.5
1.6
119.0
1.7
119.4
1.6
Personal Consumption Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
115.4
2.6
115.6
0.7
115.6
0.1
115.9
1.0
116.2
1.2
116.6
1.1
117.0
1.6
117.6
1.8
118.2
2.2
118.8
2.3
119.5
2.1
120.0
1.8
228.1
2.5
228.3
2.5
228.6
0.8
228.8
0.7
229.6
1.7
228.6
(0.2)
230.0
0.8
229.3
1.2
231.6
2.8
230.2
1.4
232.3
1.1
230.9
1.3
233.3
1.7
232.2
2.2
234.1
1.5
233.4
2.2
235.9
3.0
234.9
2.6
237.0
2.0
236.5
2.7
238.4
2.3
237.9
2.4
239.4
1.8
239.0
1.8
GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight
(in billions of $)
% Ch
CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=10
Portland-Salem, OR-WA
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
46.1
(0.4)
46.2
1.5
46.5
2.6
46.8
2.3
47.1
2.4
47.3
2.2
47.6
2.2
47.9
2.6
48.2
2.8
48.6
2.8
48.9
2.8
49.2
2.8
U.S. Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
51.3
1.1
51.4
0.7
51.8
2.9
52.1
2.6
52.4
2.7
52.8
2.4
53.1
2.3
53.4
2.4
53.7
2.7
54.1
2.7
54.5
2.8
54.8
2.8
Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Index 1987 Q1=100
% Ch
356.6
(1.1)
356.0
(0.7)
353.4
(2.9)
350.8
(2.9)
348.2
(2.9)
346.0
(2.5)
346.3
0.3
346.8
0.6
347.5
0.8
348.3
1.0
349.4
1.2
352.5
3.6
FHFA National Housing Price Index
(1980Q1=100)
% Ch
315.6
(5.0)
326.4
14.4
322.6
(4.5)
318.0
(5.6)
312.8
(6.5)
314.8
2.7
314.0
(1.0)
313.1
(1.2)
315.4
3.1
319.7
5.6
324.1
5.6
327.4
4.1
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
% Ch
U.S. (M illions)
% Ch
9.0
18.6
0.7
23.2
10.6
90.8
0.7
11.5
10.1
(15.2)
0.8
30.1
10.4
10.0
0.8
24.1
10.5
5.9
0.9
14.6
10.0
(18.4)
0.9
25.7
11.3
59.9
1.0
33.7
12.2
40.1
1.0
25.6
12.8
20.8
1.1
28.2
13.6
24.3
1.2
33.1
14.5
32.2
1.3
31.0
16.2
52.6
1.4
31.8
Other Indicators
Unemployment Rate (%)
Oregon
Point Change
U.S.
Point Change
8.7
(0.4)
8.3
(0.4)
8.5
(0.2)
8.2
(0.1)
8.6
0.1
8.1
(0.1)
8.4
(0.1)
8.0
(0.1)
8.3
(0.1)
8.0
(0.1)
8.1
(0.2)
8.0
(0.0)
7.9
(0.2)
7.9
(0.0)
7.7
(0.2)
7.9
(0.0)
7.6
(0.0)
7.9
(0.1)
7.6
(0.1)
7.8
(0.1)
7.4
(0.2)
7.6
(0.1)
7.3
(0.2)
7.4
(0.2)
96.6
5.6
97.4
3.1
97.7
1.2
98.3
2.3
98.9
2.6
99.4
2.3
99.9
1.9
100.5
2.2
101.3
3.5
102.3
3.9
103.4
4.5
104.5
4.3
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.5
39.6
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100
% Ch
Prime Rate (Percent)
% Ch
82
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Other Economic Indicators
2015:1
2015:2
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
2017:3
2017:4
14,530.7
3.2
14,645.3
3.2
14,758.4
3.1
14,867.8
3.0
14,978.0
3.0
15,089.2
3.0
15,203.8
3.1
15,319.4
3.1
15,426.5
2.8
15,536.4
2.9
15,646.7
2.9
15,759.1
2.9
Price and Wage Indicators
GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
120.0
1.9
120.5
1.7
121.0
1.6
121.5
1.6
122.0
1.8
122.5
1.5
122.9
1.5
123.4
1.4
123.9
1.7
124.3
1.5
124.8
1.5
125.2
1.5
Personal Consumption Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
120.6
1.9
121.1
1.8
121.6
1.8
122.2
1.8
122.7
1.7
123.2
1.7
123.7
1.6
124.2
1.6
124.7
1.7
125.2
1.6
125.7
1.6
126.2
1.6
CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=10
Portland-Salem, OR-WA
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
240.5
1.8
240.1
1.9
241.6
1.9
241.3
1.9
242.9
2.2
242.4
1.9
244.1
1.9
243.5
1.8
244.8
1.1
244.5
1.8
246.2
2.4
245.6
1.7
247.5
2.1
246.6
1.6
248.5
1.6
247.5
1.6
249.7
1.8
248.6
1.7
250.8
1.9
249.6
1.6
252.5
2.7
250.6
1.6
253.3
1.3
251.6
1.7
49.6
3.0
50.0
2.9
50.3
2.8
50.6
2.5
51.0
2.8
51.3
2.4
51.6
2.8
52.0
2.6
52.3
2.8
52.7
2.9
53.1
3.0
53.5
3.1
55.3
3.1
55.6
2.9
56.0
2.8
56.4
2.6
56.8
2.9
57.2
2.6
57.5
2.7
57.9
2.7
58.4
3.1
58.8
2.9
59.2
2.9
59.7
3.0
Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Index 1987 Q1=100
% Ch
357.2
5.4
361.4
4.8
363.7
2.6
364.1
0.4
366.1
2.2
371.2
5.7
370.7
(0.5)
369.0
(1.8)
376.4
8.3
381.4
5.4
384.3
3.1
385.0
0.7
FHFA National Housing Price Index
(1980Q1=100)
% Ch
330.2
3.6
335.8
6.9
338.4
3.1
339.9
1.8
342.5
3.1
348.2
6.8
347.4
(0.9)
345.3
(2.3)
352.6
8.7
357.6
5.7
360.4
3.2
360.9
0.6
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
% Ch
17.8
47.3
18.9
26.9
20.1
28.7
20.9
15.7
21.6
14.0
22.2
12.4
22.7
8.6
23.4
14.1
24.2
14.6
24.7
8.1
25.1
6.9
25.5
5.6
U.S. (M illions)
% Ch
1.4
24.1
1.5
21.7
1.6
16.7
1.6
9.9
1.6
6.9
1.6
4.5
1.7
6.5
1.7
8.2
1.7
5.9
1.7
3.8
1.7
1.4
1.7
0.2
Other Indicators
Unemployment Rate (%)
Oregon
Point Change
U.S.
Point Change
7.1
(0.1)
7.3
(0.2)
7.1
(0.1)
7.1
(0.2)
7.0
(0.1)
7.0
(0.1)
6.9
(0.1)
6.8
(0.1)
6.8
(0.1)
6.7
(0.1)
6.8
(0.0)
6.6
(0.1)
6.7
(0.1)
6.5
(0.1)
6.6
(0.1)
6.4
(0.1)
6.6
0.0
6.3
(0.1)
6.6
0.0
6.2
(0.1)
6.7
0.0
6.1
(0.1)
6.7
0.1
6.1
(0.1)
GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight
(in billions of $)
% Ch
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
U.S. Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100
% Ch
Prime Rate (Percent)
% Ch
105.6
4.0
106.5
3.5
107.3
3.0
108.0
2.6
108.7
2.6
109.3
2.6
110.1
2.9
110.9
3.0
111.7
2.9
112.5
2.9
113.3
2.9
114.1
2.7
4.0
72.1
4.5
57.0
5.1
56.7
5.6
49.9
6.1
43.0
6.6
32.7
7.0
25.6
7.0
2.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
83
TABLE A.2
Sep 2012 - Other Economic Indicators
2018:1
2018:2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
15,857.5
2.5
15,959.3
2.6
16,067.3
2.7
16,178.7
2.8
16,281.9
2.6
16,388.8
2.7
16,498.7
2.7
16,610.7
2.7
16,716.7
2.6
16,836.3
2.9
16,935.3
2.4
17,040.2
2.5
125.8
1.8
126.3
1.6
126.8
1.5
127.2
1.4
127.7
1.7
128.2
1.5
128.7
1.4
129.1
1.5
129.7
1.7
130.2
1.5
130.7
1.5
131.2
1.6
126.8
127.4
127.9
128.4
129.0
129.5
130.0
130.6
131.1
131.7
132.3
132.9
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.9
Portland-Salem, OR-WA
254.4
255.7
257.2
258.5
259.7
261.0
262.5
263.8
265.1
266.4
268.0
269.4
% Ch
U.S.
1.7
252.8
2.1
253.9
2.4
255.1
2.0
256.1
1.9
257.2
2.1
258.3
2.3
259.3
2.0
260.4
1.9
261.5
2.1
262.6
2.4
263.8
2.1
265.1
% Ch
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.8
2.0
53.9
2.9
54.2
1.9
54.6
3.1
55.0
3.2
55.4
3.2
55.9
3.0
56.3
3.1
56.7
3.2
57.2
3.2
57.6
2.6
58.0
3.4
58.5
3.5
60.1
3.2
60.6
3.0
61.0
3.1
61.5
3.1
62.0
3.3
62.5
3.1
63.0
3.1
63.5
3.2
64.0
3.4
64.4
2.6
65.0
3.6
65.5
3.4
388.6
3.8
395.6
7.4
395.9
0.3
396.1
0.2
400.9
4.9
409.5
8.9
407.5
(1.9)
407.0
(0.5)
414.1
7.2
423.8
9.7
421.1
(2.5)
420.5
(0.6)
363.9
3.4
370.5
7.4
370.2
(0.3)
369.9
(0.4)
374.0
4.6
382.0
8.9
379.5
(2.7)
378.4
(1.2)
384.9
7.0
394.0
9.8
390.8
(3.2)
389.7
(1.1)
GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight
(in billions of $)
% Ch
Price and Wage Indicators
GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
Personal Consumption Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=10
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
U.S. Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Index 1987 Q1=100
% Ch
FHFA National Housing Price Index
(1980Q1=100)
% Ch
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
% Ch
U.S. (M illions)
% Ch
25.2
(3.7)
1.7
(1.2)
25.3
1.9
1.7
(1.2)
25.9
8.1
1.7
0.0
25.6
(4.1)
1.7
(0.5)
25.4
(2.1)
1.7
(0.5)
25.5
1.4
1.7
(0.6)
25.8
4.8
1.7
(0.0)
25.6
(3.6)
1.7
(0.3)
25.6
0.4
1.7
(1.1)
25.5
(2.2)
1.7
(1.4)
25.7
2.6
1.7
(0.3)
25.3
(5.3)
1.7
(1.9)
Other Indicators
Unemployment Rate (%)
Oregon
Point Change
U.S.
Point Change
6.8
0.1
6.0
(0.1)
6.8
0.0
6.0
(0.0)
6.8
(0.0)
5.9
(0.1)
6.7
(0.1)
5.9
(0.1)
6.4
(0.3)
5.8
(0.0)
6.3
(0.1)
5.8
(0.0)
6.2
(0.1)
5.7
(0.0)
6.0
(0.1)
5.7
(0.0)
5.9
(0.1)
5.6
(0.0)
5.7
(0.1)
5.6
(0.1)
5.6
(0.1)
5.5
(0.0)
5.4
(0.1)
5.5
(0.0)
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100
% Ch
Prime Rate (Percent)
% Ch
114.8
115.6
116.3
117.1
117.9
118.8
119.6
120.5
121.3
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
84
122.1
2.7
7.0
(0.0)
122.9
2.7
123.8
2.8
7.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
APPENDIX B:
REVENUE FORECAST DETAIL
Table B.1 General Fund Revenue Statement - 2011-13 September 2012 Forecast .................... 86
Table B.2 General Fund Revenue Forecast by Fiscal Year ........................................................ 87
Table B.3 Summary of 2011 Legislative Session Adjustments .................................................. 88
Table B.4 Oregon Personal Income Tax Revenue Forecast ........................................................ 89
Table B.5 Oregon Corporate Income Tax Revenue Forecast ..................................................... 91
Table B.6 Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Distribution .................................................................... 93
Table B.7 Revenue Distribution to Local Governments ............................................................. 94
Table B.8 Track Record for the June 2012 Forecast ................................................................... 95
Table B.9 Summary of Lottery Resources .................................................................................. 96
Table B.10 Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook .............................................................. 97
85
86
7,007,379,000
7,007,379,000
31,452,000
446,262,137
95,109,342
Notes: Corporate income tax figure includes Corporate Multistate taxes.
Other taxes include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Severance T ax, Western Oregon Severance T ax and Amusement Device T ax.
Cigarette and Other T obacco T axes are gross tax receipts. Distributions, net of administrative costs, are reported in the T able B.6.
Detailed entries may not add to totals due to rounding.
* Administrative Actions equal expenses associated with cashflow management, exclusive of internal borrowing.
Estimated Ending Balance
13,723,769,658
13,723,769,658
0
13,818,879,000
0
(14,066,000)
0
13,832,945,000
13,832,945,000
162,086,000
8,500,000
10,913,000
5,576,000
6,896,395,000
6,896,395,000
130,634,000
4,897,000
7,460,000
110,200,000
7,024,561,000
7,024,561,000
31,452,000
5,000,000
3,453,000
120,271,000
5,576,000
64,402,000
24,285,000
31,484,000
10,681,000
415,375,000
48,905,000
93,872,000
36,496,000
28,929,000
656,000
6,103,724,000
2012-13
192,791,342
13,723,769,658
13,723,769,658
0
13,916,561,000
0
(4,395,000)
0
13,920,956,000
13,920,956,000
162,086,000
9,897,000
10,913,000
230,471,000
11,152,000
133,196,000
50,800,000
68,692,000
19,545,000
11,956,608,000
0
842,577,000
96,381,000
195,638,000
74,434,000
57,016,000
1,550,000
Total
2011-13
0
97,682,000
0
9,671,000
0
88,011,000
88,011,000
0
1,397,000
0
5,555,000
0
5,201,000
737,000
3,853,000
(345,000)
36,709,000
0
28,061,000
(627,000)
8,254,000
440,000
(1,245,000)
21,000
Difference
09/1/2012 Less
6/1/2012
97,682,000
0
6,825,566,000
6,825,566,000
130,634,000
3,453,000
5,000,000
11,152,000
224,916,000
68,794,000
26,515,000
37,208,000
8,864,000
427,202,000
47,476,000
101,766,000
37,938,000
28,087,000
894,000
5,852,884,000
2011-12
Forecasts Dated: 9/1/2012
Projected Expenditures
13,562,594,263
7,460,000
3,500,000
5,576,000
114,707,000
127,995,000
50,063,000
64,839,000
19,890,000
11,919,899,000
0
814,516,000
97,008,000
187,384,000
73,994,000
58,261,000
1,529,000
Total
2011-13
0
13,562,594,263
Legislatively Adopted Budget
5,576,000
110,209,000
60,922,000
24,366,000
29,718,000
10,701,000
395,906,000
48,760,000
93,872,000
36,496,000
29,757,000
656,000
418,610,000
48,248,000
93,512,000
37,498,000
28,504,000
873,000
67,073,000
25,697,000
35,121,000
9,189,000
6,116,037,000
2012-13
5,803,862,000
2011-12
Forecasts Dated: 6/1/2012
Plus Administrative Actions
14,008,856,400
(23,135,600)
Available Resources
Plus Legislatively Adopted Actions**
Less Anticipated Administrative Actions*
0
14,031,992,000
Net General Fund Revenues
Plus Beginning Balance
14,031,992,000
60,300,000
One-time Transfers
Gross General Fund Revenues
9,913,000
15,800,000
Liquor Apportionment
Miscellaneous Revenues1
11,152,000
187,388,000
Central Service Charges
Interest Earnings
88,237,000
47,039,000
80,598,000
19,070,000
12,193,553,000
0
894,243,000
100,258,000
190,284,000
74,244,000
58,586,000
1,327,000
Fines and Fees
State Court Fees
Secretary of State Fees
Criminal Fines & Assessments
Securities Fees
Taxes
Personal Income T axes (Before Kicker)
Implicit Kicker Offset
Corporate Income T axes (Before Kicker)
Insurance T axes
Estate T axes
Cigarette T axes
Other T obacco Products T axes
Other T axes
Estimate at
COS 2011
Table B.1
General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2011-13
(253,470,795)
161,175,395
0
161,175,395
(92,295,400)
0
18,740,600
0
(111,036,000)
(111,036,000)
101,786,000
(5,903,000)
1,000,000
43,083,000
0
44,959,000
3,761,000
(11,906,000)
475,000
(236,945,000)
0
(51,666,000)
(3,877,000)
5,354,000
190,000
(1,570,000)
223,000
09/1/2012 Less
COS
Table B.1 General Fund Revenue Statement - 2011-13 September 2012 Forecast 1
87
12,521.4
171.1
8.2
198.3
4.7
458.3
10,467.2
827.6
90.5
168.9
76.8
47.3
2.5
2009-11
Biennium
6,017.1
79.5
4.1
104.4
2.8
321.4
4,943.2
359.0
51.0
92.6
37.5
20.0
1.6
6.8%
-0.7%
-6.2%
11.9%
-94.4%
360.5%
3.7%
20.9%
0.8%
-14.2%
-5.0%
37.2%
69.0%
Percent
Change
6,504.3
91.7
4.1
93.9
1.8
136.9
5,524.0
468.6
39.5
76.2
39.3
27.4
0.9
2010-11
Fiscal Year
13,921.0
272.2
11.2
230.5
10.9
172.0
11,956.6
842.6
96.4
195.6
74.4
57.0
1.6
2011-13
Biennium
6,896.4
141.4
5.6
110.2
7.5
135.5
5,852.9
427.2
47.5
101.8
37.9
28.1
0.9
2011-12
Fiscal Year
11.2%
59.1%
36.4%
16.2%
133.6%
-62.5%
14.2%
1.8%
6.5%
15.9%
-3.1%
20.5%
-37.9%
Percent
Change
7,024.6
130.9
5.6
120.3
3.5
36.5
6,103.7
415.4
48.9
93.9
36.5
28.9
0.7
2012-13
Fiscal Year
15,454.8
265.3
11.2
225.0
10.0
15.5
13,416.9
1,070.8
105.7
204.0
68.7
60.5
1.3
2013-15
Biennium
7,442.3
134.8
5.6
110.3
4.3
7.5
6,450.7
511.9
51.7
99.9
35.1
29.8
0.6
2013-14
Fiscal Year
11.0%
-2.6%
0.0%
-2.4%
-8.7%
-91.0%
12.2%
27.1%
9.7%
4.3%
-7.7%
6.1%
-18.6%
Percent
Change
8,012.6
130.5
5.6
114.8
5.6
8.0
6,966.2
558.9
54.0
104.1
33.6
30.7
0.6
2014-15
Fiscal Year
17,178.5
270.4
11.2
240.0
14.9
16.6
15,069.0
1,083.7
115.9
229.1
62.3
64.2
1.2
2015-17
Biennium
8,429.1
137.1
5.6
118.2
7.0
8.2
7,376.2
544.7
56.7
111.1
32.1
31.6
0.6
2015-16
Fiscal Year
11.2%
1.9%
0.0%
6.6%
50.0%
7.1%
12.3%
1.2%
9.6%
12.3%
-9.3%
6.1%
-2.0%
Percent
Change
8,749.4
133.3
5.6
121.8
8.0
8.4
7,692.8
539.0
59.2
118.1
30.2
32.6
0.6
2016-17
Fiscal Year
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.
Total General Fund
Licenses and Fees
Charges for Services
Liquor Apportionment
Interest Earnings
Others
Other Revenues
Personal Income
Corporate Excise & Income
Insurance
Estate Taxes
Cigarette
Other Tobacco Products
Other Taxes
Taxes
Biennial Totals
Total General Fund
Licenses and Fees
Charges for Services
Liquor Apportionment
Interest Earnings
Others
Other Revenues
Personal Income
Corporate Excise & Income
Insurance
Estate
Cigarette
Other Tobacco Products
Other Taxes
Taxes
Fiscal Years
2009-10
Fiscal Year
($Millions)
TABLE B.2
General Fund Revenue Forecast
18,791.6
276.4
11.2
254.6
29.3
16.8
16,638.4
1,056.6
125.6
256.4
56.4
68.9
1.2
2017-19
Biennium
9,144.9
140.1
5.6
125.4
11.8
8.4
8,074.2
530.3
61.8
124.1
28.8
33.8
0.6
2017-18
Fiscal Year
9.4%
2.2%
0.0%
6.1%
95.9%
1.2%
10.4%
-2.5%
8.3%
11.9%
-9.6%
7.3%
-0.4%
Percent
Change
9,646.7
136.3
5.6
129.2
17.5
8.4
8,564.2
526.3
63.8
132.3
27.5
35.1
0.6
2018-19
Fiscal Year
20,671.8
282.7
11.2
270.1
57.1
16.8
18,405.7
1,081.7
134.3
285.4
51.4
74.2
1.2
2019-21
Biennium
10,096.8
143.3
5.6
133.1
24.4
8.4
8,982.8
531.1
66.1
138.8
26.3
36.4
0.6
2019-20
Fiscal Year
10.0%
2.3%
0.0%
6.1%
95.1%
0.0%
10.6%
2.4%
6.9%
11.3%
-8.8%
7.7%
0.0%
Percent
Change
10,574.9
139.5
5.6
137.0
32.7
8.4
9,422.8
550.6
68.2
146.6
25.1
37.8
0.6
2020-21
Fiscal Year
September 2012
Table B.2 General Fund Revenue Forecast by Fiscal Year 1
Table B.3 Summary of 2011 Legislative Session Adjustments 1
Biennia
2011-13
2013-15
2015-17
2017-19
2019-21
Staff
Measure
Summary
Revenue
Impact
Statement
HB 2154
HB 2523
HB 2528
HB 3170
HB 3454
HB 3606
HB 3672
HB 2154
HB 2523
HB 2528
HB 3170
HB 3454
HB 3606
HB 3672
SB 301
SB 817
SB 301
SB 817
HB 2071
HB 2071
HB 5040
HB 2154
HB 2523
HB 2527
HB 3058
HB 3170
HB 3606
HB 3672
HB 2154
HB 2523
HB 2527
HB 3058
HB 3170
HB 3606
HB 3672
SB 301
SB 817
SB 301
SB 817
HB 2071
HB 2071
HB 5040
SB 939
Personal Income Tax Impacts (Millions)
Tax Law Change
Farmworker Credit - HB 2154
BETC Administration - HB 2523
529 College Savings - HB 2728
Diesel Engine Tax Credit - HB 3170
Net Operating Loss - HB 3454
BETC Clarification - HB 3606
Tax Credits - HB 3672
BETC
Biomass
E-commerce Zone
Film & Video
Fish Screening
Oregon Investment Advantage
Renewables
Conservation
Transportation
RETC
Federal Reconnect - SB 301
Community Jobs Initiative - SB 817
Compliance Bills
Tax Preparers E-file - HB 2071
DOR Enforcement - HB 5040
Personal Income Tax Total
-$0.01
$0.00
$0.00
$0.22
$0.80
$0.00
-$0.01
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.12
$0.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.00
$0.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.00
$0.26
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.00
$0.17
$0.00
$7.90
-$3.60
-$0.01
-$6.00
-$0.02
$0.00
-$2.00
-$2.30
-$1.00
-$7.60
$0.00
$0.00
$6.40
-$7.60
-$0.02
-$12.00
-$0.04
-$0.10
-$2.25
-$6.60
-$1.90
-$21.20
$0.00
-$4.60
$3.20
-$8.30
-$0.02
-$12.00
-$0.04
-$0.05
-$2.25
-$8.20
-$1.70
-$28.40
$0.00
-$23.30
$2.00
-$4.65
-$0.01
-$7.00
-$0.02
-$0.02
-$1.13
-$7.70
-$0.70
-$20.50
$0.00
-$25.50
$1.80
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.20
$0.00
-$0.01
$0.00
-$3.50
-$0.25
$0.00
$0.00
-$7.60
$0.00
$5.50
$0.00
$5.60
$0.00
$5.60
$0.00
$5.60
$0.00
$5.60
$-8.13
-$43.73
-$75.09
-$59.40
-$4.02
-$0.02
$0.00
$0.00
-$1.40
$0.09
$0.00
-$0.02
$0.00
-$2.80
-$1.40
$0.08
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$5.20
-$1.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$7.70
-$1.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$6.10
-$1.40
$0.00
$0.00
$11.90
-$0.30
-$0.80
-$0.04
-$0.10
-$0.80
-$0.20
-$0.01
$0.00
-$0.50
-$3.20
-$1.30
$0.00
$0.00
$10.00
-$0.60
-$1.60
-$0.08
-$0.20
-$1.70
-$0.40
-$0.01
-$0.10
-$0.75
-$9.60
-$2.90
$0.00
-$0.70
$4.80
-$0.70
-$1.60
-$0.08
-$0.20
-$2.10
-$0.40
-$0.01
-$0.05
-$0.75
-$12.10
-$2.60
$0.00
-$5.50
$3.10
-$0.50
-$1.30
-$0.06
-$0.10
-$1.70
-$0.20
-$0.01
-$0.02
-$0.38
-$10.60
-$0.90
$0.00
-$6.50
$2.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$3.50
-$0.20
$0.00
-$2.50
$0.00
$9.20
$18.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$30.52
-$3.38
-$18.49
-$18.86
-$1.80
$58.10
$0.00
$33.13
$22.20
-$7.44
$2.20
$0.00
$0.00
$40.43
$20.71
-$22.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$42.83
$22.05
-$32.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$45.40
$23.50
-$34.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$47.50
$25.50
-$34.00
$0.00
$108.19
$39.14
$32.88
$34.90
$39.00
Corporate Income Tax Impacts (Millions)
Tax Law Change
Farmworker Credit - HB 2154
BETC Administration - HB 2523
Housing Lender Credit - HB 2527
Ag CoopMin Tax - HB 3058
Diesel Engine Tax Credit - HB 3170
BETC Clarification - HB 3606
Tax Credits - HB 3672
BETC
Biomass
Fire Insurance
E-commerce Zone
Long-Term Rural EZ
R&D
Film & Video
Fish Screening
Oregon Investment Advantage
Renewables
Conservation
Transportation
Federal Reconnect - SB 301
Community Jobs Initiative - SB 817
Compliance Bills
Tax Preparers E-file - HB 2071
DOR Enforcement - HB 5040
Other Transfers - SB 939
Corporate Income Tax Total
SB 939
Other Tax/Revenue Impacts (Millions)
Other Transfers - SB 939
Inheritance Tax - HB 2541
Court Fees - HB 2710
Criminal Fine Account - HB 2712
OUS Interest Earnings - SB 242
OLCC Transfers - SB 5522
Other Tax Total
88
SB 939
HB 2541
HB 2710
HB 2712
SB 242
SB 939
HB 2541
HB 2710
HB 2712
SB 242
SB 5522
Table B.4 Oregon Personal Income Tax Revenue Forecast 1
TABLE B.4
OREGON PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted
2005:3
2005:4
2006:1
2006:2
1,064,107
8.4%
1,087,942
6.4%
1,177,488
10.5%
1,075,476
6.0%
194,848
22.4%
186,648
36.4%
224,403
11.4%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
51,797
16.8%
68,000
27.6%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
62,638
-9.4%
94,755
17.8%
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
OTHER
(149,733)
TOTAL
%CHYA
2006:4
2007:1
2007:2
4,405,013
7.8%
1,118,878
5.1%
1,172,656
7.8%
1,182,336
0.4%
1,088,108
1.2%
4,561,977
3.6%
270,754
0.3%
876,653
14.2%
231,720
18.9%
177,026
-5.2%
267,345
19.1%
363,055
34.1%
1,039,146
18.5%
88,998
13.8%
787,622
49.4%
996,416
41.7%
55,408
7.0%
89,432
31.5%
100,476
12.9%
779,577
-1.0%
1,024,893
2.9%
345,524
0.7%
358,699
-1.4%
861,617
0.6%
89,254
42.5%
126,707
33.7%
444,768
28.7%
369,456
3.0%
1,030,186
19.6%
-
176,911
27,178
1,098,381
10.9%
1,247,835
10.2%
1,145,365
14.3%
1,952,063
22.2%
2007:3
2007:4
2008:1
2008:2
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%
250,749
8.2%
217,163
22.7%
281,441
5.3%
399,475
10.0%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
57,503
3.8%
129,817
45.2%
104,841
4.3%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
71,372
-20.0%
155,912
23.0%
389,876
-12.3%
(177,781)
(1,084,201)
1,174,457
3.0%
307,689
-76.6%
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
OTHER
TOTAL
%CHYA
September 2012
2006:3
-
FY 2006
-
5,443,644
15.3%
(176,911)
-
-
177,781
FY 2007
870
1,139,841
3.8%
1,312,406
5.2%
1,105,388
-3.5%
2,039,066
4.5%
2008:3
2008:4
2009:1
2009:2
1,162,107
4.2%
1,182,763
-1.5%
1,128,994
-5.6%
1,089,305
-2.0%
4,563,169
-1.3%
1,148,828
10.6%
264,440
5.5%
174,826
-19.5%
217,305
-22.8%
263,135
-34.1%
919,707
-19.9%
971,325
24.6%
1,263,486
23.3%
70,306
22.3%
99,430
-23.4%
104,105
-0.7%
529,995
-45.4%
803,836
-36.4%
365,908
-1.0%
983,068
-4.6%
92,063
29.0%
180,329
15.7%
447,706
14.8%
404,229
10.5%
1,124,327
14.4%
FY 2008
182,322
(1,079,660)
(182,322)
1,192,938
7.9%
2,298,247
12.7%
4,973,332
-11.1%
1,222,469
4.1%
1,276,690
314.9%
1,002,698
-15.9%
1,616,726
-29.7%
-
138,521
FY 2009
(43,801)
5,118,583
2.9%
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
1,092,795
-6.0%
1,151,673
-2.6%
1,157,857
2.6%
1,116,552
2.5%
4,518,878
-1.0%
1,146,189
4.9%
1,196,214
3.9%
1,262,781
9.1%
1,218,439
9.1%
4,823,622
6.7%
176,110
-33.4%
161,759
-7.5%
186,894
-14.0%
265,703
1.0%
790,467
-14.1%
179,692
2.0%
148,589
-8.1%
207,036
10.8%
284,662
7.1%
819,978
3.7%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
63,363
-9.9%
77,013
-22.5%
105,745
1.6%
515,262
-2.8%
761,383
-5.3%
62,259
-1.7%
81,728
6.1%
114,877
8.6%
607,592
17.9%
866,456
13.8%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
96,477
4.8%
188,704
4.6%
459,550
2.6%
380,459
-5.9%
1,125,190
0.1%
92,291
-4.3%
151,515
-19.7%
432,478
-5.9%
340,652
-10.5%
1,016,937
-9.6%
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
OTHER
(138,521)
TOTAL
%CHYA
-
-
136,193
(2,328)
(136,193)
1,159,655
5.7%
1,275,015
6.1%
1,152,216
16.3%
1,935,973
17.1%
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
1,259,747
2.0%
1,329,099
3.3%
1,400,570
3.9%
1,341,507
5.7%
5,330,922
3.7%
878,797
7.2%
219,813
12.9%
205,344
10.9%
245,659
23.3%
316,456
5.6%
987,271
12.3%
627,762
3.3%
918,512
6.0%
90,738
5.6%
76,943
-11.8%
112,318
-4.5%
684,096
9.0%
964,095
5.0%
360,618
5.9%
1,112,377
9.4%
74,631
15.4%
184,050
17.8%
531,937
0.2%
388,024
7.6%
1,178,642
6.0%
1,201,740
-5.9%
2011:3
2011:4
2012:1
2012:2
1,235,508
7.8%
1,287,030
7.6%
1,348,171
6.8%
1,269,562
4.2%
5,140,271
6.6%
194,674
8.3%
185,239
24.7%
199,238
-3.8%
299,646
5.3%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
85,889
38.0%
87,233
6.7%
117,628
2.4%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
64,687
-29.9%
156,272
3.1%
530,800
22.7%
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
OTHER
TOTAL
%CHYA
(165,933)
1,285,451
10.8%
1,403,230
10.1%
1,134,237
-1.6%
FY 2011
4,943,210
-3.4%
1,097,271
-10.2%
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
990,947
-1.2%
FY 2010
-
5,596,701
2.8%
1,653,251
2.3%
FY 2012
193,614
27,681
2,029,966
4.9%
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.
89
5,852,884
6.0%
(193,614)
1,302,053
1.3%
-
1,427,335
1.7%
-
1,226,610
8.1%
165,933
193,691
2,147,726
5.8%
29,740
5,522,860
11.7%
FY 2013
77
6,103,724
4.3%
TABLE B.4
OREGON PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
REFUNDS
%CHYA
OTHER
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
REFUNDS
%CHYA
OTHER
TOTAL
%CHYA
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
REFUNDS
%CHYA
OTHER
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
OTHER
2014:1
2014:2
1,315,729
4.4%
1,367,362
2.9%
1,475,554
5.4%
1,414,476
5.4%
272,276
23.9%
216,863
5.6%
312,668
27.3%
58,826
-35.2%
81,872
6.4%
113,986
52.7%
192,242
4.5%
September 2012
2014:3
2014:4
2015:1
2015:2
5,573,122
4.5%
1,387,280
5.4%
1,441,726
5.4%
1,566,849
6.2%
1,503,786
6.3%
5,899,640
5.9%
341,739
8.0%
1,143,547
15.8%
294,029
8.0%
234,190
8.0%
337,601
8.0%
368,193
7.7%
1,234,013
7.9%
87,814
-21.8%
779,880
14.0%
1,008,391
4.6%
62,686
6.6%
87,207
6.5%
98,321
12.0%
905,439
16.1%
1,153,654
14.4%
547,822
3.0%
430,529
11.0%
1,284,580
9.0%
118,408
3.9%
197,764
2.9%
571,314
4.3%
446,834
3.8%
1,334,320
3.9%
-
-
FY 2014
203,903
10,212
1,339,154
2.8%
1,473,854
3.3%
1,328,214
8.3%
2,309,470
7.5%
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
6,450,692
5.7%
FY 2016
(203,903)
-
-
217,110
1,421,685
6.2%
1,565,358
6.2%
1,431,457
7.8%
2,547,693
10.3%
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
FY 2015
13,207
6,966,194
8.0%
FY 2017
1,474,846
6.3%
1,532,737
6.3%
1,653,665
5.5%
1,585,154
5.4%
6,246,402
5.9%
1,554,676
5.4%
1,615,692
5.4%
1,731,012
4.7%
1,657,323
4.6%
6,558,703
5.0%
316,790
7.7%
252,318
7.7%
363,024
7.5%
384,051
4.3%
1,316,182
6.7%
330,434
4.3%
263,185
4.3%
378,718
4.3%
401,626
4.6%
1,373,963
4.4%
70,680
12.8%
99,104
13.6%
106,116
7.9%
955,901
5.6%
1,231,801
6.8%
75,797
7.2%
105,757
6.7%
112,256
5.8%
997,051
4.3%
1,290,861
4.8%
124,457
5.1%
205,271
3.8%
601,308
5.2%
499,505
11.8%
1,430,541
7.2%
132,554
6.5%
216,823
5.6%
639,155
6.3%
553,101
10.7%
1,541,633
7.8%
-217,110
0
0
229,441
12,332
-229,441
0
0
240,374
10,932
1,520,749
7.0%
1,678,888
7.3%
1,521,497
6.3%
2,655,042
4.2%
7,376,176
5.9%
1,598,911
5.1%
1,767,811
5.3%
1,582,831
4.0%
2,743,272
3.3%
7,692,826
4.3%
2017:3
2017:4
2018:1
2018:2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
1,625,487
4.6%
1,689,272
4.6%
1,829,770
5.7%
1,755,142
5.9%
6,899,670
5.2%
1,721,379
5.9%
1,788,942
5.9%
1,948,238
6.5%
1,870,476
6.6%
7,329,036
6.2%
345,556
4.6%
275,230
4.6%
396,298
4.6%
424,432
5.7%
1,441,515
4.9%
365,178
5.7%
290,858
5.7%
418,653
5.6%
445,892
5.1%
1,520,581
5.5%
80,105
5.7%
111,383
5.3%
118,106
5.2%
1,040,142
4.3%
1,349,736
4.6%
84,186
5.1%
116,845
4.9%
124,293
5.2%
1,100,773
5.8%
1,426,097
5.7%
149,363
12.7%
226,532
4.5%
664,624
4.0%
590,949
6.8%
1,631,468
5.8%
156,291
4.6%
235,036
3.8%
703,262
5.8%
634,467
7.4%
1,729,056
6.0%
(240,374)
TOTAL
%CHYA
TOTAL
%CHYA
2013:4
(193,691)
TOTAL
%CHYA
REFUNDS
%CHYA
2013:3
-
-
FY 2018
255,120
14,747
1,661,411
3.9%
1,849,353
4.6%
1,679,550
6.1%
2,883,887
5.1%
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
8,074,201
5.0%
FY 2020
(255,120)
-
-
272,625
1,759,331
5.9%
1,961,610
6.1%
1,787,922
6.5%
3,055,299
5.9%
2020:3
2020:4
2021:1
2021:2
FY 2019
17,505
8,564,162
6.1%
FY 2021
1,834,470
6.6%
1,906,480
6.6%
2,050,301
5.2%
1,964,284
5.0%
7,755,535
5.8%
1,926,533
5.0%
2,002,137
5.0%
2,155,227
5.1%
2,065,148
5.1%
8,149,046
5.1%
386,641
5.9%
308,564
6.1%
442,419
5.7%
464,286
4.1%
1,601,910
5.3%
399,886
3.4%
319,114
3.4%
458,113
3.5%
489,535
5.4%
1,666,648
4.0%
92,680
10.1%
127,212
8.9%
130,303
4.8%
1,097,265
-0.3%
1,447,460
1.5%
93,695
1.1%
128,010
0.6%
135,262
3.8%
1,155,933
5.3%
1,512,900
4.5%
161,063
3.1%
247,262
5.2%
745,431
6.0%
681,813
7.5%
1,835,570
6.2%
171,531
6.5%
260,304
5.3%
769,868
3.3%
718,675
5.4%
1,920,379
4.6%
-272,625
0
0
286,132
13,507
-286,132
0
0
300,764
14,632
1,880,103
6.9%
2,094,994
6.8%
1,877,592
5.0%
3,130,154
2.5%
8,982,843
4.9%
1,962,451
4.4%
2,188,957
4.5%
1,978,733
5.4%
3,292,705
5.2%
9,422,847
4.9%
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.
90
Table B.5 Oregon Corporate Income Tax Revenue Forecast 1
TABLE B.5
OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted
2005:3
2005:4
2006:1
FY
2006
2006:2
2006:3
2006:4
2007:1
September 2012
2007:2
FY
2007
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%
588,396
12.0%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
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%
127,941
32.6%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
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%
310,480
68.9%
TOTAL
%CHYA
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%
405,857
-7.4%
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
2007:3
2007:4
2008:1
FY
2008
2008:2
2008:3
2008:4
2009:1
2009:2
FY
2009
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%
97,368
-37.3%
407,044
-27.1%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
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%
21,822
-58.1%
94,357
-39.5%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
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%
37,218
-5.5%
257,649
-5.8%
TOTAL
%CHYA
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%
81,971
-51.2%
243,753
-44.7%
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
FY
2010
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
FY
2011
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
79,579
-20.9%
163,877
12.8%
66,451
4.2%
147,313
51.3%
457,220
12.3%
115,286
44.9%
175,561
7.1%
76,405
15.0%
165,354
12.2%
532,606
16.5%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
20,404
-13.2%
24,009
-10.2%
38,412
72.1%
45,714
109.5%
128,539
36.2%
21,781
6.8%
21,206
-11.7%
35,770
-6.9%
40,805
-10.7%
119,562
-7.0%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
29,072
3.3%
137,244
9.9%
40,080
-40.6%
25,774
-30.7%
232,170
-9.9%
23,130
-20.4%
89,877
-34.5%
39,065
-2.5%
31,489
22.2%
183,562
-20.9%
TOTAL
%CHYA
70,910
-26.1%
50,642
7.3%
64,784
247.5%
167,254
104.0%
353,589
45.1%
113,936
60.7%
106,890
111.1%
73,111
12.9%
174,670
4.4%
468,606
32.5%
2011:3
1
2011:4
2012:1
FY
2012
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
FY
2013
120,766
4.8%
154,290
-12.1%
86,873
13.7%
152,866
-7.6%
514,795
-3.3%
128,346
6.3%
163,947
6.3%
88,213
1.5%
164,764
7.8%
545,270
5.9%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
19,117
-12.2%
26,841
26.6%
32,512
-9.1%
33,322
-18.3%
111,792
-6.5%
21,674
13.4%
26,516
-1.2%
36,829
13.3%
39,421
18.3%
124,440
11.3%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
34,927
51.0%
91,252
1.5%
55,051
40.9%
18,154
-42.3%
199,384
8.6%
49,714
42.3%
103,079
13.0%
63,810
15.9%
37,731
107.8%
254,334
27.6%
TOTAL1
%CHYA
104,955
-7.9%
89,878
-15.9%
64,335
-12.0%
168,034
-3.8%
427,202
-8.8%
100,306
-4.4%
87,384
-2.8%
61,232
-4.8%
166,454
-0.9%
415,375
-2.8%
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
91
TABLE B.5
OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted
2013:3
1
2013:4
2014:1
FY
2014
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
2015:1
September 2012
2015:2
FY
2015
142,085
10.7%
193,308
17.9%
99,878
13.2%
189,722
15.1%
624,993
14.6%
155,568
9.5%
202,778
4.9%
103,961
4.1%
199,142
5.0%
661,449
5.8%
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
20,253
-6.6%
28,707
8.3%
40,227
9.2%
45,185
14.6%
134,371
8.0%
25,239
24.6%
32,964
14.8%
45,298
12.6%
48,773
7.9%
152,275
13.3%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
48,246
-3.0%
95,411
-7.4%
63,757
-0.1%
40,021
6.1%
247,436
-2.7%
48,121
-0.3%
95,700
0.3%
66,371
4.1%
44,655
11.6%
254,846
3.0%
TOTAL1
%CHYA
114,091
13.7%
126,604
44.9%
76,347
24.7%
194,885
17.1%
511,928
23.2%
132,687
16.3%
140,042
10.6%
82,889
8.6%
203,260
4.3%
558,878
9.2%
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
2015:3
ADVANCE PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
2015:4
2016:1
FY
2016
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
FY
2017
159,405
2.5%
201,701
-0.5%
103,744
-0.2%
197,572
-0.8%
662,422
0.1%
157,563
-1.2%
205,023
1.6%
106,110
2.3%
200,932
1.7%
669,628
1.1%
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
28,261
12.0%
33,267
0.9%
45,095
-0.4%
47,215
-3.2%
153,838
1.0%
26,351
-6.8%
32,063
-3.6%
43,728
-3.0%
46,327
-1.9%
148,470
-3.5%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
52,736
9.6%
100,765
5.3%
71,345
7.5%
46,712
4.6%
271,557
6.6%
54,563
3.5%
103,036
2.3%
72,907
2.2%
48,565
4.0%
279,072
2.8%
TOTAL1
%CHYA
134,931
1.7%
134,204
-4.2%
77,493
-6.5%
198,074
-2.6%
544,702
-2.5%
129,352
-4.1%
134,049
-0.1%
76,931
-0.7%
198,694
0.3%
539,025
-1.0%
2017:3
1
2017:4
2018:1
FY
2018
2018:2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
FY
2019
158,855
0.8%
205,774
0.4%
106,190
0.1%
200,572
-0.2%
671,390
0.3%
157,806
-0.7%
204,202
-0.8%
106,328
0.1%
201,059
0.2%
669,395
-0.3%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
25,648
-2.7%
31,527
-1.7%
42,945
-1.8%
45,494
-1.8%
145,613
-1.9%
24,853
-3.1%
30,816
-2.3%
42,684
-0.6%
45,715
0.5%
144,068
-1.1%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
57,074
4.6%
105,137
2.0%
74,519
2.2%
49,935
2.8%
286,664
2.7%
57,768
1.2%
105,201
0.1%
74,502
0.0%
49,741
-0.4%
287,212
0.2%
127,429
-1.5%
132,164
-1.4%
74,616
-3.0%
196,131
-1.3%
530,339
-1.6%
124,890
-2.0%
129,816
-1.8%
74,510
-0.1%
197,034
0.5%
526,251
-0.8%
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
1
TOTAL
%CHYA
2019:3
1
2019:4
2020:1
FY
2020
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
2021:1
2021:2
FY
2021
158,079
0.2%
203,922
-0.1%
107,285
0.9%
200,465
-0.3%
669,752
0.1%
158,943
0.5%
205,875
1.0%
110,179
2.7%
202,661
1.1%
677,658
1.2%
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
25,435
2.3%
31,856
3.4%
43,721
2.4%
46,937
2.7%
147,950
2.7%
26,809
5.4%
33,563
5.4%
45,604
4.3%
48,994
4.4%
154,971
4.7%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
57,834
0.1%
105,398
0.2%
74,303
-0.3%
49,023
-1.4%
286,558
-0.2%
56,940
-1.5%
104,558
-0.8%
73,151
-1.6%
47,421
-3.3%
282,070
-1.6%
125,680
0.6%
130,381
0.4%
76,703
2.9%
198,380
0.7%
531,144
0.9%
128,812
2.5%
134,881
3.5%
82,632
7.7%
204,234
3.0%
550,559
3.7%
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
TOTAL
%CHYA
1
Includes adjustments for changes in tax law.
92
93
37.938
36.496
74.434
35.114
33.619
68.733
32.134
30.186
62.319
28.827
27.530
56.357
26.291
25.108
51.399
2011-12
2012-13
2011-13 Biennium
2013-14
2014-15
2013-15 Biennium
2015-16
2016-17
2015-17 Biennium
2017-18
2018-19
2017-19 Biennium
2019-20
2020-21
2019-21 Biennium
102.464
97.853
200.317
112.348
107.292
219.640
125.234
117.641
242.875
136.847
131.022
267.869
147.855
142.234
290.090
146.676
151.275
297.951
4.087
3.903
7.990
4.481
4.280
8.761
4.995
4.692
9.688
5.459
5.226
10.685
5.898
5.673
11.571
5.851
6.034
11.885
Tobacco Use
Reduction
Account
(3 cents) 2
132.842
126.864
259.706
145.656
139.102
284.758
162.363
152.520
314.882
177.419
169.867
347.287
191.691
184.403
376.095
190.043
196.629
386.673
State Total
Cigarette Tax Distribution
8.174
7.806
15.980
8.963
8.559
17.522
9.991
9.385
19.376
10.917
10.452
21.370
11.795
11.347
23.142
11.701
12.068
23.769
Cities,
Counties &
3
Public Transit
141.016
134.670
275.687
154.619
147.661
302.280
172.353
161.904
334.258
188.336
180.320
368.656
203.487
195.750
399.237
201.745
208.697
410.442
Total
36.415
37.799
74.214
33.798
35.082
68.880
31.612
32.560
64.172
29.797
30.691
60.489
28.087
28.929
57.016
19.956
27.372
47.328
State GF
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.
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.
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.
2. Measure 44 created the TURA and funded it with a 3 cents per pack tax effective February 1, 1997.
Voters approved 60 cents per pack tax increase dedicated to the Health Plan, effective November 1, 2002.
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.
37.517
39.320
76.837
Distribution Forecast*
2009-10
2010-11
2009-11 Biennium
State GF
(22 cents) 1
Health Plan
(Measure 44)
1
(87 cents)
TABLE B.6
Cigarette & Tobacco Tax Distribution (Millions of $)*
28.096
29.164
57.259
26.076
27.067
53.144
24.390
25.122
49.512
22.990
23.680
46.670
21.670
22.320
43.991
15.532
21.487
37.019
4
Health Plan
(Measure 44)
3.125
3.244
6.368
2.900
3.010
5.911
2.713
2.794
5.507
2.557
2.634
5.191
2.410
2.482
4.893
1.727
2.390
4.117
67.636
70.206
137.842
62.774
65.160
127.934
58.715
60.476
119.191
55.344
57.005
112.349
52.167
53.732
105.899
37.215
51.249
88.464
Tobacco Use
Reduction
4
Account
State Total
Other Tobacco Tax Distribution
September 2012
Table B.6 Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Distribution 1
94
227.418
448.212
234.240
241.268
475.508
248.506
255.961
504.466
2016-17
2015-17 Biennium
2017-18
2018-19
2017-19 Biennium
2019-20
2020-21
2019-21 Biennium
2
97.322
270.093
137.042
133.051
254.589
129.176
125.413
239.974
121.760
118.214
225.041
114.771
110.270
230.470
120.271
110.200
198.570
101.248
For details on cigarette revenues see TABLE B.6 on previous page
21.391
10.854
10.538
20.163
10.231
9.933
19.006
9.643
9.362
17.823
9.090
8.733
18.683
10.383
8.300
16.256
7.980
8.277
1
Mental
Health
Mental Health Alcoholism and Drug Services Account, per ORS 471.810
220.794
2015-16
1
420.320
408.106
2011-13 Biennium
214.363
214.001
2012-13
2013-15 Biennium
194.104
2011-12
2014-15
350.252
2009-11 Biennium
205.957
178.307
2013-14
171.945
2010-11
Fund (56%)
Available
2009-10
General
Total Liquor
Revenue
0.766
0.389
0.377
0.722
0.366
0.356
0.680
0.345
0.335
0.638
0.325
0.313
0.654
0.371
0.283
0.536
0.269
0.267
Wine Board
Oregon
67.523
34.261
33.263
63.647
32.294
31.353
59.994
30.440
29.554
56.260
28.693
27.567
50.368
26.402
23.966
42.920
21.895
21.025
Sharing
Revenue
96.462
48.944
47.518
90.925
46.134
44.791
85.705
43.486
42.219
80.372
40.990
39.382
71.954
37.717
34.237
61.314
31.278
30.036
Regular
City Revenue
Liquor Apportionment Distribution
Revenue Distribution to Local Governments (Millions of $)
TABLE B.7
163.985
83.204
80.781
154.572
78.428
76.144
145.699
73.926
71.773
136.632
69.682
66.950
122.321
64.118
58.203
104.233
53.172
51.061
Total
48.231
24.472
23.759
45.462
23.067
22.395
42.853
21.743
21.110
40.186
20.495
19.691
35.977
18.858
17.118
30.657
15.639
15.018
Counties
15.980
7.806
8.174
17.522
8.559
8.963
19.376
9.385
9.991
21.370
10.452
10.917
23.142
11.347
11.795
23.769
12.068
11.701
Public Transit
2
Cigarette Tax
Distribution to
Cities, Counties &
Sept 2012
Table B.7 Revenue Distribution to Local Governments 1
Table B.8 Track Record for the June 2012 Forecast 1
Table B.8 Track Record for the June 2012 Forecast
(Quarter ending June 30, 2012)
Personal Income Tax
(Millions of dollars)
Withholding
Dollar difference
Actual
Revenues
Forecast Comparison
Latest
Forecast
Year/Year Change
Prior
Percent
Change
Year
Percent
Difference
$1,269.6
$1,263.9
$5.7
0.4%
$1,218.4
$51.1
4.2%
Estimated Payments
Dollar difference
$299.6
$302.3
-$2.6
-0.9%
$284.7
$15.0
5.3%
Final Payments
Dollar difference
$627.8
$621.0
$6.7
1.1%
$607.5
$20.2
3.3%
Refunds
Dollar difference
-$360.6
-$380.2
$19.5
-5.1%
-$340.7
-$20.0
5.9%
$1,836.4
$1,807.0
$29.3
1.6%
$1,770.0
$66.4
3.7%
Total Personal Income Tax
Dollar difference
Corporate Income Tax
(Millions of dollars)
Actual
Revenues
Forecast Comparison
Latest
Forecast
Year/Year Change
Prior
Percent
Change
Year
Percent
Difference
Advanced Payments
Dollar difference
$156.7
$152.9
$3.8
2.5%
$165.4
-$8.7
-5.3%
Final Payments
Dollar difference
$33.3
$37.9
-$4.6
-12.1%
$40.8
-$7.5
-18.3%
Refunds
Dollar difference
-$18.2
-$31.3
$13.2
-42.1%
-$31.5
$13.3
-42.4%
$171.8
$159.4
$12.4
7.8%
$174.7
-$2.8
-1.6%
Total Corporate Income Tax
Dollar difference
Total Income Tax
(Millions of dollars)
Corporate and Personal Tax
Dollar difference
Forecast Comparison
Latest
Actual
Revenues
Forecast
$2,008.2
$1,966.5
$41.7
95
Percent
Difference
2.1%
Year/Year Change
Prior
Percent
Change
Year
$1,944.7
3.3%
$63.5
96
(11.402)
37.119
193.657
161.381
8.593
10.582
3.600
674.930
1,089.862
2.252
1,078.460
1,075.874
0.334
8.005
1,075.874
(11.322)
(0.209)
(52.542)
(52.421)
0.089
0.005
(52.421)
(41.105)
(11.515)
(38.924)
0.000
0.000
(3.061)
(9.436)
(2.551)
(7.863)
0.000
(0.233)
0.000
(0.391)
0.000
0.000
0.000 (731.063)
(5.612) (748.986)
(0.209)
(17.127)
(17.006)
0.089
0.000
(17.006)
(5.892)
(11.114)
(3.639)
(17.135)
(14.279)
(0.952)
(0.952)
0.000
0.000
(36.957)
(58.236)
371.329
0.000
(95.193)
35.531
188.614
157.179
10.479
10.479
3.648
272.600
678.529
2.000
1,049.858
0.000
(95.193)
0.000
0.000
(95.193)
0.000
1,047.858
1,047.858
(0.418)
(94.775)
122.479
Change from
Mar-12
925.379
Current
Forecast
2013-15
(3.566)
(16.805)
(14.004)
(0.934)
(0.934)
0.000
0.000
694.820
(57.120)
453.685
0.000
(93.363)
2.000
1,148.505
39.395
206.371
171.976
11.465
11.465
3.648
250.500
694.820
(93.363)
6. Includes Debt Service Allocations, Allocations to State School Fund and Other Agency Allocations
5. One percent of net lottery proceeds are dedicated to Collegiate Athletics and Gambling Addiction programs, respectively. Certain limits are imposed by HB 5035 for 2011-13.
4. The Parks and Natural Resources Fund Constitutional amendment requires 15% of net proceeds be transferred to this fund.
0.000
0.000
(93.363)
(92.872)
(0.490)
Change from
Mar-12
1,146.505
0.000
0.000
1,146.505
1,026.009
120.496
Current
Forecast
2015-17
3. 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.
2. Includes interest earnings on Economic Development Fund and reversions.
1. Includes planned raffles throughout the forecast period.
Note: Some totals may not foot due to rounding.
Ending Balance/Discretionary Resources
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
County Economic Development
Education Stability Fund 3
Parks and Natural Resources Fund4
OUS Sports Lottery Account 5
Gambling Addiction 5
County Fairs
Other Legilatively Adopted Allocations6
Total Distributions
Other Resources2
Total Available Resources
Transfers from Lottery
Beginning Balance
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND
Admin. Savings
Total Available to Transfer
117.184
950.685
Traditional Lottery1
Change
Current Change from from COS
Forecast
Mar-12
2011
2011-13
Video Lottery
(in millions of dollars)
LOTTERY EARNINGS
Date: 05/14/2012
TABLE B.9
Summary of Lottery Resources
553.051
(0.494)
50.095
256.280
213.566
14.238
14.238
3.648
250.500
802.564
623.212
(30.655)
2.000
1,425.776
1,423.776
0.000
0.000
1,423.776
(43.920)
(2.736)
(12.920)
(10.767)
(0.718)
(0.718)
0.000
0.000
802.564
0.000
(71.779)
(71.779)
0.000
0.000
(71.779)
(71.285)
119.105
1,304.670
Change from
Mar-12
Current
Forecast
2019-21
(1.903)
(9.016)
(7.513)
(0.501)
(0.501)
0.000
0.000
757.979
0.000
(50.089)
2.000
1,311.029
45.671
235.625
196.354
13.090
13.090
3.648
250.500
757.979
0.000
(50.089)
0.000
0.000
(50.089)
0.000
1,309.029
1,309.029
(0.496)
(49.593)
119.583
Change from
Mar-12
1,189.446
Current
Forecast
2017-19
Sept 2012 Forecast
Table B.9 Summary of Lottery Resources 1
Table B.10 Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook 1
Table B.10: Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook
Rainy Day Fund
(Millions)
Beginning Balance
Interest Earnings
1
Deposits
2
Ending Balance
Education Stability Fund3
(Millions)
Beginning Balance
4
Interest Earnings
5
Deposits
Distributions
Oregon Education Fund
State Scholarship Commission
Withdrawals
Ending Balance
Total Reserves
(Millions)
Ending Balances
Percent of GF Revenues
2007-09
September 2012
2009-11
2011-13
2013-15
2015-17
2017-19
2019-21
$0.0
$112.5
$10.4
$61.8 #
$262.2
$508.5
$797.0
$18.3
$1.3
$0.6
$2.9 #
$29.2
$57.9
$84.6
$94.3
-$103.4
$50.8
$197.5 #
$217.0
$230.7
$248.8
$112.5
$10.4
$61.8
$262.2 #
$508.5
$797.0
$1,130.4
2007-09
2009-11
2011-13
2013-15
2015-17
2017-19
2019-21
$178.9
$0.0
$5.1
$6.9
$186.1
$382.2
$605.9
$17.2
$1.0
$0.6
$1.8
$21.2
$43.0
$63.2
-$178.9
$101.4
$184.2
$179.2
$196.1
$223.7
$244.6
-$17.1
-$12.8
-$4.3
$0.0
-$97.4
-$0.7
-$0.2
-$96.4
-$182.9
-$0.5
-$0.2
-$182.2
-$1.8
-$1.4
-$0.5
$0.0
-$21.2
-$15.9
-$5.3
$0.0
-$43.0
-$32.2
-$10.7
$0.0
-$63.2
-$47.4
-$15.8
$0.0
$0.0
$5.1
$6.9
$186.1
$382.2
$605.9
$850.5
2007-09
2009-11
2011-13
2013-15
2015-17
2017-19
2019-21
$112.6
$15.5
$68.7
$448.4
$890.7
$1,402.9
$1,980.8
1.0%
0.1%
0.5%
2.9%
5.2%
7.5%
9.6%
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.
Starting with 2013-15, projected corporate income taxes above the rate of 6.6% for the biennium are deposited on or before June 30 of each odd-numbered year.
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. For FY 2012-13, includes
withdrawals totally $182.2 million to the School Year Subaccount.
97
APPENDIX C:
POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX
Table C.1 Population Forecasts Component of Change 1980-2020 ......................................... 100
Table C.2 Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000-2020 ................................................... 101
Table C.3 Population of Oregon: 1980-2020 ............................................................................ 102
Table C.4 Children: Ages 0-4 ................................................................................................... 102
Table C.5 School Age Population: Ages 5-17 .......................................................................... 102
Table C.6 Young Adult Population: Ages 18-24 ...................................................................... 102
Table C.7 Criminally At Risk Population: Males Ages 15-39 .................................................. 103
Table C.8 Prime Wage Earners: Ages 25-44 ............................................................................ 103
Table C.9 Older Wage Earners: Ages 45-64 ............................................................................. 103
Table C.10 Elderly Population by Age Group .......................................................................... 103
98
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 estimated population of July 1, 2010 based on
the most recent decennial census is the base for the forecast. 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 agesex-specific birth and migration rates to the mid-period population. Further iterations subject the inand-out migrants to the same mortality and fertility rates.
Populations by age-sex detail for the years 2000 through 2009, called intercensal estimates, in the
following tables are developed by OEA based on 2000 and 2010 censuses and intercensal totals
from the Population Research Center, Portland State University. The numbers of births and deaths
through 2009-10 are from Oregon's Center for Health Statistics. The total populations for the
period 2012 to 2020 are generated as part of the economic and revenue forecast of OEA.
Annual numbers of births are determined based on the age-specific fertility rates projected based on
Oregon's past trends and past and projected national trends. Oregon's total fertility rate is assumed
to remain below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman during the forecast period,
tracking at slightly lower than the national rate.
Life Table survival rates are developed for the year 2008. Male and female life expectancies for the
2010-2020 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 at births of 77.1 and the female life expectancy of 81.7 in 2010 are
projected to improve to 78.2 years for males and 82.7 years for females by the year 2020.
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 migration forecasting model uses Oregon’s employment, unemployment rates and
income/wage data from Oregon and other states. Distribution of migrants by age and sex is based on
detailed data from the American Community Survey. The annual net migration between 2010 and
2020 is expected to remain in the range of 7,250 to 37,000, averaging 27,500 persons annually.
Slowdown in Oregon’s economy in the recent years resulted in smaller net migration and slow
population growth. Estimated population growth and net migration rates in 2011 are the lowest in
over two decades. This slow population growth, as a result of slow economy and high
unemployment rate, is expected to continue in the near future. Migration is intrinsically related to
economy and employment situation of the state. Still, current high unemployment and job loss have
impacted net migration and population growth, but not to the extent in the early 1980s. Main reason
for this is the fact that other states of potential destination for Oregon out-migrants are not faring
any better either. Hence the potential out-migrants have very limited destination choices.
99
Table C.1 Population Forecasts Component of Change 1980-2020 1
100
Table C.2 Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000-2020 1
State of Oregon
Oregon's Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2001-2020 (July 1 population)
(July 1 Population)
Age
0-4
5- 9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Total
Mdn. Age
Age
0-4
5- 9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Total
Mdn. Age
Male
114,742
118,879
125,950
127,311
120,814
119,436
125,882
125,463
134,585
136,214
125,826
89,314
67,383
53,861
48,249
40,503
27,465
19,293
2001
Female
109,903
113,240
119,470
119,879
115,792
111,809
117,768
122,883
136,761
138,948
127,295
91,758
70,539
59,438
57,290
54,397
41,513
40,549
1,721,170
35.3
1,749,230
37.8
Male
118,832
119,959
124,400
131,680
129,625
128,110
126,016
128,779
126,728
135,135
136,187
124,581
87,811
64,860
49,222
40,359
29,996
23,554
2006
Female
113,050
115,315
118,240
124,886
123,869
125,220
119,767
122,827
126,664
139,543
140,978
129,098
92,304
69,850
55,999
51,026
44,406
46,323
1,825,834
36.3
1,859,366
38.6
Male
121,083
121,757
124,066
129,073
130,569
133,288
133,507
125,920
128,968
127,763
134,686
134,058
121,431
84,431
59,397
41,519
30,440
27,736
Female
115,073
115,891
119,042
121,921
126,669
130,820
130,750
121,786
125,347
128,559
140,684
142,355
127,819
90,854
65,614
50,113
42,286
52,349
1,909,692
37.4
1,947,933
39.7
Male
123,427
124,489
123,279
127,252
135,244
140,216
141,377
136,948
127,987
130,155
127,115
132,986
131,865
115,980
77,059
50,470
32,164
31,205
Female
116,651
117,358
117,991
120,912
129,686
139,577
138,518
132,557
123,486
126,226
129,783
141,675
141,484
124,347
85,193
58,663
41,063
54,716
2,009,217
38.2
2,039,883
40.3
Total
224,645
232,119
245,421
247,190
236,605
231,245
243,651
248,346
271,346
275,162
253,120
181,072
137,922
113,299
105,539
94,900
68,978
59,843
3,470,400
36.6
Total
231,882
235,274
242,639
256,567
253,494
253,330
245,782
251,606
253,391
274,678
277,165
253,680
180,115
134,710
105,221
91,385
74,402
69,877
3,685,200
37.3
Male
115,219
117,908
126,474
127,250
122,925
119,216
127,842
123,019
133,102
136,992
126,548
98,235
70,666
54,996
47,788
40,508
28,398
19,854
2002
Female
109,865
112,625
120,344
119,862
118,001
112,937
119,417
119,340
135,121
140,305
128,354
100,967
74,175
60,295
56,535
53,697
42,507
41,313
1,736,939
35.5
1,765,661
38.0
Male
121,058
120,925
124,017
133,027
129,491
131,446
126,936
131,387
124,917
134,349
137,589
125,683
97,117
68,563
50,569
40,218
30,251
24,585
2007
Female
115,102
115,818
118,145
126,562
124,047
128,889
121,971
125,260
123,759
138,533
142,901
130,760
102,054
73,945
57,052
50,594
44,085
47,794
1,852,129
36.5
1,887,271
38.7
Male
120,073
122,677
123,568
127,466
132,739
132,299
135,581
125,966
130,740
125,326
133,421
134,431
122,864
92,061
62,307
42,558
30,443
28,539
Female
113,899
116,865
118,260
120,539
128,606
129,747
133,268
122,258
126,559
124,979
139,196
143,024
129,506
98,771
69,024
50,756
41,801
52,981
1,923,061
37.6
1,960,039
39.9
Male
125,450
124,170
124,546
127,206
134,584
144,361
142,069
140,028
128,608
132,533
125,174
132,190
132,996
117,988
84,476
53,101
33,189
31,884
Female
118,470
116,593
119,397
120,403
129,247
144,120
139,150
135,642
124,351
127,818
126,668
140,839
142,800
126,497
92,963
61,886
41,743
55,061
2,034,552
38.3
2,063,648
40.3
2011
Age
0-4
5- 9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Total
Mdn. Age
Total
Mdn. Age
3,502,600
36.8
Total
236,160
236,743
242,162
259,588
253,538
260,335
248,907
256,647
248,677
272,882
280,489
256,444
199,171
142,509
107,622
90,812
74,336
72,379
3,739,400
37.5
Male
116,118
117,595
127,007
126,490
125,433
120,690
128,373
121,225
131,876
136,336
129,544
103,863
75,490
56,889
47,448
40,627
28,798
20,727
2003
Female
110,533
112,522
120,408
120,236
119,922
114,847
120,485
116,792
133,467
140,343
132,212
106,596
79,114
62,083
55,941
52,917
43,326
42,323
1,754,532
35.7
1,784,068
38.2
Male
122,723
121,906
124,144
134,019
128,090
134,251
128,841
132,046
123,362
133,523
137,266
128,665
102,948
73,612
52,510
40,073
30,464
25,325
2008
Female
116,618
116,639
118,401
127,039
124,102
131,308
124,231
126,581
121,440
137,181
143,176
134,868
107,873
79,164
58,915
50,211
43,606
49,078
1,873,769
36.7
1,910,431
38.8
Male
119,712
123,902
123,317
126,516
135,041
132,144
137,054
128,561
131,363
123,673
132,007
134,353
124,843
97,871
66,905
44,041
30,615
29,191
Female
113,227
117,872
118,141
119,782
130,328
129,973
134,891
124,299
127,340
122,157
137,497
142,662
132,718
105,025
73,734
52,131
41,241
53,574
1,941,109
37.8
1,976,591
40.0
Male
127,441
124,263
126,004
127,258
134,245
148,081
143,019
142,158
131,637
133,537
123,840
131,093
133,432
120,335
90,174
57,188
34,519
32,538
Female
120,287
116,181
120,695
120,472
129,123
147,641
140,536
137,627
126,682
128,851
124,127
139,550
142,879
129,997
99,104
66,272
43,005
55,310
2,060,762
38.5
2,088,338
40.4
2012
Total
236,155
237,648
243,108
250,995
257,238
264,108
264,258
247,706
254,315
256,322
275,370
276,413
249,250
175,285
125,011
91,632
72,725
80,085
3,857,625
38.5
2016
Age
0-4
5- 9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Total
225,084
230,533
246,818
247,112
240,926
232,153
247,259
242,360
268,224
277,297
254,902
199,202
144,841
115,291
104,323
94,204
70,905
61,167
4,049,100
39.2
3,538,600
36.9
Total
239,340
238,545
242,545
261,058
252,192
265,559
253,072
258,627
244,802
270,705
280,443
263,533
210,821
152,776
111,425
90,285
74,069
74,403
3,784,200
37.8
Male
117,038
118,055
126,169
127,484
127,001
122,799
127,650
121,489
131,106
134,864
132,767
109,932
80,095
59,083
47,523
40,403
29,266
21,444
2004
Female
111,315
112,983
119,728
121,227
121,951
117,484
119,951
116,438
132,016
139,381
136,330
112,923
83,740
64,273
55,493
52,009
44,164
43,325
1,774,167
35.8
1,804,733
38.4
Male
123,056
122,109
124,495
133,094
128,034
134,893
130,499
130,807
123,395
132,802
135,862
131,454
108,952
78,191
54,604
40,236
30,361
26,014
2009
Female
116,873
116,793
118,646
126,245
124,294
132,724
126,264
125,534
120,853
135,635
142,064
138,782
114,138
83,768
61,042
49,905
43,011
50,369
1,888,859
37.0
1,926,941
39.1
Male
120,121
124,460
123,254
126,532
136,131
133,714
139,270
130,563
130,761
123,961
131,374
133,182
127,547
103,293
70,924
46,141
30,833
29,738
Female
113,710
117,844
118,301
119,766
131,229
131,823
136,915
126,452
126,438
121,367
135,958
141,803
136,590
110,375
78,226
54,184
40,802
53,919
1,961,799
37.9
1,995,701
40.1
Male
129,440
125,006
126,713
127,370
134,676
150,068
145,480
144,852
133,938
133,174
124,366
130,672
132,609
123,250
95,398
60,740
36,293
33,128
Female
122,141
116,858
120,842
120,753
129,519
149,691
143,341
139,911
129,044
128,102
123,527
138,267
142,312
134,029
104,306
70,428
44,798
55,457
2,087,174
38.6
2,113,326
40.5
2013
Total
233,972
239,542
241,828
248,005
261,345
262,046
268,849
248,224
257,299
250,305
272,617
277,455
252,371
190,832
131,331
93,313
72,244
81,520
3,883,100
38.7
2017
Total
240,078
241,847
241,270
248,163
264,930
279,793
279,894
269,505
251,473
256,382
256,898
274,661
273,349
240,327
162,252
109,132
73,227
85,921
Total
226,652
230,117
247,415
246,726
245,356
235,536
248,858
238,017
265,343
276,679
261,756
210,460
154,604
118,972
103,389
93,545
72,124
63,050
4,098,200
39.3
101
3,578,900
37.1
Male
117,847
118,737
124,732
129,634
128,090
125,208
126,179
124,789
129,401
134,310
135,022
117,120
84,062
61,643
48,249
40,366
29,725
22,398
2005
Female
112,161
113,851
118,604
122,978
122,777
121,121
119,324
119,125
129,428
139,320
138,899
120,794
88,300
66,384
55,650
51,512
44,474
44,689
1,797,511
36.0
1,829,389
38.5
Male
122,327
121,539
124,508
131,126
128,787
134,019
131,489
128,070
125,969
130,825
135,129
133,011
115,236
81,854
56,925
40,932
30,391
26,800
Female
116,130
116,369
118,732
124,540
124,903
131,816
128,325
123,596
122,843
132,538
141,565
140,802
121,045
87,917
62,949
50,101
42,734
51,458
1,898,938
37.2
1,938,362
39.4
Male
121,276
124,949
122,690
127,096
136,077
136,189
140,139
133,861
129,471
126,454
129,595
132,864
129,954
109,478
74,404
48,230
31,478
30,450
Female
114,757
117,923
117,993
120,237
131,025
134,850
137,607
129,552
124,832
123,280
133,155
141,762
139,212
117,290
82,212
56,121
40,907
54,231
3,917,700
38.8
1,984,655
38.1
2,016,945
40.2
3,815,800
38.0
Male
131,427
126,396
127,289
126,865
135,486
150,431
148,653
146,029
137,465
132,020
127,039
129,021
132,512
125,788
101,233
63,808
38,071
34,110
Female
124,002
118,036
121,018
120,494
130,222
150,012
147,177
140,772
132,293
126,579
125,585
135,574
142,460
136,760
110,931
74,079
46,491
55,970
4,149,100
39.4
2,113,645
38.8
2,138,455
40.6
3,626,900
37.2
Total
238,457
237,908
243,241
255,667
253,689
265,835
259,814
251,665
248,811
263,363
276,693
273,812
236,281
169,771
119,874
91,034
73,126
78,258
3,837,300
38.3
2015
Total
233,831
242,304
241,555
246,298
267,360
265,537
276,184
257,015
257,198
245,329
267,332
274,985
264,137
213,668
149,150
100,326
71,635
83,657
3,957,500
39.0
2019
Total
247,728
240,444
246,699
247,731
263,369
295,721
283,555
279,785
258,319
262,388
247,968
270,643
276,310
250,332
189,278
123,460
77,523
87,848
Total
230,008
232,588
243,336
252,612
250,867
246,329
245,503
243,914
258,829
273,629
273,921
237,914
172,361
128,027
103,899
91,878
74,199
67,087
2010
Total
239,929
238,901
243,140
259,339
252,328
267,617
256,763
256,341
244,249
268,437
277,926
270,236
223,090
161,959
115,646
90,141
73,372
76,383
2014
Total
232,939
241,774
241,458
246,298
265,369
262,117
271,944
252,860
258,703
245,830
269,504
277,015
257,561
202,896
140,639
96,173
71,856
82,766
2018
Total
243,920
240,763
243,944
247,608
263,831
288,481
281,219
275,670
252,960
260,351
251,842
273,028
275,796
244,485
177,439
114,987
74,932
86,945
Total
228,353
231,038
245,898
248,711
248,952
240,282
247,601
237,927
263,121
274,245
269,097
222,855
163,835
123,356
103,016
92,412
73,430
64,769
Total
236,034
242,872
240,683
247,333
267,102
271,039
277,746
263,413
254,303
249,734
262,751
274,626
269,166
226,768
156,616
104,351
72,385
84,681
4,001,600
39.1
2020
Total
251,581
241,864
247,555
248,123
264,195
299,759
288,822
284,763
262,983
261,277
247,892
268,939
274,922
257,278
199,704
131,168
81,091
88,584
4,200,500
39.5
Total
255,429
244,432
248,307
247,359
265,708
300,443
295,830
286,801
269,758
258,599
252,624
264,596
274,972
262,548
212,164
137,887
84,563
90,080
4,252,100
39.7
Table C.3 Population of Oregon: 1980-2020 1
Population of Oregon: 1990-2020
Year
Total Change from previous year
Population
Number
Percent
--------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------1990
2,860,400
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
3,431,100
37,200
1.10%
2001
3,470,400
39,300
1.15%
2002
3,502,600
32,200
0.93%
2003
3,538,600
36,000
1.03%
2004
3,578,900
40,300
1.14%
2005
3,626,900
48,000
1.34%
2006
3,685,200
58,300
1.61%
2007
3,739,400
54,200
1.47%
2008
3,784,200
44,800
1.20%
2009
3,815,800
31,600
0.84%
2010
3,837,300
21,500
0.56%
2011
3,857,625
20,325
0.53%
2012
3,883,100
25,475
0.66%
2013
3,917,700
34,600
0.89%
2014
3,957,500
39,800
1.02%
2015
4,001,600
44,100
1.11%
2016
4,049,100
47,500
1.19%
2017
4,098,200
49,101
1.21%
2018
4,149,100
50,899
1.24%
2019
4,200,500
51,400
1.24%
2020
4,252,100
51,599
1.23%
(July 1)
Oregon's Population and Annual Percent Change, 1950-2020
4,500,000
4,000,000
3.0
3,500,000
3,000,000
1.0
2,500,000
Percent Change
Population
2.0
0.0
2,000,000
Total Population
-1.0
1,500,000
Forecast
-2.0
1,000,000
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Table C.4 Children: Ages 0-4 1
Children: Ages 0-4
Year
4.0
Annual Percent Change
% Change from previous decade/yr.
Year
Table C.5 School Age
Population: Ages 5-17 1
School Age Population: Ages 5-17
% Change from previous decade/yr.
Table C.6 Young Adult
Population: Ages 18-24 1
Young Adult Population: Ages 18-24
% Change from previous decade/yr.
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
223,207
13,569
6.47%
624,316
91,589
17.19%
330,328
62,194
23.20%
2001
224,645
1,438
0.64%
624,675
358
0.06%
336,660
6,333
1.92%
2002
225,084
439
0.20%
624,611
-64
-0.01%
340,778
4,118
1.22%
2003
226,652
1,568
0.70%
624,349
-262
-0.04%
345,266
4,487
1.32%
2004
228,353
1,701
0.75%
625,461
1,112
0.18%
349,138
3,873
1.12%
2005
230,008
1,655
0.72%
628,326
2,865
0.46%
351,076
1,938
0.55%
2006
231,882
1,874
0.81%
633,646
5,320
0.85%
354,328
3,252
0.93%
2007
236,160
4,278
1.85%
635,720
2,074
0.33%
356,311
1,983
0.56%
2008
239,340
3,180
1.35%
635,372
-348
-0.05%
358,967
2,656
0.75%
2009
239,929
589
0.25%
633,575
-1,797
-0.28%
360,134
1,166
0.32%
2010
238,457
-1,472
-0.61%
630,741
-2,835
-0.45%
359,764
-370
-0.10%
2011
236,155
-2,302
-0.97%
628,338
-2,403
-0.38%
360,651
887
0.25%
2012
233,972
-2,183
-0.92%
628,481
143
0.02%
362,239
1,588
0.44%
2013
232,939
-1,034
-0.44%
629,713
1,232
0.20%
365,186
2,946
0.81%
2014
233,831
892
0.38%
630,723
1,010
0.16%
366,794
1,608
0.44%
2015
236,034
2,203
0.94%
631,239
516
0.08%
366,750
-43
-0.01%
2016
240,078
4,044
1.71%
631,588
349
0.06%
364,621
-2,129
-0.58%
2017
243,920
3,842
1.60%
632,478
890
0.14%
363,668
-953
-0.26%
2018
247,728
3,808
1.56%
633,537
1,059
0.17%
364,705
1,037
0.29%
2019
251,581
3,853
1.56%
635,962
2,425
0.38%
365,774
1,070
0.29%
2020
255,429
3,848
1.53%
640,063
4,100
0.64%
365,743
-31
-0.01%
(July 1)
102
Table C.7 Criminally At Risk
Population: Males Ages 15-39 1
Criminally "At Risk" Population:
Males Ages 15-39
Year
Table C.8 Prime Wage
Earners: Ages 25-44 1
Table C.9 Older Wage
Earners: Ages 45-64 1
Prime Wage Earners: Ages 25-44
% Change from previous decade/yr.
% Change from previous decade/yr.
Older Wage Earners: Ages 45-64
% Change from previous decade/yr.
Population
Number
Percent
Population
Number
Percent
Population
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
616,988
72,250
13.26%
996,500
70,174
7.58%
817,510
286,329
53.90%
2001
618,906
1,918
0.31%
994,587
-1,913
-0.19%
847,276
29,766
3.64%
2002
620,252
1,347
0.22%
989,996
-4,591
-0.46%
876,242
28,966
3.42%
2003
622,211
1,959
0.32%
987,755
-2,241
-0.23%
903,499
27,257
3.11%
2004
626,423
4,212
0.68%
988,932
1,177
0.12%
930,032
26,533
2.94%
2005
633,901
7,478
1.19%
994,575
5,644
0.57%
957,826
27,793
2.99%
2006
644,210
10,309
1.63%
1,004,110
9,535
0.96%
985,638
27,813
2.90%
2007
652,287
8,077
1.25%
1,014,565
10,455
1.04%
1,008,986
23,348
2.37%
2008
657,248
4,961
0.76%
1,022,060
7,495
0.74%
1,025,501
16,515
1.64%
2009
657,327
79
0.01%
1,024,971
2,911
0.28%
1,039,689
14,188
1.38%
2010
653,491
-3,836
-0.58%
1,026,126
1,155
0.11%
1,050,150
10,461
1.01%
2011
652,358
-1,134
-0.17%
1,030,387
4,261
0.42%
1,057,355
7,205
0.69%
2012
654,052
1,694
0.26%
1,036,418
6,032
0.59%
1,052,748
-4,607
-0.44%
2013
659,315
5,263
0.80%
1,045,624
9,206
0.89%
1,049,910
-2,838
-0.27%
2014
666,210
6,895
1.05%
1,055,935
10,311
0.99%
1,051,782
1,873
0.18%
2015
673,362
7,152
1.07%
1,066,500
10,565
1.00%
1,056,276
4,494
0.43%
2016
681,036
7,675
1.14%
1,080,665
14,165
1.33%
1,061,289
5,013
0.47%
2017
688,248
7,211
1.06%
1,098,330
17,664
1.63%
1,061,017
-271
-0.03%
2018
694,761
6,513
0.95%
1,117,380
19,051
1.73%
1,057,309
-3,708
-0.35%
2019
702,446
7,685
1.11%
1,136,326
18,946
1.70%
1,053,030
-4,279
-0.40%
2020
707,464
5,019
0.71%
1,152,832
16,505
1.45%
1,050,791
-2,239
-0.21%
(July 1)
Table C.10 Elderly Population by Age Group 1
Elderly Population by Age Group
%Change from
%Change from
%Change from
%Change from
previous
previous
Year
previous
previous
decade/yr.
decade/yr.
(July 1)
Ages 65+
Ages 65-74
decade/yr.
Ages 75-84
Ages 85+
decade/yr.
--------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------185,863
--91,137
--28,841
--1980
305,841
128,813
41.34%
38,784
34.48%
1990
392,369
28.29%
224,772
20.93%
2000
439,239
11.95%
218,997
-2.57%
162,187
25.91%
58,055
49.69%
2001
442,558
0.76%
218,838
-0.07%
163,878
1.04%
59,843
3.08%
165,109
0.75%
61,167
2.21%
2002
445,890
0.75%
219,614
0.35%
2003
451,080
1.16%
222,361
1.25%
165,669
0.34%
63,050
3.08%
2004
456,984
1.31%
226,373
1.80%
165,842
0.10%
64,769
2.73%
0.14%
67,087
3.58%
2005
465,089
1.77%
231,926
2.45%
166,077
2006
475,596
2.26%
239,931
3.45%
165,787
-0.17%
69,877
4.16%
2007
487,657
2.54%
250,131
4.25%
165,148
-0.39%
72,379
3.58%
3.14%
264,201
5.63%
164,354
-0.48%
74,403
2.80%
2008
502,959
2009
517,502
2.89%
277,606
5.07%
163,513
-0.51%
76,383
2.66%
78,258
2.45%
2010
532,062
2.81%
289,645
4.34%
164,159
0.40%
2011
544,739
2.38%
300,296
3.68%
164,357
0.12%
80,085
2.34%
81,520
1.79%
2012
569,241
4.50%
322,164
7.28%
165,557
0.73%
2013
594,330
4.41%
343,535
6.63%
168,029
1.49%
82,766
1.53%
2014
618,435
4.06%
362,818
5.61%
171,960
2.34%
83,657
1.08%
84,681
1.22%
2015
644,801
4.26%
383,383
5.67%
176,737
2.78%
670,859
4.04%
402,578
5.01%
182,359
3.18%
85,921
1.47%
2016
2017
698,787
4.16%
421,924
4.81%
189,918
4.15%
86,945
1.19%
87,848
1.04%
2018
728,441
4.24%
439,610
4.19%
200,983
5.83%
2019
757,826
4.03%
456,982
3.95%
212,260
5.61%
88,584
0.84%
2020
787,242
3.88%
474,712
3.88%
222,449
4.80%
90,080
1.69%
103
