Oregon Office of Economic Analysis: Forecast Released On August 26, 2011

Oregon Economic and
Revenue Forecast
September 2011
Volume XXXI, No. 3
Michael Jordan
Chief Operating Officer
DAS Director
John A. Kitzhaber, MD
Governor
Prepared By:
Office of Economic Analysis
Department of Administrative Services
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:
Beginning January 2010, the Office of Economic Analysis is limiting mailings of quarterly
publications.
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
Order printed forecasts
To purchase hard copies of the Economic and Revenue Forecast, complete the order form on the
next page.
ORDER FORM
ECONOMIC AND REVENUE FORECAST
Please Print
DAS Cashier
155 Cottage St. NE, U-90
Executive Building
Fourth Floor
Salem, OR 97301
(503) 378-3405
__________________________________________________________
Name
INSTRUCTIONS:
Mail or deliver a completed
form along with payment, to
the address above.
__________________________________________________________
City State Zip
PAYMENT:
Cash or check only payable
to Department of
Administrative Services.
Please send the following Economic and Revenue Forecasts for 2011:
Web site:
http://oregon.gov/DAS/OEA
/economic.shtml
Find this form on the Web:
http://oregon.gov/DAS/OEA
/listserv.shtml
__________________________________________________________
Mailing Address
Order all:
All (see dates below)
$36
Order individually:
March (releasing February 15)
June (releasing May 11)
September (releasing August 26)
December (releasing November 21)
$9
$9
$9
$9
DAS must receive payment prior to mailing publications.

E-mail notices:
Send me an e-mail notice when the quarterly Economic and Revenue forecasts
are released, and when the Office of Economic Analysis issues updates and
relevant news.
E-mail address: ____________________________________________
OFFICE USE ONLY:

Date received
___/____/____
Cash
Check #________
Attach payment to completed form and return to:

DAS Cashier
155 Cottage St. NE, U-90
Salem, OR 97301
Department of Corrections and Oregon Youth Authority forecasts are available for
download at http://oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/index.shtml.
Revised 11/18/2009

Michael Jordan
DAS Director
Office of Economic Analysis

Mark McMullen, Acting State Economist
Kanhaiya Vaidya, Senior Demographer
Damon Bell, Senior Analyst
Josh Lehner, Economist
Susan Daniels, 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 Governors 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
iii
iv
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 7

I.
ECONOMIC FORECAST ............................................................................................. 15
A.
National Economic Review and Forecast ......................................................................... 15
B.
International Review and Outlook .................................................................................... 21
C.
Western Region ................................................................................................................. 29
D.
Oregon Economic Review and Forecast ........................................................................... 35
II.
REVENUE FORECAST ................................................................................................ 67
A.
2011-13 General Fund Revenues ...................................................................................... 67
B.
Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook ....................................................................... 69
C.
Tax Law Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 69
D.
Forecast Risks ................................................................................................................... 70
E.
Lottery Earnings Forecast ................................................................................................. 71
F.
Overview of Budgetary Reserves ..................................................................................... 72
G.
September 2011 Forecast Addendum Close of Session Forecast .................................. 74
APPENDIX A: ECONOMIC FORECAST DETAIL ............................................................ 77

APPENDIX B: REVENUE FORECAST DETAIL ............................................................. 103
APPENDIX C: POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX.................................. 117
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
September 2011
Oregon Economic Forecast
After a very strong start to 2011, the second quarter job growth came in at a very slow pace.
Preliminary estimates place the second quarter growth at 0.7 percent. At least this is the third
consecutive quarter of positive job growth, the longest continuous stretch since the second
quarter of 2007. On a year-over-year (Y/Y) basis, job growth is up 1.4 percent.
While the total estimated job growth for the second quarter is disappointing, the private sector
has been improving. After a rocky start in the first quarter of 2010, the private sector has added
jobs every quarter. More sectors had job gains relative to job losses. Notable job increases are
reported in manufacturing, retail trade, health services, and leisure and hospitality. Some of the
sectors with relatively higher job losses are wood products, food processing, transportation,
warehousing, and utilities, educational services, and other services. Budget shortfalls have
caught up with the public sector, with declines in all three government levels, notable local
government and in particular local education.
The headwinds facing the U.S. economy did not appear to be present in the first quarter in
Oregon, but the second quarter is feeling the effects. Higher gasoline and other commodity
prices are squeezing household budgets. The slowing impacts around the country have come to
Oregon, but the private sector is still producing more jobs, albeit at a relatively slow pace. The
real story of the slow growth in the second quarter is the government sector. Comprising around
18 percent of total employment in Oregon, job losses in this sector will have a damping impact
on the economy moving forward.
At this juncture in the business cycle, using the past two expansions as a guide, the Oregon
economy typically adds around 3,400 jobs per month. Over the past twelve months, Oregon has
added 2,100 jobs per month. There are two main drags on economic growth currently: the
continued delayed improvement in the housing market and the public sector pullback. These two
issues more than account for the discrepancy between the typical expansion employment gains
and the ones we are seeing today. Housing related industries (construction, home and garden
supply stores, mortgage loan brokers and real estate employment) normally add 575 jobs each
month; however over the past year they have added, on average, only 50 jobs per month.
Similarly the public sector typically adds 350 jobs per month, however over the past year,
excluding the temporary Census workers; the public sector has averaged cuts of 475 jobs per
month. This net swing of over 1,300 jobs per month between the past two expansions and today
results in the difference in the total nonfarm employment figures.
The U.S. economy got through the soft patch in 2010 only to hit the headwinds of 2011. The
first half growth of real GDP in 2011 is only 0.8 percent. Personal income growth in June was
only 0.1 percent and consumer spending fell 0.2 percent, the first decline since September 2009.
The ISM Manufacturing Index fell to 50.9, slightly above its expansionary measure of 50.0 and
the fourth monthly decline in the past 5 months. All of this bodes poorly for a second half
rebound for the U.S. economy.
Some of the headwinds in the first half of this year may not be with us in the second half. The
Japan natural disaster should not be squeezing supply chains as the year progresses. The
European debt situation is still unclear with worries arising with Italy and Spain. High
commodity prices are starting to retreat which should help out household budgets.
One piece of good news for the U.S. economy was the July employment report. Unemployment
came down a notch to 9.1 percent and jobs increased by 117,000. But this report brings to
forefront another headwind that has not gotten the attention it deserves. While the private sector
added 154,000 jobs in July, the government sector shed 37,000 jobs. The Minnesota state
government shutdown is likely responsible for about 30,000 jobs in this number and is
temporary. Still, if we take out the entire Minnesota job losses for July, job losses still total over
518,000 since the summer of 2009, a decline of 2.3 percent. The bulk of these job losses are at
the state and local levels. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities notes that the budget cuts
go beyond the layoffs with 44 states and the District of Columbia engaged in cost saving
measures from furlough days, lower worker benefits, cancelling of contracts with vendors,
reducing payments to businesses and nonprofits, and tax increases. All of these measures to some
degree slow down near term economic activity.
Oregon is similar impacted by the need to balance budgets. State and local governments received
federal stimulus funds during the recession and used budget reserves to avoid deeper cuts during
the recession. Now that these funds are no longer available and tax revenues have not recovered
to meet expenditures, budget tightening is leading to worker layoffs and other spending cuts.
Since the summer of 2009, the June 2011 total government employment in Oregon is down 2.2
percent, or around 6,600 less jobs. Although we do not believe this drop in jobs is enough to stop
the present recovery, with other headwinds impacting the state, the public sector pull back is
still an additional dampening impact on the economy. For a thorough look at the Oregon public
sector employment picture, see our blog and associated listings by clicking here.
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/more-on-public-sector-employment/
Although the second quarter of 2011 reported weak but positive job growth, we are not
forecasting a recession for the Oregon economy. Risks of a downturn are heightened and we will
be watching indicators for any further signs of weakening. OEA (Office of Economic Analysis)
forecasts an increase of 0.5 percent in the third quarter of 2011 for total employment and 1.8
percent in the fourth quarter. Job gains continue to improve moving to nearly 2.0 percent in
2012. For the year average in 2011, total employment is projected to increase 1.7 percent and
rise to 1.95 percent in 2012.
Population growth will be slowly picked up along with the economic recovery. Population
growth is forecasted to be 0.7 percent in 2011, 0.8 percent in 2012, and 1.0 percent in 2013.
Forecast Risks
At the very least, the supply chain disruptions from the natural disaster is Japan are fading away.
High commodity prices are retreating though the price of gold dances to different tune. Thats
about it for relief from the headwinds hitting the US and Oregon economies. Congress managed
to cripple together an agreement to raise the debt ceiling only to have S&P downgrade US
Treasury securities and the Dow drops almost 11 percent in 5 days (August 2 8). The risk of
another recession is heightened and the resiliency of the US economy will be tested.
Oregon faces these same headwinds and though our recovery is stronger than the US, it is still
relatively weak and fragile. Our wood products industry will continue to struggle as the housing
market will be slow to recover. Exports have been strong but worries of world financial problems
could slow them down. State and local governments will likely cut more budgets lowering
services and workers.
The color of our outlook has turned more a shade of yellow and less green.
We will continue to monitor and recognize the potential impacts of risk factors on the Oregon
economy. We have identified the major risks now facing the Oregon economy in the list below:
Contagion of the credit crunch and financial market instability. As more time passes, this
downside risk becomes less likely to occur. 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 slower than projected or
thrown off track. Housing and commercial real estate may take longer for credit conditions to
improve. 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, at least in terms of housing starts, but prices may have further to fall. Foreclosures
and delinquency rates are still relatively high. Oregon, with the rest of the nation, will still see
corrections to the housing market in 2011. The question is whether the job growth will kick in to
alleviate the downward pressures from declining housing prices and oversupply of homes. The
housing market appears to be the biggest threat to a sustained economic recovery in Oregon.
Commodity price inflation. With world economies starting to recover and emerging markets still
strong, the stage is set for higher commodity prices. Food prices are near their 2008 highs. Oil
prices have recently topped $100 a barrel; however WTI is now slightly lower. Industrial metals
are also on the rise. This could be a repeat of commodity price spikes that took place in 2007-2008.
The risk is how disruptive this will be on businesses and whether the commodity price inflation
will lead to general inflation. With a weak recovery that needs to build strength, the commodity
inflation could throw this off track. Then again, if this is only a change in relative prices and wage
costs do not accelerate, this commodity inflation could be short lived.
Loss of federal timber payments to Oregon counties. President Obama included a reduced federal
timber payment package in the 2012 federal budget. The amount has been reduced by 10 percent
and reduces by 20 percent over five years. Questions remain as to whether this item will survive
further budget changes from Congress. If the federal timber payments do not survive, the last
9
payments to counties will be this October. While this temporary reinstatement helps cover short
term budgets for Oregon counties, finding or replacing this dwindling revenue source will be
imperative as any loss of public services could have adverse impacts on economic activity.
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. The natural disaster in Japan has caused slight supply chain disruptions to
Oregon firms but the coming reconstruction phase may bring new business. Also internationally
we have economies recovering, incomes rising, and demand for U.S. and Oregon exports are
rising. Whether the downside risks will dissipate and the recoveries take hold will influence the
direction of strength of U.S. and Oregon economic recoveries. With China now the top destination
for Oregon exports, the state of the Chinese economy has spillover effects to the Oregon economy.
State and Local Governments. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that 44 states and
the District of Columbia are projecting budget shortfalls totaling $125 billion for fiscal year 2012
which generally starts this summer. Local government budget shortfalls add to this total. Oregon is
among the states facing a budget shortfall. Given that further tax increases are unlikely in Oregon,
balancing budgets will mainly be through spending cuts. In a mixed private-public economy, this
will be a drag on the economic recovery. The question is whether the building strength of the
private sector will be enough to continue the recovery through the state and local government
budget crises.
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 brings a number of unknowns that
could have sweeping impacts on the Oregon economy.
Demographic Forecast
Oregons population count on April 1, 2010 was 3,831,074. Oregon gained 409,550 persons
between the years 2000 and 2010. The population growth between 2000 and 2010 censes was
12.0 percent, down from 20.4 percent growth between 1990 and 2000 censuses. Oregons
rankings in terms of decennial growth rate dropped from 11th between 1990-2000 to 18th between
2000-2010. 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,
Oregons decennial population growth rate during the most recent decade was the second lowest
since 1900. The slowest was during the 1980 when Oregon was hit hard by another recession. As
a result of recent economic downturn and sluggish recovery, Oregons population is expected to
continue a slow pace of growth in the near future. Based on the current forecast, Oregons
population will reach 4.28 million in the year 2020 with an annual rate of growth of 1.1 percent
between 2010 and 2020.
10
Oregons economic condition heavily influences the states 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 Oregons 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 good economic and
employment situations. During the 1980s, that included a major recession and a net loss of
population, net migration contributed to 22 percent of the population change. On the other
extreme, net migration accounted for 73 percent of the population change during the booming
economy of 1990s. This share of migration to population change declined to 56 percent in 2002
and it was further down to 34 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 67 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.
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. 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, and even negative, growth during the 1990s and the first half of the last decade,
the elderly population (65+) has picked up a faster pace of growth and will surge as the babyboom 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 4.8 percent annual rate of growth due to the direct impact
of the baby-boom generation entering 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. 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. However, the annual growth rate will continue to taper off as the
depression era small birth cohort transitions from the younger age group.
As the baby-boom generation matures 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 by 2012 and will remain at slow or below zero growth phase for several
years. The young adult population (aged 18-24) will change only a little 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 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 pre-Kindergarten program will be additionally determined by the labor
11
force participation of the parents. 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 25-44 age group population has reversed several years of declining trend during the
early part of the last decade and before. 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. Overall, elderly population over age
65 will increase rapidly whereas population groups under age 65 will experience slow growth in
the coming decade.
Revenue Forecast
The outlook for revenue growth in Oregon is threatened by the uncertainty surrounding the
nascent recovery in the regional job market. Given how fragile consumer and business
confidence have become, downside risks to the forecast have clearly intensified in recent weeks.
Through a lack of confidence, the troubles in Europe, Washington D.C., and on Wall Street may
well infect the local economy going forward. That said, all of Oregons core measures of
economic activity (private employment, earnings and tax collections) are still expanding--albeit
at disappointing rates. In particular, until we see private employers cutting jobs, it is difficult to
argue that Oregons economic expansion has ended.
Although the turmoil in financial markets is not expected to derail Oregons economic recovery,
it will nevertheless create additional headwinds for growth. Most notably, wealth losses suffered
in stock markets can be expected to put downward pressure on household spending, and will
result in fewer tax collections tied to realizations of capital gains.
Despite these challenges, the baseline (most likely) forecast has not been revised downward
drastically at this time. However, the risks to the outlook are clearly skewed to the downside.
There is around a one in three chance that the U.S. economy will slip back into recession, which
would certainly drag Oregons regional economy down with it. In such a scenario, the forecast
for tax revenues would fall drastically.
After the smoke clears, 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 during recent periods of economic expansion.
2011-13 General Fund Revenues
Led by personal income tax collections, general fund revenues are posting large gains entering
the 2011-13 biennium. Temporary factors will help support healthy growth in personal income
tax collections in the near term, but growth in collections will lose a steam in the second half of
the biennium. Corporate tax collections are now falling rapidly, with the boom in underlying
corporate profits having come to an end.
12
Due in roughly equal parts to losses to labor earnings and to investment forms of income, the
outlook for the 2011-13 biennium is somewhat weaker than what was predicted in the May 2011
forecast. The forecast for General Fund revenues for 2011-13 is now $13,816 million. This
represents a decrease of $62.0 million (-0.4%) from the May 2011 forecast. Excluding policy
changes and fund transfers, general fund revenues are expected to be $192.6 million (-1.4%)
lower than in May.
Table R.1
2011-13 General Fund Forecast Summary
(Millions)
2011 COS
Forecast
May 2011 September 2011

Forecast
Forecast
Structural Revenues
Personal Income Tax
$12,193.6
$12,202.1
$12,035.1
-$167.0
-$158.4
Corporate Income Tax
$894.2
$863.3
$875.5
$12.2
-$18.7
All Other Revenues
$944.2
$836.0
$928.8
$92.8
-$15.4
Gross GF Revenues
$14,032.0
$13,901.4
$13,839.4
-$62.0
-$192.6
Administrative Actions1
-$23.1
-$23.1
-$23.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$14,008.9
$13,878.3
$13,816.3
-$62.0
-$192.6
Legislative Actions
Net Available Resources
Confidence Intervals
67% Confidence
95% Confidence
+/- 9.4%
+/- 18.8%
$1,298.8
$2,597.6
1 Reflects cost of cashflow management actions, ex clusiv e of internal borrow ing.
13
Change from Change from

Prior Forecast COS Forecast
$12.54B to $15.14B
$11.24B to $16.44B
Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook
Table R.2
General Fund Revenue Forecast Summary (Millions of Dollars, Current Law)
Forecast
2009-11
Revenue Source
Personal Income Taxes
Corporate Income Taxes
All Others
Total General Fund
Kicker Distributions
Total Revenue
Forecast
%
2011-13
Forecast
%
Biennium Chg Biennium Chg

10,467.2
3.7% 12,035.1
827.6 20.9%
1,226.9 29.3%
12,521.7
-
875.5
2013-15
Forecast
%
Forecast
2017-19
2019-21
15.0% 13,881.0 15.3% 15,692.8 13.1% 17,353.3 10.6% 19,247.5

1,131.8 29.3%
928.8 -24.3%
919.6 -1.0%
1,112.3 -1.7%
971.2
5.6%
10.9%
1,126.6
1.3%
1,206.7
7.1%
1,021.9
5.2%
1,102.2
7.9%
9.7% 21,556.4
10.5%
10.5% 15,932.4 15.1% 17,776.3 11.6% 19,501.8
12,521.7 -2.2% 13,839.4
Forecast
%
Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg
5.8%
6.8% 13,839.4
2015-17
10.5% 15,932.4 15.1% 17,776.3 11.6% 19,501.8
9.7% 21,556.4
10.5%
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 $15,932 million in 2013-15, an increase of 15.1% percent from
the prior period, and $206 million (1.3%) below the May forecast. In 2015-17, revenue growth
will moderate to 11.6%, followed by 12.0% growth in 2017-19 and slower rates of around 10%
to in subsequent biennia. The slowdown in long-run revenue growth is largely due to the impact
of demographic changes. Revenues in 2015-17 and beyond are expected to be smaller than in the
May forecast, largely due to the downgraded outlook for job growth. Table B.2 in Appendix
presents a more detailed look at the long-term General Fund revenue forecast.
14
I.
ECONOMIC FORECAST
September 2011
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 2011. This
publication summarizes Global Insights baseline national forecast that OEA incorporates into
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 and not
IHS Global Insight. In addition, Table N.1 provides a quick look at the annual rates. Table N.2
provides a look at the forecast change from the last forecast. Graph N.1 provides a graphic U.S.
history and forecast.
A.
National Economic Review and Forecast
Forecast Flash
A Positive Signal at Last More Needed.
With mostly soft data signals coming in, one bright spot was the uptick in the June national ISM
manufacturing survey. The June ISM report also showed a noticeable decline in the prices index,
indicating some relieve from rising costs. The first half of the year suffered from rising
commodity costs, supply-chain disruptions from Japans natural disaster and severe weather
conditions domestically. The June ISM improvement is consistent with IHS Global Insights
view of better growth in the second half of this year, though more positive signals are needed to
make this case. (The national June employment report came out after the publication of the July
Forecast Flash. The rather dismal employment numbers are not helping to make the case for a
stronger second half.) Calendar year forecasts for GDP are 2.5 percent for 2011 and 2.6 percent
for 2012.
Second Quarter Little Different from the First. Second quarter GDP growth expected at 1.9
percent, same as the first quarter. (Advance estimate of second quarter GDP growth is 1.3
percent. Revised estimate of first quarter GDP growth is 0.4 percent OEA.) Initial Consumer
spending will slow in the second quarter to 0.6 percent compared to 2.2 percent in the first
quarter. This slowing is caused by drops in light-vehicle sales due to the Japan natural disaster
and higher gasoline prices impacting household budgets. Other components of GDP are expected
to improve in the second quarter. Construction should rise due to better weather and defense
spending is expected to come back from an unusual drop in the first quarter.
The Second Half Remains the Big Question Mark. IHS Global Insight projects better growth
in the second half of 3.2 percent compared to the 1.9 percent growth in the first half. This
stronger second half is dependent on a number of factors: production of vehicles returns to a
more normal state, temporary acceleration of business equipment spending to take advantage of
generous depreciation allowances this year, and continued improvement on gas prices moving
down to $3.40 per gallon by the fourth quarter.
15
Oil Reserves Release Helps Only Temporarily. The 60 million barrels of oil released from the
strategic reserves (30 million barrels in the United States) had a temporary impact on lowering
oil prices, but this amount of oil only represents less than one days global consumption. IHS
Global Insight has dropped their projection for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) price of oil from
$104 to $94 for the third quarter. Going forward the price of oil is little changed with prices
averaging $104 per barrel in 2012.
The Risk of a Self-Inflecting Wound: The Debt Ceiling. The need to raise the debt ceiling by
the drop-dead day, August 2, remains a potentially disruptive wild card. An agreement on
substantial spending cuts appears within reach but the stumbling block is whether Republicans
will accept some revenue increase to accompany the spending cuts. If negotiators are
deadlocked, a short-term fix raising the ceiling just for a few months would be better than rising
the consequences of hitting the ceiling. (As of July 22, negotiations are still underway.)
QE II Has Ended; No QE III. The Federal Reserve states it has no plans to implement a QE III
program of quantitative easing. Slow growth in the economy suggests no plans to raise interest
rates in the near term. IHS Global Insight delays their assumption about a Fed interest rate hike
from March 2012 to September 2012, with the possibility that the Fed may not raise rates until
2013. (Note that since the release of the July forecast, the U.S. Federal Reserve has made a
public statement that it given the current state of the economy and expectations moving forward,
it will not raise rates for two years, or until mid-2013.)
16
17
2020Q1
Consumer Confidence & Spending
Real Consumer Spending (Left Axis)

Consumer Sentiment (Univ of Mich, Right Axis)
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2020Q1
2018Q1
2016Q1
2014Q1
2012Q1
2010Q1
2008Q1
2006Q1
2004Q1
Single Family
2018Q1
500
2020Q1
2018Q1
2016Q1
2014Q1
2012Q1
2010Q1
2008Q1
2006Q1
2004Q1
2002Q1
2000Q1
3M Treasury
2016Q1
1,000
2014Q1
2012Q1
Standard and Poor's 500 Index
2010Q1
2,000
Total
2006
-2
Prime
2008Q1
2004
2006Q1
2002Q1
2.5
2002
Excluding Food & Energy
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2004Q1
Consumer Price Index

2000Q1
-4
2000
-3
1998Q1
1998Q1
-2
1996Q1
1996Q1
Percent
Real GDP, Percent Change
2002Q1
Unemployment Rate
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Millions
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
1998
1996
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
2000Q1
1,500
Percent Chnage
2020Q1
2018Q1
2016Q1
2014Q1
2012Q1
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
Percent Change
2005 Dollars, Chain Weighted
5
1998Q1
1996Q1
2020Q1
2018Q1
2016Q1
2014Q1
2012Q1
2010Q1
2008Q1
2006Q1
All Items
2010Q1
2008Q1
2006Q1
2004Q1
2002Q1
2000Q1
1998Q1
2004Q1
2002Q1
2,500
2000Q1
1998Q1
1996Q1
Percent
-1
1996Q1
Year-Over-Year Percent Chnage
Graph N.1
U.S. Economic History and Forecast
Interest Rates
10 Yr Treasury
Housing Starts
Multi-Family
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Real Exchange Rate
5
125%
100%
75%
-1
50%
6
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
-2
0.6
-4
0.5
18
94.3
5.4
8.9
(6.5)
131.5
1.2
13,209
4.6
13,623
3.4
95.1
3.3
8.7
(7.8)
132.1
1.8
13,355
4.5
13,722
2.9
Quarterly
2011:3 2011:4
224.5
4.1
(238.3)
(431.0)
(33.42)
313.46
1.0
Federal Budget (unified) (Bil of $, Fed FY)
Current Account Balance (Bil of $)

% Ch
Population (Millions)
% Ch
3.25
0.0
Prime Rate
% Ch
Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100)

% Ch
9,000
5.5
314.21
1.0
(413.0)
(15.66)
(320.9)
225.3
1.5
3.25
0.0
9,182
8.3
314.97
1.0
(486.2)
92.01
(354.6)
226.3
1.8
3.25
0.0
9,308
5.6
1,936.1 1,880.5 1,858.6

(0.3)
(11.0)
(4.6)
Money Supply (M2) (Bil of $)

% Ch
Corporate Profits (Bil of $)

% Ch
93.1
1.9
Industrial Production Index (2007=100)

% Ch
131.1
1.6
Nonagricultural Employment (Millions)

% Ch
9.1
7.7
13,061
3.9
Personal Income (Bil of $)

% Ch
Unemployment Rate
% Ch
13,508
1.9
GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight

% Ch
2011:2
13,248
2.9
2010
13,574
2.5
2011
218.1
1.6
3.25
0.0
8,785
3.2
1,801.1
36.8
90.1
5.3
9.6
3.9
129.8
(0.7)
224.6
3.0
3.25
0.0
9,308
6.0
1,903.2
5.7
93.8
4.1
8.9
(7.6)
131.3
1.1
307.84
0.9
(376.6)
(44.4)
310.83
1.0
(470.9)
25.1
313.84
1.0
(451.8)
(4.1)
(1,471.3) (1,275.1) (1,374.3)
214.5
(0.3)
3.25
(36.1)
8,510
5.0
1,316.7
(1.2)
85.5
(11.2)
9.3
59.9
130.8
(4.4)
12,174.9 12,541.0 13,139.9

(1.7)
3.0
4.8
12,881
(2.6)
2009
TABLE N. 1
U.S. Forecast Summary 2009-2020 (Jul 2011 U.S. Forecast, IHS Global Insight)
316.88
1.0
(468.8)
3.8
(961.7)
228.6
1.8
3.34
2.8
9,957
7.0
1,990.5
4.6
96.9
3.3
8.6
(3.8)
133.3
1.6
13,581.3
3.4
13,924
2.6
2012
319.94
1.0
(450.8)
(3.8)
(665.8)
233.0
1.9
4.73
41.5
10,599
6.5
2,231.9
12.1
99.8
3.0
8.2
(4.7)
135.3
1.5
14,151.3
4.2
14,308
2.8
2013
323.04
1.0
(473.0)
4.9
(659.5)
237.5
2.0
6.49
37.3
11,120
4.9
2,340.6
4.9
103.6
3.8
7.5
(7.8)
137.9
1.9
14,971.0
5.8
14,783
3.3
326.16
1.0
(479.8)
1.4
(669.1)
242.4
2.0
7.68
18.3
11,609
4.4
2,321.0
(0.8)
107.3
3.6
6.8
(9.4)
140.6
1.9
15,828.0
5.7
15,284
3.4
Annual
2014
2015
329.30
1.0
(489.5)
2.0
(734.1)
247.6
2.1
7.75
0.9
12,176
4.9
2,349.4
1.2
110.6
3.1
6.3
(8.3)
143.0
1.7
16,723.8
5.7
15,765
3.1
2016
332.46
1.0
(452.4)
(7.6)
(754.7)
252.6
2.0
7.75
0.0
12,748
4.7
2,356.1
0.3
113.6
2.7
5.9
(5.7)
144.9
1.3
17,562.8
5.0
16,197
2.7
2017
335.63
1.0
(393.3)
(13.1)
(785.5)
257.6
2.0
7.75
0.0
13,345
4.7
2,408.8
2.2
116.7
2.7
5.7
(4.0)
146.3
1.0
18,403.0
4.8
16,615
2.6
2018
338.82
0.9
(339.6)
(13.7)
(838.1)
262.4
1.9
7.75
(0.0)
13,988
4.8
2,494.4
3.6
120.0
2.8
5.4
(4.3)
147.5
0.8
19,287.0
4.8
17,051
2.6
2019
342.01
0.9
(284.2)
(16.3)
(895.6)
267.1
1.8
7.75
(0.0)
14,677
4.9
2,592.2
3.9
123.3
2.8
5.2
(4.5)
148.8
0.9
20,226.3
4.9
17,500
2.6
2020
19
131.1
(0.0)
Nonagricultural Employment (Millions)

% Change From Last Forecast
(238.3)
(431.0)
(19.7)
313.46
0.0
Federal Budget (unified) (Bil of $, Fed FY)
Current Account Balance (Bil of $)

3.25
0.0
Prime Rate
224.5
0.3
9,000
0.1
Money Supply (M2) (Bil of $)

Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100)

1,936.1
15.7
93.1
(1.4)
Corporate Profits (Bil of $)

Industrial Production Index (2007=100)

9.1
2.4
13,061
(0.5)
Personal Income (Bil of $)

Unemployment Rate
13,508
(0.3)

314.21
0.0
(413.0)
(25.1)
(320.9)
225.3
0.1
3.25
0.0
9,182
0.0
1,880.5
12.9
94.3
(1.4)
8.9
2.4
131.5
(0.1)
13,209
(0.6)
13,623
(0.3)
314.97
0.0
(486.2)
(18.6)
(354.6)
226.3
0.2
3.25
0.0
9,308
(0.2)
1,858.6
11.9
95.1
(1.9)
8.7
2.4
132.1
(0.1)
13,355
(0.5)
13,722
(0.6)
Quarterly
2011:2 2011:3 2011:4
13,248
0.0
2010
13,574
(0.3)
2011
13,924
(0.7)
2012
14,308
(0.7)
2013
14,783
(0.7)
15,284
(0.3)
Annual
2014
2015
15,765
(0.1)
2016
16,197
(0.1)
2017
16,615
(0.1)
2018
17,051
(0.2)
2019
17,500
(0.4)
2020
307.84
0.0
(376.6)
(0.5)
310.83
0.0
313.84
0.0
(451.8)
(18.9)
316.88
0.0
(468.8)
(16.1)
228.6
0.0
3.34
(22.0)
9,957
0.5
1,990.5
16.6
96.9
(1.6)
8.6
3.9
133.3
(0.3)
(470.9)
0.1
224.6
0.2
3.25
0.0
9,308
(0.2)
1,903.2
12.9
93.8
(1.3)
8.9
1.8
131.3
(0.1)
(961.7)
218.1
0.0
3.25
0.0
8,785
0.0
1,801.1
0.0
90.1
(0.0)
9.6
0.0
129.8
0.0
(1,471.3) (1,275.1) (1,374.3)
214.5
0.0
3.25
0.0
8,510
0.0
1,316.7
0.0
85.5
0.0
9.3
0.0
130.8
0.0
319.94
0.0
(450.8)
(20.8)
(665.8)
233.0
(0.1)
4.73
(26.5)
10,599
1.2
2,231.9
8.6
99.8
(1.2)
8.2
5.2
135.3
(0.7)
323.04
0.0
(473.0)
(17.7)
(659.5)
237.5
(0.4)
6.49
(1.9)
11,120
1.0
2,340.6
6.7
103.6
(1.0)
7.5
5.7
137.9
(0.7)
326.16
0.0
(479.8)
(17.7)
(669.1)
242.4
(0.5)
7.68
0.0
11,609
1.1
2,321.0
9.7
107.3
(0.4)
6.8
4.0
140.6
(0.5)
329.30
0.0
(489.5)
(16.0)
(734.1)
247.6
(0.5)
7.75
0.0
12,176
1.0
2,349.4
10.3
110.6
(0.1)
6.3
1.8
143.0
(0.2)
332.46
0.0
(452.4)
(17.6)
(754.7)
252.6
(0.5)
7.75
0.0
12,748
0.8
2,356.1
10.4
113.6
(0.3)
5.9
1.7
144.9
(0.2)
335.63
0.0
(393.3)
(22.2)
(785.5)
257.6
(0.6)
7.75
0.0
13,345
0.6
2,408.8
11.3
116.7
(0.3)
5.7
2.6
146.3
(0.2)
338.82
0.0
(339.6)
(26.3)
(838.1)
262.4
(0.6)
7.75
0.0
13,988
0.4
2,494.4
11.2
120.0
(0.4)
5.4
3.9
147.5
(0.3)
342.01
0.0
(284.2)
(31.8)
(895.6)
267.1
(0.6)
7.75
0.0
14,677
0.2
2,592.2
10.6
123.3
(0.4)
5.2
5.5
148.8
(0.4)
12,174.9 12,541.0 13,139.9 13,581.3 14,151.3 14,971.0 15,828.0 16,723.8 17,562.8 18,403.0 19,287.0 20,226.3
0.0
(0.0)
(0.4)
(0.8)
(1.2)
(1.1)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(0.9)
(1.1)
(1.3)
12,881
0.0
2009
TABLE N. 2
U.S. Forecast Change - (Current Forecast Jul 2011 vs. Last Forecast Apr 2011)
20
B.
International Review and Outlook
This edition of the International Review and Outlook contains information written by Adrienne
Mack, Research Analyst with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. The following section was
originally published as the International Economic Update, dated August 10, 2011, and is
reprinted here in accordance with the Banks disclaimer and privacy policy.
Growth Stalls as Economies Adjust
Following the moderation in the first quarter of 2011, global growth is expected to continue
decelerating throughout the year. Both advanced and emerging economies are seeing economic
performance slow.
Mounting government debt is the main contributor to the diminished outlook for the advanced
economies, especially in the euro area. The emerging economies continue to fight inflation, with
high food prices producing additional price pressures. Monetary authorities have adopted
contractionary policies in an attempt to control rising inflation, and these policies have facilitated
weaker economic activity.
Evident in this recent economic slowdown is how interconnected economies have become. An
optimal strategy for promoting global growth requires the stabilization of both advanced and
emerging economies.
Uncertainty Rises with Sovereign Debt Debates
Advanced economies are suffering from high public debt levels. Austerity measures are
necessary, but the structures for new budget plans are under much debate. Market uncertainty has
heightened as the effectiveness of current and future plans are called into question. Stock
markets in the U.S. and euro area have declined substantially as investors seek safer asset options
amid falling growth potential.
Switzerland has become an attractive destination for investors. Exchange rates show investors
prefer to hold Swiss francs over the U.S. dollar and the euro. Switzerland serves as a beacon of
hope for debt-laden countries; after struggling with high sovereign debt in the 1990s, the nation
adopted strict austerity measures to promote a balanced budget, contributing to its stable
economy.
Europe Placed in the Spotlight
Sovereign debt issues in the European periphery pose the greatest risk because of the possibility
of contagion with other euro-area economies. On July 21, European leaders agreed to extend
financial relief measures: Previous loan conditions were eased, and Greece was granted an
additional bailout package. Despite this aid, the markets are still cautious. Subsequent
movements in 10-year bond-yield spreads suggest uncertainty remains due to fears of a possible
default by Spain or Italy.
These spreads show differences in bond yields when compared with the German equivalent,
which is viewed as a safe investment. A rising spread is indicative of a risky asset. Spreads for
21
Spain and Italy hit record highs. In two weeks, beginning on July 25, spreads rose 19 percent for
Spain and 32 percent for Italy. Though Spain and Italy are not at risk for immediate default,
some doubt the ability of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) to supply adequate
funds on a longer-term basis. The debt obligations for those countries in more immediate risk of
default surpass the lending capacity of the EFSF. If Italy or Spain were to default as well, the
funds would not be available to assuage the situation.
Debt Affects European Economy
The sovereign debt crisis is having a negative impact on the euro area's economic performance.
The Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) for the euro area indicates both the manufacturing and
service sector are dangerously close to contraction levels. PMIs closely follow the economic
performance for the overall economy. Thus, gross domestic product (GDP) growth is expected to
decline in the second quarter of 2011. The downward trend of the PMIs suggests a further
decrease in GDP growth.
Germany has been a growth leader in the euro area, but the underperformance of other
economies has caused a drop in German exports. Exports are a major contributor to German
GDP growth; on average, 42 percent of Germany's exports go to the euro area. As GDP growth
slows in the euro area, so will Germany's exports. German exports fell 2.6 percent from March to
April. The deceleration of emerging economies has also affected the German export sector.
Emerging Economies Slow Amid Inflation Battles
Emerging economies continue to face inflationary pressures due to high capital inflows. Rising
food prices have added to these pressures. Changes in the consumer price index (CPI) are used to
measure inflation. The CPI tracks prices for a select bundle of goods, which is determined by the
consumption habits of an economy. The CPI composition for emerging economies is heavily
weighted in food. Thus, high food prices have a disproportionate effect on inflation in the
emerging economies. For example, food and beverages comprise 31 percent of the CPI in Brazil
and 48 percent in India, compared with 15 percent in the U.S.
Monetary authorities are vigilantly raising policy rates to combat rising inflation. Since the
beginning of 2011, Brazil has increased its policy rate five times, with the latest increase
occurring in July. China also increased rates in July, the third time this year. India raised rates in
June, its fourth increase this year.
The latest PMI data for the manufacturing sectors in Brazil and China indicate these tightening
measures have successfully slowed down their economies. China's PMI dropped to 50.7 in July.
Brazil's PMI reached contractionary levels in June and dropped even further in July to 47.9. As
these economies begin to slow, their inflation rates should fall. This will help moderate capital
inflows.
Momentum Expected to Rebound in 2012
The recent economic slowdown highlights the growing effects of globalization. Countries that
were regional growth leaders are starting to be affected by the poor performance of other
economies through the export sector. High inflation in emerging economies has prompted policy
22
contraction, stalling the main contributors of global

growth. However, such policy responses should be
viewed as attempts to promote long-term global
growth. As interest rate differentials begin to lessen,
capital flows will be redirected to advanced
economies, and this increased investment will help
stimulate economies whose public funds are strained.
The efficiency of market stabilization is contributing
to higher growth prospects for 2012. -- Adrienne
Mack
Recent International Developments
Table I.1
Projected Growth Rates of Real GDP (Percent)
As of 07/11/2011
United States
Canada
Japan
Eurozone
Mexico
South America
Asia except Japan
China
World
(Average)
2010 2011 2012 2013-16
2.9
2.5
2.6
3.1
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.7
4.0 -0.9 3.5
1.3
1.7
1.9
1.6
1.9
5.4
4.7
3.6
3.9
5.9
4.5
4.9
4.7
8.4
7.0
7.1
7.1
10.3 9.3
8.5
8.3
4.1
3.4
4.0
4.1
Source: Global Insight, July 2011
Table I.1 shows IHS Global Insights country specific

economic forecasts as of July 11, 2011. In its global forecast, IHS Global Insight cites some
issues to watch to gauge future trends of the global economy. First, commodity prices now face a
number of downward pressures in the near term. After rising substantially, and quickly, in early
2011, commodity prices have fallen somewhat recently, partially driven by monetary policy
restraint in China and other key markets. The Greek sovereign debt, the end of quantitative
easing by the U.S. Federal Reserve and
the usual summer slowdowns in the Table I.2
Projected Growth for Top U.S. Export Markets
Northern Hemisphere also contributed.
Following these actions, investors have
Oregon
Projected Change
Ranked by
begun shifting their monies away from
Exports 2010
in Real GDP
$ Value of U.S.
Goods Exported
commodities and other risky assets.
Rank ($ mil.) 2009 2010 2011 2012
Prices should remain down over the
Canada
3 2,420 -2.5 3.1 2.7 2.6
coming months, based on the above
Mexico
15
233 -6.1 5.5 4.3 3.9
actions and seasonally weak demand.
Japan
4 1,380 -6.3 4.0 -0.6 3.1
Second, IHS Global Insight expects that
United Kingdom
16
226 -4.9 1.3 1.3 2.1
Brent crude oil will average nearly $110
South Korea
5
937 0.3 6.2 4.1 4.4
per barrel in the third quarter while West
Germany
8
363 -4.7 3.5 3.4 2.2
Texas
Intermediate
will
average
Taiwan
6
670 -1.9 10.8 4.7 4.7
somewhere in the mid-$90s. (For more
Netherlands
9
339 -3.9 1.7 2.2 1.7
information
regarding
the
price
Russia
29
58 -7.8 3.6 4.5 4.5
differential between Brent crude and
France
18
177 -2.6 1.4 2.0 1.8
WTI, please see the following link.
Brazil
12
311 -0.6 7.5 4.1 4.6
Historically the price between the two
Hong Kong
13
300 -2.7 6.8 5.5 4.8
oils was minimal, however in the past
India
22
118 9.1 8.5 7.8 8.3
year a $10-$20 gap has emerged due to
China
1 4,046 9.2 10.3 9.1 8.8
Australia
14
255 1.3 2.7 2.1 4.0
some unique circumstances.
Eurozone
-4.1 1.7 1.9 1.7
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/20
U.S.
-3.5 3.0 1.8 2.5
11/04/brentwti_spread_1.html)
Source: Blue Chip Economic Indicators, August 2011
Oregon Export Data: WISER, August 2011
Table I.2 summarizes the Blue Chip
Consensus forecast (August 2011) for Oregons major export markets. It is consistent with the
GI forecast shown in Table I.1, although, generally, more optimistic moving forward. Note that
some differences in growth rates may be attributable to the publication date. Global Insights
forecast is from their July publication, while the Blue Chips is their August publication.
23
IHS Global Insights July 2011 global forecast discusses highlights from the world economy and
regional issues as well. Just as the U.S. economy has encountered a soft patch of growth in early
2011, the global economy has too, however a return to recession in unlikely even if the
probability of such an event has increased. Deleveraging and tightening fiscal policies are
contributing to the developed countries slow recoveries. Given this, the worlds real GDP is
expected to increase 3.4 percent in 2011, somewhat slower than 2010s 4.1 percent growth. On a
regional basis, the expected growth slowdown in the Eurozone is materializing given sub-1.0
percent growth in each of the first two quarters of 2011. Even with the European Union and
International Monetary Fund providing the necessary support to meet Greeces financing through
2012, a sovereign debt restructuring is likely in 2013 or 2014. Greeces debt is projected to reach
157 percent of GDP in 2012, which represents an unsustainable level given the countrys dire
economic outlook and record-high bond yields. Finally, IHS Global Insight discusses the fact
that local government/provinces debt in China has emerged as a major risk to the countrys
growth. The National Audit Office reported that local debt increased to over $1.6 trillion (10.7
trillion yuan) at the end of 2010. This figure represents about 33 percent of Chinas GDP.
Oregon Exports
U.S. exports have increased quarter-over-quarter since 2009 Q1. With nine such increases in a
row, national exports in 2011 Q2 set a new record in terms of total dollar value (nominal) of U.S.
exports. Oregon exports have followed the same general pattern over the past two years;
however in mid-2010, Oregon exports declined slightly primarily caused by a decline in high
technology exports to Asia before resuming strong growth in the most recent quarters. Strong
gains the past three quarters have Oregon exports nearly back to pre-recession levels. State
exports declined 38.8 percent between their peak in 2008 Q3 and their recession lows in 2009
Q1. Since then, exports have increased substantially and the current levels of exports are just 7.6
percent below their historic highs. In fact, Oregon exports in the second quarter were the third
highest level of exports on record, trailing only the second and third quarters of 2008.
$ millions
Exports are expected to continue to follow the global economy through the expansion, however,
as economic expectations change, exports will similarly grow either faster or slower along with
economic conditions. Besides
economic
growth
(and Graph I.1
Oregon Total Exports
consumer demand), exchange
Year-over-Year Change (Right Axis)
Total Exports (Left Axis)
rates are another mechanism
6,000
45%
which will influence exports
moving forward. Should the
5,000
30%
U.S. dollar appreciate against
4,000
15%
our major trading partners,
exports will slow more,
3,000
0%
however should the dollar
depreciate, exports should
2,000
-15%
benefit and see stronger
growth.
1,000
Graph I.1 illustrates Oregons

total exports and the Y/Y
-30%
0
Q1 1997
-45%
Q1 1999
24
Q1 2001
Q1 2003
Q1 2005
Q1 2007
Q1 2009
Q1 2011
percent change from 1997 through 2011 Q2. For 2010, Oregons exports growth ranked 31st best
among all states and since 2009 Q1, when exports reached their recessionary lows across the
country, Oregons growth ranks 26th best. While it is true that Oregon typically experiences more
volatile movements than the US overall during booms exports increase more than the nation
and during recessions they decrease more than the nation the current expansion is somewhat
different given the nature of
Oregons exports. High dollar Table I.3
Oregon Exports by Industry
value computer and electronic
($ millions, current prices)
product
exports
typically
y/y % Share out
2010 Q2 2011 Q2
compose around 40-45 percent
change
of Total
Total All Industries
4,473.2 4,824.1
7.8%
100.0%
of the states total and thus
Computer
And
Electronic
Products
2,110.6
1,663.6
-21.2%
34.5%
movements within the high
Agricultural Products
465.7
776.9 66.8%
16.1%
tech sector swing the statewide
Chemicals
370.8
487.7 31.5%
10.1%
totals. As shown in Table I.3
Machinery, Except Electrical
364.3
434.1 19.2%
9.0%
Transportation
Equipment
209.0
219.2
4.9%
4.5%
and Graph I.2, these exports
Primary Metal Manufacturing
149.9
176.1 17.5%
3.7%
have fallen 21.2 percent in the
Waste And Scrap
84.6
166.2 96.5%
3.4%
past year. This large decline is
Wood Products
123.6
142.2 15.1%
2.9%
Food And Kindred Products
121.0
135.4 11.9%
2.8%
primarily driven by decreased
Paper
66.7
121.8 82.5%
2.5%
exports by Intel to its facilities
Miscellaneous Manufactured Commodities
63.4
71.0 12.0%
1.5%
in China (and Malaysia), and
Fabricated Metal Products, Nesoi
73.6
78.1
6.0%
1.6%
Electrical Equipment, Appliances, And Component
83.6
71.5 -14.4%
1.5%
is more a function of withinPlastics And Rubber Products
41.3
49.4 19.7%
1.0%
firm movements than an
Forestry Products, Nesoi
2.9
56.5 1864.7%
1.2%
overall industry decline. (For
Source: WISER, August 2011
more information please see
this August 12, 2011 article in The Oregonian.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/08/oregon_exports_to_china_slide.html)
Table I.3 shows Oregons dollar value of exports and year-over-year growth rates for 2011 Q2.
Graph I.2 illustrates quarterly exports by major industry since 1997. For Table I.3, these are the
top fifteen industries by export
volume (in value). Y/Y growth Graph I.2
is positive for thirteen of the top
Oregon Exports by Major Industry ($ millions)
$2,400
fifteen export industries. As
Computer And Electronic Products
$2,200
Agricultural Products
mentioned above, computer and
Chemicals
$2,000
Machinery, Except Electrical
electronic
products
have
Transportation Equipment
$1,800
decreased over the past year.
$1,600
Exports in the industry are down
$1,400
to the top three partner countries
$1,200
in the past year China, Costa
$1,000
Rica and Malaysia - which
$800
account for nearly 64 percent of
$600
the industry total. High tech
$400
exports to China fell 55.7
$200
percent over the year in the
$0
second quarter, which more than
Q1 1997
Q1 1999
Q1 2001
Q1 2003
Q1 2005
Q1 2007
Q1 2009
Q1 2011
accounts for the total industry
decline. Industry totals fell
nearly $447 million, while industry exports to China declined over $474 million during the same
25
time period. Overall, this industry is Oregons largest and most important export sector, driven
by the states cluster of high technology firms and accounted for 44 percent of all exports in
2010.
Agricultural Products (benefiting from higher commodity prices), Chemicals (likewise, plus
increases in Potash exports),
Paper and Waste and Scrap all Graph I.3
increased over 30 percent in the
Oregon Exports (Year-over-Year Change)
second quarter. Machinery
Total Exports
Total excluding Computer and Electronic Products
50%
exports, long a Top 4 industry
40%
in Oregon, have increased
30%
steadily
throughout
the
20%
expansion and have grown over
76 percent since 2009 Q1 and
10%
are nearing their pre-recession
0%
peak levels. These increases are
-10%
indicative of the broad-based
-20%
gains seen in many sectors
-30%
during the recovery.
-40%
While high technology products

-50%
Q1 1998
Q1 2000
Q1 2002
Q1 2008
Q1 2010
Q1 2004
Q1 2006
dominate Oregon exports, it is
useful to examine exports
excluding the industry to gauge the overall health of Oregons exports. This allows one to
examine how widespread the increases (or decreases) are among all industries. Graph I.3
illustrates growth both for total exports and total minus computer and electronic products. While
high tech exports are holding down Table I.4
the total export figures, non-computer
Oregon Exports to Major Trading Partners
and electronic products have increased
($ millions, current prices)
y/y %
Share out
over 30 percent, year-over-years.
2010 Q2 2011 Q2
Total All Countries
4,473.2 4,824.1
change
7.8%
of Total
100.0%
Table I.4 charts exports of Oregon

China
1,087.3
737.2 -32.2%
15.3%
products to major destinations. Out of
Canada
675.9
737.2 9.1%
15.3%
the top fifteen export markets, four
Malaysia
645.5
585.9 -9.2%
12.1%
Japan
328.5
484.4 47.5%
10.0%
countries saw decreases in trade in
Korea,
Republic
Of
226.4
342.6
51.3%
7.1%
2011 Q1 year-over-year. Those
Taiwan
144.2
188.1 30.4%
3.9%
countries are China, Malaysia, Costa
Brazil
71.1
191.3 169.0%
4.0%
Rica and the Netherlands. Exports to
Germany
91.4
126.0 37.8%
2.6%
China were strong in 2010; however
Costa Rica
156.4
115.7 -26.0%
2.4%
Singapore
88.7
115.2
29.9%
2.4%
the fluctuations quarter to quarter
Philippines
106.0
109.2 3.0%
2.3%
recently have been large (see Graph
Australia
62.2
83.2 33.8%
1.7%
I.4 below). While exports to Japan
United Kingdom
54.5
70.6 29.5%
1.5%
have increased nearly 48 percent over
Mexico
55.5
60.8 9.4%
1.3%
Netherlands
84.0
53.3
-36.6%
1.1%
the past year, the recent rise is even
Source: WISER, August 2011
stronger. Over the past three quarters,
exports to Japan have grown over 66 percent primarily driven by agricultural products,
however increases in computer and electronic products, chemicals and wood products also are
contributing to the gains.
26
Graph I.4 shows the quarterly Graph I.4

export trend for Oregons top
Oregon Exports by Country ($ millions)
five markets since 1997.
China
Canada
Malaysia
Japan
Korea, Republic Of
$1,200
Exports to all top five
destinations increased in 2010
$1,000
compared to 2009; however
developments in the most recent
$800
quarters vary across countries.
Goods bound for Canada, Japan
$600
and Korea increased in the most
recent quarter, while exports to
$400
China and Malaysia fell. After
$200
reaching an all-time high in the
third quarter, exports to
$0
Malaysia cooled off somewhat
Q1 1997
Q1 1999
Q1 2001
Q1 2003
Q1 2005
Q1 2007
Q1 2009
Q1 2011
in the past six months. Given
the fact that 96 percent of Oregon exports to Malaysia in 2010 were Computer and Electronic
Products, fluctuations within this industry drive total exports to the country. A welcomed
development is the rebound in exports to Canada in 2010 and into the first half of 2011. As
Oregons largest export market for much of the past two decades, the Great Recession took a
heavy toll of Canadian bound exports as the dominant industries have traditionally been
transportation equipment and wood products, two industries hit especially hard.
27
28
C.
Western Region
This section of the September 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 is useful. Below, you will
find tables analyzing how Oregons economy is fairing compared to the following western states:
Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Washington.
Employment
The slowdown in economic activity in the first half of 2011 has likewise resulted in slower job
growth in recent months. Even with this slowing, jobs continue to expand on a monthly basis
across the nation and the western states (except Idaho in 2011 Q2). On a year-over-year basis, all
western states have seen job gains except Nevada. At the national level, total nonfarm
employment increased 0.8 percent year-over-year which marks the third consecutive positive
value. Table W.1 details employment by major sector for each of the western states and their
respective year-over-year changes.
Table W.1
Employment by Sector (2011 Q2)
Total Nonfarm
Y/Y Percent Change
Natural Resources and Mining
Y/Y Percent Change
Construction
Y/Y Percent Change
Manufacturing
Y/Y Percent Change
Trade, Transportation and Utilities
Y/Y Percent Change
Information
Y/Y Percent Change
Financial Activities
Y/Y Percent Change
Professional and Business Services
Y/Y Percent Change
Leisure and Hospitality Services
Y/Y Percent Change
Other Services
Y/Y Percent Change
Government
Y/Y Percent Change
Arizona California
2,393.4 14,056.4
0.2
1.0
11.0
27.2
0.0
0.7
111.1
567.4
-0.5
0.8
150.0
1,254.7
1.0
0.9
473.4
2,646.8
0.9
1.0
36.3
452.9
-0.9
7.0
163.0
756.6
0.5
-0.3
335.1
2,127.2
-2.0
3.0
257.9
1,526.3
1.8
2.2
86.5
482.5
-2.8
-0.7
410.4
2,385.6
-2.7
-3.0
Idaho Nevada Oregon

Utah Washington United States
606.5 1,117.6 1,625.0 1,201.2
2,810.7
131,024.7
0.6
-0.2
1.4
1.6
0.9
0.8
3.4
12.6
6.8
10.9
6.0
780.0
-1.9
4.4
1.1
4.5
0.0
12.0
29.6
54.0
69.1
64.6
138.8
5,526.3
-5.3
-10.3
2.0
-0.7
-1.6
-0.2
54.0
35.9
168.5
115.1
263.4
11,711.3
1.8
-5.7
2.6
3.4
2.1
1.6
122.1
204.8
313.7
233.8
520.4
24,895.3
0.7
-2.4
1.9
1.9
0.4
1.3
9.3
12.5
32.8
29.9
103.9
2,684.0
-2.8
0.3
2.1
2.5
1.3
-1.0
29.6
48.6
93.4
66.9
137.4
7,614.7
2.9
-7.2
0.5
-1.3
2.2
-0.3
72.1
140.6
185.5
158.8
348.0
17,141.7
-1.5
4.0
2.3
4.2
7.2
3.0
60.8
317.3
167.6
112.1
270.0
13,194.3
5.1
2.7
3.4
1.2
1.2
1.5
21.3
34.4
57.3
35.0
103.4
5,445.0
0.8
1.9
-0.6
4.3
-1.4
1.9
118.2
152.1
295.8
216.2
538.2
22,109.0
-1.2
-3.2
-2.2
-0.8
-2.7
-2.9
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, State employment in 000s, U.S. employment in millions
Oregons strong job gains over the past year have the state ranked thirteenth best in the country
in year-over-year percentage change for the month of June. Among western states, Oregons
growth only trails Utahs. Within employment, it is interesting to note the composition of growth
across the states. In particular for Oregon, the states growth within goods producing sectors is
outpacing our neighboring states. Oregons construction growth is best compared to the nation
and western states. Oregons trade, transportation and utilities growth is tied with Utah for the
fastest, while Oregons manufacturing growth is second fastest. Given that these are the
industries that were hardest hit during the recession, it is good news to see relatively strong
growth today.
29
Percent Job Loss from 2008 Q1
While all western Graph W.1

0%
states have seen
2008Q1
2009Q1
2010Q1
2011Q1
heavy job losses,
-2%
their
relative
performance has
-4%
varied to some
degree. Graph W.1
-6%
and Table W.2
compare job losses
-8%
across the states.
U.S. (2008 Q1)
Different
states
Arizona (2007 Q3)
-10%
employment
California (2007 Q3)
reached its peak at
Idaho (2007 Q4)
-12%
Nevada (2007 Q2)
different
time
Oregon (2008 Q1)
periods based on
-14%
Utah (2007 Q4)
the
unique
Washington (2008 Q1)
economies in each
-16%
state. Graph W.1
illustrates the cumulative Table W.2
percentage of job losses in
Peak
Trough
% Decline from
% Increase from
each state since the first
Employment Employment
Peak to Trough
Trough to Current
Arizona
2007 Q3
2010 Q1
-11.70%
1.11%
quarter of 2008. Each states
California
2007 Q3
2010 Q3
-8.79%
1.39%
respective employment peak
Idaho
2007 Q4
2010 Q3
-8.44%
0.88%
is noted in parenthesis in the
Nevada
2007 Q2
2010 Q4
-14.26%
0.61%
Oregon
2008 Q1
2009 Q4
-8.41%
2.03%
graphs legend, and also in
Utah
2007
Q4
2010
Q1
-7.00%
2.30%
column two in Table W.2.
Washington
2008 Q1
2010 Q1
-6.80%
1.43%
Relative to other western
United States
2008 Q1
2010 Q1
-6.23%
1.32%
states, Oregons job losses
have been less severe than
Arizona, California, and Nevada; however Idaho, Utah, Washington and the U.S. have seen
lower levels of job loss. Now that each state has registered positive employment gains, at least
for one recent quarter, Oregons gains have outpaced both the national average and all other
western states except Utah.
Economic Coincident Index
One very useful state level economic
indicator 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,
Table W.3
Economic Coincident Index for 2011 Q2
Arizona
California
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington
United States
Q/Q Percent Y/Y Percent 5 Year Percent

Index Value Change (AR)
Change
Change
176.58
1.3%
0.5%
-11.4%
150.62
2.1%
2.6%
-1.0%
188.35
2.1%
0.9%
-11.1%
176.80
0.1%
-1.0%
-24.0%
188.14
5.9%
4.2%
-2.5%
183.96
3.5%
2.5%
-0.4%
148.01
1.5%
1.6%
-2.1%
152.48
3.0%
2.2%
-1.5%
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Index = 100 in July 1992
30
the data is designed to report current economic conditions on a monthly basis, and is not a
leading or a lagging indicator.
On a year-over-year basis, Nevada continues to be the worst performing western state, a result of
continued job losses and high unemployment rate. Oregons index, after growing moderately
through 2010, has turned strongly positive in the past six months. Oregons 4.2 percent growth in
the past year betters all other western states and also the U.S. average. Oregons quarter-overquarter growth ranks fifth best nationally, Oregons year-over-year increase ranks fourth best
nationally and Oregons five year percentage change ranks twenty-sixth best nationally.
Housing Price Index
Many of the western states have
been hit hard by the housing boom
and subsequent bust. Table W.4
shows the Federal Housing Finance
Agencys home price index for each
western state. Graph W.2 shows the
FHFA Housing Price Index for each
of the western states since 2000.
While the data is typically indexed
to 1991, for graphing purposes, the
data is indexed 2000 = 100 to
illustrate the home price changes
over the past decade.
Prices
in
Arizona,
Nevada and California all
at least doubled between
2000 and 2006. By 2007
and 2008 prices in
Oregon and Washington
had increased over 80
percent, while Idaho and
Nevada
experienced
gains over 60 percent.
Since that time, prices
have declined across all
western states by at least
20 percent.
Table W.4
Housing Price Index (2011 Q1)
Arizona
California
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington
United States
Index Q/Q Percent Y/Y Percent Percent Change

Value Change (AR)
Change
Since Peak
167.73
-10.8%
-12.2%
-47.5%
154.79
-10.5%
-7.7%
-45.2%
178.46
-21.5%
-15.7%
-32.4%
120.75
-16.0%
-8.6%
-55.9%
247.12
-13.2%
-10.3%
-27.0%
239.12
-15.1%
-7.1%
-25.5%
217.32
-12.6%
-9.4%
-22.3%
181.02
-9.6%
-5.5%
-19.3%
Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)
Graph W.2
FHFA Home Price Index (Purchase Only)

Arizona
California
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington
U.S.
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
Home prices continue to

2000Q1
2002Q1
2004Q1
2006Q1
2008Q1
2010Q1
decline across all western
states in both the most
recent months and over the past year. The states that experienced the largest run-up in prices
during the bubble years have likewise seen the deepest declines over the past few years. Arizona,
California and Nevada have all seen price declines of over 40 percent since each states home
price peak.
31
Housing Permits
With the large home price declines across the nation in recent
years and an oversupply of houses on the market, there has
been very little new construction relative to historical levels.
One measure used to gauge new home construction is
housing permits issued, shown in Table W.5. It appears that
each passing year brings worse news for new home
construction. 2009 was worse than 2008 which was worse
than 2007. After a mixed bag in 2010, expectations were for
at least some semblance of stability in 2011; however the first
six months figures for permits indicate no such stability as
the numbers are substantially lower than early 2010 figures.
Table W.5
Housing Permits Issued (2011Q2 YTD)
Arizona
California
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington
United States
Y/Y Percent
Change
Permits
6,005
-16.4%
22,964
8.4%
1,833
-34.7%
3,727
-7.3%
3,589
-9.1%
4,126
-15.3%
10,106
-3.6%
295,831
-5.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
All western states and the nation have seen a decline in permits issued, except for California.
Across locales, the sub-industry experiencing any growth is the multi-family market as single
family homes continue to remain at depressed levels in terms of both sales and new construction.
While multi-family permits have increased, these gains have not been large enough to offset the
declines in single family homes in most locations. California is the exception among western
states as their multi-family permits have increased 46 percent through the first six months, even
though single family permits in the state have declined 13 percent. In Oregon, multi-family
permits have increased 36 percent and single family permits have declined 20 percent.
Exports
The global recession decimated international trade throughout
late 2008 and early 2009; however exports have rebounded
sharply since around mid-2009. As show in Table W.6, on a
year-over-year basis most states and the nation overall are
experiencing sizable increases in trade, with only Oregon
failing to reach double digit growth in the second quarter.
Oregons figures, as detailed in the International Section, are
attributable to high technology exports to Asia declining in
recent months, even though all other Oregon exports are
increasing over 30 percent on a year-over-year basis.
Table W.6
Total Exports (2011 Q2)
Arizona
California
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington
United States
Exports Y/Y Percent

($ mill)
Change
$4,463
15.0%
$39,915
12.5%
$1,513
12.4%
$1,894
27.8%
$4,824
7.8%
$4,246
39.0%
$15,725
31.2%
$370,571
17.6%
Source: WiserTrade, August 2011
Even with the sizable increases in recent months, the nation

and western states exports remain slightly below their peak levels achieved during the summer
of 2008.
Tax Revenue
While the recession pummeled tax revenues for all states during the 2007 through early 2010
period, the past four quarters (2010 Q2 2011 Q1) have brought good news to most state coffers
in the form of positive revenue growth. Table W.7 shows tax revenue by major revenue source
for 2011 Q1, along with year-over-year percent changes, for the western states. Every western
state has seen state and local tax revenues increase over the past year. While in previous quarters,
growth has originated primarily through business taxes (gross receipts, income, etc) due to the
32
very high profitability of businesses in 2010, the current growth is a result of increased sales tax
collections and personal income tax collections. While many business (typically the largest)
remain highly profitable, this profitability has not increased further, making year ago
comparisons more difficult and expectations are for business tax receipts to decline in the
coming year. On the personal or consumer side of the ledger, these tax collections are increasing
and are expected to continue to do so throughout the expansion. As more and more individuals
are able to find jobs, and wages increase, consumers spend more money on purchases and their
income tax liabilities increase. The data below reflect this pattern.
Table W.7
State and Local Tax Revenue (2011 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
2,523,894
14.1%
193,653
-7.3%
1,449,434
18.9%
199,140
-2.1%
18,405
6.4%
5,351
-11.0%
109,493
-0.3%
78,771
-5.8%
3,045
2139.0%
44,024
-10.2%
2,364
-68.1%
28,293
-0.6%
257,491
56.7%
83,560
-14.6%
California
27,129,164
5.5%
729,904
-10.3%
8,233,845
-3.1%
1,377,075
82.5%
76,526
3.7%
158,834
8.2%
126,165
7.4%
258,498
18.8%
X
X
777,239
4.4%
13,229
-10.8%
1,016,274
-8.4%
12,045,229
12.1%
2,063,265
-7.8%
Idaho
Nevada
745,728 1,577,577
22.7%
4.1%
X
86,213
X
-19.4%
306,407
689,941
14.3%
6.8%
54,749
69,779
10.1%
3.9%
1,743
10,323
-5.6%
3.5%
556
4,592
79.9%
-18.9%
8,983
56,710
2.2%
0.1%
11,113
26,402
3.9%
2.0%
X
278,727
X
0.9%
38,131
40,326
8.5%
-9.6%
531
18,741
1.7%
14.3%
20,106
174,594
10.1%
10.9%
226,078
X
27.2%
X
37,056
X
262.2%
X
Oregon
Utah Washington
1,748,617 1,202,004 4,382,821
16.2%
8.8%
5.9%
5,316
X
804,924
-31.9%
X
5.8%
X
469,547 2,480,495
X
15.0%
6.0%
108,121
87,247
283,322
-16.2%
7.6%
2.5%
3,582
11,197
81,554
9.7%
1.6%
17.1%
4,602
5,111
117,765
-45.3%
-27.2%
-12.0%
16,925
21,124
47,064
-20.8%
-4.3%
7.9%
59,669
26,252
110,187
23.3%
72.8%
23.4%
17
X
0
-64.6%
X
X
141,279
48,703
118,575
10.8%
-35.6%
4.4%
7,689
2,149
7,588
106.4%
115.8%
12.9%
132,900
12,088
58,775
72.9%
5.7%
-2.4%
1,152,216
449,112
X
20.6%
14.6%
X
73,111
27,362
X
12.9%
-15.1%
X
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ($ 000s)
As shown in the employment table at the beginning of this section (Table W.1), government
employment in each western state has declined in the past year, with further decreases expected
over the next year. This is a direct result of how governments budget, which makes the public
sector late comers to recessions. With the ARRA federal monies coming to an end, and states
beginning new fiscal years (and/or biennium), the recessions impact is just now being fully felt
in many states budgets. While increasing tax revenues will alleviate some of the program
reductions this year, these gains are not enough to offset the loss of federal monies and depleted
reserve funds.
33
34
D.
Oregon Economic Review and Forecast
Summary of Recent Trends

Statewide Trends
After a very strong start to 2011, the second quarter job growth came in at a very slow pace.
Preliminary estimates place the second quarter growth at 0.7 percent. At least this is the third
consecutive quarter of positive job growth, the longest continuous stretch since the second
quarter of 2007. On a year-over-year (Y/Y) basis, job growth is up 1.4 percent.
While the total estimated job growth for the second quarter is disappointing, the private sector
has been improving. After a rocky start in the first quarter of 2010, the private sector has added
jobs every quarter. More sectors had job gains relative to job losses. Notable job increases are
reported in manufacturing, retail trade, health services, and leisure and hospitality. Some of the
sectors with relatively higher job losses are wood products, food processing, transportation,
warehousing, and utilities, educational services, and other services. Budget shortfalls have
caught up with the public sector, with declines in all three government levels, notable local
government and in particular local education.
The headwinds facing the U.S. economy did not appear to be present in the first quarter in
Oregon, but the second quarter is feeling the effects. Higher gasoline and other commodity
prices are squeezing household budgets. The slowing impacts around the country have come to
Oregon, but the private sector is still producing more jobs, albeit at a relatively slow pace. The
real story of the slow growth in the second quarter is the government sector. Comprising around
18 percent of total employment in Oregon, job losses in this sector will have a damping impact
on the economy moving forward.
The most recent Blue Chip Job Figure O.1
Growth rankings place Oregon
13th in the nation for Y/Y job
growth. Between July 2010 and
July 2011, jobs increased by
25,800, or 1.62 percent. Last Oregon:
June Oregon ranked 21st. The
relative performance of the fifty
states is shown in Figure O.1.
Nonfarm Job Growth by State

July 2011 over July 2010
(Ranked by Percent Change)
13th
North Dakota retains the 1st

ranked position with job growth
of 5.39 percent, a ranking it also
held a year ago. California had
job gains ranking at 15th.
Washingtons job gains have
Bottom 10
Fourth 10
Middle 10
Second 10
Top 10
moved the state from a rank of
Source: Blue Chip Job Growth Update, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University
th
th
46 to a ranking of 16 in the
nation. Idahos job gains was
0.79 percent, ranking 29th among the 50 states.
35
Industry Trends
Right now the economy is growing at a frustratingly slow pace and employment gains are not
strong enough to bring down the unemployment rate quickly. As of today there are two main
drags on the recovery: the delayed improvement in the housing market and the public sector
pullback. The housing market is not a new issue and has been and is expected to continue to be a
negative factor on the recovery, or at least not a strong positive. Once the existing overhang of
inventories, including some of the shadow inventory and foreclosures, are whittled down further,
then the rebound in new construction can take full force and drive economic growth. Reasonable
estimates of when this may occur fall in the 2014 2016 timeframe.
The public sector pullback is a relatively new drag on the economy. Initially, largely driven by
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the public sector was an economic driver
with increased spending
Where's My Recovery?
on infrastructure projects,
(Monthly Employment Changes)
tax cuts and financial
3,500
block grants to the states
Typical Expansion
Past Year
3,000
to shore up their budgets.
Now that the vast
2,500
majority of these federal
2,000
monies have been spent
and no further federal
1,500
assistance is on the
1,000
horizon, state and local
governments are cutting
500
their budgets, which leads
0
to employment losses.
The graph to the right is
-500
designed to illustrate how
-1,000
these two main economic
Total Nonfarm
Private ex Housing
Housing Related
Public
drags are impacting job
growth in Oregon.
It is interesting to note that the private sector excluding housing is currently expanding at a
slightly above average pace, relative to the two previous economic expansions in Oregon. That
means 75 percent of all industries, or employment, is growing more quickly today than in past
recoveries. Unfortunately the impact from the two main drags is holding total nonfarm
employment from growing at a similar pace. Typically, housing related industries add 575 jobs
per month and the public sector adds 350 jobs per month. In the past year, these industries have
added only 50 jobs per month and cut jobs at a 675 per month pace, respectively. It is true that
the temporary Census workers are included in some of the public sector cuts; however, once
these jobs are accounted for the public sector has cut employment by 475 per month, on average.
In total, between the two drags, instead of adding a combined 925 jobs per month, these
industries have actually been cutting 425 jobs per month (ex-Census), a net swing of over 1,300
jobs every single month. If these industries were able to increase employment at their typical
pace, total nonfarm employment in Oregon would be growing extremely well by historical
standards and the unemployment rate would be declining more quickly.
36
Methodology Notes: The typical expansion is defined here for these purposes as the average of the 1992-1999 and
2004-2007 periods. Housing related industries include all construction employment, building material and garden
supply stores, mortgage loan brokers and real estate employees. The past year is the July 2010 to July 2011 time
period.
Table O.1
Total Nonfarm Employment, 2nd quarter 2011
(Employment in thousands, Annualized Percent Change)
Preliminary
Estimate
level
% ch
Total Nonfarm
Total Private
Construction
Manufacturing
Durable Goods
Wood Product
Metals and Machinery
Computer and Electronic Product
Other Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Food
Other Nondurable Goods
Trade, Transportation & Utilities
Retail Trade
Wholesale Trade
Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities
Information
Professional & Business Services
Educational & Health Services
Educational Services
Health Services
Leisure and Hospitality
Other Services
Government
Federal
State
State Education
Local
Local Education
1,625.0
1,329.2
6.8
69.1
168.5
118.3
18.8
32.9
36.4
10.5
19.6
50.2
26.2
24.0
313.7
189.0
72.2
52.5
32.8
93.4
185.5
234.4
31.7
202.7
167.6
57.3
295.8
27.9
80.5
31.1
187.5
98.4
0.7
1.6
(2.0)
3.6
3.8
7.2
(6.9)
7.3
6.2
7.2
25.8
(3.7)
(6.9)
(0.1)
2.2
4.2
0.6
(2.7)
(0.0)
1.0
(2.2)
2.5
(3.6)
3.5
4.4
(7.3)
(3.2)
(8.0)
(0.7)
3.6
(3.5)
(4.7)
Forecast
level % ch
1,633.1
2.6
1,335.5
3.4
6.9
4.4
68.9
2.9
164.8 (5.0)
117.3
3.5
19.2
0.6
33.1
9.2
35.8 (0.3)
10.5
5.9
18.7
2.9
47.5 (22.6)
23.5 (41.1)
24.1
3.0
314.4
3.2
188.4
3.4
72.8
3.7
53.2
2.3
33.7 10.8
93.6
1.4
191.1
9.0
234.6
3.3
32.0
0.1
202.6
3.8
168.8
7.3
58.7
1.8
297.6 (1.1)
28.3 (2.1)
80.3 (2.0)
30.9
0.7
189.0 (0.6)
98.1 (6.1)
Forecast Error
%
Y/Y
Change
% ch
(8.1) (0.5)
(6.2) (0.5)
(0.1) (1.2)
0.2
0.3
3.7
2.3
1.0
0.9
(0.4) (2.0)
(0.1) (0.4)
0.6
1.8
0.0
0.4
0.9
4.6
2.7
5.7
2.8 11.9
(0.1) (0.3)
(0.7) (0.2)
0.6
0.3
(0.6) (0.8)
(0.7) (1.4)
(0.8) (2.5)
(0.1) (0.1)
(5.6) (2.9)
(0.3) (0.1)
(0.3) (1.0)
0.1
0.0
(1.2) (0.7)
(1.4) (2.5)
(1.8) (0.6)
(0.4) (1.4)
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.7
(1.5) (0.8)
0.3
0.3
1.4
2.2
1.1
2.0
2.6
2.7
(7.9)
6.0
4.4
2.2
5.8
2.5
9.9
(4.5)
1.9
3.4
(1.1)
0.8
2.1
0.5
2.3
2.9
0.9
3.2
3.4
(0.6)
(2.2)
(14.9)
1.1
5.6
(1.5)
(2.8)
level
Table O.1 shows a comparison of preliminary estimates for second quarter Oregon employment
growth compared to the May 2011 forecast. Table O.1 also provides forecast errors and Y/Y
growth. While percent change in the preliminary estimate shows the most recent development in
the employment front, Y/Y growth indicates what has happened over a years time. Unless
37
noted otherwise, the employment figures are seasonally adjusted, and all percentage rates
discussed below reflect annualized rates of change for second quarter 2011. When the
preliminary estimate is lower than OEAs forecast, forecast error is shown as negative. Positive
forecast error then means that the preliminary estimate came in higher than OEAs forecast.
The preliminary estimate for second quarter job growth was less than the forecast, with an error
of 0.5 percent. The slower job growth figure follows the U.S. job picture with lackluster growth
in the second quarter. This is a bit disappointing following the robust growth in Oregon of 4.9
percent in the first quarter.
The private sector has fared better than the public sector through this recovery period, adding
5,160 jobs for an increase of 1.6 percent. Manufacturing was up 3.8 percent while private
nonmanufacturing was up 1.2 percent. The government sector lost 2,410 jobs for a decline of 3.2
percent and a Y/Y decline of 2.2 percent.
Within manufacturing, durable goods employment increased a strong 7.2 percent, adding 2,050
jobs. Wood products was the only sector in this category to see a decline. With housing still not
coming back, this sector lost jobs at 6.9 percent. Other durables, which include electrical
equipment, appliance, and furniture products, increased a healthy 25.8 percent, adding 1,090
jobs. Metals and machinery had a job gain of 7.3 percent. Computer and electronic products
gained 540 jobs for an increase of 6.2 percent. Transportation equipment sector posted a gain of
7.2 percent. Durable goods manufacturing has been a leading growth sector for the past two
quarters. Increased Oregon exports are part of the story for this strength.
Food processing, a highly seasonal sector, decreased jobs by 6.9 percent. Even with this decline,
this sector still has more jobs now than at the start of the recession, adding 2,740 jobs since the
first quarter of 2008. Other nondurable goods manufacturing, this includes paper and allied
products, declined slightly at the rate of 0.1 percent.
In the private nonmanufacturing sector, construction increased jobs by 3.6 percent. Its Y/Y
growth is now at 2.0 percent, a rate not seen since the third quarter of 2007. Construction
employment is still down almost 36,000 jobs or 34.4 percent since the recent high employment
in the first quarter of 2007.
Even though recent news has shown a slowdown in consumer spending, the retail trade jobs were
up 4.2 percent. The Y/Y growth for this sector is up 3.4 percent. Wholesale trade jobs rose
slightly by 0.6 percent. Transportation, warehousing, and utilities declined by 2.7 percent.
Financial services added jobs at a rate of 1.0 percent for a second consecutive quarter.
Professional and business services showed a surprise drop in jobs of 2.2 percent. This decline
follows a string of job gains going back to the fourth quarter of 2009. Information jobs, which
include publishers of software, added jobs at a rate of 1.0 percent. Leisure and hospitality
increased jobs by 4.4 percent is now up by 3.4 percent in Y/Y growth.
Private education service is a volatile sector with wide swings in job changes. This quarter
shows up as a 3.6 percent decline with Y/Y growth of 0.9 percent. Health services continue to
be one of the stronger sectors with job growth of 3.5 percent.
38
Other services that include personal, repair, and maintenance decreased by 7.3 percent. Possibly
the higher commodity prices (e.g., oil and thus gasoline, food) squeezed households budgets
impacting sales in this sector.
While the private sector is struggling through this recovery with mild job growth, the
government sector is cutting jobs. Federal government employment is down 8.0 percent. As tax
revenues have not grown to replace temporary federal stimulus money, state and local
governments are cutting services. State government is down only 0.7 percent, mainly because
state education is up 3.6 percent. Public colleges are countercyclical to the recession as more
students enroll and pay tuition. Local government jobs are down by 3.5 percent, and unlike state
education, local education is more dependent on tax revenues and jobs are down 4.7 percent.
Regional Trends
Total nonfarm employment in Oregon increased 1.3 percent from the second quarter of 2010 to
the second quarter of 2011. In recent months, government job losses have weighed down
improvements in the private sector. Private employment gains stood at 2.2 percent over the
second quarter of 2010, while the public sector declined by the same percentage. Census
employment in 2010 continues to affect over-the-year trends in government, as those jobs were
temporary.
Oregons overall employment trend turned positive in the fourth quarter of 2010, which showed
a slight increase over the year after nine consecutive quarters with a year-over-year decline.
Many rural regions of Oregon endured longer declines. Generally, regional employment losses
were most severe in the second and third quarters of 2009. Losses moderated in 2010 and growth
resumed in the first quarter of 2011. By the second quarter of 2011, every region except the
Portland area had dipped back into negative territory.
Regional unemployment rates (not seasonally adjusted) in the second quarter ranged from a low
of 8.5 percent in the Portland area to a high of 12.0 percent in Southern Oregon. In every region,
unemployment rates were significantly lower than last year. Statewide, the unadjusted June 2011
unemployment rate was 9.7 percent, nearly matching the national rate of 9.6 percent.
Employment Gains Slow in the Portland Area:
Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill counties
Employment losses in the Portland area began in the fourth quarter of 2008, and accelerated until
the third quarter of 2009 before beginning to moderate. In the third quarter of 2010, employment
growth resumed and job gains followed through the first quarter of 2011. Nonfarm job counts in
the second quarter of 2011 slowed but growth continued at a rate of 1.0 percent over the year.
By county, second quarter employment growth was fastest in Washington (+1.3%), while
Multnomah and Yamhill tied (+0.5%). After slight growth in the first quarter of 2011,
Clackamas employment dropped (-1.4%). Columbia County has yet to see positive growth, and
dropped 2.3 percent between the second quarter of 2010 and the second quarter of 2011.
Of 11 broad industry sectors, seven showed employment gains in the Portland area from June
2010 to June 2011. Manufacturing and education and health services grew the fastest, and
39
together added over 5,000 jobs. Professional and business services also gained a significant
number of jobs (+1,750), as did trade, transportation, and utilities (+670). Construction grew 1.0
percent over the year, driven by growth in Multnomah and Washington counties.
Government and other services had lower job counts in June 2011 than one year earlier,
declining 4.0 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively.
The unemployment rate in the Portland region was the lowest in the state, at 8.5 percent in the
second quarter of 2011. The rate dropped 1.4 percentage points from the prior year.
Job Growth Stalls in Willamette Valley:
Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion, and Polk counties
The Willamette Valley posted its first over-the-year jobs loss at the same time as the state, in the
third quarter of 2008. Over the next two years, the rate of local job loss essentially mirrored the
statewide average. As the state resumed growth in the final quarter of 2010, regional job gains
lagged behind. The area experienced negative over-the-year job growth in every quarter since
the recession began, except for the slight gain in the first quarter of 2011 (+0.1%). In the second
quarter, declines returned (-0.5%).
Benton was the only county in the region with positive employment gains, adding about 900 jobs
between the second quarter of 2010 and the second quarter of 2011. Lane County followed the
overall regional trend, dropping 0.1 percent. Linn County also saw jobs decline 0.6 percent over
the year, with job losses continuing for the 11th consecutive quarter (-1.6%).
Seven of 11 broad industries lost employment in the region between June 2010 and June 2011.
Government had the highest job losses, most from local government
(-1,630). Retail trade and construction saw the next greatest losses, at 360 and 180 jobs,
respectively.
Three broad sectors showed growth over the year. Education and health services added the most
jobs regionally (+320), predominately in the Salem metro area. Leisure and hospitality added
240 jobs on net, driven entirely by growth in Benton and Lane counties. Although Linn County
added 270 manufacturing jobs over the year, employment in this industry dropped within the
whole region (-0.2%).
In the second quarter of 2011, the Willamette Valleys unemployment rate was 9.5 percent. The
rate dropped 1.3 percentage points over the year.
Employment Gains Limited along the Coast:
Clatsop, Coos, Curry, Lincoln, and Tillamook counties
Employment declines in Oregons coastal counties began in the second half of 2007. Over-theyear losses were fairly mild through 2008 but became severe in 2009. Losses moderated in the
first half of 2010, and the third quarter of 2010 brought the coasts first over-the-year job gains.
Growth accelerated in the first quarter of 2011, but declines resumed in the second quarter (0.4%).
40
Every county on the coast posted employment gains by the final quarter of 2010, which
continued through the first quarter of 2011. In the second quarter of 2011, over-the year job
losses resumed in Lincoln (-1.9%), Curry (-0.7%), and Tillamook (-0.2%), while Clatsop and
Coos remained positive. Employment growth in Coos County slowed to 0.2 percent over the
second quarter of 2010, while Clatsop saw double this growth rate.
Less than half of the regions 11 broad industrial sectors gained jobs over the year. Leisure and
hospitality added the most at 370, followed by 180 jobs in professional and business services.
Educational and health services saw mild growth among all counties, increasing employment by
140. Other services added a few jobs in each of the coastal counties, totaling up to 90 over the
year.
Trade, transportation, and utilities; manufacturing; and construction dropped around 120 to 190
jobs each, while government dropped 670 jobs over the past year. Mining and logging remained
flat.
Since the second quarter of 2010, the coastal regions unemployment rate dropped 1.0
percentage point to 9.8 percent.
Southern Oregon Counties Stuck in Neutral:
Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties
Over-the-year employment declines in Southern Oregon began in mid-2007. The region endured
the longest slide in the state, with 14 consecutive quarters of decline. Losses peaked at nearly 8
percent in the second quarter of 2009. The area resumed over-the-year job growth in the first
quarter of 2011 (+0.7%), but these gains were erased in the second quarter of 2011, when
employment matched the level in the second quarter of 2010.
Between second quarters 2010 and second quarter 2011, Josephine County lost 0.4 percent of
employment. Jackson County has been the main driver of job growth in the region, adding about
the same number of jobs in each of the last two quarters (0.7%). After 18 consecutive quarters of
job loss, declines continued in Douglas County (-1.3%).
Five of areas 11 broad sectors showed growth over the year ending in June 2011. Professional
and business services was the only industry to see gains in every county, adding a total of 360
jobs. Due to large gains in retail trade in Jackson County, trade, transportation and utilities also
had a strong showing (+520). Leisure and hospitality tallied an increase of 110 jobs over the
year, while educational and health services and other services racked up about 40 jobs each.
The region continues to struggle in sectors hard hit by the recent recession. Construction dropped
3.5 percent between June 2010 and June 2011, with the170 job loss concentrated in Jackson (130) and Josephine (-50). Government dropped 560 jobs over the year, most at the federal level.
Southern Oregons 12.0 percent unemployment rate in the second quarter of 2011 was the
highest regional unemployment rate in the state. The rate has dropped 1.3 percentage points over
the past year.
41
Mixed Job Growth in Central Oregon:

Crook, Deschutes, Gilliam, Hood River, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Sherman, Wasco, and
Wheeler counties
Central Oregons employment began to dive in 2008. Declines accelerated and reached a low
point in mid-2009, when employment was down nearly 9.0 percent from mid-2008. Losses in
Deschutes County accounted for the majority of the Central Oregon decline. Over-the-year job
losses eased in 2010, but resumed in the second quarter of 2011 (-1.2%).
Of the 10 Central Oregon counties, four had an over-the-year gain in the second quarter of 2011.
The gain was smallest in Lake (+0.2%) and Wasco (+0.8%), and larger in Sherman (+4.1%) and
Gilliam (+4.7%). Among the four counties with declining employment, losses were mild in
Hood River (-0.1%) and Klamath (-0.7%). Deschutes had moderate losses (-1.4%), along with
Wheeler (-2.3%). Two other Central Oregon counties remained significantly below the
employment level in second quarter 2010: Crook (-5.9%) and Jefferson (-4.0%).
Eight of 11 broad industries in Central Oregon dropped jobs over the year. Employment in
mining and logging dropped 470 from June 2010 to June 2011. The local industrys 11.5 percent
decline was the worst of any region in the state. Government dropped 580 jobs over the year,
with losses in nearly all Central Oregon counties.
Private educational and health services was the clear winner across the region, adding 625 jobs.
Deschutes produced over half of these jobs, contributing 380. Retail trade also posted gains,
growing 1.5 percent over the year.
At 11.5 percent in the second quarter of 2011, Central Oregons unemployment rate was the
second highest regional rate in the state. The rate dropped 1.4 percentage points from the second
quarter of 2010.
Eastern Oregon Growth Backtracks:
Baker, Grant, Harney, Malheur, Morrow, Umatilla, Union, and Wallowa counties
Job loss in Eastern Oregon during the recession was relatively moderate, but prolonged. The area
saw its first year-over-year losses in early 2008. Losses peaked above 3 percent in the first half
of 2009, when statewide losses were running above 5 percent. Losses were relatively mild in
2010, with slow growth resuming in the final quarter and into the first quarter of 2011. This trend
was reversed by the second quarter of 2011, when the region saw an over-the-year decline of 1.0
percent.
Umatilla was the only county that saw over-the-year gains in the second quarter (+0.7%). Losses
were mild in Morrow (-0.5%), and moderate in Union (-1.3%), Malheur (-1.4%), and Grant (2.0%). Declines were more significant in the three remaining counties: Wallowa (-5.1%), Harney
(-5.1%), and Baker (-3.9%).
Of 11 broad industries in Eastern Oregon, four gained jobs over the year. County-level trends
were mixed, but across the region the largest gains were in educational and health services (+120
jobs).
42
Construction in the region remained flat, matching the year-ago level, while manufacturing and
trade, transportation, and utilities each dropped 20 jobs. Government dropped 580 jobs across the
region.
Eastern Oregons unemployment rate in the second quarter of 2011 was 9.5 percent. The area
had the states smallest unemployment rate decrease over the year, dropping 0.8 percentage point
since the second quarter of 2010.
Information on employment in Oregons 15 workforce regions and 36 counties is available at
www.QualityInfo.org. For more information, contact Katharine Williams, Economist,
Katharine.S.Williams@state.or.us, 503-947-1274.
Oregon Index of Leading Indicators
Oregon Index of Leading Indicators
30.0%
(Six-Month Annualized Percent Change, through June 2011)
10.0%
20.0%
6.7%
10.0%
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
-10.0%
-3.3%
-20.0%
-6.7%
-30.0%
-10.0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Leading Index (Left)
Total Nonfarm (Right)
Diffusion Index <50
In June 2011, the six month percentage change in the Oregon Index of Leading Indicators 1 was
1.3 percent, following a revised 5.2 percent change the prior month. On a month-over-month
basis, five of the eleven indicators improved in June from their May levels, however on a six
month basis (which the overall Index is calculated based on six month changes) seven of the
eleven indicators are indicating growth. While the Index level has declined in recent months, the
six month growth rate remains positive, albeit at a lower rate.
1
The OILI applies the Conference Boards 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 Managements
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.
43
While a number of the indicators do fluctuate up and down on

Individual Indicators
a monthly basis, over the past two years they have broadly
Sustained Improvement
fallen into four categories. The first category is for continued,
Continued, Choppy Growth
sustained improvements which indicate future employment Slowing or Slight Decline
growth. Included in this category are Industrial Production, No Improvement
Oregon Dollar Index and Oregon Withholding. The second
category is for mostly sustained improvements with some OILI (OEA)
larger deviations around this trend. The only indicator in this Industrial Production
category is New Initial Unemployment Claims. Overall, claims Oregon Dollar Index
have fallen 38 percent since their peak in early 2009; however Withholding
the improvement has been piecemeal with only 16 out of the Initial Unemployment Claims
Air Freight Tonnage
past 27 months moving in the right direction. The third
Book-To-Bill Ratio
category is for indicators which showed sizable gains initially, Consumer Sentiment
however these indicators have now leveled off or declined Purchasing Mangers Index
slightly in recent months. Included in this category are Air Help Wanted Ads
Freight, Consumer Sentiment, Purchasing Managers Index and Housing Permits
Book-To-Bill ratio. Finally, the fourth category includes New Incorporations
indicators that have not shown any real improvement over the
past two years and these indicators continue to remain at low
levels. Include in this category are Help Wanted Ads, New Incorporations and Housing Permits.
The fact that the Index has slowed considerably in recent months does not necessarily bode well
for strong employment growth in Oregon in the near future. The slowdown in the Index can be
traced primarily to slightly slower growth in Industrial Production and then the indicators,
particularly Air Freight, in the third category above. In turn, the slowdown in the job growth the
State has seen recently is projected to continue through the end of year in our forecast.
Unfortunately, nothing in the Index or its individual components runs counter to this view.
Short-Term Outlook
Overview
We got through the soft patch in 2010 only to hit the headwinds of 2011. The first half growth
of real GDP in 2011 is only 0.8 percent. Personal income growth in June was only 0.1 percent
and consumer spending fell 0.2 percent, the first decline since September 2009. The ISM
Manufacturing Index fell to 50.9, slightly above its expansionary measure of 50.0 and the fourth
monthly decline in the past 5 months. All of this bodes poorly for a second half rebound for the
U.S. economy.
Some of the headwinds in the first half of this year may not be with us in the second half. The
Japan natural disaster should not be squeezing supply chains as the year progresses. The
European debt situation is still unclear with worries arising with Italy and Spain. High
commodity prices are starting to retreat which should help out household budgets.
One piece of good news for the U.S. economy was the July employment report. Unemployment
came down a notch to 9.1 percent and jobs increased by 117,000. But this report brings to
forefront another headwind that has not gotten the attention it deserves. While the private sector
44
added 154,000 jobs in July, the government sector shed 37,000 jobs. The Minnesota state
government shutdown is likely responsible for about 30,000 jobs in this number and is
temporary. Still, if we take out the entire Minnesota job losses for July, job losses still total over
518,000 since the summer of 2009, a decline of 2.3 percent. The bulk of these job losses are at
the state and local levels. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities notes that the budget cuts
go beyond the layoffs with 44 states and the District of Columbia engaged in cost saving
measures from furlough days, lower worker benefits, cancelling of contracts with vendors,
reducing payments to businesses and nonprofits, and tax increases. All of these measures to some
degree slow down near term economic activity.
Oregon is similar impacted by the need to balance budgets. State and local governments received
federal stimulus funds during the recession and used budget reserves to avoid deeper cuts during
the recession. Now that these funds are no longer available and tax revenues have not recovered
to meet expenditures, budget tightening is leading to worker layoffs and other spending cuts.
Since the summer of 2009, the June 2011 total government employment in Oregon is down 2.2
percent, or around 6,600 less jobs. Although we do not believe this drop in jobs is enough to stop
the present recovery, with other headwinds impacting the state, the public sector pull back is
still an additional dampening impact on the economy. For a thorough look at the Oregon public
sector employment picture, see our blog at
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/more-on-public-sector-employment/
and associated listings.
Although the second quarter of 2011 reported weak but positive job growth, we are not
forecasting a recession for the Oregon economy. Risks of a downturn are heightened and we will
be watching indicators for any further signs of weakening. OEA (Office of Economic Analysis)
forecasts an increase of 0.5 percent in the third quarter of 2011 for total employment and 1.8
percent in the fourth quarter. Job gains continue to improve moving to nearly 2.0 percent in
2012. For the year average in 2011, total employment is projected to increase 1.7 percent and
rise to 1.95 percent in 2012.
Table O.2 compares OEAs forecast to other published forecasts. OEAs forecast for
employment follows the trends from the national forecasting firm IHS Global Insight and the
local forecasting group. While all forecasters see improvements in jobs for 2012, IHS Global
Insight has a more subdued increase while the local forecast group has a more robust outlook.
45
Table O.2
Oregon Total Nonfarm Employment and Personal Income Growth
Employment
Forecaster
Personal Income
IHS Global Insight
July 2011
2011
1.8
Wells Fargo & Co.
July 2011
1.8
2.3
N/A
4.0
4.2
N/A
John Mitchell
July 2011
1.7
N/A
N/A
4.9
N/A
N/A
Conerly Consulting
July 2011
1.9
3.3
N/A
4.4
4.6
N/A
Portland General Electric
July 2011
2.5
2.8
N/A
5.0
5.8
N/A
August 2011
1.7
1.9
2.3
4.4
4.6
4.8
July 2011
2.1
2.8
N/A
4.7
4.8
N/A
OEA
Consensus*
Date of Forecast
2012
1.9
2013
1.9
2011
4.8
2012
3.7
2013
4.6
*Consensus forecast from Western Blue Chip forecast
Personal income growth improves in 2012 for OEA and the local forecasting group. IHS Global
insight has personal income growth less in 2012. We believe IHS Global Insight is taking into
account the temporary cut in social security taxes which raises 2011 personal income and thus
lowers the growth in 2012. OEA also take this into account but we believe underlying personal
income will be stronger than the view taken by IHS Global Insight. Thus, our 4.8 percent growth
in 2012 would have higher if not for the pull back given the temporary boost in growth rates for
2011.
46
Table O.3
Oregon Forecast Summary

Quarterly
2011:1
2011:2
Annual
2011:3
2011:4
2012:1
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Personal Income ($ billions)

Nominal Personal Income
% change
146.5
7.7
147.8
3.5
148.9
3.0
150.7
5.1
152.6
4.9
138.5
(0.6)
142.2
2.7
148.5
4.4
155.3
4.6
162.7
4.8
172.1
5.8
Real Personal Income (base year=2005)

% change
130.1
3.6
130.1
0.2
130.7
1.7
131.8
3.5
132.9
3.3
126.7
(0.8)
128.0
1.0
130.7
2.1
134.5
2.9
138.5
3.0
143.8
3.8
73.0
5.2
73.5
2.9
74.1
3.1
75.2
5.7
76.2
5.9
70.2
(5.2)
71.3
1.5
74.0
3.7
77.8
5.3
82.0
5.4
86.3
5.3
Nominal Wages and Salaries

% change
Other Indicators
Per Capita Income ($1,000)
% change
38.0
7.1
38.3
2.8
38.5
2.1
38.9
4.3
39.3
4.2
36.3
(1.4)
37.0
2.1
38.4
3.7
39.8
3.7
41.3
3.8
43.2
4.6
Average Wage rate ($1,000)

% change
44.4
0.3
44.5
0.7
44.9
4.2
45.4
3.9
45.8
3.4
43.0
0.9
44.0
2.4
44.8
1.9
46.3
3.4
47.7
3.0
49.1
2.8
% change
3.86
0.6
3.86
0.6
3.87
1.0
3.88
0.8
3.88
0.7
3.82
0.8
3.84
0.6
3.87
0.7
3.90
0.8
3.94
1.0
3.98
1.1
Housing Starts (Thousands)

% change
8.0
22.6
8.2
10.3
7.6
(25.4)
7.3
(16.3)
7.4
5.6
7.6
(40.5)
7.6
0.6
7.8
2.1
7.9
0.6
10.3
30.6
13.8
34.6
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
10.2
(0.4)
9.4
(0.8)
9.3
(0.1)
9.2
(0.1)
9.0
(0.2)
11.1
4.6
10.8
(0.3)
9.5
(1.3)
8.7
(0.8)
7.5
(1.2)
6.6
(0.9)
Employment (Thousands)
Total Nonfarm
% change
1,622.3
4.9
1,625.0
0.7
1,627.2
0.5
1,634.6
1.8
1,644.6
2.5
1,612.9 1,599.8 1,627.3

(6.2)
(0.8)
1.7
1,659.0
1.9
1,696.5
2.3
1,737.0
2.4
1,324.0
5.9
1,329.2
1.6
1,336.2
2.1
1,345.0
2.6
1,355.0
3.0
1,313.4 1,300.3 1,333.6

(7.6)
(1.0)
2.6
1,369.0
2.7
1,404.9
2.6
1,443.2
2.7
68.5
4.5
69.1
3.6
69.3
1.1
69.3
0.3
69.5
0.8
74.1
(21.3)
67.7
(8.6)
69.0
1.9
69.7
0.9
71.9
3.2
79.0
9.9
166.9
5.0
168.5
3.8
166.7
(4.3)
167.3
1.6
168.2
2.0
167.2
(14.3)
163.8
(2.0)
167.4
2.2
170.6
1.9
175.9
3.1
179.4
2.0
116.2
4.9
118.3
7.2
118.9
2.3
119.4
1.7
120.2
2.5
117.9
(17.4)
114.8
(2.7)
118.2
3.0
122.5
3.6
127.6
4.1
130.7
2.4
Wood Product Manufacturing

% change
19.2
(3.2)
18.8
(6.9)
19.0
3.0
19.2
4.5
19.5
6.6
21.0
(21.5)
19.9
(4.9)
19.0
(4.5)
20.0
5.1
21.5
7.8
23.1
7.3
High Tech Manufacturing

% change
35.9
8.0
36.4
6.2
36.3
(1.0)
36.4
0.5
36.7
4.1
35.4
(8.8)
35.0
(1.3)
36.2
3.6
37.4
3.3
38.9
3.9
38.8
(0.2)
% change
10.4
5.5
10.5
7.2
10.6
4.0
10.4
(7.6)
10.2
(7.8)
10.2
(32.3)
10.2
(0.1)
10.5
2.8
10.4
(1.1)
11.0
6.5
11.9
7.9
Nondurable Manufacturing
% change
50.7
5.3
50.2
(3.7)
47.7
(18.4)
47.9
1.4
48.0
0.7
49.3
(5.8)
49.0
(0.5)
49.1
0.2
48.1
(2.2)
48.4
0.6
48.8
0.8
1,157.1
6.1
1,160.7
1.2
1,169.5
3.1
1,177.6
2.8
1,186.9
3.2
1,146.2 1,136.5 1,166.2

(6.5)
(0.8)
2.6
1,198.4
2.8
1,228.9
2.5
1,263.7
2.8
187.1
3.4
189.0
4.2
189.8
1.6
190.1
0.7
190.4
0.6
183.4
(6.8)
183.4
(0.0)
189.0
3.0
191.1
1.1
193.0
1.0
195.1
1.1
72.1
0.2
72.2
0.6
73.1
5.0
74.0
5.0
74.8
4.2
75.3
(6.5)
72.7
(3.5)
72.9
0.3
75.8
4.0
77.8
2.6
79.8
2.6
32.8
5.4
32.8
(0.0)
33.1
3.6
33.5
4.3
33.9
5.8
33.1
(7.1)
32.2
(2.6)
33.1
2.7
34.0
2.9
34.5
1.3
34.4
(0.1)

% change
186.6
9.3
185.5
(2.2)
187.3
3.8
189.0
3.8
191.4
5.2
180.1
(8.2)
181.3
0.7
187.1
3.2
193.4
3.4
200.8
3.9
213.0
6.1
Health Services
% change
200.9
5.3
202.7
3.5
204.5
3.6
206.3
3.6
208.0
3.3
192.9
1.9
197.0
2.1
203.6
3.4
210.6
3.4
216.7
2.9
222.8
2.8

% change
165.8
11.3
167.6
4.4
168.9
3.1
170.3
3.3
171.8
3.5
162.9
(5.7)
161.8
(0.7)
168.2
4.0
173.7
3.3
176.7
1.7
178.2
0.9
298.2
0.6
295.8
(3.2)
291.0
(6.3)
289.6
(1.9)
289.6
(0.1)
299.5
0.5
299.5
(0.0)
293.7
(1.9)
290.0
(1.3)
291.6
0.6
293.9
0.8
Private Nonfarm
% change
Construction
% change
Manufacturing
% change
Durable Manufacturing
% change
Private nonmanufacturing
% change
Retail Trade
% change
Wholesale Trade
% change
Information
% change
Government
% change
47
Goods Producing Sectors

[References to specific businesses and organizations are from public news sources and from
compiled news items published in Around the State, Workforce Analysis Section, Oregon
Employment Department.]
The wood products industry is currently struggling, with only one job growth quarter out of the
past 20 quarters (5 years). The Random Lengths Composite Price (Random Lengths
Publications, June 2011) for lumber is $262 per thousand feet in June compared to $259 per
thousand feet in May. Prices seem to stabilizing but are down almost 14 percent from the start of
the year. Some of the price stabilization is related to an increase in softwood log exports. China
by far is the largest importer of US softwood logs, importing 130,147 million board feet in April
2011, a 322 percent year over year increase. These logs to China constitute 58 percent of all U.S.
softwood log exports. The more lucrative export market is causing some supply problems for
Oregon wood mills. Stimson Lumber Company reports the supply chain problem will reduce its
workforce by 45 to 50 near Forest Grove and 30 to 35 at its Tillamook mill. Other layoff news
involves 200 workers with Roseburg Forest Products at plants in Riddle, Dillard, and Coquille.
On the positive side, Hampton Affiliates will reopen the Warrenton mill to employ 100 workers.
This industry is projected to lose 4.5 percent of workers in 2011, and then add workers at 5.1
percent in 2012 and 7.8 percent in 2013. Although these seem like high growth rates in 2012 and
2013, employment is still 33.3 percent lower than jobs levels in 2006.
The computer and electronic product sector is slowing down from a blistering pace set in 2010.
The semiconductor equipment book-to-bill ratio was 0.94. This is the lowest measure in the past
four months, indicating that orders are growing slower than shipments. This bit of slowing fits
with the soft patch hitting the U.S. economy in the first half of this year. Semiconductor
equipment sales are slated to slow this year to growth of 12.1 percent. This is still relatively good
sales growth given the 148 percent growth in 2010. Projections for 2012 by the SEMI
(Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International) have a slight decrease of 1.2 percent.
Overall, sales are projected to stay at high levels through 2012. Hiring in this sector will likely be
dominated over time by the Intel expansions. Other news is mixed on the job front. SoloPower
will go ahead with a new facility in north Portland rather than Wilsonville, initially hiring 170
people with possible plans to reach 600 workers in five years. Datalogic in Eugene will move
production to Vietnam and lay off 125 workers over the next six months. ON Semiconductor
plans to add 30 workers and 25 contractors at its chip factory in Gresham. Flir Systems Inc. laid
off 40 workers at its Wilsonville offices. The computer and electronic product sector will add
jobs on an annual average basis in 2011 at the rate of 3.6 percent. Job growth continues through
2012 with growth rates of 3.3 percent and picks up to 3.9 percent in 2013.
The transportation equipment sector has been especially hard hit through this recession. RV
manufactures have either closed or operating at very low levels. Navistar International will lay
off 450 workers at its Monaco RV plant in Coburg. Not all is dire in this industry. Daimler
Trucks North America will hire 155 people at the end of the year to its Portland plant. Job
growth projections are 2.8 percent in 2011, -1.1 percent in 2012, and 6.5 percent in 2013. These
job growths are from very low levels, leaving employment in 2013 at 39.7 percent below 2006
job levels.
48
The metals and machinery sector had an exceptionally strong first half of 2011. Job gains are
projected at 6.3 percent for 2011. Job gains continue at a relatively slower pace with growth of
4.2 percent in 2012 and 2.5 percent in 2013.
Other durables sector has shown some job growth in the most recent quarters. This sector
includes makers of glass, concrete, cement, small electrical appliances, medical equipment, and
other small miscellaneous products. This sector will add jobs at a rate of 4.6 percent in 2011, 4.5
percent in 2012, and 2.5 percent in 2013.
Food processing is a very volatile job sector, but has generally been on the upswing even through
the recession. Truitt Brothers will move some operations out of Salem impacting eight full-time
and 250 seasonal workers. Turtle Island Foods is building a process plant in Hood River with
initial hiring of 60 workers next year. The food processing sector is expected to increase jobs by
4.3 percent in 2011. We believe that this is especially strong and related to difficulty in seasonal
factors in the first half of this year. Consequently, we are pulling back job growth in 2012 with a
decline of 5.1 percent. Job growth will be positive again with 0.9 percent growth in 2013.
Other nondurables, which include paper and allied products, will lose 3.7 percent jobs in 2011,
then, basically remain flat the next two years with gains of 0.9 percent jobs in 2012 and 0.3
percent jobs in 2013.
Although construction jobs were up 4.0 percent in the first half of the year, the second half will
not be as robust. Part of the reason for this is the building of the Intel D1X plant in Hillsboro.
Jobs ramped up the first half of this year and will stay up likely through 2012. But additional
workers will be a much slower pace going forward compared to the initial build up. Residential
building permits are down 15.4 percent for year-to-date June 2011 compared to the same period
last year. Single family units are even further down for the same period at 30.0 percent. Some of
this drop may be attributed to the wet spring this year, but even allowing for this, the numbers
are rather bleak. With the housing market still a ways to go to begin a recovery, the construction
outlook remains subdued. In the Portland area, Grubb and Ellis report that office and industry
markets were uneventful in the second quarter of this year, stabilizing after some improvements
in the second half of 2010. Jobs in this industry will grow 1.9 percent in 2011 but weaker growth
in 2012 at 0.9 percent. Improvements in residential and commercial real estate should help to
raise job growth to 3.2 percent in 2013.
Service Producing Sectors
Trade, transportation, and utilities sector is projected to increase jobs at a rate of 2.1 percent in
2011, with improving growth of 2.2 percent in 2012 and 2.0 percent in 2013. Retail is generally
adding jobs with some turnover. Wal-Mart will expand in southeast Portland adding 85 workers.
Zupans is opening in Lake Oswego with an estimated 100 people. Home Depot will open early
next year in Grants Pass employing 160 workers. Musicians Friend Inc. is closing its Medford
headquarters and cutting 160 jobs. Borders is closing stores throughout the state including
Beaverton, Gresham, Tigard, Corvallis, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Roseburg, and Salem. Retail
jobs are expected to increase 3.0 percent in 2011. Jobs will still grow in 2012 at 1.1 percent and
1.0 percent in 2013. Wholesale jobs are expected to slightly increase at 0.3 percent in 2011, and
then add jobs at a rate of 4.0 percent in 2012 and 2.6 percent in 2013.
49
The information sector, which includes traditional publishers such as newspapers and publishers
of software, had a strong first quarter but a very slight drop in jobs in the second quarter.
Tripwire sold to a private equity firm and laid off 50 employees. The Oregonian laid off 38
employees. Symantec software firm in Springfield plans to add 50 to 65 workers. The outlook
for this sector is growth of 2.7 percent in 2011, 2.9 percent in 2012, and 1.3 percent in 2013.
The financial sector will take some time to recover as the residential and commercial markets are
slow to recover. Recent news in the insurance segment of this sector was not encouraging.
StanCorp Financial Group in Portland will eliminate 130 positions. Nationwide Insurance in
Portland laid off 90 employees. The financial sector is projected to gain jobs at the rate of 1.1
percent in 2011, with stronger growth of 2.7 percent in 2012, and growth of 3.5 percent in 2013.
Although declining by over 2 percent in the second quarter, professional and business services
increased over 9 percent in the first quarter. This sector is expected to rebound in the second half
of the year for a yearly average job growth of 3.2 percent for 2011. Steady growth will continue
with 3.4 percent in 2012 and 3.9 percent in 2013.
Education and health services have only lost jobs during one quarter during the recession, the
first quarter of 2009. Relatively slow job growth ensued during 2010. Job growth has picked up
in 2011. This sector is projected to have job growth of 3.2 percent in 2011, 3.2 percent in 2012,
and 2.6 percent in 2013.
Leisure and hospitality had very strong first and second quarters, not characteristic of this sector.
This will boost up the yearly average but not likely to continue at the same pace. News articles
are filled with small restaurants opening around the state. Job growth is estimated to be 4.0
percent in 2011, 3.3 percent in 2012, and 1.7 percent in 2013.
The government sector will decline by 1.9 percent in 2011 and 1.3 percent in 2012, before
adding jobs at 0.6 percent in 2013. All levels of government are facing budget reductions. The
federal budget is under pressure from Congress to lower expenditures. There is no mood on
Capitol Hill for further stimulus funds to state and local governments. Local governments are
under great pressure to balance budgets by mainly cutting costs. News reports from around the
state are almost universal in the job layoffs, mainly in the area of local government education.
State government employment is forecasted to slightly increase by 0.6 percent in 2011, due to
increased enrollment at state institutions of higher education. But state jobs will drop by 1.1
percent in 2012 and essentially flat in 2013 with growth of 0.2 percent. Local government jobs
will fall by 2.0 percent in 2011 followed by further declines of 1.3 percent in 2012. Local
government job growth picks up slightly to 0.9 percent in 2013.
Population growth has slowed with the economy and is projected to be below the U.S. growth
rate in 2011 at 0.7 percent. Population growth picks up at 0.9 percent in 2012 and 1.0 percent in
2013, but still below rates seen in 2005 through 2007.
Personal Income Components
Personal income is forecast to grow by 4.4 percent in 2011, followed by growth of 4.6 percent in
2012, and 4.8 percent in 2013. The 2011 growth gets a boost from the slowly recovering
economy and the social security tax cut. This boost is somewhat dampened by the slower growth
50
in transfer payments as federal stimulus funds have faded. Growth in 2012 is very close to 2011
but due to a better economy outlook pushing it up while the sunset of the social security tax cut
is pushing it down. Economic growth continues to push up growth rates in 2013.
Wage and salary income will increase 3.7 percent in 2011. The slow job recovery keeps this
component at a slowly climbing rate. The job picture continues to improve and wage and salary
income will increase 5.3 percent in 2012. 2013 will see stronger growth with 5.4 percent gains.
The forecast of various personal income components is provided in Appendix A. Nonfarm
proprietors' income, which includes income of small businesses, has picked up in 2011 with an
expected growth rate of 4.7 percent. The growth rate in this income component will pick up a bit
with growth of 5.2 percent and slightly lower in 2013 at 4.4 percent. Transfer payments will slow
as the economy recovers and the temporary social security tax cut, as previously mentioned, with
push up personal income growth rates in 2011 and lower the growth for 2012.
Per capita income in Oregon will stay below the U.S. average throughout the forecast horizon.
Oregons economy is expected to grow faster than the U.S. economy starting in 2011 with job
growth outpacing the U.S. and personal income growth will be above starting in 2012. Oregons
per capita income will gain on the U.S. average through 2013 but then the stronger population
growth will take over and Oregons relative position will be little changed in 2020 compared to
2013.
Forecast Changes Relative to the May 2011 Forecast
Table O.4 provides a summary of forecast changes compared to the May 2011 forecast.
Personal income was lowered slightly more than one percent in 2011 due to a smaller drop in
contributions for social security than forecasted for the first quarter of 2011. Personal income for
2011-2014 (and outer years) has been lowered due to lower outlook of national personal income
and our near term lowering of economic outlook for Oregon. On a year-over-year percentage
change basis, the current forecast values for 2011 has been lowered from 5.7 percent to 4.4
percent, for 2012 it has been lowered from 5.0 percent to 4.6 percent and for 2013 it has also
been lowered from 4.9 percent to 4.8 percent. Real personal income was not lowered to the same
degree as nominal personal income after 2013 due to lower forecasts for inflation.
OEA also revised down employment numbers in each of the years 2011-2020, by amounts
between 0.5 and 1.5 percents. This was due to the lower near term economic outlook, lower job
counts for the second quarter of 2010 and a lower national employment forecast.
Housing starts were better in the first half of this year than forecasted. This raised the outlook for
2011. Building permits for the first half of this year are still weak. Along with a slightly weaker
economic outlook, housing starts were lowered throughout the forecast horizon.
The construction outlook is raised for 2011. Higher estimated second quarter job counts relative
to forecast and no change in the national outlook for 2011. Construction jobs outlook is lowered
for 2012 through 2014, then a slight revision downwards for 2015 through 2020. The job levels
in construction rise on a yearly average starting with 2011 and are still below the peak levels in
2007 through the end of the forecast horizon (2020).
51
The manufacturing outlook is raised in 2011 and lowered ever so slightly in the outer years. The
upward revision reflects the higher second quarter 2011 numbers across both durable and
nondurable goods sectors.
Private nonmanufacturing is lowered slightly for 2011-2020. The downward revisions are mostly
due to lower information and professional and business services in the second quarter. From
2013 and out, there is a level shift to reflect the slow near term recovery.
The government sector employment is relatively unchanged with minimal lowering of the
forecast. The forecast level is maintained to reflect the lagged effect of the recession on public
sector budgets compared to the private sector.
52
Table O.4
Oregon Forecast Change (Current vs. Last)

Quarterly
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
Annual
2011:4
2012:1
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
138.5
0.0
126.7
0.0
70.2
0.0
142.2
0.1
128.0
0.1
71.3
0.1
148.5
(1.2)
130.7
(1.3)
74.0
(1.1)
155.3
(1.6)
134.5
(1.6)
77.8
(1.6)
162.7
(1.7)
138.5
(1.6)
82.0
(1.6)
172.1
(1.6)
143.8
(1.3)
86.3
(1.7)
38.4
(0.9)
44.8
(0.8)
3.87
(0.2)
7.8
4.1
9.5
(0.2)
39.8
(1.2)
46.3
(0.5)
3.90
(0.4)
7.9
(2.0)
8.7
0.2
41.3
(1.3)
47.7
(0.3)
3.94
(0.4)
10.3
(6.3)
7.5
0.1
43.2
(1.1)
49.1
(0.3)
3.98
(0.5)
13.8
(5.5)
6.6
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
% change
Housing Starts (Thousands)
% change
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
Total Nonfarm
% change
Private Nonfarm
% change
Construction
% change
Manufacturing
% change
% change
Wood Product Manufacturing
% change
High Tech Manufacturing
% change
% change
% change
Private nonmanufacturing
% change
Retail Trade
% change
Wholesale Trade
% change
Information
% change
% change
Health Services
% change
% change
Government
% change
146.5
(0.6)
130.1
(0.6)
73.0
0.2
147.8
(0.9)
130.1
(1.1)
73.5
(0.8)
148.9
150.7
(1.6)
(1.5)
130.7
131.8
(1.7)
(1.6)
74.1
75.2
(1.7)
(1.8)
Other Indicators
38.0
(0.4)
44.4
(0.8)
3.86
(0.2)
8.0
5.5
10.2
(0.0)
38.3
(0.7)
44.5
(0.8)
3.86
(0.2)
8.2
11.5
9.4
(0.4)
38.5
38.9
(1.4)
(1.2)
44.9
45.4
(0.8)
(0.7)
3.87
3.88
(0.3)
(0.3)
7.6
7.3
1.4
(2.0)
9.3
9.2
(0.3)
(0.2)
Employment (Thousands)
1,622.3
(0.0)
1,324.0
(0.0)
68.5
0.2
166.9
0.0
116.2
(0.0)
19.2
(0.1)
35.9
0.2
10.4
0.1
50.7
0.1
1,157.1
(0.0)
187.1
0.1
72.1
(0.0)
32.8
0.0
186.6
(0.2)
200.9
0.1
165.8
(0.0)
298.2
(0.1)
1,625.0
(0.5)
1,329.2
(0.5)
69.1
0.3
168.5
2.3
118.3
0.9
18.8
(2.0)
36.4
1.8
10.5
0.4
50.2
5.7
1,160.7
(0.9)
189.0
0.3
72.2
(0.8)
32.8
(2.5)
185.5
(2.9)
202.7
0.0
167.6
(0.7)
295.8
(0.6)
1,627.2
(0.9)
1,336.2
(0.9)
69.3
0.4
166.7
0.4
118.9
0.4
19.0
(1.8)
36.3
1.3
10.6
0.5
47.7
0.3
1,169.5
(1.1)
189.8
0.2
73.1
(1.3)
33.1
(3.4)
187.3
(3.8)
204.5
(0.2)
168.9
(0.6)
291.0
(0.9)
1,634.6
(1.1)
1,345.0
(1.2)
69.3
0.0
167.3
0.1
119.4
0.0
19.2
(1.2)
36.4
0.9
10.4
(3.0)
47.9
0.4
1,177.6
(1.3)
190.1
0.0
74.0
(1.7)
33.5
(4.6)
189.0
(4.2)
206.3
(0.2)
170.3
(0.4)
289.6
(0.9)
53
152.6
(1.5)
132.9
(1.6)
76.2
(1.7)
39.3
(1.2)
45.8
(0.6)
3.88
(0.3)
7.4
(2.0)
9.0
0.1
1,644.6
(1.1)
1,355.0
(1.2)
69.5
0.1
168.2
(0.1)
120.2
(0.2)
19.5
(0.1)
36.7
1.1
10.2
(6.2)
48.0
0.3
1,186.9
(1.4)
190.4
(0.3)
74.8
(1.8)
33.9
(3.9)
191.4
(4.0)
208.0
(0.2)
171.8
(0.5)
289.6
(0.8)
36.3
0.2
43.0
(0.1)
3.82
(0.2)
7.6
0.0
11.1
0.0
37.0
0.3
44.0
0.2
3.84
(0.2)
7.6
(0.1)
10.8
0.0
1,612.9 1,599.8 1,627.3 1,659.0 1,696.5 1,737.0

0.0
0.0
(0.6)
(1.2)
(1.3)
(1.4)
1,313.4 1,300.3 1,333.6 1,369.0 1,404.9 1,443.2
0.0
0.0
(0.6)
(1.2)
(1.4)
(1.6)
74.1
67.7
69.0
69.7
71.9
79.0
0.0
(0.0)
0.2
(0.7)
(2.9)
(3.4)
167.2
163.8
167.4
170.6
175.9
179.4
0.0
0.0
0.7
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.2)
117.9
114.8
118.2
122.5
127.6
130.7
0.0
0.0
0.3
(0.1)
0.1
(0.0)
21.0
19.9
19.0
20.0
21.5
23.1
0.0
(0.0)
(1.3)
1.0
2.0
1.4
35.4
35.0
36.2
37.4
38.9
38.8
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.5
1.8
1.1
10.2
10.2
10.5
10.4
11.0
11.9
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.5)
(7.2)
(8.6)
(8.6)
49.3
49.0
49.1
48.1
48.4
48.8
0.0
0.0
1.6
(0.2)
(0.8)
(0.7)
1,146.2 1,136.5 1,166.2 1,198.4 1,228.9 1,263.7
0.0
0.0
(0.8)
(1.4)
(1.6)
(1.7)
183.4
183.4
189.0
191.1
193.0
195.1
0.0
(0.0)
0.2
(0.5)
(1.2)
(1.5)
75.3
72.7
72.9
75.8
77.8
79.8
0.0
0.0
(1.0)
(2.0)
(2.5)
(2.3)
33.1
32.2
33.1
34.0
34.5
34.4
(0.0)
(0.0)
(2.7)
(4.5)
(4.6)
(5.0)
180.1
181.3
187.1
193.4
200.8
213.0
0.0
0.0
(2.8)
(3.3)
(2.0)
(1.7)
192.9
197.0
203.6
210.6
216.7
222.8
0.0
0.0
(0.1)
(0.4)
(1.1)
(1.5)
162.9
161.8
168.2
173.7
176.7
178.2
0.0
0.0
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.8)
(0.8)
299.5
299.5
293.7
290.0
291.6
293.9
0.0
(0.0)
(0.6)
(0.8)
(0.7)
(0.6)
Select Industry Employment
High Tech Mfg

15
40
10
30
20
10
54
-10
2020
-5
2020
0
2018
5
2016
Repeat Purcahse Index, Oregon vs U.S. Avg
2018
Housing Prices
2014
-15.0
2016
-12.5
2014
-10.0
2012
-7.5
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
2002
2002
2002
2000
Total Nonfarm Employment
2000
0
-1
2000
1998
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
Percent Change
1998
-6
1996
Percent Change
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1996
-2.5
Percent Change
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
Total Personal Income
1998
50
Percent Change
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
Percent Change
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.1
Oregon and U.S. Economic Forecasts
Oregon
U.S.
Real Total Personal Income
2005 Chain Weighted Dollars

7
6
-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
2003
2002
2001
Sep 2011
2004
May 2011
Personal Income Growth
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
2000
Percent
Mar 2011
Alternative Scenarios
The baseline forecast is our projection of the most likely outcome for the Oregon economy. As
with any forecast, however, other scenarios are possible, especially given the current national
and international macroeconomic outlook, in which risks are heightened considerably and
concentrated more so on the downside. The Optimistic scenario is one in which the recover
gathers steam and employment and income growth accelerate through the end of the year. 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 error band calculations
around the baseline forecast, as the scenarios are modeled on realistic assumptions of economic
growth, albeit either stronger or weaker than the baseline forecast.
Optimistic Scenario: The recovery gathers steam and pulls the economy out of recession and into
a stronger cyclical expansion. Economic growth is above potential for the rest of 2011 and all of
2012, resulting in stronger job and income gains. The temporary factors blamed for the
slowdown in early 2011 do prove temporary as any supply chain issues resulting from the
Japanese earthquake subside and commodity prices remain at current, lower levels, which further
strengthen consumption, particularly for durable goods purchases such as automobile sales. The
turbulence and volatility of equity markets in early August prove transitory and markets rebound
strongly to finish the year with positive gains.
In Oregon, job gains are broad based with strong growth in all private sector industries. Public
sector employment still contracts 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 the under the baseline scenario, because individuals are
able to find employment more readily as 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: The true double dip recession. The U.S. economy, after growing at less
than 1.0 percent in the first half of 2011, stalls and falls back into recession. The normal drivers
of economic expansion - consumer spending and new residential construction falter in the near
55
term, pulling the overall economy down with them. The equity market volatility and high
gasoline prices cause consumers to retrench further, sending household spending to a screeching
halt which results in falling sales and rising inventories. Given this outcome, businesses decide to
cut expenses, with labor costs being one of the largest and most readily available expenses to cut.
The vicious recessionary cycle of falling demand leading to layoffs renews.
Just like the nation, in Oregon employment declines, unemployment rises, small business income
falls and total personal income plateaus on a nominal basis, however if unemployment insurance
benefits are not extended beyond the 26 week regular program, personal income in the state
would decline outright. The magnitude of the recession would be fairly mild by historical
standards; however it certainly will not go unnoticed, especially given the precariously
underwhelming expansion to date. Employment would decline 2.3 percent which is slightly
larger than the 1990 recession in Oregon and approximately half the depth of the 2001 recession
in the state. However, this employment decline would erase all the job gains the state has seen in
the past eighteen months, leaving the state with the same level of total nonfarm employment first
reached in the fall of 1999, which would be a time span of nearly 13 years. The unemployment
rate rises above 10 percent and remains there for two additional years, until the fall of 2013. The
unemployment rate does not fall below 8 percent until late 2017, which would mark nine full
years above that level.
Furthermore, the housing market would take longer to recover. Home prices decline another 11
percent, while new home constructions 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 states 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.3 illustrates these near-term scenarios for each of
the variables.
56
Table O.5
Alternative Scenario Summary

Quarterly
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
Annual
2012:1
2012:2
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
1,654.1
2.3%
8.9
(0.2)
154.4
4.8%
11.4
4.8%
7,474.0
3.3%
334.5
2.4%
1,599.8
-0.8%
10.8
(0.3)
142.2
2.7%
10.4
4.0%
7,642.6
0.6%
383.9
-6.5%
1,627.3
1.7%
9.5
(1.3)
148.5
4.4%
10.9
4.7%
7,739.9
1.3%
347.6
-9.4%
1,659.0 1,696.5 1,737.0

1.9%
2.3%
2.4%
8.7
7.5
6.6
(0.8)
(1.2)
(0.9)
155.3
162.7
172.1
4.6%
4.8%
5.8%
11.4
12.0
12.5
5.2%
4.4%
4.7%
7,852.5 10,257.0 13,806.8
1.5%
30.6%
34.6%
336.6
345.7
355.7
-3.2%
2.7%
2.9%
1,683.8
3.6%
8.1
(0.3)
156.7
6.3%
11.7
5.8%
9,187.9
6.3%
343.3
2.3%
1,599.8
-0.8%
10.8
(0.3)
142.2
2.7%
10.4
4.0%
7,642.6
0.6%
383.9
-6.5%
1,631.7
2.0%
9.3
(1.5)
148.9
4.7%
10.9
5.2%
8,192.1
7.2%
351.1
-8.5%
1,695.7 1,750.7 1,791.6

3.9%
3.2%
2.3%
7.9
6.8
6.0
(1.4)
(1.1)
(0.8)
158.1
167.2
176.5
6.2%
5.8%
5.5%
11.7
12.2
12.9
7.0%
4.5%
5.8%
9,477.2 12,151.2 17,453.4
15.7%
28.2%
43.6%
346.1
363.8
375.6
-1.4%
5.1%
3.3%
1,591.6
-3.7%
10.4
0.3
149.2
-0.2%
10.4
-5.0%
5,933.8
8.3%
315.4
-3.9%
1,599.8
-0.8%
10.8
(0.3)
142.2
2.7%
10.4
4.0%
7,642.6
0.6%
383.9
-6.5%
1,623.3
1.5%
9.7
(1.1)
148.0
4.0%
10.7
3.1%
7,284.0
-4.7%
345.6
-10.0%
1,599.8
-1.4%
10.3
0.6
150.1
1.4%
10.4
-3.0%
5,938.2
-18.5%
315.1
-8.8%
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
1,622.3
4.9%
10.2
(0.4)
146.5
7.7%
10.7
7.1%
8,028.5
22.6%
362.0
-15.2%
1,625.0
0.7%
9.4
(0.8)
147.8
3.5%
10.8
4.8%
8,228.0
10.3%
351.7
-11.0%
1,627.2
0.5%
9.3
(0.1)
148.9
3.0%
11.0
7.6%
7,389.0
-35.0%
340.6
-12.0%
1,634.6
1.8%
9.2
(0.1)
150.7
5.1%
11.1
5.7%
7,314.0
-4.0%
336.2
-5.1%
1,644.6
2.5%
9.0
(0.2)
152.6
4.9%
11.2
4.2%
7,414.0
5.6%
332.5
-4.3%
Optimistic Scenario
% change
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
% change
% change
Housing Starts
% change
% change
1,622.3
4.9%
10.2
(0.4)
146.5
7.7%
10.7
7.1%
8,028.5
22.6%
362.0
-15.2%
1,625.0
0.7%
9.4
(0.8)
147.8
3.5%
10.8
4.8%
8,228.0
10.3%
351.7
-11.0%
1,631.6
1.6%
9.1
(0.3)
149.6
4.9%
11.0
10.4%
7,938.3
-13.4%
346.6
-5.6%

% change
Unemployment Rate
Point Change
% change
% change
Housing Starts
% change
% change
1,622.3
4.9%
10.2
(0.4)
146.5
7.7%
10.7
7.1%
8,028.5
22.6%
362.0
-15.2%
1,625.0
0.7%
9.4
(0.8)
147.8
3.5%
10.8
4.8%
8,228.0
10.3%
351.7
-11.0%
1,625.8
0.2%
9.5
0.1
148.4
1.7%
10.8
0.8%
6,745.6
-54.8%
338.7
-13.9%
1,647.8
4.1%
8.7
(0.4)
151.8
6.1%
11.3
9.3%
8,573.8
36.1%
344.2
-2.8%
1,669.1
5.3%
8.4
(0.4)
154.3
6.8%
11.5
7.1%
9,048.2
24.0%
341.4
-3.2%
Pessimistic Scenario
1,620.2
-1.4%
9.7
0.2
149.2
2.3%
10.7
-5.3%
6,134.1
-31.6%
330.2
-9.7%
57
1,606.6
-3.3%
10.1
0.4
149.3
0.2%
10.5
-5.7%
5,816.5
-19.2%
318.5
-13.4%
1,625.6
1.6%
10.2
(0.2)
155.9
3.9%
10.8
3.4%
6,806.8
14.6%
315.6
0.1%
1,668.9
2.7%
9.5
(0.7)
165.7
6.2%
11.3
4.9%
9,800.1
44.0%
325.8
3.2%
Graph O.3
Total Nonfarm Employment
Recession
1,900,000
Optimistic
Pessimistic
Baseline
Recession
$190,000

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
$90,000
1,500,000
2000
2002
Recession
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Unemployment Rate
Optimistic
Pessimistic
2014
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Nonfarm Proprietors' Income
Baseline
Recession
$14,000
Optimistic
Pessimistic
2014
Baseline
12
$13,000
10
$12,000
$11,000
6
4
$10,000
$9,000
$8,000
2000
36,000
2002
Recession
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Total Housing Starts

Optimistic
Pessimistic
2014
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Housing Price Index (FHFA)
Baseline
500
32,000
Recession
Optimistic
Pessimistic
2014
Baseline
450
28,000
400
24,000
20,000
350
16,000
300
12,000
250
8,000
4,000
200
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Forecast Risks
At the very least, the supply chain disruptions from the natural disaster is Japan are fading away.
High commodity prices are retreating though the price of gold dances to different tune. Thats
about it for relief from the headwinds hitting the US and Oregon economies. Congress managed
to cripple together an agreement to raise the debt ceiling only to have S&P downgrade US
Treasury securities and the Dow drops almost 11 percent in 5 days (August 2 8). The risk of
another recession is heightened and the resiliency of the US economy will be tested.
58
Oregon faces these same headwinds and though our recovery is stronger than the US, it is still
relatively weak and fragile. Our wood products industry will continue to struggle as the housing
market will be slow to recover. Exports have been strong but worries of world financial problems
could slow them down. State and local governments will likely cut more budgets lowering
services and workers.
The color of our outlook has turned more a shade of yellow and less green.
We will continue to monitor and recognize the potential impacts of risk factors on the Oregon
economy. We have identified the major risks now facing the Oregon economy in the list below:
Contagion of the credit crunch and financial market instability. As more time passes, this
downside risk becomes less likely to occur. 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 slower than
projected or thrown off track. Housing and commercial real estate may take longer for
credit conditions to improve. 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, at least in terms of housing starts, but prices may have further to
fall. Foreclosures and delinquency rates are still relatively high. Oregon, with the rest of
the nation, will still see corrections to the housing market in 2011. The question is
whether the job growth will kick in to alleviate the downward pressures from declining
housing prices and oversupply of homes. The housing market appears to be the biggest
threat to a sustained economic recovery in Oregon.
Commodity price inflation. With world economies starting to recover and emerging
markets still strong, the stage is set for higher commodity prices. Food prices are near their
2008 highs. Oil prices have recently topped $100 a barrel; however WTI is now slightly
lower. Industrial metals are also on the rise. This could be a repeat of commodity price
spikes that took place in 2007-2008. The risk is how disruptive this will be on businesses
and whether the commodity price inflation will lead to general inflation. With a weak
recovery that needs to build strength, the commodity inflation could throw this off track.
Then again, if this is only a change in relative prices and wage costs do not accelerate, this
commodity inflation could be short lived.
Loss of federal timber payments to Oregon counties. President Obama included a reduced
federal timber payment package in the 2012 federal budget. The amount has been reduced
by 10 percent and reduces by 20 percent over five years. Questions remain as to whether
this item will survive further budget changes from Congress. If the federal timber payments
do not survive, the last payments to counties will be this October. While this temporary
reinstatement helps cover short term budgets for Oregon counties, finding or replacing this
dwindling revenue source will be imperative as any loss of public services could have
adverse impacts on economic activity.
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
59
America and Asia, political unrest in the Middle East, and commodity price spikes and
inflationary pressures in emerging markets. The natural disaster in Japan has caused slight
supply chain disruptions to Oregon firms but the coming reconstruction phase may bring
new business. Also internationally we have economies recovering, incomes rising, and
demand for U.S. and Oregon exports are rising. Whether the downside risks will dissipate
and the recoveries take hold will influence the direction of strength of U.S. and Oregon
economic recoveries. With China now the top destination for Oregon exports, the state of
the Chinese economy has spillover effects to the Oregon economy.
State and Local Governments. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that 44
states and the District of Columbia are projecting budget shortfalls totaling $125 billion for
fiscal year 2012 which generally starts this summer. Local government budget shortfalls
add to this total. Oregon is among the states facing a budget shortfall. Given that further
tax increases are unlikely in Oregon, balancing budgets will mainly be through spending
cuts. In a mixed private-public economy, this will be a drag on the economic recovery. The
question is whether the building strength of the private sector will be enough to continue
the recovery through the state and local government budget crises.
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 brings a number of
unknowns that could have sweeping impacts on the Oregon economy.
Extended Outlook
The Oregon economy grew slower than the U.S. economy from 1998 through 2003. This had not
occurred since 1985. It outpaced the nation in growth in 2004 through 2007. Between 2011 and
2017, employment growth in Oregon will be slower than in the mid-1990s. However, the U.S.
economy is expected to have even slower growth than that expected in Oregon after 2011. IHS
Global Insight projects Oregons Gross State Product to have the second highest growth rate in
the nation over the coming years.
The slower economic growth of 1998 through 2003 and 2008 through 2011 also slowed the
growth of Oregons per capita income and average wages. The devastating 1980-82 recession
slowed the growth of incomes and wages until 1986. In the 1990s, as the Oregon economy
became more industrially diversified, per capita income and wages grew faster than the nations
as a whole. But the expansion period of 2004 to 2007 did not increase our per capita income
compared to the nation, and now this relative measure is at a historic low. Going forward, the
Oregon economy is projected to grow faster than the nations. However, with population growth
projected to be higher in Oregon, very little progress on raising per capita income compared to
the U.S. is projected out to 2020.
60
The Oregon Employment Department has published a detailed look at Oregons 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
The key factors that will fuel the states long-term growth are listed below:
Steady in-migration and population growth: High population growth is an opportunity for
economic growth as the state creates jobs to serve a growing population. At the same
time, it presents a challenge for the state as the demand for services increases.
Export growth and high commodity prices: Global economic expansion will increase
demand for Oregon commodities, both finished and capital goods. Oregon is well
positioned for trade with countries in the Pacific Rim. High commodity prices will
benefit agricultural and timber producers in the state.
Returning high energy price: Recently, stronger demand and possibly speculation for oil
has caused the gas price to spike. The long-term growth of the developing world could
cause demand to create more lasting upward price pressures. We have already seen how
high energy prices can slow consumer spending and raise business costs.
Continued strength in domestic markets: Continued economic growth in California and

other major domestic markets will fuel demand for Oregon products.
Business costs advantages: The Oregon economy will benefit from a comprehensive
energy plan. Efforts which have long been in place for electricity planning should extend
to all energy sources. If the plan can assure businesses of an abundant, reliable, and
relatively inexpensive supply of electricity and other sources of energy, the state (and the
Pacific Northwest) will continue to have a relative energy cost advantage over other
regions. Oregon has other business cost advantages, such as lower workers
compensation rates and multi-modal transportation options compared to other states.
Equally important is an educated work force that contributes to productivity.
Environmental issues: Salmon protection measures, the Portland Super Fund, and other
issues could change the economic landscape.
Affordable housing: For most of the late 1990s and the early part of this decade,
California, Washington, and the nation as a whole have experienced more rapidly rising
housing costs than Oregon. The housing boom once again raised California prices above
Oregons house prices, and Washington kept pace with Oregon. This relative advantage
in housing cost is narrowing as prices in California fall faster than in Oregon, with
Washington once again keeping pace with Oregon. If housing costs rise faster in Oregon
than in the rest of the nation, companies will face increased difficulties recruiting
workers. If Oregon can maintain a relative cost advantage in housing, this factor will be
attractive for firm location.
Biotechnology and Clean Technology: These sectors are seen by many as the next growth
industries. Portland and the state have launched funding plans to promote the
biotechnology sector. The platform for the Oregon Business Plan includes
61
nanotechnology as an emerging field for Oregon. It is too early to tell if these are indeed
the next growth industries and what returns they may bring.
Renewable Energy and Sustainable development: Centered in the Portland area, this
movement in sustainable building practices is spreading throughout the U.S. Uncertainty
surrounds the number of new jobs associated with this movement, but it may allow gains
in market shares for construction and consulting firms in Oregon. Renewable energy such
as solar and wind mills are increasingly looking to Oregon as a place to locate.
Quality of life: Oregon will continue to attract financially secure retirees. Companies that
place a high premium on quality of life will also want to locate in Oregon.
Oregon Regional Profile

The accompanying regional and county tables (Table 0.6 through 0.9) highlight the social,
economic, and demographic diversity in the state. This section will be a regular feature following
the Oregon Economic Review and Forecast. Please review these tables in each quarterly issue as
they will include updated data every quarter.
62
Table O.6
Oregon's Economic Profile by County and Region
2009
Geography
Oregon
2010
Total Employment
1,759,757
1,769,599
2009
2010
Unemployment Rate
11.1%
10.8%
2009
2010
Per capita
personal income
Average wage
per job
$36,191
$40,742
Portland 5-County
Clackamas
Columbia
Multnomah
Washington
Yamhill
863,542
181,878
21,428
353,106
264,220
42,910
868,964
183,020
21,563
355,323
265,878
43,180
10.2%
10.3%
13.2%
10.4%
9.4%
11.5%
9.9%
10.1%
12.3%
10.1%
9.1%
10.8%
$40,246
$43,646
$33,325
$40,490
$39,465
$32,894
$46,237
$41,395
$32,467
$46,232
$51,351
$33,927
Willamette Valley
Benton
Lane
Linn
Marion
Polk
428,144
40,314
161,814
48,519
140,983
36,514
430,645
40,990
162,524
49,141
141,375
36,615
11.3%
7.9%
12.2%
13.8%
11.0%
9.4%
10.9%
7.3%
11.1%
13.3%
11.2%
9.3%
$32,916
$37,922
$33,562
$29,451
$32,876
$30,056
$36,162
$42,683
$35,475
$34,826
$36,422
$29,891
Coast
Clatsop
Coos
Curry
Lincoln
Tillamook
84,631
18,896
24,937
8,261
20,857
11,680
85,550
19,141
25,265
8,311
20,900
11,933
11.0%
9.0%
12.9%
13.0%
10.5%
9.4%
11.1%
9.4%
12.6%
12.7%
10.8%
9.7%
$33,004
$33,545
$31,614
$34,683
$33,810
$32,773
$30,250
$30,878
$30,491
$29,025
$29,665
$30,517
Southern
Douglas
Jackson
Josephine
159,721
39,901
89,507
30,313
159,686
39,941
89,555
30,190
13.7%
15.5%
12.7%
14.3%
13.4%
14.6%
12.6%
14.2%
$32,700
$31,686
$34,314
$29,981
$33,089
$32,742
$34,039
$30,432
Central
Crook
Deschutes
Gilliam
Hood River
Jefferson
Klamath
Lake
Sherman
Wasco
Wheeler
144,247
7,839
69,808
1,146
12,859
7,973
26,940
3,234
957
12,893
598
144,186
7,593
69,207
1,154
13,319
8,120
26,879
3,336
965
12,983
630
13.6%
18.0%
14.7%
6.8%
8.1%
14.8%
13.9%
12.5%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
13.3%
17.5%
14.4%
6.7%
8.3%
14.1%
13.4%
13.2%
10.0%
9.3%
10.8%
$33,097
$26,116
$35,966
$37,450
$33,446
$29,059
$29,387
$31,269
$41,049
$33,979
$27,339
$33,325
$31,193
$35,307
$39,011
$28,093
$32,347
$32,297
$31,323
$47,246
$30,873
$24,466
79,474
6,860
2,998
2,969
11,761
5,280
35,081
11,205
3,320
80,566
6,910
3,038
3,030
11,987
5,344
35,502
11,374
3,381
10.6%
10.2%
13.5%
16.1%
10.8%
9.2%
9.6%
11.5%
11.9%
10.6%
10.2%
13.4%
15.5%
10.9%
8.9%
9.9%
10.4%
12.0%
$29,243
$29,098
$31,669
$29,447
$23,960
$29,686
$30,193
$31,163
$32,725
$31,781
$29,264
$30,175
$30,248
$28,960
$36,788
$33,846
$30,198
$27,615
Eastern
Baker
Grant
Harney
Malheur
Morrow
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
Sources: Total employment and unemployment rateS: Oregon Employment Department;

per capita personal income: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;
average wage per job: Oregon Employment Department.
63
Table O.7
Oregon's Population
April 1, 2000 April 1, 2010
2000-20010
OREGON
Total
Total
Population
Population
3,421,399
3,831,074
12.0%
21.5%
22.6%
33.9%
Portland PMSA
Clackamas
Columbia
Multnomah
Washington
Yamhill
1,572,771
1,789,580
338,391
375,992
43,560
49,351
660,486
735,334
445,342
529,710
84,992
99,193
13.8%
11.1%
13.3%
11.3%
18.9%
16.7%
25.1%
15.5%
9.7%
27.9%
30.3%
20.9%
23.0%
23.7%
23.5%
20.5%
25.6%
25.0%
37.4%
24.0%
15.5%
43.7%
42.4%
30.8%
STATE/COUNTY
April 1, 2010
Children <18 as Minority children
% of minority
% of total
as a % of all
% change
population
population
children
Willamette Valley
Benton
Lane
Linn
Marion
Polk
851,395
78,153
322,959
103,069
284,834
62,380
944,704
85,579
351,715
116,672
315,335
75,403
11.0%
9.5%
8.9%
13.2%
10.7%
20.9%
20.8%
16.4%
15.3%
12.9%
31.3%
19.5%
22.7%
17.8%
19.8%
24.1%
26.4%
24.3%
33.8%
23.7%
25.3%
21.3%
47.7%
30.3%
Coast
Clatsop
Coos
Curry
Lincoln
Tillamook
188,287
35,630
62,779
21,137
44,479
24,262
193,730
37,039
63,043
22,364
46,034
25,250
2.9%
4.0%
0.4%
5.8%
3.5%
4.1%
13.4%
12.8%
13.0%
11.3%
15.6%
13.3%
18.6%
20.5%
18.9%
15.7%
17.3%
19.8%
25.1%
22.0%
23.5%
23.0%
30.7%
26.2%
Southern
Douglas
Jackson
Josephine
357,394
100,399
181,269
75,726
393,586
107,667
203,206
82,713
10.1%
7.2%
12.1%
9.2%
13.7%
10.5%
16.3%
11.4%
21.2%
20.5%
21.8%
20.4%
23.5%
17.6%
27.9%
19.8%
Central
Crook
Deschutes
Gilliam
Hood River
Jefferson
Klamath
Lake
Sherman
Wasco
Wheeler
274,353
19,182
115,367
1,915
20,411
19,009
63,775
7,422
1,934
23,791
1,547
327,342
20,978
157,733
1,871
22,346
21,720
66,380
7,895
1,765
25,213
1,441
19.3%
9.4%
36.7%
-2.3%
9.5%
14.3%
4.1%
6.4%
-8.7%
6.0%
-6.9%
17.1%
10.6%
11.6%
7.8%
34.2%
38.2%
18.9%
12.9%
8.4%
22.4%
9.3%
23.0%
21.9%
23.0%
18.9%
26.0%
25.3%
22.3%
19.3%
19.8%
23.2%
18.0%
28.2%
18.7%
19.2%
16.7%
49.8%
58.3%
31.1%
24.6%
18.3%
37.6%
20.1%
Eastern
Baker
Grant
Harney
Malheur
Morrow
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
177,199
16,741
7,935
7,609
31,615
10,995
70,548
24,530
7,226
182,132
16,134
7,445
7,422
31,313
11,173
75,889
25,748
7,008
2.8%
-3.6%
-6.2%
-2.5%
-1.0%
1.6%
7.6%
5.0%
-3.0%
24.0%
7.4%
6.6%
10.4%
36.4%
35.4%
30.6%
9.1%
5.5%
24.6%
20.3%
19.2%
22.4%
25.6%
28.6%
26.6%
22.5%
18.8%
37.2%
12.7%
11.3%
15.4%
53.6%
50.5%
44.5%
14.3%
10.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Minority population includes all race/ethnic group other than White alone who are Not Hispanic or Latino.
64
Table O.8
Oregon's Public Elementary and Secondary School Enrollment Statistics
Enrollment
Oct. 1, 2010
Oct. 1, 2009
STATE/COUNTY
enrollment
enrollment
OREGON
561,331
561,698
Portland PMSA
Clackamas
Columbia
Multnomah
Washington
Yamhill
258,689
57,996
8,241
90,766
85,155
16,531
257,985
58,394
8,281
90,357
84,165
16,788
Willamette Valley
Benton
Lane
Linn
Marion
Polk
142,548
8,772
45,223
21,406
60,474
6,673
Coast
Clatsop
Coos
Curry
Lincoln
Tillamook
2009-2010
2010-2011
2009-2010
% eligible for free or Operating expenditure
% change
reduced price lunch
per student
-0.1%
50.5%
$9,230
0.3%
-0.7%
-0.5%
0.5%
1.2%
-1.5%
44.3%
35.3%
42.8%
53.8%
39.0%
51.3%
$9,152
$8,497
$8,628
$10,137
$8,722
$8,485
142,667
8,873
45,638
21,361
60,068
6,727
-0.1%
-1.1%
-0.9%
0.2%
0.7%
-0.8%
53.2%
37.4%
51.5%
47.0%
59.2%
51.2%
$9,198
$9,278
$9,379
$7,986
$9,512
$8,949
24,240
4,898
8,453
2,469
5,181
3,239
24,379
4,954
8,511
2,457
5,179
3,278
-0.6%
-1.1%
-0.7%
0.5%
0.0%
-1.2%
56.9%
51.5%
54.6%
59.8%
61.5%
61.6%
$10,164
$10,449
$9,331
$10,943
$10,074
$11,454
Southern
Douglas
Jackson
Josephine
53,508
14,474
28,194
10,840
53,449
14,576
27,995
10,878
0.1%
-0.7%
0.7%
-0.3%
57.5%
60.5%
54.6%
60.8%
$8,941
$9,471
$8,510
$9,324
Central
Crook
Deschutes
Gilliam
Hood River
Jefferson
Klamath
Lake
Sherman
Wasco
Wheeler
49,464
2,932
24,180
247
3,989
3,461
9,625
1,068
234
3,505
223
49,788
3,113
23,964
246
4,026
3,582
9,697
1,126
248
3,546
240
-0.7%
-5.8%
0.9%
0.4%
-0.9%
-3.4%
-0.7%
-5.2%
-5.6%
-1.2%
-7.1%
57.9%
60.8%
51.9%
48.2%
58.4%
79.6%
66.5%
42.5%
54.7%
57.4%
61.0%
$9,257
$8,100
$8,305
$17,008
$10,574
$10,460
$9,995
$10,514
$16,407
$10,120
$16,339
Eastern
Baker
Grant
Harney
Malheur
Morrow
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
30,354
2,354
962
1,156
5,027
2,389
13,736
3,854
876
30,407
2,348
988
1,290
5,107
2,426
13,580
3,796
872
-0.2%
0.3%
-2.6%
-10.4%
-1.6%
-1.5%
1.1%
1.5%
0.5%
60.9%
51.6%
51.3%
50.2%
69.4%
69.4%
63.5%
50.6%
46.3%
$9,763
$10,078
$14,133
$10,826
$10,661
$9,780
$8,983
$9,420
$10,695
Source: Oregon Department of Education

Note: excludes pre-kindergarten enrollment
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.
65
Table O.9
2010 Annual Average Covered Employment by Industry and by Region
Region
Employment
Oregon
Portland 5County
Natural Resources & Mining

Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities
Information
Education & Health Services
Leisure & Hospitality
Other Services
Government
46,295
66,130
163,214
305,157
32,116
79,242
180,940
221,832
161,889
61,430
279,841
12,053
35,883
94,898
162,030
19,668
49,556
112,373
115,010
81,446
32,313
117,108
15,409
14,047
33,703
61,413
5,730
14,032
32,229
52,317
32,054
13,906
83,072
2,394
2,753
6,229
12,447
692
2,352
4,358
7,596
12,267
2,560
16,015
4,087
4,719
12,452
28,354
2,301
5,453
10,936
21,079
14,396
5,151
23,121
6,264
4,936
8,706
22,345
1,893
4,957
10,462
17,276
15,565
4,108
22,543
5,966
2,039
7,099
13,201
606
1,826
3,712
7,520
5,617
1,859
17,929
1,598,764
832,637
357,979
69,677
132,080
119,138
67,392
Oregon
Portland 5County
Willamette
Valley
Coast
Southern
Central
Eastern
2.9%
4.1%
10.2%
19.1%
2.0%
5.0%
11.3%
13.9%
10.1%
3.8%
17.5%
1.4%
4.3%
11.4%
19.5%
2.4%
6.0%
13.5%
13.8%
9.8%
3.9%
14.1%
4.3%
3.9%
9.4%
17.2%
1.6%
3.9%
9.0%
14.6%
9.0%
3.9%
23.2%
3.4%
4.0%
8.9%
17.9%
1.0%
3.4%
6.3%
10.9%
17.6%
3.7%
23.0%
3.1%
3.6%
9.4%
21.5%
1.7%
4.1%
8.3%
16.0%
10.9%
3.9%
17.5%
5.3%
4.1%
7.3%
18.8%
1.6%
4.2%
8.8%
14.5%
13.1%
3.4%
18.9%
8.9%
3.0%
10.5%
19.6%
0.9%
2.7%
5.5%
11.2%
8.3%
2.8%
26.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Willamette
Valley
Coast
Southern
Central
Eastern
Region
Distribution
Natural Resources & Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities
Information
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.
Coast: Clatsop, Coos, Curry, Lincoln, and Tillamook counties.
Southern: Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties.
Central: Crook, Deschutes, Gilliam, Hood River, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Sherman, Wasco, and Wheeler counties.
Eastern: Baker, Grant, Harney, Malheur, Morrow, Union, Umatilla, and Wallowa counties.
66
II.
REVENUE FORECAST
Summary
The outlook for revenue growth in Oregon is threatened by the uncertainty surrounding the
nascent recovery in the regional job market. Given how fragile consumer and business
confidence have become, downside risks to the forecast have clearly intensified in recent weeks.
Through a lack of confidence, the troubles in Europe, Washington D.C., and on Wall Street may
well infect the local economy going forward. That said, all of Oregons core measures of
economic activity (private employment, earnings and tax collections) are still expanding--albeit
at disappointing rates. In particular, until we see private employers cutting jobs, it is difficult to
argue that Oregons economic expansion has ended.
Although the turmoil in financial markets is not expected to derail Oregons economic recovery,
it will nevertheless create additional headwinds for growth. Most notably, wealth losses suffered
in stock markets can be expected to put downward pressure on household spending, and will
result in fewer tax collections tied to realizations of capital gains.
Despite these challenges, the baseline (most likely) forecast has not been revised downward
drastically at this time. However, the risks to the outlook are clearly skewed to the downside.
There is around a one in three chance that the U.S. economy will slip back into recession, which
would certainly drag Oregons regional economy down with it. In such a scenario, the forecast
for tax revenues would fall drastically.
After the smoke clears, 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 during recent periods of economic expansion.
A.
2011-13 General Fund Revenues
Led by personal income tax collections, general fund revenues are posting large gains entering
the 2011-13 biennium. Temporary factors will help support healthy growth in personal income
tax collections in the near term, but growth in collections will lose a steam in the second half of
the biennium. Corporate tax collections are now falling rapidly, with the boom in underlying
corporate profits having come to an end.
Due in roughly equal parts to losses to labor earnings and to investment forms of income, the
outlook for the 2011-13 biennium is somewhat weaker than what was predicted in the May 2011
forecast. The forecast for General Fund revenues for 2011-13 is now $13,816 million. This
represents a decrease of $62.0 million (-0.4%) from the May 2011 forecast. Excluding policy
changes and fund transfers, general fund revenues are expected to be $192.6 million (-1.4%)
lower than in May.
67
Table R.1
2011-13 General Fund Forecast Summary
(Millions)
2011 COS
Forecast
May 2011 September 2011

Forecast
Forecast
Structural Revenues
Personal Income Tax
$12,193.6
$12,202.1
$12,035.1
-$167.0
-$158.4
$894.2
$863.3
$875.5
$12.2
-$18.7
All Other Revenues
$944.2
$836.0
$928.8
$92.8
-$15.4
Gross GF Revenues
$14,032.0
$13,901.4
$13,839.4
-$62.0
-$192.6
Administrative Actions1
-$23.1
-$23.1
-$23.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$14,008.9
$13,878.3
$13,816.3
-$62.0
-$192.6
Legislative Actions
Net Available Resources
Confidence Intervals
67% Confidence
95% Confidence
+/- 9.4%
+/- 18.8%
$1,298.8
$2,597.6
Change from Change from

Prior Forecast COS Forecast
$12.54B to $15.14B
$11.24B to $16.44B
1 Reflects cost of cashflow management actions, ex clusiv e of internal borrow ing.
Personal Income Tax

Personal income tax collections were $1,770 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011,
$22.3 million (1.3%) above the latest forecast. Compared to the year-ago level, total personal
income tax collections were up 16.7% relative to a forecast of 15.2% growth. Table B.8 in
Appendix B presents a comparison of actual and projected personal income tax revenues for the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011.
The forecast for total personal income tax receipts during the current biennium was reduced by
$167 million from the May forecast. This revision can be traced to weaker expectations for
growth in taxable labor income and a wide range of investment income. Due to the recent decline
in stock market wealth and interest rates, the outlook has deteriorated for taxable capital gains,
retirement income, investment income and dividends.
Corporate income taxes equaled $175 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011, $19.9
million below the May forecast. Quarterly corporate receipts were 4.4% higher than figures from
a year ago. Given the overestimate of corporate income taxes, no kicker payment will be
generated for the 2009-11 biennium. Table B.8 in Appendix B presents a comparison of actual
and projected corporate income tax revenues for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011.
Corporate profits, and associated tax collections, are cooling off rapidly after reaching record
highs. Profits and corporate tax collections are notoriously volatile, with collections often cut in
half in the year immediately following profit booms. The expectation for a sharp correction in
corporate income tax collections over the coming year was built into the May forecast. As a
result, the September outlook was revised downward only modestly ($18.7 million) due to a
downgraded outlook for sales. When legislative actions are included, corporate tax collections
are expected to be $12.2 million higher than what was reflected in the May outlook.
68
Non-income Tax Sources of Revenue

All other revenues will total $929 million for the biennium, an increase of $93 million (11.1%)
from the prior forecast. The improved outlook for non-income tax sources of general fund
revenue can be traced to legislative actions. Excluding legislative actions, the forecast for other
revenues has been reduced by $15.4 million (1.8%) lower than expected collections of
inheritance taxes. Although collections of inheritance taxes are not closely tied to
contemporaneous economic activity, falling asset prices and federal tax law changes contributed
to the low revenues.
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
2009-11
Revenue Source
Corporate Income Taxes
All Others
Total General Fund
Kicker Distributions
Total Revenue
Forecast
%
2011-13
Forecast
%
Biennium Chg Biennium Chg

10,467.2
3.7% 12,035.1
827.6 20.9%
1,226.9 29.3%
12,521.7
875.5
Forecast
%
Forecast
%
Forecast
2017-19
2019-21
15.0% 13,881.0 15.3% 15,692.8 13.1% 17,353.3 10.6% 19,247.5

1,131.8 29.3%
928.8 -24.3%
919.6 -1.0%
1,112.3 -1.7%
971.2
5.6%
10.9%
1,126.6
1.3%
1,206.7
7.1%
1,021.9
5.2%
1,102.2
7.9%
9.7% 21,556.4
10.5%
10.5% 15,932.4 15.1% 17,776.3 11.6% 19,501.8
12,521.7 -2.2% 13,839.4
2015-17
Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg
5.8%
6.8% 13,839.4
2013-15
10.5% 15,932.4 15.1% 17,776.3 11.6% 19,501.8
9.7% 21,556.4
10.5%
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 $15,932 million in 2013-15, an increase of 15.1% percent from
the prior period, and $206 million (1.3%) below the May forecast. In 2015-17, revenue growth
will moderate to 11.6%, followed by 12.0% growth in 2017-19 and slower rates of around 10%
to in subsequent biennia. The slowdown in long-run revenue growth is largely due to the impact
of demographic changes. Revenues in 2015-17 and beyond are expected to be smaller than in the
May forecast, largely due to the downgraded outlook for job growth. 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
Oregon Legislative Session. 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
69
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.
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.
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.
OEAs current thinking is that a near-term recession would look relatively mild relative to the
last two business cycles. Households and firms have already buckled down considerably, with
few identifiable imbalances similar to the stock market and housing bubbles that were corrected
by the last two cycles. In the recessionary scenario presented here, it is assumed that Oregon will
give back all of the jobs it has gained since the end of 2009.
Should a recession of this nature ensue, FY2011-13 biennial income tax revenues would be
reduced on the order $800 million, and FY2013-15 biennial revenues would be reduced by
around $1.1 billion.
Table R.2b
R.2b Alternative Scenarios for Major General Fund Revenues
Baseline
Compared to Baseline
Pessimistic Losses Optimistic
Gains
Growth Rates
Baseline Pessimistic Optimistic

($ thousands)
FY 2011
5,524,015
5,524,015
5,524,015
FY 2012
5,839,415
5,671,184
-168,231
5,957,341
117,926
5.7%
2.7%
7.8%
FY 2013
6,195,690
5,653,736
-541,955
6,537,548
341,858
6.1%
-0.3%
9.7%
FY 2014
6,653,893
6,172,744
-481,150
7,047,966
394,072
7.4%
9.2%
7.8%
FY 2015
7,227,081
6,726,310
-500,772
7,644,459
417,377
8.6%
9.0%
8.5%
FY 2011
468,606
468,606
468,606
FY 2012
429,669
381,322
-48,347
450,981
21,312
-8.3%
-18.6%
-3.8%
FY 2013
445,848
391,756
-54,093
479,523
33,675
3.8%
2.7%
6.3%
FY 2014
549,235
490,976
-58,259
584,816
35,581
23.2%
25.3%
22.0%
FY 2015
582,557
524,252
-58,305
617,168
34,612
6.1%
6.8%
5.5%
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.
70
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 $1,121.7 million, a decrease of $6.6 million from the prior
forecast. Overall lackluster collections stem from video lottery sales, which dominate overall
lottery earnings. Although growth has been relatively slow, lottery revenues have stabilized and
returned to continued growth the past year, across nearly all games. 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 $1,124.4 million. After adjusting for programs that
receive a strict percentage of lottery transfers and incorporating changes to distributions made
during the 2011 session, the current forecast for the ending balance is $23.1 million.
The extended outlook for lottery earnings can be found in Table B.9 in Appendix B. It is critical
to note that the earnings reflected in Table B.9 include a transfer rate pertaining to video lottery
of 65.1 percent as opposed to the 62.4 percent rate. The Lottery has applied this transfer rate on
sales since July 1, 2009.
Over the extended forecast horizon, video lottery sales are expected to grow at rates similar to
overall consumer spending. This has not been the case in past years, with gains in video lottery
having outstripped spending on other items throughout their history. Eventually as video games
lose some of their novelty, sales growth will slow to more sustainable levels.
Table R.3
2011-13 Lottery Fund Forecast Summary

Close of 2011
Session
Transfers of Lottery Earnings
Traditional Games
Video Lottery
Administrative Savings
Total Transfers
Economic Development Fund

Beginning Balance
Transfers from Lottery
Other earnings1
Total Available Resources
Dedicated Distributions2
Other Legislatively Adopted Allocations
Total Distributions
Ending Balance
May 2011
Forecast
Sept 2011
Forecast
Changes from:
May 2011 Close of 2011
Forecast
Session
$128.5
$991.8
$8.0
$1,128.3
$128.5
$991.8
$8.0
$1,128.3
$128.3
$985.4
$8.0
$1,121.7
-$0.2
-$6.4
$0.0
-$6.6
-$0.2
-$6.4
$0.0
-$6.6
$0.2
$1,128.3
$2.5
$0.2
$1,128.3
$1.1
$0.2
$1,121.7
$2.5
$0.0
-$6.6
$1.4
$0.0
-$6.6
$0.0
$1,131.0
$1,129.6
$1,124.4
-$5.2
-$6.6
$432.9
$435.7
$430.7
-$5.0
-$2.2
$670.6
$1,103.5
$264.1
$699.7
$670.6
$1,101.3
$406.6
$401.6
$0.0
-$2.2
$27.5
$429.9
$23.1
-$406.8
-$4.4
Footnotes:
1. Includes interest earnings and reversions.

2. Includes the Education Stability Fund (18% ), the Parks and Natural Resources Fund (15% ), and Debt Service.
71
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 September revenue forecast.
Oregon Rainy Day Fund and Education Stability Fund
Established by the 2007 Legislature, the ORDF is funded from ending balances each biennium,
up to one percent of appropriations. The Legislature can deposit additional funds, as it did in first
populating the ORDF with surplus corporate income tax revenues from the 2005-07 biennium.
The ORDF also retains interest earnings. Withdrawals from the ORDF require one of three
triggers, including a decline in employment, a projected budgetary shortfall, or declaration of a
state of emergency, plus a three-fifths vote. Withdrawals are capped at two-thirds of the balance
as of the beginning of the biennium in question. Fund balances are capped at 7.5 percent of
General Fund revenues in the prior biennium.
The ESF gained its current reserve structure and mechanics via constitutional amendment in
2002. The ESF receives 18 percent of lottery earnings 2, 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. Under current law, $200 million
will have been transferred to the State School Fund during 2009-11 from the States two reserve
funds. The ORDF ended the 2009-11 BN with a balance of $10.4 million. The final 2009-11
General Fund ending balance was $35.2 million and was transferred to the ORDF at the
beginning of the 2011-13 biennium.
The ESF balance was nearly completely withdrawn at the end of 2009-11, leaving an ending
balance of $5.1 million. During 2011-13, projected deposits total $192.4 million, while
scheduled withdrawals total $182.8 million. Given these projections, by the end of 2011-13, the
ESF will total $15.2 million. Table B.10 in Appendix B provides detailed information for
Oregons budgetary reserves.
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.
72
Table R.4
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
$46.1
-$103.4
$1.3
$35.2
$0.5
$197.5
$5.4
$10.4
$46.1
$249.0
$0.0
$101.4
$5.1
$192.4
$15.2
$197.6
$1.0
-$97.4
$5.1
$0.5
-$182.8
$15.2
$4.6
-$4.6
$212.8
$15.5
$61.3
$461.8
Footnotes:
1. Under current law , only 2/3rds of the beginning balance is av ailable for w ithdraw al. Withdraw al
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 w ell
as priv ate donations.
73
G.
September 2011 Forecast Addendum Close of Session Forecast
The 2011 Close of Session forecast consists of the May 2011 forecast, adjusted for revenuerelated actions taken during the 2011 Legislative Session and subsequently signed into law by
the Governor. The 2011 COS forecast provides the revenue context on which the 2011-13
legislatively adopted budget is based, as well as the baseline for corporate and personal kicker
threshold calculations.
Table 1 compares the May 2011 and Close of Session forecasts. General Fund revenues equal
$14,032.0 million which equals the $13,901.4 million from the May forecast, plus $130.6 million
in additional revenues resulting from actions taken during the 2011 legislative session. Table 2
compares the forecasts by year and revenue source. A detailed listing of the impact of individual
legislative actions appears in Table 3. While there were numerous changes, many are relatively
small in terms of overall revenue and/or designed to offset one another.
There are two potential kicker rebates: one for corporate income tax; and one for all other
General Fund revenues (primarily personal income tax). Kicker rebates can be triggered if actual
revenue collections for the 2011-13 biennium exceed the COS forecast by two percent or more.
Two percent for the corporate kicker is $17.9 million, for a kicker threshold of $912.1 million.
The personal kicker includes personal income tax and other revenues, which total $13,137.4
million. Two percent of that is $262.8 million, for a personal kicker threshold of $13,400.5
million.
TABLE 1 - 2011-13 Close of Session Forecast
General Fund
(Millions)
2011 COS
Forecast
Beginning Balance
May 2011
Forecast
Change from
May
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$12,193.6
$12,202.1
-$8.5
$894.2
$863.3
$30.9
Other Revenues
$944.2
$836.0
$108.2
$14,032.0
$13,901.4
$130.6
Personal Income Tax
Total GF Resources
74
75
5,576,000
91,820,000
6,700,000
7,800,000
Central Service Charges
Liquor Apportionment
Interest Earnings
Miscellaneous Revenues
6,754,601,000
Net General Fund Revenues

Plus Beginning Balance
Less Anticipated Administrative Actions*

Plus Legislatively Adopted Actions**
Available Resources
Legislatively Adopted Budget
Plus Administrative Actions
Projected Expenditures
Estimated Ending Balance
6,754,601,000
Gross General Fund Revenues
27,117,000
23,023,000
31,632,000
9,378,000
Fines and Fees

State Court Fees
Secretary of State Fees
Criminal Fines & Assessments
Securities Fees
One-time Transfers
442,073,000
51,474,000
94,672,000
36,633,000
29,841,000
657,000
421,250,000
48,784,000
95,612,000
37,611,000
28,745,000
670,000
7,146,805,000
7,146,805,000
8,000,000
10,653,000
95,568,000
5,576,000
27,989,000
24,016,000
26,766,000
9,692,000
6,283,195,000
5,918,883,000
2012-13
Taxes
Personal Income Taxes (Before Kicker)
Implicit Kicker Offset
Corporate Income Taxes (Before Kicker)
Insurance Taxes
Estate Taxes
Cigarette Taxes
Other Tobacco Products Taxes
Other Taxes
2011-12
Forecasts Dated: 5/12/2011
Table 2
General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2011-13 Close of Session
NA
(23,135,600)
0
13,878,270,400
13,901,406,000
0
13,901,406,000
15,800,000
17,353,000
187,388,000
11,152,000
55,106,000
47,039,000
58,398,000
19,070,000
12,202,078,000
0
863,323,000
100,258,000
190,284,000
74,244,000
58,586,000
1,327,000
Total
2011-13
6,806,974,000
6,806,974,000
2,200,000
7,800,000
4,460,000
91,820,000
5,576,000
43,420,000
23,023,000
43,657,000
9,378,000
439,665,000
48,784,000
95,612,000
37,611,000
28,745,000
670,000
5,924,553,000
2011-12
7,225,018,000
7,225,018,000
58,100,000
8,000,000
5,453,000
95,568,000
5,576,000
44,817,000
24,016,000
36,941,000
9,692,000
454,578,000
51,474,000
94,672,000
36,633,000
29,841,000
657,000
6,269,000,000
2012-13
Forecasts Dated: COS
13,562,594,263
446,262,137
14,008,856,400
13,562,594,263
(23,135,600)
14,031,992,000
0
14,031,992,000
60,300,000
15,800,000
9,913,000
187,388,000
11,152,000
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
Total
2011-13
NA
NA
0
0
130,586,000
NA
130,586,000
0
130,586,000
60,300,000
(7,440,000)
33,131,000
0
22,200,000
0
(8,525,000)
0
30,920,000
0
0
0
0
0
COS Less 5/12/2011
Difference
Table 3 - Summary of 2011 Legislative Session Adjustments

2011-13
2013-15
Biennia
2015-17
2017-19
2019-21
Staff Measure
Summary
Revenue Impact
Statement
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 (3/11 base)
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
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.00
$0.26
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.00
$0.17
$0.00
$7.90
$6.40
$3.20
$2.00
-$3.60
-$7.60
-$8.30
-$4.65
-$0.01
-$0.02
-$0.02
-$0.01
-$6.00 -$12.00 -$12.00
-$7.00
-$0.02
-$0.04
-$0.04
-$0.02
$0.00
-$0.10
-$0.05
-$0.02
-$2.00
-$2.25
-$2.25
-$1.13
-$2.30
-$6.60
-$8.20
-$7.70
-$1.00
-$1.90
-$1.70
-$0.70
-$7.60 -$21.20 -$28.40 -$20.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$4.60 -$23.30 -$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
-$0.01
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.12
$0.50
$0.00
$0.00
$5.60
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.00
$0.40
$0.00
$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
-$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
$4.80
$3.10
-$0.60
-$0.70
-$0.50
-$1.60
-$1.60
-$1.30
-$0.08
-$0.08
-$0.06
-$0.20
-$0.20
-$0.10
-$1.70
-$2.10
-$1.70
-$0.40
-$0.40
-$0.20
-$0.01
-$0.01
-$0.01
-$0.10
-$0.05
-$0.02
-$0.75
-$0.75
-$0.38
-$9.60 -$12.10 -$10.60
-$2.90
-$2.60
-$0.90
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.70
-$5.50
-$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
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
2154
2523
2528
3170
3454
3606
3672
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
2154
2523
2528
3170
3454
3606
3672
SB 301
SB 817
SB 301
SB 817
HB 2071
HB 2071
HB 5040
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
Corporate Income Tax Impacts (Millions)

Tax Law Change
Housing Lender Tax Credit - HB 2527
Agriculture Cooperative Min Tax - HB 3058
BETC
Biomass
Fire Insurance
E-commerce Zone
Long-Term Rural EZ
R&D
Film & Video
Fish Screening
Renewables
Conservation
Transportation
Compliance Bills
Other Transfers - SB 939
Corporate Income Tax Total
$0.00
$9.20
$18.00
$30.52
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$5.20
-$1.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
-$3.38 -$18.49 -$18.86
-$1.80
2154
2523
2527
3058
3170
3606
3672
2154
2523
2527
3058
3170
3606
3672
SB 301
SB 817
SB 301
SB 817
HB 2071
HB 2071
HB 5040
SB 939
SB 939
Other Tax/Revenue Impacts (Millions)

Inheritance Tax - HB 2541
Court Fees - HB 2710
Criminal Fine Account - HB 2712
OUS Interest Earnings - SB 242
OLCC Transfers - SB 5522
$58.10
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$33.13 $40.43 $42.83 $45.40 $47.50
$22.20 $20.71 $22.05 $23.50 $25.50
-$7.44 -$22.00 -$32.00 -$34.00 -$34.00
$2.20
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Other Tax Total
$108.19
$39.14
$34.90
$39.00
Overall Total
$130.59
-$7.97 -$60.70 -$43.36
$33.19
76
$32.88
SB 939
HB 2541
HB 2710
HB 2712
SB 242
SB 939
HB 2541
HB 2710
HB 2712
SB 242
SB 5522
APPENDIX A:
ECONOMIC FORECAST DETAIL
Table A.1 Annual Forecast 1 ................................................................................................ 78

Table A.2 Quarterly Forecast 1 ............................................................................................. 83
77
Table A.1 Annual Forecast 1

TABLE A.1
Sep 2011 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2009
Total Personal Income*
138.5
Oregon
% Ch
(0.6)
U.S.
12,174.9
% Ch
(1.7)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
142.2
2.7
12,541.0
3.0
148.6
4.5
13,139.9
4.8
155.5
4.7
13,581.3
3.4
162.9
4.8
14,151.3
4.2
172.4
5.8
14,971.0
5.8
182.7
6.0
15,828.0
5.7
193.6
6.0
16,723.8
5.7
203.9
5.3
17,562.8
5.0
213.8
4.9
18,403.0
4.8
224.4
5.0
19,287.0
4.8
235.6
5.0
20,226.3
4.9
Wage and Salary

Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
70.2
(5.2)
6,274.1
(4.3)
71.3
1.5
6,398.9
2.0
74.0
3.7
6,625.2
3.5
77.9
5.3
6,924.0
4.5
82.1
5.4
7,228.5
4.4
86.4
5.3
7,562.1
4.6
91.1
5.4
7,918.0
4.7
95.9
5.3
8,282.0
4.6
100.7
5.0
8,641.1
4.3
105.2
4.5
8,993.8
4.1
109.9
4.5
9,355.9
4.0
114.7
4.4
9,730.8
4.0
Other Labor Income

Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
17.5
0.6
1,072.0
3.4
18.1
3.1
1,106.9
3.2
18.8
4.0
1,140.2
3.0
19.6
4.5
1,185.0
3.9
20.5
4.6
1,238.8
4.5
21.6
5.0
1,305.9
5.4
22.7
5.4
1,376.7
5.4
23.9
5.1
1,446.0
5.0
25.0
4.8
1,513.7
4.7
26.2
4.5
1,579.1
4.3
27.3
4.3
1,643.7
4.1
28.5
4.3
1,711.3
4.1
Nonfarm Proprietor's Income

10.0
Oregon
% Ch
(5.2)
U.S.
981.5
% Ch
(6.6)
10.4
4.0
1,010.1
2.9
10.9
4.7
1,060.8
5.0
11.4
5.2
1,118.5
5.4
12.0
4.4
1,176.8
5.2
12.5
4.7
1,242.8
5.6
13.0
4.2
1,306.6
5.1
13.7
4.9
1,380.2
5.6
14.3
4.9
1,459.3
5.7
15.0
4.6
1,541.3
5.6
15.7
4.7
1,629.3
5.7
16.4
4.7
1,723.3
5.8
Dividend, Interest and Rent

28.2
Oregon
% Ch
(4.0)
U.S.
2,193.7
% Ch
(5.9)
28.4
0.9
2,208.5
0.7
29.9
5.0
2,330.0
5.5
31.3
4.8
2,445.1
4.9
32.5
3.8
2,562.1
4.8
34.4
6.0
2,758.8
7.7
36.9
7.1
3,008.1
9.0
39.0
5.8
3,220.5
7.1
40.9
4.9
3,402.4
5.6
42.5
3.8
3,570.5
4.9
44.4
4.6
3,758.5
5.3
46.6
4.9
3,967.2
5.6
Transfer Payments
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
28.7
6.6
2,259.0
7.7
29.3
2.1
2,335.6
3.4
30.2
3.2
2,402.6
2.9
31.6
4.5
2,498.4
4.0
33.9
7.4
2,668.8
6.8
36.2
6.8
2,842.7
6.5
39.1
7.8
3,052.9
7.4
41.6
6.4
3,246.1
6.3
43.9
5.6
3,454.0
6.4
46.7
6.4
3,671.7
6.3
49.7
6.4
3,904.4
6.3
13.1
6.8
583.8
34.1
13.8
5.3
641.8
9.9
14.5
5.0
663.2
3.3
15.1
4.7
722.1
8.9
15.7
3.7
755.6
4.6
16.3
4.0
797.0
5.5
16.8
3.5
874.1
4.7
17.4
3.4
914.6
4.6
26.9
18.3
2,096.8
14.4
Contributions for Social Security

12.4
Oregon
% Ch
(2.5)
U.S.
509.7
% Ch
(1.4)
Residence Adjustment
Oregon
% Ch
(2.1)
(16.6)
Farm Proprietor's Income

0.1
Oregon
% Ch
(71.9)
Per Capita Income (Thousands of $)
36.3
Oregon
% Ch
(1.4)
U.S.
39.5
% Ch
(2.6)
12.8
3.1
524.7
2.9
(2.2)
3.3
12.2
(4.5)
435.4
(17.0)
16.2
(0.6)
835.0
4.8
(2.2)
0.5
(2.2)
0.2
(2.3)
5.0
(2.4)
5.1
(2.5)
5.4
(2.6)
5.1
(2.8)
4.7
(3.2)
15.2
(3.3)
3.7
(3.4)
3.5
0.3
161.4
0.2
(38.1)
0.2
48.5
0.3
26.2
0.4
13.5
0.4
6.5
0.4
4.3
0.4
2.6
0.5
29.3
0.5
1.2
0.5
0.5
37.0
2.1
40.3
2.0
38.4
3.7
41.9
3.8
39.8
3.7
42.9
2.4
41.3
3.7
44.2
3.2
43.2
4.6
46.3
4.8
45.2
4.7
48.5
4.7
47.3
4.7
50.8
4.7
49.2
4.0
52.8
4.0
51.0
3.6
54.8
3.8
52.9
3.7
56.9
3.8
54.8
3.7
59.1
3.9
* Personal Income includes all classes of income minus Contributions for Social Security
78
TABLE A.1
Sep 2011 - Employment By Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
1,612.9
(6.2)
130.8
(4.4)
1,599.8
(0.8)
129.8
(0.7)
1,628.8
1.8
131.3
1.1
1,663.8
2.1
133.3
1.6
1,702.2
2.3
135.3
1.5
1,743.3
2.4
137.9
1.9
1,785.6
2.4
140.6
1.9
1,825.1
2.2
143.0
1.7
1,859.0
1.9
144.9
1.3
1,888.5
1.6
146.3
1.0
1,914.4
1.4
147.5
0.8
1,938.6
1.3
148.8
0.9
1,313.4
(7.6)
108.2
(5.3)
1,300.3
(1.0)
107.3
(0.8)
1,335.2
2.7
109.2
1.7
1,373.9
2.9
111.4
2.0
1,410.6
2.7
113.3
1.6
1,449.4
2.8
115.7
2.1
1,489.4
2.8
118.2
2.2
1,526.2
2.5
120.4
1.9
1,557.0
2.0
122.0
1.3
1,583.1
1.7
123.2
1.0
1,605.9
1.4
124.2
0.8
1,625.3
1.2
125.1
0.8

6.8
Oregon
% Ch
(21.3)
U.S.
0.7
% Ch
(9.4)
6.7
(1.6)
0.7
1.6
6.9
2.8
0.8
9.5
7.1
3.2
0.8
(0.9)
7.2
1.6
0.8
(2.0)
7.2
(0.8)
0.7
(3.0)
7.1
(0.6)
0.7
(3.7)
7.1
(0.5)
0.7
(2.4)
7.1
(0.5)
0.7
(2.2)
7.0
(0.6)
0.6
(3.1)
7.0
(0.5)
0.6
(2.6)
6.9
(0.7)
0.6
(1.8)
Construction
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
74.1
(21.3)
6.0
(16.0)
67.7
(8.6)
5.5
(8.1)
69.0
1.9
5.5
(1.0)
69.7
0.9
5.3
(3.8)
71.9
3.2
5.7
7.5
79.0
9.9
6.4
13.1
85.6
8.4
7.0
10.2
91.0
6.3
7.5
6.5
94.6
3.9
7.8
3.8
96.3
1.8
8.0
2.2
97.4
1.1
8.1
1.6
98.5
1.2
8.2
1.6
Manufacturing
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
167.2
(14.3)
11.8
(11.6)
163.8
(2.0)
11.5
(2.7)
167.7
2.4
11.7
1.8
172.4
2.8
12.1
3.0
178.2
3.4
12.4
2.6
181.8
2.0
12.6
1.3
184.8
1.7
12.7
0.8
187.4
1.4
12.7
0.2
190.5
1.6
12.7
0.2
194.4
2.0
12.8
0.5
196.9
1.3
12.8
0.3
198.6
0.8
12.8
(0.2)
Oregon
117.9
% Ch
(17.4)
U.S.
7.3
% Ch
(13.9)
114.8
(2.7)
7.1
(2.9)
118.6
3.3
7.3
3.2
124.2
4.8
7.6
4.6
129.7
4.4
8.0
4.4
132.8
2.4
8.2
2.4
135.5
2.0
8.3
1.5
137.7
1.6
8.3
0.5
140.2
1.8
8.3
0.3
143.4
2.3
8.4
0.7
145.5
1.5
8.5
0.6
146.8
0.9
8.5
0.0
Wood Products
Oregon
21.0
% Ch
(21.5)
U.S.
0.4
% Ch
(21.3)
19.9
(4.9)
0.3
(4.8)
19.0
(4.5)
0.3
(0.6)
20.1
5.3
0.4
13.9
21.6
7.8
0.5
19.7
23.2
7.3
0.5
6.7
23.9
3.0
0.5
2.1
24.1
1.1
0.5
(0.7)
24.4
1.1
0.5
(0.3)
24.6
0.7
0.5
0.8
24.7
0.5
0.5
0.7
24.8
0.4
0.5
0.2
M etal and M achinery

Oregon
32.0
% Ch
(17.6)
U.S.
2.7
% Ch
(14.4)
31.1
(2.7)
2.6
(2.4)
33.3
7.0
2.8
5.4
35.1
5.4
2.9
3.7
35.9
2.5
3.0
3.2
36.2
0.8
3.1
2.9
36.6
0.9
3.1
2.3
37.3
1.9
3.2
1.7
38.2
2.6
3.2
0.9
39.1
2.2
3.2
0.5
39.4
0.8
3.3
0.8
39.5
0.2
3.3
0.6
36.2
3.6
1.1
2.2
37.6
3.6
1.2
3.8
39.2
4.4
1.2
1.3
39.1
(0.3)
1.2
(1.6)
39.7
1.5
1.2
0.3
40.6
2.3
1.2
1.9
41.6
2.5
1.2
2.3
43.1
3.5
1.2
2.3
44.0
2.1
1.3
1.3
44.7
1.7
1.3
1.0
Computer and Electronic Products

Oregon
35.4
35.0
% Ch
(8.8)
(1.3)
U.S.
1.1
1.1
% Ch
(8.6)
(3.2)
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
10.2
(32.3)
1.3
(16.2)
10.2
(0.1)
1.3
(1.3)
10.6
3.7
1.4
3.4
11.2
6.2
1.5
7.3
12.1
8.0
1.6
6.9
13.1
8.0
1.7
5.2
13.8
5.2
1.7
1.7
13.6
(1.7)
1.6
(2.4)
13.1
(3.0)
1.6
(2.4)
13.1
(0.3)
1.6
(0.5)
13.2
0.3
1.6
(0.7)
13.0
(1.3)
1.6
(2.1)
Other Durables
Oregon
19.4
% Ch
(17.3)
U.S.
2.1
% Ch
(14.6)
18.6
(4.1)
2.0
(4.6)
19.4
4.6
2.0
1.7
20.3
4.5
2.2
6.0
20.8
2.5
2.3
6.2
21.2
1.8
2.3
1.6
21.6
1.9
2.3
0.8
22.1
2.5
2.4
0.4
22.8
3.0
2.4
0.6
23.6
3.5
2.4
1.0
24.3
3.1
2.4
0.7
24.8
2.2
2.4
0.2
79
TABLE A.1
2009
2010
49.3
49.0
Oregon
% Ch
(5.8)
(0.5)
U.S.
4.6
4.5
% Ch
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
49.1
48.2
48.5
49.0
49.3
49.7
50.3
51.0
51.4
51.8
0.2
4.4
(1.9)
4.5
0.7
4.4
0.8
4.4
0.8
4.4
0.8
4.4
1.2
4.4
1.3
4.4
0.9
4.4
0.6
4.3
(7.6)
(2.3)
(0.3)
0.3
(0.3)
(0.7)
(0.5)
(0.3)
0.1
0.2
(0.4)
(0.6)
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
23.3
% Ch
(0.5)
U.S.
1.5
% Ch
(1.6)
24.1
3.4
1.4
(0.6)
25.1
4.3
1.5
0.4
23.9
(4.6)
1.5
1.7
24.2
1.2
1.5
1.0
24.5
1.1
1.5
1.1
24.8
1.1
1.5
1.2
25.1
1.4
1.5
1.5
25.5
1.5
1.6
1.4
25.9
1.5
1.6
1.5
26.1
1.1
1.6
0.6
26.4
1.0
1.6
0.4
Other Nondurable
Oregon
26.0
% Ch
(10.1)
U.S.
3.1
(10.2)
% Ch
25.0
(3.9)
3.0
(3.1)
24.1
(3.7)
3.0
(0.4)
24.3
0.9
3.0
0.1
24.3
0.3
3.0
(0.5)
24.5
0.6
2.9
(1.5)
24.6
0.4
2.9
(1.4)
24.6
0.3
2.9
(1.2)
24.9
0.9
2.8
(0.7)
25.1
1.1
2.8
(0.5)
25.3
0.6
2.8
(0.9)
25.4
0.3
2.8
(1.2)
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities

Oregon
312.2
308.2
% Ch
(7.1)
(1.3)
U.S.
24.9
24.6
% Ch
(5.3)
(1.2)
Retail Trade
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
315.0
2.2
25.0
1.4
322.6
2.4
25.6
2.7
329.1
2.0
26.0
1.6
335.0
1.8
26.4
1.3
341.2
1.9
26.8
1.4
347.5
1.9
27.1
1.2
353.2
1.6
27.3
0.8
357.7
1.3
27.4
0.4
360.3
0.7
27.4
0.1
361.2
0.2
27.4
0.0
183.4
(6.8)
14.5
(5.0)
183.4
(0.0)
14.4
(0.7)
189.1
3.1
14.5
0.9
191.4
1.2
14.8
1.6
193.3
1.0
14.9
1.1
195.3
1.1
15.0
0.4
198.1
1.4
15.1
0.7
201.1
1.5
15.2
0.3
203.8
1.3
15.1
(0.1)
206.0
1.1
15.1
(0.3)
207.3
0.6
15.1
(0.3)
207.2
(0.0)
15.0
(0.3)
Wholesale Trade
Oregon
75.3
% Ch
(6.5)
U.S.
5.6
% Ch
(6.0)
72.7
(3.5)
5.5
(2.3)
73.0
0.5
5.6
2.1
76.2
4.4
5.8
3.7
78.2
2.6
5.9
1.8
80.3
2.6
6.0
2.1
82.1
2.3
6.1
2.0
83.7
2.0
6.3
2.0
85.0
1.5
6.3
1.5
85.8
1.0
6.4
1.0
86.5
0.8
6.5
0.8
87.0
0.7
6.5
0.6
55.0
4.1
5.1
4.7
57.6
4.7
5.2
2.8
59.3
3.0
5.4
2.9
61.0
2.8
5.5
3.0
62.7
2.9
5.7
2.8
64.5
2.8
5.8
2.3
65.9
2.2
5.9
1.5
66.6
1.0
5.9
0.4
66.9
0.5
5.9
0.2
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities

Oregon
53.5
52.1
52.8
% Ch
(8.8)
(2.7)
1.5
U.S.
4.8
4.7
4.9
% Ch
(5.3)
(1.3)
2.5
Information
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
33.1
(7.1)
2.8
(6.0)
32.2
(2.6)
2.7
(3.3)
33.1
2.7
2.7
(0.1)
34.0
2.9
2.8
3.7
34.5
1.3
2.8
0.6
34.4
(0.1)
2.8
(0.5)
35.3
2.4
2.9
2.9
35.9
1.8
2.9
1.9
36.7
2.3
3.0
1.9
37.3
1.6
3.0
1.5
37.5
0.5
3.1
0.8
37.6
0.3
3.1
0.5
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
95.7
(6.1)
7.8
(4.6)
92.7
(3.1)
7.6
(1.8)
94.0
1.4
7.6
(0.1)
96.9
3.1
7.7
1.7
100.3
3.5
7.8
0.5
100.6
0.3
7.7
(0.8)
101.1
0.5
7.7
(0.1)
101.5
0.4
7.7
(0.3)
101.6
0.2
7.7
(0.4)
101.7
0.1
7.6
(0.9)
101.8
0.1
7.6
(0.6)
101.8
0.0
7.5
(0.1)
193.7
3.5
17.9
3.6
201.3
3.9
18.4
2.9
213.7
6.2
19.4
5.3
226.3
5.9
20.4
5.3
237.2
4.8
21.3
4.4
245.6
3.5
22.0
3.2
253.2
3.1
22.7
2.9
261.5
3.3
23.4
3.1
269.7
3.2
24.1
3.0
Professional and Business S ervices

Oregon
180.1
181.3
% Ch
(8.2)
0.7
U.S.
16.6
16.7
% Ch
(6.6)
0.7
187.1
3.2
17.3
3.6
80
TABLE A.1
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Education and Health S ervices

Oregon
223.6
228.4
% Ch
1.8
2.1
U.S.
19.2
19.6
% Ch
1.9
1.9
2009
235.7
3.2
20.0
2.2
243.4
3.3
20.3
1.7
249.7
2.6
20.5
0.6
256.4
2.7
20.7
1.4
263.7
2.8
21.1
1.7
272.1
3.2
21.6
2.5
279.4
2.7
22.0
1.9
286.7
2.6
22.4
1.6
293.3
2.3
22.6
1.1
299.4
2.0
22.8
0.9
Educational S ervices
Oregon
30.7
% Ch
1.6
U.S.
3.1
% Ch
1.6
31.4
2.5
3.1
1.9
Health Care and S ocial Assistance

Oregon
192.9
197.0
% Ch
1.9
2.1
U.S.
16.1
16.4
% Ch
1.9
1.9
32.0
1.9
3.2
2.4
32.6
1.8
3.2
(1.3)
32.8
0.5
3.1
(2.5)
33.0
0.9
3.0
(2.2)
33.4
1.0
3.0
(1.6)
33.7
1.0
3.0
(1.1)
34.1
1.0
2.9
(0.7)
34.5
1.3
2.9
(1.1)
34.9
1.2
2.9
(1.6)
35.4
1.3
2.8
(1.1)
203.6
3.4
16.8
2.2
210.8
3.5
17.2
2.3
217.0
2.9
17.4
1.2
223.3
2.9
17.7
2.1
230.3
3.1
18.1
2.3
238.4
3.5
18.7
3.1
245.3
2.9
19.1
2.3
252.2
2.8
19.5
2.0
258.4
2.5
19.8
1.5
264.0
2.1
20.0
1.2
161.8
(0.7)
13.0
(0.4)
168.7
4.3
13.2
1.5
174.4
3.4
13.4
1.7
177.5
1.7
13.5
0.3
179.0
0.9
13.4
(0.3)
180.6
0.9
13.4
(0.3)
181.8
0.6
13.4
(0.2)
182.6
0.4
13.4
(0.1)
182.5
(0.1)
13.3
(0.4)
183.1
0.3
13.3
(0.3)
183.6
0.3
13.2
(0.3)
57.5
(0.4)
5.4
(0.0)
58.0
1.0
5.4
1.5
59.6
2.7
5.4
0.1
62.4
2.4
5.5
0.3
63.7
2.0
5.5
(0.2)
64.7
1.7
5.4
(0.4)
65.6
1.3
5.4
(0.4)
66.3
1.0
5.4
(0.7)
67.1
1.2
5.3
(0.9)
67.9
1.2
5.3
(0.5)
299.5
(0.0)
22.5
(0.3)
293.7
(1.9)
22.1
(1.9)
290.0
(1.3)
21.9
(0.8)
Federal Government
Oregon
30.0
% Ch
1.4
U.S.
2.8
% Ch
2.5
30.4
1.5
3.0
4.8
27.9
(8.1)
2.8
(4.3)
27.5
(1.4)
2.8
(2.6)
27.4
(0.6)
2.7
(3.1)
27.2
(0.6)
2.6
(2.4)
27.0
(0.6)
2.6
(1.6)
26.9
(0.6)
2.5
(1.2)
26.8
(0.2)
2.5
(0.7)
26.9
0.3
2.5
(0.5)
26.9
(0.1)
2.5
(0.4)
28.5
6.2
2.6
5.5
S tate Government
Oregon
% Ch
79.7
1.9
80.2
0.6
79.3
(1.1)
79.5
0.2
80.1
0.8
80.8
0.8
81.6
1.1
82.6
1.2
83.5
1.1
84.3
1.0
85.1
1.0
Education S tate Government

Oregon
29.0
29.8
% Ch
2.3
2.8
31.1
4.5
31.3
0.6
31.5
0.5
31.7
0.9
32.1
1.2
32.6
1.5
33.2
1.7
33.8
2.0
34.4
1.9
35.1
1.9
189.4
(1.0)
185.6
(2.0)
183.1
(1.3)
184.8
0.9
186.6
1.0
188.4
1.0
190.3
1.0
192.7
1.2
194.9
1.2
197.3
1.2
199.7
1.2
Education Local Government

Oregon
102.8
100.2
% Ch
0.5
(2.5)
96.8
(3.4)
95.7
(1.2)
97.4
1.7
98.8
1.4
100.1
1.3
101.5
1.4
102.9
1.4
104.3
1.4
105.8
1.4
107.3
1.4

162.9
Oregon
% Ch
(5.7)
U.S.
13.1
% Ch
(2.7)
Other S ervices
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
Government
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
Local Government
Oregon
% Ch
57.7
(5.0)
5.4
(2.7)
299.5
0.5
22.6
0.3
78.2
2.0
191.4
(0.3)
61.0
2.3
5.4
(0.1)
291.6
0.6
22.0
0.6
293.9
0.8
22.2
1.1
81
296.2
0.8
22.4
0.8
298.8
0.9
22.7
1.1
302.1
1.1
22.9
1.2
305.3
1.1
23.1
1.0
308.5
1.0
23.3
0.8
313.3
1.6
23.7
1.4
TABLE A.1
Sep 2011 - Other Economic Indicators
2009
GDP (Bil of 2005 $),

Chain Weight (in billions of $)
% Ch
2010
2011
2012
13,923.8
2.6
2013
12,880.6
(2.6)
13,248.2
2.9
13,574.3
2.5
14,307.6
2.8
GDP Implicit Price Deflator,

Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100
% Ch
109.6
0.9
110.7
1.0
112.6
1.7
113.9
1.2
115.7
1.6
Personal Consumption Deflator,

% Ch
109.3
0.2
111.1
1.7
113.6
2.3
115.5
1.6
CPI, Urban Consumers,

1982-84=100
Portland-Salem, OR-WA
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
215.6
0.1
214.5
(0.3)
218.3
1.3
218.1
1.6
223.1
2.2
224.6
3.0
Oregon Average Wage

Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
43.0
0.9
44.0
2.4
U.S. Average Wage

Wage Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
48.0
0.0
49.3
2.7
2014
14,783.4
3.3
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
15,284.1
3.4
15,764.9
3.1
16,197.0
2.7
16,614.8
2.6
17,051.4
2.6
17,500.3
2.6
117.8
1.8
120.0
1.9
122.1
1.8
124.3
1.8
126.5
1.7
128.6
1.7
130.8
1.7
117.4
1.7
119.6
1.9
122.0
2.0
124.5
2.0
127.0
2.0
129.4
2.0
131.8
1.8
134.2
1.8
226.7
1.6
228.6
1.8
230.3
1.6
233.0
1.9
234.7
1.9
237.5
2.0
239.6
2.1
242.4
2.0
244.6
2.1
247.6
2.1
249.8
2.1
252.6
2.0
254.8
2.0
257.6
2.0
260.2
2.1
262.4
1.9
265.7
2.1
267.1
1.8
44.8
1.8
46.2
3.2
47.6
3.0
48.9
2.8
50.4
2.9
51.8
2.9
53.4
3.1
55.0
2.8
56.6
3.1
58.4
3.1
50.5
2.4
51.9
2.9
53.4
2.9
54.8
2.6
56.3
2.7
57.9
2.8
59.6
3.0
61.5
3.1
63.4
3.2
65.4
3.1
Price and Wage Indicators
Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Housing Index 1987 Q1=100
% Ch
410.8
(7.7)
383.9
(6.5)
344.8
(10.2)
331.0
(4.0)
340.0
2.7
349.9
2.9
367.4
5.0
382.2
4.0
398.7
4.3
415.2
4.2
433.6
4.4
453.9
4.7
FHFA National Housing Price Index

(1980Q1=100)
% Ch
345.0
(4.5)
332.8
(3.5)
312.3
(6.2)
309.5
(0.9)
324.9
4.9
338.1
4.1
357.5
5.7
373.1
4.4
392.8
5.3
412.0
4.9
431.1
4.6
452.2
4.9
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
% Ch
U.S. (Millions)
% Ch
7.6
(40.5)
0.6
(38.4)
7.6
0.6
0.6
5.6
7.7
1.3
0.6
1.6
7.9
1.5
0.8
40.8
10.3
30.6
1.3
59.1
13.8
34.6
1.6
18.3
19.0
37.9
1.7
9.9
23.4
23.0
1.8
3.8
25.2
7.7
1.8
0.7
25.2
(0.2)
1.8
(1.0)
25.1
(0.2)
1.8
(0.2)
25.1
(0.2)
1.8
(0.5)
120.0
2.8
123.3
2.8
Other Indicators
Industrial Production Index
U.S, 2002 = 100
% Ch
85.5
(11.2)
90.1
5.3
93.8
4.1
96.9
3.3
99.8
3.0
103.6
3.8
107.3
3.6
110.6
3.1
113.6
2.7
116.7
2.7
Prime Rate (Percent)

% Ch
3.3
(36.1)
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
2.8
4.7
41.5
6.5
37.3
7.7
18.3
7.8
0.9
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.7
(0.0)
7.7
(0.0)
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
3.82
0.8
307.8
0.9
3.84
0.6
310.8
1.0
3.87
0.7
313.8
1.0
3.91
0.9
316.9
1.0
3.95
1.0
319.9
1.0
3.99
1.2
323.0
1.0
4.04
1.2
326.2
1.0
4.09
1.2
329.3
1.0
4.14
1.2
332.5
1.0
4.19
1.2
335.6
1.0
4.25
1.3
338.8
0.9
4.30
1.3
342.0
0.9
Timber Harvest (Mil Bd Ft)

Oregon
% Ch
2,820.0
(18.0)
3,210.0
13.8
3,179.3
(1.0)
3,502.1
10.2
3,925.6
12.1
82
4,020.9
2.4
4,099.1
1.9
4,157.7
1.4
4,235.9
1.9
4,309.2
1.7
4,384.2
1.7
4,417.2
0.8
Table A.2 Quarterly Forecast 1

TABLE A.2

2009:1
Oregon
137.6
% Ch
(4.3)
U.S.
12,093.2
% Ch
(8.2)
2009:2
138.9
3.9
12,203.4
3.7
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
138.2
(2.1)
12,164.0
(1.3)
139.2
2.9
12,239.0
2.5
140.4
3.6
12,350.3
3.7
141.9
4.4
12,517.1
5.5
142.8
2.6
12,595.5
2.5
143.8
3.0
12,700.9
3.4
146.5
7.7
12,935.1
7.6
147.8
3.5
13,060.7
3.9
149.1
3.6
13,208.8
4.6
151.0
5.1
13,355.2
4.5
Wage and Salary

Oregon
70.6
% Ch
(11.7)
U.S.
6,260.0
% Ch
(13.8)
70.4
(1.0)
6,287.7
1.8
69.9
(3.2)
6,263.9
(1.5)
70.0
0.9
6,284.9
1.3
70.3
1.4
6,291.4
0.4
71.2
5.4
6,388.8
6.3
71.7
3.2
6,443.7
3.5
72.1
2.0
6,471.6
1.7
73.0
5.2
6,523.1
3.2
73.5
2.9
6,583.4
3.8
74.1
3.3
6,657.9
4.6
75.2
5.8
6,736.4
4.8
Other Labor Income

Oregon
17.5
% Ch
(0.5)
U.S.
1,060.2
% Ch
1.8
17.5
1.6
1,069.9
3.7
17.5
(0.8)
1,074.0
1.5
17.6
2.4
1,084.0
3.8
17.9
6.6
1,095.8
4.4
18.0
3.0
1,103.1
2.7
18.1
2.0
1,110.3
2.6
18.2
2.9
1,118.2
2.9
18.5
7.0
1,126.9
3.1
18.7
2.9
1,134.5
2.7
18.9
3.8
1,144.4
3.5
19.1
4.5
1,154.9
3.7
10.1
4.5
985.9
3.1
10.3
5.7
994.0
3.3
10.4
6.2
1,010.8
6.9
10.4
0.5
1,011.0
0.1
10.5
1.3
1,024.7
5.5
10.7
7.1
1,040.1
6.1
10.8
4.8
1,050.0
3.9
11.0
7.6
1,069.2
7.5
11.1
5.7
1,084.0
5.7

Oregon
10.0
9.9
% Ch
(13.9)
(2.6)
U.S.
989.0
972.5
% Ch
(16.1)
(6.5)
10.0
5.0
978.4
2.4

Oregon
28.7
28.2
% Ch
(13.3)
(6.3)
U.S.
2,237.4
2,195.3
% Ch
(15.2)
(7.3)
27.9
(3.6)
2,170.2
(4.5)
28.0
0.4
2,172.0
0.3
28.3
5.6
2,203.8
6.0
28.5
1.9
2,213.3
1.7
28.3
(2.5)
2,193.5
(3.5)
28.6
4.9
2,223.5
5.6
29.2
8.6
2,277.2
10.0
29.6
5.7
2,312.1
6.3
30.1
6.7
2,348.4
6.4
30.5
5.3
2,382.5
5.9
Transfer Payments
Oregon
25.3
% Ch
33.4
U.S.
1,987.2
% Ch
31.0
27.4
36.3
2,124.1
30.5
27.2
(2.9)
2,123.4
(0.1)
27.8
10.5
2,152.5
5.6
28.2
4.8
2,208.9
10.9
28.5
5.3
2,249.1
7.5
29.0
6.0
2,279.2
5.5
29.2
2.9
2,298.9
3.5
29.0
(1.6)
2,309.0
1.8
29.3
2.9
2,327.3
3.2
29.4
1.4
2,357.0
5.2
29.5
2.6
2,349.1
(1.3)

Oregon
12.4
12.4
% Ch
(5.4)
1.1
U.S.
506.8
510.1
% Ch
(6.5)
2.6
12.4
(1.8)
509.8
(0.2)
12.4
1.5
512.2
1.9
12.6
6.5
516.9
3.7
12.8
4.9
523.9
5.5
12.9
2.7
528.0
3.2
12.9
2.0
530.1
1.6
11.9
(27.8)
429.0
(57.1)
12.0
4.2
433.3
4.1
12.4
13.1
437.2
3.6
Oregon
(2.1)
% Ch
(42.4)
Oregon
0.1
% Ch
(91.7)
(2.1)
(4.3)
0.0
(99.2)
(2.1)
(5.8)
0.1
59,132.7
(2.1)
1.2
0.1
(44.1)
(2.1)
11.9
(2.2)
6.4
0.2
889.2
0.2
(33.5)
83
(2.2)
0.3
328.8
(2.2)
1.7
(2.2)
12.4
(2.2)
2.3
(2.1)
(26.9)
0.3
70.3
0.2
(93.5)
0.2
(5.0)
0.1
(49.2)
12.5
4.1
442.2
4.7
(2.1)
5.3
0.2
156.0
TABLE A.2

2012:1
Oregon
152.8
% Ch
4.9
U.S.
13,379.3
% Ch
0.7
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2013:3
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
154.6
4.8
13,510.5
4.0
156.4
4.8
13,645.8
4.1
158.2
4.8
13,789.7
4.3
160.0
4.5
13,903.3
3.3
161.9
4.9
14,065.3
4.7
163.9
5.0
14,232.8
4.8
165.9
5.0
14,403.7
4.9
168.8
7.0
14,661.7
7.4
171.1
5.6
14,864.1
5.6
173.6
5.9
15,075.8
5.8
176.0
5.8
15,282.5
5.6
Wage and Salary

Oregon
76.3
% Ch
5.8
U.S.
6,816.1
% Ch
4.8
77.4
5.9
6,888.1
4.3
78.4
5.4
6,958.8
4.2
79.4
5.4
7,032.9
4.3
80.5
5.7
7,108.6
4.4
81.6
5.2
7,187.8
4.5
82.6
5.0
7,268.6
4.6
83.6
5.2
7,348.8
4.5
84.7
5.4
7,434.5
4.7
85.8
5.3
7,517.8
4.6
87.0
5.4
7,603.7
4.7
88.1
5.6
7,692.2
4.7
Other Labor Income

Oregon
19.3
% Ch
5.2
U.S.
1,167.6
% Ch
4.5
19.5
4.8
1,179.1
4.0
19.7
4.1
1,190.3
3.8
20.0
4.8
1,202.9
4.3
20.2
4.8
1,215.2
4.2
20.4
4.7
1,230.4
5.1
20.6
4.2
1,246.1
5.2
20.9
5.1
1,263.3
5.6
21.2
5.5
1,280.0
5.4
21.4
4.6
1,297.0
5.4
21.7
4.9
1,314.3
5.4
22.0
6.0
1,332.2
5.6

Oregon
11.2
11.4
% Ch
4.2
4.8
U.S.
1,096.1
1,110.8
% Ch
4.5
5.5
11.5
4.5
1,124.8
5.2
11.7
5.5
1,142.2
6.3
11.8
3.2
1,153.2
3.9
11.9
5.2
1,170.8
6.2
12.0
4.0
1,184.6
4.8
12.1
4.0
1,198.8
4.9
12.3
4.8
1,215.7
5.8
12.5
5.9
1,236.1
6.9
12.6
4.1
1,251.2
5.0
12.7
4.6
1,268.4
5.6

Oregon
30.9
31.1
% Ch
5.3
3.2
U.S.
2,410.9
2,431.5
% Ch
4.9
3.5
31.4
3.9
2,456.1
4.1
31.7
3.6
2,481.8
4.2
32.0
3.0
2,509.9
4.6
32.3
3.9
2,541.1
5.1
32.7
5.2
2,578.3
6.0
33.1
4.9
2,619.3
6.5
33.5
5.3
2,665.2
7.2
34.1
7.2
2,724.1
9.1
34.8
8.4
2,792.7
10.5
35.4
6.8
2,853.2
9.0
Transfer Payments
Oregon
29.8
% Ch
4.2
U.S.
2,374.4
% Ch
4.4
30.1
3.1
2,390.2
2.7
30.4
4.1
2,411.9
3.7
30.7
3.9
2,434.0
3.7
31.1
5.4
2,464.1
5.0
31.4
4.6
2,487.8
3.9
31.8
4.4
2,509.5
3.5
32.1
4.4
2,532.0
3.6
33.4
16.4
2,627.5
16.0
33.7
4.5
2,654.9
4.2
34.1
4.7
2,682.6
4.2
34.5
4.6
2,710.3
4.2

Oregon
12.9
13.0
% Ch
10.9
4.1
U.S.
576.0
580.7
% Ch
187.8
3.3
13.1
4.0
586.1
3.8
13.3
4.2
592.2
4.2
13.6
10.1
634.0
31.4
13.7
4.0
639.7
3.6
13.8
2.5
643.5
2.4
13.9
3.8
650.1
4.1
14.3
10.3
654.1
2.5
14.4
3.2
660.2
3.8
14.5
2.8
665.8
3.4
14.6
3.8
672.7
4.2
Oregon
(2.1)
% Ch
4.5
(2.2)
5.3
(2.2)
5.3
(2.2)
5.2
(2.2)
4.8
(2.3)
5.0
(2.3)
4.7
(2.3)
5.0
(2.3)
4.9
(2.4)
5.5
(2.4)
5.6
(2.4)
5.8

Oregon
0.2
% Ch
88.7
0.2
59.7
0.3
41.7
0.3
28.9
0.3
23.1
0.3
21.5
0.3
16.6
0.3
14.2
0.3
14.4
0.3
12.1
0.4
9.7
0.4
7.8
84
TABLE A.2

2015:1
Oregon
179.0
% Ch
7.0
U.S.
15,522.4
% Ch
6.4
2015:2
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
2017:3
2017:4
181.5
5.7
15,729.4
5.4
184.0
5.6
15,930.9
5.2
186.4
5.3
16,129.1
5.1
189.8
7.5
16,412.3
7.2
192.4
5.7
16,623.8
5.3
194.9
5.2
16,828.0
5.0
197.3
5.1
17,031.2
4.9
200.1
5.8
17,261.1
5.5
202.7
5.3
17,463.9
4.8
205.1
4.9
17,663.7
4.7
207.6
4.8
17,862.5
4.6
Wage and Salary

Oregon
89.3
% Ch
5.4
U.S.
7,785.4
% Ch
4.9
90.5
5.3
7,873.8
4.6
91.7
5.5
7,962.4
4.6
92.9
5.3
8,050.2
4.5
94.1
5.3
8,146.4
4.9
95.3
5.3
8,238.0
4.6
96.5
5.1
8,327.8
4.4
97.7
5.0
8,416.0
4.3
98.9
5.2
8,510.9
4.6
100.1
4.9
8,598.4
4.2
101.3
4.7
8,684.5
4.1
102.5
4.8
8,770.7
4.0
Other Labor Income

Oregon
22.3
% Ch
5.8
U.S.
1,350.5
% Ch
5.6
22.6
5.2
1,367.9
5.2
22.9
5.1
1,385.3
5.2
23.2
5.3
1,403.1
5.2
23.5
5.1
1,420.2
5.0
23.7
5.0
1,437.3
4.9
24.0
5.0
1,454.5
4.9
24.3
5.0
1,471.9
4.9
24.6
4.9
1,488.9
4.7
24.9
4.7
1,505.3
4.5
25.2
4.7
1,522.0
4.5
25.5
4.6
1,538.6
4.4

Oregon
12.8
13.0
% Ch
3.7
4.5
U.S.
1,282.7
1,300.1
% Ch
4.6
5.5
13.1
3.4
1,313.8
4.3
13.2
4.0
1,329.9
5.0
13.4
5.5
1,349.5
6.0
13.6
6.2
1,372.1
6.9
13.8
4.6
1,389.6
5.2
13.9
5.0
1,409.8
6.0
14.1
4.6
1,428.6
5.4
14.3
5.5
1,451.4
6.5
14.4
3.9
1,468.3
4.7
14.6
4.7
1,489.0
5.8

Oregon
36.0
36.6
% Ch
7.2
7.1
U.S.
2,918.7
2,980.5
% Ch
9.5
8.7
37.2
7.2
3,039.6
8.2
37.7
5.4
3,093.8
7.3
38.2
5.2
3,144.4
6.7
38.8
5.8
3,197.4
6.9
39.3
5.9
3,247.7
6.4
39.8
4.7
3,292.5
5.6
40.2
4.6
3,337.6
5.6
40.7
4.6
3,380.5
5.2
41.2
5.1
3,425.5
5.4
41.6
4.1
3,465.8
4.8
Transfer Payments
Oregon
35.6
% Ch
13.8
U.S.
2,800.2
% Ch
13.9
36.0
4.6
2,827.1
3.9
36.4
4.6
2,856.6
4.2
36.8
4.6
2,886.8
4.3
38.4
17.6
2,999.3
16.5
38.8
4.7
3,033.8
4.7
39.3
4.8
3,069.5
4.8
39.8
5.3
3,109.1
5.3
40.8
10.1
3,184.4
10.0
41.3
5.2
3,224.9
5.2
41.8
5.3
3,266.4
5.2
42.4
5.3
3,308.7
5.3

Oregon
15.0
15.1
% Ch
9.6
2.3
U.S.
712.1
718.7
% Ch
25.6
3.7
15.2
3.3
725.0
3.6
15.3
3.3
732.4
4.1
15.5
6.5
745.5
7.3
15.6
1.1
752.3
3.7
15.7
4.1
758.8
3.5
15.9
4.0
765.9
3.8
16.2
7.2
787.3
11.6
16.2
0.9
793.8
3.3
16.4
3.8
799.9
3.1
16.5
3.8
806.9
3.5
Oregon
(2.5)
% Ch
5.0
Oregon
0.4
% Ch
5.5
(2.5)
5.3
(2.5)
5.5
(2.6)
5.3
(2.6)
5.1
(2.6)
4.8
(2.7)
4.8
(2.7)
4.7
(2.7)
4.8
(2.8)
4.5
(2.8)
4.3
(2.8)
4.4
0.4
5.2
0.4
4.3
0.4
3.6
0.4
6.9
0.4
3.0
0.4
2.8
0.4
2.7
0.4
2.6
0.4
2.4
0.4
2.3
0.4
2.3
85
TABLE A.2

2018:1
Oregon
210.1
% Ch
5.1
U.S.
18,093.5
% Ch
5.3
2018:2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
212.5
4.5
18,298.0
4.6
215.0
4.8
18,505.3
4.6
217.6
4.8
18,715.2
4.6
220.5
5.5
18,961.6
5.4
223.1
4.9
19,176.1
4.6
225.7
4.8
19,394.5
4.6
228.4
4.7
19,615.8
4.6
231.5
5.6
19,882.5
5.6
234.4
5.1
20,118.8
4.8
237.0
4.6
20,340.7
4.5
239.7
4.6
20,563.1
4.4
Wage and Salary

Oregon
103.6
% Ch
4.5
U.S.
8,863.3
% Ch
4.3
104.6
3.6
8,949.9
4.0
105.7
4.6
9,037.2
4.0
106.9
4.7
9,124.9
3.9
108.2
4.8
9,220.7
4.3
109.3
4.3
9,310.5
4.0
110.5
4.3
9,400.9
3.9
111.7
4.4
9,491.7
3.9
112.9
4.5
9,590.7
4.2
114.2
4.7
9,691.6
4.3
115.3
3.9
9,776.9
3.6
116.5
4.1
9,863.9
3.6
Other Labor Income

Oregon
25.8
% Ch
4.4
U.S.
1,554.7
% Ch
4.3
26.0
4.3
1,571.1
4.3
26.3
4.4
1,587.1
4.1
26.6
4.4
1,603.4
4.2
26.9
4.3
1,619.4
4.0
27.2
4.3
1,635.7
4.1
27.4
4.2
1,651.7
4.0
27.7
4.2
1,668.0
4.0
28.0
4.3
1,684.7
4.1
28.3
4.4
1,701.8
4.1
28.6
4.5
1,720.7
4.5
28.9
4.2
1,737.8
4.0

Oregon
14.7
14.9
% Ch
4.1
5.4
U.S.
1,507.3
1,531.1
% Ch
5.0
6.5
15.1
4.7
1,552.2
5.6
15.3
4.9
1,574.7
5.9
15.4
4.4
1,595.6
5.4
15.6
4.9
1,619.1
6.0
15.8
4.3
1,640.1
5.3
16.0
4.5
1,662.2
5.5
16.2
5.0
1,687.1
6.1
16.4
5.3
1,713.3
6.4
16.5
4.2
1,735.0
5.2
16.7
4.3
1,757.7
5.3

Oregon
41.8
42.2
% Ch
1.9
4.1
U.S.
3,507.1
3,546.9
% Ch
4.8
4.6
42.7
4.8
3,591.3
5.1
43.2
4.4
3,636.9
5.2
43.6
4.4
3,685.0
5.4
44.1
4.5
3,731.1
5.1
44.7
5.3
3,782.4
5.6
45.2
4.8
3,835.2
5.7
45.8
4.7
3,888.0
5.6
46.3
4.8
3,939.5
5.4
46.9
5.3
3,993.6
5.6
47.4
4.7
4,047.6
5.5
Transfer Payments
Oregon
43.0
% Ch
6.3
U.S.
3,388.5
% Ch
10.0
43.6
5.3
3,431.8
5.2
44.1
5.3
3,475.7
5.2
44.7
5.3
3,519.9
5.2
45.8
10.0
3,603.8
9.9
46.4
5.2
3,648.6
5.1
47.0
5.2
3,694.0
5.1
47.6
5.2
3,740.4
5.1
48.7
10.3
3,832.3
10.2
49.4
5.2
3,880.3
5.1
50.0
5.1
3,928.1
5.0
50.6
5.1
3,976.9
5.1

Oregon
16.1
16.1
% Ch
(9.4)
0.0
U.S.
825.3
831.7
% Ch
9.5
3.1
16.3
3.6
837.9
3.0
16.4
3.6
845.0
3.5
16.7
6.8
864.0
9.3
16.7
0.4
870.7
3.1
16.8
3.4
877.1
3.0
17.0
3.4
884.5
3.4
17.2
6.5
904.2
9.2
17.3
0.6
911.8
3.4
17.4
3.1
917.7
2.6
17.5
3.2
924.8
3.1
Oregon
(3.2)
% Ch
57.3
Oregon
0.5
% Ch
165.1
(3.2)
2.9
(3.2)
3.9
(3.2)
3.9
(3.3)
4.0
(3.3)
3.5
(3.3)
3.5
(3.4)
3.5
(3.4)
3.6
(3.4)
3.8
(3.4)
3.1
(3.5)
3.3
0.5
1.3
0.5
1.3
0.5
1.2
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.5
(0.0)
86
TABLE A.2
Sep 2011 - Employment by Industry
2009:1
2009:2
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
1,643.3
(10.0)
132.8
(6.5)
1,614.4
(6.9)
131.0
(5.5)
1,601.2
(3.2)
130.0
(3.0)
1,592.7
(2.1)
129.4
(1.6)
1,593.0
0.1
129.3
(0.3)
1,603.2
2.6
130.0
2.0
1,600.0
(0.8)
129.9
(0.2)
1,602.9
0.7
130.1
0.8
1,622.3
4.9
130.5
1.3
1,625.0
0.7
131.1
1.6
1,629.9
1.2
131.5
1.2
1,638.2
2.1
132.1
1.8
1,342.8
(12.1)
110.2
(7.8)
1,314.8
(8.1)
108.3
(6.7)
1,301.3
(4.0)
107.4
(3.3)
1,294.6
(2.1)
106.9
(1.9)
1,294.6
0.0
106.8
(0.3)
1,300.6
1.9
107.2
1.4
1,300.8
0.1
107.5
1.0
1,305.1
1.3
107.9
1.5
1,324.0
5.9
108.3
1.8
1,329.2
1.6
108.9
2.2
1,338.9
2.9
109.4
1.9
1,348.6
2.9
110.1
2.5

7.4
6.9
Oregon
% Ch
(41.9)
(24.8)
U.S.
0.7
0.7
% Ch
(14.4)
(23.8)
6.6
(15.1)
0.7
(13.3)
6.5
(6.4)
0.7
(6.0)
6.6
9.6
0.7
6.8
6.8
8.6
0.7
14.6
6.8
0.1
0.7
13.2
6.7
(3.6)
0.7
9.2
6.9
10.6
0.7
7.3
6.8
(2.0)
0.8
14.7
6.9
4.2
0.8
5.4
7.0
4.4
0.8
1.1
Construction
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
79.7
(28.1)
6.4
(21.1)
74.7
(23.1)
6.1
(20.0)
72.2
(12.6)
5.8
(14.6)
69.7
(13.2)
5.7
(10.7)
67.8
(10.7)
5.6
(8.9)
67.7
(0.2)
5.5
(1.5)
67.7
0.1
5.5
(1.7)
67.7
(0.1)
5.5
(0.5)
68.5
4.5
5.5
0.1
69.1
3.6
5.5
1.2
69.2
1.0
5.5
(3.2)
69.3
0.1
5.4
(6.9)
Manufacturing
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
174.8
(24.6)
12.4
(17.6)
167.6
(15.5)
11.9
(15.4)
164.0
(8.4)
11.6
(8.2)
162.3
(4.1)
11.5
(4.7)
162.7
1.1
11.5
(0.8)
164.2
3.7
11.5
2.3
163.4
(1.9)
11.6
1.0
164.9
3.7
11.6
(0.2)
166.9
5.0
11.6
3.4
168.5
3.8
11.7
1.7
167.0
(3.4)
11.8
1.9
168.3
3.0
11.8
3.1
Oregon
124.8
% Ch
(28.9)
U.S.
7.7
% Ch
(20.7)
118.4
(19.0)
7.3
(19.4)
115.0
(11.1)
7.1
(10.1)
113.5
(5.1)
7.0
(5.8)
114.1
2.2
7.0
(0.3)
115.2
3.9
7.1
3.5
114.9
(0.9)
7.1
2.2
114.9
(0.3)
7.1
0.7
116.2
4.9
7.2
5.5
118.3
7.2
7.3
2.8
119.3
3.5
7.3
2.7
120.4
3.7
7.4
5.2
Wood Products
Oregon
22.2
% Ch
(34.9)
U.S.
0.4
% Ch
(32.4)
21.1
(17.8)
0.4
(20.7)
20.4
(12.5)
0.3
(12.8)
20.2
(5.2)
0.3
(3.3)
20.1
(1.3)
0.3
(2.3)
20.4
7.1
0.3
3.7
19.9
(10.3)
0.3
(6.8)
19.3
(11.1)
0.3
(3.6)
19.2
(3.2)
0.3
6.3
18.8
(6.9)
0.3
(4.6)
19.0
3.3
0.3
(1.0)
19.2
5.5
0.3
4.0

Oregon
34.7
% Ch
(27.8)
U.S.
2.9
% Ch
(21.3)
32.2
(26.4)
2.7
(22.9)
30.7
(16.5)
2.6
(12.8)
30.2
(6.4)
2.6
(5.8)
30.4
2.6
2.6
0.4
31.1
8.7
2.6
7.4
31.5
5.2
2.7
4.4
31.5
0.3
2.7
2.8
32.3
11.3
2.7
7.7
32.9
7.3
2.8
6.7
33.7
9.3
2.8
3.7
34.2
6.6
2.8
3.4

Oregon
36.3
35.4
% Ch
(12.4)
(9.0)
U.S.
1.2
1.1
% Ch
(11.3)
(13.7)
35.1
(3.4)
1.1
(10.4)
34.9
(2.7)
1.1
(5.3)
34.9
0.6
1.1
(1.8)
34.9
(0.8)
1.1
1.2
34.9
0.7
1.1
2.0
35.2
3.0
1.1
1.6
35.9
8.0
1.1
3.9
36.4
6.2
1.1
1.9
36.3
(1.0)
1.1
(0.5)
36.4
0.5
1.1
5.6
Oregon
10.9
10.1
% Ch
(57.9)
(25.1)
U.S.
1.4
1.3
% Ch
(25.2)
(20.8)
9.9
(6.1)
1.3
(3.1)
9.9
(1.0)
1.3
(4.3)
10.2
10.5
1.3
3.4
10.3
5.2
1.3
1.5
10.1
(7.4)
1.3
3.8
10.2
4.3
1.3
(2.4)
10.4
5.5
1.4
6.9
10.5
7.2
1.4
0.6
10.6
4.0
1.4
6.1
10.8
6.4
1.4
12.5
18.8
(16.2)
2.1
(10.6)
18.3
(9.6)
2.0
(7.2)
18.5
4.3
2.0
(2.7)
18.5
1.1
2.0
1.1
18.5
0.5
2.0
(1.4)
18.7
2.3
2.0
(0.6)
18.5
(3.2)
2.0
2.6
19.6
25.8
2.0
4.0
19.7
2.7
2.0
3.7
19.8
1.6
2.1
1.2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
Other Durables
Oregon
20.8
% Ch
(28.5)
U.S.
2.2
% Ch
(21.3)
19.6
(21.0)
2.1
(16.6)
87
TABLE A.2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
2012:1
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2013:3
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
1,648.7
2.6
132.6
1.8
1,658.9
2.5
133.1
1.3
1,669.3
2.5
133.5
1.4
1,678.4
2.2
134.0
1.4
1,688.2
2.3
134.4
1.1
1,697.3
2.2
134.9
1.6
1,706.6
2.2
135.6
2.0
1,716.9
2.4
136.2
2.0
1,727.3
2.5
136.9
1.9
1,737.9
2.5
137.6
2.0
1,748.5
2.5
138.2
2.0
1,759.4
2.5
138.9
2.0
1,359.1
3.2
110.8
2.3
1,369.1
3.0
111.2
1.7
1,379.2
3.0
111.7
1.7
1,388.0
2.6
112.1
1.7
1,397.3
2.7
112.5
1.2
1,405.9
2.5
112.9
1.7
1,414.8
2.6
113.5
2.1
1,424.5
2.8
114.1
2.1
1,434.3
2.8
114.7
2.0
1,444.3
2.8
115.3
2.2
1,454.4
2.8
116.0
2.3
1,464.7
2.9
116.6
2.2

7.0
Oregon
% Ch
2.5
U.S.
0.8
% Ch
(5.4)
7.1
3.9
0.8
(3.4)
7.2
4.1
0.8
(2.7)
7.2
2.2
0.8
(4.2)
7.3
2.6
0.8
(0.5)
7.2
(0.9)
0.8
(1.8)
7.2
(0.0)
0.7
(0.9)
7.2
(0.8)
0.7
(1.2)
7.2
(1.0)
0.7
(3.1)
7.2
(0.9)
0.7
(5.0)
7.2
(1.1)
0.7
(4.6)
7.2
(0.8)
0.7
(4.2)
Construction
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
69.6
1.0
5.2
(4.4)
69.8
1.3
5.2
0.3
69.9
0.6
5.3
4.8
70.3
2.2
5.4
9.0
71.1
4.6
5.6
11.6
72.3
7.0
5.7
12.8
74.0
9.7
5.9
13.7
76.1
12.2
6.1
13.7
78.2
11.2
6.3
13.5
80.0
9.9
6.5
12.3
81.7
8.5
6.7
11.1
171.6
4.8
12.1
5.3
173.3
4.2
12.1
1.9
175.1
4.2
12.2
3.0
176.6
3.5
12.3
2.7
177.9
3.0
12.4
2.8
178.5
1.3
12.4
1.5
179.8
2.9
12.5
2.1
180.8
2.3
12.5
1.1
181.3
1.1
12.6
0.8
182.1
1.6
12.6
0.6
182.8
1.6
12.6
1.0
Oregon
121.6
% Ch
4.0
U.S.
7.5
% Ch
3.9
123.4
6.1
7.6
8.0
125.0
5.4
7.7
2.9
126.8
5.6
7.8
5.2
128.2
4.6
7.9
4.4
129.5
4.2
7.9
4.9
129.9
1.3
8.0
2.6
131.1
3.6
8.1
3.4
132.0
2.8
8.1
2.3
132.4
1.3
8.1
1.8
133.1
2.0
8.2
1.4
133.7
1.9
8.2
1.9
Wood Products
Oregon
19.5
% Ch
6.6
U.S.
0.4
% Ch
14.3
19.9
6.9
0.4
30.3
20.2
7.5
0.4
24.3
20.6
7.2
0.4
26.7
21.0
8.8
0.4
20.7
21.4
7.1
0.5
15.7
21.7
6.8
0.5
11.0
22.3
10.9
0.5
9.3
22.8
8.8
0.5
5.2
23.1
6.3
0.5
4.2
23.4
3.8
0.5
3.2
23.5
3.3
0.5
2.8

Oregon
34.6
% Ch
4.5
U.S.
2.8
% Ch
0.7
34.9
3.9
2.9
7.9
35.3
4.1
2.9
1.8
35.5
3.0
2.9
5.3
35.7
2.2
3.0
2.7
35.9
1.8
3.0
1.9
36.0
1.4
3.0
1.6
36.1
1.1
3.0
4.0
36.2
0.6
3.0
3.2
36.2
0.6
3.1
3.1
36.3
0.6
3.1
2.1
36.3
0.6
3.1
2.6

Oregon
36.7
37.2
% Ch
4.1
5.6
U.S.
1.2
1.2
% Ch
13.0
2.7
37.8
6.3
1.2
(4.4)
38.4
6.8
1.1
(5.8)
38.9
5.3
1.2
3.2
39.5
5.9
1.2
12.0
39.2
(3.3)
1.2
0.7
39.3
1.3
1.2
(3.2)
39.3
(0.2)
1.2
(3.0)
39.0
(3.1)
1.2
(4.6)
39.0
0.8
1.2
(1.4)
39.1
1.1
1.2
0.2
Oregon
10.9
% Ch
5.5
U.S.
1.4
% Ch
5.3
11.1
7.4
1.5
8.4
11.3
6.7
1.5
6.1
11.5
7.6
1.5
8.2
11.8
8.5
1.5
6.6
12.0
8.6
1.6
6.6
12.3
8.5
1.6
5.8
12.5
8.1
1.6
7.1
12.8
8.8
1.6
5.1
13.0
7.6
1.7
4.4
13.2
7.0
1.7
3.1
13.4
5.7
1.7
3.4
Other Durables
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
20.2
9.4
2.1
12.2
20.4
3.5
2.2
9.5
20.7
5.4
2.2
8.2
20.7
1.4
2.3
6.6
20.7
(0.3)
2.3
3.5
20.7
0.3
2.3
2.4
20.9
2.6
2.3
2.2
21.0
2.8
2.3
1.3
21.1
1.6
2.3
1.0
21.2
1.8
2.3
0.8
21.3
1.8
2.3
0.5
Manufacturing
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
69.4
0.7
5.3
(6.7)
169.6
3.0
11.9
2.6
19.8
(0.5)
2.1
4.2
88
TABLE A.2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
2015:1
2015:2
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
2017:3
2017:4
1,769.9
2.4
139.6
2.0
1,780.3
2.4
140.3
1.9
1,791.1
2.5
140.9
1.8
1,801.2
2.3
141.5
1.8
1,811.2
2.2
142.2
1.8
1,820.8
2.1
142.8
1.7
1,829.8
2.0
143.3
1.6
1,838.6
1.9
143.9
1.5
1,847.1
1.9
144.3
1.2
1,855.6
1.9
144.7
1.2
1,862.9
1.6
145.1
1.1
1,870.6
1.7
145.5
1.0
1,474.5
2.7
117.3
2.2
1,484.3
2.7
117.9
2.2
1,494.6
2.8
118.5
2.0
1,504.1
2.6
119.0
1.9
1,513.5
2.5
119.6
1.9
1,522.3
2.4
120.2
1.8
1,530.6
2.2
120.6
1.7
1,538.6
2.1
121.1
1.5
1,546.1
2.0
121.5
1.2
1,553.9
2.0
121.8
1.2
1,560.5
1.7
122.1
1.0
1,567.4
1.8
122.5
1.1

7.2
Oregon
% Ch
(0.6)
U.S.
0.7
% Ch
(3.8)
7.1
(0.3)
0.7
(3.1)
7.1
(0.1)
0.7
(2.9)
7.1
0.1
0.7
(2.2)
7.1
(1.0)
0.7
(2.2)
7.1
(0.5)
0.7
(2.4)
7.1
(0.7)
0.7
(2.0)
7.1
(0.5)
0.7
(2.0)
7.1
(0.0)
0.7
(2.1)
7.1
(0.6)
0.7
(2.5)
7.1
(0.8)
0.7
(2.4)
7.1
(0.9)
0.7
(2.8)
Construction
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
83.3
8.1
6.8
10.6
84.8
7.6
7.0
9.0
86.4
7.8
7.1
7.7
87.9
7.2
7.2
7.0
89.3
6.5
7.4
7.0
90.6
5.9
7.5
6.1
91.6
4.6
7.6
4.6
92.5
3.8
7.6
3.8
93.6
4.8
7.7
4.2
94.5
3.9
7.8
3.7
94.9
1.9
7.8
2.5
95.3
1.5
7.9
2.0
183.6
1.7
12.6
1.1
184.4
1.9
12.7
0.7
185.4
2.1
12.7
0.4
185.8
1.0
12.7
0.1
186.5
1.4
12.7
0.4
187.2
1.5
12.7
0.1
187.7
1.2
12.7
(0.2)
188.3
1.1
12.7
0.0
189.1
1.8
12.7
0.2
189.9
1.8
12.7
0.4
190.9
1.9
12.7
0.4
192.0
2.4
12.8
0.7
Oregon
134.4
% Ch
2.1
U.S.
8.2
% Ch
1.9
135.1
2.2
8.3
1.3
136.0
2.6
8.3
0.9
136.4
1.0
8.3
0.2
136.9
1.6
8.3
0.8
137.5
1.7
8.3
0.3
137.9
1.3
8.3
(0.2)
138.3
1.2
8.3
0.1
139.0
2.0
8.3
0.3
139.7
2.0
8.3
0.5
140.5
2.2
8.3
0.5
141.4
2.8
8.4
0.8
Wood Products
Oregon
23.7
% Ch
3.2
U.S.
0.5
% Ch
3.1
23.8
2.0
0.5
1.4
24.0
2.1
0.5
(0.1)
24.0
0.9
0.5
(1.2)
24.1
1.0
0.5
(1.0)
24.1
0.6
0.5
(0.6)
24.2
0.9
0.5
(1.1)
24.2
1.0
0.5
(1.3)
24.3
1.3
0.5
(0.6)
24.4
1.7
0.5
0.5
24.4
0.7
0.5
0.8
24.5
0.4
0.5
0.9

Oregon
36.4
% Ch
0.4
U.S.
3.1
% Ch
2.5
36.5
1.1
3.1
2.0
36.6
1.8
3.1
2.0
36.8
1.6
3.2
1.8
36.9
1.5
3.2
2.0
37.1
2.2
3.2
1.6
37.4
3.0
3.2
1.1
37.6
2.3
3.2
1.4
37.8
2.3
3.2
0.6
38.1
2.9
3.2
0.7
38.4
3.1
3.2
0.5
38.6
2.5
3.2
0.7

Oregon
39.3
39.5
% Ch
1.7
2.3
U.S.
1.2
1.2
% Ch
1.1
1.1
39.9
4.1
1.2
1.4
40.0
0.4
1.2
1.1
40.3
3.1
1.2
4.0
40.6
2.9
1.2
1.4
40.7
1.3
1.2
1.0
40.8
1.6
1.2
1.2
41.2
3.3
1.2
3.3
41.4
2.1
1.2
3.1
41.7
2.6
1.2
2.7
42.2
5.0
1.2
2.5
Oregon
13.6
% Ch
6.6
U.S.
1.7
% Ch
2.3
13.8
5.0
1.7
1.2
13.9
1.8
1.7
(1.2)
13.9
(0.3)
1.7
(2.9)
13.7
(3.2)
1.7
(2.8)
13.6
(3.2)
1.7
(2.8)
13.5
(3.6)
1.6
(3.1)
13.4
(4.4)
1.6
(2.7)
13.2
(3.2)
1.6
(3.0)
13.2
(2.7)
1.6
(2.1)
13.1
(1.6)
1.6
(1.6)
13.1
(0.7)
1.6
(0.4)
Other Durables
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
21.5
2.3
2.3
0.6
21.6
2.5
2.3
0.9
21.8
2.2
2.3
(0.1)
21.9
2.8
2.3
0.5
22.1
2.8
2.4
0.5
22.2
2.0
2.4
0.0
22.3
2.4
2.4
0.3
22.5
3.3
2.4
0.8
22.7
3.3
2.4
0.8
22.9
3.4
2.4
0.9
23.1
3.7
2.4
1.2
Manufacturing
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
21.4
1.6
2.3
1.3
89
TABLE A.2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
Private Nonfarm
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
2018:1
2018:2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
1,877.5
1.5
145.8
0.9
1,885.4
1.7
146.2
0.9
1,892.1
1.4
146.5
0.8
1,898.8
1.4
146.8
0.8
1,905.6
1.4
147.1
0.8
1,911.7
1.3
147.4
0.9
1,917.4
1.2
147.7
0.8
1,923.1
1.2
148.0
0.8
1,929.0
1.2
148.3
0.8
1,938.9
2.1
148.9
1.7
1,941.5
0.6
148.9
0.1
1,945.1
0.7
149.0
0.3
1,573.4
1.5
122.7
0.9
1,580.5
1.8
123.0
0.9
1,586.5
1.5
123.3
0.8
1,592.3
1.5
123.5
0.8
1,598.2
1.5
123.8
0.8
1,603.5
1.3
124.0
0.9
1,608.6
1.3
124.3
0.8
1,613.4
1.2
124.5
0.8
1,618.1
1.2
124.8
0.7
1,623.2
1.3
125.0
0.8
1,627.7
1.1
125.2
0.7
1,632.1
1.1
125.4
0.6

7.0
Oregon
% Ch
(1.1)
U.S.
0.7
% Ch
(2.9)
7.0
0.2
0.7
(3.6)
7.0
(0.2)
0.6
(3.8)
7.0
(0.8)
0.6
(4.2)
7.0
(0.5)
0.6
(1.6)
7.0
(0.8)
0.6
(2.1)
7.0
(0.3)
0.6
(1.4)
7.0
(0.5)
0.6
(1.4)
7.0
(0.8)
0.6
(2.0)
7.0
(0.9)
0.6
(2.0)
6.9
(0.8)
0.6
(1.8)
6.9
(0.8)
0.6
(1.8)
Construction
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
95.9
2.5
7.9
2.4
96.3
1.7
8.0
2.2
96.4
0.7
8.0
1.4
96.6
0.9
8.0
1.2
97.0
1.5
8.0
1.7
97.3
1.2
8.1
1.8
97.5
0.8
8.1
1.4
97.7
1.0
8.1
1.3
98.1
1.5
8.2
1.8
98.5
1.4
8.2
1.9
98.7
0.9
8.2
1.4
98.9
1.0
8.3
1.4
193.0
2.1
12.8
0.5
193.9
1.9
12.8
0.6
194.8
1.8
12.8
0.5
195.7
1.8
12.8
0.7
196.2
1.1
12.8
0.1
196.7
1.1
12.8
0.2
197.2
0.9
12.8
(0.2)
197.6
0.8
12.8
(0.1)
198.0
0.9
12.8
(0.4)
198.4
0.8
12.8
(0.2)
198.8
0.8
12.8
(0.3)
199.1
0.6
12.8
(0.2)
Oregon
142.3
% Ch
2.5
U.S.
8.4
% Ch
0.6
143.0
2.1
8.4
0.8
143.7
2.0
8.4
0.7
144.4
1.9
8.4
1.0
144.9
1.3
8.4
0.3
145.3
1.2
8.5
0.6
145.7
1.1
8.5
0.2
146.1
0.9
8.5
0.1
146.4
0.9
8.5
(0.3)
146.7
0.8
8.5
0.1
147.0
0.8
8.4
(0.2)
147.2
0.6
8.4
(0.0)
Wood Products
Oregon
24.5
% Ch
0.8
U.S.
0.5
% Ch
0.2
24.5
0.3
0.5
1.0
24.6
0.8
0.5
1.0
24.6
0.5
0.5
1.4
24.7
0.9
0.5
0.2
24.7
0.1
0.5
0.7
24.7
0.4
0.5
0.3
24.7
0.2
0.5
0.6
24.7
0.5
0.5
(0.2)
24.8
0.5
0.5
0.3
24.8
0.6
0.5
0.1
24.9
0.7
0.5
0.5

Oregon
38.8
% Ch
2.2
U.S.
3.2
% Ch
0.4
39.0
1.8
3.2
0.5
39.2
1.4
3.2
0.4
39.3
1.1
3.2
0.7
39.3
0.8
3.2
0.9
39.4
0.5
3.3
1.2
39.4
0.4
3.3
0.7
39.4
0.2
3.3
0.7
39.5
0.2
3.3
0.3
39.5
0.1
3.3
0.6
39.5
0.1
3.3
0.3
39.5
0.1
3.3
0.6

Oregon
42.6
42.9
% Ch
3.9
3.1
U.S.
1.2
1.2
% Ch
2.1
2.2
43.2
2.9
1.2
2.0
43.5
3.0
1.3
2.1
43.6
0.9
1.3
0.2
43.9
2.2
1.3
1.4
44.1
2.1
1.3
1.3
44.3
1.9
1.3
1.1
44.5
1.6
1.3
0.8
44.7
1.7
1.3
1.0
44.8
1.6
1.3
0.9
44.9
0.8
1.3
0.2
Oregon
13.1
% Ch
0.4
U.S.
1.6
% Ch
(0.5)
13.1
0.1
1.6
0.1
13.1
0.8
1.6
0.0
13.1
0.4
1.6
0.4
13.2
1.1
1.6
(1.1)
13.2
(0.5)
1.6
(0.9)
13.2
0.1
1.6
(1.5)
13.1
(0.6)
1.6
(1.6)
13.1
(0.6)
1.6
(2.7)
13.0
(2.9)
1.6
(2.2)
12.9
(2.2)
1.6
(2.6)
12.8
(3.0)
1.5
(2.0)
Other Durables
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
23.5
3.7
2.4
1.2
23.7
3.5
2.4
0.8
23.9
3.9
2.4
1.2
24.1
3.2
2.4
0.6
24.3
2.7
2.4
0.5
24.4
1.7
2.4
(0.0)
24.5
2.0
2.4
0.3
24.6
2.1
2.4
0.1
24.8
2.6
2.4
0.3
24.9
2.2
2.4
0.0
25.1
2.7
2.4
0.4
Manufacturing
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
23.3
3.4
2.4
0.8
90
TABLE A.2
2009:1
2009:2
Oregon
50.0
49.2
% Ch
(12.4)
(6.2)
U.S.
4.7
4.6
% Ch
(12.0)
(8.6)
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
49.0
(1.6)
4.5
(5.2)
48.8
(1.7)
4.5
(2.8)
48.6
(1.6)
4.5
(1.6)
49.0
3.2
4.5
0.4
48.5
(4.1)
4.5
(1.0)
50.0
13.5
4.4
(1.6)
50.7
5.3
4.4
50.2
(3.7)
4.4
(0.0)
47.7
(18.4)
4.4
0.7
47.9
1.4
4.4
(0.3)
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
23.1
% Ch
(8.5)
U.S.
1.5
% Ch
(4.5)
23.1
0.6
1.5
(0.3)
23.5
5.9
1.5
(0.3)
23.4
(1.0)
1.5
(0.6)
23.5
1.5
1.4
(1.9)
23.9
6.8
1.5
1.3
23.5
(5.8)
1.4
(0.8)
25.3
34.1
1.4
(1.7)
26.7
24.0
1.4
2.0
26.2
(6.9)
1.5
0.4
23.6
(34.2)
1.5
0.6
23.7
1.3
1.5
0.9
Other Nondurable
Oregon
26.9
% Ch
(15.6)
U.S.
3.2
% Ch
(14.8)
26.1
(11.8)
3.1
(12.2)
25.6
(7.8)
3.1
(7.4)
25.4
(2.4)
3.0
(3.8)
25.1
(4.3)
3.0
(1.4)
25.1
(0.1)
3.0
0.0
25.0
(2.5)
3.0
(1.1)
24.7
(3.6)
3.0
(1.5)
24.0
(11.6)
3.0
(1.0)
24.0
(0.1)
3.0
1.9
24.1
1.9
3.0
(0.1)
24.2
1.4
3.0
(1.1)

Oregon
319.1
313.1
% Ch
(10.1)
(7.3)
U.S.
25.3
25.0
% Ch
(7.5)
(5.6)
309.8
(4.2)
24.8
(3.2)
306.9
(3.7)
24.6
(2.7)
307.1
0.3
24.5
(0.7)
307.9
1.0
24.6
0.7
307.6
(0.4)
24.6
0.5
310.0
3.1
24.7
1.4
312.0
2.7
24.8
1.1
313.7
2.2
24.9
1.8
316.1
3.1
25.0
1.9
318.0
2.5
25.2
3.6
182.4
2.6
14.4
0.7
182.8
1.0
14.4
0.7
183.0
0.3
14.4
0.1
185.5
5.6
14.4
0.8
187.1
3.4
14.5
0.8
189.0
4.2
14.5
1.6
190.0
2.2
14.6
0.6
190.4
0.8
14.6
1.5
Retail Trade
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
186.5
(9.4)
14.7
(7.5)
183.7
(5.9)
14.6
(4.0)
182.4
(2.8)
14.5
(2.3)
181.2
(2.5)
14.4
(2.8)
Wholesale Trade
Oregon
77.4
% Ch
(10.6)
U.S.
5.7
% Ch
(8.0)
75.8
(8.1)
5.6
(7.7)
74.4
(7.1)
5.5
(4.7)
73.4
(5.3)
5.5
(3.6)
72.8
(3.3)
5.4
(2.9)
73.1
1.3
5.4
0.1
72.7
(2.0)
5.5
0.6
72.1
(3.2)
5.5
1.4
72.1
0.2
5.5
2.5
72.2
0.6
5.5
1.8
73.2
5.4
5.6
3.5
74.4
7.0
5.7
6.5

Oregon
55.2
53.6
53.0
% Ch
(12.0)
(10.9)
(4.8)
U.S.
4.9
4.8
4.7
% Ch
(6.8)
(7.7)
(4.5)
52.3
(5.2)
4.7
(1.5)
51.9
(2.3)
4.7
(2.3)
52.0
0.6
4.7
1.5
51.9
(0.6)
4.7
1.5
52.4
3.4
4.8
3.5
52.8
3.4
4.8
0.6
52.5
(2.7)
4.8
2.4
52.9
3.1
4.9
4.3
53.2
2.3
4.9
7.0
Information
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
33.7
(7.5)
2.9
(7.5)
33.4
(3.3)
2.8
(8.4)
32.9
(6.2)
2.8
(5.6)
32.3
(6.4)
2.8
(2.7)
32.1
(2.6)
2.7
(3.5)
32.2
0.6
2.7
(2.6)
32.1
(0.4)
2.7
(0.7)
32.4
3.4
2.7
(1.4)
32.8
5.4
2.7
(1.8)
32.8
(0.0)
2.7
(0.3)
33.1
3.6
2.7
0.4
33.5
4.3
2.8
13.8
Oregon
97.3
% Ch
(8.5)
U.S.
7.9
% Ch
(6.7)
95.6
(7.0)
7.8
(6.0)
94.9
(2.7)
7.7
(2.9)
94.8
(0.7)
7.7
(1.7)
93.4
(5.7)
7.7
(1.6)
93.0
(1.8)
7.6
(0.9)
92.4
(2.2)
7.6
(1.1)
92.2
(1.2)
7.6
93.2
4.6
7.6
(0.5)
93.4
1.0
7.6
0.2
94.4
4.0
7.6
0.2
95.0
2.9
7.6
1.7

Oregon
185.1
179.8
% Ch
(12.2)
(10.9)
U.S.
16.9
16.5
% Ch
(10.0)
(8.6)
177.1
(5.8)
16.4
(3.4)
185.5
(2.2)
17.2
3.7
187.2
3.7
17.4
4.9
189.3
4.6
17.6
5.0
178.4
2.8
16.4
1.2
179.7
3.0
16.5
2.2
181.3
3.7
16.6
2.7
91
181.7
0.8
16.7
1.4
182.5
1.7
16.8
3.2
186.6
9.3
17.0
4.1
TABLE A.2
2012:1
2012:2
Oregon
48.0
48.2
% Ch
0.7
1.5
U.S.
4.5
4.5
% Ch
0.6
0.8
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2013:3
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
48.3
1.1
4.5
0.4
48.4
0.6
4.5
(0.6)
48.4
0.5
4.5
(0.4)
48.4
(0.0)
4.4
(0.8)
48.6
1.5
4.4
(0.4)
48.7
1.1
4.4
(0.1)
48.8
0.9
4.4
(1.1)
48.9
0.5
4.4
(0.8)
49.0
0.6
4.4
(0.9)
49.1
1.0
4.4
(0.6)
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
23.7
% Ch
0.6
U.S.
1.5
% Ch
2.5
23.9
2.3
1.5
2.7
24.0
1.9
1.5
2.1
24.0
0.7
1.5
0.2
24.1
0.7
1.5
0.4
24.1
0.8
1.5
0.6
24.2
1.8
1.5
1.4
24.4
2.0
1.5
1.9
24.4
0.5
1.5
0.5
24.4
0.9
1.5
1.0
24.5
0.9
1.5
0.9
24.6
1.2
1.5
1.4
Other Nondurable
Oregon
24.2
% Ch
0.7
U.S.
3.0
% Ch
0.3
24.3
0.8
3.0
0.6
24.3
0.3
3.0
0.2
24.3
0.5
3.0
(0.4)
24.3
0.4
3.0
(0.2)
24.3
(0.9)
3.0
(1.0)
24.4
1.3
3.0
(1.3)
24.4
0.2
3.0
(1.2)
24.4
1.3
3.0
(1.9)
24.5
0.2
2.9
(1.6)
24.5
0.4
2.9
(1.7)
24.5
0.7
2.9
(1.5)

Oregon
319.7
321.6
% Ch
2.1
2.4
U.S.
25.4
25.6
% Ch
3.1
2.4
323.8
2.8
25.7
2.4
325.5
2.1
25.8
1.9
326.6
1.4
25.9
0.8
327.9
1.6
26.0
1.3
330.0
2.5
26.1
1.9
331.7
2.0
26.2
1.5
332.9
1.5
26.2
0.7
334.3
1.7
26.3
1.4
335.6
1.5
26.4
1.4
337.0
1.7
26.5
1.3
Retail Trade
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
190.7
0.6
14.7
2.2
191.0
0.6
14.7
1.8
191.8
1.7
14.8
1.9
192.2
1.0
14.9
1.5
192.5
0.5
14.9
0.7
192.7
0.6
14.9
0.7
193.6
1.8
15.0
0.8
194.2
1.3
15.0
0.5
194.6
0.8
15.0
(0.3)
195.2
1.1
15.0
0.8
195.5
0.8
15.0
0.7
196.1
1.1
15.0
0.5
Wholesale Trade
Oregon
75.2
% Ch
4.2
U.S.
5.7
% Ch
3.8
75.9
3.7
5.8
2.8
76.6
3.8
5.8
2.8
77.2
3.0
5.8
2.1
77.4
1.0
5.8
0.2
77.8
2.5
5.9
1.8
78.5
3.7
5.9
3.1
79.1
3.0
5.9
2.4
79.5
2.0
6.0
1.6
80.0
2.5
6.0
2.0
80.5
2.6
6.0
2.0
81.0
2.6
6.1
2.1
56.1
4.8
5.1
2.7
56.8
5.1
5.2
1.8
57.4
4.1
5.2
2.4
57.9
3.5
5.2
3.8
58.3
3.2
5.3
3.3
58.8
3.1
5.3
2.4
59.2
2.8
5.4
2.7
59.5
2.3
5.4
2.8
59.9
2.3
5.4
3.0

Oregon
53.8
54.7
55.4
% Ch
4.6
7.0
5.6
U.S.
5.0
5.1
5.1
% Ch
5.3
4.1
3.6
Information
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
33.9
5.8
2.8
5.6
33.8
(1.2)
2.8
(2.1)
33.9
0.6
2.8
(0.5)
34.4
5.9
2.8
4.9
34.5
1.0
2.8
0.5
34.4
(0.7)
2.8
(1.3)
34.5
1.4
2.8
0.9
34.5
(0.6)
2.8
(1.2)
34.3
(1.5)
2.8
(1.9)
34.3
(0.6)
2.8
(0.9)
34.4
1.1
2.8
1.0
34.7
3.8
2.8
3.9
96.5
2.9
7.7
1.4
97.4
3.9
7.8
2.9
98.1
2.8
7.8
1.5
99.8
7.3
7.8
0.4
100.6
3.0
7.8
(1.3)
100.4
(0.5)
7.8
(0.8)
100.5
0.2
7.8
(0.2)
100.5
0.0
7.7
(1.2)
100.5
0.2
7.7
(1.3)
100.6
0.4
7.7
(0.2)
100.8
0.7
7.7
0.0

Oregon
191.7
193.0
% Ch
5.2
2.8
U.S.
17.8
17.9
% Ch
4.8
1.9
194.2
2.5
17.9
1.4
195.8
3.2
18.0
2.1
197.3
3.1
18.1
2.2
199.5
4.6
18.3
3.6
202.7
6.6
18.5
5.6
205.5
5.7
18.8
4.8
208.4
5.7
19.0
4.9
211.8
6.8
19.3
6.0
215.5
7.1
19.6
6.4
219.0
6.6
19.8
5.9
Oregon
95.8
% Ch
3.3
U.S.
7.7
% Ch
2.4
92
TABLE A.2
2015:1
2015:2
Oregon
49.2
49.3
% Ch
0.7
1.0
U.S.
4.4
4.4
% Ch
(0.3)
(0.5)
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
2017:3
2017:4
49.4
0.5
4.4
(0.5)
49.5
0.8
4.4
(0.1)
49.6
0.8
4.4
(0.3)
49.7
1.0
4.4
(0.2)
49.8
1.0
4.4
(0.1)
49.9
1.0
4.4
(0.2)
50.1
1.3
4.4
0.1
50.2
1.3
4.4
0.2
50.4
1.4
4.4
0.2
50.6
1.5
4.4
0.3
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
24.6
% Ch
1.3
U.S.
1.5
% Ch
1.4
24.7
1.1
1.5
1.1
24.8
1.1
1.5
1.1
24.9
1.5
1.5
1.7
25.0
1.4
1.5
1.5
25.1
1.6
1.5
1.6
25.2
1.5
1.6
1.5
25.2
1.4
1.6
1.4
25.3
1.5
1.6
1.4
25.4
1.5
1.6
1.4
25.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
25.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Other Nondurable
Oregon
24.5
% Ch
0.1
U.S.
2.9
% Ch
(1.1)
24.6
0.9
2.9
(1.3)
24.6
(0.2)
2.9
(1.3)
24.6
0.1
2.9
(1.1)
24.6
0.2
2.9
(1.4)
24.6
0.4
2.9
(1.2)
24.7
0.5
2.9
(1.0)
24.7
0.5
2.9
(1.0)
24.7
1.0
2.9
(0.5)
24.8
1.1
2.8
(0.5)
24.9
1.1
2.8
(0.5)
25.0
1.3
2.8
(0.3)

Oregon
338.5
340.4
% Ch
1.8
2.3
U.S.
26.6
26.7
% Ch
1.4
1.7
Retail Trade
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
342.3
2.2
26.8
1.4
343.7
1.7
26.9
1.1
345.3
1.8
27.0
1.2
346.7
1.7
27.0
1.1
348.3
1.8
27.1
1.1
349.8
1.7
27.2
0.9
351.3
1.7
27.2
0.8
352.6
1.6
27.3
0.5
353.9
1.5
27.3
0.6
355.1
1.3
27.3
0.5
196.7
1.3
15.1
0.7
197.7
2.0
15.1
1.0
198.7
2.0
15.1
0.6
199.4
1.5
15.1
0.2
200.1
1.4
15.1
0.4
200.7
1.3
15.2
0.1
201.5
1.5
15.2
0.1
202.1
1.3
15.2
(0.0)
202.8
1.3
15.2
(0.1)
203.5
1.4
15.1
(0.3)
204.2
1.3
15.1
(0.2)
204.7
1.2
15.1
(0.1)
Wholesale Trade
Oregon
81.4
% Ch
2.0
U.S.
6.1
% Ch
2.0
81.9
2.3
6.1
2.3
82.3
2.1
6.1
2.1
82.7
1.8
6.2
1.8
83.1
1.9
6.2
1.9
83.5
2.0
6.2
2.0
83.9
2.0
6.3
2.1
84.3
1.7
6.3
1.7
84.6
1.5
6.3
1.5
84.8
1.3
6.3
1.2
85.1
1.2
6.4
1.2
85.3
1.0
6.4
1.0
61.6
2.4
5.6
2.7
62.1
3.0
5.6
2.6
62.5
2.9
5.7
2.8
63.0
2.8
5.7
3.0
63.4
2.9
5.7
2.6
63.9
3.1
5.8
2.2
64.3
2.6
5.8
1.9
64.7
2.3
5.8
2.0
65.0
2.3
5.9
1.7

Oregon
60.3
60.8
61.2
% Ch
3.0
3.1
3.1
U.S.
5.5
5.5
5.6
% Ch
3.0
3.2
2.9
Information
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
35.0
4.0
2.9
5.3
35.2
1.9
2.9
2.3
35.3
1.4
2.9
1.7
35.5
2.0
2.9
2.1
35.6
1.6
2.9
1.7
35.8
1.9
2.9
1.7
36.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
36.2
2.4
3.0
1.9
36.4
2.5
3.0
1.9
36.6
2.4
3.0
1.7
36.9
2.5
3.0
1.9
37.1
2.2
3.0
1.6
101.0
0.5
7.7
0.0
101.2
1.0
7.7
0.8
101.4
0.6
7.7
(0.2)
101.4
0.0
7.7
(0.9)
101.5
0.3
7.7
(0.8)
101.5
0.2
7.7
(0.0)
101.5
0.1
7.7
(0.0)
101.5
0.1
7.7
(0.4)
101.6
0.2
7.7
(0.8)
101.7
0.3
7.7
(0.4)
101.7
(0.0)
7.6
(0.8)

Oregon
222.0
224.9
% Ch
5.6
5.3
U.S.
20.1
20.3
% Ch
5.0
4.8
227.7
5.0
20.5
4.5
230.5
5.1
20.8
4.7
233.2
4.7
21.0
4.3
236.1
5.1
21.2
4.7
238.7
4.4
21.5
4.0
240.8
3.7
21.6
3.4
242.7
3.2
21.8
2.9
244.8
3.4
22.0
3.2
246.6
3.0
22.1
2.8
248.4
2.9
22.3
2.7
Oregon
100.9
% Ch
0.1
U.S.
7.7
% Ch
(0.2)
93
TABLE A.2
2018:1
2018:2
Oregon
50.7
50.9
% Ch
1.2
1.4
U.S.
4.4
4.4
% Ch
0.3
0.2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
51.1
1.3
4.4
0.1
51.2
1.3
4.4
0.1
51.3
0.7
4.4
(0.5)
51.4
0.5
4.4
(0.7)
51.5
0.5
4.4
(0.8)
51.5
0.6
4.4
(0.7)
51.6
0.7
4.4
(0.5)
51.7
0.6
4.4
(0.6)
51.8
0.7
4.3
(0.6)
51.9
0.8
4.3
(0.5)
Food M anufacturing
Oregon
25.7
% Ch
1.1
U.S.
1.6
% Ch
1.5
25.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
25.9
1.6
1.6
1.3
26.0
1.6
1.6
1.3
26.1
0.8
1.6
0.2
26.1
0.7
1.6
0.1
26.2
0.7
1.6
0.1
26.2
0.8
1.6
0.1
26.3
1.1
1.6
0.6
26.4
1.0
1.6
0.4
26.4
1.1
1.6
0.6
26.5
1.1
1.6
0.5
Other Nondurable
Oregon
25.0
% Ch
1.3
U.S.
2.8
% Ch
(0.4)
25.1
1.0
2.8
(0.6)
25.2
0.9
2.8
(0.6)
25.2
1.0
2.8
(0.6)
25.3
0.7
2.8
(0.9)
25.3
0.3
2.8
(1.2)
25.3
0.3
2.8
(1.2)
25.3
0.3
2.8
(1.1)
25.3
0.3
2.8
(1.2)
25.4
0.3
2.8
(1.3)
25.4
0.3
2.8
(1.3)
25.4
0.4
2.8
(1.2)

Oregon
356.1
357.2
% Ch
1.2
1.3
U.S.
27.4
27.4
% Ch
0.5
0.3
Retail Trade
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
205.2
0.9
15.1
(0.2)
Wholesale Trade
Oregon
85.5
% Ch
1.0
U.S.
6.4
% Ch
1.0
358.3
1.2
27.4
0.0
359.1
1.0
27.4
0.1
359.8
0.8
27.4
0.2
360.1
0.3
27.4
0.0
360.5
0.5
27.4
0.2
360.8
0.3
27.4
0.2
360.9
0.1
27.4
(0.1)
361.2
0.3
27.4
0.1
361.3
0.1
27.4
(0.2)
361.3
(0.0)
27.4
(0.1)
205.8
1.1
15.1
(0.4)
206.3
1.0
15.1
(0.5)
206.7
0.9
15.1
(0.3)
207.1
0.8
15.1
(0.1)
207.2
0.0
15.1
(0.3)
207.3
0.3
15.1
(0.2)
207.4
0.2
15.1
(0.0)
207.3
(0.2)
15.0
(0.3)
207.4
0.1
15.0
(0.2)
207.3
(0.2)
15.0
(0.7)
207.1
(0.4)
15.0
(0.6)
85.7
0.9
6.4
0.8
85.9
1.0
6.4
1.0
86.1
0.8
6.4
0.8
86.2
0.7
6.4
0.7
86.4
0.7
6.5
0.7
86.6
0.8
6.5
0.8
86.7
0.6
6.5
0.6
86.8
0.5
6.5
0.5
87.0
0.7
6.5
0.7
87.1
0.7
6.5
0.7
87.3
0.6
6.5
0.6
66.3
1.5
5.9
0.3
66.4
0.7
5.9
0.3
66.5
0.5
5.9
0.1
66.6
0.6
5.9
0.4
66.7
0.4
5.9
0.2
66.8
0.6
5.9
0.1
66.9
0.4
5.9
0.1
66.9
0.3
5.9
0.2
66.9
0.3
5.9
0.2

Oregon
65.4
65.8
66.1
% Ch
2.3
2.2
1.9
U.S.
5.9
5.9
5.9
% Ch
1.7
1.4
0.4
Information
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
37.2
1.8
3.0
1.7
Oregon
101.7
% Ch
0.0
U.S.
7.6
% Ch
(0.9)
37.3
0.6
3.0
0.9
37.4
0.9
3.0
1.2
37.4
0.8
3.1
1.0
37.5
0.6
3.1
0.8
37.5
0.0
3.1
0.3
37.5
0.3
3.1
0.6
37.6
0.3
3.1
0.5
37.6
0.4
3.1
0.6
37.6
0.3
3.1
0.5
37.6
0.1
3.1
0.3
37.7
0.4
3.1
0.6
101.7
0.2
7.6
(1.5)
101.8
0.1
7.6
(0.9)
101.8
(0.1)
7.6
(1.0)
101.8
0.0
7.6
(0.5)
101.8
0.0
7.6
(0.3)
101.8
0.2
7.6
0.2
101.8
(0.0)
7.6
(0.0)
101.8
0.0
7.6
(0.0)
101.8
0.1
7.5
(0.3)
101.8
(0.1)
7.5
(0.1)
101.8
0.0
7.5
(0.2)
254.2
3.3
22.7
3.1
256.2
3.2
22.9
3.0
258.2
3.1
23.1
2.9
260.4
3.5
23.3
3.3
262.6
3.4
23.5
3.3
264.7
3.1
23.6
3.0
266.6
3.0
23.8
2.8
268.7
3.3
24.0
3.1
270.8
3.1
24.2
3.0
272.7
2.8
24.3
2.7

Oregon
250.2
252.2
% Ch
2.9
3.3
U.S.
22.4
22.6
% Ch
2.7
3.1
94
TABLE A.2
2009:1
2009:2
Oregon
221.8
223.0
% Ch
(0.3)
2.2
U.S.
19.1
19.1
% Ch
2.0
1.1
Oregon
30.3
% Ch
(0.5)
U.S.
3.1
% Ch
3.5
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
224.4
2.4
19.2
1.9
225.2
1.5
19.3
1.9
226.9
3.0
19.4
1.9
227.8
1.7
19.5
2.1
228.9
1.9
19.6
2.0
229.9
1.7
19.7
2.6
232.9
5.4
19.8
2.0
234.4
2.5
20.0
2.5
236.6
3.8
20.1
2.0
238.7
3.7
20.2
2.2
31.4
5.3
3.1
3.1
31.4
0.8
3.1
2.6
31.5
1.6
3.2
2.8
32.0
6.3
3.2
3.1
30.4
2.4
3.1
(1.1)
31.0
7.3
3.1
1.0

Oregon
191.6
192.6
% Ch
(0.3)
2.1
U.S.
16.0
16.1
% Ch
1.7
1.5
193.4
1.7
16.1
2.1
194.3
1.8
16.2
2.1
195.5
2.7
16.3
1.7
196.4
1.8
16.4
2.0
197.5
2.3
16.5
2.0
198.4
1.7
16.6
2.5
200.9
5.3
16.6
1.8
202.7
3.5
16.7
2.5
204.6
3.8
16.8
1.8
206.4
3.8
16.9
2.9
163.0
(5.2)
13.1
(2.8)
162.1
(2.4)
13.1
(0.9)
161.4
(1.5)
13.0
(2.7)
161.4
(0.2)
12.9
(0.9)
162.1
1.8
13.0
1.9
162.1
0.1
13.1
1.6
161.4
(1.6)
13.1
0.4
165.8
11.3
13.1
1.7
167.6
4.4
13.2
2.6
170.4
6.7
13.3
1.7
171.0
1.4
13.3
0.4
57.6
(6.1)
5.4
(2.7)
57.4
(1.6)
5.4
(0.8)
57.1
(2.2)
5.3
(2.7)
56.9
(1.5)
5.3
57.6
5.3
5.3
1.6
57.9
2.2
5.4
2.2
57.4
(3.5)
5.4
3.3
58.4
6.7
5.4
1.0
57.3
(7.3)
5.4
1.1
57.9
4.7
5.5
0.5
58.5
3.8
5.5
(0.2)
299.6
(1.3)
22.6
0.8
299.8
0.4
22.5
(1.7)
298.1
(2.2)
22.5
(0.3)
298.4
0.4
22.5
(0.3)
302.6
5.8
22.8
4.8
299.2
(4.5)
22.4
(5.8)
297.8
(1.9)
22.3
(2.6)
298.2
0.6
22.2
(1.3)
295.8
(3.2)
22.1
(1.3)
291.0
(6.3)
22.0
(2.1)
289.6
(1.9)
21.9
(1.4)
Federal Government
Oregon
30.1
% Ch
2.2
U.S.
2.8
% Ch
2.7
30.5
5.0
2.9
10.5
29.7
(10.0)
2.8
(5.6)
29.6
(0.4)
2.8
2.2
29.7
0.4
2.9
6.9
32.8
49.0
3.2
49.6
30.2
(27.8)
2.9
(28.3)
29.0
(15.2)
2.8
(11.9)
28.5
(7.0)
2.9
0.6
27.9
(8.0)
2.8
(0.4)
27.8
(1.4)
2.8
(1.5)
27.6
(2.5)
2.8
(2.3)
S tate Government
Oregon
78.1
% Ch
2.2
78.0
(0.6)
77.8
(1.0)
78.7
5.0
79.1
1.8
79.6
2.4
79.8
1.3
80.2
1.9
80.6
2.0
80.5
(0.7)
80.0
(2.4)
79.7
(1.6)

Oregon
29.1
29.1
% Ch
3.9
(0.2)
28.6
(5.9)
29.1
6.6
29.2
2.0
29.5
3.8
29.9
5.5
30.5
8.4
30.9
4.9
31.1
3.6
31.2
0.8
31.2
0.4

Oregon
165.2
% Ch
(9.3)
U.S.
13.2
% Ch
(3.5)
Other S ervices
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
Government
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
58.6
(8.3)
5.4
(4.9)
300.6
0.1
22.6
0.4
Local Government
Oregon
192.4
% Ch
(1.1)
31.0
(0.2)
3.1
0.9
31.4
(0.3)
3.2
1.7
31.7
(3.6)
3.2
2.9
32.0
4.1
3.2
2.6
32.3
3.1
3.2
(1.5)
191.1
(2.6)
192.4
2.7
189.8
(5.3)
189.7
(0.2)
190.3
1.3
189.2
(2.4)
188.6
(1.2)
189.2
1.2
187.5
(3.5)
183.3
(8.7)
182.4
(1.9)

Oregon
103.3
102.1
% Ch
(0.2)
(4.4)
104.5
9.6
101.4
(11.3)
100.9
(2.0)
101.2
1.4
99.6
(6.5)
99.3
(1.2)
99.6
1.2
98.4
(4.7)
95.0
(13.0)
94.3
(2.8)
95
TABLE A.2
2012:1
2012:2
Oregon
240.6
242.4
% Ch
3.1
3.1
U.S.
20.2
20.3
% Ch
1.5
1.3
Oregon
32.5
% Ch
2.1
U.S.
3.2
% Ch
(1.7)
32.5
1.0
3.2
(3.1)

Oregon
208.1
209.9
% Ch
3.3
3.4
U.S.
17.0
17.1
% Ch
2.1
2.2
Oregon
172.5
% Ch
3.6
U.S.
13.4
% Ch
3.0
Other S ervices
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
174.1
3.8
13.4
2.3
2012:3
2012:4
244.5
3.5
20.4
1.8
246.0
2.5
20.4
0.6
32.6
1.3
3.2
(2.4)
32.7
0.5
3.2
(2.8)
2013:1
247.5
2.3
20.4
(0.7)
32.7
0.2
3.1
(2.5)
2013:2
2013:3
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
249.1
2.7
20.4
1.2
250.4
2.1
20.5
0.7
251.8
2.3
20.5
0.7
253.7
3.0
20.6
2.4
255.6
3.0
20.7
1.7
257.2
2.6
20.8
1.1
259.0
2.8
20.8
1.2
32.7
0.0
3.1
(2.2)
32.8
1.1
3.1
(2.3)
32.8
0.4
3.1
(2.3)
32.9
0.6
3.1
(2.2)
33.0
1.2
3.0
(2.3)
33.1
2.1
3.0
(1.8)
33.2
1.0
3.0
(1.9)
211.9
3.9
17.2
2.6
213.4
2.8
17.3
1.2
214.8
2.6
17.3
(0.4)
216.4
3.1
17.3
1.8
217.6
2.2
17.4
1.2
219.0
2.6
17.4
1.2
220.8
3.3
17.6
3.2
222.6
3.3
17.7
2.4
224.1
2.7
17.8
1.6
225.8
3.0
17.8
1.7
175.3
2.7
13.5
1.0
175.8
1.3
13.5
0.1
176.9
2.5
13.5
0.5
177.3
0.9
13.5
(0.5)
177.6
0.5
13.5
(0.6)
178.1
1.1
13.5
0.4
178.4
0.8
13.5
(0.3)
178.8
0.9
13.4
(0.7)
179.2
0.9
13.4
(0.3)
179.7
1.1
13.4
(0.2)
60.8
2.2
5.4
(1.0)
61.1
2.0
5.4
0.1
61.4
2.0
5.4
0.0
61.9
3.0
5.5
0.6
62.2
2.2
5.5
0.6
62.6
2.3
5.5
1.0
62.9
2.3
5.5
(0.8)
291.8
0.6
22.0
1.3
292.4
0.8
22.1
1.3
293.1
0.9
22.2
1.3
293.6
0.7
22.2
0.7
294.1
0.7
22.3
0.5
58.9
3.1
5.5
0.4
59.4
3.3
5.4
(1.4)
59.8
2.5
5.4
0.8
60.2
2.6
5.5
0.4
60.5
2.1
5.5
0.1
289.6
(0.1)
21.9
(0.6)
289.8
0.4
21.9
(0.3)
290.1
0.3
21.9
(0.2)
290.4
0.5
21.9
0.1
290.9
0.7
21.9
0.5
Federal Government
Oregon
27.6
% Ch
(0.3)
U.S.
2.8
% Ch
(3.1)
27.6
(0.3)
2.8
(3.0)
27.5
(0.5)
2.8
(3.2)
27.5
(0.6)
2.7
(3.2)
27.4
(0.6)
2.7
(3.0)
27.4
(0.7)
2.7
(3.1)
27.3
(0.7)
2.7
(3.0)
27.3
(0.7)
2.7
(2.8)
27.3
(0.6)
2.6
(2.4)
27.2
(0.5)
2.6
(2.2)
27.2
(0.4)
2.6
(1.9)
27.2
(0.6)
2.6
(1.5)
S tate Government
Oregon
79.5
% Ch
(1.0)
79.3
(0.7)
79.2
(0.4)
79.2
(0.0)
79.3
0.1
79.4
0.5
79.5
0.8
79.7
1.0
79.9
0.9
80.0
0.6
80.1
0.6
80.3
0.9
31.3
0.3
31.4
0.6
31.4
0.2
31.4
0.5
31.5
1.1
31.6
0.7
31.6
0.6
31.7
0.9
31.8
1.5
31.9
0.8
182.9
0.9
183.3
0.8
183.7
0.9
184.2
1.1
184.6
0.8
185.0
0.8
185.4
0.9
185.9
1.2
186.3
0.9
186.7
0.8
187.2
1.0

Oregon
94.9
95.4
% Ch
2.4
2.3
96.0
2.4
96.5
2.0
96.8
1.5
97.2
1.4
97.6
1.7
97.9
1.4
98.2
1.3
98.6
1.4
99.0
1.8
99.3
1.3
Government
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch

Oregon
31.3
31.3
% Ch
0.5
0.2
Local Government
Oregon
182.5
% Ch
0.3
291.4
0.6
22.0
1.1
96
294.7
0.8
22.3
0.7
TABLE A.2
2015:1
2015:2
Oregon
260.6
262.6
% Ch
2.5
3.1
U.S.
20.9
21.0
% Ch
1.7
2.3
Oregon
33.2
% Ch
0.3
U.S.
3.0
% Ch
(1.3)
33.3
0.8
3.0
(1.4)

Oregon
227.4
229.3
% Ch
2.9
3.5
U.S.
17.9
18.1
% Ch
2.2
2.9
Oregon
180.2
% Ch
1.1
U.S.
13.4
% Ch
(0.1)
Other S ervices
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
Government
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
63.3
2.5
5.5
(0.4)
295.4
1.0
22.3
0.9
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
2017:3
2017:4
264.6
3.1
21.2
2.1
266.9
3.4
21.3
2.4
269.1
3.4
21.4
2.9
271.0
2.8
21.6
2.7
273.0
2.9
21.7
2.1
275.2
3.3
21.8
2.4
276.6
2.1
21.9
1.4
278.6
2.8
22.0
1.9
280.2
2.4
22.1
1.5
282.1
2.8
22.2
1.9
33.4
1.5
3.0
(1.2)
33.5
0.5
3.0
(1.5)
33.6
1.1
3.0
(1.0)
33.6
0.7
3.0
(1.2)
33.7
1.2
3.0
(0.5)
33.9
1.3
2.9
(0.4)
33.9
0.8
2.9
(0.2)
34.0
1.0
2.9
(1.1)
34.1
1.1
2.9
(0.9)
34.2
1.1
2.9
(1.0)
231.2
3.3
18.2
2.6
233.4
3.8
18.3
3.1
235.5
3.8
18.5
3.5
237.3
3.1
18.6
3.3
239.2
3.2
18.7
2.5
241.3
3.6
18.9
2.8
242.7
2.3
18.9
1.7
244.6
3.1
19.1
2.4
246.1
2.5
19.2
1.9
247.9
3.0
19.3
2.3
180.3
0.2
13.4
(0.7)
180.8
1.2
13.4
(0.3)
181.2
0.9
13.4
0.0
181.5
0.6
13.4
(0.3)
181.7
0.2
13.4
(0.4)
181.9
0.5
13.4
0.2
182.2
0.6
13.4
0.3
182.4
0.6
13.4
0.1
182.6
0.4
13.4
(0.6)
182.6
0.1
13.3
(0.4)
182.8
0.3
13.3
(0.2)
63.6
1.5
5.5
(0.2)
63.8
1.3
5.4
(0.4)
64.4
2.8
5.4
(0.3)
64.7
1.5
5.4
(0.4)
65.5
1.3
5.4
(0.6)
65.7
1.0
5.4
(0.6)
65.9
1.1
5.4
(0.7)
295.9
0.7
22.4
0.7
296.5
0.7
22.4
1.0
64.0
1.3
5.4
(0.6)
297.1
0.8
22.5
1.0
297.7
0.9
22.5
1.0
298.5
1.0
22.6
1.2
64.8
1.1
5.4
(0.1)
299.2
1.0
22.7
1.3
65.0
1.2
5.4
(0.3)
300.0
1.1
22.8
1.2
65.3
1.7
5.4
(0.4)
300.9
1.2
22.8
1.2
301.7
1.0
22.9
1.2
302.4
1.0
23.0
1.1
303.3
1.1
23.0
1.0
Federal Government
Oregon
27.1
% Ch
(0.6)
U.S.
2.6
% Ch
(1.5)
27.1
(0.7)
2.6
(1.5)
27.0
(0.6)
2.6
(1.4)
27.0
(0.7)
2.6
(1.4)
26.9
(0.5)
2.6
(1.0)
26.9
(0.5)
2.5
(1.0)
26.9
(0.5)
2.5
(1.0)
26.8
(0.5)
2.5
(1.0)
26.8
(0.0)
2.5
(0.5)
26.8
(0.0)
2.5
(0.5)
26.8
(0.1)
2.5
(0.5)
26.8
(0.1)
2.5
(0.5)
S tate Government
Oregon
80.5
% Ch
0.9
80.6
0.8
80.8
1.0
81.1
1.1
81.3
1.0
81.5
1.1
81.7
1.2
82.0
1.3
82.2
1.1
82.4
1.1
82.7
1.1
82.9
1.2

Oregon
31.9
32.0
% Ch
1.1
1.0
32.2
1.8
32.3
1.2
32.4
1.4
32.5
1.7
32.7
2.0
32.8
1.6
32.9
1.5
33.1
1.8
33.2
2.1
33.4
1.7
188.2
0.9
188.6
0.7
189.0
0.9
189.5
1.0
190.0
1.2
190.6
1.1
191.2
1.3
191.9
1.4
192.4
1.2
192.9
1.1
193.5
1.2

Oregon
99.6
99.9
% Ch
1.0
1.3
100.3
1.5
100.5
1.1
100.9
1.5
101.3
1.4
101.7
1.7
102.0
1.3
102.3
1.2
102.7
1.4
103.1
1.6
103.4
1.3
Local Government
Oregon
187.8
% Ch
1.2
97
TABLE A.2
2018:1
2018:2
Oregon
283.9
286.0
% Ch
2.5
3.1
U.S.
22.2
22.4
% Ch
1.1
2.0
Oregon
34.3
% Ch
1.7
U.S.
2.9
% Ch
(0.9)
34.5
1.5
2.9
(1.6)

Oregon
249.6
251.6
% Ch
2.6
3.3
U.S.
19.3
19.4
% Ch
1.4
2.5
Oregon
182.3
% Ch
(1.0)
U.S.
13.3
% Ch
(0.1)
Other S ervices
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
Government
Oregon
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
66.1
1.2
5.4
(0.6)
304.2
1.2
23.1
1.0
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
287.6
2.3
22.4
1.4
289.2
2.2
22.5
1.3
291.0
2.4
22.5
0.7
292.7
2.4
22.6
1.3
294.1
2.0
22.7
0.8
295.6
2.0
22.7
0.9
297.0
1.9
22.8
0.8
298.5
2.0
22.8
0.9
300.1
2.2
22.9
0.8
301.8
2.2
22.9
0.6
34.6
1.1
2.9
(1.1)
34.7
1.3
2.9
(1.2)
34.8
1.0
2.9
(1.5)
34.9
1.5
2.9
(2.4)
35.0
1.1
2.9
(1.8)
35.1
1.2
2.8
(1.9)
35.2
1.5
2.8
(0.5)
35.4
1.5
2.8
(0.8)
35.4
1.0
2.8
(0.7)
35.6
1.2
2.8
(0.8)
253.1
2.4
19.5
1.8
254.5
2.3
19.6
1.7
256.2
2.6
19.7
1.0
257.8
2.5
19.8
1.8
259.1
2.1
19.8
1.2
260.5
2.1
19.9
1.3
261.8
2.0
19.9
1.0
263.2
2.1
20.0
1.2
264.7
2.3
20.0
1.0
266.2
2.3
20.1
0.8
182.5
0.5
13.3
(1.0)
182.6
0.1
13.3
(0.6)
182.7
0.2
13.3
(0.3)
183.0
0.7
13.3
0.1
183.1
0.2
13.3
(0.7)
183.1
0.1
13.2
(0.3)
183.3
0.4
13.2
0.0
183.4
0.2
13.2
(0.1)
183.6
0.5
13.2
(0.7)
183.7
0.1
13.2
(0.5)
183.8
0.3
13.2
(0.1)
66.2
0.9
5.4
(0.9)
66.3
0.9
5.4
(0.8)
66.5
1.1
5.4
(0.9)
67.0
1.2
5.3
(1.0)
67.1
1.0
5.3
(0.8)
67.6
1.6
5.3
(0.2)
67.8
1.3
5.3
(0.4)
68.0
0.9
5.3
(0.3)
68.1
1.0
5.3
(0.3)
304.9
1.0
23.1
0.9
305.7
1.0
23.2
0.9
306.5
1.1
23.2
0.9
66.8
1.6
5.3
(0.8)
307.4
1.2
23.3
0.9
308.1
1.0
23.3
0.8
308.8
0.9
23.4
0.7
67.3
1.1
5.3
(0.9)
309.6
1.1
23.4
0.7
310.9
1.6
23.5
1.3
315.7
6.3
23.9
6.9
313.8
(2.3)
23.7
(3.0)
313.0
(1.1)
23.6
(1.7)
Federal Government
Oregon
26.9
% Ch
1.7
U.S.
2.5
% Ch
(0.5)
26.9
(0.1)
2.5
(0.4)
26.9
(0.1)
2.5
(0.4)
26.9
(0.1)
2.5
(0.4)
26.9
(0.1)
2.5
(0.4)
26.9
(0.2)
2.5
(0.4)
26.9
(0.2)
2.5
(0.4)
26.9
(0.2)
2.5
(0.4)
27.2
5.7
2.5
5.1
31.3
73.6
2.9
67.3
28.7
(29.3)
2.7
(27.9)
27.0
(21.6)
2.5
(20.5)
S tate Government
Oregon
83.1
% Ch
1.0
83.3
1.0
83.6
1.1
83.8
1.1
84.0
1.0
84.2
0.9
84.4
1.0
84.6
1.1
84.8
0.9
85.0
0.9
85.2
1.0
85.5
1.1

Oregon
33.6
33.7
% Ch
2.2
1.8
33.9
2.2
34.0
1.7
34.2
1.6
34.3
1.9
34.5
2.2
34.7
1.8
34.8
1.6
35.0
1.9
35.2
2.3
35.3
1.8
194.7
1.1
195.2
1.1
195.8
1.2
196.5
1.4
197.0
1.1
197.5
1.1
198.1
1.2
198.8
1.4
199.4
1.1
199.9
1.0
200.5
1.2

Oregon
103.8
104.1
% Ch
1.3
1.4
104.6
1.6
104.9
1.3
105.2
1.2
105.6
1.4
106.0
1.6
106.4
1.3
106.7
1.2
107.0
1.4
107.5
1.6
107.8
1.3
Local Government
Oregon
194.1
% Ch
1.2
98
TABLE A.2

(in billions of $)
% Ch
2009:1
2009:2
12,832.6
(4.9)
12,810.0
(0.7)
2009:3
2009:4
2010:1
2010:2
2010:3
2010:4
2011:1
2011:2
2011:3
2011:4
12,860.8
1.6
13,019.0
5.0
13,138.8
3.7
13,194.9
1.7
13,278.5
2.6
13,380.7
3.1
13,444.3
1.9
13,508.1
1.9
13,622.8
3.4
13,722.1
2.9

% Ch
109.5
1.1
109.6
0.3
109.8
0.7
109.7
(0.2)
110.0
1.0
110.5
1.9
111.1
2.1
111.2
0.4
111.7
2.0
112.5
2.9
113.0
1.7
113.0
(0.0)

% Ch
108.3
(1.6)
108.8
1.9
109.6
2.9
110.3
2.7
110.9
2.1
110.9
(0.0)
111.1
0.8
111.6
1.7
112.6
3.9
113.5
3.2
113.9
1.4
114.4
1.5
CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=100

% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
214.0
(3.9)
212.5
(2.4)
214.2
0.5
213.5
1.9
216.8
4.8
215.4
3.7
217.6
1.6
216.9
2.7
217.3
(0.7)
217.5
1.3
217.8
0.9
217.3
(0.5)
218.6
1.5
218.0
1.4
219.8
2.2
219.5
2.6
221.1
2.5
222.3
5.2
222.6
2.7
224.5
4.1
224.0
2.5
225.3
1.5
224.7
1.3
226.3
1.8
42.4
43.0
43.0
43.4
(2.2)
6.2
(0.1)
3.0
43.5
1.3
43.8
2.7
44.2
4.0
44.4
1.3
44.4
0.3
44.5
0.7
44.9
3.7
45.3
3.7
47.1
(7.8)
48.0
7.7
48.2
1.5
48.6
3.0
48.6
0.7
49.2
4.3
49.6
3.7
49.7
1.0
50.0
1.9
50.2
2.2
50.6
3.3
51.0
2.9
Housing Indicators
Index 1987 Q1=100
% Ch
430.3
(1.8)
415.6
(13.0)
402.3
(12.2)
394.9
(7.2)
389.2
(5.6)
384.8
(4.4)
384.2
(0.7)
377.3
(7.0)
362.0
(15.2)
351.7
(11.0)
335.0
(17.6)
330.7
(5.1)

(1980Q1=100)
% Ch
355.9
3.9
347.6
(9.0)
339.2
(9.3)
337.3
(2.2)
333.3
(4.6)
331.6
(2.1)
334.7
3.8
331.8
(3.3)
322.8
(10.4)
315.3
(8.9)
306.7
(10.5)
304.5
(2.8)
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
% Ch
U.S. (M illions)
8.2
(50.9)
0.5
7.6
(27.2)
0.5
6.7
(40.2)
0.6
7.8
88.9
0.6
8.1
14.1
0.6
7.5
(26.8)
0.6
7.3
(8.9)
0.6
7.6
17.5
0.5
8.0
22.6
0.6
8.2
10.3
0.6
7.4
(35.0)
0.6
7.3
(4.0)
0.6
(60.5)
6.8
47.0
(13.3)
37.5
(8.0)
(11.2)
(27.8)
36.6
(14.0)
29.8
27.7
86.7
(18.9)
84.1
(11.5)
85.2
5.3
86.3
5.6
88.0
8.1
89.5
7.1
91.0
6.7
91.7
3.1
92.6
4.2
93.1
1.9
94.3
5.4
95.1
3.3
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
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
U.S. Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
% Ch
Other Indicators
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100
% Ch
% Ch
99
TABLE A.2
2012:1
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
2013:3
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
13,802.5
2.4
13,875.0
2.1
13,956.7
2.4
14,060.9
3.0
14,134.6
2.1
14,256.4
3.5
14,368.5
3.2
14,471.0
2.9
14,590.9
3.4
14,716.4
3.5
14,846.9
3.6
14,979.3
3.6
113.3
113.6
114.1
114.5
115.1
115.5
115.9
116.4
117.0
117.5
118.0
118.6
1.2
1.0
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.5
1.7
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
114.8
1.6
115.2
1.2
115.7
1.9
116.2
1.6
116.7
1.7
117.2
1.7
117.7
1.7
118.2
1.8
118.8
2.0
119.4
1.9
119.9
1.8
120.5
1.9

225.8
226.2
227.0
227.9
228.8
229.7
230.9
231.9
232.9
234.0
235.4
236.5
% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
1.9
227.3
1.7
0.7
227.9
1.1
1.6
229.2
2.3
1.6
230.2
1.8
1.6
231.3
1.9
1.6
232.4
1.8
2.0
233.5
1.9
1.7
234.7
2.0
1.8
235.9
2.1
1.9
237.0
1.9
2.3
238.1
1.8
2.0
239.2
2.0
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
45.7
3.2
46.0
3.4
46.4
2.8
46.7
3.1
47.1
3.3
47.4
3.0
47.8
2.7
48.1
2.7
48.4
2.9
48.8
2.7
49.1
2.8
49.5
3.0
U.S. Average Wage

Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
51.4
2.9
51.8
2.9
52.1
2.8
52.5
2.9
52.9
3.3
53.3
2.9
53.6
2.5
53.9
2.4
54.3
2.8
54.7
2.5
55.0
2.6
55.4
2.7
Housing Indicators
Index 1987 Q1=100
% Ch
327.0
(4.3)
329.0
2.4
332.3
4.1
335.7
4.1
337.0
1.5
338.7
2.1
341.5
3.3
342.7
1.5
344.8
2.4
347.3
3.0
351.7
5.1
355.7
4.6

(1980Q1=100)
% Ch
302.8
(2.3)
306.6
5.2
311.8
7.0
317.0
6.8
319.9
3.6
323.1
4.1
327.2
5.2
329.3
2.7
332.2
3.5
335.3
3.8
340.3
6.1
344.8
5.4

(in billions of $)
% Ch
% Ch
% Ch
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
7.4
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.3
9.5
10.6
11.7
12.4
13.1
14.1
15.6
% Ch
U.S. (M illions)
% Ch
5.6
0.7
33.6
3.3
0.7
36.2
30.3
0.9
98.4
30.5
1.0
103.3
39.3
1.2
66.2
8.3
1.3
43.6
58.0
1.4
27.6
47.7
1.4
20.4
26.3
1.5
13.2
25.0
1.5
13.0
35.3
1.6
18.4
48.4
1.7
11.8
96.0
4.1
96.6
2.2
97.2
2.6
97.7
2.3
98.3
2.3
99.4
4.6
100.4
4.1
101.2
3.3
102.1
3.6
103.1
3.9
104.1
3.9
105.1
3.9
3.3
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.3
6.9
3.6
34.7
4.0
56.2
4.5
59.0
5.0
52.2
5.5
51.0
6.0
40.2
6.4
33.8
6.5
6.5
7.0
31.7
Other Indicators
U.S, 1997=100
% Ch
% Ch
100
TABLE A.2
2015:1
2015:2
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
2017:3
2017:4
15,102.2
3.3
15,226.5
3.3
15,347.0
3.2
15,461.0
3.0
15,589.1
3.4
15,714.3
3.3
15,824.2
2.8
15,931.8
2.7
16,036.7
2.7
16,146.8
2.8
16,249.9
2.6
16,354.7
2.6

% Ch
119.2
2.1
119.7
1.8
120.2
1.7
120.8
1.8
121.3
2.0
121.9
1.8
122.4
1.7
122.9
1.7
123.5
2.0
124.1
1.7
124.6
1.7
125.1
1.6

121.1
121.7
122.3
123.0
123.6
124.2
124.8
125.4
126.1
126.7
127.3
127.9
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
237.6
1.9
240.4
2.0
238.9
2.2
241.7
2.2
240.4
2.4
243.0
2.2
241.6
2.1
244.4
2.2
242.4
1.3
245.6
2.1
244.0
2.6
246.9
2.1
245.4
2.3
248.2
2.1
246.5
1.8
249.5
2.1
247.7
2.0
250.8
2.1
249.0
2.1
252.0
2.0
250.7
2.9
253.2
2.0
251.6
1.4
254.4
1.9
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
49.8
3.0
50.2
2.8
50.5
2.9
50.9
3.0
51.3
2.8
51.7
3.1
52.0
3.0
52.4
3.0
52.8
3.2
53.2
3.0
53.6
3.1
54.1
3.1
U.S. Average Wage

Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
55.8
2.9
56.1
2.6
56.5
2.7
56.9
2.7
57.3
3.0
57.7
2.8
58.1
2.8
58.5
2.8
59.0
3.3
59.4
3.0
59.9
3.0
60.3
3.0
360.2
5.2
364.8
5.2
370.0
5.9
374.6
5.0
376.6
2.2
381.3
5.1
384.3
3.1
386.7
2.5
392.3
5.9
395.3
3.1
401.3
6.2
405.8
4.6
(1980Q1=100)
% Ch
349.8
5.9
354.7
5.7
360.4
6.5
365.2
5.5
367.2
2.3
372.3
5.6
375.3
3.3
377.7
2.6
384.8
7.7
387.8
3.1
396.5
9.3
402.4
6.1
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
% Ch
U.S. (M illions)
% Ch
16.9
37.5
1.7
6.6
18.3
38.5
1.7
9.2
19.8
37.4
1.8
8.5
21.1
27.7
1.8
3.8
22.2
21.7
1.8
2.7
23.0
15.3
1.8
2.4
23.9
17.3
1.8
2.5
24.7
13.3
1.8
1.8
24.8
1.8
1.8
0.5
106.0
3.7
106.9
3.3
107.7
3.1
108.5
3.0
109.4
3.2
110.2
3.1
111.0
3.1
111.8
2.8
112.5
2.5
113.2
2.6
114.0
2.7
114.7
2.8
7.5
29.3
7.7
15.7
7.7
0.0
7.7
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0

(in billions of $)
% Ch
% Ch

% Ch
U.S.
% Ch
Housing Indicators
Index 1987 Q1=100
% Ch
25.1
5.7
1.8
(0.6)
25.4
3.9
1.8
0.0
25.6
4.3
1.8
(1.3)
Other Indicators
U.S, 1997=100
% Ch
% Ch
101
TABLE A.2
2018:1
2018:2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
16,451.2
16,561.9
16,669.7
16,776.5
16,881.0
16,996.6
17,109.0
17,219.1
17,326.4
17,453.5
17,559.6
17,661.5
2.4
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
3.0
2.5
2.3
125.7
126.2
126.7
127.2
127.8
128.4
128.9
129.4
130.0
130.5
131.0
131.5
2.0
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.6
128.5
129.1
129.8
130.3
131.0
131.5
132.1
132.7
133.3
133.9
134.5
135.1
2.1
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.8
% Ch
252.7
1.7
254.0
2.2
255.6
2.4
256.9
2.0
258.1
2.0
259.5
2.1
261.0
2.4
262.3
2.0
263.6
2.0
264.9
2.1
266.5
2.4
267.8
2.0
U.S.
% Ch
255.8
2.1
257.0
1.9
258.3
2.0
259.5
1.9
260.7
1.9
261.9
1.7
263.0
1.7
264.1
1.7
265.4
1.9
266.5
1.7
267.7
1.7
268.9
1.8
OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
54.5
3.0
54.7
1.9
55.1
3.1
55.6
3.2
56.0
3.3
56.4
3.0
56.8
3.1
57.3
3.1
57.7
3.2
58.1
2.5
58.6
3.3
59.1
3.4
U.S. Average Wage

Rate (Thous $)
% Ch
60.8
3.3
61.2
3.0
61.7
3.1
62.2
3.1
62.7
3.4
63.2
3.1
63.7
3.1
64.2
3.1
64.7
3.4
65.1
2.5
65.6
3.5
66.2
3.3
Housing Indicators
Index 1987 Q1=100
% Ch
408.0
2.1
411.3
3.3
418.2
6.9
423.5
5.1
426.4
2.8
430.2
3.6
436.4
5.9
441.4
4.6
446.2
4.4
450.6
4.0
457.0
5.8
462.0
4.5

(1980Q1=100)
% Ch
404.4
2.0
407.7
3.3
415.2
7.5
420.8
5.5
423.6
2.7
427.5
3.7
434.0
6.3
439.2
4.8
444.2
4.6
448.6
4.1
455.4
6.2
460.7
4.7

(in billions of $)
% Ch
% Ch
% Ch
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous)
% Ch
U.S. (M illions)
% Ch
Other Indicators
U.S, 1997=100
% Ch
% Ch
25.0
(9.8)
1.8
(1.8)
25.0
0.9
1.8
(1.4)
25.4
6.6
1.8
0.2
25.2
(3.2)
1.8
(0.3)
24.9
(4.3)
1.8
(0.5)
25.0
1.3
1.8
(0.2)
25.3
4.6
1.8
0.7
25.2
(2.0)
1.8
0.2
25.1
(1.0)
1.8
(0.8)
25.0
(2.0)
1.8
(1.5)
25.2
2.7
1.8
(0.6)
25.0
(3.3)
1.8
(1.4)
115.5
116.3
117.1
117.9
118.7
119.5
120.4
121.2
122.0
122.9
123.7
124.5
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.6
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.0
7.7
(0.0)
7.7
0.0
7.7
0.0
7.7
0.0
7.7
0.0
102
APPENDIX B:
REVENUE FORECAST DETAIL
Table B.1a General Fund Revenue Statement 2009-11 1 ..................................................... 104

Table B.1b General Fund Revenue Statement - 2011-13 1 .................................................. 105
Table B.2 General Fund Revenue Forecast by Fiscal Year 1 ............................................... 106
Table B.3 Summary of Tax Model Adjustments 1 ............................................................... 107
Table B.4 Oregon Personal Income Tax Revenue Forecast 1 .............................................. 108
Table B.5 Oregon Corporate Income Tax Revenue Forecast 1 ............................................ 110
Table B.6 Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Distribution 1 ........................................................... 112
Table B.7 Revenue Distribution to Local Governments 1.................................................... 113
Table B.8 Track Record for the June 2010 Forecast 1 ......................................................... 114
Table B.9 Summary of Lottery Resources 1 ......................................................................... 115
Table B.10 Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook 1 ..................................................... 116
103
104
4,767,000
13,426,140,418
12,536,725,849
122,985,849
(15,700,000)
12,429,440,000
12,429,440,000
315,917,000
13,017,000
233,843,079
65,198,576
6,001,675,000
6,001,675,000
315,917,000
5,517,000
2,946,000
97,322,000
4,087,000
26,550,000
15,284,000
30,758,000
9,073,000
353,589,000
40,327,000
98,034,000
37,517,000
19,956,000
1,588,000
4,943,210,000
2009-10
6,378,728,000
6,378,728,000
6,500,000
3,571,000
104,138,000
4,087,000
26,176,000
27,471,000
31,266,000
10,265,000
488,470,000
44,678,000
76,893,000
38,816,000
27,849,000
782,000
5,487,766,000
2010-11
Total
2009-11
(15,695,047)
12,510,883,896
(954,613,145)
13,465,497,041
12,495,188,849
122,985,849
(8,200,000)
12,380,403,000
12,380,403,000
315,917,000
12,017,000
6,517,000
201,460,000
8,174,000
52,726,000
42,755,000
62,024,000
19,338,000
10,430,976,000
0
842,059,000
85,005,000
174,927,000
76,333,000
47,805,000
2,370,000
Difference
(80,893,623)
39,356,623
39,356,623
(41,537,000)
7,500,000
(49,037,000)
(49,037,000)
(1,000,000)
1,750,000
100,000
1,092,000
(383,000)
165,000
(27,180,000)
0
744,000
(2,937,000)
(21,000,000)
(444,000)
56,000
0
05/12/2011 Less
3/1/2011
(249,538,126)
(787,260,173)
(954,613,145)
167,352,972
(1,036,798,299)
122,985,849
35,500,000
(1,195,284,148)
(1,195,284,148)
57,022,152
(96,733,000)
(44,004,300)
(11,632,000)
(586,000)
(3,918,000)
17,699,000
(901,000)
4,342,000
(1,114,721,000)
0
10,444,000
(14,606,000)
(20,480,000)
9,000,000
12,470,000
1,320,000
05/12/2011 Less
COS
1. Close of Session forecast included $62 million related to indirect impacts from the Federal Stimulus legislation signed 2/18/09. These dollars have been allocated to the appropriate line items (e.g., personal income taxes) for the current and future
forecasts.
Notes: Corporate income tax figure includes Corporate Multistate taxes.
Other taxes include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Severance Tax, Western Oregon Severance Tax and Amusement Device Tax.
Cigarette and Other Tobacco Taxes are gross tax receipts. Distributions, net of administrative costs, are reported in the Table B.6. Detailed entries may not add to totals due to rounding.
* Administrative Actions equal expenses associated with cashflow management, exclusive of internal borrowing.
** Includes actions taken during the 2010 Special Legislative Session
12,471,527,273
13,298,144,069
6,424,857,000
6,424,857,000
7,500,000
1,821,000
8,174,000
201,460,000
6,004,583,000
6,004,583,000
315,917,000
5,517,000
2,946,000
4,087,000
104,138,000
52,626,000
41,663,000
62,407,000
19,173,000
10,458,156,000
0
841,315,000
87,942,000
195,927,000
76,777,000
47,749,000
2,370,000
Total
2009-11
(954,613,145)
13,298,144,069
4,087,000
97,322,000
26,076,000
26,379,000
31,649,000
10,100,000
487,726,000
44,707,000
97,893,000
39,260,000
27,793,000
782,000
353,589,000
43,235,000
98,034,000
37,517,000
19,956,000
1,588,000
26,550,000
15,284,000
30,758,000
9,073,000
5,514,946,000
2010-11
4,943,210,000
2009-10
13,531,987,148
(43,700,000)
Available Resources
13,575,687,148
13,575,687,148
258,894,848
One-time Transfers
50,521,300
108,750,000
Miscellaneous Revenues1
Interest Earnings
8,760,000
213,092,000
56,644,000
25,056,000
62,925,000
14,996,000
11,545,697,000
0
831,615,000
99,611,000
195,407,000
67,333,000
35,335,000
1,050,000
Fines and Fees

State Court Fees
Securities Fees
Taxes
Insurance Taxes
Estate Taxes
Cigarette Taxes
Other Taxes
Estimate at
COS 2009
Table B.1a
General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2009-11
Table B.1a General Fund Revenue Statement 2011-13 1
105
446,262,137
5,576,000
6,754,601,000
6,754,601,000
7,800,000
6,700,000
91,820,000
7,146,805,000
7,146,805,000
8,000,000
10,653,000
95,568,000
5,576,000
27,989,000
24,016,000
26,766,000
9,692,000
442,073,000
51,474,000
94,672,000
36,633,000
29,841,000
657,000
421,250,000
48,784,000
95,612,000
37,611,000
28,745,000
670,000
27,117,000
23,023,000
31,632,000
9,378,000
6,283,195,000
2012-13
5,918,883,000
2011-12
Total
2011-13
315,676,137
13,562,594,263
13,562,594,263
0
13,878,270,400
(23,135,600)
13,901,406,000
13,901,406,000
15,800,000
17,353,000
187,388,000
11,152,000
55,106,000
47,039,000
58,398,000
19,070,000
12,202,078,000
0
863,323,000
100,258,000
190,284,000
74,244,000
58,586,000
1,327,000
6,703,711,000
6,703,711,000
2,200,000
7,800,000
2,460,000
91,820,000
5,576,000
43,420,000
22,617,000
38,709,000
9,192,000
429,669,000
48,553,000
95,612,000
37,498,000
28,504,000
666,000
5,839,415,000
2011-12
7,135,692,000
7,135,692,000
58,100,000
8,000,000
3,453,000
95,568,000
5,576,000
44,817,000
23,610,000
32,754,000
9,822,000
445,848,000
50,873,000
94,672,000
36,496,000
29,757,000
656,000
6,195,690,000
2012-13
Total
2011-13
253,673,137
13,562,594,263
13,562,594,263
0
13,816,267,400
(23,135,600)
13,839,403,000
13,839,403,000
60,300,000
15,800,000
5,913,000
187,388,000
11,152,000
88,237,000
46,227,000
71,463,000
19,014,000
12,035,105,000
0
875,517,000
99,426,000
190,284,000
73,994,000
58,261,000
1,322,000
Difference
(62,003,000)
(62,003,000)
(62,003,000)
(62,003,000)
60,300,000
(11,440,000)
33,131,000
(812,000)
13,065,000
(56,000)
(166,973,000)
0
12,194,000
(832,000)
0
(250,000)
(325,000)
(5,000)
09/1/2011 Less
5/12/2011
(192,589,000)
(192,589,000)
(192,589,000)
(192,589,000)
(4,000,000)
0
(812,000)
(9,135,000)
(56,000)
(158,448,000)
0
(18,726,000)
(832,000)
0
(250,000)
(325,000)
(5,000)
09/1/2011 Less
COS
1. Close of Session forecast included $62 million related to indirect impacts from the Federal Stimulus legislation signed 2/18/09. These dollars have been allocated to the appropriate line items (e.g., personal income taxes) for the current and future
forecasts.
Notes: Corporate income tax figure includes Corporate Multistate taxes.
Other taxes include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Severance Tax, Western Oregon Severance Tax and Amusement Device Tax.
Cigarette and Other Tobacco Taxes are gross tax receipts. Distributions, net of administrative costs, are reported in the Table B.6. Detailed entries may not add to totals due to rounding.
* Administrative Actions equal expenses associated with cashflow management, exclusive of internal borrowing.
** Includes actions taken during the 2010 Special Legislative Session
13,562,594,263
13,562,594,263
14,008,856,400
(23,135,600)
Available Resources
14,031,992,000
14,031,992,000
60,300,000
One-time Transfers
15,800,000
Miscellaneous Revenues1
9,913,000
11,152,000
187,388,000
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
Securities Fees
Taxes
Insurance Taxes
Estate Taxes
Cigarette Taxes
Other Taxes
Estimate at
COS 2011
Table B.1a
General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2011-13
Table B.1b General Fund Revenue Statement - 2011-13 Close of Session 1
106
6,754,601,000
15,800,000
17,353,000
187,388,000
11,152,000
55,106,000
47,039,000
58,398,000
19,070,000
13,562,594,263
14,008,856,400
(23,135,600)
14,031,992,000
14,031,992,000
60,300,000
15,800,000
9,913,000
187,388,000
11,152,000
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
446,262,137
7,225,018,000
7,225,018,000
58,100,000
8,000,000
5,453,000
95,568,000
5,576,000
44,817,000
24,016,000
36,941,000
9,692,000
454,578,000
51,474,000
94,672,000
36,633,000
29,841,000
657,000
6,269,000,000
2012-13
6,806,974,000
6,806,974,000
2,200,000
7,800,000
4,460,000
91,820,000
5,576,000
43,420,000
23,023,000
43,657,000
9,378,000
439,665,000
48,784,000
95,612,000
37,611,000
28,745,000
670,000
5,924,553,000
2011-12
Total
2011-13
13,562,594,263
NA
13,878,270,400
(23,135,600)
7,146,805,000 13,901,406,000
7,146,805,000 13,901,406,000
8,000,000
10,653,000
95,568,000
5,576,000
27,989,000
24,016,000
26,766,000
9,692,000
6,283,195,000 12,202,078,000
0
442,073,000
863,323,000
51,474,000
100,258,000
94,672,000
190,284,000
36,633,000
74,244,000
29,841,000
58,586,000
657,000
1,327,000
2012-13
Forecasts Dated: COS
Available Resources
6,754,601,000
7,800,000
Miscellaneous Revenues
One-time Transfers
6,700,000
91,820,000
5,576,000
27,117,000
23,023,000
31,632,000
9,378,000
421,250,000
48,784,000
95,612,000
37,611,000
28,745,000
670,000
5,918,883,000
I nterest Earnings
Fines and Fees

State Court Fees
Securities Fees
Taxes
Insurance Taxes
Estate Taxes
Cigarette Taxes
Other Taxes
2011-12
Total
2011-13
Table B.1b
General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2011-13 Close of Session
NA
NA
NA
130,586,000
130,586,000
130,586,000
60,300,000
(7,440,000)
33,131,000
0
22,200,000
0
(8,525,000)
0
30,920,000
0
0
0
0
0
COS Less 5/12/2011
Difference
Table B.2 General Fund Revenue Forecast by Fiscal Year 1
Table B.3 Summary of Tax Model Adjustments 1

Table B.3 Summary of 2011 Legislative Session Adjustments
2011-13
2013-15
Biennia
2015-17
2017-19
2019-21
Staff Measure
Summary
Revenue Impact
Statement
Personal Income Tax Impacts (Millions)

Tax Law Change
529 College Savings - HB 2728
Net Operating Loss - HB 3454
BETC
Biomass
E-commerce Zone
Film & Video
Fish Screening
Renewables
Conservation
Transportation
RETC
Compliance Bills
Personal Income Tax Total
-$0.01
$0.00
$0.00
$0.22
$0.80
$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
$6.40
$3.20
$2.00
-$3.60 -$7.60 -$8.30 -$4.65
-$0.01 -$0.02 -$0.02 -$0.01
-$6.00 -$12.00 -$12.00 -$7.00
-$0.02 -$0.04 -$0.04 -$0.02
$0.00 -$0.10 -$0.05 -$0.02
-$2.00 -$2.25 -$2.25 -$1.13
-$2.30 -$6.60 -$8.20 -$7.70
-$1.00 -$1.90 -$1.70 -$0.70
-$7.60 -$21.20 -$28.40 -$20.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00 -$4.60 -$23.30 -$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
-$0.01
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.12
$0.50
$0.00
$0.00
$5.60
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.00
$0.40
$0.00
$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
-$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
$4.80
$3.10
-$0.60 -$0.70 -$0.50
-$1.60 -$1.60 -$1.30
-$0.08 -$0.08 -$0.06
-$0.20 -$0.20 -$0.10
-$1.70 -$2.10 -$1.70
-$0.40 -$0.40 -$0.20
-$0.01 -$0.01 -$0.01
-$0.10 -$0.05 -$0.02
-$0.75 -$0.75 -$0.38
-$9.60 -$12.10 -$10.60
-$2.90 -$2.60 -$0.90
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.70 -$5.50 -$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
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
2154
2523
2528
3170
3454
3606
3672
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
2154
2523
2528
3170
3454
3606
3672
SB 301
SB 817
SB 301
SB 817
HB 2071
HB 2071
HB 5040
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
Corporate Income Tax Impacts (Millions)

Tax Law Change
Housing Lender Tax Credit - HB 2527
Agriculture Cooperative Min Tax - HB 3058
BETC
Biomass
Fire Insurance
E-commerce Zone
Long-Term Rural EZ
R&D
Film & Video
Fish Screening
Renewables
Conservation
Transportation
Compliance Bills
$0.00
$9.20
$18.00
Corporate Income Tax Total
$30.52
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$5.20
-$1.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
$0.00
$9.40
$0.00
-$3.38 -$18.49 -$18.86
-$1.80
2154
2523
2527
3058
3170
3606
3672
2154
2523
2527
3058
3170
3606
3672
SB 301
SB 817
SB 301
SB 817
HB 2071
HB 2071
HB 5040
SB 939
SB 939
Other Tax/Revenue Impacts (Millions)

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
$58.10
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$33.13 $40.43 $42.83 $45.40 $47.50
$22.20 $20.71 $22.05 $23.50 $25.50
-$7.44 -$22.00 -$32.00 -$34.00 -$34.00
$2.20
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$108.19
$39.14
107
$32.88
$34.90
$39.00
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 2011
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
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
REFUNDS
%CHYA
OTHER
TOTAL
%CHYA
136,193
990,947
-1.2%
1,653,251
2.3%
FY 2010
5,596,701
2.8%
(2,328)
(136,193)
4,943,210
-3.4%
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
1,257,006
3.2%
1,314,286
3.2%
1,382,646
5.4%
1,326,246
5.8%
5,280,183
4.4%
964,953
17.7%
276,255
23.6%
188,908
17.9%
317,701
20.9%
318,557
0.1%
1,101,421
14.1%
674,751
11.1%
946,161
9.2%
56,303
-14.3%
78,750
-10.0%
82,332
-30.4%
727,476
7.8%
944,861
-0.1%
461,524
35.5%
1,132,229
11.3%
111,643
32.4%
121,085
7.6%
413,935
-12.6%
494,703
7.2%
1,141,366
0.8%
1,097,271
-10.2%
1,201,740
-5.9%
2011:3
2011:4
2012:1
2012:2
1,217,496
6.2%
1,273,011
6.4%
1,311,886
3.9%
1,253,784
2.9%
5,056,178
4.8%
223,556
24.4%
160,225
7.8%
262,794
26.9%
318,377
11.8%
65,703
5.5%
87,454
7.0%
118,253
2.9%
84,308
-8.6%
112,536
-25.7%
473,861
9.6%
(165,933)
1,256,514
8.4%
1,408,154
10.4%
1,219,073
5.8%
FY 2012
170,285
4,352
1,955,673
1.0%
5,839,415
5.7%
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.
108
(170,285)
1,307,636
4.1%
1,460,859
3.7%
1,368,745
12.3%
165,933
FY 2011
180,875
2,058,451
5.3%
29,740
5,522,860
11.7%
FY 2013
10,590
6,195,690
6.1%
TABLE B.4
OREGON PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS

WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
REFUNDS
%CHYA
OTHER
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
REFUNDS
%CHYA
OTHER
TOTAL
%CHYA
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
REFUNDS
%CHYA
OTHER
TOTAL
%CHYA
WITHHOLDING
%CHYA
EST. PAYMENTS
%CHYA
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
REFUNDS
%CHYA
OTHER
TOTAL
%CHYA
2013:4
2014:1
2014:2
1,329,588
5.8%
1,390,199
5.8%
1,464,372
5.9%
1,404,945
5.9%
294,938
6.8%
201,684
6.8%
339,622
6.9%
59,259
5.2%
82,812
5.2%
106,956
-4.2%
116,015
-4.2%
(180,875)
TOTAL
%CHYA
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
2013:3
September 2011
2014:3
2014:4
2015:1
2015:2
5,589,104
5.9%
1,408,481
5.9%
1,472,690
5.9%
1,556,089
6.3%
1,493,748
6.3%
5,931,009
6.1%
348,019
9.2%
1,184,263
7.5%
322,216
9.2%
220,337
9.2%
371,161
9.3%
382,567
9.9%
1,296,282
9.5%
88,925
8.0%
790,102
8.6%
1,021,098
8.1%
64,050
8.1%
89,769
8.4%
103,115
16.0%
962,798
21.9%
1,219,732
19.5%
422,395
2.0%
505,843
2.3%
1,151,209
0.9%
109,438
2.3%
118,986
2.6%
456,278
8.0%
546,906
8.1%
1,231,608
7.0%
FY 2014
191,513
1,395,953
6.8%
1,558,680
6.7%
1,470,524
7.4%
2,228,736
8.3%
2015:3
2015:4
2016:1
2016:2
10,638
6,653,893
7.4%
FY 2016
(191,513)
203,179
1,493,796
7.0%
1,663,811
6.7%
1,574,087
7.0%
2,495,387
12.0%
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
FY 2015
11,666
7,227,081
8.6%
FY 2017
1,497,497
6.3%
1,565,768
6.3%
1,639,625
5.4%
1,571,465
5.2%
6,274,354
5.8%
1,575,442
5.2%
1,647,255
5.2%
1,712,250
4.4%
1,638,934
4.3%
6,573,880
4.8%
354,203
9.9%
242,211
9.9%
407,127
9.7%
404,493
5.7%
1,408,033
8.6%
374,502
5.7%
256,092
5.7%
430,068
5.6%
420,529
4.0%
1,481,192
5.2%
75,070
17.2%
106,133
18.2%
112,775
9.4%
1,019,758
5.9%
1,313,735
7.7%
81,377
8.4%
114,229
7.6%
120,407
6.8%
1,067,823
4.7%
1,383,836
5.3%
117,795
7.6%
127,787
7.4%
505,190
10.7%
606,776
10.9%
1,357,548
10.2%
129,792
10.2%
140,822
10.2%
515,706
2.1%
617,967
1.8%
1,404,286
3.4%
-203,179
213,069
9,891
-213,069
222,741
9,672
1,605,795
7.5%
1,786,324
7.4%
1,654,337
5.1%
2,602,009
4.3%
7,648,464
5.8%
1,688,460
5.1%
1,876,754
5.1%
1,747,019
5.6%
2,732,060
5.0%
8,044,293
5.2%
2017:3
2017:4
2018:1
2018:2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
1,643,111
4.3%
1,717,997
4.3%
1,804,171
5.4%
1,730,040
5.6%
6,895,319
4.9%
1,734,407
5.6%
1,813,469
5.6%
1,911,480
5.9%
1,834,120
6.0%
7,293,476
5.8%
389,350
4.0%
266,245
4.0%
447,270
4.0%
439,954
4.6%
1,542,819
4.2%
407,335
4.6%
278,543
4.6%
468,097
4.7%
463,326
5.3%
1,617,301
4.8%
86,733
6.6%
121,219
6.1%
126,581
5.1%
1,104,722
3.5%
1,439,255
4.0%
90,915
4.8%
126,691
4.5%
132,078
4.3%
1,155,452
4.6%
1,505,137
4.6%
132,939
2.4%
144,322
2.5%
528,710
2.5%
633,253
2.5%
1,439,225
2.5%
136,694
2.8%
148,480
2.9%
564,301
6.7%
676,490
6.8%
1,525,964
6.0%
(222,741)
FY 2018
234,832
1,763,513
4.4%
1,961,138
4.5%
1,849,312
5.9%
2,876,295
5.3%
2019:3
2019:4
2020:1
2020:2
12,090
8,450,258
5.0%
FY 2020
(234,832)
247,966
1,861,131
5.5%
2,070,224
5.6%
1,947,355
5.3%
3,024,375
5.1%
2020:3
2020:4
2021:1
2021:2
FY 2019
13,134
8,903,084
5.4%
FY 2021
1,838,734
6.0%
1,922,558
6.0%
2,012,065
5.3%
1,928,224
5.1%
7,701,580
5.6%
1,933,107
5.1%
2,021,221
5.1%
2,118,435
5.3%
2,030,688
5.3%
8,103,451
5.2%
428,974
5.3%
293,341
5.3%
492,657
5.2%
482,348
4.1%
1,697,320
4.9%
446,585
4.1%
305,384
4.1%
513,454
4.2%
512,563
6.3%
1,777,987
4.8%
94,953
4.4%
132,318
4.4%
134,284
1.7%
1,154,472
-0.1%
1,516,027
0.7%
96,148
1.3%
133,595
1.0%
140,207
4.4%
1,227,009
6.3%
1,596,959
5.3%
145,639
6.5%
158,074
6.5%
578,987
2.6%
693,434
2.5%
1,576,135
3.3%
149,523
2.7%
162,298
2.7%
584,915
1.0%
700,065
1.0%
1,596,801
1.3%
-247,966
261,427
13,462
-261,427
275,125
13,698
1,969,055
5.8%
2,190,143
5.8%
2,060,019
5.8%
3,133,036
3.6%
9,352,254
5.0%
2,064,889
4.9%
2,297,902
4.9%
2,187,181
6.2%
3,345,321
6.8%
9,895,293
5.8%
Note: "Other" includes kicker and federal pension refunds, as well as July withholding accrued to June.
1
Includes reductions related to credits realized under the Business Energy Tax Credit Program, adjustments for connecting with federal tax law, and increases related to the sunset of tax credits associated
with HB2607.
109
Table B.5 Oregon Corporate Income Tax Revenue Forecast 1

TABLE B.5
OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS

2005:3
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
2005:4
2006:1
FY
2006
2006:2
2006:3
2006:4
2007:1
September 2011
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%
2007:3
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
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%
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%
183,561
-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%
468,607
32.5%
2011:3
ADVANCE PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
2011:4
2012:1
FY
2012
2012:2
2012:3
2012:4
2013:1
2013:2
FY
2013
126,485
9.7%
191,555
9.1%
71,966
-5.8%
170,222
2.9%
560,228
5.2%
123,734
-2.2%
196,704
2.7%
82,322
14.4%
184,175
8.2%
586,934
4.8%
31,394
44.1%
28,254
33.2%
38,160
6.7%
39,744
-2.6%
137,552
15.0%
24,326
-22.5%
21,533
-23.8%
33,795
-11.4%
37,989
-4.4%
117,644
-14.5%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
40,915
76.9%
121,718
35.4%
61,145
56.5%
44,333
40.8%
268,110
46.1%
45,994
12.4%
119,024
-2.2%
54,803
-10.4%
38,908
-12.2%
258,729
-3.5%
TOTAL1
%CHYA
116,963
2.7%
98,092
-8.2%
48,981
-33.0%
165,633
-5.2%
429,669
-8.3%
102,066
-12.7%
99,212
1.1%
61,314
25.2%
183,256
10.6%
445,848
3.8%
FINAL PAYMENTS
%CHYA
110
OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS

TABLE B.5
2013:3
ADVANCE PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
2013:4
2014:1
FY
2014
2014:2
2014:3
2014:4
2015:1
September 2011
2015:2
FY
2015
139,736
12.9%
218,854
11.3%
91,985
11.7%
199,577
8.4%
650,152
10.8%
146,716
5.0%
227,495
3.9%
93,788
2.0%
203,484
2.0%
671,483
3.3%
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
27,981
15.0%
24,214
12.4%
38,737
14.6%
44,905
18.2%
135,838
15.5%
32,357
15.6%
28,437
17.4%
42,933
10.8%
49,249
9.7%
152,976
12.6%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
41,058
-10.7%
107,356
-9.8%
51,330
-6.3%
37,011
-4.9%
236,755
-8.5%
36,315
-11.6%
103,879
-3.2%
57,663
12.3%
44,046
19.0%
241,903
2.2%
TOTAL1
%CHYA
126,659
24.1%
135,712
36.8%
79,393
29.5%
207,471
13.2%
549,235
23.2%
142,758
12.7%
152,053
12.0%
79,059
-0.4%
208,687
0.6%
582,557
6.1%
2015:3
ADVANCE PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
2015:4
2016:1
FY
2016
2016:2
2016:3
2016:4
2017:1
2017:2
FY
2017
143,535
-2.2%
221,915
-2.5%
92,719
-1.1%
199,960
-1.7%
658,130
-2.0%
145,807
1.6%
225,130
1.4%
93,945
1.3%
202,223
1.1%
667,105
1.4%
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
32,857
1.5%
28,785
1.2%
43,385
1.1%
49,275
0.1%
154,302
0.9%
33,073
0.7%
29,085
1.0%
43,445
0.1%
49,213
-0.1%
154,816
0.3%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
40,765
12.3%
107,900
3.9%
61,656
6.9%
46,746
6.1%
257,067
6.3%
43,528
6.8%
110,009
2.0%
63,445
2.9%
47,972
2.6%
264,954
3.1%
TOTAL1
%CHYA
135,627
-5.0%
142,800
-6.1%
74,448
-5.8%
202,490
-3.0%
555,364
-4.7%
135,352
-0.2%
144,206
1.0%
73,945
-0.7%
203,464
0.5%
556,967
0.3%
2017:3
ADVANCE PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
2017:4
2018:1
FY
2018
2018:2
2018:3
2018:4
2019:1
2019:2
FY
2019
146,051
0.2%
225,624
0.2%
94,513
0.6%
203,151
0.5%
669,340
0.3%
149,116
2.1%
229,634
1.8%
97,565
3.2%
209,103
2.9%
685,418
2.4%
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
33,174
0.3%
29,178
0.3%
43,301
-0.3%
49,172
-0.1%
154,826
0.0%
33,257
0.3%
29,395
0.7%
43,994
1.6%
50,027
1.7%
156,674
1.2%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
45,189
3.8%
111,285
1.2%
64,633
1.9%
48,909
2.0%
270,016
1.9%
45,221
0.1%
111,964
0.6%
64,096
-0.8%
48,390
-1.1%
269,671
-0.1%
TOTAL1
%CHYA
134,037
-1.0%
143,518
-0.5%
73,181
-1.0%
203,415
0.0%
554,150
-0.5%
137,152
2.3%
147,065
2.5%
77,463
5.9%
210,741
3.6%
572,421
3.3%
2019:3
1
2019:4
2020:1
FY
2020
2020:2
2020:3
2020:4
2021:1
2021:2
FY
2021
151,357
1.5%
231,984
1.0%
99,944
2.4%
210,127
0.5%
693,412
1.2%
152,877
1.0%
234,460
1.1%
102,423
2.5%
212,978
1.4%
702,738
1.3%
FINAL PAYMENTS1
%CHYA
34,428
3.5%
30,585
4.0%
45,277
2.9%
51,343
2.6%
161,634
3.2%
36,768
6.8%
32,863
7.4%
47,727
5.4%
53,995
5.2%
171,353
6.0%
REFUNDS
%CHYA
44,521
-1.5%
111,071
-0.8%
61,916
-3.4%
46,270
-4.4%
263,779
-2.2%
43,198
-3.0%
109,483
-1.4%
60,467
-2.3%
45,470
-1.7%
258,618
-2.0%
TOTAL1
%CHYA
141,264
3.0%
151,497
3.0%
83,305
7.5%
215,200
2.1%
591,267
3.3%
146,447
3.7%
157,839
4.2%
89,683
7.7%
221,503
2.9%
615,472
4.1%
ADVANCE PAYMENTS
%CHYA
1
Includes reductions related to credits realized under the Business Energy Tax Credit Program, adjustments for connecting with federal tax law, and increases related to the sunset of tax credits
associated with HB2607.
111
112
37.498
36.496
73.994
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
146.141
142.234
288.375
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
5.829
5.673
11.503
5.851
6.034
11.885
(3 cents)
(87 cents)
Account
(Measure 44)
Tobacco Use
Reduction
132.842
126.864
259.706
145.656
139.102
284.758
162.363
152.520
314.882
177.419
169.867
347.287
189.469
184.403
373.872
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
11.659
11.347
23.005
11.701
12.068
23.769
Public Transit
Counties &
Cities,
3
141.016
134.670
275.687
154.619
147.661
302.280
172.353
161.904
334.258
188.336
180.320
368.656
201.127
195.750
396.877
201.745
208.697
410.442
Total
38.619
40.086
78.705
35.843
37.205
73.047
33.279
34.531
67.809
30.870
32.004
62.873
28.504
29.757
58.261
19.956
27.372
47.328
State GF
29.796
30.928
60.724
27.654
28.705
56.359
25.676
26.642
52.318
23.817
24.692
48.510
21.992
22.959
44.951
15.532
21.487
37.019
(Measure 44)
Health Plan
Voters approv ed 60 cents per pack tax increase dedicated to the Health Plan, effectiv e Nov ember 1, 2002.
The Health Plan receiv es 41.54% of the rev enue from the other tobacco tax collections. The TURA receiv es 4.62 % of collections. The remainder goes to the General Fund.
4. Measure 44 increased the other tobacco tax es from 35% to 65% of the w holesale price, effectiv e 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 receiv e rev enue from a 2 cent per pack tax . The total amount show n equals the total 6 cents per pack dedicated to these entities.
2. Measure 44 created the TURA and funded it w ith a 3 cents per pack tax effectiv e February 1, 1997.
3.314
3.440
6.754
3.076
3.193
6.268
2.856
2.963
5.819
2.649
2.746
5.395
2.446
2.553
4.999
1.727
2.390
4.117
Account
Reduction
Tobacco Use
71.728
74.454
146.182
66.573
69.102
135.675
61.810
64.136
125.946
57.336
59.442
116.778
52.943
55.269
108.212
37.215
51.249
88.464
State Total
September 2011
Other Tobacco Tax Distribution
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 receiv ed 37 cents per pack as of July 1, 1997. The 10 cent tax has ex pired on January 1, 2004.
37.517
39.320
76.837
Distribution Forecast*
2009-10
2010-11
2009-11 Biennium
(22 cents)
State GF
Health Plan
TABLE B.6
Cigarette & Tobacco Tax Distribution (Millions of $)*
Table B.6 Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Distribution 1
Table B.7 Revenue Distribution to Local Governments 1

TABLE B.7
September 2011
Revenue Distribution to Local Governments (Millions of $)

Liquor Apportionment Distribution
Cigarette Tax
Distribution to
Cities, Counties &
City Revenue
Total Liquor
Available for
Revenue Less General Cities and Revenue
Available
Fund 56%
2009-10
186.390
2010-11
167.687
2009-11 Biennium
354.077
2011-12
163.964
91.820
2012-13
170.657
2011-13 Biennium
334.621
2013-14
175.776
2014-15
181.050
2013-15 Biennium
356.826
2015-16
2016-17
Counties
Regular
82.011
26.095
37.278
93.905
73.782
23.476
198.283
155.794
49.571
72.144
95.568
187.388
98.435
101.388
Total
Counties
Public Transit
63.372
18.639
11.701
33.537
57.014
16.769
12.068
70.815
120.386
35.408
23.769
22.955
32.793
55.748
16.396
11.659
75.089
23.892
34.131
58.023
17.066
11.347
147.233
46.847
66.924
113.771
33.462
23.005
77.342
24.609
35.155
59.764
17.578
10.917
79.662
25.347
36.210
61.557
18.105
10.452
199.822
157.003
49.956
71.365
121.321
35.683
21.370
186.481
104.429
82.052
26.107
37.296
63.404
18.648
9.991
192.075
107.562
84.513
26.891
38.415
65.306
19.208
9.385
2015-17 Biennium
378.557
211.992
166.565
52.998
75.711
128.709
37.856
19.376
2017-18
197.838
110.789
87.049
27.697
39.568
67.265
19.784
8.963
2018-19
203.773
114.113
89.660
28.528
40.755
69.283
20.377
8.559
2017-19 Biennium
401.611
224.902
176.709
56.225
80.322
136.548
40.161
17.522
2019-20
209.886
117.536
92.350
29.384
41.977
71.361
20.989
8.174
2020-21
216.183
121.062
95.120
30.266
43.237
73.502
21.618
7.806
2019-21 Biennium
426.069
238.598
187.470
59.650
85.214
144.863
42.607
15.980
104.378
Sharing
For details on cigarette revenues see TABLE B.6 on previous page
113
Table B.8 Track Record for the May 2011 Forecast 1
Table B.8 Track Record for the May 2011 Forecast

(Quarter ending June 30, 2011)
Personal Income Tax

(Millions of dollars)
Withholding
Dollar difference
Forecast Comparison
Actual
Revenues
Latest
Forecast
Year/Year Change
Percent
Difference
Prior
Year
Percent
Change
$1,218.4
$1,214.7
$3.8
0.3%
$1,116.6
$104.9
9.1%
Estimated Payments
Dollar difference
$284.7
$287.5
-$2.9
-1.0%
$265.7
$20.1
7.1%
Final Payments
Dollar difference
$607.6
$632.4
-$24.8
-3.9%
$515.3
$9.1
17.9%
Refunds
Dollar difference
-$340.7
-$386.9
$46.3
-12.0%
-$380.5
$27.1
-10.5%
$1,770.0
$1,747.7
$22.3
1.3%
$1,517.1
$253.0
16.7%
Total Personal Income Tax

Dollar difference
Forecast Comparison
Year/Year Change
Actual
Revenues
$165.4
Latest
Forecast
$184.4
-$19.1
Percent
Difference
-10.3%
Prior
Year
$147.3
$18.0
Percent
Change
12.2%
Final Payments
Dollar difference
$40.8
$55.4
-$14.6
-26.3%
$45.7
-$4.9
-10.7%
Refunds
Dollar difference
-$31.5
-$45.3
$13.8
-30.5%
-$25.8
-$5.7
22.2%
Total Corporate Income Tax

Dollar difference
$174.7
$194.5
-$19.9
-10.2%
$167.3
$7.4
4.4%
Advanced Payments
Dollar difference
Total Income Tax

Corporate and Personal Tax
Actual
Revenues
Forecast Comparison
Latest
Forecast
$1,944.7
$1,942.2
$2.5
Dollar difference
114
Percent
Difference
0.1%
Year/Year Change
Prior
Percent
Year
Change
$1,684.3
$260.4
15.5%
115
23.116
(0.962)
406.568
400.538
(0.130)
(0.310)
(2.457)
(0.987)
(1.184)
(405.753)
(4.407)
0.000
(2.170)
0.000
0.000
0.000
(0.987)
(1.184)
0.000
(6.577)
0.000
(6.577)
(0.000)
(6.577)
0.000
(6.402)
(0.175)
474.389
272.600
743.616
3.648
12.160
12.160
182.401
218.881
41.766
1,218.005
2.000
1,216.005
0.000
1,216.005
0.000
1,087.759
128.245
(5.605)
0.000
(3.513)
0.000
(0.091)
(0.091)
(1.368)
(1.641)
(0.322)
(9.117)
0.000
(9.117)
0.000
(9.117)
0.000
(8.379)
(0.738)
Change from
May-11
564.260
250.500
764.586
3.648
13.268
13.268
199.027
238.832
46.042
1,328.845
2.000
1,326.845
0.000
1,326.845
0.000
1,199.100
127.745
Current
Forecast
2015-17
(12.518)
0.000
(7.890)
0.000
(0.204)
(0.204)
(3.061)
(3.673)
(0.747)
(20.408)
0.000
(20.408)
0.000
(20.408)
0.000
(19.451)
(0.957)
Change from
May-11
6. Includes Debt Serv ice 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, respectiv ely . 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.
645.803
250.500
816.410
3.648
14.602
14.602
219.032
262.838
51.187
1,462.212
2.000
1,460.212
0.000
1,460.212
0.000
1,333.144
127.068
Current
Forecast
2017-19
3. Eighteen percent of proceeds accrue to the Ed. Stability Fund, until the balance equals 5% of GF Rev enues. Thereafter, 15% of proceeds accrue to the Oregon Capital Matching Account.
2. Includes interest earnings on Economic Dev elopment Fund and rev ersions.
1. Includes planned raffles throughout the forecast period.
Note: Some totals may not foot due to rounding.
Ending Balance/Discretionary Resources
670.625
1,101.309
3.600
County Fairs
Other Legilatively Adopted Allocations6

Total Distributions
8.826
10.973
OUS Sports Lottery Account 5
168.258
Parks and Natural Resources Fund4
Gambling Addiction 5
37.119
201.909
County Economic Development
(5.216)
1.361
1,124.425
2.461
0.000
(6.577)
0.245
(6.577)
0.000
(6.402)
1,121.719
Education Stability Fund 3
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
Total Available Resources
Other Resources2
Transfers from Lottery
Beginning Balance
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND
1,121.719
8.000
Admin. Savings
Total Available to Transfer
985.388
Video Lottery
(0.175)
Current
Forecast
Current Change from Change

Forecast
May-11
from LAB
128.331
2013-15
2011-13
Traditional Lottery1
(in millions of dollars)

LOTTERY EARNINGS
Date: 08/23/2011
TABLE B.9
Summary of Lottery Resources
(15.751)
0.000
(9.937)
0.000
(0.257)
(0.257)
(3.853)
(4.624)
(0.946)
(25.689)
0.000
(25.689)
0.000
(25.689)
0.000
(24.644)
(1.045)
Change from
May-11
735.571
250.500
873.448
3.648
16.070
16.070
241.053
289.263
56.844
1,609.019
2.000
1,607.019
0.000
1,607.019
0.000
1,480.459
126.560
Current
Forecast
2019-21
(17.414)
0.000
(10.994)
0.000
(0.284)
(0.284)
(4.261)
(5.113)
(1.051)
(28.408)
0.000
(28.408)
0.000
(28.408)
0.000
(27.367)
(1.041)
Change from
May-11
Sept 2011 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
Deposits
Ending Balance2
Education Stability Fund3

(Millions)
2007-09
September 2011
2009-11
2011-13
2013-15
2015-17
2017-19
2019-21
$0.0
$112.5
$10.4
$46.1
$249.0
$505.3
$805.9
$18.3
$1.3
$0.5
$5.4
$33.6
$59.9
$90.0
$94.3
-$103.4
$35.2
$197.5
$222.6
$240.7
$263.0
$112.5
$10.4
$46.1
$249.0
$505.3
$805.9
$1,158.9
2007-09
2009-11
2011-13
2013-15
2015-17
2017-19
2019-21
Beginning Balance
$178.9
$0.0
$5.1
$15.2
$212.8
$428.4
$669.1
Interest Earnings 4
$17.2
$1.0
$0.5
$4.6
$27.6
$49.2
$71.9
-$178.9
$101.4
$192.4
$197.6
$215.6
$240.7
$195.3
-$17.1
-$12.8
-$4.3
$0.0
-$97.4
-$0.7
-$0.2
-$96.4
-$182.8
-$0.4
-$0.1
-$182.2
-$4.6
-$3.5
-$1.2
$0.0
-$27.6
-$20.7
-$6.9
$0.0
-$49.2
-$36.9
-$12.3
$0.0
-$71.9
-$54.0
-$18.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5.1
$15.2
$212.8
$428.4
$669.1
$864.4
Deposits5
Distributions
Oregon Education Fund
State Scholarship Commission
Withdrawals
Ending Balance
Total Reserves
(Millions)
Ending Balances
Percent of GF Revenues
2007-09
2009-11
2011-13
2013-15
2015-17
2017-19
2019-21
$112.6
$15.5
$61.3
$461.8
$933.7
$1,475.0
$2,023.4
1.0%
0.1%
0.4%
2.9%
5.3%
7.6%
9.4%
Footnotes:
1. Includes transfer of ending General Fund balances, up to 1% of budgeted appropriations, as w ell as priv ate donations. Assumes future appropriations equal to 98.75 percent
of av ailable resources. Includes a w ithdraw al of $225 million in June 2009, and a future w ithdraw al of $115.7 million in the 2009-11 biennium for the State School Fund.
Starting w ith 2013-15, projected corporate income tax es abov e the rate of 6.6% for the biennium are deposited on or before June 30 of each odd-numbered y ear.
2. Av ailable funds in a giv en biennium equal 2/3rds of the beginning balance under current law .
3. Ex cludes funds in the Oregon Grow th and the Oregon Resource and Technology Dev elopment 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 rev enue total. Quarterly contributions are made until the balance ex ceeds the cap.
Includes w ithdraw als of $393.8 million in FY 2008-09 and a future w ithdraw al of $84.3 million in FY 2010-11 for the State School Fund. For FY 2011-12, includes a
w ithdraw al of $100 million to the 2011-12 School Year Subaccount.
116
APPENDIX C:
POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX
Table C.1 Population Forecasts Component of Change 1980-2020 1 .................................. 120

Table C.2 Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000-2020 1 ........................................... 121
Table C.3 Population of Oregon: 1980-2020 1 ..................................................................... 122
Table C.4 Children: Ages 0-4 1 ............................................................................................ 122
Table C.5 School Age Population: Ages 5-17 1 ................................................................... 122
Table C.6 Young Adult Population: Ages 18-24 1 ............................................................... 122
Table C.6 Young Adult Population: Ages 18-24 1 ............................................................... 122
Table C.7 Criminally At Risk Population: Males Ages 15-39 1 .......................................... 123
Table C.8 Prime Wage Earners: Ages 25-44 1 ..................................................................... 123
Table C.9 Older Wage Earners: Ages 45-64 1 ..................................................................... 123
Table C.10 Elderly Population by Age Group 1 ................................................................... 123
117
118
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. Oregons population from 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 age-sex-specific birth and
migration rates to the mid-year population. Further iterations subject the in-and-out migrants to
the same population.
Populations by age-sex detail for the years 2000 through 2009, called intercensal estimates, in
the following tables are developed by OEA based on 2010 Census 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
2011 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 2000. Male and female life expectancies for
the 2000-2020 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 of 75.7 and the female life expectancy of 80.2
in 2000 are projected to improve to 79.6 years for males and 83.8 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 Oregons 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 9,800 to 35,200, averaging 27,300
persons annually. Slowdown in Oregons economy in the recent years resulted in smaller net
migration and slow population growth. Population growth and net migration rates in 2010 were
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 outmigrants are not faring any better either. Hence the potential out-migrants have very limited
destination choices.
119
Table C.1 Population Forecasts Component of Change 1980-2020 1

STATE OF OREGON
POPULATION FORECASTS
COMPONENTS OF CHANGE 1980 -2020
Year
(July 1)
-----1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Population
----------2,641,200
2,668,000
2,664,900
2,653,100
2,666,600
2,672,600
1980-1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
31,400
2,683,500
2,701,000
2,741,300
2,790,600
2,860,400
1985-1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
3,247,100
3,304,300
3,352,400
3,393,900
3,431,100
3,470,400
3,502,600
3,538,600
3,578,900
3,626,900
3,685,200
3,739,400
3,784,200
3,815,800
3,837,300
1.97
1.76
1.46
1.24
1.10
58,300
54,200
44,800
31,600
21,500
3,861,600
3,892,900
3,929,500
3,972,100
4,019,000
24,300
31,300
36,600
42,600
46,901
1.15
0.93
1.03
1.14
1.34
49,000
50,700
52,101
52,500
52,800
45,536
44,995
45,686
45,599
45,892
1.61
1.47
1.20
0.84
0.56
46,946
49,404
49,659
47,687
45,583
13.43
13.32
13.43
13.40
13.34
46,417
48,007
48,482
49,077
49,749
13.20
12.91
12.98
12.81
12.74
50,441
51,191
51,827
52,496
53,180
-61,652
15,929
15,007
14,368
15,943
17,245
-5,029
2,493
25,932
33,357
52,555
78,492
109,308
8.62
8.50
8.77
8.92
8.74
17,738
17,261
14,899
13,923
14,874
50,362
46,039
53,701
46,977
48,226
78,695
245,305
14,428
14,424
15,991
15,340
16,625
48,272
42,776
32,109
26,160
20,575
76,808
169,892
15,602
14,167
15,082
14,878
15,175
23,698
18,033
20,918
25,422
32,825
74,904
120,896
16,175
18,008
17,651
16,305
14,244
42,125
36,192
27,149
15,295
7,256
82,383
128,017
14,464
15,729
15,883
16,190
16,544
9,836
15,571
20,717
26,410
30,356
78,810
102,890
16,863
17,206
17,369
17,518
17,682
32,136
33,494
34,731
34,982
35,119
8.95
8.91
8.62
8.85
8.47
29,934
30,828
30,604
30,721
30,717
8.67
8.84
8.69
8.63
8.53
152,804
12.84
13.31
13.20
12.55
11.91
30,771
31,396
32,008
31,382
31,339
8.42
8.46
8.51
8.26
8.19
156,896
12.06
12.38
12.40
12.42
12.45
241,733
1.22
1.25
1.26
1.26
1.25
28,768
29,201
28,705
29,848
28,909
31,953
32,278
32,599
32,887
33,205
8.30
8.33
8.33
8.32
8.31
162,923
12.47
12.51
12.50
12.51
12.51
33,578
33,984
34,458
34,978
35,498
Net Migration
Number Rate/1000
---------------------5,474
2.06
-23,813
-8.93
-30,139
-11.33
-3,409
-1.28
-9,765
-3.66
93,052
145,431
239,279
0.63
0.81
0.94
1.08
1.18
24,944
25,166
26,543
27,564
27,552
Natural
Increase
------------21,326
20,713
18,339
16,909
15,765
8.74
8.80
9.10
8.93
8.76
131,769
227,708
181,700
4,068,000
4,118,700
4,170,800
4,223,300
4,276,100
43,196
43,625
44,696
45,188
45,534
23,403
23,695
24,752
24,705
24,763
121,318
14.75
14.33
13.69
13.42
13.46
222,239
210,400
2010-2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
39,300
32,200
36,000
40,300
48,000
42,682
42,427
41,442
41,487
42,426
Deaths
Number Rate/1000
----------- -----------21,870
8.24
21,548
8.08
22,039
8.29
22,702
8.54
23,531
8.81
111,690
14.69
14.38
14.38
14.70
14.87
210,464
195,800
2005-2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
62,700
57,200
48,100
41,500
37,200
39,332
38,702
39,120
40,648
42,008
199,810
2.38
2.16
2.29
1.99
2.02
246,700
2000-2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
68,100
63,300
68,600
60,900
63,100
Births
Number Rate/1000
----------- -----------43,196
16.27
42,261
15.85
40,378
15.19
39,611
14.89
39,296
14.72
204,742
0.41
0.65
1.49
1.80
2.50
324,000
1995-2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
10,900
17,500
40,300
49,300
69,800
187,800
2,928,500
2,991,800
3,060,400
3,121,300
3,184,400
1990-1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Population Change
Number Percent
----------- -----------26,800
1.01
-3,100
-0.12
-11,800
-0.44
13,500
0.51
6,000
0.23
8.30
8.30
8.31
8.33
8.35
2015-2020
257,100
259,135
172,497
86,639
170,461
1980-1990
1990-2000
2000-2010
2010-2020
219,200
570,700
406,200
438,800
404,552
432,703
466,987
500,868
233,008
277,200
309,700
335,419
171,544
155,503
157,287
165,449
47,656
415,197
248,913
273,351
-1.88
0.93
9.53
12.06
18.60
17.40
15.55
17.75
15.20
15.30
15.01
13.06
9.65
7.76
6.03
6.87
5.17
5.94
7.14
9.11
11.52
9.75
7.22
4.03
1.90
2.56
4.02
5.30
6.68
7.60
7.95
8.18
8.38
8.33
8.26
Sources: 1980-1999 population - U.S. Census Bureau; 2000-2010 population - intercensal estimates by Office of Economic Analysis based
on 2010 Census and post-censal estimates by Population Research Center, PSU; births and deaths 1980-10: Oregon Center for Health Statistics.
120
Table C.2 Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000-2020 1

Oregon's Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2001-2020 (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
121,675
121,906
124,184
129,054
131,010
133,485
133,684
125,895
129,012
127,880
134,904
134,195
121,417
84,346
59,319
41,396
30,362
27,860
Female
115,723
115,992
119,118
122,030
127,026
130,980
130,977
121,845
125,392
128,667
140,782
142,374
127,810
90,797
65,559
50,049
42,317
52,576
1,911,586
37.4
1,950,014
39.6
Male
127,655
125,693
124,719
126,974
136,797
141,737
141,744
136,303
127,029
129,832
128,431
133,455
131,123
115,033
76,374
49,872
31,603
31,920
Female
121,624
118,847
118,619
121,706
130,797
139,557
139,511
133,756
123,425
126,224
130,214
141,050
141,488
124,105
84,802
58,158
41,276
56,544
2,016,297
38.0
2,051,703
40.1
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
121,666
123,001
123,862
127,406
133,687
132,709
135,980
125,886
130,783
125,575
133,970
134,752
122,873
91,880
62,169
42,345
30,292
28,818
Female
115,633
117,094
118,437
120,776
129,343
130,042
133,807
122,416
126,651
125,229
139,479
143,105
129,589
98,684
68,932
50,628
41,905
53,495
1,927,654
37.6
1,965,246
39.8
Male
129,519
126,317
126,304
127,059
135,948
146,443
142,318
139,306
127,317
131,946
126,462
132,800
132,043
116,821
83,552
52,427
32,534
32,690
Female
123,390
119,263
120,172
121,347
130,414
144,122
139,948
137,255
124,313
127,720
127,057
140,056
142,640
126,255
92,474
61,306
41,923
57,242
2,041,803
38.0
2,076,897
40.1
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
122,075
124,327
123,811
126,299
136,240
132,549
137,476
128,319
131,234
123,891
132,808
134,704
124,707
97,519
66,671
43,725
30,369
29,584
Female
115,900
118,193
118,394
120,092
131,113
130,064
135,631
124,582
127,388
122,418
137,830
142,611
132,827
104,872
73,576
51,919
41,402
54,379
1,946,308
37.7
1,983,192
39.9
Male
131,392
127,228
128,025
127,315
135,404
150,615
143,210
141,375
130,000
132,666
125,029
131,864
132,292
118,903
89,022
56,414
33,780
33,429
Female
125,166
119,936
121,625
121,558
130,368
147,621
141,087
139,615
126,743
128,661
124,442
138,643
142,492
129,757
98,536
65,608
43,148
57,832
2,067,961
38.2
2,102,839
40.2
2012
Total
237,398
237,898
243,303
251,084
258,036
264,465
264,661
247,740
254,404
256,547
275,686
276,569
249,228
175,143
124,877
91,446
72,680
80,436
3,861,600
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
4,068,000
39.0
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
123,280
125,004
124,029
126,231
137,610
134,322
139,737
130,166
130,408
124,089
132,440
133,546
127,259
102,761
70,569
45,720
30,491
30,239
Female
117,344
118,338
118,665
120,225
132,162
131,815
137,866
126,952
126,441
121,594
136,366
141,592
136,735
110,186
77,995
53,870
41,009
55,045
1,967,900
37.8
2,004,200
39.9
Male
133,237
128,764
128,927
127,709
135,655
152,903
145,748
143,992
132,004
131,997
125,382
131,624
131,334
121,554
94,018
59,858
35,470
34,100
Female
126,919
121,659
121,959
121,976
130,879
149,650
143,646
142,179
129,286
127,831
123,731
137,304
141,671
133,770
103,692
69,678
44,893
58,302
2,094,278
38.3
2,129,022
40.2
2013
Total
237,299
240,095
242,299
248,182
263,030
262,752
269,787
248,302
257,434
250,804
273,449
277,858
252,462
190,564
131,101
92,973
72,198
82,312
3,892,900
38.7
2017
Total
249,279
244,540
243,337
248,680
267,595
281,294
281,255
270,060
250,454
256,056
258,646
274,505
272,611
239,138
161,176
108,030
72,879
88,464
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
4,118,700
39.1
121
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
125,249
125,603
123,796
126,784
137,731
137,218
140,618
133,339
128,842
126,387
130,843
133,259
129,461
108,761
73,901
47,715
31,028
31,063
Female
119,342
118,662
118,491
120,879
132,119
134,852
138,676
130,378
124,800
123,403
133,599
141,346
139,326
117,087
81,904
55,704
41,136
55,701
3,929,500
38.8
1,991,597
37.9
2,027,403
40.0
3,815,800
38.0
Male
135,051
130,940
129,627
127,539
136,348
153,371
149,205
145,075
135,278
130,499
127,830
130,135
131,198
123,832
99,628
62,805
37,178
35,168
Female
128,644
123,827
122,368
121,848
131,723
149,956
147,290
143,159
132,833
126,231
125,665
134,606
141,566
136,452
110,288
73,249
46,537
59,149
4,170,800
39.1
2,120,707
38.4
2,155,393
40.3
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
240,624
243,342
242,694
246,456
269,771
266,136
277,603
257,118
256,849
245,683
268,806
275,138
263,994
212,947
148,564
99,589
71,500
85,284
3,972,100
38.9
2019
Total
256,558
247,164
249,651
248,873
265,772
298,236
284,297
280,989
256,742
261,327
249,471
270,507
274,784
248,661
187,558
122,022
76,927
91,261
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
237,975
242,520
242,205
246,391
267,353
262,614
273,108
252,902
258,623
246,309
270,637
277,315
257,534
202,390
140,248
95,644
71,770
83,963
2018
Total
252,909
245,579
246,475
248,406
266,362
290,565
282,267
276,560
251,629
259,666
253,519
272,856
274,683
243,076
176,026
113,732
74,457
89,932
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
244,591
244,265
242,287
247,664
269,850
272,070
279,294
263,717
253,642
249,791
264,443
274,604
268,786
225,848
155,805
103,418
72,163
86,763
4,019,000
38.9
2020
Total
260,155
250,423
250,886
249,685
266,534
302,553
289,394
286,170
261,290
259,828
249,113
268,928
273,005
255,324
197,710
129,535
80,363
92,402
4,223,300
39.2
Total
263,695
254,767
251,995
249,388
268,071
303,327
296,495
288,234
268,111
256,730
253,495
264,742
272,764
260,284
209,915
136,054
83,715
94,317
4,276,100
39.3
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
3,861,600
24,300
0.63%
2012
3,892,900
31,300
0.81%
2013
3,929,500
36,600
0.94%
2014
3,972,100
42,600
1.08%
2015
4,019,000
46,901
1.18%
2016
4,068,000
49,000
1.22%
2017
4,118,700
50,700
1.25%
2018
4,170,800
52,101
1.26%
2019
4,223,300
52,500
1.26%
2020
4,276,100
52,800
1.25%
(July 1)
Oregon's Population and Annual Percent Change, 1950-2013

4,500,000
4,000,000
3.0
3,500,000
1.0
2,500,000
Percent Change
Population
2.0
3,000,000
0.0
2,000,000
Total Population
-1.0
1,500,000
Forecast
1,000,000
Table C.4 Children: Ages 0-4 1

Children: Ages 0-4
Year
4.0
Annual Percent Change
% Change from previous decade/yr.
-2.0
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
Table C.5 School Age Population:

Ages 5-17 1
School Age Population: Ages 5-17
Table C.6 Young Adult Population:

Ages 18-24 1
Young Adult Population: Ages 18-24
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
237,398
-1,060
-0.44%
628,849
-1,892
-0.30%
361,471
1,708
0.47%
2012
237,299
-98
-0.04%
629,662
813
0.13%
363,944
2,473
0.68%
2013
237,975
675
0.28%
631,386
1,724
0.27%
367,083
3,139
0.86%
2014
240,624
2,649
1.11%
633,197
1,811
0.29%
369,067
1,983
0.54%
2015
244,591
3,967
1.65%
634,714
1,517
0.24%
369,352
285
0.08%
2016
249,279
4,689
1.92%
637,008
2,294
0.36%
367,144
-2,208
-0.60%
2017
252,909
3,630
1.46%
640,699
3,692
0.58%
366,123
-1,021
-0.28%
2018
256,558
3,649
1.44%
644,333
3,634
0.57%
367,127
1,004
0.27%
2019
260,155
3,597
1.40%
649,272
4,939
0.77%
368,257
1,130
0.31%
2020
263,695
3,540
1.36%
655,820
6,548
1.01%
368,402
145
0.04%
(July 1)
122
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
Older Wage Earners: Ages 45-64
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
653,129
-362
-0.06%
1,031,271
5,145
0.50%
1,058,029
7,879
0.75%
2012
655,669
2,540
0.39%
1,038,274
7,003
0.68%
1,054,572
-3,457
-0.33%
2013
660,884
5,215
0.80%
1,047,246
8,971
0.86%
1,051,795
-2,777
-0.26%
2014
668,065
7,181
1.09%
1,057,706
10,460
1.00%
1,053,621
1,826
0.17%
2015
675,690
7,625
1.14%
1,068,722
11,016
1.04%
1,057,624
4,002
0.38%
2016
683,556
7,866
1.16%
1,083,063
14,341
1.34%
1,061,818
4,194
0.40%
2017
691,074
7,518
1.10%
1,101,021
17,958
1.66%
1,060,723
-1,094
-0.10%
2018
697,917
6,844
0.99%
1,120,264
19,243
1.75%
1,056,089
-4,634
-0.44%
2019
706,007
8,090
1.16%
1,139,407
19,143
1.71%
1,050,874
-5,215
-0.49%
2020
711,539
5,532
0.78%
1,156,168
16,761
1.47%
1,047,731
-3,143
-0.30%
(July 1)
Table C.10 Elderly Population by Age Group 1
Elderly Population by Age Group

%Change from
%Change from
%Change from
%Change from
Year
previous
previous
previous
previous
Ages 65+
Ages 65-74
Ages 75-84
Ages 85+
(July 1)
decade/yr.
decade/yr.
decade/yr.
decade/yr.
--------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------1980
305,841
--185,863
--91,137
--28,841
--1990
392,369
28.29%
224,772
20.93%
128,813
41.34%
38,784
34.48%
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%
2002
445,890
0.75%
219,614
0.35%
165,109
0.75%
61,167
2.21%
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%
2005
465,089
1.77%
231,926
2.45%
166,077
0.14%
67,087
3.58%
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%
2008
502,959
3.14%
264,201
5.63%
164,354
-0.48%
74,403
2.80%
2009
517,502
2.89%
277,606
5.07%
163,513
-0.51%
76,383
2.66%
2010
532,062
2.81%
289,645
4.34%
164,159
0.40%
78,258
2.45%
2011
544,581
2.35%
300,020
3.58%
164,125
-0.02%
80,436
2.78%
2012
569,148
4.51%
321,665
7.21%
165,170
0.64%
82,312
2.33%
2013
594,015
4.37%
342,638
6.52%
167,414
1.36%
83,963
2.01%
2014
617,885
4.02%
361,511
5.51%
171,090
2.20%
85,284
1.57%
2015
643,998
4.23%
381,653
5.57%
175,582
2.63%
86,763
1.73%
2016
669,687
3.99%
400,314
4.89%
180,909
3.03%
88,464
1.96%
2017
697,223
4.11%
419,102
4.69%
188,190
4.02%
89,932
1.66%
2018
726,429
4.19%
436,219
4.08%
198,949
5.72%
91,261
1.48%
2019
755,335
3.98%
453,034
3.85%
209,899
5.50%
92,402
1.25%
2020
784,285
3.83%
470,199
3.79%
219,769
4.70%
94,317
2.07%
123

Oregon Office of Economic Analysis: Forecast Released On August 26, 2011

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Oregon Office of Economic Analysis: Forecast Released On August 26, 2011

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Oregon Economic and

DAS must receive payment prior to mailing publications.

OFFICE USE ONLY:

Attach payment to completed form and return to:

Department of Administrative Services

Office of Economic Analysis

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 7

ECONOMIC FORECAST ............................................................................................. 15

National Economic Review and Forecast ......................................................................... 15

International Review and Outlook .................................................................................... 21

Western Region ................................................................................................................. 29

Oregon Economic Review and Forecast ........................................................................... 35

REVENUE FORECAST ................................................................................................ 67

2011-13 General Fund Revenues ...................................................................................... 67

Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook ....................................................................... 69

Tax Law Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 69

Forecast Risks ................................................................................................................... 70

Lottery Earnings Forecast ................................................................................................. 71

Overview of Budgetary Reserves ..................................................................................... 72

September 2011 Forecast Addendum Close of Session Forecast .................................. 74

APPENDIX A: ECONOMIC FORECAST DETAIL ............................................................ 77

May 2011 September 2011

Corporate Income Tax

All Other Revenues

1 Reflects cost of cashflow management actions, ex clusiv e of internal borrow ing.

Change from Change from

Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook

Biennium Chg Biennium Chg

15.0% 13,881.0 15.3% 15,692.8 13.1% 17,353.3 10.6% 19,247.5

10.5% 15,932.4 15.1% 17,776.3 11.6% 19,501.8

12,521.7 -2.2% 13,839.4

Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg

10.5% 15,932.4 15.1% 17,776.3 11.6% 19,501.8

National Economic Review and Forecast

Consumer Confidence & Spending

Real Consumer Spending (Left Axis)

Standard and Poor's 500 Index

Excluding Food & Energy

Consumer Price Index

Real GDP, Percent Change

Year-Over-Year Percent Chnage

Real Exchange Rate

Federal Budget (unified) (Bil of $, Fed FY)

Current Account Balance (Bil of $)

Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100)

1,936.1 1,880.5 1,858.6

Money Supply (M2) (Bil of $)

Corporate Profits (Bil of $)

Industrial Production Index (2007=100)

Nonagricultural Employment (Millions)

Personal Income (Bil of $)

GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight

(1,471.3) (1,275.1) (1,374.3)

12,174.9 12,541.0 13,139.9

Nonagricultural Employment (Millions)

Federal Budget (unified) (Bil of $, Fed FY)

Current Account Balance (Bil of $)

Money Supply (M2) (Bil of $)

Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100)

Corporate Profits (Bil of $)

Industrial Production Index (2007=100)

Personal Income (Bil of $)