Oregon Economic and

Revenue Forecast

March 2011
Volume XXXI, No. 1

Kris Kautz, Acting Director John A. Kitzhaber, MD Prepared By:

Department of Administrative Services Governor Office of Economic Analysis
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.

DAS Cashier
155 Cottage St. NE, U-90
Executive Building
Fourth Floor
Salem, OR 97301
(503) 378-3405
INSTRUCTIONS:
Mail or deliver a completed
form along with payment, to
the address above.
PAYMENT:
Cash or check only payable
to Department of
Administrative Services.
Web site:
http://oregon.gov/DAS/OEA
/economic.shtml
Find this form on the Web:
http://oregon.gov/DAS/OEA
/listserv.shtml
OFFICE USE ONLY:
† Date received
___/____/____
† Cash
† Check #________
Revised 11/18/2009
ORDER FORM
ECONOMIC AND REVENUE FORECAST
Please Print
__________________________________________________________
Name
__________________________________________________________
Mailing Address
__________________________________________________________
City State Zip
Please send the following Economic and Revenue Forecasts for 2011:
Order all:
… All (see dates below) $36
Order individually:
… March (releasing February 15) $9
… June (releasing May 11) $9
… September (releasing August 26) $9
… December (releasing November 21) $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: ____________________________________________
Attach payment to completed form and return to:
DAS Cashier
Department of Administrative Services
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.
 Department of Administrative Services

Kris Kautz, Acting Director

Office of Economic Analysis

Tom Potiowsky, State Economist

Mark McMullen, Senior Economist
Kanhaiya Vaidya, Senior Demographer
Damon Bell, Senior Analyst
Josh Lehner, Economic Analyst
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 Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors.
After discussion of the preliminary revenue forecast, the Department of Administrative Services
makes a final revenue forecast using the suggestions and comments made by the reviewing
committee.

Readers who have questions or wish to submit suggestions may contact the Office of Economic
Analysis by telephone at 503-378-3405.

Kris Kautz, Acting Director

Department of Administrative Service

- iii -
- iv -
 ___________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS
___________________________________

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

Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook.................................................................................... 15 

I.  ECONOMIC FORECAST ................................................................................................ 18 

A.  National Economic Review and Forecast ......................................................................... 18 

B.  International Review and Outlook .................................................................................... 24 

C.  Western Region ................................................................................................................. 32 

D.  Oregon Economic Review and Forecast ........................................................................... 38 

II.  REVENUE FORECAST .................................................................................................. 63 

A.  2009-11 General Fund Revenues ...................................................................................... 63 

B.  Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook ....................................................................... 65 

C.  Tax Law Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 66 

D.  Forecast Risks ................................................................................................................... 67 

E.  Lottery Earnings Forecast ................................................................................................. 69 

APPENDIX A:  ECONOMIC FORECAST DETAIL ................................................................ 73 

APPENDIX B:  REVENUE FORECAST DETAIL ................................................................... 98 

APPENDIX C:   POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX ...................................... 113 

-v-
- vi -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

March 2011

Oregon Economic Forecast

The fourth quarter of 2010 brings the year to a positive end. The preliminary estimate of the
fourth quarter job gain in Oregon is 1.3 percent at an annualized rate. Thus 2010 finishes as
expected, with recovery in jobs but at a slow rate compared to past recoveries. On a year-over-
year (Y/Y) basis, jobs increased 0.7 percent, the first positive Y/Y growth since the first quarter
of 2008. The unemployment rate remained stubbornly stuck at around 10.6 percent throughout
2010.

The unemployment rate for Oregon sits at 10.6 percent for December, essentially unchanged for
the past fourteen months. The unemployment rate tends to be one of the last measurements to
improve as the economy enters recovery.

Finally, we are seeing more sectors with positive job growths. Manufacturing still had job losses
lead by wood products and transportation equipment. Strong job gains in the service sectors
were lead by retail trade, information, professional and business services, and educational
services. Job losses were less prevalent in the service sectors with construction, wholesale trade,
transportation, warehousing, and utilities, and government recording the job losses.

On a monthly basis, December 2010 employment is 11,900 above the year ago level in
December 2009. Although in the right direction, this job increase is very weak. We will not
have the advantage of seeing the yearly benchmarking of the job data from the Oregon
Employment Department by the time this report is issued. It’s possible that the job numbers,
once revised, may show a bit more growth last year.

Warnings of a double-dip recession are heard less on the streets. The US economy got two
insurance cards played to keep the recovery going. Federal stimulus policy not only extended
the Bush tax cuts for two years, but also cut employee payroll tax rates by two percent and
allowed bonus depreciation expensing into 2011 and 2012. From the Federal Reserve, we have
QE II (Quantitative Easing Part II) with the $600 billion Treasury purchases expected to continue
through mid-2011.

Oregon still faces risks which are national and international in scope. With strong trading ties to
China, any faltering due to inflation or asset bubbles could negatively impact Oregon exports.
Housing remains one of the key risks for this year as the oversupply still has room to decline.
Oregon will also benefit if business outlooks improve and our traded industries find greater
demand for their goods and services. Stronger growth in consumer spending will spill over into
Oregon businesses with further expansions and job hiring.

Although the outlook is mixed with both downside and upside risks, the addition of the upside
risks is a welcome change. The forecast continues with a relatively “jobless” recovery where
employment rises slowly in 2011 before picking up steam in 2012.

7
OEA (Office of Economic Analysis) forecasts an increase of 1.8 percent in total employment in
the first and second quarters of 2011. The second half of the year will marginally be stronger and
just above 2.0 percent growth in 2012.

The year average for 2011 is an employment increase of 1.4 percent. Although the quarterly job
growth is greater than this, the slow growth is not strong enough to boost the yearly average
higher than 1.4 percent. Job growth is projected to continue in 2012 at 2.0 percent and 2.1
percent in 2013.

The wood products industry appears to have reached a bottom and the climb out will take some
time. The wood products industry is projected to lose 2.1 percent of its jobs in 2011. The
outlook improves with job growth of 4.3 percent in 2012 and 6.4 percent in 2013. Although the
outlook has relatively strong employment growth, the job level in 2013 is still well below the job
level in 2008.

Computer and electronic product sector will see mild growth in 2011, but not enough to lift the
yearly average into positive territory. The computer and electronic product sector is projected to
lose jobs at a rate of 1.2 percent in 2011. Job growth will turn positive at the end of 2011 leading
to an annual growth rate of 2.2 percent in 2012 and 3.1 percent in 2013.

The transportation equipment sector is expected to lose 53 percent of its employment from 2006
to 2011 on an annual average basis. This sector is still expected to be down 45.4 percent in 2017
from its recent high employment in 2006. The outlook for the transportation equipment sector is
further jobs losses of 1.7 percent in 2011. The job outlook improves with gains of 3.3 percent in
2012 and 3.8 percent in 2013.

The metals and machinery sector managed to add a small amount of employment at the end of
2010. For 2011, this sector should be adding jobs at the rate of 1.6 percent. Job growth
improves with rates of 3.8 percent in 2012 and 3.7 percent in 2013.

Other durables have been adding workers though most of 2010. This sector includes industries
involved in electrical equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing, furniture and cabinet
making, and other types of manufacturing such as medical and dental equipment. This sector is
projected to have job growth of 4.3 percent in 2011, 3.3 percent in 2012, and 0.9 percent in 2013.

Food processing, while highly seasonal, has continued to add jobs through the recession on an
annual basis. This sector is expected to be relatively flat in 2011 with a slight loss of jobs at 0.5
percent. Growth continues with 1.5 percent in 2012 and 1.1 percent in 2013.

Other nondurables which include paper and allied products is projected to have job increase of
2.2 percent in 2011, 1.1 percent in 2012, and 0.7 percent in 2013.

Constructions jobs should finally turn up in 2011. Construction jobs are expected mildly
increase by 0.6 percent in 2011 and 2012 before picking up steam with growths of 6.0 percent in
2013.

Trade, transportation, and utilities sector lost jobs in 2010 at a rate of 0.4 percent. This sector is
projected to gain jobs at 1.6 percent in 2011, 2.9 percent in 2012, and 2.4 percent in 2013. Retail

8
employment declined in 2010 at a slight 0.1 percent and will decrease in 2011 at a 1.2 percent
rate with further increases in 2012 with 1.6 percent growth and 1.9 percent in 2013. Wholesale
trade jobs were down in 2010, and are expected to rise 2.0 percent in 2011, followed by 4.1
percent in 2012. Growth of 2.5 percent in projected for 2013.

The information sector, which includes traditional publishers such as newspapers and publishers
of software, added jobs at a rate of 2.9 percent in 2010. This sector had a strong second half of
2010 which is projected to continue into 2011 with growth of 7.3 percent. Job growth should
continue at 3.0 percent in 2012, and then level off with a slight decrease of 0.3 percent in 2013.

The financial activities sector is starting to shake off the after effects of the financial crisis and
recession. The fourth quarter of 2010 was this first positive job gains since the first quarter of
2007. This sector will have job growth of 2.4 percent in 2011, 3.6 percent in 2012, and 1.7
percent in 2013.

Professional and business services lost employment by 1.4 percent in 2010, even though is
finished the year on a strong job gain. This sector is expected to rebound in 2011 with projected
gains of 4.3 percent. The industry will continue to show job gains with 2.1 percent in 2012
followed by 4.3 percent growth in 2013.

Education and health services have survived the downturn better than any other sector (except
for food processors). Job growth was relatively weak at 0.4 percent in 2010 but still quite an
accomplishment for such a large employment sector. Job growth is expected to be 2.3 percent in
2011, 2.8 percent in 2012, and 1.7 percent in 2013. Private education is forecast to increase job
growth to 3.7 percent in 2011 with growth tapering off at 1.1 percent in 2012 and then flat with a
slight decline of 0.1 percent in 2013. The growth rate in the health services industry is projected
to be 2.1 percent in 2011, 3.0 percent in 2012, and 2.0 percent in 2013.

Leisure and hospitality is starting to recover from the decrease in household discretionary
spending during the recession. Leisure and hospitality is forecasted to increase jobs by the rate
of 2.0 percent in 2011, 1.9 percent in 2012, and 1.3 percent in 2013.

The government sector employment increased by 0.4 percent in 2010. Government employment
typically lags during recessionary times and is expected to lose jobs at a rate of 2.3 percent in
2011. Job growth will be flat with a decline of 0.1 percent in 2012, increasing to 0.7 percent in
2013. State and local government are expected to shed jobs in 2011 as they attempt to balance
budgets.

Population growth in the state is forecasted to increase 0.7 percent in 2011, and grow at a slightly
faster rate in 2012 at 0.9 percent and 1.0 percent in 2013.

Forecast Risks

Fears of a double-dip recession are fading. Recently, IHS Global Insight has changed their
probabilities of their optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. They now have the chances of the
optimistic scenario higher than the chances of the pessimistic scenario. The continuation of the
Federal Reserve QEII (Quantitative Easing Part II) and fiscal policy extensions of tax cuts, bonus
depreciation, and unemployment benefits will help boost activity in 2011. Near term economic

9
signals point to continued economic growth in 2011 and beyond. Although this year looks very
promising, the risk of headwinds still lingers on the horizon.

Oregon’s economy generally follows the U.S. and same issues apply. Wood products
employment has been decreasing over time and is impacted by both cyclical and structural
factors. Transportation equipment manufacturing appears to have structural factors and the RV
sector will not likely come back to its former self as the recovery continues. Will electrical car
making possibly replace these lost jobs? The Intel announcement has very positive short term
improvements for construction and high tech jobs but also has longer term implications for high
tech to play a major role in the Oregon economy. Intel is also a firm that could expand almost
anywhere it chooses in the world. Its expansion plans in Oregon is in many ways a statement
that this state has many advantages for businesses to locate and expand. Only time will tell if
these intangibles will play out in real positive numbers for the state.

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 are approaching $100 a barrel. 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 through this
off track. Then again, if this is only a change in relative prices and wages costs do not
accelerate, this commodity inflation could be short lived.

• The temporary return of federal timber payments to Oregon counties. Included in the federal
bailout was a provision to reinstate federal timber payments for four years. Oregon counties
will receive $254 million, down from the previous $282 million level and will be phased out
over the four year window, through 2011. 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.

10
• 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 Egypt and other parts of the Middle East, and commodity
price spikes and inflationary pressures in emerging markets. 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 with 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 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

Oregon’s population count on April 1, 2010 was 3,831,074. Oregon gained 409,550 persons
between the years 2000 and 2010. The population growth between 2000 and 2010 censes was
12.0 percent, down from 20.4 percent growth between 1990 and 2000 censuses. 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 the 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 slow pace of recovery, Oregon’s population is expected to continue a slow pace of growth in
the near future. Based on the current forecast, Oregon’s population will reach 4.14 million in the
year 2017 with an annual rate of growth of 1.1 percent between 2010 and 2017.

Oregon’s economic condition heavily influences the state’s population growth. Its economy
determines the ability to retain local work force as well as attract job seekers from national and
international labor market. As Oregon’s total fertility rate remains below the replacement level
and deaths continue to rise due to ageing population, long-term growth comes 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

11
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 is further down to 30 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 73 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 2010-2017. It will also reflect demographics impacted by the depression era birth cohort
combined with diminished migration of the working age population and elderly retirees. After a
period of slow growth during the early years of the current decade, the elderly population (65+)
has picked up a faster pace of growth and will surge as the baby-boom generation starts to enter
this age group. The average annual growth of the elderly population will be 4.2 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 for some years during the forecast
period, even exceeding 6 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 recovery starts after that year. The young adult population
(aged 18-24) will decline by 0.9 percent between 2010 and 2017, reversing from an average
annual rate of 0.9 percent growth experienced between 2000 and 2010. Although the slow
growth of college-age population (age 18-24) 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 2014.
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 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 decline in size. 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 1.0 percent annual average rate during the forecast horizon.

12
Revenue Forecast

General Fund Revenues

The recovery in General Fund tax collections is sticking to script. Growth among Oregon’s
primary revenue sources has now turned the corner, with personal income tax collections finally
growing at a rate consistent with their long-run historical average. For the next several months,
overall collections are expected to expand at very strong rates as personal income tax revenues
begin to climb out of the large hole that the recession put them in.

The outlook for the 2009-11 biennium is virtually unchanged from the December 2010 forecast.
Uncertainty remains, however, as the bulk of year-end tax filings will be processed in the coming
weeks. There is potential for an upside surprise among April personal income tax filings, while
the risks facing corporate income tax payments lay predominantly on the downside.

For fiscal year 2012 and beyond, the revenue outlook has changed somewhat from December,
due to an evolving policy landscape and changes in the underlying economic forecast. Generally,
assumptions about growth in personal and business income have become stronger in the later
years of the forecast, leading to more expected revenue over the extended forecast horizon.
However, taxable corporate profits are now expected to be weaker over the next several months,
which together with changes to the structure of taxes, have led to a more pessimistic overall
revenue outlook for the 2011-13 biennium.

Many of the tax policy changes that have contributed to the revised outlook for 2011-13 and
beyond are not set in stone. Tax policies enacted during the last legislative session are now being
folded into the baseline revenue outlook. Changes to some of these laws are now being
considered by policymakers. In particular, sunset dates for many large tax credits were scheduled
last session. As credits are allowed to disappear, considerable support is lent to the revenue
outlook in the outer years of the forecast. Similarly, there is a significant revenue impact
associated with reconnecting to federal tax laws in 2011. 1

1
For current information on tax credit sunsets, contact the Joint Committee on Tax Credits
(http://www.leg.state.or.us/committees/). House Bill 2535 deals with reconnecting to federal tax law in 2011.

13
The forecast for General Fund revenues for 2009-11 is $12,429 million. This represents an
increase of $3.3 million from the December 2010 forecast. The forecast for the 2009-11
biennium is now $1,146 million below the Close of Session forecast. The prolonged plunge in
personal income taxes, particularly those related to nonwage forms of income, accounts for most
of the decrease relative to the Close of Session forecast. Personal income tax collections were
revised upward relative to the December forecast. However, gains in personal income tax
collections were largely offset by a downward revision to the near-term outlook for corporate
income taxes. After incorporating the use of Rainy Day Funds and other legislative transfers,
total available resources amount to $12,537 million.

Table R.1
2009-11 General Fund Forecast Summary
2009 COS December 2010 March 2011 Change from Change from
(Millions) Forecast Forecast Forecast Prior Forecast COS Forecast

Structural Revenues
Personal Income Tax $11,545.7 $10,443.0 $10,458.2 $15.2 -$1,087.5

Corporate Income Tax $831.6 $855.2 $841.3 -$13.9 $9.7

All Other Revenues $1,198.4 $1,128.0 $1,130.0 $2.0 -$68.4

Gross GF Revenues $13,575.7 $12,426.2 $12,429.4 $3.3 -$1,146.2

Administrative Actions 1 -$43.7 -$15.7 -$15.7 $0.0 $28.0

Legislative Actions $0.0 $123.0 $123.0 $0.0 $123.0

Net Available Resources $13,532.0 $12,533.5 $12,536.7 $3.3 -$995.3

Confidence Intervals
67% Confidence +/- 1.7% $211.3 $12.22B to $12.64B
95% Confidence +/- 3.4% $422.6 $12.01B to $12.85B

1 Reflects cost of cashflow management actions, exclusive of internal borrowing.

Personal Income Tax

On a cash basis, personal income tax collections totaled $1,275.0 million for the second quarter
of fiscal year 2011, $42.7 million above the latest forecast. Withholding receipts of $1,196.2
million came in $3.2 million below the forecast. Estimated and final payments exceed the
forecast by $22.1 million and $8.7 million respectively. Refunds were $15.2 million smaller than
expected. Compared to the year-ago level, total personal income tax collections were up 6.1
percent.

The forecast for total personal income tax receipts during the current biennium was increased
$15.2 million from the December forecast. This was largely due to the strength of recent
collections. Under the updated outlook, personal income tax collections during the current
biennium will be 3.6% lower than in 2007-09.

14
Corporate Income Tax

Corporate income taxes equaled $106.9 million for the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, $11.0
million lower than the December forecast. Quarterly corporate receipts were 111% higher than
figures from a year ago.

Corporate profits, and associated tax collections, have risen rapidly throughout much of the
current biennium, and remain near record highs. The corporate income tax forecast for the
biennium as a whole is now $9.7 million above the Close of Session forecast. If this outlook is
realized, collections would fall below the 2% kicker threshold, leading to no corporate kicker
credits to be claimed during the 2011-13 biennium.

Non-income Tax Sources of Revenue

All other revenues will total $1,130 million for the biennium, an increase of $2.0 million from
the prior forecast. Most of the forecast changes for non-income tax sources of revenue were
technical in nature. Aside from technical changes, the outlook for tobacco taxes has been revised
upward in light of strong demand, and the forecast for interest earnings has been revised
downward in keeping with the small size of reserve funds and persistently low interest rates.

Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook

Table R.2 exhibits the long-run forecast for General Fund revenues through the 2015-17
biennium. General Fund revenues will total $13,774 million in 2011-13, an increase of 10.8
percent from the prior period, and $81 million below the December forecast. In 2013-15, revenue
growth will accelerate to 17.1%, followed by 10.1% growth in 2015-17. Revenues in both 2013-
15 ($400 million) and 2015-17 ($324 million) are expected to be significantly larger than in the
December forecast.

The forecast for total personal income tax receipts during the 2011-13 biennium was reduced by
$19.7 million from the December forecast. The revenue impacts of changes to the tax structure
are largely responsible. The most recent estimates of the revenue effects of reconnecting to the
federal tax code in fiscal year 2011 suggest personal income tax collections will be reduced by
more than $50 million during the biennium. The bulk of this impact is the result of bonus
depreciation and section 179 expensing provisions in the federal tax code. Under the updated
outlook, personal income tax collections during the 2011-13 biennium will be 15.1% higher than
in 2009-11.

The forecast for total personal income tax receipts during the 2013-15 and 2015-17 budget
periods was revised upward significantly from the December forecast ($227.4 million, and
$112.6 million, respectively). These changes were due to a somewhat stronger economic outlook
and large estimated revenue impacts for the scheduled expiration of income tax credits. Under
the updated outlook, personal income tax collections will increase by 17.0% during the 2013-15
biennium, followed by 11.0% growth in 2015-17.

The forecast for total corporate income tax receipts during the 2011-13 biennium was reduced by
$68.3 million from the December forecast. A large downward revision to the economic forecast

15
for underlying business profits, together with the revenue impacts of changes to the tax structure,
accounted for the change to the outlook. Although profit margins are expected to remain healthy
for most businesses, they will narrow somewhat going forward as firms incur additional costs as
they spend more on workers and equipment. The most recent estimates of the revenue effects of
reconnecting to the federal tax code in fiscal year 2011 suggest corporate income tax collections
will be reduced by around $50 million during the biennium. The bulk of this impact is the result
of bonus depreciation and section 179 expensing provisions in the federal tax code. Under the
updated outlook, corporate income tax collections during the 2011-13 biennium will be 6.7%
higher than in 2009-11.

The forecast for corporate income tax receipts during the 2013-15 and 2015-17 budget periods
was also revised upward significantly from the December forecast ($160.6 million, and $194.9
million, respectively). These changes were due to large estimated revenue impacts for the
scheduled expiration of income tax credits, and a strong estimated response to Measure 67
reforms in the recent collections data. Under the updated outlook, corporate income tax
collections will increase by 28.8% during the 2013-15 biennium, followed by 3.4% growth in
2015-17.

Table R.2
General Fund Revenue Forecast Summary (Millions of Dollars, Current Law)

Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

2007-09 % 2009-11 % 2011-13 % 2013-15 % 2015-17 %
Revenue Source Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg

Personal Income Taxes 10,090.6 -8.6% 10,458.2 3.6% 12,032.7 15.1% 14,077.5 17.0% 15,621.5 11.0%

Corporate Income Taxes 684.5 -18.9% 841.3 22.9% 897.9 6.7% 1,156.2 28.8% 1,195.3 3.4%

All Others 948.9 10.6% 1,130.0 19.1% 843.8 -25.3% 898.1 6.4% 949.0 5.7%

Total General Fund 11,723.9 -8.0% 12,429.4 6.0% 13,774.4 10.8% 16,131.8 17.1% 17,765.9 10.1%

Kicker Distributions 1,084.2 - - - -

Total Revenue 12,808.1 0.5% 12,429.4 -3.0% 13,774.4 10.8% 16,131.8 17.1% 17,765.9 10.1%

Other taxes include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Severance Tax, Western Oregon Severance Tax and Amusement Device Tax.
Commercial Fish Licenses & Fees and Pari-mutual Receipts are included in Other Revenues

16
17
I. ECONOMIC FORECAST

January 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, January 2011. This
publication summarizes Global Insight’s 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

Looking Up

The U.S. economy is steadily improving with stronger signs for the private-sector. Business and
consumer confidence are up as are employment and consumer spending. The recovery is starting
to move to the desired “self-sustaining” stage. Fiscal policy will provide a boost to 2011 that
extend beyond keeping the Bush tax cuts for another two years. Employee payroll taxes will be
cut by two-percentage points in 2011 along with full expensing of depreciation this year and 50
percent bonus depreciation in 2012. IHS Global Insight has raised their GDP growth forecast
from 2.4 percent to 3.2 percent for 2011 and a slight lowering of 2012 to 2.9 percent as the
stimulus effects fade.

News on the Economy Continues to Improve. On the business side, surveys continue to point
to improvement. Hiring is picking up and initial insurance claims are lower, and though the
initial November labor report was disappointing, both November and October were revised up
and December job numbers were slightly more than 100,000. On the household side, consumer
confidence is trending higher even though the reading for December was weak. IHS Global
Insight forecasts real consumer spending to grow 4.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010
compared to the 2.4 percent growth in the third. Holiday retail sales appear to up more than 5
percent on a year-over-year basis in nominal dollars. Consumers are still somewhat cautious so
spending will still be somewhat restrained with consumer spending growth of 3.2 percent in
2011, up from 1.8 percent in 2010.

Solid Fourth Quarter GDP Growth. Fourth quarter growth is expected at 3.7 percent
[advanced estimate for fourth quarter real GDP is 3.2 percent], better than the 2.6 percent in the
third. Inventory accumulation will not add to growth but a drop in imports will help the foreign
trade sector boost up growth.

Not Quite Firing on All Cylinders. The housing sector remains as a key downside risk for
2011. An oversupply still exists and housing prices continued to decline in the second half of
2010. The tax credit program for house buying mainly shifted home sales rather than increase
them over time. House prices are expected to further decline by 5 percent in 2011. Although

18
housing remains the greatest risk against the recovery, the impact on the economy is not as
strong today as in the past and chances of re-igniting the financial crisis are not as great.

Better Balance Growth in 2011. The inventory cycle contribution to growth in 2010 will give
way to a more balanced base of growth in 2011. Final sales should come in at 3.2 percent. Along
with stronger consumer spending, business spending on equipment should have another good
year helped by tax incentives related to depreciation expensing. The foreign sector will add to
growth through continued improvement in emerging market economies, a weaker US dollar, and
the slowing of the inventory cycle which will slow the growth of imports.

Fed Expected to Stay the Course on QE II. Although the economy is improving and new fiscal
stimulus is set for the next two years, the Fed will continue with its $600 billion Treasury
purchases through mid-2011. Inflation will slightly pick up but not at an alarming rate so the Fed
will not move to raise interest rates until 2012.

19
 TABLE N. 1
U.S. Forecast Summary 2008-2017 (Jan 2011 U.S. Forecast, Global Insight)

Quarterly Annual
2010:4 2011:1 2011:2 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight 13,400 13,526 13,631 13,229 12,881 13,253 13,673 14,065 14,500 14,980 15,427 15,856 16,269
% Ch 3.7 3.8 3.1 0.0 (2.6) 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.6

Personal Income (Bil of $) 12,712 12,954 13,096 12,391.2 12,174.9 12,542.9 13,162.0 13,598.3 14,229.3 15,023.9 15,854.3 16,727.2 17,569.8
% Ch 3.8 7.8 4.5 4.0 (1.7) 3.0 4.9 3.3 4.6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.0

Nonagricultural Employment (Millions) 130.6 131.1 131.7 136.8 130.9 130.3 132.1 134.7 137.5 140.3 142.6 144.6 146.3
% Ch 0.7 1.5 2.0 (0.6) (4.3) (0.5) 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.1

Unemployment Rate 9.7 9.5 9.4 5.8 9.3 9.7 9.3 8.7 8.1 7.3 6.7 6.3 6.0
% Ch 5.7 (6.2) (7.3) 26.2 59.5 4.2 (3.8) (6.0) (7.9) (9.0) (8.0) (6.1) (4.8)

Industrial Production Index (2007=100) 94.0 95.0 95.8 96.7 87.7 92.6 96.1 99.4 103.3 107.3 111.3 114.7 118.0
% Ch 1.8 4.3 3.3 (3.3) (9.3) 5.6 3.8 3.4 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.1 2.9

20
Corporate Profits (Bil of $) 1,917.1 1,518.8 1,488.5 1,333.2 1,316.7 1,831.0 1,491.2 1,526.0 1,866.1 1,981.5 1,903.0 1,909.8 1,910.5
% Ch 16.4 (60.6) (7.8) (23.3) (1.2) 39.1 (18.6) 2.3 22.3 6.2 (4.0) 0.4 0.0

Money Supply (M2) (Bil of $) 8,801 9,001 9,178 8,109 8,519 8,801 9,501 10,084 10,626 11,169 11,641 12,207 12,801
% Ch 7.0 9.4 8.1 8.6 5.1 3.3 8.0 6.1 5.4 5.1 4.2 4.9 4.9

Prime Rate 3.25 3.25 3.25 5.09 3.25 3.25 3.25 4.28 6.43 6.62 7.68 7.75 7.75
% Ch 0.0 0.0 0.0 (36.8) (36.1) 0.0 0.0 31.8 50.2 3.0 16.0 0.9 (0.0)

Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100) 219.5 220.2 220.9 215.2 214.5 218.1 221.5 225.7 230.2 235.3 240.6 245.7 250.8
% Ch 2.7 1.4 1.3 3.8 (0.3) 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1

Federal Budget (unified) (Bil of $, Fed FY) (459.4) (472.6) (155.2) (680.5) (1,471.3) (1,365.6) (1,298.1) (981.6) (694.1) (661.8) (678.6) (782.1) (831.3)

Current Account Balance (Bil of $) (476.2) (504.2) (540.5) (668.9) (378.4) (478.6) (558.0) (559.0) (593.2) (610.2) (623.2) (622.4) (591.9)
% Ch (23.35) 25.69 32.08 (6.9) (43.4) 26.5 16.6 0.2 6.1 2.9 2.1 (0.1) (4.9)

Population (Millions) 311.96 312.71 313.46 305.17 307.84 310.83 313.84 316.88 319.94 323.04 326.16 329.30 332.46
% Ch 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
 TABLE N. 1
U.S. Forecast Summary 2008-2017 (Jan 2011 U.S. Forecast, Global Insight)

Quarterly Annual
2010:4 2011:1 2011:2 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight 13,400 13,526 13,631 13,229 12,881 13,253 13,673 14,065 14,500 14,980 15,427 15,856 16,269
% Ch 3.7 3.8 3.1 0.0 (2.6) 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.6

Personal Income (Bil of $) 12,712 12,954 13,096 12,391.2 12,174.9 12,542.9 13,162.0 13,598.3 14,229.3 15,023.9 15,854.3 16,727.2 17,569.8
% Ch 3.8 7.8 4.5 4.0 (1.7) 3.0 4.9 3.3 4.6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.0

Nonagricultural Employment (Millions) 130.6 131.1 131.7 136.8 130.9 130.3 132.1 134.7 137.5 140.3 142.6 144.6 146.3
% Ch 0.7 1.5 2.0 (0.6) (4.3) (0.5) 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.1

Unemployment Rate 9.7 9.5 9.4 5.8 9.3 9.7 9.3 8.7 8.1 7.3 6.7 6.3 6.0
% Ch 5.7 (6.2) (7.3) 26.2 59.5 4.2 (3.8) (6.0) (7.9) (9.0) (8.0) (6.1) (4.8)

Industrial Production Index (2007=100) 94.0 95.0 95.8 96.7 87.7 92.6 96.1 99.4 103.3 107.3 111.3 114.7 118.0
% Ch 1.8 4.3 3.3 (3.3) (9.3) 5.6 3.8 3.4 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.1 2.9

21
Corporate Profits (Bil of $) 1,917.1 1,518.8 1,488.5 1,333.2 1,316.7 1,831.0 1,491.2 1,526.0 1,866.1 1,981.5 1,903.0 1,909.8 1,910.5
% Ch 16.4 (60.6) (7.8) (23.3) (1.2) 39.1 (18.6) 2.3 22.3 6.2 (4.0) 0.4 0.0

Money Supply (M2) (Bil of $) 8,801 9,001 9,178 8,109 8,519 8,801 9,501 10,084 10,626 11,169 11,641 12,207 12,801
% Ch 7.0 9.4 8.1 8.6 5.1 3.3 8.0 6.1 5.4 5.1 4.2 4.9 4.9

Prime Rate 3.25 3.25 3.25 5.09 3.25 3.25 3.25 4.28 6.43 6.62 7.68 7.75 7.75
% Ch 0.0 0.0 0.0 (36.8) (36.1) 0.0 0.0 31.8 50.2 3.0 16.0 0.9 (0.0)

Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100) 219.5 220.2 220.9 215.2 214.5 218.1 221.5 225.7 230.2 235.3 240.6 245.7 250.8
% Ch 2.7 1.4 1.3 3.8 (0.3) 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1

Federal Budget (unified) (Bil of $, Fed FY) (459.4) (472.6) (155.2) (680.5) (1,471.3) (1,365.6) (1,298.1) (981.6) (694.1) (661.8) (678.6) (782.1) (831.3)

Current Account Balance (Bil of $) (476.2) (504.2) (540.5) (668.9) (378.4) (478.6) (558.0) (559.0) (593.2) (610.2) (623.2) (622.4) (591.9)
% Ch (23.35) 25.69 32.08 (6.9) (43.4) 26.5 16.6 0.2 6.1 2.9 2.1 (0.1) (4.9)

Population (Millions) 311.96 312.71 313.46 305.17 307.84 310.83 313.84 316.88 319.94 323.04 326.16 329.30 332.46
% Ch 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Graph N. 1
U.S. ECONOMIC HISTORY AND FORECAST

REAL GDP, PERCENT CHANGE INTEREST RATES

2005 DOLLARS, CHAIN WEIGHTED 12
5 Prime 3 Month Treasury 10 Year Govt
10
4
7.216 2.6362 3 2.9117 4 5 6.0322 6.3875 6.4017 6.6506 6.8659 6.9541
3
8
2 2.0 -0.8 ## -0.5 # ## 2.3 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6

Percent
Percent Change

1 6

0
19962.249
1998 2.05
2000 2002 2.01 1.96
2004 2006 2008 1.78
2010 1.492014
2012 ## 1.24 # ## 4
2016 1.01 1.25 1.22 1.19 1.19 1.12 1.10 1.14
-1 6.453 6.80 7.68 6.11 6.64 5.87 ## 7.22 # ## 2.91 4.29 5.19 6.03 6.39 6.40 6.65 6.87
3.207902 4.18 4.07 3.98 3.51 1.67 ### 2.02 ## ### 2 -0.51 1.08 2.04 2.33 2.16 1.78 1.55 1.56
-2
3.97893 4.69 5.27 3.88 4.60 4.75 ### 4.56 ## ### 1.17 2.82 2.86 3.55 3.83 3.71 3.79 3.96
0.305983 3.84 -3 4.18 3.62 4.42 0.70 ### 0.13 ## ### -3.43 -1.19 0.78 1.07 0.70 0.40 0.44 0.82
2.635818 3.90 2.71 3.53 4.30 4.17 ### 3.74 ## ### 0 2.00 3.58 2.92 3.39 3.24 2.81 2.68 2.76
-4 4.073928 4.96 5.31 5.59 5.95 7.05 ### 7.96 ## ### 96:197:198:199:100:101:102:103:104:105:106:107:108:109:110:111:112:113:114:115:1
3.19 4.47 5.00 5.61 5.85 5.86 6.05 17:016.25
1 6:01
1.652886 2.87 2.96 3.37 3.93 5.92 ### 5.28 ## ### 1.44 3.00 2.68 3.14 3.30 3.18 3.21 3.36
1.953591 3.10 2.65 2.04 2.56 2.57 ### 2.17 ## ### -0.11 1.19 1.71 1.82 1.63 1.31 1.07 1.07
1.294445
UNEMPLOYMENT 1.21
RATE 1.19 1.17 1.20 1.17 ### 1.12 ## ### 0.94 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82
HOUSING STARTS
-0.14484 1.48 1.29 -0.05 1.05 0.82 ### -0.34 ## ### -4.69 -1.46 1.15 -0.14 -0.75 -1.09 -0.92 -0.54
11
4.556057 5.11 4.48 4.40 3.87 1.72 ### 2.34 ## ### 0.25 1.59 2.46 2.80 2.61 2.13 1.78 1.68
2.0
10 2.653234 3.87 3.39 2.86 3.32 3.23 ### 2.60 ## ### 0.51 1.85 2.06 2.39 2.22 1.85 1.53 1.49
31.8 33.4 37.0 41.7 46.7 47.7 ### 47.8 ## ### 41.4 42.6 44.6 45.3 45.7 46.2 46.7 47.4
9
37.6 38.7 37.7 37.2 37.9 36.8 ### 35.7 ## ### 31.5 30.9 31.1 31.3 31.4 31.5 31.6 31.6
8 1.5
7
Millions
Percent

6
5 1.0
Total
4
Single Unit
3 Multiple Unit
0.5
2
1
0 0.0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 96:197:198:199:100:101:102:103:104:105:106:107:108:109:110:111:112:113:114:115:11 6:01
17:01

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX REAL EXCHANGE RATE

ALL ITEMS VS. ALL ITEMS LESS FOOD & ENERGY

125%
6

5 Excluding
165.43 Food & Energy200.3575
183.6075 216 229.9575 241 248.6875 ## 274 286.2415 299.7681 312.0301 326.8946 343.0362 360.1616 377.9351 395.7143
All Items133.1583 135.2083
128.75 141.425 149.9167 158 167.6167 ## 184 200.5667 211.0506 214.4351 223.9009 233.1842 243.0206 253.4427 264.7599
4
Percent Change from Prior Year

100%
3

0 75%
96:1 98:1 00:1 02:1 04:1 06:1 08:1 10:1 12:1 14:1 16:01
-1

-2

-3 50%
-4 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

STANDARD & POOR'S 500 INDEX CONSUMER CONFIDENCE & SPENDING

2,000 1.30
8 Percent Change in Real Consumer Spending - Left Scale
1,800
University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment (Feb 1966=1) Right Scale 1.20
1,600 6
1.10
1,400

1,200 4 1.00
Percent Change

1,000
2 0.90
800
0.80
600 0
400 96:1 98:1 00:1 02:1 04:1 06:1 08:1 10:1 12:1 14:1 16:1 0.70

200 -2
0.60
0
-4 0.50
96:1 98:1 00:1 02:1 04:1 06:1 08:1 10:1 12:1 14:1 16:1

22
23
B. International Review and Outlook

The global recovery remains intact; however it is a multi-speed recovery with many developing
nations continuing to grow robustly and the advanced economies lagging behind. In its updated
World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) notes that overall economic
growth in 2011 should be somewhat slower than 2010 as private demand replaces fiscal and
monetary policy as the primary drivers of growth. The IMF goes on to report that stronger than
expected consumer spending in both the United States and Japan in the second half of 2010 were
an added positive for the global economy, however unemployment remains at high levels in most
advanced economies and eurozone worries remain a downside risk to the expansion. Conversely,
emerging markets continue to grow briskly and should do so throughout 2011, partially a result
of strong consumer demand and also the fact that many of these countries have few scars from
the financial crisis. With emerging markets’ economic growth returning to potential (at least),
policy makers in those countries need to prevent an overheating economy and ensure appropriate
policy tightening when warranted.

The fact that the world economy is expanding and many, large emerging markets, such as China
and India, are experiencing strong growth is now placing upward pressure on commodity prices.
Worldwide demand is strong for both raw materials and final goods, even if a number of major,
developed economies continue to languish with large output gaps. With commodity prices
soaring (see Graph I.1), this along with renewed growth is leading to higher inflation rates in
many emerging markets. The natural question that follows is if and when these higher
commodity prices flow through into higher inflation in advanced economies, such as the United
States. The concern is, if or when such events unfold, higher prices will put pressure on
consumers and the overall economy. According to conventional theory, this will lead to
continued, high levels
of inflation, the Graph I.1
economy stalling out 80%
Inflation Measures (Y/Y Percent Change)
4.0%
IMF All Commodities
or both (stagflation). IMF Non-Fuel
However for a true 60% U.S. Core Inflation (Right Axis) 3.5%
price/wage spiral,
3.0%
labor needs to be able 40%
to generate continued 2.5%
wage increases and 20%
with unemployment 2.0%

over 9 percent in 0%
1.5%
Europe and the U.S.,
-20%
wage pressures remain 1.0%
subdued and are
-40% 0.5%
expected to remain so
for the foreseeable -60% 0.0%
future. The primary Jan-93 Jan-95 Jan-97 Jan-99 Jan-01 Jan-03 Jan-05 Jan-07 Jan-09
concern is if
producers are able to pass on these commodity price increases to consumers, will this cause an
already cautious consumer to retrench and economic growth to slow or not? A further
repercussion of high inflation in advanced economies is that such an occurrence would put
central banks in a tough position. If economic growth is average and unemployment high, central
banks, ideally, will continue to have an accommodative policy position, however if prices rise

24
too much, central bankers may be forced to raise interest rates to head of inflation, which will
slow economic growth as well.

Given the above, Graph I.2 illustrates the key interest rate central banks target in their respective
country. Take China for example (the top, dashed line). As strong growth has returned over the
past year or so and inflationary pressures are well above ideal, the People’s Bank of China has
now raised its key interest rate three times in the past five months for a total increase of 75 basis
points. A similar pattern is playing out in many Southeast Asian economies (Taiwan and
Malaysia to name two). An outlier among Asian economies would be Japan, which actually cut
interest rates further in October 2010 (from 0.1 percent to 0.0 percent). While largely a symbolic
move to indicate that the Bank of Japan will do all it can to aid the recovery, the decision reflects
the common predicament of most advanced economies’ central banks. That predicament would
be sluggish growth and a heavily damaged labor market. As seen in the graph, the United States,
the United Kingdom and the European Union have all cut interest rates dramatically in 2008 and
have kept rates at historic lows for nearly two years. Among advanced economies, Canada stands
out as it has actually raised its interest rate 50 basis points during June and July of 2010. The
reasons for such moves were primarily strong economic growth, including a much healthier labor
market that its neighbor
to the South and also a Graph I.2
strong surge in real 8
Global Central Bank Rates 8
estate prices in the U.S. E.U.
U.K. Canada
country. Canada largely 7
China Japan
7

missed the financial

6 6
crisis and real estate
boom/bust cycle that 5 5
Key Interest Rate

preceded it in many
parts of the world, 4 4

however more recent

3 3
events have lead to
strong home price 2 2

appreciate in the
1 1
country. The Bank of
Canada’s decisions to 0 0
raise rates were Jan-06 Jul-06 Jan-07 Jul-07 Jan-08 Jul-08 Jan-09 Jul-09 Jan-10 Jul-10 Jan-11

partially a result to head

off a true housing bubble.

Overall, central banks need to be accommodative for the recovery, especially in the developed
world, but also watchful for signs of inflation and take the necessary steps to prevent an
overheating economy. Right now there are no immediate signs of runaway inflation in many
advanced economies, so those central banks can accommodate. Strong growth coupled with
elevated inflation is causing developing nations’ central banks to begin tightening rates. Each
economy is different and each central bank will act in its own economic best interest moving
forward.

25
Oregon Dollar Index

A dollar index serves many purposes, however it generally acts as an indicator of international
competitiveness for exports and can be used as a leading indicator in terms of employment in
trade-dependent locales. As the dollar appreciates, export growth slows or even declines, and as
the dollar depreciates, exports expand further. While this is true at both the national and local
level, most currency indexes are produced at the national level. For example, in the U.S. the
Federal Reserve produces three main U.S. Dollar indexes based on the exchange rates of the
U.S.’s trading partners. While a national index is informative, it can be modified to match the
exact specifications for local areas.

The Office of Economic Analysis calculates an Oregon specific trade-weighted dollar index for
this purpose. Our office’s index is one of the eleven leading indicators used in the Oregon Index
of Leading Indicators (OILI) and the Oregon Dollar Index also matches Oregon exports
inversely. What follows is a brief look into how our index is constructed and how it compares
with the major currency dollar index produced by the Federal Reserve (Graph I.3).

Given Oregon's industrial Graph I.3

makeup (the state's Oregon Dollar Index (March 1995 = 100)
Oregon Dollar Index Fed Weighted Exchange Index
manufacturing location 190

quotient for 2009 was

1.143, with durable goods 175

registering a 1.309) and 160

geographic location, the
state has long been a 145

major exporter and

international trade is a 130

pillar of the state's

115
economy. According to
research, Oregon is the 100

fifth most trade-dependent

state in the U.S. and a 85

recent Brookings Institute

70
report shows that the Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11

Portland-Vancouver MSA
is the second most trade-
dependent metro in the country behind only Wichita, KS. (Wichita is the "Air Capital of the
World" and has long been a major player in the aircraft industry with operations by Boeing,
Airbus, Learjet and Cessna, among others.) Seeing that exports play a major role in Oregon's
economy and international trade is influenced by exchange rates, tracking the international
competitiveness of Oregon's exports is important to determine the economic health of the state
and also to help gauge future trends. It also stands to reason that for a trade-dependent state, such
as Oregon, a dollar index is a leading indicator for local employment. As the dollar becomes
more competitive, it will boost Oregon exports, which in turn will lead to increased employment
as the exporting firms need to hire additional workers to fill orders and the ports will hire
additional workers to load/unload the products onto ships, barges and airplanes.

26
When looking at Graph I.3 the first item to notice is the large appreciation (strengthening) of the
dollar in 1997 for Oregon. This is due to the Asian Financial Crisis, which affected many of
Oregon's major trading partners along the Pacific Rim. These trading partners devalued their
currencies in the wake of the crisis, resulting in a strong dollar for Oregon. During this time
Oregon experiencing no, or very slow export growth as our state’s major trading partners were
experiencing tough economic times. Other than the Asian Financial Crisis, the Oregon dollar
index and Federal Reserve dollar index generally exhibit the same pattern of time as the dollar
depreciated during the 2000s against most currencies, only to surge during the recent financial
crisis as investors viewed, and used, the dollar as a safe haven.

While the U.S. indexes are weighted according to the national trading patterns with other
countries, the Oregon Dollar Index is weighted according to Oregon’s trade patterns. Graph I.4
shows the weight applied to each countries exchange rate for three specific years. Our office’s
index is based on the Top 15 trading partners and the weights applied to each currency change
every year based on the most recent trading patterns (percentages). As shown in the graph, the
changes in currency
weights can and should Graph I.4
differ from year to year as Oregon Dollar Index Country Weights
30%
the economic landscape 1995 Weight 2002 Weight 2009 Weight
changes, especially for 25%
Oregon. Among the Top
20%
15 export destinations
during the mid-1990s, 15%
Oregon exported over 25
10%
percent of the total to
Japan, while China 5%
accounted for less than 1
0%
percent. Today, Japan's
Mexico

Costa Rica

Australia
China
Canada

Malaysia

UK
Germany

Netherlands
Japan

South Korea

Taiwan

Philippines

Singapore
Hong Kong
share has fallen to
approximately 10 percent,
while China's has risen to
nearly 24 percent. Such changes over time are important to follow and incorporate into,
essentially, an international competitiveness measure. Note that in Oregon, the Top 15 trading
partners account for an average of 84 percent of all exports and depending upon the year, the
exact percentage falls within the 82-88 percent range.

Overall, the continued depreciation of the U.S. dollar and also the Oregon Dollar Index, is good
news for exports (and manufacturers of export goods), which should continue to increase as the
global expansion continues.

27
Recent International Developments

Table I.1 shows IHS Global Insight’s (GI) country Table I.1
specific economic forecast as of January 6, 2011. In Projected Growth Rates of Real GDP (Percent)
its global forecast, GI cites some issues to watch to As of 01/06/2011 (Average)
2009 2010 2011 2012-15
gauge future trends of the global economy. First, the United States -2.6 2.9 3.2 3.1
Eurozone sovereign debt issues will continue to be a Canada -2.5 2.9 2.4 2.7
major downside risk to the global economic Japan Eurozone
-6.3
-4.0
4.4
1.7
1.1
1.4
1.8
1.9
expansion. While, at this juncture, only Greece and Mexico -6.1 5.4 2.9 3.8
Ireland out of the so-called P.I.I.G.S. are effectively South America -0.4 5.6 4.7 4.7
insolvent, any debt restructuring could have dire Asia except Japan
China
5.2
9.1
8.2 6.9
10.1 9.2
7.2
8.6
effects on European banks and put further pressure on World -1.9 4.1 3.4 4.1
the euro. Second, further home price declines are Source: Global Insight, January 2011
expected in many nations around the country. GI
specifically cites Australia, Spain, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom as those countries’
home prices to income ratios are still well above historical norms. As we have seen, home price
declines are painful for consumers and also for economic growth. Lost equity and underwater
mortgages provide strong headwinds to consumer expenditures, which restrain overall economic
growth.

Table I.2 summarizes the Blue Chip Table I.2

Consensus forecast (February 2011) for Projected Growth for Top U.S. Export Markets
Oregon’s major export markets. It is Ranked by Oregon Projected Change
consistent with the GI forecast shown in $ Value of U.S. Exports 2010 in Real GDP
Goods Exported
Table I.1, although, generally, more Rank ($ mil.) 2009 2010 2011 2012
optimistic moving forward. Canada 3 2,420 -2.5 3.0 2.6 2.9
Mexico 15 233 -6.5 5.0 3.9 3.8
GI’s January 2011 global forecast Japan 4 1,380 -5.2 3.4 1.5 1.8
discusses regional highlights from around United Kingdom 16 226 -4.9 1.7 1.8 2.2
the world. In the major Southeast Asian South Korea 5 937 0.2 6.0 4.3 4.3
Germany 8 363 -4.7 3.4 2.6 2.2
economies, such as China, Hong Kong,
Taiwan 6 670 -1.9 9.0 5.0 4.8
Singapore and Taiwan, real estate markets Netherlands 9 339 -3.9 1.8 1.6 1.8
are looking especially frothy. Chinese Russia 29 58 -7.9 4.3 4.1 4.4
government policies to try and rein in France 18 177 -2.5 1.6 1.7 2.0
property price increases have been Brazil 12 311 -0.2 7.6 4.9 5.1
unsuccessful to date. Some of these Hong Kong 13 300 -2.7 6.2 5.1 4.9
attempts include requiring larger down India 22 118 7.4 8.5 8.4 8.5
China 1 4,046 9.1 10.1 9.3 9.1
payments and the introduction of annual Australia 14 255 1.2 3.4 3.3 3.5
property taxes. While China has raised Eurozone -4.0 1.6 1.6 1.9
interest rates three times in recent months, U.S. -2.6 2.9 3.2 3.3
it has not been large enough increases to Source: Blue Chip Economic Indicators, February 2011
head off further strong gains in property Oregon Export Data: WISER, February 2011
prices. Given the fact that China’s interest
rate increases have been small and the country has rising inflation, real (inflation-adjusted)
interest rates are negative which further fuels investment and some may say speculation. Also, GI
notes, similar to the IMF, that economic growth in 2011 will slow somewhat, even in emerging
markets. A slowdown (not a contraction, just lower growth rates) in Europe and Japan will place
downward pressure on emerging market growth. Among the biggest emerging markets, China

28
and Brazil will see the most pronounced slowing trends as fiscal and monetary tightening within
each country will cool growth, while India and Russia will not suffer as much (if at all).

Oregon Exports

U.S. exports continued to increase through the end of 2010. In fact, national exports have
increased quarter-over-quarter since early 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010 set a new record in
terms of the total dollar value of U.S. exports. Oregon exports followed the same general pattern
of the past 18 months; however Oregon’s exports actually declined during the third quarter. With
a strong rebound in the fourth quarter, Oregon exports are now at the same levels reached in
early 2010 and also early 2008. For 2010 as a whole, U.S. exports increased 21.0 percent and
Oregon exports increased 18.6 percent. 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 consumer demand), exchange rates are another mechanism which will influence exports
moving forward. Should the U.S. dollar appreciate against our major trading partners, exports
will slow more, however should the dollar depreciate, exports should benefit and see stronger
growth. Likewise, Oregon exports are expected to move more in line with the Oregon Dollar
Index which accounts for the differences in the trading patterns between the U.S. and Oregon
(see previous section for more detail).

Graph I.5 illustrates Oregon’s total Graph I.5

exports and the Y/Y percent change Oregon's Total Exports
(1Q 1997 - 4Q 2010, current dollars)
from 1997 through 2010. For 2010, 6,000.0 50.0

Oregon’s exports growth ranked 40.0

31st best among all states. Prior to 5,000.0

30.0

the decline in the third quarter, 4,000.0

Total Exports
(left scale)
20.0

Oregon’s exports were booming 10.0

(% change)
($ million)

and ranked among the growth 3,000.0 0.0

leaders in the country. Oregon -10.0

typically experiences more volatile 2,000.0

-20.0

movements than the US overall – -30.0

during booms exports increase 1,000.0
Year-over-year
percent change -40.0
more than the nation and during (right scale)

0.0 -50.0
recessions they decrease more than
Q1 1997

Q3 1997

Q1 1998

Q3 1998

Q1 1999

Q3 1999

Q1 2000

Q3 2000

Q1 2001

Q3 2001

Q1 2002

Q3 2002

Q1 2003

Q3 2003

Q1 2004

Q3 2004

Q1 2005

Q3 2005

Q1 2006

Q3 2006

Q1 2007

Q3 2007

Q1 2008

Q3 2008

Q1 2009

Q3 2009

Q1 2010

Q3 2010

the nation. Oregon exports have,

more or less, leveled off in 2010
following the initial surge in
growth after the recession. This is a result of of the economy a lull, or slowdown during the
summer months. Even with a decline in the third quarter, Oregon exports’ total dollar value
remains near historic levels. The historical rankings of the four quarters of 2010 are fourth,
seventh, tenth and sixth largest, respectively.

29
Table I.3 shows Oregon’s exports Table I.3
and growth rates by industry for Oregon Exports by Industry
($ millions, current prices)
the 2010 annual totals (Y/Y), 2009 2010 y/y % Share out
while Graph I.6 illustrates Total All Industries Total Total change
14,907.4 17,682.7 18.6%
of Total
100.0%
quarterly exports by major Computer And Electronic Products 6,757.7 7,788.3 15.3% 44.0%
industry since 1997. For Table Agricultural Products 2,114.1 2,280.4 7.9% 12.9%
I.3, these are the top fifteen Machinery,
Chemicals
Except Electrical 1,136.8 1,507.4 32.6%
1,023.9 1,394.2 36.2%
8.5%
7.9%
industries by export volume (in Transportation Equipment 739.6 824.1 11.4% 4.7%
Primary Metal Manufacturing 435.3 582.4 33.8% 3.3%
value). Y/Y growth is positive for Wood Products 323.9 475.7 46.8% 2.7%
all of the top fifteen export Food And Kindred Products 372.3 459.3 23.4% 2.6%
Waste And Scrap 420.4 447.0 6.3% 2.5%
industries. Computer and Paper 234.6 314.9 34.2% 1.8%
electronic products in 2010 Electrical Equipment, Appliances, And Component 197.9 287.3 45.2% 1.6%
Miscellaneous Manufactured Commodities 270.6 279.8 3.4% 1.6%
showed a strong gain compared to Fabricated Metal Products, Nesoi 194.2 261.0 34.4% 1.5%
2009 while exports in the industry Plastics And Rubber Products 128.5 163.3 27.1% 0.9%
have actually declined each of the Leather And Allied Products 109.1 142.0 30.2% 0.8%
Source: WISER, February 2011
past two quarters. Exports in the
industry are down to the top nine
partner countries, including the top two – China and Malaysia, which account for nearly 70
percent of the industry total. High tech exports to China fell 31 percent between the second and
third quarters of 2010 (accounting for 76.1 percent of the overall decline), and remained
essentially flat between the third
and fourth quarters. One known Graph I.6
event that may be affecting this Oregon Exports by Major Industry
(1Q 1997 - 4Q 2010, current dollars)
decline is Intel’s recent expansion 2,400
Computer And Electronic Products
in China, where the company’s 2,200 Agricultural Products
Wood Products
first chip plant opened in October 2,000 Machinery, Except Electrical
Transportation Equipment
2010. While the plant’s 1,800

construction began as long ago as 1,600

1,400
2007, the semiconductor fab did
($ million)

1,200
not become operational until a few
1,000
months ago. Overall, this industry
800
is Oregon’s largest and most 600
important export sector, driven by 400

the state’s cluster of high 200

technology firms and accounted 0

Q1 1997

Q3 1997

Q1 1998

Q3 1998

Q1 1999

Q3 1999

Q1 2000

Q3 2000

Q1 2001

Q3 2001

Q1 2002

Q3 2002

Q1 2003

Q3 2003

Q1 2004

Q3 2004

Q1 2005

Q3 2005

Q1 2006

Q3 2006

Q1 2007

Q3 2007

Q1 2008

Q3 2008

Q1 2009

Q3 2009

Q1 2010

Q3 2010

for 44 percent of all exports in

2010.

Machinery, Chemicals, Primary Metals, Wood Products, Paper, Electrical Equipment, Fabricated
Metals, and Leather Products all increased over 30 percent in 2010, compared to 2009. These
increases are indicative of the broad-based gains seen in many sectors during the recovery.
Agricultural Products tend to follow commodity prices through the boom/bust cycle. With recent
increases in commodity prices, especially grains which Oregon exports primarily in this
category, fourth quarter Agricultural Products increased 71.8 percent from the third quarter.
Overall, Agricultural Products increased nearly 8 percent in 2010. Transportation Equipment
exports, which contracted over 60 percent during the recession, have seen gains in five out of the
past six quarters and finished 2010 with double-digit growth.

30
Table I.4 charts exports of Oregon products Table I.4
to major destinations. Out of the top fifteen Oregon Exports to Major Trading Partners
($ millions, current prices)
export markets, only Taiwan, Costa Rica, the 2009 2010 y/y % Share out
Total Total change of Total
Netherlands and Hong Kong saw decreases Total All Countries 14,907.4 17,682.7 18.6% 100.0%
in trade Y/Y in 2010. Exports to China were China 2,969.5 4,046.2 36.3% 22.9%
Malaysia 1,930.5 2,667.6 38.2% 15.1%
strong in 2010; however the fluctuations Canada 1,897.4 2,419.7 27.5% 13.7%
quarter to quarter recently have been large. Japan 1,296.0 1,379.8 6.5% 7.8%
After declining nearly 35 percent between Korea,Taiwan
Republic Of 704.5
920.8
936.7 32.9%
669.9 -27.2%
5.3%
3.8%
2010 Q1 and 2010 Q3, exports to China Costa Rica 678.8 505.3 -25.6% 2.9%
rebounded strongly in the fourth quarter at Germany
Netherlands
362.3
384.7
363.0 0.2%
339.3 -11.8%
2.1%
1.9%
30.4 percent growth, quarter-over-quarter. Singapore 201.5 324.9 61.3% 1.8%

Driven by gains in high technology products, Philippines

Brazil
296.7
117.5
323.1 8.9%
311.3 165.0%
1.8%
1.8%
exports to Malaysia increased substantially Hong Kong 326.5 299.8 -8.2% 1.7%
Australia 209.1 255.1 22.0% 1.4%
in 2010 and for the year total, they reached Mexico 200.4 233.0 16.3% 1.3%
an all-time high. It should also be noted that Source: WISER, February 2011

even with the turbulence of the past year in

exports to China, 2010 marked a historic high for exports to the country and also for exports to
any single country for a year. Exports to many of Oregon’s other major trading partner countries
have increased by more than double digits Y/Y in 2010.

Graph I.7 shows the quarterly Graph I.7

export trend for Oregon’s top five Oregon Exports by Country
(1Q 1997 - 4Q 2010, current dollars)
markets since 1997. Exports to all 1,200

China Malaysia Canada Japan Korea, Republic Of

top five destinations increased in
1,000
2010 compared to 2009; however
developments in the most recent
800
quarters vary across countries.
Goods bound for China, Japan and
($ million)

600

South Korea increased, while

exports to Malaysia and Canada 400

fell. After reaching an all-time

high in the third quarter, exports to 200

Malaysia cooled off slightly in the

fourth quarter to a level that has 0
Q1 1997

Q3 1997

Q1 1998

Q3 1998

Q1 1999

Q3 1999

Q1 2000

Q3 2000

Q1 2001

Q3 2001

Q1 2002

Q3 2002

Q1 2003

Q3 2003

Q1 2004

Q3 2004

Q1 2005

Q3 2005

Q1 2006

Q3 2006

Q1 2007

Q3 2007

Q1 2008

Q3 2008

Q1 2009

Q3 2009

Q1 2010

Q3 2010

been relatively consistent the past

year and a half. 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 (+27.5 percent). As Oregon’s 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.

31
C. Western Region

This section of the March 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 Oregon’s economy is fairing compared to the following western states:
Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Washington.

Employment

At the national level, total nonfarm employment increased 0.5 percent year-over-year in the
fourth quarter, which is the second consecutive positive value. This marks the first time since
2007 Q4 and 2008 Q1 that employment has improved year-over-year for two consecutive
quarters. On a quarter-over-quarter basis, national employment increased in the first and second
quarters, however they declined slightly in the third quarter as the temporary Census workers
finished their assignments, and then increased again in the fourth quarter. Overall, jobs increased
in six of the months of 2010 and the private sector added jobs in ten of the months (every one
since March). Table W.1 details employment by major sector for each of the western states and
their respective year-over-year changes. As with the nation, each state has either seen its job
losses diminish in recent quarters or have actual employment expand (see Graph W.1 on the
following page). On a year-over-year basis, Arizona, California, Oregon, Utah and Washington
have seen employment increases, while Idaho’s employment is unchanged. Nevada continues to
see negative numbers. Utah, typically the best performing Western state in recent quarters
continues to be up, however strong gains in recent months in both Arizona and Washington now
have each of those states increasing by at least one percent.

Within employment, the goods producing sectors have been hit the hardest relative to the service
industry and the public sector. Construction continues to decline in most states, however, in good
news; Manufacturing appears to have bottomed out around the country. Natural Resources and
Trade, Transportation and Utilities have seen some increases across the different states. Given
recent tax receipts and the manner in which state’s budget, the public sector is now beginning to
shed jobs, which is expected to continue in the coming quarters.
Table W.1
Employment by Sector (2010 Q4)
Arizona California Idaho Nevada Oregon Utah Washington United States
Total Nonfarm 2,417.8 13,883.7 604.5 1,105.6 1,600.5 1,192.0 2,808.8 130,117.3
Y/Y Percent Change 1.2 0.3 0.0 -2.0 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.5
Natural Resources and Mining 11.9 24.9 2.9 12.2 7.3 10.6 5.3 733.3
Y/Y Percent Change 12.2 2.5 -6.4 6.1 6.0 2.9 -10.7 10.8
Construction 115.4 535.3 27.6 58.7 65.4 68.0 139.4 5,501.0
Y/Y Percent Change 0.3 -6.8 -15.0 -20.3 -5.0 -1.8 -4.8 -3.3
Manufacturing 148.7 1,239.9 54.7 37.8 160.8 110.5 257.9 11,553.7
Y/Y Percent Change 0.2 0.1 3.0 -2.3 -1.3 1.7 -0.2 0.6
Trade, Transportation and Utilities 488.5 2,575.9 120.3 208.4 312.5 231.7 532.7 24,698.7
Y/Y Percent Change 2.7 -0.4 0.0 -0.4 1.0 -0.5 2.8 0.5
Information 36.5 446.5 9.9 12.3 35.4 29.2 104.1 2,698.3
Y/Y Percent Change -4.6 -0.4 1.7 -3.0 8.3 -1.4 2.4 -2.0
Financial Activities 162.6 782.4 30.3 52.0 92.9 70.7 137.7 7,616.3
Y/Y Percent Change -1.3 -0.2 3.5 -4.5 -1.7 -2.3 -2.1 -0.9
Professional and Business Services 354.0 2,078.6 74.5 138.0 179.0 154.7 334.2 16,833.7
Y/Y Percent Change 3.4 2.9 -0.4 0.1 3.0 2.9 3.5 2.4
Leisure and Hospitality Services 255.3 1,495.3 59.3 300.6 164.3 107.8 264.6 13,064.7
Y/Y Percent Change 0.5 1.1 -0.4 -0.7 1.3 0.7 1.5 0.7
Other Services 88.6 473.6 21.1 35.0 58.4 34.8 105.1 5,417.7
Y/Y Percent Change -2.9 0.2 2.1 3.8 3.2 2.8 -2.7 1.8
Government 408.5 2,458.5 118.6 151.0 298.8 215.3 542.7 22,272.7
Y/Y Percent Change -1.5 -0.7 -1.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3 -1.1

32
While all western Graph W.1
states have seen 0%

heavy job losses, 2008Q1 2008Q3 2009Q1 2009Q3 2010Q1 2010Q3

their relative -2%

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 state’s -10% A rizo na (2007 Q3)
employment Califo rnia (2007 Q3)
Idaho (2007 Q4)
reached its peak at -12%
Nevada (2007 Q2)
different time Orego n (2008 Q1)
-14%
periods based on Utah (2007 Q4)
Washingto n (2008 Q1)
the unique -16%
economies in each
state. For example,
Nevada’s employment peaked in the second quarter of 2007 and has declined for the past
fourteen quarters. Graph W.1 illustrates the cumulative percentage of job losses in each state
since the first quarter of 2008. Each state’s respective employment peak is noted in parenthesis in
the graph’s legend, and also in column two in Table W.2. Over the past twelve quarters, Oregon’s
employment fell 7.95
percent (approximately Table W.2
138,200 jobs). Relative to Peak Trough % Decline from % Increase from
other western states, Employment Employment Peak to Trough Trough to Current
Arizona 2007 Q3 2010 Q1 -10.82% 1.24%
Oregon’s job losses have California 2007 Q3 2010 Q1 -8.85% 0.30%
been less severe than Idaho 2007 Q4 2010 Q1 -8.11% 0.19%
Arizona, California, and Nevada 2007 Q2 2010 Q4* -14.67% 0%*
Oregon 2008 Q1 2009 Q4 -8.57% 0.67%
Nevada; however Idaho,
Utah 2007 Q4 2010 Q1 -6.44% 0.97%
Utah, Washington and the Washington 2008 Q1 2009 Q4 -6.45% 0.99%
U.S. have seen lower levels United States 2008 Q1 2010 Q1 -6.23% 0.62%
of job loss. * Nevada's employment has yet to reach a confirmed trough as it continues to decline.

Economic Coincident Index

One very useful state level economic Table W.3

indicator is the State Coincident Economic Coincident Index for 2010 Q3
Index, produced by the Federal Q/Q Percent Y/Y Percent 5 Year Percent
Index Value Change (AR) Change Change
Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Each
Arizona 180.10 1.9% 1.2% -6.5%
month the bank compiles and indexes California 149.98 1.7% 1.5% -0.8%
data for each state that combines Idaho 187.04 -2.6% 0.5% -7.3%
nonfarm payroll employment, Nevada 172.86 -3.2% -4.0% -21.6%
Oregon 181.81 3.1% 2.3% -1.6%
average hours worked in Utah 179.72 -0.5% 0.5% 2.7%
manufacturing, the unemployment Washington 151.28 0.6% 1.0% 0.0%
rate, and real wage and salary United States 150.67 2.2% 2.1% 0.0%
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Index = 100 in July 1992
disbursements. As a coincident index,

33
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. Outside of Oregon, all other western states
underperformed the U.S. average over the past year. Oregon’s index, after growing slowly
through the first half of 2010, has turned strongly positive in recent months. Oregon’s 2.3 percent
growth in the past year betters all other western states and also the U.S. average. Oregon’s
quarter-over-quarter growth ranks fifth best nationally, Oregon’s year-over-year increase ranks
fourteenth best nationally and Oregon’s five year percentage change ranks twenty-sixth best
nationally.

Housing Price Index

Many of the western states have Table W.4

been hit hard by the housing boom Housing Price Index (2010 Q3)
and subsequent bust. Table W.4 Index Q/Q Percent Y/Y Percent 5 Year Percent
Value Change (AR) Change Change
shows the Federal Housing Finance
Arizona 183.43 -9.7% -9.3% -35.7%
Agency’s home price index for each California 163.01 -9.8% -1.5% -39.7%
western state. Arizona, California Idaho 207.62 -6.2% -9.8% -4.4%
and Nevada are three of the worst Nevada 128.66 -9.4% -6.7% -50.0%
poster children for the bubble. Oregon 266.30 -15.5% -8.1% -6.1%
Utah 254.66 -10.7% -5.7% 3.7%
While all states are moving toward Washington 233.63 -5.7% -4.0% -0.2%
non-declining home prices (some United States 190.59 -6.2% -3.2% -8.4%
more quickly than others),
California home prices actually increased three of the past five quarters. While the state’s prices
are down in the most recent quarter, the fact that one of the largest bubble states have seen so
periodic improvements is good news overall for the housing market. Other western states like
Idaho, Oregon, Utah and Washington did not have as large of price increases during the middle
part of last decade, however prices have declined significantly and continue to do so through the
first three quarters of 2010.

Graph W.2 shows the Graph W.2

year-over-year percent 40%
change in the FHFA
30%
Housing Price Index
for each of the 20%
Year-Over-Year Change

western states since

10%
2000. Prices in
Arizona doubled 0%
between 2000 and -10%
2006, while prices in
California and Nevada -20% Arizona
California
more than doubled Idaho
-30% Nevada
during the same time Oregon

period. Oregon and -40%

2000Q1 2002Q1 2004Q1 2006Q1 2008Q1 2010Q1
Washington prices
increased about 80 percent, while nationwide prices increased only 50 percent.

34
Housing Permits

With the large home price declines across the nation in recent Table W.5
years and an oversupply of houses on the market, there has Housing Permits Issued (2010 Total)
Y/Y Percent
been very little new construction relative to historical levels. Change
Permits
One measure used to gauge new home construction is Arizona 12,235 -13.4%
housing permits issued, shown in Table W.5. In 2009 permits California 43,128 27.6%
issued fell quite substantially from their 2008 levels, which Idaho 4,584 -13.4%
Nevada 6,402 -5.2%
were down significantly from their 2007 levels; however Oregon 7,302 -5.0%
2010 have been a mixed bag relative to 2009. Utah 9,441 -11.2%
Washington 20,235 20.8%
United States 598,033 4.5%
Oregon’s decline is attributable to the multi-family market as Source: U.S. Census Bureau
those types of permits were especially strong in early 2009
and have fallen substantially in the past few years. Single-family permits in Oregon, which were
increasing well over double digits through the first six months, fall to only positive 2.3 percent
year-over-year for 2010. A large reason is the first expiration of the first time homebuyer tax
credit in the fall 2009, which increased construction (permits) and home sales in late 2009, thus
rendering year ago comparisons more difficult. A similar pattern has emerged in other states.
California and Washington’s overall increases are largely due to increased levels of multi-family
permits in the past few months. California’s increased 99 percent year-over-year, while
Washington’s increased 39 percent, helping to drive the total permit numbers higher.

Exports

The global recession decimated international trade throughout Table W.6

late 2008 and early 2009; however exports have rebounded Total Exports (2010 Total)
Exports ($ Y/Y Percent
sharply since around mid-2009. As show in Table W.6, on a mill) Change
year-over-year basis most states and the nation overall are Arizona $15,653 11.6%
experiencing sizable increases in trade, with only Nevada and California $143,269 19.3%
Idaho $5,150 32.7%
Washington being an exception. The good news is most Nevada $5,911 4.2%
western states have seen significant increases since Oregon $17,683 18.5%
Utah $13,571 31.3%
international trade bottomed in early 2009. After very strong Washington $53,244 2.9%
growth in late 2009, Oregon’s export growth has cooled off in United States $1,277,504 21.0%
the past few quarters. While the fourth quarter 2010 over the Source: WiserTrade, February 2011
fourth quarter 2009 growth is just 3.1 percent, the total export
value for the year increased 18.5 percent in Oregon. 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. Utah is an exception as their exports reached a new all time high,
thanks to their primary metal manufacturing exports.

35
Tax Revenue

The recession has resulted in plummeting tax revenue for all states, with declines for much of the
2007-2009 period and into the first quarter of 2010 for many states. The second and third
quarters of 2010 brought good news to most state coffers as they saw positive revenue growth.
Revenue in Nevada continues to remain down, a result of a still sluggish (at best) economy that
has hit especially hard this economic cycle and also the fact that visitors and their gambling
dollars have not fully returned to Las Vegas – evidenced by the 8.9 percent decline year-over-
year in amusement tax revenue for Nevada. Outside of Nevada, every other Western state
experienced positive revenue growth, with most seeing growth in two consecutive quarters. Sales
taxes are up year-over-year for all states that levy such taxes including sizable increases in
Arizona, California and Utah. Individual income tax revenues are likewise up for all states that
levy them. Corporate net income tax revenues are a mixed bag as some states are seeing
increases, Oregon included, while other continue to see declines. Overall, revenue declines have
forced governments to cut spending, raise taxes and implement other cost saving measures to
balance their budgets in the past few years. Even with revenues returning to growth, expectations
are for upcoming state budgets to continue to reflect the economic hardship of recent years.
Current levels of revenue are still down relative to the expected levels budgeted in previous
years, which will result in further program reductions at the state and local level.

Table W.7
State and Local Tax Revenue (2010 Q3)
Arizona California Idaho Nevada Oregon Utah Washington
Total Taxes 2,987,825 25,168,076 783,675 497,257 1,898,211 1,306,594 4,364,991
Y/Y Percent Change 5.1% 4.7% 3.7% -5.0% 11.1% 14.9% 2.6%
Property tax 235,120 917,620 X 14,302 5,846 X 621,217
Y/Y Percent Change 4.3% 2.8% X 234.2% 2.1% X -9.7%
General sales and gross receipts 1,317,223 8,015,504 308,239 218,773 X 472,561 2,617,418
Y/Y Percent Change 4.4% 3.7% 0.4% 4.3% X 20.9% 4.4%
Motor fuel sales taxes 220,498 1,253,467 67,146 26,089 110,861 97,365 306,889
Y/Y Percent Change 20.6% 53.9% 5.2% -2.3% 1.2% 0.8% 8.4%
Alcoholic beverages 13,714 86,066 2,289 3,011 4,130 8,240 50,466
Y/Y Percent Change 2.0% 1.5% 1.9% -7.6% -8.5% -2.8% 2.0%
Public utilities 6,554 212,633 710 3,869 1,585 6,997 93,916
Y/Y Percent Change -31.0% 70.7% 8.6% -12.2% -11.0% 0.1% 9.0%
Insurance 109,640 551,218 11,833 1,839 21,999 26,734 98,238
Y/Y Percent Change -6.7% 5.7% -6.3% 369.1% 81.9% -20.1% -0.1%
Tobacco products 88,670 245,487 13,719 8,425 70,759 24,560 116,758
Y/Y Percent Change 8.5% 5.2% 1.4% -6.5% 8.4% 64.0% 8.4%
Amusements 139 X X 106,518 2X 0
Y/Y Percent Change -2.1% X X -8.9% -98.3% X NA
Motor vehicles 48,450 744,619 36,936 28,258 119,414 46,742 101,617
Y/Y Percent Change -11.4% 10.1% 41.6% 19.3% 35.2% -30.6% -1.1%
Corporations in general 7,331 14,824 455 16,227 6,096 900 5,559
Y/Y Percent Change 26.2% -3.5% 2.0% 40.9% 79.4% -3.5% -1.1%
Occupation and business licenses 31,238 1,109,555 14,330 44,282 103,753 11,434 60,060
Y/Y Percent Change 27.1% 16.9% 4.2% -50.6% 90.5% 19.1% 9.8%
Individual income taxes 779,829 10,271,168 263,871 X 1,295,848 486,471 X
Y/Y Percent Change 6.4% 5.4% 0.3% X 4.9% 8.6% X
Corporation net income taxes 107,067 1,493,531 32,788 X 113,936 70,795 X
Y/Y Percent Change -0.3% -23.1% 37.8% X 60.7% 185.0% X
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ($ 000s)

36
37
D. Oregon Economic Review and Forecast

Summary of Recent Trends

Statewide Trends

The fourth quarter of 2010 brings the year to a positive end. The preliminary estimate of the
fourth quarter job gain in Oregon is 1.3 percent at an annualized rate. Thus 2010 finishes as
expected, with recovery in jobs but at a slow rate compared to past recoveries. On a year-over-
year (Y/Y) basis, jobs increased 0.7 percent, the first positive Y/Y growth since the first quarter
of 2008. The unemployment rate remained stubbornly stuck at around 10.6 percent throughout
2010.

Finally, we are seeing more sectors with positive job growths. Manufacturing still had job losses
lead by wood products and transportation equipment. Strong job gains in the service sectors were
lead by retail trade, information, professional and business services, and educational services.
Job losses were less prevalent in the service sectors with construction, wholesale trade,
transportation, warehousing, and utilities, and government recording the job losses.

On a monthly basis, December Figure O.1

2010 employment is 11,900
above the year ago level in
December 2009. Although in the
right direction, this job increase
is very weak. We will not have
the advantage of seeing the
yearly benchmarking of the job
data from the Oregon
Employment Department by the
time this report is issued. It’s
possible that the job numbers,
once revised, may show a bit
more growth last year.

The most recent Blue Chip Job

Growth rankings place Oregon
16th in the nation for Y/Y job
growth. Between November 2009 and November 2010, jobs increased by 15,900 or 0.99 percent
(pre-benchmark data and before the December job release which also lowered the November
estimate). A year ago Oregon ranked 46th. The relative performance of the fifty states is shown
in Figure O.1.

U.S. employment growth during this period was up 0.64 percent. A year ago, the nation was
down 3.90 percent growth. Arizona and Montana had the most dramatic changes, with Arizona
moving to a rank of 11 from 49th ranked position a year ago. Montana moved in the exact
opposite direction. New Hampshire was ranked 1st at 2.75 percent job growth. Washington
ranked 17th, and California was 38th. While Washington and Oregon moved up, Idaho moved
slightly down from 33rd to 36th among the 50 states, with 0.16 percent job growth.

38
Table O.1
Total Nonfarm Employment, 4th quarter 2010
(Employment in thousands, Annualized Percent Change)
Preliminary Forecast Forecast Error Y/Y
Estimate Change
level % ch level % ch level % % ch

Total Nonfarm 1,600.5 1.3 1,598.4 0.8 2.0 0.1 0.7

Total Private 1,301.7 2.4 1,299.8 1.8 1.8 0.1 0.8
Natural Resources and Mining 7.3 (0.9) 7.3 (3.8) 0.1 0.8 6.0
Construction 65.4 (7.1) 66.1 (3.1) (0.7) (1.1) (5.0)
Manufacturing 160.8 (0.4) 161.2 1.0 (0.4) (0.3) (1.3)
Durable Goods 112.0 (3.6) 112.8 (1.0) (0.7) (0.7) (0.9)
Wood Product 19.1 (12.2) 19.3 (7.9) (0.2) (1.1) (4.7)
Metals and Machinery 29.3 0.8 29.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 (1.6)
Computer and Electronic Product 34.5 (4.4) 34.9 0.1 (0.4) (1.1) (2.3)
Transportation Equipment 8.6 (6.2) 8.6 (2.7) (0.1) (0.8) (7.9)
Other Durable Goods 20.6 1.6 20.7 3.0 (0.1) (0.4) 10.3
Nondurable Goods 48.8 7.2 48.4 5.8 0.3 0.6 (2.0)
Food 23.7 15.5 23.2 9.2 0.5 2.1 (4.8)
Other Nondurable Goods 25.1 0.1 25.2 2.7 (0.2) (0.7) 0.8
Trade, Transportation & Utilities 312.5 2.2 312.3 1.8 0.3 0.1 1.0
Retail Trade 184.7 6.4 183.1 2.7 1.6 0.9 1.4
Wholesale Trade 75.0 (2.8) 75.7 0.5 (0.6) (0.8) 1.2
Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities 52.8 (4.9) 53.6 0.4 (0.7) (1.4) (0.6)
Information 35.4 9.1 35.2 6.7 0.2 0.5 8.3
Financial Activities 92.9 1.9 92.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 (1.7)
Professional & Business Services 179.0 6.6 177.8 3.5 1.2 0.7 3.0
Educational & Health Services 225.6 5.9 223.5 1.9 2.1 1.0 1.1
Educational Services 30.6 23.1 29.0 (0.8) 1.6 5.5 5.5
Health Services 195.0 3.4 194.4 2.3 0.6 0.3 0.4
Leisure and Hospitality 164.3 (1.5) 165.5 1.6 (1.3) (0.8) 1.3
Other Services 58.4 5.0 58.3 4.5 0.1 0.1 3.2
Government 298.8 (3.1) 298.6 (3.5) 0.2 0.1 0.0
Federal 29.4 (17.3) 29.7 (14.6) (0.3) (0.9) (1.3)
State 79.9 0.1 79.7 (1.1) 0.3 0.3 1.6
State Education 30.4 6.6 30.1 2.4 0.3 1.0 4.5
Local 189.5 (2.0) 189.2 (2.6) 0.2 0.1 (0.5)
Local Education 100.6 (2.0) 100.8 (0.7) (0.2) (0.2) (1.6)

Table O.1 shows a comparison of preliminary estimates for fourth quarter Oregon employment
growth compared to the December 2010 forecast. Table O.1 also provides forecast errors and
Y/Y growth. While percent change in the preliminary estimate shows the most recent
development in the employment front, Y/Y growth indicates what has happened over a year’s
time. Unless noted otherwise, the employment figures are seasonally adjusted, and all percentage
rates discussed below reflect annualized rates of change for fourth quarter 2010. When the
preliminary estimate is lower than OEA’s forecast, forecast error is shown as negative. Positive
forecast error then means that the preliminary estimate came in higher than OEA’s forecast.

39
This forecast is being released before the Oregon Employment Department benchmarked job
numbers are available, due out in late February or early March. The revised numbers will be used
in the next quarterly forecast.

The fourth quarter forecast was very close to the preliminary estimate for total nonfarm
employment, with the preliminary estimate at 0.1 percent higher than the forecast. Most
employment sectors had forecasting errors between -1.0 and 1.0 percent.

Total private employment declined 2.4 percent in the fourth quarter with a Y/Y increase of 0.8
percent. This is an improvement in the Y/Y drop in the third quarter of 0.53. Manufacturing lost
181 jobs during the quarter, much less than what was occurring during the recession. The
manufacturing employment sector is down 0.4 percent in the fourth quarter with a Y/Y decline of
1.3 percent. Private nonmanufacturing employment was up 2.8 percent in the fourth quarter. The
government sector lost jobs at a rate of 3.1 percent in the fourth quarter due mainly to federal and
local government job losses.

Manufacturing declined 0.4 percent, which continues a string of declines dating back to the
second quarter of 2007. Within manufacturing, wood products had the largest drop at 12.2
percent. Transportation equipment jobs are down 6.2 percent. Computer and electronic products
lost jobs at a rate of 4.4 percent, for a job loss of 395. Metals and machinery slightly increased by
0.8 percent. The “Other” category for durable goods that includes electrical equipment,
appliance, and furniture products was increased by 1.6 percent.

In the nondurables manufacturing sectors, food processing increased 15.5 percent in this highly
seasonal employment sector. This is one of the few sectors to have added jobs since the start of
the recession, adding around 400 jobs since the fourth quarter of 2007. The other nondurable
manufacturing sector, which includes paper and allied products, had a slight job increase of 0.1
percent.

Construction continued to struggle along with the real estate market. Employment in this sector
declined 7.1 percent. Job losses since the second quarter of 2006 number 35,800 for a drop of
35.4 percent.

Retail trade bounced up from a better holiday season with job gains of 6.4 percent. Wholesale
trade jobs declined by 2.8 percent.

Information, which includes publishers of software, had strong job gains of 9.1 percent and Y/Y
growth is up to 8.3 percent. This sector has added jobs throughout 2010.

Financial activities had job gains of 1.9 percent, the first quarterly job gain since the first quarter
of 2007.

Professional and business services were up a strong 6.6 percent. This sector includes temporary
help workers, some of the first to be hired in recoveries.

40
Private educational services appear to be pushed around by seasonal factors and registered an
increase in jobs of 23.1 percent. A year ago, this sector registered job declines of 24.1 percent.
Health services came in at a healthy job increase of 3.4 percent.

After posting four consecutive quarters of job gains, leisure and hospitality jobs slipped back
with a job decline of 1.5 percent, but the Y/Y job gain is up 1.3 percent.

Other services that include personal, repair, and maintenance services were increased by 5.0
percent. This follows a strong 5.8 percent increase in the third quarter.

The government sector job loss is 3.1 percent with a Y/Y job loss of 1.3 percent. The government
sector typically lags the private sector during recessionary periods. Most of the loss in jobs is due
to federal and local government, with local government education down 2.0 percent. State
government added jobs during the quarter as demand for college increased, raising state
education employment by 6.6 percent.

Regional Trends

We prefer to wait until the yearly benchmarked data comes out to complete this section. The
early release date for this forecast prevented us from using the benchmarked data which is due to
be available on March 1. Regional Trends will return with the next quarterly forecast.

41
Oregon Index of Leading Indicators

Oregon Index of Leading Indicators

(Six-Month Annualized Percent Change, through December 2010)
30% 10.0%

20% 6.7%

10% 3.3%

0% 0.0%

-10% -3.3%

-20% -6.7%

-30% -10.0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Leading Index (Left Axis) Diffusion Index <50 Nonfarm Employment (Right Axis)

In December 2010, the six month percentage change in the Oregon Index of Leading Indicators 2
was 7.0 percent, following a revised 3.9 percent change the prior month. The Index essentially
moved sideways during the summer and into early fall, however the past two months have seen
sizable gains. The overall Index value is the largest it has been since August 2008, or just prior to
the onset of the financial crisis. In December, five of the eleven indicators registered positive
values. The three indicators that have shown the strongest and most pronounced improvement
are the Oregon Dollar Index (currency depreciation), Industrial Production and Air Freight
Tonnage. Each of these indicators has been contributing positively to the Index for at least the
past five months. The two other positive indicators are the Purchasing Managers’ Index and
Initial Unemployment Claims, which have declined significantly in December and into January
on a seasonally adjusted basis. The one indicator that has been strongly negative the past few
months is the Semiconductor Book-to-Bill ratio. While Bookings for new orders have leveled off
in the past six months, December 2010 was the largest December on record since 2000. The
reason the ratio is contributing negatively is the fact that Billings are also at their highest level
since 2000 and have increased in the past few months faster than Bookings. Overall the health of
the semiconductor industry is good, even though the ratio has fallen in recent months, dampening

2
The OILI applies the Conference Board’s methodology for the U.S. National Leading Index to Oregon-specific components. The eleven
components incorporated in the OILI include: Semiconductor book-to-bill ratio, Oregon housing permits, Institute for Supply Management’s
purchasing managers index, University of Michigan consumer sentiment index, Oregon withholding, new Oregon incorporations, Oregonian
help-wanted index, Portland International Airport air freight tonnage, Oregon trade-weighted dollar index, Industrial Production Index, and initial
Oregon unemployment claims.

42
the growth of OILI. The fact that the Index has turned significantly positive in recent months
bodes well for future employment growth in Oregon. Expectations are for moderate employment
gains throughout 2011 as the recovery continues.

Short-Term Outlook

Overview

Warnings of a double-dip recession are heard less on the streets. The US economy got two
insurance cards played to keep the recovery going. Federal stimulus policy not only extended the
Bush tax cuts for two years, but also cut employee payroll tax rates by two percent and allowed
bonus depreciation expensing into 2011 and 2012. From the Federal Reserve, we have QE II
(Quantitative Easing Part II) with the $600 billion Treasury purchases expected to continue
through mid-2011.

IHS Global Insight lists their top-10 risks for 2011. One needs to keep in mind that besides
downside risk, there are also upside risks. This forecasting firm has recently switched its
weighting on risks so now the probability of upside risks is 20 percent and downside risks is 15
percent. Here are a few of the risks:

• Policy Mistakes, Especially Too Much Fiscal or Monetary Tightening

• Deeper Housing Corrections

• Higher Inflation in Emerging Markets

• Equity and Property Bubbles

• Spikes in the Prices of Oil, Food, and Other Commodities

• Strong Growth in Consumer Spending in the United States, Europe, and Asia

• Greater Business Optimism and Spending

Oregon faces these same risks which are national and international in scope. With strong trading
ties to China, any faltering due to inflation or asset bubbles could negatively impact Oregon
exports. Housing remains one of the key risks for this year as the oversupply still has room to
decline. Oregon will also benefit if business outlooks improve and our traded industries find
greater demand for their goods and services. Stronger growth in consumer spending will spill
over into Oregon businesses with further expansions and job hiring.

Although the outlook is mixed with both downside and upside risks, the addition of the upside
risks is a welcome change. The forecast continues with a relatively “jobless” recovery where
employment rises slowly in 2011 before picking up steam in 2012.

OEA (Office of Economic Analysis) forecasts an increase of 1.8 percent in total employment in
the first and second quarters of 2011. The second half of the year will marginally be stronger and
just above 2.0 percent growth in 2012.

43
The year average for 2011 is an employment increase of 1.4 percent. Although the quarterly job
growth is greater than this, the slow growth is not strong enough to boost the yearly average
higher than 1.4 percent. Job growth is projected to continue in 2012 at 2.0 percent and 2.1
percent in 2013.

Table O.2 compares OEA’s forecast to other published forecasts. OEA’s forecast for employment
follows the trends from the national forecasting firm IHS Global Insight. For 2011, all
forecasters have a stronger employment outlook compared to OEA. Some of the local forecasting
groups have not finalized their 2012 forecasts. With the limited comparison, employment growth
trends higher moving into 2012, with only Wells Fargo & Co. having lower job growth outlook
compared to OEA. Of note is the robust job growth of 2.9 percent forecasted by Portland General
Electric for both 2011 and 2012.

Table O.2
Oregon Total Nonfarm Employment and Personal Income Growth

Employment Personal Income

Forecaster Date of Forecast 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013
IHS Global Insight January 2011 1.7 2.4 2.4 5.8 4.1 5.2
Wells Fargo & Co. January 2011 1.5 1.7 N/A 4.0 4.2 N/A
John Mitchell January 2011 1.7 N/A N/A 4.9 N/A N/A
Conerly Consulting January 2011 1.6 3.0 N/A 3.3 4.8 N/A
Portland General Electric January 2011 2.9 2.9 N/A 5.4 5.9 N/A
OEA January 2011 1.4 2.0 2.1 4.0 4.4 4.7
Consensus* January 2011 1.8 2.4 N/A 4.3 4.8 N/A
*Consensus forecast from Western Blue Chip forecast

The IHS Global Insight forecast is incorporated into the OEA forecast. IHS Global Insight has a
slightly higher growth path in 2011 compared to OEA which continues into 2012 and 2013.

Personal income growth trend is somewhat similar for IHS Global Insight and Wells Fargo & Co.
IHS Global Insight has a strong bounced back in 2011 with more moderate growth in 2012, then
stronger growth of 2013. OEA’s forecast builds over time but is still less than IHS Global
Insight’s forecast for 2013.

44
Table O.3
Oregon Forecast Summary
Quarterly Annual
2010:4 2011:1 2011:2 2011:3 2011:4 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Personal Income ($ billions)

Nominal Personal Income 143.7 145.3 146.9 148.4 150.1 138.2 142.0 147.7 154.2 161.4 170.1
% change 3.2 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 (0.7) 2.8 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.4
Real Personal Income (base year=2005) 128.8 129.7 130.8 131.7 132.6 126.5 127.8 131.2 134.9 138.8 143.4
% change 1.3 2.9 3.2 2.9 2.9 (0.9) 1.0 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.3
Nominal Wages and Salaries 72.4 73.5 74.3 75.1 76.0 70.4 71.4 74.7 78.2 82.0 86.1
% change 3.6 6.3 4.4 4.5 4.9 (5.1) 1.4 4.7 4.7 4.8 5.0
Other Indicators

Per Capita Income ($1,000) 37.3 37.6 37.9 38.2 38.6 36.1 36.9 38.1 39.4 40.8 42.5
% change 2.5 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.6 (1.5) 2.2 3.2 3.4 3.6 4.2
Average Wage rate ($1,000) 44.6 45.1 45.4 45.7 46.0 43.0 43.9 45.5 46.8 48.0 49.3
% change 5.9 4.4 2.6 2.8 2.8 0.9 2.1 3.7 2.8 2.7 2.7
Population (Millions) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0
% change 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.2
Housing Starts (Thousands) 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.5 8.7 11.2 14.7
% change 9.1 (14.2) 8.6 14.1 7.9 (40.8) 0.6 (1.2) 16.0 28.8 30.8
Unemployment Rate 10.5 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8 11.0 10.6 10.1 9.0 7.9 7.0
Point Change (0.0) (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) 4.5 (0.4) (0.4) (1.1) (1.1) (0.9)
Employment (Thousands)

Total Nonfarm 1,600.5 1,607.6 1,614.9 1,622.0 1,630.8 1,612.4 1,596.9 1,618.8 1,651.1 1,686.1 1,724.8
% change 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.2 (6.2) (1.0) 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.3
Private Nonfarm 1,301.7 1,311.8 1,320.3 1,329.0 1,337.7 1,312.5 1,295.8 1,324.7 1,357.3 1,390.1 1,425.6
% change 2.4 3.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 (7.6) (1.3) 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.6
Construction 65.4 65.9 66.2 66.3 66.2 73.9 65.7 66.2 66.6 70.6 77.8
% change (7.1) 3.1 2.3 0.7 (0.8) (21.5) (11.0) 0.6 0.6 6.0 10.2
Manufacturing 160.8 161.2 162.1 163.0 164.0 167.3 161.8 162.6 166.9 171.4 174.6
% change (0.4) 1.0 2.3 2.1 2.5 (14.2) (3.3) 0.5 2.7 2.7 1.9
Durable Manufacturing 112.0 112.2 112.8 113.4 114.3 117.8 112.8 113.2 116.8 120.9 123.7
% change (3.6) 0.5 2.2 2.2 3.0 (17.5) (4.2) 0.3 3.3 3.5 2.3
Wood Product Manufacturing 19.1 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.5 20.9 19.7 19.3 20.1 21.4 22.9
% change (12.2) 0.5 1.8 2.7 3.8 (21.6) (5.8) (2.1) 4.3 6.4 7.1
High Tech Manufacturing 34.5 34.4 34.4 34.3 34.4 35.5 34.8 34.4 35.1 36.2 36.2
% change (4.4) (0.9) (0.7) (0.4) 1.4 (8.7) (1.9) (1.2) 2.2 3.1 0.0
Transportation Equipment 8.6 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.7 10.0 8.7 8.6 8.9 9.2 9.5
% change (6.2) (1.6) 1.7 2.4 3.2 (33.9) (12.3) (1.7) 3.3 3.8 3.1
Nondurable Manufacturing 48.8 49.0 49.3 49.6 49.7 49.5 49.0 49.4 50.0 50.5 50.9
% change 7.2 2.2 2.4 1.9 1.3 (5.3) (1.1) 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.7
Private nonmanufacturing 1,140.9 1,150.6 1,158.2 1,166.0 1,173.7 1,145.2 1,134.1 1,162.1 1,190.4 1,218.7 1,251.0
% change 2.8 3.4 2.7 2.7 2.7 (6.6) (1.0) 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.7
Retail Trade 184.7 185.1 185.4 185.7 186.4 183.6 183.4 185.7 188.7 192.4 194.8
% change 6.4 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.5 (6.7) (0.1) 1.2 1.6 1.9 1.3
Wholesale Trade 75.0 75.5 76.2 77.0 77.9 75.5 75.2 76.6 79.8 81.8 83.3
% change (2.8) 2.4 3.9 4.2 5.1 (6.2) (0.4) 2.0 4.1 2.5 1.8
Information 35.4 35.9 36.2 36.7 37.2 33.1 34.0 36.5 37.6 37.5 37.2
% change 9.1 5.8 3.5 6.0 5.6 (7.0) 2.9 7.3 3.0 (0.3) (0.9)
Professional and Business Services 179.0 180.7 183.3 185.0 186.4 178.8 176.3 183.9 187.7 195.8 208.0
% change 6.6 3.7 6.0 3.6 3.2 (8.8) (1.4) 4.3 2.1 4.3 6.3
Health Services 195.0 196.8 197.6 198.9 200.7 192.9 194.5 198.5 204.5 208.6 213.9
% change 3.4 3.7 1.7 2.7 3.6 1.9 0.8 2.1 3.0 2.0 2.5
Leisure and Hospitality 164.3 166.4 166.8 167.7 168.5 163.1 164.1 167.4 170.6 172.8 173.5
% change (1.5) 5.4 0.9 2.3 1.8 (5.6) 0.6 2.0 1.9 1.3 0.4
Government 298.8 295.8 294.5 293.0 293.1 299.9 301.0 294.1 293.8 296.0 299.2
% change (3.1) (3.9) (1.8) (2.0) 0.2 0.6 0.4 (2.3) (0.1) 0.7 1.1

45
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 appears to have reached a bottom and the climb out will take some
time. The Random Lengths Composite Price (Random Lengths Publications, January 2010) for
lumber is $282 per thousand feet in December compared to $275 per thousand feet in November.
The 2010 yearly price average for this broad product category is up 28 percent. Price levels are
still well below 2005 and 2006 yearly averages, but a hopeful sign that a recovery is underway.
The U.S. has filed a complaint against British Columbia for breaking the 2006 softwood lumber
agreement by selling timber at artificially low prices. Action on the complaint could take over
two years, but a similar case involving Ontario and Quebec ended in a judgment for the U.S. In
the industry, Liberty Homes Inc., a maker of manufactured homes, will close its Sheridan plant
in February laying off 83 workers. The Swanson Group is laying off 100 workers at its
Springfield plywood plant. Murphy Company restarted its Rogue River plywood mill bringing
back 108 workers. The wood products industry is projected to lose 2.1 percent of its jobs in 2011.
The outlook improves with job growth of 4.3 percent in 2012 and 6.4 percent in 2013. Although
the outlook has relatively strong employment growth, the job level in 2013 is still well below the
job level in 2008.

Computer and electronic product sector will see mild growth in 2011, but not enough to lift the
yearly average into positive territory. The SEMI book-to-bill ratio dropped to 0.9 in December,
indicating that billings are now higher than orders. But behind this number, the three-month
moving average in December for billings rose 8.7 percent and orders are up 1.4 percent.
Although the strong rise in billings brought the book-to-bill ratio down, orders also rose, pointing
to continued activity in this sector. Sales forecasts for the semiconductor market for 2011 appear
positive across the board, ranging from 2.3 percent to 10.0 percent (EETimes Dec. 13, 2010).
Although the market news is positive, some firms may be contracting in the near future. RadiSys
Corporation is set to layoff around 60 workers in Hillsboro. On the job adding side, SoloPower
announced plans to open a flexible thin-film solar cell plant in Wilsonville and initially employ
170 workers. The computer and electronic product sector is projected to lose jobs at a rate of 1.2
percent in 2011. Job growth will turn positive at the end of 2011 leading to an annual growth rate
of 2.2 percent in 2012 and 3.1 percent in 2013.

The transportation equipment sector is expected to lose 53 percent of its employment from 2006
to 2011 on an annual average basis. This sector is still expected to be down 45.4 percent in 2017
from its recent high employment in 2006. Country Coach Corporation reopened its
manufacturing plant in Junction City on a limited basis and employs 10 people. The outlook for
the transportation equipment sector is further jobs losses of 1.7 percent in 2011. The job outlook
improves with gains of 3.3 percent in 2012 and 3.8 percent in 2013.

The metals and machinery sector managed to add a small amount of employment at the end of
2010. Evraz North America, the parent company of Oregon Steel Mills, will move its
headquarters from Portland to Chicago to better access key customers, affecting about 60
managers. For 2011, this sector should be adding jobs at the rate of 1.6 percent. Job growth
improves with rates of 3.8 percent in 2012 and 3.7 percent in 2013.

46
Other durables have been adding workers though most of 2010. This sector includes industries
involved in electrical equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing, furniture and cabinet
making, and other types of manufacturing such as medical and dental equipment. Meggit
Polymer Solutions hired an additional 35 workers to its McMinnville plant. The deep recession
will result in the closure of Alcan Cable plant in Wilbur. This sector is projected to have job
growth of 4.3 percent in 2011, 3.3 percent in 2012, and 0.9 percent in 2013.

Food processing, while highly seasonal, has continued to add jobs through the recession on an
annual basis. Gray & Company will lay off 23 workers from its cherry processing plant in Forest
Grove. Mission Foods in McMinnville will 16 workers for a new corn procession line. This
sector is expected to be relatively flat in 2011 with a slight loss of jobs at 0.5 percent. Growth
continues with 1.5 percent in 2012 and 1.1 percent in 2013.

Other non-durables that include paper and allied products are projected to have job increase of
2.2 percent in 2011, 1.1 percent in 2012, and 0.7 percent in 2013. HM3 will break ground for a
briquettes plant in Prineville to employ 50 workers. Indow Windows in north Portland is building
energy-efficient window inserts and plans to employ 30 workers. A biomedical firm in
Wilsonville, bioMérieux Inc., will close its plant and phasing out 100 positions starting this
summer.

Constructions jobs should finally turn up in 2011. Total Oregon building permits are still down
by 5.6 percent year to date for November 2010. Grubb & Ellis note that the Portland Central
Business District at the close of 2010 had the 3rd lowest vacancy rate of the 47 markets that it
tracks. Vacancy rates were also coming down in the Portland industrial market. A number of
construction projects, from retail space to industrial space, are underway throughout the state.
Iberdrola Renewables will build a biomass plant in Lakeview creating around 70 jobs. A five-
story office building will be started in March and will employ around 75 to 100 construction
related jobs in Eugene. Construction jobs are expected mildly increase by 0.6 percent in 2011
and 2012 before picking up steam with growths of 6.0 percent in 2013.

Service Producing Sectors

Trade, transportation, and utilities sector lost jobs in 2010 at a rate of 0.4 percent. This sector is
projected to gain jobs at 1.6 percent in 2011, 2.9 percent in 2012, and 2.4 percent in 2013. The
Port of Portland saw a 5.6 percent increase in commercial flight operations and a 2.0 percent
increase in passenger traffic for year to date December 2010 compared to 2009. The churning of
openings and closings of retail establishments has continued over the last few months. Notable
announcements are: the expansion of the Walmart in Newport and an expected 85 additional
employees, Ultimate Electronics opened in Tigard with around 70 to 80 employees, a planned
Bi-Mat in Brookings with around 60 jobs, Home Depot to break ground this spring in Grants
Pass with around 150 people when opened, and the closure of Haggen Food & Pharmacy in the
Tanasbourne shopping area of Beaverton affecting around 50 employees. Retail employment
declined in 2010 at a slight 0.1 percent and will decrease in 2011 at a 1.2 percent rate with
further increases in 2012 with 1.6 percent growth and 1.9 percent in 2013. Wholesale trade jobs
were down in 2010, and are expected to rise 2.0 percent in 2011, followed by 4.1 percent in
2012. Growth of 2.5 percent in projected for 2013.

47
The information sector, which includes traditional publishers such as newspapers and publishers
of software, added jobs at a rate of 2.9 percent in 2010. Navis, a software developer in Bend,
doubled its workforce to 75 employees. This sector had a strong second half of 2010 which is
projected to continue into 2011 with growth of 7.3 percent. Job growth should continue at 3.0
percent in 2012, and then level off with a slight decrease of 0.3 percent in 2013.

The financial activities sector is starting to shake off the after effects of the financial crisis and
recession. The fourth quarter of 2010 was this first positive job gains since the first quarter of
2007. This sector will have job growth of 2.4 percent in 2011, 3.6 percent in 2012, and 1.7
percent in 2013.

Professional and business services lost employment by 1.4 percent in 2010, even though is
finished the year on a strong job gain. This sector is expected to rebound in 2011 with projected
gains of 4.3 percent. The industry will continue to show job gains with 2.1 percent in 2012
followed by 4.3 percent growth in 2013.

Education and health services have survived the downturn better than any other sector (except
for food processors). Job growth was relatively weak at 0.4 percent in 2010 but still quite an
accomplishment for such a large employment sector. Job growth is expected to be 2.3 percent in
2011, 2.8 percent in 2012, and 1.7 percent in 2013. Private sector education, which saw
tremendous job leading up to the recession, had its largest drop in employment with a 2.2 percent
decline in 2010 over the period back to 1990. Private education is forecast to increase job growth
to 3.7 percent in 2011 with growth tapering off at 1.1 percent in 2012 and then flat with a slight
decline of 0.1 percent in 2013. In the health services industry, Santiam Memorial Hospital in
Stayton will expand facilities and add up to 50 jobs. The growth rate for this sector is projected
to be 2.1 percent in 2011, 3.0 percent in 2012, and 2.0 percent in 2013.

Leisure and hospitality is starting to recover from the decrease in household discretionary
spending during the recession. Hot Lake Springs near La Grande will open following renovations
and provide about 60 full- and part-time jobs. Jeld-Wen has found buyers for resorts in Central
and South Central Oregon which should preserve jobs for current employees. Black Bear Diner
is opening in Grants Pass in March with around 50 to 70 employees. John’s Incredible Pizza will
open in Beaverton in March and employ 185 people. Leisure and hospitality is forecasted to
increase jobs by the rate of 2.0 percent in 2011, 1.9 percent in 2012, and 1.3 percent in 2013.

The government sector employment increased by 0.4 percent in 2010. Government employment
typically lags during recessionary times and is expected to lose jobs at a rate of 2.3 percent in
2011. Job growth will be flat with a decline of 0.1 percent in 2012, increasing to 0.7 percent in
2013. State and local government are expected to shed jobs in 2011 as they attempt to balance
budgets. Layoffs were announced by the City of Gresham and are typical of other local
governments throughout the state.

Population growth in the state is forecasted to increase 0.7 percent in 2011, and grow at a slightly
faster rate in 2012 at 0.9 percent and 1.0 percent in 2013.

48
Personal Income Components

Personal income is projected to increase 4.0 percent in 2011. This reflects the continued recovery
and slowly higher trending employment numbers projected for this year. Personal income growth
continues to increase to 4.4 percent in 2012. The growth increase is still relatively slow given the
slow growth outlook for the economy. The growth path follows the economic outlook and does
not reach above 5.0 percent annualized rate until the first quarter of 2014.

Wage and salary income picks up in 2011 with a growth rate of 4.7 percent. Keeping with the
economic outlook, growth rates remain fairly constant with rates of 4.7 percent in 2012 and 4.8
percent in 2013. Growth rates do not reach above a 5.0 percent annualized rate until the first
quarter of 2014.

The other income components generally follow the economic outlook. Transfer payments growth
will soften as the economy improves.

Per capita income in Oregon will stay below the U.S. average throughout the forecast horizon.
Oregon’s economy is expected to grow faster than the U.S. economy starting is 2011 with job
growth outpacing the US but personal income growth will be slightly above starting in 2012.
Most job gains will come from the nonmanufacturing sector of the private economy. But
Oregon’s population growth also will be higher than the nation’s starting in 2013. As a result, per
capita income in Oregon will not gain ground compared to the U.S. average and will be slightly
lower in the outer years.

The Oregon Employment Department has published a detailed look at Oregon’s per capita
personal income entitled Why Oregon Trails The Nation and can be found at:
http://olmis.emp.state.or.us/olmisj/PubReader?itemid=00007366

49
Forecast Changes Relative to the December 2010 Forecast

Table O.4 provides a summary of forecast changes compared to the December 2010 forecast.

Personal income was slightly lowered 2010 due to BEA revisions to early quarters of 2010. The
main revisions were to farm income and wages and salaries. The outer years are also slightly
raised higher due to higher national forecasts and continued outlook for the recovery to continue.
Real personal income was likely wise impacted for 2010. The outer years are not raised as much
as for nominal personal income due to slightly higher projection for inflation.

The total nonfarm employment numbers are slightly revised upward but essentially reflect no
change from the December 2010 forecast. The revision reflects a marginally higher fourth
quarter estimates relative to forecast. The next quarterly forecast will incorporate the annual
benchmarking of employment estimates to be completed by the Oregon Employment
Department at the end of February or early March.

Housing starts were lowered for 2011 and 2012 to both reflect a lowering of the national forecast
and OEA’s assessment that the oversupply of housing still needs more time to work itself through
the market. While the outer year forecasts were raised, the housing start level is still below long
run averages.

Construction employment has been lowered in 2011 through 2013 to reflect the housing start
forecast and a relatively weak commercial real estate. Likewise, the outer years upward revisions
mirror the housing outlook and general economic activity. The level of construction employment
in 2017 is still below the peak reached in 2006.

Manufacturing is lowered throughout the forecast horizon. The near term changes are not large
and mainly reflect the lower estimates compared to forecast in the fourth quarter of 2010. The
December forecast had somewhat robust growth in the outer years and these have been lowered,
still retaining a stronger growth view for years 2015 to 2017.

Private nonmanufacturing is raised in the near term due to slightly higher estimates compared to
forecast for the fourth quarter. The outer years are raised a bit higher given a higher national
forecast.

Government is lowered in the near term due to lower estimates for local government compared
to forecast. This is carried out to the outer years.

50
Table O.4
Oregon Forecast Change (Current vs. Last)
Quarterly Annual
2010:4 2011:1 2011:2 2011:3 2011:4 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Personal Income ($ billions)

Nominal Personal Income 143.7 145.3 146.9 148.4 150.1 138.2 142.0 147.7 154.2 161.4 170.1
% change (0.2) 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.0 (0.3) 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.7
Real Personal Income (base year=2005) 128.8 129.7 130.8 131.7 132.6 126.5 127.8 131.2 134.9 138.8 143.4
% change (0.2) 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.0 (0.2) 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.7
Nominal Wages and Salaries 72.4 73.5 74.3 75.1 76.0 70.4 71.4 74.7 78.2 82.0 86.1
% change 0.7 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.5
Other Indicators

Per Capita Income ($1,000) 37.3 37.6 37.9 38.2 38.6 36.1 36.9 38.1 39.4 40.8 42.5
% change (0.2) 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.0 (0.3) 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.7
Average Wage rate ($1,000) 44.6 45.1 45.4 45.7 46.0 43.0 43.9 45.5 46.8 48.0 49.3
% change 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.0
Population (Millions) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0
% change 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Housing Starts (Thousands) 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.5 8.7 11.2 14.7
% change 4.6 (1.4) (1.3) (1.3) (1.3) (0.1) 0.8 (1.3) (2.1) 1.5 4.4
Unemployment Rate 10.5 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8 11.0 10.6 10.1 9.0 7.9 7.0
Point Change (0.2) (0.4) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) (0.5) (0.5) (0.4) (0.3)
Employment (Thousands)

Total Nonfarm 1,600.5 1,607.6 1,614.9 1,622.0 1,630.8 1,612.4 1,596.9 1,618.8 1,651.1 1,686.1 1,724.8
% change 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 (0.0) 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4
Private Nonfarm 1,301.7 1,311.8 1,320.3 1,329.0 1,337.7 1,312.5 1,295.8 1,324.7 1,357.3 1,390.1 1,425.6
% change 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 (0.0) 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.7
Construction 65.4 65.9 66.2 66.3 66.2 73.9 65.7 66.2 66.6 70.6 77.8
% change (1.1) (0.1) 0.4 0.0 (0.6) (0.0) (0.2) (0.1) (1.8) (0.1) 3.5
Manufacturing 160.8 161.2 162.1 163.0 164.0 167.3 161.8 162.6 166.9 171.4 174.6
% change (0.3) (0.5) (0.3) (0.5) (0.7) (0.0) (0.0) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7) (1.4)
Durable Manufacturing 112.0 112.2 112.8 113.4 114.3 117.8 112.8 113.2 116.8 120.9 123.7
% change (0.7) (0.8) (0.7) (0.9) (0.9) (0.0) (0.1) (0.8) (0.4) (0.4) (1.4)
Wood Product Manufacturing 19.1 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.5 20.9 19.7 19.3 20.1 21.4 22.9
% change (1.1) 0.3 1.9 3.5 4.1 (0.0) (0.3) 2.4 4.1 4.1 5.4
High Tech Manufacturing 34.5 34.4 34.4 34.3 34.4 35.5 34.8 34.4 35.1 36.2 36.2
% change (1.1) (2.5) (3.2) (4.6) (5.3) (0.0) (0.2) (3.9) (4.5) (4.7) (7.4)
Transportation Equipment 8.6 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.7 10.0 8.7 8.6 8.9 9.2 9.5
% change (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (0.6) (0.2) (0.0) (0.1) (0.6) 1.1 2.1 (2.3)
Nondurable Manufacturing 48.8 49.0 49.3 49.6 49.7 49.5 49.0 49.4 50.0 50.5 50.9
% change 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.2 (0.1) (0.0) 0.2 0.2 (0.7) (1.2) (1.4)
Private nonmanufacturing 1,140.9 1,150.6 1,158.2 1,166.0 1,173.7 1,145.2 1,134.1 1,162.1 1,190.4 1,218.7 1,251.0
% change 0.2 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.0
Retail Trade 184.7 185.1 185.4 185.7 186.4 183.6 183.4 185.7 188.7 192.4 194.8
% change 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.8
Wholesale Trade 75.0 75.5 76.2 77.0 77.9 75.5 75.2 76.6 79.8 81.8 83.3
% change (0.8) (0.4) (0.1) (0.3) (0.3) 0.0 (0.2) (0.3) (0.5) (0.7) (1.0)
Information 35.4 35.9 36.2 36.7 37.2 33.1 34.0 36.5 37.6 37.5 37.2
% change 0.5 1.7 2.3 3.3 3.8 0.0 0.1 2.8 2.7 0.6 0.5
Professional and Business Services 179.0 180.7 183.3 185.0 186.4 178.8 176.3 183.9 187.7 195.8 208.0
% change 0.7 0.7 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.0 0.2 1.0 (0.8) (1.1) 0.5
Health Services 195.0 196.8 197.6 198.9 200.7 192.9 194.5 198.5 204.5 208.6 213.9
% change 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 (0.0) 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1
Leisure and Hospitality 164.3 166.4 166.8 167.7 168.5 163.1 164.1 167.4 170.6 172.8 173.5
% change (0.8) 0.7 1.0 1.7 2.2 0.0 (0.2) 1.4 2.8 2.8 2.5
Government 298.8 295.8 294.5 293.0 293.1 299.9 301.0 294.1 293.8 296.0 299.2
% change 0.1 (0.5) (0.6) (0.7) (0.7) 0.0 0.0 (0.6) (0.8) (0.7) (0.6)

51
Graph O.1
OREGON AND U.S. ECONOMIC FORECASTS
OREGON U.S.

PERSONAL INCOME REAL PERSONAL INCOME

9
2005 CHAIN WEIGHTED DOLLARS
7

6
7
5

5 4
Percent Change

Percent Change
3
3 2

1
1
0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
-1
-1 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
-2

-3 -3

NON FARM EMPLOYMENT POPULATION

5

4 2
3

1
Percent Change

Percent Change

-1

-2 1
-3

-4

-5

-6

-7 0.0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT PRIVATE NON MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT

5
6
5
4
0 3
2
Percent Change

Percent Change

1
-5 0
-1
-2
-3
-10
-4
-5
-6
-15 -7
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

WOOD PRODUCT MANUFACTURING HOUSING PRICES

& HIGH TECH MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT REPEAT PURCHASE INDEX: OREGON VS. U.S. AVERAGE

55
Wood Product High Tech Manufacturing
50 18
16
45 14
Employees (000's)

12
40 10
Percent Change

8
35
6
4
30
2
25 0
-2
20 -4
-6
15 -8
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2015

52
 GRAPH O.2
COMPARISON OF LAST THREE FORECASTS
Sep 2010 Dec 2010 Mar 2011

PERSONAL INCOME GROWTH EMPLOYMENT GROWTH

10 4
3

8 2
1

6 0
-1

Percent
Percent

4 -2
-3

2 -4
-5

0 -6
1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015
-7

1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
-2

Alternative Scenarios

The baseline forecast is our projection of the most likely outcome for the Oregon economy. As
with any forecast, however, other scenarios are possible. The economy could either under- or
over- perform relative to our baseline forecast. We broadly call these forecasts the Optimistic and
Pessimistic scenarios. While we attach the highest probability to the baseline forecast, these other
outcomes are within the realm of possibility. Table O.5 shows the annual summary of alternative
scenarios. Figure O.3 shows the quarterly details of alternative scenarios for total nonfarm
employment, personal income, manufacturing employment, and private nonmanufacturing
employment.

Table O.5
Alternative Scenarios for Oregon Total Employment and Personal Income

Compared to Baseline Growth Rates

Baseline Pessimistic Losses Optimistic Gains Baseline Pessimistic Optimistic
Total Employment
(thousands) 2011 1,618.8 1,601.0 -17.8 1,635.1 16.3 1.4% 0.3% 2.4%

2012 1,651.1 1,617.9 -33.2 1,678.8 27.7 2.0% 1.1% 2.7%

2013 1,686.1 1,650.8 -35.3 1,723.5 37.4 2.1% 2.0% 2.7%

2014 1,724.8 1,685.5 -39.4 1,764.1 39.3 2.3% 2.1% 2.4%

Personal Income
($ billions) 2011 147.7 144.9 -2.8 150.1 2.4 4.0% 2.0% 5.7%

2012 154.2 149.9 -4.3 158.2 4.1 4.4% 3.4% 5.4%

2013 161.4 156.3 -5.1 166.5 5.2 4.7% 4.3% 5.3%

2014 170.1 163.8 -6.3 176.2 6.1 5.4% 4.8% 5.8%

Optimistic Scenario: The fiscal stimulus and extension packages passed last December result in
even stronger growth in the U.S. economy. Consumer and business confidence rises and
translates into more spending and investments. The housing market correction is over and its
recovery is stronger. The recovery becomes sustainable much sooner compared to the baseline
scenario. Job hiring is stronger and the expansion matures earlier as interest rates creep up a bit

53
faster. The Federal Reserve raises interest rates earlier than in the baseline scenario but this does
not choke off the recovery and puts inflation fears to rest.

In this scenario, Oregon follows the nation. Total employment is a whole percentage point higher
at 2.4 percent compared to the baseline rate of 1.4 percent in the baseline case. With the recovery
stronger and maturing faster, growth rates of both employment and personal income still outpace
the baseline scenario but the distance between the two start to fade.

Figure O.3
Total Nonfarm Employment Personal Income
172
1 ,75 0

167
1 ,72 5
Optimistic
Optimistic
1 ,70 0 162

Base

in Billions $
(Thou san ds)

1 ,67 5 157

Base
1 ,65 0 152

Pessimistic
1 ,62 5 147

Pessimistic 142
1 ,60 0

1 ,57 5 137

2010:1 2010:3 2011:1 2011:3 2012:1 2012:3 2013:1 2013:3 2010:1 2010:3 2011:1 2011:3 2012:1 2012:3 2013:1 2013:3

Manufacturing Employment Private Non-Manufacturing Employment

190

185 1,250
Optimistic Optimistic
180
1,225

175
in Thous ands

in Thousands

1,200
Base
170 Base
1,175
165
Pessimistic
1,150
160

Pessimistic 1,125
155

150 1,100
2010:1 2010:3 2011:1 2011:3 2012:1 2012:3 2013:1 2013:3 2010:1 2010:3 2011:1 2011:3 2012:1 2012:3 2013:1 2013:3

Pessimistic Scenario: The initial improvements in the economy in 2010 hit some awakening
road blocks that have been slumbering beneath the surface. Housing market problems continue
to persist and with them the financial markets return to more weakened state. With credit
becoming tighter again, consumer and business confidence goes down and with it spending and
investments. Foreign growth is also weaker and European sovereign debt problems hamper
international financial markets.

The impacts from this scenario would not place in the Oregon into recession, but employment
would be stuck at essentially 2010 levels during 2011. Manufacturing employment is effected the
most with job losses in the near term and not returning to 2010 levels until the start of 2014.
Personal income growth is two percentage points behind the baseline case in 2011. The
pessimistic scenario essentially stalls the economic recovery for a year, with tepid growth
starting in 2012.

54
Forecast Risks

Fears of a double-dip recession are fading. Recently, IHS Global Insight has changed their
probabilities of their optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. They now have the chances of the
optimistic scenario higher than the chances of the pessimistic scenario. The continuation of the
Federal Reserve QEII (Quantitative Easing Part II) and fiscal policy extensions of tax cuts, bonus
depreciation, and unemployment benefits will help boost activity in 2011. Near term economic
signals point to continued economic growth in 2011 and beyond. Although this year looks very
promising, the risk of headwinds still lingers on the horizon.

Oregon’s economy generally follows the U.S. and same issues apply. Wood products
employment has been decreasing over time and is impacted by both cyclical and structural
factors. Transportation equipment manufacturing appears to have structural factors and the RV
sector will not likely come back to its former self as the recovery continues. Will electrical car
making possibly replace these lost jobs? The Intel announcement has very positive short term
improvements for construction and high tech jobs but also has longer term implications for high
tech to play a major role in the Oregon economy. Intel is also a firm that could expand almost
anywhere it chooses in the world. Its expansion plans in Oregon is in many ways a statement that
this state has many advantages for businesses to locate and expand. Only time will tell if these
intangibles will play out in real positive numbers for the state.

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 are approaching $100 a barrel. 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 wages costs do not accelerate,
this commodity inflation could be short lived.

55
• The temporary return of federal timber payments to Oregon counties. Included in the federal
bailout was a provision to reinstate federal timber payments for four years. Oregon counties
will receive $254 million, down from the previous $282 million level and will be phased out
over the four year window, through 2011. 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 Egypt and other parts of the Middle East, and commodity
price spikes and inflationary pressures in emerging markets. 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 with 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
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 Oregon’s Gross State Product to have the second highest growth rate in
the nation over the coming years.

The slower economic growth of 1998 through 2003 and 2008 through 2011 also slowed the
growth of Oregon’s per capita income and average wages. The devastating 1980-82 recession
slowed the growth of incomes and wages until 1986. In the 1990s, as the Oregon economy

56
became more industrially diversified, per capita income and wages grew faster than the nation’s
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 nation’s. 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 2017.

The Oregon Employment Department has published a detailed look at Oregon’s per capita
personal income entitled Why Oregon Trails The Nation and can be found at:
http://olmis.emp.state.or.us/olmisj/PubReader?itemid=00007366

The key factors that will fuel the state’s long-term growth are listed below:

• Steady in-migration and population growth: High population growth is an opportunity for
economic growth as the state creates jobs to serve a growing population. At the same time, it
presents a challenge for the state as the demand for services increases.

• Export growth and high commodity prices: Global economic expansion will increase demand
for Oregon commodities, both finished and capital goods. Oregon is well positioned for trade
with countries in the Pacific Rim. High commodity prices will benefit agricultural and timber
producers in the state.

• Returning high energy prices. Recently, slower demand for oil has caused the gas price spike
to fade. However, the long-term growth of the developing world could cause demand to
return, creating upward price pressures. We have already seen how high energy prices can
slow consumer spending and raise business costs.

• Continued strength in domestic markets: Continued economic growth in California and other
major domestic markets will fuel demand for Oregon products.

• Business costs advantages: The Oregon economy will benefit from a comprehensive energy
plan. Efforts which have long been in place for electricity planning should extend to all
energy sources. If the plan can assure businesses of an abundant, reliable, and relatively
inexpensive supply of electricity and other sources of energy, the state (and the Pacific
Northwest) will continue to have a relative energy cost advantage over other regions. Oregon
has other business cost advantages, such as lower workers’ compensation rates and 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 Oregon’s house
prices, and Washington kept pace with Oregon. This relative advantage in housing cost is
narrowing as prices in California fall faster than in Oregon, with Washington once again
keeping pace with Oregon. If housing costs rise faster in Oregon than in the rest of the

57
 nation, companies will face increased difficulties recruiting workers. If Oregon can maintain
a relative cost advantage in housing, this factor will be attractive for firm location.

• Biotechnology and Clean Technology: These sectors are seen by many as the next growth
industries. Portland and the State have launched funding plans to promote the biotechnology
sector. The platform for the Oregon Business Plan includes nanotechnology as an emerging
field for Oregon. It is too early to tell if these are indeed the next growth industries and what
returns they may bring.

• Renewable Energy and Sustainable development: Centered in the Portland area, this
movement in sustainable building practices is spreading throughout the U.S. Uncertainty
surrounds the number of new jobs associated with this movement, but it may allow gains in
market shares for construction and consulting firms in Oregon. Renewable energy such as
solar and wind mills are increasing looking to Oregon as a place to locate.

• Quality of life: Oregon will continue to attract financially secure retirees. Companies that
place a high premium on quality of life will also want to locate in Oregon.

Oregon Regional Profile

The accompanying 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.

58
Table O. 6
Oregon's Economic Profile by County and Region

2010 2010 2008 2009

Total Employment Unemployment Rate Per capita personal Average wage per
Geography income job

Oregon 1,760,599 10.6% $36,365 $40,742

Portland 5-County 860,998 9.7% $40,987 $46,237
Clackamas 181,466 9.9% $44,803 $41,395
Columbia 21,613 12.0% $33,103 $32,467
Multnomah 351,417 9.9% $41,222 $46,232
Washington 263,444 8.9% $40,188 $51,351
Yamhill 43,058 10.5% $32,700 $33,927
Willamette Valley 429,169 10.6% $32,740 $36,162
Benton 39,963 7.2% $37,755 $42,683
Lane 163,028 10.7% $33,522 $35,475
Linn 48,038 13.2% $29,273 $34,826
Marion 141,577 10.9% $32,565 $36,422
Polk 36,563 9.0% $29,772 $29,891
Coast 84,839 10.9% $32,616 $30,250
Clatsop 18,883 9.3% $33,695 $30,878
Coos 25,017 12.5% $31,022 $30,491
Curry 8,135 12.7% $33,645 $29,025
Lincoln 20,740 10.6% $33,485 $29,665
Tillamook 12,064 9.3% $32,554 $30,517
Southern 160,729 13.1% $32,494 $33,089
Douglas 40,284 14.2% $31,115 $32,742
Jackson 90,158 12.3% $34,506 $34,039
Josephine 30,287 13.8% $29,287 $30,432
Central 143,901 13.0% $32,794 $33,325
Crook 7,671 17.0% $27,068 $31,193
Deschutes 68,795 14.1% $35,728 $35,307
Gilliam 1,170 6.7% $38,703 $39,011
Hood River 13,171 8.1% $33,374 $28,093
Jefferson 8,000 14.0% $27,165 $32,347
Klamath 26,923 13.1% $29,138 $32,297
Lake 3,301 13.1% $30,160 $31,323
Sherman 1,030 9.1% $45,263 $47,246
Wasco 13,228 8.9% $33,302 $30,873
Wheeler 613 10.6% $25,431 $24,466
Eastern 80,964 10.2% $28,398 $31,781
Baker 6,889 9.9% $27,659 $29,264
Grant 3,023 13.1% $29,957 $30,175
Harney 2,977 15.3% $27,567 $30,248
Malheur 11,934 10.7% $23,150 $28,960
Morrow 5,242 8.8% $29,833 $36,788
Umatilla 36,141 9.6% $29,287 $33,846
Union 11,409 10.1% $30,814 $30,198
Wallowa 3,350 11.8% $32,344 $27,615
Sources: Total employment and unemployment rate: Oregon Employment Department;
per capita personal income: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;
average wage per job: Oregon Employment Department.

59
Table O. 7
Oregon's Gross Farm & Ranch Sales By County and Region for 2009 and 2010 (in 1,000 $)

Year 2010p Year 2009r Change

Livestock & All Crop & Livestock & All Crop & in total sales
STATE/COUNTY All Crops Poultry Livestock All Crops Poultry Livestock from 08 to 09

OREGON 2,859,366 1,422,287 4,281,653 2,873,224 1,251,826 4,125,047 3.8%

Portland PMSA 687,867 126,586 814,453 757,687 111,364 869,051 -6.3%
Clackamas 230,634 63,529 294,163 256,025 57,269 313,294 -6.1%
Columbia 15,949 3,725 19,674 16,535 3,682 20,217 -2.7%
Multnomah 53,930 3,138 57,068 60,019 2,821 62,840 -9.2%
Washington 210,571 16,830 227,401 226,969 14,248 241,217 -5.7%
Yamhill 176,783 39,364 216,147 198,139 33,344 231,483 -6.6%
Willamette Valley 799,638 287,752 1,087,390 836,346 251,576 1,087,921 0.0%
Benton 69,929 12,833 82,762 72,834 10,854 83,688 -1.1%
Lane 81,265 31,236 112,501 86,851 28,368 115,219 -2.4%
Linn 182,351 58,501 240,852 184,429 52,779 237,208 1.5%
Marion 369,280 141,823 511,103 387,881 119,003 506,883 0.8%
Polk 96,813 43,359 140,172 104,351 40,572 144,923 -3.3%
Coast 36,206 157,785 193,991 42,725 121,292 164,017 18.3%
Clatsop 3,630 15,539 19,169 2,853 12,181 15,034 27.5%
Coos 12,206 18,029 30,235 16,417 15,098 31,515 -4.1%
Curry 9,450 3,498 12,948 13,389 3,276 16,665 -22.3%
Lincoln 8,150 2,076 10,226 7,921 2,070 9,991 2.4%
Tillamook 2,770 118,643 121,413 2,145 88,667 90,812 33.7%
Southern 89,198 56,190 145,388 100,183 49,894 150,076 -3.1%
Douglas 37,382 25,216 62,598 38,319 20,276 58,595 6.8%
Jackson 42,739 21,898 64,637 51,155 21,462 72,617 -11.0%
Josephine 9,077 9,076 18,153 10,709 8,156 18,864 -3.8%
Central 440,680 248,074 688,754 417,799 229,693 647,491 6.4%
Crook 15,228 22,059 37,287 15,666 14,524 30,190 23.5%
Deschutes 10,988 10,178 21,166 12,254 7,520 19,773 7.0%
Gilliam 16,141 9,523 25,664 13,929 7,522 21,451 19.6%
Hood River 87,198 400 87,598 83,013 400 83,413 5.0%
Jefferson 49,007 14,126 63,133 49,953 12,822 62,776 0.6%
Klamath 88,709 139,281 227,990 102,043 139,139 241,181 -5.5%
Lake 42,851 30,686 73,537 43,196 28,669 71,865 2.3%
Sherman 45,671 3,945 49,616 36,441 2,752 39,193 26.6%
Wasco 82,954 6,786 89,740 58,921 7,081 66,002 36.0%
Wheeler 1,933 11,090 13,023 2,383 9,264 11,647 11.8%
Eastern 805,777 545,900 1,351,677 718,484 488,007 1,206,491 12.0%
Baker 18,654 42,886 61,540 23,731 41,978 65,709 -6.3%
Grant 6,558 39,524 46,082 6,395 36,896 43,291 6.4%
Harney 21,623 45,757 67,380 19,125 39,509 58,635 14.9%
Malheur 138,127 134,966 273,093 126,299 101,679 227,978 19.8%
Morrow 223,181 172,578 395,759 175,210 170,407 345,617 14.5%
Umatilla 325,567 70,541 396,108 299,854 63,728 363,582 8.9%
Union 50,124 17,564 67,688 45,747 15,971 61,718 9.7%
Wallowa 21,943 22,084 44,027 22,123 17,839 39,961 10.2%
p = preliminary; r = revised.
Source:Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN). Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University.

60
Table O. 8
Oregon's Public Elementary and Secondary School Enrollment Statistics
Enrollment
Oct. 1, 2010 Oct. 1, 2009 2008-2009 2009-2010 2008-2009
% eligible for free or Operating expenditure
STATE/COUNTY enrollment enrollment % change reduced price lunch per student
OREGON 561,331 561,698 -0.1% 48.9% $9,354
Portland PMSA 259,076 258,665 0.2% 42.7% $9,275
Clackamas 57,933 58,360 -0.7% 34.2% $8,823
Columbia 8,244 8,290 -0.6% 38.9% $8,744
Multnomah 91,435 91,266 0.2% 51.7% $10,157
Washington 84,933 83,961 1.2% 38.0% $8,795
Yamhill 16,531 16,788 -1.5% 49.2% $8,730
Willamette Valley 141,282 141,760 -0.3% 52.0% $9,243
Benton 8,791 8,895 -1.2% 37.5% $9,227
Lane 45,486 46,176 -1.5% 48.5% $9,542
Linn 21,344 21,295 0.2% 46.5% $8,130
Marion 58,988 58,667 0.5% 59.4% $9,438
Polk 6,673 6,727 -0.8% 48.1% $9,015
Coast 24,249 24,388 -0.6% 55.9% $10,228
Clatsop 4,898 4,954 -1.1% 48.7% $10,533
Coos 8,462 8,520 -0.7% 52.8% $9,631
Curry 2,469 2,457 0.5% 57.4% $10,019
Lincoln 5,181 5,179 0.0% 65.2% $10,174
Tillamook 3,239 3,278 -1.2% 58.5% $11,542
Southern 53,806 53,762 0.1% 55.8% $9,050
Douglas 14,690 14,826 -0.9% 57.4% $9,508
Jackson 28,206 27,995 0.8% 53.1% $8,744
Josephine 10,910 10,941 -0.3% 60.6% $9,206
Central 49,794 50,099 -0.6% 56.5% $9,523
Crook 2,932 3,113 -5.8% 61.5% $8,664
Deschutes 24,462 24,229 1.0% 46.9% $8,511
Gilliam 247 246 0.4% 57.7% $18,743
Hood River 3,989 4,026 -0.9% 57.1% $11,107
Jefferson 3,461 3,582 -3.4% 79.5% $10,229
Klamath 9,664 9,737 -0.7% 69.3% $10,308
Lake 1,068 1,126 -5.2% 47.7% $11,087
Sherman 234 248 -5.6% 58.5% $15,921
Wasco 3,514 3,552 -1.1% 61.2% $10,411
Wheeler 223 240 -7.1% 49.2% $20,749
Eastern 30,368 30,388 -0.1% 59.0% $10,095
Baker 2,354 2,348 0.3% 52.3% $10,919
Grant 962 988 -2.6% 51.8% $13,521
Harney 1,156 1,290 -10.4% 49.6% $11,609
Malheur 5,041 5,118 -1.5% 67.9% $10,791
Morrow 2,389 2,426 -1.5% 71.1% $9,882
Umatilla 13,736 13,580 1.1% 59.9% $9,409
Union 3,854 3,766 2.3% 47.7% $9,720
Wallowa 876 872 0.5% 47.3% $10,602
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.

61
Table O. 9
2009 Annual Average Covered Employment by Industry and by Region

Region
Portland 5- Willamette
Employment Oregon County Valley Coast Southern Central Eastern

Natural Resources & Mining 46,531 12,442 15,352 2,347 4,244 6,252 5,755
Construction 72,547 39,124 15,133 3,041 5,328 5,970 2,180
Manufacturing 166,577 96,476 35,320 6,396 12,305 9,201 6,758
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities 309,021 164,014 62,145 12,487 28,635 22,658 13,495
Information 33,014 20,154 6,097 714 2,321 1,883 620
Financial Activities 81,925 51,295 14,405 2,422 5,790 5,100 1,864
Professional & Business Services 179,326 110,059 32,242 4,480 10,961 10,524 3,930
Education & Health Services 216,613 111,310 51,626 7,600 20,991 16,868 7,187
Leisure & Hospitality 162,535 81,237 32,492 12,335 14,525 15,722 5,672
Other Services 61,310 32,427 13,864 2,512 5,113 4,054 1,858
Government 278,796 116,624 82,400 15,958 23,249 22,256 18,261

Total 1,608,669 835,367 361,118 70,299 133,475 120,552 67,590

Region
Portland 5- Willamette
Distribution Oregon County Valley Coast Southern Central Eastern

Natural Resources & Mining 2.9% 1.5% 4.3% 3.3% 3.2% 5.2% 8.5%
Construction 4.5% 4.7% 4.2% 4.3% 4.0% 5.0% 3.2%
Manufacturing 10.4% 11.5% 9.8% 9.1% 9.2% 7.6% 10.0%
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities 19.2% 19.6% 17.2% 17.8% 21.5% 18.8% 20.0%
Information 2.1% 2.4% 1.7% 1.0% 1.7% 1.6% 0.9%
Financial Activities 5.1% 6.1% 4.0% 3.4% 4.3% 4.2% 2.8%
Professional & Business Services 11.1% 13.2% 8.9% 6.4% 8.2% 8.7% 5.8%
Education & Health Services 13.5% 13.3% 14.3% 10.8% 15.7% 14.0% 10.6%
Leisure & Hospitality 10.1% 9.7% 9.0% 17.5% 10.9% 13.0% 8.4%
Other Services 3.8% 3.9% 3.8% 3.6% 3.8% 3.4% 2.7%
Government 17.3% 14.0% 22.8% 22.7% 17.4% 18.5% 27.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

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.

62
II. REVENUE FORECAST

A. 2009-11 General Fund Revenues

The recovery in General Fund tax collections is sticking to script. Growth among Oregon’s
primary revenue sources has now turned the corner, with personal income tax collections finally
growing at a rate consistent with their long-run historical average. For the next several months,
overall collections are expected to expand at very strong rates as personal income tax revenues
begin to climb out of the large hole that the recession put them in.

The outlook for the 2009-11 biennium is virtually unchanged from the December 2010 forecast.
Uncertainty remains, however, as the bulk of year-end tax filings will be processed in the coming
weeks. There is potential for an upside surprise among April personal income tax filings, while
the risks facing corporate income tax payments lay predominantly on the downside.

For fiscal year 2012 and beyond, the revenue outlook has changed somewhat from December,
due to an evolving policy landscape and changes in the underlying economic forecast. Generally,
assumptions about growth in personal and business income have become stronger in the later
years of the forecast, leading to more expected revenue over the extended forecast horizon.
However, taxable corporate profits are now expected to be weaker over the next several months,
which together with changes to the structure of taxes, have led to a more pessimistic overall
revenue outlook for the 2011-13 biennium.

Many of the tax policy changes that have contributed to the revised outlook for 2011-13 and
beyond are not set in stone. Tax policies enacted during the last legislative session are now being
folded into the baseline revenue outlook. Changes to some of these laws are now being
considered by policymakers. In particular, sunset dates for many large tax credits were scheduled
last session. As credits are allowed to disappear, considerable support is lent to the revenue
outlook in the outer years of the forecast. Similarly, there is a significant revenue impact
associated with reconnecting to federal tax laws in 2011. 3

The forecast for General Fund revenues for 2009-11 is $12,429 million. This represents an
increase of $3.3 million from the December 2010 forecast. The forecast for the 2009-11
biennium is now $1,146 million below the Close of Session forecast. The prolonged plunge in
personal income taxes, particularly those related to nonwage forms of income, accounts for most
of the decrease relative to the Close of Session forecast. Personal income tax collections were
revised upward relative to the December forecast. However, gains in personal income tax
collections were largely offset by a downward revision to the near-term outlook for corporate
income taxes.

After incorporating the use of Rainy Day Funds and other legislative transfers, total available
resources amount to $12,537 million. Table B.1 in Appendix B presents detailed revenue
information for the 2009-11 biennium.

3
For current information on tax credit sunsets, contact the Joint Committee on Tax Credits
(http://www.leg.state.or.us/committees/). House Bill 2535 deals with reconnecting to federal tax law in 2011.

63
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 decision-
making purposes recognize the potential for actual revenues to depart significantly from this
projection. Table R.1 presents the December forecast for the 2009-11 biennium, including
guidelines for budgetary purposes. Section D discusses explicit risks that might cause actual
revenues to differ substantially from the forecast.

Appendix Table B.8 compares the past quarter receipts with what was forecasted, as well as with
what happened a year prior.

Table R.1
2009-11 General Fund Forecast Summary
2009 COS December 2010 March 2011 Change from Change from
(Millions) Forecast Forecast Forecast Prior Forecast COS Forecast

Structural Revenues
Personal Income Tax $11,545.7 $10,443.0 $10,458.2 $15.2 -$1,087.5

Corporate Income Tax $831.6 $855.2 $841.3 -$13.9 $9.7

All Other Revenues $1,198.4 $1,128.0 $1,130.0 $2.0 -$68.4

Gross GF Revenues $13,575.7 $12,426.2 $12,429.4 $3.3 -$1,146.2

Administrative Actions 1 -$43.7 -$15.7 -$15.7 $0.0 $28.0

Legislative Actions $0.0 $123.0 $123.0 $0.0 $123.0

Net Available Resources $13,532.0 $12,533.5 $12,536.7 $3.3 -$995.3

Confidence Intervals
67% Confidence +/- 1.7% $211.3 $12.22B to $12.64B
95% Confidence +/- 3.4% $422.6 $12.01B to $12.85B

1 Reflects cost of cashflow management actions, exclusive of internal borrowing.

Personal Income Tax

On a cash basis, personal income tax collections totaled $1,275.0 million for the second quarter
of fiscal year 2011, $42.7 million above the latest forecast. Withholding receipts of $1,196.2
million came in $3.2 million below the forecast. Estimated and final payments exceed the
forecast by $22.1 million and $8.7 million respectively. Refunds were $15.2 million smaller than
expected. Compared to the year-ago level, total personal income tax collections were up 6.1
percent. Table B.8 in Appendix B presents a comparison of actual and projected personal income
tax revenues for the second quarter of fiscal year 2011.

The forecast for total personal income tax receipts during the current biennium was increased
$15.2 million from the December forecast. This was largely due to the strength of recent

64
collections. Under the updated outlook, personal income tax collections during the current
biennium will be 3.6% lower than in 2007-09.

Corporate Income Tax

Corporate income taxes equaled $106.9 million for the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, $11.0
million lower than the December forecast. Quarterly corporate receipts were 111% higher than
figures from a year ago. Table B.8 in Appendix B presents a comparison of actual and projected
corporate income tax revenues for the second quarter of fiscal year 2011.

Corporate profits, and associated tax collections, have risen rapidly throughout much of the
current biennium, and remain near record highs. The corporate income tax forecast for the
biennium as a whole is now $9.7 million above the Close of Session forecast. If this outlook is
realized, collections would fall below the 2% kicker threshold, leading to no corporate kicker
credits to be claimed during the 2011-13 biennium.

Non-income Tax Sources of Revenue

All other revenues will total $1,130 million for the biennium, an increase of $2.0 million from
the prior forecast. Most of the forecast changes for non-income tax sources of revenue were
technical in nature. Aside from technical changes, the outlook for tobacco taxes has been revised
upward in light of strong demand, and the forecast for interest earnings has been revised
downward in keeping with the small size of reserve funds and persistently low interest rates.

B. Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook

Table R.2 exhibits the long-run forecast for General Fund revenues through the 2015-17
biennium. General Fund revenues will total $13,774 million in 2011-13, an increase of 10.8
percent from the prior period, and $81 million below the December forecast. In 2013-15, revenue
growth will accelerate to 17.1%, followed by 10.1% growth in 2015-17. Revenues in both 2013-
15 ($400 million) and 2015-17 ($324 million) are expected to be significantly larger than in the
December forecast. Table B.2 in Appendix presents a more detailed look at the long-term
General Fund revenue forecast

The forecast for total personal income tax receipts during the 2011-13 biennium was reduced by
$19.7 million from the December forecast. The revenue impacts of changes to the tax structure
are largely responsible. The most recent estimates of the revenue effects of reconnecting to the
federal tax code in fiscal year 2011 suggest personal income tax collections will be reduced by
more than $50 million during the biennium. The bulk of this impact is the result of bonus
depreciation and section 179 expensing provisions in the federal tax code. Under the updated
outlook, personal income tax collections during the 2011-13 biennium will be 15.1% higher than
in 2009-11.

The forecast for total personal income tax receipts during the 2013-15 and 2015-17 budget
periods was revised upward significantly from the December forecast ($227.4 million, and
$112.6 million, respectively). These changes were due to a somewhat stronger economic outlook
and large estimated revenue impacts for the scheduled expiration of income tax credits. Under

65
the updated outlook, personal income tax collections will increase by 17.0% during the 2013-15
biennium, followed by 11.0% growth in 2015-17.

The forecast for total corporate income tax receipts during the 2011-13 biennium was reduced by
$68.3 million from the December forecast. A large downward revision to the economic forecast
for underlying business profits, together with the revenue impacts of changes to the tax structure,
accounted for the change to the outlook. Although profit margins are expected to remain healthy
for most businesses, they will narrow somewhat going forward as firms incur additional costs as
they spend more on workers and equipment. The most recent estimates of the revenue effects of
reconnecting to the federal tax code in fiscal year 2011 suggest corporate income tax collections
will be reduced by around $50 million during the biennium. The bulk of this impact is the result
of bonus depreciation and section 179 expensing provisions in the federal tax code. Under the
updated outlook, corporate income tax collections during the 2011-13 biennium will be 6.7%
higher than in 2009-11.

The forecast for corporate income tax receipts during the 2013-15 and 2015-17 budget periods
was also revised upward significantly from the December forecast ($160.6 million, and $194.9
million, respectively). These changes were due to large estimated revenue impacts for the
scheduled expiration of income tax credits, and a strong estimated response to Measure 67
reforms in the recent collections data. Under the updated outlook, corporate income tax
collections will increase by 28.8% during the 2013-15 biennium, followed by 3.4% growth in
2015-17.
C. Tax Law Assumptions
Table R.2
General Fund Revenue Forecast Summary (Millions of Dollars, Current Law)

Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

2007-09 % 2009-11 % 2011-13 % 2013-15 % 2015-17 %
Revenue Source Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg

Personal Income Taxes 10,090.6 -8.6% 10,458.2 3.6% 12,032.7 15.1% 14,077.5 17.0% 15,621.5 11.0%

Corporate Income Taxes 684.5 -18.9% 841.3 22.9% 897.9 6.7% 1,156.2 28.8% 1,195.3 3.4%

All Others 948.9 10.6% 1,130.0 19.1% 843.8 -25.3% 898.1 6.4% 949.0 5.7%

Total General Fund 11,723.9 -8.0% 12,429.4 6.0% 13,774.4 10.8% 16,131.8 17.1% 17,765.9 10.1%

Kicker Distributions 1,084.2 - - - -

Total Revenue 12,808.1 0.5% 12,429.4 -3.0% 13,774.4 10.8% 16,131.8 17.1% 17,765.9 10.1%

Other taxes include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Severance Tax, Western Oregon Severance Tax and Amusement Device Tax.
Commercial Fish Licenses & Fees and Pari-mutual Receipts are included in Other Revenues

The revenue forecast is based on existing law, including actions signed into law during the 2009
Oregon Legislative Session, the 2010 Special Session, and indirect impacts resulting from
federal legislation. OEA makes routine adjustments to the forecast to account for legislative and
other actions not factored into the personal and corporate income tax models. These adjustments

66
can include expected kicker refunds, when applicable, as well as any tax law changes not yet
present in the historical data. A summary of these items can be found in Appendix B Table B.3.

A rough rule of thumb for personal income tax is that nearly all collections activity on a given
tax year occurs between the start of the tax year and June of the following year. Modest payment
and refund activity continues for years thereafter, but with only a marginal net impact on
revenues. Therefore, when interpreting the timing of personal income tax impacts presented in
Appendix B Table B.3, this 18-month window is suitable for all but the most technical purposes.

Corporate income tax is more difficult in that corporations do not have a standardized tax year. A
corporate tax year is signified by the calendar year in which the corporation’s fiscal year begins.
The rule of thumb is that the majority of corporate collections on a given tax year will be
received in the State fiscal year that begins July 1 of that year, i.e. the corporate tax impact
specified in Appendix B Table B.3 for tax year 2011 will be realized primarily in state fiscal year
2011-12. Contact the Office of Economic Analysis at (503) 378-3455 with questions regarding
tax law impacts.

In addition, Appendix B Table B.3A summarizes revenue changes associated with actions taken
during the 2009 Legislative Session. The totals presented in the table were added to the Close-of-
Session forecast for structural revenue growth in order to arrive at the total revenue numbers
presented in this document.

D. Forecast Risks

The revenue forecast presented herein constitutes a guideline for budgetary purposes. Variation
above or below this forecast is to be expected, although OEA strives to minimize the magnitude
of this variation by investigating new data resources and methodological approaches, as well as
regularly consulting with experts from the economics, financial, and accounting communities.

The following are major factors that could cause actual revenues to deviate from this forecast by
a significant degree:

• The timing and nature of economic recovery. The forecast assumes that the current
economic recovery will be modest by historic standards, with employment in Oregon not
expected to return to its pre-recession peak until 2014. Under the current consensus
outlook, the risks to this forecast are now weighted toward the upside for the first time
since the onset of the credit crisis. Should the upturn be stronger than expected, or if the
state should slip back into recession, large revenue forecast errors would emerge.

• Increased Volatility. With the passage of Measure 66 and the turmoil in financial markets,
the state has seen an increase in the volatility of its personal income tax revenue stream.
In past years, the relatively small number of taxpayers impacted by the measure - two to
three percent - regularly accounted for two-thirds of the change in tax revenues from one
year to the next. By increasing the dependence on this small group, relatively small
changes in economic conditions can yield large changes in income tax collections.
Essentially, the state can expect to experience greater positive revenue changes in good
years and greater losses of revenue in bad years relative to the past.

67
• Taxpayer response to tax policy. There are several outstanding tax policy issues that
increase risk in the forecast in both directions. For tax year 2010, the federal government
eliminated the income restriction on converting conventional Individual Retirement
Accounts (IRAs) to Roth IRAs. If taxpayers chose to convert these accounts, they can
pay taxes for tax year 2010 or spread the liability to 2011 and 2012. The extent to which
wealthier taxpayers have taken advantage of this opportunity represents an upside risk to
the forecast for the current biennium. Model estimates for IRA conversions, together with
anecdotal evidence from accounting professionals, suggest these conversions were
limited in scope.

Although certifications of Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credit have now been capped,
the program’s popularity in past years has left the state with a substantial amount of
credits that will serve to reduce revenues into the future. Because the credits can be
redeemed, sold, or held for several years, it is unclear when the existing stock of credits
will be claimed. The risk relates to the extent that the actual accumulation and redemption
of credits deviates from what is expected.

The extents to which taxpayers take advantage of federal tax incentives for investment
also inject risk into the revenue outlook. With state tax rules set to be reconnected with
federal tax law this year, federal bonus depreciation and section 179 expensing provisions
will feed through into Oregon income taxes.

Finally, with the effects of Measure 66 and Measure 67 yet to be fully reflected in the
historical collections data, it remains unclear to what extent households and firms have
changed their behavior in response to higher tax rates.

• Capital gains and business-related income are highly volatile. Capital gains income
exceeded 10 percent of total income for the first time in the 2007 tax year. For
comparison, capital gains were only 2 percent of income in 2009. This exposure
contributes to the volatility of personal income taxes because capital gains realizations
are concentrated on the high end of the income distribution and are not closely tied to
contemporaneous economic activity. The financial decisions on the part of relatively few
individuals can have a significant impact on aggregate levels of income and tax
collections. It is also unclear to what extent capital losses suffered following the financial
crisis and housing bust will be carried forward and weigh on realizations of capital gains
in future tax years.

Business-related income is also highly volatile. Corporate profits vary widely throughout
the business cycle, with related tax payments subject to even larger swings than are
underlying earnings. The pace that firms will transition from the current environment of
record profits is highly uncertain. In light of profitability, firms may choose to expand
their workforces and investment faster than is expected, creating downside risk for
corporate income tax collections.

• Unexpected changes in the impact of tax expenditures. Tax expenditures such as credits
and deductions reduce tax revenue. In some cases, estimates of the usage and tax impact
of these instruments vary widely, making it difficult to know the amount of the resulting

68
 impact on tax collections. With most income tax credits now assigned a specific sunset
date, this uncertainty injects further risk into the overall revenue outlook.

E. Lottery Earnings Forecast

Table R.3 presents a summary of lottery earnings and distribution for the 2009-11 biennium.
Projected lottery earnings will total $1,084.9 million, a decrease of $4.7 million from the prior
forecast. Overall lackluster collections stem from video lottery sales, which dominate overall
lottery earnings. Although growth has been slow, lottery revenues have generally stabilized after
falling sharply in the wake of the recession and enactment of the smoking ban. Including the
beginning balance and other earnings, total available resources equal $1,087.2 million.
After adjusting for programs that receive a strict percentage of lottery transfers and incorporating
changes to distributions made during the 2010 special session, the current forecast for the ending
balance in the Economic Development Fund is $9.9 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.

69
 Table R.3
2009-11 Lottery Fund Forecast Summary
Changes from:
December March 2011 December 2010
2010 Forecast Forecast Forecast
Transfers of Lottery Earnings
Traditional Games $131.5 $131.9 $0.4
Video Lottery $928.8 $923.7 -$5.1
Administrative Savings $29.3 $29.3 $0.0
Total Transfers $1,089.6 $1,084.9 -$4.7

Economic Development Fund

Beginning Balance $1.4 $1.4 $0.0
Transfers from Lottery $1,089.6 $1,084.9 -$4.7
Other earnings1 $0.9 $0.9 $0.0
Total Available Resources $1,091.9 $1,087.2 -$4.7

Dedicated Distributions2 $627.4 $634.2 $6.8

Other Legislatively Adopted Allocations $443.1 $443.1 $0.0
Total Distributions $1,070.5 $1,077.3 $6.8

Ending Balance $21.4 $9.9 -$11.6

Footnotes:
1. Includes interest earnings and reversions.
2. Includes the Education Stability Fund (18%), the Parks and Natural Resources Fund (15%), and
Debt Service. See Table B.9 for more information.

Following a decline of 17.9 percent for 2009-11 over 2007-09 figures, lottery earnings are
expected to rise a modest 3 percent to $1,116.9 million for the 2011-13 biennium. In addition to
the expected impact of the smoking restrictions and slow economic growth, the weak growth for
2009-11 is the result of a relative absence of significant administrative savings for the biennium,
compared with $102.7 million in the 2007-09 biennium. Not including any administrative
savings that may accrue during the upcoming biennium, total available resources for 2011-13
will amount to $1,127.9 million. For the 2013-15 and 2015-17 biennia, available resources will
equal $1,216.4 million and $1,315.1 million, respectively.

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 March revenue forecast.

70
Oregon Rainy Day Fund

Established by the 2007 Legislature, the ORDF is funded from ending balances each biennium,
up to one percent of appropriations. The Legislature can deposit additional funds, as it did in
first populating the ORDF with surplus corporate income tax revenues from the 2005-07
biennium. The ORDF also retains interest earnings. Withdrawals from the ORDF require one of
three triggers, including a decline in employment, a projected budgetary shortfall, or declaration
of a state of emergency, plus a three-fifths vote. Withdrawals are capped at two-thirds of the
balance as of the beginning of the biennium in question. Fund balances are capped at 7.5 percent
of General Fund revenues in the prior biennium.

Table R.4
O regon 's Budg etary Reserves
200 7-09 20 09-11 20 11-13
(Million s) Biennium Biennium Bie nnium
Rainy Day Fund
Be gin nin g Ba lan ce $0 .0 $11 2.5 $ 10.5
Net D eposit s3 $94 .3 -$10 3.4 $ 65.2
Inte re st $18 .3 $ 1.5 $2.7
Ending Ba lance 1 $112 .5 $1 0.5 $ 78.4

Educ ation Stabil ity Fund

Be gin nin g Ba lan ce $178 .9 $ 0.0 $1 01.2
Net D eposit s -$178 .9 $10 1.2 $1 91.0
2
Inte re st $17 .2 $ 1.1 $8.2
Trigg ered W it hdrawa ls -$17 .1 -$ 1.1 -$8.2
Ending Ba lance $0 .0 $10 1.2 $2 92.2

Total Re serv es $112 .6 $11 1.8 $3 70.7

Foo tnotes:
1. U nder current law , only 2/3rds of the beg inning balance is av ailable for withdraw al. W ithdra wal subje ct to ec onom ic a nd
financ ial triggers .
2. Edu cation Stability Fund interest is dis tributed to the Oregon Educ ation F und (7 5% ) a nd the S tate Sc holars hip
Com m issio n (25% ).
3. Include s trans fer of ending General F und b alances , up to 1% of budgeted a ppropriations, as w ell a s private do nations .

Education Stability Fund

The ESF gained its current reserve structure and mechanics via constitutional amendment in
2002. The ESF receives 18 percent of lottery earnings 4 , 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. The
balance of the ESF was withdrawn near the end of 2007-09 in order to fill the budget gap created
by decreasing revenues late in the biennium. As a result, we do not expect that the fund will
reach its cap during the forecast period.

4
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.

71
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 State’s two reserve
funds. Based on the June 2010 forecast, it is expected that $115.7 million will be transferred to
the State School Fund from the ORDF and $84.3 million will be transferred from the ESF. At
the close of fiscal year 2009, the balance in the ORDF equaled $112.5 million. The ORDF is
projected to reach a balance of $10.5 million by the end of 2009-11. Should the projected ending
General Fund balance for 2009-11 be left untapped, this would be transferred to the ORDF at the
beginning of the 2011-13 biennium.

The ESF balance was completely withdrawn at the end of 2007-09 in order to fill the budget
shortfall for 2007-09. By the end of 2009-11, available ESF funds will total $101.2 million.
Table B.10 in Appendix B provides detailed information for Oregon’s budgetary reserves.

72
APPENDIX A: ECONOMIC FORECAST DETAIL

Table A.1 Annual Forecast .....................................................................................................74

Table A.2 Quarterly Forecast ..................................................................................................78

73
TABLE A.1
Mar 2011 - Employment By Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Nonfarm
Oregon 1,703.4 1,731.3 1,718.7 1,612.4 1,596.9 1,618.8 1,651.1 1,686.1 1,724.8 1,763.1 1,798.4 1,828.2
% Ch 3.0 1.6 (0.7) (6.2) (1.0) 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.7
U.S. 136.1 137.6 136.8 130.9 130.3 132.1 134.7 137.5 140.3 142.6 144.6 146.3
% Ch 1.8 1.1 (0.6) (4.3) (0.5) 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.1

Private Nonfarm
Oregon 1,417.3 1,441.5 1,420.7 1,312.5 1,295.8 1,324.7 1,357.3 1,390.1 1,425.6 1,460.3 1,492.4 1,518.8
% Ch 3.5 1.7 (1.4) (7.6) (1.3) 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.2 1.8
U.S. 114.1 115.4 114.3 108.4 107.8 109.9 112.5 114.9 117.4 119.5 121.4 122.8
% Ch 2.0 1.1 (1.0) (5.2) (0.5) 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.2

Natural Resources and Mining

Oregon 9.4 9.2 8.7 7.0 7.2 7.1 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6 6.4 6.2
% Ch (1.6) (1.7) (6.1) (18.8) 2.8 (1.6) (1.5) 0.4 (2.6) (3.7) (3.3) (3.7)
U.S. 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6
% Ch 9.1 5.8 5.7 (8.5) 4.0 3.3 (2.6) (0.0) (3.2) (3.5) (2.3) (3.2)

Construction
Oregon 100.8 104.2 94.2 73.9 65.7 66.2 66.6 70.6 77.8 84.9 89.5 92.1
% Ch 11.0 3.3 (9.6) (21.5) (11.0) 0.6 0.6 6.0 10.2 9.1 5.4 2.8
U.S. 7.7 7.6 7.2 6.0 5.6 5.5 5.6 6.1 6.8 7.4 7.7 7.9
% Ch 4.9 (0.8) (6.1) (15.7) (7.0) (1.6) 1.0 9.7 11.0 8.4 4.5 2.5

Manufacturing
Oregon 207.3 204.0 195.1 167.3 161.8 162.6 166.9 171.4 174.6 178.0 180.5 183.8
% Ch 1.7 (1.6) (4.4) (14.2) (3.3) 0.5 2.7 2.7 1.9 1.9 1.4 1.8
U.S. 14.2 13.9 13.4 11.9 11.6 11.8 12.2 12.5 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.8
% Ch (0.5) (2.0) (3.4) (11.3) (2.0) 1.6 3.0 3.0 1.3 1.0 (0.1) (0.0)

Durable Manufacturing
Oregon 154.7 150.9 142.8 117.8 112.8 113.2 116.8 120.9 123.7 126.8 129.0 131.7
% Ch 1.7 (2.5) (5.3) (17.5) (4.2) 0.3 3.3 3.5 2.3 2.5 1.7 2.1
U.S. 9.0 8.8 8.5 7.3 7.1 7.3 7.6 8.0 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3
% Ch 0.3 (1.9) (3.9) (13.6) (2.2) 2.4 4.4 4.6 2.5 1.9 0.0 (0.1)

Wood Products
Oregon 32.4 30.0 26.7 20.9 19.7 19.3 20.1 21.4 22.9 24.1 24.4 24.3
% Ch (0.9) (7.5) (10.8) (21.6) (5.8) (2.1) 4.3 6.4 7.1 5.1 1.3 (0.2)
U.S. 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
% Ch (0.0) (7.8) (11.5) (20.9) (3.5) 4.1 21.8 15.7 5.0 2.4 0.1 (0.4)

Metal and Machinery

Oregon 37.3 38.4 38.8 31.8 29.4 29.8 31.0 32.1 32.8 33.3 33.8 34.8
% Ch 3.2 2.8 1.0 (17.9) (7.7) 1.6 3.8 3.7 2.3 1.3 1.7 2.9
U.S. 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1
% Ch 1.5 0.2 (1.5) (14.0) (1.7) 2.6 2.7 3.4 3.4 2.4 1.3 0.4

Computer and Electronic Products

Oregon 41.9 40.7 38.8 35.5 34.8 34.4 35.1 36.2 36.2 37.0 37.6 38.6
% Ch 1.5 (2.9) (4.5) (8.7) (1.9) (1.2) 2.2 3.1 0.0 2.1 1.6 2.6
U.S. 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3
% Ch (0.7) (2.7) (2.2) (8.7) (3.3) 2.1 2.2 5.5 (0.5) 2.4 0.6 2.0

Transportation Equipment
Oregon 18.3 17.4 15.1 10.0 8.7 8.6 8.9 9.2 9.5 9.8 9.9 10.0
% Ch 2.1 (5.1) (13.3) (33.9) (12.3) (1.7) 3.3 3.8 3.1 2.8 1.4 1.4
U.S. 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6
% Ch (0.2) (3.2) (6.1) (15.8) (0.4) 3.1 6.6 6.3 4.6 1.7 (3.2) (3.5)

Other Durables
Oregon 24.7 24.4 23.4 19.6 20.2 21.0 21.7 21.9 22.2 22.7 23.3 24.0
% Ch 2.8 (1.1) (4.3) (16.3) 3.0 4.3 3.3 0.9 1.3 2.2 2.4 2.9
U.S. 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
% Ch (0.3) (3.2) (6.3) (14.1) (2.7) 6.1 6.9 2.8 0.2 (0.6) (0.4) 0.0

74
TABLE A.1
Mar 2011 - Employment By Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon 52.6 53.2 52.3 49.5 49.0 49.4 50.0 50.5 50.9 51.1 51.5 52.1
% Ch 1.6 1.1 (1.7) (5.3) (1.1) 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.7 1.1
U.S. 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
% Ch (1.8) (2.0) (2.6) (7.4) (1.8) 0.4 0.8 0.1 (0.7) (0.7) (0.3) 0.2

Food Manufacturing
Oregon 22.2 23.1 23.4 23.7 24.0 23.9 24.3 24.5 24.7 24.8 25.0 25.3
% Ch 3.0 3.9 1.2 1.2 1.6 (0.5) 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.0
U.S. 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
% Ch 0.1 0.3 (0.2) (1.4) (0.3) 1.4 3.0 1.8 0.8 0.5 1.1 1.3

Other Nondurable
Oregon 30.3 30.1 28.9 25.8 24.9 25.5 25.8 26.0 26.2 26.3 26.5 26.8
% Ch 0.7 (0.9) (3.9) (10.6) (3.5) 2.2 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.7 1.3
U.S. 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9
% Ch (2.6) (2.9) (3.5) (10.0) (2.2) (0.2) 0.6 (0.9) (1.5) (1.2) (0.9) (0.5)

Trade, Transportation, and Utilities

Oregon 335.6 340.3 336.0 312.9 311.7 316.7 326.0 333.7 339.4 345.6 351.6 356.4
% Ch 2.1 1.4 (1.3) (6.9) (0.4) 1.6 2.9 2.4 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.4
U.S. 26.3 26.6 26.3 24.9 24.8 25.0 25.7 26.3 26.7 27.1 27.3 27.5
% Ch 1.2 1.3 (1.3) (5.1) (0.8) 1.2 2.7 2.3 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.6

Retail Trade
Oregon 197.4 200.7 196.8 183.6 183.4 185.7 188.7 192.4 194.8 197.8 200.7 203.2
% Ch 2.0 1.7 (1.9) (6.7) (0.1) 1.2 1.6 1.9 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.2
U.S. 15.4 15.5 15.3 14.5 14.4 14.4 14.6 14.9 15.0 15.1 15.1 15.1
% Ch 0.5 1.1 (1.5) (4.9) (0.6) (0.3) 1.3 1.9 1.0 0.7 0.2 (0.3)

Wholesale Trade
Oregon 79.9 80.8 80.5 75.5 75.2 76.6 79.8 81.8 83.3 84.9 86.4 87.4
% Ch 2.6 1.2 (0.4) (6.2) (0.4) 2.0 4.1 2.5 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.2
U.S. 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.6 5.6 5.7 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5
% Ch 2.5 1.9 (1.2) (5.4) (0.7) 2.8 4.2 2.3 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.3

Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities

Oregon 58.4 58.8 58.7 53.7 53.1 54.4 57.5 59.6 61.3 62.9 64.6 65.9
% Ch 2.0 0.8 (0.3) (8.4) (1.1) 2.4 5.6 3.6 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.1
U.S. 5.0 5.1 5.1 4.8 4.7 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.8 5.9
% Ch 2.0 1.5 (0.5) (5.3) (1.3) 3.8 5.4 3.4 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.1

Information
Oregon 34.9 36.0 35.6 33.1 34.0 36.5 37.6 37.5 37.2 37.9 38.4 39.1
% Ch 3.7 3.3 (1.1) (7.0) 2.9 7.3 3.0 (0.3) (0.9) 2.0 1.4 1.7
U.S. 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1
% Ch (0.8) (0.2) (1.6) (5.9) (3.0) 1.8 4.2 0.5 0.0 3.1 2.0 1.6

Financial Activities
Oregon 106.1 106.4 101.9 95.6 93.2 95.5 98.9 100.6 101.4 101.3 100.8 100.5
% Ch 3.9 0.3 (4.3) (6.2) (2.5) 2.4 3.6 1.7 0.8 (0.1) (0.4) (0.4)
U.S. 8.3 8.3 8.1 7.8 7.6 7.7 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.9 7.9
% Ch 2.2 (0.3) (1.9) (4.7) (2.1) 1.9 3.2 0.0 (0.4) (0.4) (0.5) (0.4)

Professional and Business Services

Oregon 194.4 197.3 196.1 178.8 176.3 183.9 187.7 195.8 208.0 217.1 225.3 232.4
% Ch 4.8 1.5 (0.6) (8.8) (1.4) 4.3 2.1 4.3 6.3 4.3 3.8 3.2
U.S. 17.6 17.9 17.7 16.6 16.7 17.4 18.0 18.7 19.7 20.6 21.3 22.0
% Ch 3.6 2.1 (1.2) (6.5) 0.8 4.4 3.0 3.9 5.8 4.2 3.7 3.2

75
TABLE A.1
Mar 2011 - Employment By Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Education and Health Services
Oregon 204.9 211.8 219.6 223.2 224.1 229.2 235.5 239.6 245.1 251.2 260.1 267.2
% Ch 3.1 3.3 3.7 1.7 0.4 2.3 2.8 1.7 2.3 2.5 3.5 2.7
U.S. 17.8 18.3 18.8 19.2 19.6 20.0 20.4 20.5 20.8 21.1 21.7 22.1
% Ch 2.6 2.8 2.8 1.8 1.9 2.3 1.9 0.8 1.3 1.6 2.6 2.0

Educational Services
Oregon 28.2 29.0 30.2 30.3 29.6 30.7 31.1 31.0 31.2 31.4 31.8 32.6
% Ch 3.6 2.9 4.0 0.5 (2.2) 3.7 1.1 (0.1) 0.4 0.8 1.4 2.4
U.S. 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9
% Ch 2.3 1.5 3.4 1.5 1.9 2.2 (0.4) (2.3) (2.5) (2.4) (1.5) (0.7)

Health Care and Social Assistance

Oregon 176.8 182.8 189.4 192.9 194.5 198.5 204.5 208.6 213.9 219.8 228.2 234.6
% Ch 3.0 3.4 3.6 1.9 0.8 2.1 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.8 3.8 2.8
U.S. 14.9 15.4 15.8 16.1 16.4 16.8 17.2 17.4 17.7 18.1 18.7 19.2
% Ch 2.7 3.0 2.7 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.3 1.3 1.9 2.3 3.3 2.4

Leisure and Hospitality

Oregon 164.9 171.9 172.9 163.1 164.1 167.4 170.6 172.8 173.5 174.9 176.2 176.9
% Ch 3.7 4.2 0.6 (5.6) 0.6 2.0 1.9 1.3 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.4
U.S. 13.1 13.4 13.4 13.1 13.1 13.3 13.5 13.6 13.6 13.5 13.5 13.4
% Ch 2.3 2.4 0.1 (2.5) 0.0 1.5 1.6 0.7 (0.4) (0.3) (0.3) (0.2)

Other Services
Oregon 58.9 60.3 60.7 57.5 57.5 59.7 60.4 61.0 61.9 62.8 63.4 64.3
% Ch 2.9 2.4 0.6 (5.2) (0.0) 3.7 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.0 1.3
U.S. 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4
% Ch 0.8 1.0 0.4 (2.8) (0.1) 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 (0.7) (0.5) (0.4)

Government
Oregon 286.1 289.8 298.1 299.9 301.0 294.1 293.8 296.0 299.2 302.8 306.0 309.5
% Ch 0.4 1.3 2.9 0.6 0.4 (2.3) (0.1) 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1
U.S. 22.0 22.2 22.5 22.6 22.5 22.2 22.3 22.6 22.9 23.1 23.3 23.5
% Ch 0.8 1.1 1.3 0.2 (0.3) (1.3) 0.3 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.9

Federal Government
Oregon 29.0 29.1 29.5 30.0 30.9 29.3 28.9 28.6 28.4 28.3 28.2 28.2
% Ch (2.1) 0.2 1.5 1.6 2.8 (5.2) (1.2) (1.0) (0.7) (0.4) (0.2) (0.1)
U.S. 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
% Ch 0.0 0.1 1.0 2.4 4.6 (4.7) (1.9) (1.5) (1.0) (0.6) (0.4) (0.2)

State Government
Oregon 75.0 74.5 76.6 78.2 79.5 78.9 78.2 78.7 80.0 81.5 82.5 83.2
% Ch (0.9) (0.7) 2.9 2.0 1.7 (0.8) (0.8) 0.5 1.6 1.9 1.2 0.9

Education State Government

Oregon 27.4 27.4 28.3 29.0 29.7 30.2 30.1 30.2 30.5 30.8 31.3 31.8
% Ch (0.4) 0.3 3.2 2.3 2.7 1.6 (0.5) 0.5 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.6

Local Government
Oregon 182.1 186.2 191.9 191.7 190.7 186.0 186.7 188.7 190.8 193.0 195.3 198.0
% Ch 1.3 2.2 3.1 (0.1) (0.6) (2.5) 0.4 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4

Education Local Government

Oregon 95.9 98.3 102.3 103.3 101.7 99.4 100.2 101.4 102.7 103.9 105.4 106.9
% Ch 1.1 2.5 4.1 1.0 (1.5) (2.2) 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4

76
TABLE A.1
Mar 2011 - Other Economic Indicators

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
GDP (Bil of 2005 $),
Chain Weight (in billions of $) 12,976.3 13,228.9 13,228.9 12,880.6 13,253.0 13,673.2 14,064.9 14,499.7 14,979.9 15,426.8 15,855.9 16,269.3
% Ch 2.7 1.9 0.0 (2.6) 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.6

Price and Wage Indicators

GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100 103.3 106.3 108.6 109.6 110.6 111.9 113.3 115.0 117.2 119.4 121.6 123.8
% Ch 3.3 2.9 2.2 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9

Personal Consumption Deflator,

Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100 102.7 105.6 109.1 109.3 111.1 112.5 114.3 116.3 118.7 121.1 123.6 126.1
% Ch 2.7 2.7 3.3 0.2 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0

CPI, Urban Consumers,

1982-84=100
Portland-Salem, OR-WA 201.2 208.6 215.4 215.6 218.4 221.1 224.4 227.9 232.5 237.6 242.5 247.7
% Ch 2.6 3.7 3.3 0.1 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.6 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.1
U.S. 201.6 207.3 215.2 214.5 218.1 221.5 225.7 230.2 235.3 240.6 245.7 250.8
% Ch 3.2 2.9 3.8 (0.3) 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1

Oregon Average Wage

Rate (Thous $) 40.1 41.7 42.6 43.0 43.9 45.5 46.8 48.0 49.3 50.7 52.1 53.7
% Ch 4.2 3.9 2.2 0.9 2.1 3.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.0
U.S. Average Wage
Wage Rate (Thous $) 44.6 46.7 48.0 47.9 49.2 50.8 52.2 53.7 55.1 56.6 58.2 60.0
% Ch 4.6 4.7 2.7 (0.1) 2.6 3.3 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.0

Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Housing Index 1987 Q1=100 433.1 458.9 446.6 412.5 385.6 375.3 391.3 401.6 408.7 425.2 437.8 453.1
% Ch 16.9 6.0 (2.7) (7.6) (6.5) (2.7) 4.3 2.6 1.8 4.0 3.0 3.5

FHFA National Housing Price Index

(1980Q1=100) 374.0 380.3 368.1 353.3 337.7 315.2 330.9 345.0 356.0 374.0 388.1 406.9
% Ch 7.2 1.7 (3.2) (4.0) (4.4) (6.7) 5.0 4.3 3.2 5.1 3.8 4.8
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous) 27.6 21.9 12.8 7.6 7.6 7.5 8.7 11.2 14.7 19.1 22.8 24.7
% Ch (10.6) (20.9) (41.6) (40.8) 0.6 (1.2) 16.0 28.8 30.8 29.9 19.6 8.1
U.S. (Millions) 1.8 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7
% Ch (12.6) (25.9) (32.9) (38.4) 6.4 16.2 59.4 31.3 14.3 4.8 1.1 0.6

Other Indicators
Industrial Production Index
U.S, 2002 = 100 97.4 100.0 96.7 87.7 92.6 96.1 99.4 103.3 107.3 111.3 114.7 118.0
% Ch 2.2 2.7 (3.3) (9.3) 5.6 3.8 3.4 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.1 2.9
Prime Rate (Percent) 8.0 8.1 5.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 4.3 6.4 6.6 7.7 7.7 7.7
% Ch 28.6 1.2 (36.8) (36.1) 0.0 0.0 31.8 50.2 3.0 16.0 0.9 (0.0)

Population (Millions)
Oregon 3.69 3.75 3.79 3.82 3.84 3.87 3.91 3.95 3.99 4.04 4.09 4.14
% Ch 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
U.S. 299.4 302.4 305.2 307.8 310.8 313.8 316.9 319.9 323.0 326.2 329.3 332.5
% Ch 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Timber Harvest (Mil Bd Ft)
Oregon 4,328.0 3,799.0 3,441.0 2,820.0 3,160.0 3,120.4 3,501.2 3,744.5 3,872.9 3,952.1 4,028.0 4,117.5
% Ch (0.6) (12.2) (9.4) (18.0) 12.1 (1.3) 12.2 7.0 3.4 2.0 1.9 2.2

77
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2008:1 2008:2 2008:3 2008:4 2009:1 2009:2 2009:3 2009:4 2010:1 2010:2
Total Personal Income
Oregon 138.0 139.8 140.0 139.0 137.3 138.7 138.0 138.8 140.2 141.5
% Ch 4.0 5.4 0.5 (2.8) (4.7) 4.1 (2.2) 2.5 3.9 4.0
U.S. 12,300.4 12,460.9 12,447.0 12,356.3 12,093.2 12,203.4 12,164.0 12,239.0 12,350.3 12,517.1
% Ch 5.3 5.3 (0.4) (2.9) (8.2) 3.7 (1.3) 2.5 3.7 5.5

Wage and Salary

Oregon 74.8 74.7 74.2 72.9 70.8 70.6 70.1 70.1 70.3 71.1
% Ch 1.0 (0.6) (2.7) (7.1) (11.1) (0.7) (3.2) (0.0) 1.2 4.8
U.S. 6,595.9 6,575.1 6,567.9 6,497.3 6,260.0 6,287.7 6,263.9 6,284.9 6,291.4 6,388.8
% Ch 4.5 (1.3) (0.4) (4.2) (13.8) 1.8 (1.5) 1.3 0.4 6.3

Other Labor Income

Oregon 17.3 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.6 17.5 17.6 17.9 18.0
% Ch 3.7 4.2 1.4 (0.8) (0.1) 1.9 (0.9) 1.4 6.6 2.6
U.S. 1,015.3 1,031.9 1,043.9 1,055.5 1,060.2 1,069.9 1,074.0 1,084.0 1,095.8 1,103.1
% Ch 8.2 6.7 4.7 4.5 1.8 3.7 1.5 3.8 4.4 2.7

Nonfarm Proprietor's Income

Oregon 10.7 10.7 10.6 10.4 10.0 9.9 10.0 10.2 10.3 10.4
% Ch (2.0) 0.3 (3.3) (8.0) (14.4) (2.3) 4.9 4.5 5.4 5.8
U.S. 1,046.6 1,063.4 1,061.1 1,033.5 989.0 972.5 978.4 985.9 994.0 1,010.8
% Ch 1.3 6.6 (0.9) (10.0) (16.1) (6.5) 2.4 3.1 3.3 6.9

Dividend, Interest and Rent

Oregon 28.6 29.1 29.9 29.7 28.7 28.2 27.9 28.0 28.3 28.5
% Ch 8.1 7.0 11.3 (2.9) (13.3) (6.3) (3.6) 0.4 5.6 1.9
U.S. 2,306.0 2,320.7 2,366.8 2,331.7 2,237.4 2,195.3 2,170.2 2,172.0 2,203.8 2,213.3
% Ch 3.6 2.6 8.2 (5.8) (15.2) (7.3) (4.5) 0.3 6.0 1.7

Transfer Payments
Oregon 21.5 23.0 22.8 23.6 25.3 27.4 27.2 27.8 28.2 28.5
% Ch 12.3 30.9 (3.3) 13.0 33.4 36.3 (2.9) 10.5 4.8 5.3
U.S. 1,745.8 1,893.9 1,836.4 1,857.5 1,905.3 1,938.8 1,965.2 1,983.1 2,005.2 2,020.3
% Ch 10.0 38.5 (11.6) 4.7 10.7 7.2 5.5 3.7 4.5 3.0

Contributions for Social Security

Oregon 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.6 12.4 12.5 12.4 12.4 12.6 12.7
% Ch 2.9 (0.4) (1.9) (5.5) (4.9) 1.3 (1.8) 0.5 6.2 4.5
U.S. 517.3 517.4 518.3 515.4 506.8 510.1 509.8 512.2 516.9 523.9
% Ch 8.9 0.0 0.7 (2.2) (6.5) 2.6 (0.2) 1.9 3.7 5.5

Residence Adjustment
Oregon (2.6) (2.6) (2.5) (2.5) (2.4) (2.4) (2.3) (2.3) (2.4) (2.5)
% Ch 12.1 (7.4) (9.4) (12.8) (2.6) (5.6) 0.7 13.2 5.2

Farm P roprietor's Income

Oregon 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) 0.2 0.2
% Ch 33.0 (95.8) (7.6) (97.0) (86.8) 2,417.6 (100.0) 302.8 ######## (50.5)

78
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2010:3 2010:4 2011:1 2011:2 2011:3 2011:4 2012:1 2012:2 2012:3 2012:4
Total Personal Income
Oregon 142.6 143.7 145.3 146.9 148.4 150.1 151.5 153.2 155.0 156.8
% Ch 3.1 3.2 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 3.9 4.7 4.7 4.8
U.S. 12,592.8 12,711.6 12,953.9 13,095.9 13,231.0 13,367.0 13,368.9 13,515.1 13,670.3 13,838.9
% Ch 2.4 3.8 7.8 4.5 4.2 4.2 0.1 4.4 4.7 5.0

Wage and Salary

Oregon 71.7 72.4 73.5 74.3 75.1 76.0 76.9 77.8 78.6 79.6
% Ch 3.6 3.6 6.3 4.4 4.5 4.9 4.7 4.8 4.5 4.9
U.S. 6,440.8 6,501.3 6,584.0 6,670.6 6,753.3 6,835.6 6,913.1 6,990.0 7,071.8 7,159.5
% Ch 3.3 3.8 5.2 5.4 5.1 5.0 4.6 4.5 4.8 5.1

Other Labor Income

Oregon 18.1 18.3 18.4 18.6 18.8 19.1 19.3 19.6 19.8 20.0
% Ch 3.3 3.1 3.8 3.6 4.8 5.1 5.6 5.3 4.2 5.3
U.S. 1,110.3 1,118.1 1,126.9 1,136.6 1,149.8 1,163.9 1,179.8 1,194.9 1,207.9 1,223.4
% Ch 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.5 4.7 5.0 5.6 5.2 4.4 5.2

Nonfarm Proprietor's Income

Oregon 10.5 10.6 10.9 11.1 11.3 11.5 11.6 11.8 11.9 12.0
% Ch 0.5 5.4 10.9 9.1 6.5 6.9 4.0 6.4 4.8 4.5
U.S. 1,011.0 1,021.7 1,045.6 1,066.6 1,083.2 1,102.7 1,114.8 1,135.0 1,150.3 1,165.6
% Ch 0.1 4.3 9.7 8.3 6.3 7.4 4.5 7.4 5.5 5.4

Dividend, Interest and Rent

Oregon 28.4 28.6 28.7 28.9 29.1 29.3 29.6 29.8 30.2 30.6
% Ch (1.0) 3.0 1.6 2.3 2.8 2.5 3.9 3.7 5.1 4.8
U.S. 2,193.5 2,212.9 2,225.7 2,245.6 2,266.6 2,281.9 2,300.6 2,325.0 2,358.8 2,398.1
% Ch (3.5) 3.6 2.3 3.6 3.8 2.7 3.3 4.3 6.0 6.8

Transfer Payments
Oregon 29.0 29.1 29.3 29.6 29.8 30.0 30.1 30.4 30.7 31.0
% Ch 5.9 2.7 2.5 3.5 2.4 2.9 2.5 3.1 4.0 4.0
U.S. 2,035.9 2,053.8 2,093.0 2,117.7 2,143.7 2,169.8 2,216.6 2,245.1 2,273.6 2,303.7
% Ch 3.1 3.6 7.9 4.8 5.0 4.9 8.9 5.2 5.2 5.4

Contributions for Social Security

Oregon 12.9 13.0 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.5 13.8 13.9 14.0 14.1
% Ch 3.4 4.9 13.1 0.5 0.4 2.1 8.9 2.4 2.9 3.7
U.S. 527.8 532.2 432.1 437.9 442.0 447.1 582.4 587.5 593.9 601.0
% Ch 3.0 3.4 (56.6) 5.5 3.8 4.6 188.0 3.5 4.4 4.9

Residence Adjustment
Oregon (2.5) (2.5) (2.3) (2.3) (2.3) (2.4) (2.4) (2.4) (2.4) (2.4)
% Ch 4.0 (3.4) (19.9) 1.6 2.3 2.6 1.7 2.4 2.8 3.0

Farm Proprietor's Income

Oregon 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
% Ch 214.5 (60.7) (71.7) 18.7 19.2 13.1 10.5 9.5 7.7 4.4

79
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2013:1 2013:2 2013:3 2013:4 2014:1 2014:2 2014:3 2014:4 2015:1 2015:2
Total Personal Income
Oregon 158.6 160.4 162.3 164.2 166.8 168.9 171.2 173.5 176.4 178.8
% Ch 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 6.6 5.2 5.5 5.3 7.0 5.6
U.S. 13,980.6 14,148.5 14,311.1 14,476.9 14,729.2 14,921.9 15,125.2 15,319.2 15,558.0 15,760.4
% Ch 4.2 4.9 4.7 4.7 7.2 5.3 5.6 5.2 6.4 5.3

Wage and Salary

Oregon 80.6 81.5 82.4 83.5 84.5 85.6 86.6 87.7 88.8 89.9
% Ch 5.0 4.7 4.8 5.0 5.3 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.3 4.9
U.S. 7,248.4 7,333.7 7,418.8 7,503.1 7,596.9 7,682.9 7,769.4 7,854.9 7,947.4 8,031.3
% Ch 5.1 4.8 4.7 4.6 5.1 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.8 4.3

Other Labor Income

Oregon 20.3 20.5 20.7 21.0 21.3 21.5 21.7 22.0 22.3 22.6
% Ch 5.0 4.8 4.3 5.0 5.4 4.4 4.6 5.7 5.5 4.9
U.S. 1,237.7 1,254.5 1,271.3 1,288.7 1,305.5 1,322.7 1,339.8 1,357.2 1,375.0 1,392.0
% Ch 4.8 5.5 5.4 5.6 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.0

Nonfarm Proprietor's Income

Oregon 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.6 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.3 13.4
% Ch 1.4 3.3 3.4 4.4 6.3 7.1 5.2 5.0 4.1 4.1
U.S. 1,171.3 1,183.6 1,195.7 1,211.0 1,232.4 1,256.7 1,275.3 1,294.0 1,309.9 1,326.1
% Ch 2.0 4.3 4.2 5.2 7.3 8.1 6.1 6.0 5.0 5.0

Dividend, Interest and Rent

Oregon 31.0 31.4 31.7 32.1 32.3 32.8 33.4 33.9 34.4 35.0
% Ch 6.0 4.7 4.8 4.1 3.6 5.7 7.6 5.9 6.8 7.2
U.S. 2,449.3 2,489.0 2,523.2 2,559.3 2,593.6 2,640.6 2,701.8 2,754.6 2,816.1 2,878.2
% Ch 8.8 6.7 5.6 5.9 5.5 7.5 9.6 8.0 9.2 9.1

Transfer Payments
Oregon 31.4 31.7 32.0 32.3 33.6 33.9 34.3 34.7 35.9 36.4
% Ch 5.4 4.2 4.1 4.0 15.8 4.4 4.6 4.6 15.0 5.3
U.S. 2,355.3 2,387.3 2,419.2 2,451.1 2,507.3 2,540.9 2,575.8 2,611.0 2,666.8 2,703.5
% Ch 9.3 5.5 5.5 5.4 9.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 8.8 5.6

Contributions for Social Security

Oregon 14.4 14.6 14.7 14.8 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.6 16.0 16.1
% Ch 9.5 3.4 2.6 4.0 10.7 3.2 3.1 4.1 10.3 2.5
U.S. 644.6 650.8 654.9 661.8 666.4 672.7 678.3 684.9 724.8 730.9
% Ch 32.3 3.9 2.6 4.3 2.8 3.8 3.4 4.0 25.4 3.4

Residence Adjustment
Oregon (2.4) (2.5) (2.5) (2.5) (2.5) (2.5) (2.6) (2.6) (2.6) (2.6)
% Ch 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.6

Farm Proprietor's Income

Oregon 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
% Ch 2.8 2.8 1.8 0.8 7.3 5.4 4.0 2.9 1.0 1.3

80
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2015:3 2015:4 2016:1 2016:2 2016:3 2016:4 2017:1 2017:2 2017:3 2017:4
Total Personal Income
Oregon 181.2 183.4 186.8 189.3 191.7 194.0 196.8 199.4 201.8 204.2
% Ch 5.4 5.0 7.5 5.6 5.1 5.1 5.8 5.3 5.0 4.9
U.S. 15,955.2 16,143.6 16,423.3 16,628.8 16,827.7 17,029.3 17,260.8 17,468.7 17,672.5 17,877.3
% Ch 5.0 4.8 7.1 5.1 4.9 4.9 5.5 4.9 4.7 4.7

Wage and Salary

Oregon 90.9 92.0 93.1 94.3 95.3 96.5 97.6 98.7 99.8 100.9
% Ch 4.9 4.8 5.0 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.6
U.S. 8,113.7 8,194.6 8,287.3 8,374.7 8,461.4 8,547.1 8,641.0 8,728.0 8,813.9 8,900.2
% Ch 4.2 4.0 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.5 4.1 4.0 4.0

Other Labor Income

Oregon 22.9 23.1 23.4 23.7 23.9 24.2 24.5 24.7 25.0 25.3
% Ch 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4
U.S. 1,408.8 1,425.8 1,442.0 1,458.5 1,475.1 1,491.9 1,508.2 1,524.4 1,540.9 1,557.5
% Ch 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4

Nonfarm Proprietor's Income

Oregon 13.5 13.6 13.8 14.0 14.1 14.3 14.4 14.6 14.7 14.9
% Ch 2.6 3.2 4.8 5.6 4.3 4.6 4.2 5.2 3.8 4.5
U.S. 1,337.2 1,350.6 1,368.2 1,389.0 1,405.3 1,423.8 1,441.2 1,462.9 1,478.9 1,498.7
% Ch 3.4 4.1 5.3 6.2 4.8 5.4 5.0 6.1 4.5 5.5

Dividend, Interest and Rent

Oregon 35.7 36.1 36.6 37.1 37.6 38.0 38.5 39.0 39.5 40.0
% Ch 7.4 5.2 5.2 5.6 5.6 4.8 4.9 5.1 5.5 4.6
U.S. 2,938.3 2,990.7 3,041.3 3,092.1 3,139.5 3,185.6 3,233.9 3,282.2 3,330.6 3,376.3
% Ch 8.6 7.3 6.9 6.9 6.3 6.0 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.6

Transfer Payments
Oregon 36.9 37.4 39.0 39.5 40.1 40.7 41.7 42.3 43.0 43.6
% Ch 5.4 5.4 18.5 5.6 5.7 6.1 10.8 6.1 6.1 6.1
U.S. 2,741.5 2,780.0 2,792.4 2,831.9 2,872.5 2,913.8 2,975.3 3,018.5 3,062.7 3,107.5
% Ch 5.7 5.7 1.8 5.8 5.9 5.9 8.7 5.9 6.0 6.0

Contributions for Social Security

Oregon 16.2 16.3 16.6 16.7 16.9 17.1 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.8
% Ch 3.6 3.6 7.2 1.5 4.5 4.5 8.0 1.2 4.3 4.4
U.S. 736.7 743.4 756.2 762.6 768.7 775.6 797.1 803.4 809.5 816.4
% Ch 3.2 3.7 7.1 3.4 3.2 3.6 11.5 3.2 3.0 3.5

Residence Adjustment
Oregon (2.6) (2.7) (2.7) (2.7) (2.7) (2.8) (2.8) (2.8) (2.8) (2.8)
% Ch 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.1

Farm Proprietor's Income

Oregon 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
% Ch 0.9 0.6 7.1 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5

81
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2008:1 2008:2 2008:3 2008:4 2009:1 2009:2 2009:3 2009:4 2010:1 2010:2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon 1,738.7 1,730.7 1,718.8 1,686.7 1,643.1 1,615.6 1,601.1 1,589.8 1,594.3 1,597.4
% Ch 0.7 (1.8) (2.7) (7.3) (9.9) (6.5) (3.5) (2.8) 1.1 0.8
U.S. 137.9 137.5 136.7 135.0 132.8 131.1 130.1 129.6 129.7 130.4
% Ch 0.1 (1.2) (2.3) (4.8) (6.4) (5.0) (3.1) (1.3) 0.2 2.2

Private Nonfarm
Oregon 1,443.6 1,434.8 1,418.1 1,386.1 1,342.4 1,315.6 1,301.0 1,291.0 1,294.4 1,293.3
% Ch 0.2 (2.4) (4.6) (8.7) (12.0) (7.8) (4.4) (3.0) 1.1 (0.3)
U.S. 115.5 115.0 114.1 112.5 110.2 108.5 107.6 107.1 107.2 107.6
% Ch (0.1) (1.6) (3.0) (5.8) (7.6) (6.2) (3.3) (1.6) 0.3 1.6

Natural Resources and Mining

Oregon 8.9 8.7 8.7 8.4 7.4 7.0 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.3
% Ch (0.7) (8.6) (2.0) (12.8) (39.1) (21.8) (5.1) 1.9 4.7 17.8
U.S. 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
% Ch 8.2 7.3 8.5 (1.9) (14.0) (21.3) (11.8) (3.9) 11.6 15.9

Construction
Oregon 100.5 97.2 92.6 86.5 79.8 74.8 72.2 68.8 65.4 65.6
% Ch (8.6) (12.5) (17.7) (23.9) (27.6) (22.6) (13.4) (17.2) (18.3) 0.8
U.S. 7.4 7.3 7.1 6.8 6.4 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.6 5.6
% Ch (4.7) (8.0) (9.4) (15.3) (21.0) (18.3) (14.0) (10.3) (7.7) 0.0

Manufacturing
Oregon 201.2 198.6 193.3 187.3 174.7 167.7 163.9 162.8 162.7 162.7
% Ch (1.7) (5.0) (10.2) (11.9) (24.2) (15.1) (8.8) (2.6) (0.2) (0.1)
U.S. 13.7 13.6 13.4 13.0 12.4 11.9 11.7 11.6 11.6 11.7
% Ch (1.5) (3.4) (6.0) (10.9) (17.4) (14.0) (7.6) (4.4) 0.6 2.9

Durable Manufacturing
Oregon 148.1 146.1 141.4 135.7 124.8 118.6 114.8 113.1 113.0 113.2
% Ch (2.3) (5.4) (12.2) (15.3) (28.5) (18.3) (12.3) (5.8) (0.3) 0.7
U.S. 8.7 8.6 8.4 8.2 7.7 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.1
% Ch (1.8) (3.9) (6.6) (12.6) (20.6) (17.8) (9.4) (5.6) 1.4 4.2

Wood Products
Oregon 28.5 27.3 26.4 24.7 22.1 21.2 20.4 20.0 19.9 20.1
% Ch (8.5) (15.0) (13.6) (23.4) (35.1) (16.2) (14.1) (6.9) (2.6) 5.0
U.S. 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
% Ch (9.7) (13.4) (16.5) (22.5) (32.6) (17.9) (12.5) (2.2) 0.6 5.1

Metal and Machinery

Oregon 39.0 39.4 39.0 37.6 34.7 32.2 30.7 29.7 29.7 29.3
% Ch 4.2 4.0 (4.0) (13.2) (28.1) (25.3) (18.0) (11.8) (0.2) (4.8)
U.S. 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7
% Ch 1.1 (0.2) (4.0) (11.3) (21.4) (20.9) (12.1) (6.1) 2.5 8.0

Computer and Electronic Products

Oregon 40.0 39.5 38.5 37.4 36.3 35.4 35.0 35.3 35.0 34.8
% Ch (3.3) (4.7) (9.5) (11.1) (11.7) (9.3) (4.4) 3.8 (3.3) (2.6)
U.S. 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
% Ch (0.9) (1.0) (2.4) (6.3) (11.6) (13.4) (10.2) (6.0) (1.9) 1.3

Transportation Equipment
Oregon 16.5 16.2 14.3 13.4 10.9 10.1 9.7 9.3 8.9 8.8
% Ch (3.7) (8.6) (39.5) (21.6) (56.8) (26.5) (15.3) (14.0) (14.6) (6.4)
U.S. 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
% Ch (2.9) (7.2) (10.9) (17.7) (24.5) (19.3) (2.7) (3.9) 5.5 2.6

Other Durables
Oregon 24.1 23.7 23.3 22.5 20.8 19.7 19.1 18.7 19.4 20.1
% Ch (2.0) (7.4) (6.5) (11.8) (27.2) (19.0) (13.0) (7.3) 16.1 15.2
U.S. 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0
% Ch (5.1) (7.5) (9.1) (14.1) (21.4) (15.0) (9.6) (5.8) (1.1) 2.1

82
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2010:3 2010:4 2011:1 2011:2 2011:3 2011:4 2012:1 2012:2 2012:3 2012:4
Total Nonfarm
Oregon 1,595.3 1,600.5 1,607.6 1,614.9 1,622.0 1,630.8 1,638.8 1,646.5 1,654.7 1,664.3
% Ch (0.5) 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.3
U.S. 130.3 130.6 131.1 131.7 132.4 133.1 133.7 134.4 135.0 135.8
% Ch (0.1) 0.7 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.3

Private Nonfarm
Oregon 1,294.1 1,301.7 1,311.8 1,320.3 1,329.0 1,337.7 1,345.4 1,352.9 1,360.8 1,369.9
% Ch 0.2 2.4 3.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.7
U.S. 107.9 108.3 108.8 109.5 110.2 110.9 111.5 112.1 112.7 113.4
% Ch 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.5

Natural Resources and Mining

Oregon 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
% Ch 3.3 (0.9) (3.3) (7.6) (2.4) (3.8) (1.2) 1.0 1.1 0.9
U.S. 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
% Ch 13.4 11.3 1.5 (4.7) (3.3) (4.2) (3.1) (1.7) (0.5) 0.6

Construction
Oregon 66.6 65.4 65.9 66.2 66.3 66.2 66.0 66.0 66.6 67.7
% Ch 6.4 (7.1) 3.1 2.3 0.7 (0.8) (1.4) 0.3 3.2 6.8
U.S. 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.7
% Ch 0.1 0.2 (4.0) (1.6) (1.6) (2.3) (0.7) 3.2 6.2 9.6

Manufacturing
Oregon 161.0 160.8 161.2 162.1 163.0 164.0 165.1 166.2 167.5 168.7
% Ch (4.1) (0.4) 1.0 2.3 2.1 2.5 2.8 2.7 3.3 2.9
U.S. 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.8 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.2 12.3
% Ch 1.0 (1.0) 0.7 4.2 3.2 2.3 3.5 3.2 2.4 2.8

Durable Manufacturing
Oregon 113.1 112.0 112.2 112.8 113.4 114.3 115.2 116.2 117.4 118.5
% Ch (0.5) (3.6) 0.5 2.2 2.2 3.0 3.5 3.4 4.3 3.7
U.S. 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8
% Ch 2.2 (0.5) 0.9 5.0 4.3 3.6 5.3 4.7 3.4 4.4

Wood Products
Oregon 19.7 19.1 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.5 19.7 20.0 20.2 20.6
% Ch (8.1) (12.2) 0.5 1.8 2.7 3.8 4.4 4.8 5.5 6.8
U.S. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
% Ch (7.3) (4.2) 0.6 15.0 12.7 19.5 23.9 27.4 24.4 22.6

Metal and Machinery

Oregon 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.7 30.0 30.2 30.5 30.8 31.1 31.4
% Ch (1.9) 0.8 2.2 3.6 4.3 3.5 3.4 3.6 4.5 4.0
U.S. 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
% Ch 4.4 1.1 0.6 3.2 4.0 2.5 2.3 3.4 1.3 3.0

Computer and Electronic Products

Oregon 34.9 34.5 34.4 34.4 34.3 34.4 34.7 34.9 35.3 35.6
% Ch 1.2 (4.4) (0.9) (0.7) (0.4) 1.4 3.2 2.0 4.9 3.8
U.S. 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
% Ch 2.4 0.0 0.9 5.9 4.5 (2.2) 8.5 (2.5) 0.2 1.3

Transportation Equipment
Oregon 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.9 9.0
% Ch (4.3) (6.2) (1.6) 1.7 2.4 3.2 3.4 3.4 4.8 3.8
U.S. 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5
% Ch 3.2 (2.8) 3.4 7.2 3.3 7.1 6.7 7.9 6.5 7.0

Other Durables
Oregon 20.5 20.6 20.7 21.0 21.1 21.4 21.5 21.7 21.8 21.9
% Ch 8.7 1.6 1.4 5.7 2.9 4.3 3.1 4.3 2.0 0.2
U.S. 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4
% Ch 2.2 5.3 4.9 9.4 9.2 9.3 7.9 4.6 3.5 2.5

83
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2013:1 2013:2 2013:3 2013:4 2014:1 2014:2 2014:3 2014:4 2015:1 2015:2
Total Nonfarm
Oregon 1,672.3 1,681.0 1,690.6 1,700.5 1,710.6 1,720.2 1,729.6 1,739.0 1,749.1 1,758.8
% Ch 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.2
U.S. 136.4 137.1 137.9 138.6 139.3 140.0 140.6 141.2 141.9 142.4
% Ch 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.6

Private Nonfarm
Oregon 1,377.2 1,385.3 1,394.4 1,403.5 1,412.5 1,421.4 1,430.1 1,438.5 1,447.6 1,456.4
% Ch 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5
U.S. 114.0 114.6 115.3 115.9 116.5 117.1 117.7 118.3 118.8 119.3
% Ch 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.7

Natural Resources and Mining

Oregon 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.6
% Ch 0.7 0.4 (0.7) (1.8) (2.8) (4.2) (3.7) (3.7) (3.5) (4.1)
U.S. 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
% Ch 1.0 0.1 (1.0) (2.1) (4.0) (5.0) (4.2) (4.1) (3.7) (3.0)

Construction
Oregon 68.5 69.7 71.1 73.0 75.0 76.9 78.7 80.6 82.6 84.4
% Ch 5.1 6.9 8.8 11.1 11.4 10.5 9.6 9.8 10.3 8.9
U.S. 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.0 7.2 7.3
% Ch 10.8 11.1 11.5 12.0 11.1 10.7 10.1 9.6 9.2 7.4

Manufacturing
Oregon 170.0 171.2 171.8 172.5 173.4 174.1 175.0 175.9 176.7 177.6
% Ch 3.1 2.8 1.4 1.7 1.9 1.6 2.2 2.1 1.9 2.0
U.S. 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.6 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.8
% Ch 4.4 3.2 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.4 0.9 1.3 1.2 0.8

Durable Manufacturing
Oregon 119.7 120.8 121.2 121.9 122.6 123.2 124.1 125.0 125.7 126.5
% Ch 4.0 3.8 1.4 2.1 2.4 2.1 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.5
U.S. 7.9 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3
% Ch 6.9 5.1 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.7 2.0 2.5 2.2 1.6

Wood Products
Oregon 20.9 21.2 21.6 21.9 22.3 22.7 23.2 23.5 23.8 24.0
% Ch 6.6 6.0 7.4 6.7 6.9 7.3 8.2 6.4 5.4 3.2
U.S. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
% Ch 15.9 10.8 6.0 5.1 4.1 5.0 3.7 3.0 3.1 1.4

Metal and Machinery

Oregon 31.7 32.0 32.2 32.5 32.6 32.8 32.9 33.0 33.1 33.2
% Ch 3.7 3.6 3.2 2.8 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.4
U.S. 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1
% Ch 3.9 4.3 3.5 3.9 3.3 3.8 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.2

Computer and Electronic Products

Oregon 36.1 36.5 36.2 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.3 36.5 36.7 36.9
% Ch 5.1 4.5 (3.5) (0.7) 0.2 (0.7) 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.5
U.S. 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
% Ch 19.8 7.5 (3.5) (2.6) (1.2) (1.3) 1.6 5.1 2.8 1.7

Transportation Equipment
Oregon 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.7
% Ch 3.5 3.6 4.1 3.6 2.5 2.8 2.6 3.2 2.9 2.9
U.S. 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
% Ch 6.2 6.4 5.0 5.2 4.4 4.7 3.3 2.8 2.4 1.2

Other Durables
Oregon 21.9 21.9 22.0 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.7
% Ch 0.4 0.9 0.6 1.0 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.9 3.0
U.S. 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
% Ch 3.7 2.6 1.3 1.1 0.1 (0.1) (1.6) (1.8) 0.1 (0.2)

84
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2015:3 2015:4 2016:1 2016:2 2016:3 2016:4 2017:1 2017:2 2017:3 2017:4
Total Nonfarm
Oregon 1,768.0 1,776.5 1,785.9 1,794.7 1,802.6 1,810.5 1,817.9 1,825.2 1,831.5 1,838.2
% Ch 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.5
U.S. 142.9 143.4 143.9 144.4 144.9 145.3 145.7 146.1 146.4 146.8
% Ch 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9

Private Nonfarm
Oregon 1,464.8 1,472.4 1,481.0 1,489.0 1,496.2 1,503.2 1,509.7 1,516.2 1,521.7 1,527.5
% Ch 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.5
U.S. 119.8 120.2 120.7 121.2 121.6 122.0 122.3 122.7 122.9 123.2
% Ch 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0

Natural Resources and Mining

Oregon 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.1
% Ch (3.2) (3.0) (3.0) (3.2) (3.6) (3.5) (4.1) (3.6) (3.7) (3.8)
U.S. 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
% Ch (2.3) (1.8) (1.9) (2.4) (2.7) (3.2) (3.7) (3.6) (2.9) (2.6)

Construction
Oregon 85.8 86.9 88.2 89.3 90.0 90.5 91.4 92.0 92.3 92.6
% Ch 6.9 5.1 6.5 5.0 3.0 2.5 3.7 3.0 1.3 1.1
U.S. 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.9
% Ch 5.7 4.8 4.9 4.0 2.7 2.3 2.9 2.5 1.7 1.4

Manufacturing
Oregon 178.4 179.1 179.6 180.1 180.8 181.6 182.5 183.3 184.2 185.3
% Ch 1.9 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.4
U.S. 12.8 12.9 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8
% Ch 0.4 0.1 (0.3) (0.4) (0.5) (0.1) 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4

Durable Manufacturing
Oregon 127.3 127.8 128.3 128.7 129.2 129.9 130.6 131.3 132.0 132.9
% Ch 2.5 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.8
U.S. 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3
% Ch 0.9 0.3 (0.2) (0.6) (0.8) (0.2) (0.0) 0.2 0.0 0.4

Wood Products
Oregon 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.3 24.3
% Ch 2.6 2.3 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 (0.6) (0.4) (0.3) (0.1)
U.S. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
% Ch 0.4 (0.1) (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) (0.2) (0.7) (0.4) (0.4) (0.3)

Metal and Machinery

Oregon 33.3 33.5 33.5 33.7 33.9 34.1 34.4 34.7 35.0 35.1
% Ch 1.9 1.4 1.1 1.6 2.4 3.2 3.4 3.3 2.8 2.0
U.S. 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
% Ch 1.7 1.9 1.2 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.2 (0.0) 0.2

Computer and Electronic Products

Oregon 37.2 37.3 37.4 37.5 37.7 37.9 38.2 38.4 38.6 39.1
% Ch 2.9 1.1 1.0 1.3 2.1 2.6 2.9 2.1 2.6 5.1
U.S. 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3
% Ch 2.1 0.4 0.6 (1.1) 0.8 1.3 2.9 3.1 2.5 2.4

Transportation Equipment
Oregon 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1
% Ch 2.4 1.6 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.6 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.5
U.S. 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
% Ch (1.2) (2.8) (3.8) (4.2) (5.0) (4.1) (3.5) (2.9) (2.3) (1.4)

Other Durables
Oregon 22.8 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.5 23.7 23.9 24.0 24.2
% Ch 2.7 2.9 2.3 2.4 1.7 2.4 3.5 3.4 2.9 3.4
U.S. 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
% Ch (0.1) (0.4) (0.3) (0.3) (1.0) (0.6) 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3

85
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2008:1 2008:2 2008:3 2008:4 2009:1 2009:2 2009:3 2009:4 2010:1 2010:2
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon 53.1 52.5 51.9 51.6 50.0 49.1 49.1 49.8 49.7 49.5
% Ch (0.0) (3.9) (4.6) (2.3) (12.1) (6.6) (0.1) 5.3 (0.1) (2.0)
U.S. 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
% Ch (1.0) (2.7) (4.8) (7.9) (11.9) (7.5) (4.7) (2.5) (0.6) 0.9

Food Manufacturing
Oregon 23.5 23.4 23.2 23.5 23.1 23.1 23.6 24.9 24.9 24.7
% Ch 3.2 (0.6) (4.7) 5.8 (6.4) (0.1) 8.8 23.8 0.2 (2.8)
U.S. 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
% Ch 1.1 (2.1) (1.6) (0.3) (5.0) 1.4 0.5 (1.1) (1.2) 1.9

Other Nondurable
Oregon 29.6 29.1 28.8 28.1 26.9 26.0 25.5 24.9 24.8 24.8
% Ch (2.5) (6.5) (4.6) (8.4) (16.7) (12.0) (7.5) (9.9) (0.5) (1.3)
U.S. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1
% Ch (1.9) (2.9) (6.1) (11.0) (14.8) (11.4) (7.0) (3.1) (0.6) 1.8

Trade, Transportation, and Utilities

Oregon 341.4 339.1 335.8 327.7 319.0 313.2 309.8 309.4 311.7 311.8
% Ch 0.1 (2.7) (3.9) (9.3) (10.2) (7.1) (4.2) (0.6) 3.0 0.2
U.S. 26.7 26.5 26.2 25.8 25.3 25.0 24.8 24.7 24.7 24.7
% Ch (0.4) (2.8) (3.7) (6.4) (7.1) (5.1) (3.0) (2.2) 0.2 1.0

Retail Trade
Oregon 200.9 198.7 196.4 191.2 186.4 183.7 182.3 182.1 183.9 183.3
% Ch (0.7) (4.4) (4.5) (10.1) (9.7) (5.6) (3.1) (0.5) 4.1 (1.4)
U.S. 15.5 15.4 15.2 15.0 14.7 14.6 14.5 14.4 14.4 14.4
% Ch (0.2) (3.6) (4.1) (6.8) (6.6) (3.9) (2.8) (2.7) 1.5 0.6

Wholesale Trade
Oregon 81.0 80.8 80.6 79.6 77.4 75.9 74.6 74.2 74.6 75.5
% Ch 1.0 (0.9) (1.1) (5.1) (10.5) (7.7) (6.6) (2.1) 2.2 5.0
U.S. 6.0 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6
% Ch (1.1) (2.7) (3.5) (6.0) (8.2) (6.0) (2.7) (1.4) (0.5) 1.1

Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities

Oregon 59.5 59.5 58.7 56.9 55.2 53.6 52.9 53.1 53.2 53.1
% Ch 1.6 0.4 (5.3) (11.9) (11.3) (11.2) (4.8) 1.2 0.5 (0.8)
U.S. 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7
% Ch (0.2) (0.4) (2.7) (5.8) (7.4) (7.5) (4.1) (1.7) (2.7) 1.8

Information
Oregon 36.5 36.1 35.5 34.4 33.6 33.4 32.6 32.7 32.8 33.4
% Ch 2.7 (4.2) (6.4) (12.1) (8.4) (2.4) (9.0) 0.6 1.6 6.6
U.S. 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7
% Ch (0.7) (1.7) (3.9) (5.9) (7.7) (7.9) (5.0) (2.6) (3.4) (2.4)

Financial Activities
Oregon 103.9 102.8 101.1 99.6 97.3 95.7 94.8 94.5 94.2 93.3
% Ch (4.2) (4.2) (6.5) (5.7) (9.2) (6.4) (3.5) (1.2) (1.5) (3.6)
U.S. 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6
% Ch (1.4) (1.0) (2.5) (5.0) (6.6) (6.1) (3.8) (1.9) (2.0) (1.2)

Professional and Business Services

Oregon 198.4 198.1 196.6 191.5 185.2 179.8 176.5 173.7 175.0 175.2
% Ch 2.0 (0.8) (2.9) (10.0) (12.5) (11.2) (7.1) (6.2) 2.9 0.6
U.S. 18.0 17.9 17.7 17.4 16.9 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.7
% Ch (0.3) (2.4) (4.5) (7.4) (9.4) (8.5) (4.3) 1.5 2.7 2.9

86
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2010:3 2010:4 2011:1 2011:2 2011:3 2011:4 2012:1 2012:2 2012:3 2012:4
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon 47.9 48.8 49.0 49.3 49.6 49.7 49.9 50.0 50.1 50.2
% Ch (12.1) 7.2 2.2 2.4 1.9 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.0
U.S. 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.6
% Ch (1.0) (2.0) 0.4 2.9 1.3 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.1

Food Manufacturing
Oregon 22.9 23.7 23.8 23.9 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.2 24.3 24.4
% Ch (27.0) 15.5 1.6 1.4 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.0
U.S. 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
% Ch (0.7) (2.7) 1.7 5.0 3.2 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.1 1.7

Other Nondurable
Oregon 25.1 25.1 25.2 25.5 25.6 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.8 25.8
% Ch 4.9 0.1 2.8 3.4 2.0 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.5 1.1
U.S. 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
% Ch 0.2 (2.9) (0.7) 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.0 (0.0) (0.3) (0.9)

Trade, Transportation, and Utilities

Oregon 310.9 312.5 313.6 315.6 317.6 320.1 322.5 324.9 327.3 329.3
% Ch (1.2) 2.2 1.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.4
U.S. 24.8 24.8 24.9 24.9 25.1 25.3 25.5 25.7 25.8 26.0
% Ch 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.6 2.0 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.4 2.7

Retail Trade
Oregon 181.8 184.7 185.1 185.4 185.7 186.4 187.3 188.2 189.3 190.1
% Ch (3.1) 6.4 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.3 1.7
U.S. 14.4 14.4 14.5 14.4 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.6 14.7
% Ch 0.0 (0.0) 0.9 (2.8) (1.0) 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.4 2.1

Wholesale Trade
Oregon 75.6 75.0 75.5 76.2 77.0 77.9 78.7 79.5 80.2 80.8
% Ch 0.4 (2.8) 2.4 3.9 4.2 5.1 4.1 3.9 3.6 2.8
U.S. 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.1
% Ch 0.9 1.4 1.7 4.7 5.5 5.3 3.7 3.6 3.2 3.2

Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities

Oregon 53.5 52.8 53.1 53.9 54.9 55.7 56.5 57.2 57.8 58.4
% Ch 3.2 (4.9) 2.0 6.7 7.4 6.1 5.7 4.8 4.5 4.2
U.S. 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.3
% Ch 2.3 1.6 2.5 6.4 7.3 5.9 5.6 4.5 4.3 4.0

Information
Oregon 34.6 35.4 35.9 36.2 36.7 37.2 37.4 37.3 37.6 38.1
% Ch 16.2 9.1 5.8 3.5 6.0 5.6 1.4 (0.4) 3.4 5.1
U.S. 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
% Ch (0.2) (0.4) (1.1) 5.5 7.8 6.6 2.6 0.6 4.5 5.9

Financial Activities
Oregon 92.5 92.9 94.1 95.1 96.0 96.6 97.6 98.7 99.6 99.9
% Ch (3.5) 1.9 5.1 4.4 3.8 2.7 4.0 4.7 3.4 1.5
U.S. 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.0 8.0
% Ch (1.1) (0.1) 2.7 4.8 3.1 2.4 3.5 3.8 3.4 0.5

Professional and Business Services

Oregon 176.2 179.0 180.7 183.3 185.0 186.4 186.6 186.8 187.7 189.7
% Ch 2.2 6.6 3.7 6.0 3.6 3.2 0.4 0.4 1.9 4.2
U.S. 16.7 16.9 17.1 17.4 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 18.0 18.2
% Ch 1.5 3.3 4.8 7.4 5.0 3.6 1.0 1.7 3.7 3.7

87
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2013:1 2013:2 2013:3 2013:4 2014:1 2014:2 2014:3 2014:4 2015:1 2015:2
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon 50.3 50.4 50.6 50.7 50.8 50.8 50.9 51.0 51.0 51.1
% Ch 1.0 0.5 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.7
U.S. 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
% Ch 0.3 (0.0) (0.4) (0.3) (1.2) (0.7) (1.0) (0.8) (0.6) (0.8)

Food Manufacturing
Oregon 24.4 24.5 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.8 24.8
% Ch 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4
U.S. 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
% Ch 1.5 1.6 1.1 1.4 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2

Other Nondurable
Oregon 25.9 25.9 26.0 26.0 26.1 26.1 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.3
% Ch 0.9 (0.0) 1.5 0.4 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.2 1.0
U.S. 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
% Ch (0.6) (1.4) (1.3) (1.3) (1.6) (1.5) (1.5) (1.6) (0.8) (1.4)

Trade, Transportation, and Utilities

Oregon 331.1 332.9 334.8 336.2 337.4 338.8 340.2 341.3 343.0 344.8
% Ch 2.3 2.2 2.3 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.9 2.2
U.S. 26.1 26.3 26.4 26.5 26.6 26.7 26.8 26.9 26.9 27.0
% Ch 2.0 2.1 2.3 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.4 1.4

Retail Trade
Oregon 191.0 191.9 193.0 193.6 194.0 194.6 195.1 195.6 196.4 197.4
% Ch 1.9 1.9 2.2 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.7 2.0
U.S. 14.8 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.1 15.1
% Ch 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.4 0.9 0.9

Wholesale Trade
Oregon 81.2 81.6 82.0 82.4 82.7 83.1 83.5 83.9 84.2 84.7
% Ch 2.3 2.2 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.2 1.7 1.8 2.3
U.S. 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3
% Ch 0.9 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.5 1.7

Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities

Oregon 58.9 59.3 59.8 60.3 60.6 61.1 61.5 61.9 62.3 62.7
% Ch 3.3 3.0 3.4 3.0 2.6 3.0 2.9 2.5 2.6 2.7
U.S. 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6
% Ch 3.0 2.8 3.2 2.8 2.3 2.8 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.6

Information
Oregon 37.8 37.4 37.5 37.4 37.2 37.1 37.1 37.3 37.7 37.8
% Ch (3.7) (4.0) 1.1 (0.5) (2.1) (1.7) (0.1) 2.7 4.2 1.6
U.S. 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0
% Ch (3.0) (3.3) 2.0 0.3 (1.3) (0.8) 1.0 4.0 5.5 2.6

Financial Activities
Oregon 100.2 100.3 100.7 101.3 101.2 101.3 101.5 101.6 101.4 101.3
% Ch 1.0 0.4 1.8 2.2 (0.2) 0.2 1.1 0.0 (0.7) (0.3)
U.S. 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.9 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.9
% Ch (1.3) (1.9) (0.5) 0.1 (0.7) (0.4) 0.8 (0.2) (1.0) (0.5)

Professional and Business Services

Oregon 191.8 193.8 197.0 200.4 203.6 206.8 209.6 212.1 214.2 216.2
% Ch 4.6 4.3 6.7 6.9 6.6 6.4 5.6 4.9 4.0 3.8
U.S. 18.3 18.5 18.8 19.0 19.3 19.6 19.9 20.1 20.3 20.5
% Ch 3.2 3.7 6.1 5.6 6.3 6.2 5.4 4.7 3.8 3.8

88
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2015:3 2015:4 2016:1 2016:2 2016:3 2016:4 2017:1 2017:2 2017:3 2017:4
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon 51.1 51.2 51.3 51.4 51.6 51.7 51.8 52.0 52.2 52.3
% Ch 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3
U.S. 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
% Ch (0.5) (0.2) (0.4) (0.0) 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4

Food Manufacturing
Oregon 24.8 24.9 24.9 25.0 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.2 25.3 25.3
% Ch 0.5 0.8 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0
U.S. 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
% Ch 0.5 1.1 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3

Other Nondurable
Oregon 26.3 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.5 26.6 26.7 26.8 26.9 27.0
% Ch 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6
U.S. 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
% Ch (1.0) (1.0) (0.8) (0.9) (0.7) (0.7) (0.0) (0.6) (0.4) (0.5)

Trade, Transportation, and Utilities

Oregon 346.6 348.1 349.6 350.9 352.4 353.6 354.8 355.9 357.0 358.0
% Ch 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1
U.S. 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.3 27.4 27.4 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.6
% Ch 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5

Retail Trade
Oregon 198.3 199.1 199.8 200.4 201.0 201.7 202.3 202.9 203.5 204.1
% Ch 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2
U.S. 15.1 15.1 15.2 15.2 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1
% Ch 0.4 0.2 0.3 (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.3) (0.5) (0.4) (0.1)

Wholesale Trade
Oregon 85.1 85.5 85.9 86.2 86.5 86.8 87.1 87.3 87.5 87.6
% Ch 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.7
U.S. 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5
% Ch 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.8

Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities

Oregon 63.1 63.5 63.9 64.3 64.8 65.2 65.5 65.8 66.1 66.3
% Ch 2.6 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.8 1.6
U.S. 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
% Ch 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.8 1.6

Information
Oregon 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.4 38.5 38.7 38.8 39.0 39.2 39.4
% Ch 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.7 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.5 2.0 1.9
U.S. 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
% Ch 2.2 2.3 1.7 1.6 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.6

Financial Activities
Oregon 101.3 101.1 101.0 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.7 100.5 100.4 100.3
% Ch (0.1) (0.6) (0.6) (0.8) 0.0 (0.1) (0.4) (0.7) (0.3) (0.7)
U.S. 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.8
% Ch (0.1) (0.6) (0.7) (0.8) 0.0 (0.1) (0.4) (0.8) (0.3) (0.8)

Professional and Business Services

Oregon 218.0 219.8 222.0 224.4 226.5 228.3 229.9 231.7 233.3 234.8
% Ch 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.4 3.8 3.1 2.8 3.3 2.7 2.6
U.S. 20.7 20.8 21.0 21.2 21.4 21.6 21.7 21.9 22.1 22.2
% Ch 3.2 3.3 3.6 4.4 3.8 3.1 2.8 3.3 2.7 2.6

89
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2008:1 2008:2 2008:3 2008:4 2009:1 2009:2 2009:3 2009:4 2010:1 2010:2
Education and Health Services
Oregon 216.8 218.8 220.8 221.8 221.9 223.3 224.6 223.2 225.0 223.2
% Ch 4.4 3.8 3.6 1.9 0.2 2.5 2.4 (2.4) 3.2 (3.1)
U.S. 18.6 18.8 18.9 19.0 19.1 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5
% Ch 2.7 3.3 2.7 1.6 1.9 1.1 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.0

Educational Services
Oregon 29.8 30.1 30.4 30.3 30.4 30.7 31.1 29.0 29.7 29.1
% Ch 4.2 4.2 2.9 (0.5) 1.5 3.0 5.9 (24.1) 9.0 (6.8)
U.S. 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
% Ch 2.7 5.5 6.0 (1.7) 3.3 (0.7) 0.1 1.4 3.3 2.4

Health Care and Social Assistance

Oregon 187.0 188.7 190.4 191.5 191.5 192.6 193.5 194.2 195.4 194.1
% Ch 4.5 3.7 3.7 2.3 (0.0) 2.4 1.9 1.4 2.4 (2.5)
U.S. 15.7 15.8 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4
% Ch 2.7 2.8 2.1 2.2 1.6 1.4 2.1 2.2 1.6 1.9

Leisure and Hospitality

Oregon 174.9 174.3 173.0 169.2 165.0 163.1 162.1 162.2 163.4 163.9
% Ch 2.6 (1.4) (3.1) (8.4) (9.5) (4.6) (2.3) 0.2 3.0 1.2
U.S. 13.5 13.5 13.4 13.3 13.2 13.1 13.1 13.0 13.0 13.1
% Ch 0.4 (1.0) (2.4) (3.7) (3.5) (2.0) (0.5) (2.3) 0.2 1.8

Other Services
Oregon 61.1 61.1 60.8 59.8 58.5 57.6 57.4 56.6 57.2 56.9
% Ch 2.1 0.3 (2.0) (6.6) (8.3) (6.1) (1.1) (5.6) 3.9 (1.9)
U.S. 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.3
% Ch 1.8 0.2 (1.4) (2.5) (5.1) (2.9) (1.2) (2.4) (0.4) 1.3

Government
Oregon 295.1 295.9 300.7 300.5 300.6 300.0 300.1 298.8 299.9 304.1
% Ch 2.9 1.1 6.8 (0.3) 0.2 (0.9) 0.2 (1.8) 1.5 5.8
U.S. 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.8
% Ch 1.4 1.2 1.6 (0.0) 0.2 0.9 (2.1) (0.1) (0.4) 4.9

Federal Government
Oregon 29.5 29.2 29.6 29.9 30.0 30.6 29.7 29.8 29.9 33.3
% Ch 2.4 (4.0) 5.8 3.5 2.0 7.7 (10.9) 1.1 1.6 54.3
U.S. 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.2
% Ch 0.2 2.1 1.0 1.4 3.1 10.0 (6.6) 2.1 6.5 50.6

State Government
Oregon 75.5 76.2 77.2 77.6 78.2 78.0 77.8 78.7 78.8 79.3
% Ch 3.5 4.0 5.1 2.5 3.1 (1.2) (1.2) 4.7 0.8 2.6

Education State Government

Oregon 27.8 28.1 28.5 28.8 29.1 29.1 28.6 29.1 29.3 29.5
% Ch 0.6 5.3 5.5 3.9 4.1 (0.6) (5.8) 6.5 2.5 3.2

Local Government
Oregon 190.1 190.5 194.0 193.0 192.4 191.4 192.7 190.3 191.2 191.5
% Ch 2.8 0.7 7.5 (1.9) (1.3) (2.0) 2.7 (4.8) 1.8 0.7

Education Local Government

Oregon 100.4 100.4 105.0 103.3 103.3 102.3 105.2 102.2 102.3 102.7
% Ch 3.2 (0.2) 20.1 (6.5) 0.1 (3.7) 11.8 (10.9) 0.4 1.5

90
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2010:3 2010:4 2011:1 2011:2 2011:3 2011:4 2012:1 2012:2 2012:3 2012:4
Education and Health Services
Oregon 222.4 225.6 227.4 228.2 229.7 231.6 233.3 235.0 236.1 237.6
% Ch (1.4) 5.9 3.2 1.4 2.7 3.4 3.0 2.9 1.9 2.5
U.S. 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.9 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.4 20.5
% Ch 1.9 2.7 2.3 1.8 2.6 2.8 1.9 1.6 0.6 1.2

Educational Services
Oregon 29.1 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.8 30.9 31.0 31.1 31.1 31.1
% Ch (0.8) 23.1 (0.3) (0.2) 2.4 2.1 1.4 0.1 0.3 (0.3)
U.S. 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
% Ch 1.2 3.5 2.4 2.0 1.3 2.1 0.0 (2.5) (3.2) (2.9)

Health Care and Social Assistance

Oregon 193.4 195.0 196.8 197.6 198.9 200.7 202.3 204.0 205.1 206.6
% Ch (1.5) 3.4 3.7 1.7 2.7 3.6 3.3 3.4 2.1 3.0
U.S. 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3
% Ch 2.0 2.5 2.2 1.7 2.9 2.9 2.3 2.4 1.3 2.0

Leisure and Hospitality

Oregon 164.9 164.3 166.4 166.8 167.7 168.5 169.8 170.5 170.8 171.2
% Ch 2.4 (1.5) 5.4 0.9 2.3 1.8 3.1 1.8 0.7 1.0
U.S. 13.1 13.2 13.2 13.3 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.6
% Ch 1.7 1.1 1.9 0.8 1.9 1.3 2.9 1.5 0.4 0.8

Other Services
Oregon 57.7 58.4 59.3 59.6 59.8 60.0 60.2 60.3 60.5 60.7
% Ch 5.8 5.0 6.4 2.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.2
U.S. 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
% Ch 2.4 3.1 2.9 0.4 1.3 2.0 1.0 (1.0) 0.1 0.4

Government
Oregon 301.2 298.8 295.8 294.5 293.0 293.1 293.4 293.6 294.0 294.4
% Ch (3.8) (3.1) (3.9) (1.8) (2.0) 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6
U.S. 22.4 22.3 22.2 22.2 22.1 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.3 22.4
% Ch (6.1) (2.5) (0.5) (0.6) (1.0) 0.2 0.3 0.9 1.2 1.2

Federal Government
Oregon 30.8 29.4 29.3 29.3 29.3 29.2 29.1 28.9 28.8 28.8
% Ch (26.9) (17.3) (1.4) (0.3) 0.1 (0.7) (2.0) (2.0) (1.2) (1.0)
U.S. 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7
% Ch (28.4) (12.3) (0.5) (1.4) (0.8) (1.6) (2.6) (2.6) (1.7) (1.5)

State Government
Oregon 79.9 79.9 79.7 79.1 78.3 78.4 78.3 78.2 78.2 78.2
% Ch 3.1 0.1 (1.0) (3.2) (3.9) 0.3 (0.3) (0.6) (0.0) 0.2

Education State Government

Oregon 29.9 30.4 30.4 30.3 30.1 30.1 30.0 30.0 30.1 30.1
% Ch 5.7 6.6 0.9 (2.0) (2.2) (0.7) (0.3) (0.0) 0.4 0.1

Local Government
Oregon 190.4 189.5 186.8 186.2 185.4 185.5 186.0 186.5 186.9 187.4
% Ch (2.2) (2.0) (5.5) (1.4) (1.6) 0.3 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0

Education Local Government

Oregon 101.1 100.6 99.6 99.6 99.2 99.3 99.7 100.0 100.4 100.7
% Ch (6.1) (2.0) (4.0) (0.2) (1.5) 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.4

91
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2013:1 2013:2 2013:3 2013:4 2014:1 2014:2 2014:3 2014:4 2015:1 2015:2
Education and Health Services
Oregon 237.7 239.3 240.3 241.2 243.0 244.6 245.7 247.0 248.4 250.3
% Ch 0.2 2.7 1.6 1.5 3.0 2.6 1.9 2.1 2.4 3.0
U.S. 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.8 20.9 21.0 21.1
% Ch (0.3) 1.7 0.9 0.5 1.9 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.6 2.0

Educational Services
Oregon 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.3 31.3
% Ch (0.4) (0.5) 0.6 (0.2) 0.2 0.7 1.6 0.5 0.3 0.8
U.S. 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
% Ch (2.1) (1.6) (1.9) (2.5) (2.7) (2.9) (2.7) (3.0) (2.3) (2.3)

Health Care and Social Assistance

Oregon 206.7 208.3 209.3 210.2 212.0 213.5 214.5 215.7 217.2 218.9
% Ch 0.3 3.2 1.8 1.7 3.4 2.9 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.3
U.S. 17.3 17.4 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 18.0 18.1
% Ch (0.0) 2.4 1.4 1.0 2.8 2.3 1.6 1.7 2.3 2.7

Leisure and Hospitality

Oregon 172.2 172.7 173.0 173.2 173.2 173.3 173.4 173.8 174.4 174.6
% Ch 2.4 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.3 0.5
U.S. 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5
% Ch 1.6 0.4 (0.2) 0.2 (0.8) (1.0) (0.4) (0.1) (0.2) (0.7)

Other Services
Oregon 60.8 61.0 61.1 61.2 61.6 61.7 62.0 62.2 62.5 62.7
% Ch 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 2.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 2.4 1.4
U.S. 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
% Ch 0.4 (0.7) 0.1 (0.2) 0.2 0.2 0.5 (1.4) (0.9) (0.7)

Government
Oregon 295.1 295.7 296.2 297.0 298.0 298.8 299.5 300.5 301.6 302.4
% Ch 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.2
U.S. 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.7 22.8 22.8 22.9 23.0 23.0 23.1
% Ch 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.9

Federal Government
Oregon 28.7 28.6 28.6 28.5 28.5 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.3 28.3
% Ch (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) (0.7) (0.8) (0.5) (0.6) (0.4) (0.4) (0.5)
U.S. 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
% Ch (1.3) (1.3) (1.3) (1.1) (1.1) (0.8) (0.8) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6)

State Government
Oregon 78.4 78.6 78.7 79.1 79.5 79.8 80.1 80.5 80.9 81.3
% Ch 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.9 2.0 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.2 2.0

Education State Government

Oregon 30.1 30.2 30.2 30.3 30.4 30.4 30.5 30.6 30.7 30.8
% Ch 0.3 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.5 0.8 1.2 0.9

Local Government
Oregon 188.0 188.5 188.9 189.4 190.1 190.6 191.1 191.6 192.3 192.8
% Ch 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.1

Education Local Government

Oregon 101.0 101.2 101.6 101.9 102.2 102.5 102.9 103.2 103.4 103.8
% Ch 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.3

92
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Employment by Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2015:3 2015:4 2016:1 2016:2 2016:3 2016:4 2017:1 2017:2 2017:3 2017:4
Education and Health Services
Oregon 252.1 254.1 256.9 259.2 261.1 263.2 264.6 266.4 267.9 269.7
% Ch 2.9 3.3 4.4 3.7 2.9 3.3 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.6
U.S. 21.2 21.3 21.5 21.6 21.7 21.9 22.0 22.1 22.1 22.3
% Ch 2.0 2.5 3.1 2.8 2.2 2.5 1.6 1.9 1.6 2.0

Educational Services
Oregon 31.5 31.5 31.6 31.7 31.9 32.1 32.3 32.5 32.7 32.9
% Ch 1.5 0.5 1.1 1.7 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.4 3.0 2.1
U.S. 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
% Ch (1.9) (1.9) (1.3) (1.6) (0.7) (0.6) (0.2) (1.1) (0.8) (0.8)

Health Care and Social Assistance

Oregon 220.6 222.6 225.3 227.5 229.2 231.1 232.3 233.9 235.2 236.8
% Ch 3.1 3.7 4.8 4.0 3.0 3.4 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.7
U.S. 18.2 18.3 18.5 18.7 18.8 18.9 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.4
% Ch 2.7 3.3 3.9 3.5 2.6 3.0 1.9 2.4 1.9 2.4

Leisure and Hospitality

Oregon 175.2 175.6 176.0 176.1 176.3 176.5 176.8 176.9 176.9 177.0
% Ch 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2
U.S. 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.4 13.4
% Ch (0.2) (0.1) (0.4) (0.6) (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) (0.7) (0.4) (0.3)

Other Services
Oregon 62.9 63.1 63.1 63.4 63.5 63.7 64.0 64.2 64.4 64.6
% Ch 1.1 1.0 0.3 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.1
U.S. 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4
% Ch (0.7) (0.8) (0.3) (0.6) (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6)

Government
Oregon 303.2 304.1 304.9 305.6 306.4 307.3 308.2 309.1 309.8 310.7
% Ch 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.1
U.S. 23.1 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.3 23.3 23.4 23.4 23.5 23.5
% Ch 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7

Federal Government
Oregon 28.3 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2
% Ch (0.3) (0.4) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)
U.S. 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
% Ch (0.5) (0.5) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1)

State Government
Oregon 81.7 82.0 82.3 82.4 82.6 82.8 82.9 83.1 83.3 83.5
% Ch 1.8 1.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8

Education State Government

Oregon 30.9 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.4 31.5 31.6 31.7 31.9 32.0
% Ch 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.7 2.0 1.6

Local Government
Oregon 193.2 193.8 194.4 195.0 195.6 196.3 197.1 197.7 198.3 199.0
% Ch 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.4

Education Local Government

Oregon 104.2 104.4 104.8 105.2 105.6 106.0 106.3 106.7 107.1 107.5
% Ch 1.5 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.3

93
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Other Economic Indicators

2008:1 2008:2 2008:3 2008:4 2009:1 2009:2 2009:3 2009:4 2010:1 2010:2

GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight

(in billions of $) 13,339.2 13,359.0 13,223.5 12,993.7 12,832.6 12,810.0 12,860.8 13,019.0 13,138.8 13,194.9
% Ch (0.7) 0.6 (4.0) (6.8) (4.9) (0.7) 1.6 5.0 3.7 1.7

Price and Wage Indicators

GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100 107.5 108.3 109.5 109.2 109.5 109.6 109.8 109.7 110.0 110.5
% Ch 1.9 3.2 4.5 (1.2) 1.1 0.3 0.7 (0.2) 1.0 1.9

Personal Consumption Deflator,

Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100 108.0 109.2 110.4 108.7 108.3 108.8 109.6 110.3 110.9 110.9
% Ch 3.9 4.6 4.4 (5.8) (1.6) 1.9 2.9 2.7 2.1 (0.0)

CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=100

Portland-Salem, OR-WA 213.9 215.3 216.2 216.1 214.0 214.2 216.8 217.6 217.8 217.2
% Ch 4.7 2.7 1.7 (0.2) (3.9) 0.5 4.8 1.6 0.3 (1.0)
U.S. 212.8 215.6 218.9 213.7 212.5 213.5 215.4 216.8 217.6 217.2
% Ch 4.7 5.2 6.4 (9.2) (2.2) 1.9 3.7 2.6 1.5 (0.7)

OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $) 42.5 42.7 42.6 42.6 42.4 43.1 43.1 43.4 43.5 43.5
% Ch 0.5 1.3 (0.1) 0.0 (2.1) 6.3 0.2 2.8 1.2 0.2

U.S. Average Wage

Rate (Thous $) 47.8 47.8 48.0 48.1 47.1 48.0 48.2 48.5 48.5 49.0
% Ch 4.4 (0.1) 1.9 0.6 (8.0) 7.2 1.7 2.7 0.2 4.1

Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Index 1987 Q1=100 460.2 452.6 439.1 434.5 432.4 417.0 404.2 396.6 391.1 386.6
% Ch (1.0) (6.4) (11.5) (4.1) (2.0) (13.5) (11.8) (7.3) (5.4) (4.6)

FHFA National Housing Price Index

(1980Q1=100) 378.4 371.1 361.9 361.0 364.5 356.0 347.2 345.4 340.8 339.5
% Ch (0.6) (7.6) (9.5) (0.9) 3.9 (9.0) (9.5) (2.1) (5.2) (1.6)

Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous) 14.4 13.3 13.4 10.0 8.2 7.4 6.7 8.0 8.1 7.4
% Ch (54.6) (27.0) 1.6 (68.7) (55.8) (31.7) (33.7) 103.6 7.0 (30.8)
U.S. (Millions) 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
% Ch (30.7) (18.6) (47.0) (65.1) (59.3) 5.4 42.2 (13.8) 42.6 (9.4)

Other Indicators
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100 99.9 98.4 95.9 92.6 88.2 85.9 87.6 89.1 90.6 92.2
% Ch (1.6) (5.9) (9.7) (13.0) (17.6) (10.3) 8.3 7.0 7.1 7.2

Prime Rate (Percent) 6.2 5.1 5.0 4.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
% Ch (53.5) (55.3) (6.2) (56.7) (58.8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

94
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Other Economic Indicators

2010:3 2010:4 2011:1 2011:2 2011:3 2011:4 2012:1 2012:2 2012:3 2012:4

GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight

(in billions of $) 13,278.5 13,399.6 13,526.4 13,630.6 13,712.4 13,823.2 13,895.1 14,000.1 14,115.7 14,248.8
% Ch 2.6 3.7 3.8 3.1 2.4 3.3 2.1 3.1 3.3 3.8

Price and Wage Indicators

GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100 111.1 111.0 111.5 111.7 112.0 112.3 112.7 113.0 113.5 113.9
% Ch 2.1 (0.2) 1.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.5

Personal Consumption Deflator,

Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100 111.1 111.6 112.0 112.3 112.7 113.1 113.6 114.0 114.5 115.0
% Ch 0.8 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7

CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=100

Portland-Salem, OR-WA 218.8 219.9 220.3 220.7 221.2 222.0 223.4 224.0 224.6 225.5
% Ch 2.8 2.1 0.7 0.6 1.1 1.4 2.6 1.1 1.1 1.6
U.S. 218.0 219.5 220.2 220.9 221.9 222.9 224.0 225.1 226.2 227.4
% Ch 1.5 2.7 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.1

OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $) 44.0 44.6 45.1 45.4 45.7 46.0 46.3 46.7 46.9 47.2
% Ch 3.9 5.9 4.4 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.5 2.5

U.S. Average Wage

Rate (Thous $) 49.4 49.8 50.2 50.6 51.0 51.4 51.7 52.0 52.4 52.7
% Ch 3.4 3.1 3.6 3.3 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7

Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Index 1987 Q1=100 385.3 379.4 376.8 371.4 373.3 379.7 383.7 388.8 394.7 398.1
% Ch (1.2) (6.0) (2.7) (5.6) 2.1 7.0 4.3 5.4 6.2 3.5

FHFA National Housing Price Index

(1980Q1=100) 343.1 327.6 317.5 309.5 314.5 319.5 323.1 328.1 334.1 338.4
% Ch 4.3 (16.9) (11.8) (9.7) 6.6 6.6 4.6 6.2 7.6 5.2

Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous) 7.4 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.4 9.0 9.5
% Ch (2.7) 9.1 (14.2) 8.6 14.1 7.9 10.5 22.9 30.5 25.1
U.S. (Millions) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3
% Ch (8.8) (22.3) 31.7 37.9 50.7 59.0 71.4 55.8 73.2 37.5

Other Indicators
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100 93.6 94.0 95.0 95.8 96.5 97.3 98.0 98.9 99.8 100.8
% Ch 5.9 1.8 4.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.1

Prime Rate (Percent) 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.7 4.6 5.5
% Ch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 62.8 132.5 109.0

95
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Other Economic Indicators

2013:1 2013:2 2013:3 2013:4 2014:1 2014:2 2014:3 2014:4 2015:1 2015:2

GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight

(in billions of $) 14,330.0 14,445.6 14,558.5 14,664.8 14,797.5 14,919.3 15,042.8 15,159.9 15,273.4 15,381.5
% Ch 2.3 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.9

Price and Wage Indicators

GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100 114.4 114.8 115.2 115.7 116.4 116.9 117.5 118.0 118.6 119.1
% Ch 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 2.1 1.8

Personal Consumption Deflator,

Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100 115.5 116.0 116.5 117.1 117.7 118.4 119.0 119.6 120.2 120.8
% Ch 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1

CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=100

Portland-Salem, OR-WA 226.4 227.3 228.5 229.5 230.6 231.9 233.3 234.4 235.6 236.9
% Ch 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.2
U.S. 228.5 229.6 230.7 231.9 233.3 234.7 236.0 237.3 238.6 239.9
% Ch 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2

OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $) 47.6 47.9 48.2 48.5 48.8 49.2 49.5 49.8 50.2 50.5
% Ch 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.6

U.S. Average Wage

Rate (Thous $) 53.1 53.5 53.8 54.1 54.5 54.9 55.2 55.6 56.0 56.4
% Ch 3.2 2.7 2.4 2.5 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.7

Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Index 1987 Q1=100 399.8 400.6 402.8 403.1 404.5 406.3 410.4 413.8 418.4 422.7
% Ch 1.7 0.8 2.2 0.2 1.4 1.8 4.1 3.4 4.5 4.2

FHFA National Housing Price Index

(1980Q1=100) 341.3 343.6 346.9 348.4 350.8 353.3 357.9 361.9 366.8 371.4
% Ch 3.5 2.7 4.0 1.7 2.8 3.0 5.3 4.5 5.5 5.1

Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous) 9.9 10.7 11.8 12.5 13.3 14.1 15.1 16.3 17.4 18.5
% Ch 17.6 37.2 46.2 28.7 26.2 26.3 30.8 36.8 30.0 27.4
U.S. (Millions) 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
% Ch 23.3 24.0 20.3 12.4 12.5 14.6 14.6 7.0 0.9 2.5

Other Indicators
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100 101.8 102.8 103.8 104.8 105.8 106.8 107.8 108.9 109.9 110.8
% Ch 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.3

Prime Rate (Percent) 6.2 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 7.5 7.8
% Ch 61.1 19.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 28.8 33.1 15.7

96
TABLE A.2
Mar 2011 - Other Economic Indicators

2015:3 2015:4 2016:1 2016:2 2016:3 2016:4 2017:1 2017:2 2017:3 2017:4

GDP (Bil of 2005 $) Chain Weight

(in billions of $) 15,478.6 15,573.8 15,692.8 15,808.0 15,911.3 16,011.5 16,114.0 16,221.9 16,320.5 16,421.0
% Ch 2.5 2.5 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.5

Price and Wage Indicators

GDP Implicit Price Deflator,
Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100 119.7 120.2 120.8 121.3 121.9 122.4 123.0 123.6 124.1 124.7
% Ch 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8

Personal Consumption Deflator,

Chain Weight U.S., 2005=100 121.4 122.1 122.7 123.3 123.9 124.6 125.2 125.8 126.5 127.1
% Ch 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1

CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=100

Portland-Salem, OR-WA 238.3 239.6 240.4 241.9 243.3 244.4 245.6 246.9 248.7 249.6
% Ch 2.5 2.1 1.3 2.6 2.3 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.9 1.5
U.S. 241.2 242.6 243.8 245.1 246.3 247.6 248.8 250.2 251.5 252.8
% Ch 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2

OR Average Wage
Rate (Thous $) 50.8 51.2 51.5 51.9 52.3 52.6 53.1 53.4 53.8 54.2
% Ch 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.0

U.S. Average Wage

Rate (Thous $) 56.8 57.1 57.6 58.0 58.4 58.8 59.3 59.7 60.2 60.6
% Ch 2.7 2.7 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.0 3.1 3.0

Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
Index 1987 Q1=100 427.8 431.8 433.1 437.3 439.6 441.2 447.0 449.4 455.8 460.2
% Ch 4.9 3.8 1.1 4.0 2.1 1.5 5.3 2.1 5.9 3.9

FHFA National Housing Price Index

(1980Q1=100) 376.7 381.1 382.8 387.4 390.1 392.1 399.1 401.8 410.4 416.2
% Ch 5.9 4.7 1.8 4.9 2.9 2.1 7.3 2.8 8.9 5.7

Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous) 19.7 20.7 21.6 22.4 23.3 24.0 24.2 24.5 24.9 25.1
% Ch 29.2 21.5 18.0 16.7 16.5 12.6 4.0 4.3 7.1 2.8
U.S. (Millions) 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
% Ch 1.9 (0.5) 0.2 2.0 2.1 1.2 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (1.5)

Other Indicators
Industrial Production Index,
U.S, 1997=100 111.7 112.6 113.5 114.4 115.1 115.9 116.7 117.6 118.4 119.3
% Ch 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0

Prime Rate (Percent) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7
% Ch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

97
APPENDIX B: REVENUE FORECAST DETAIL

Table B.1a General Fund Revenue Statement 2009-11............................................................99

Table B.1b General Fund Revenue Statement - 2011-13 .......................................................100

Table B.2 General Fund Revenue Forecast by Fiscal Year ..................................................102

Table B.3 Summary of Tax Model Adjustments ..................................................................103

Table B.3a Summary of 2009 legislative Session Adjustments .............................................104

Table B.4 Oregon Personal Income Tax Revenue Forecast .................................................105

Table B.5 Oregon Corporate Income Tax Revenue Forecast ...............................................107

Table B.6 Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Distribution ..............................................................109

Table B.7 Revenue Distribution to Local Governments ...................................................... 110

Table B.8 Track Record for the June 2010 Forecast ............................................................ 111

Table B.9 Summary of Lottery Resources ........................................................................... 112

Table B.10 Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook.......................................................... 113

98
 Table B.1a
General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2009-11

Forecasts Dated: 12/1/2010 Forecasts Dated: 3/1/2011 Difference

Estimate at Total Total 03/1/2011 Less 03/1/2011 Less
Table B.1a

COS 2009 2009-10 2010-11 2009-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-11 12/1/2010 COS

Taxes
Personal Income Taxes (Before Kicker) 11,545,697,000 4,943,210,000 5,499,770,000 10,442,980,000 4,943,210,000 5,514,946,000 10,458,156,000 15,176,000 (1,087,541,000)
Implicit Kicker Offset 0 0 0 0 0
Corporate Income Taxes (Before Kicker) 831,615,000 353,589,000 501,636,000 855,225,000 353,589,000 487,726,000 841,315,000 (13,910,000) 9,700,000
Insurance Taxes 99,611,000 43,121,000 45,389,000 88,510,000 43,235,000 44,707,000 87,942,000 (568,000) (11,669,000)
Estate Taxes 195,407,000 98,034,000 97,893,000 195,927,000 98,034,000 97,893,000 195,927,000 0 520,000
Cigarette Taxes 67,333,000 37,517,000 39,176,000 76,693,000 37,517,000 39,260,000 76,777,000 84,000 9,444,000
Other Tobacco Products Taxes 35,335,000 19,956,000 25,828,000 45,784,000 19,956,000 27,793,000 47,749,000 1,965,000 12,414,000
Other Taxes 1,050,000 1,588,000 782,000 2,370,000 1,588,000 782,000 2,370,000 0 1,320,000

Fines and Fees

State Court Fees 56,644,000 26,550,000 26,008,000 52,558,000 26,550,000 26,076,000 52,626,000 68,000 (4,018,000)
Secretary of State Fees 25,056,000 15,284,000 18,489,000 33,773,000 15,284,000 26,379,000 41,663,000 7,890,000 16,607,000
Criminal Fines & Assessments 62,925,000 30,758,000 33,377,000 64,135,000 30,758,000 31,649,000 62,407,000 (1,728,000) (518,000)
Securities Fees 14,996,000 9,073,000 7,767,000 16,840,000 9,073,000 10,100,000 19,173,000 2,333,000 4,177,000

Central Service Charges 8,760,000 4,087,000 4,087,000 8,174,000 4,087,000 4,087,000 8,174,000 0 (586,000)

Liquor Apportionment 213,092,000 104,378,000 104,138,000 208,516,000 97,322,000 104,138,000 201,460,000 (7,056,000) (11,632,000)

Interest Earnings 50,521,300 2,946,000 2,821,000 5,767,000 2,946,000 1,821,000 4,767,000 (1,000,000) (45,754,300)

Miscellaneous Revenues1 108,750,000 5,517,000 7,500,000 13,017,000 5,517,000 7,500,000 13,017,000 0 (95,733,000)

99
One-time Transfers 258,894,848 315,917,000 0 315,917,000 315,917,000 0 315,917,000 0 57,022,152

Gross General Fund Revenues 13,575,687,148 6,011,525,000 6,414,661,000 12,426,186,000 6,004,583,000 6,424,857,000 12,429,440,000 3,254,000 (1,146,247,148)

Net General Fund Revenues 13,575,687,148 6,011,525,000 6,414,661,000 12,426,186,000 6,004,583,000 6,424,857,000 12,429,440,000 3,254,000 (1,146,247,148)
General Fund Revenue Statement 2009-11

Plus Beginning Balance 0 0 0 0 0

Less Anticipated Administrative Actions* (43,700,000) (15,700,000) (15,700,000) 0 28,000,000

Plus Legislatively Adopted Actions** 0 122,985,849 122,985,849 0 122,985,849

Available Resources 13,531,987,148 12,533,471,849 12,536,725,849 3,254,000 (995,261,299)

Legislatively Adopted Budget 13,298,144,069 13,426,140,418 13,426,140,418 0 127,996,349

Plus Administrative Actions (954,613,145) (954,613,145) 0 (954,613,145)

Projected Expenditures 13,298,144,069 12,471,527,273 12,471,527,273 0 (826,616,796)

Estimated Ending Balance 233,843,079 61,944,576 65,198,576 3,254,000 (168,644,503)

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
 Table B.1b
General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2011-13

Forecasts Dated: 12/1/2010 Forecasts Dated: 3/1/2011 Difference

Table B.1b

Estimate at Total Total 03/1/2011 Less 03/1/2011 Less

COS 2011 2011-12 2012-13 2011-13 2011-12 2012-13 2011-13 12/1/2010 COS

Taxes
Personal Income Taxes (Before Kicker) 5,835,080,000 6,217,393,000 12,052,473,000 5,848,046,000 6,184,688,000 12,032,734,000 (19,739,000) NA
Implicit Kicker Offset 0 0 0 NA
Corporate Income Taxes (Before Kicker) 489,273,000 476,890,000 966,163,000 424,126,000 473,746,000 897,872,000 (68,291,000) NA
Insurance Taxes 48,085,000 51,086,000 99,171,000 48,608,000 51,578,000 100,186,000 1,015,000 NA
Estate Taxes 100,612,000 103,672,000 204,284,000 100,612,000 103,672,000 204,284,000 0 NA
Cigarette Taxes 38,429,000 37,559,000 75,988,000 38,540,000 37,671,000 76,211,000 223,000 NA
Other Tobacco Products Taxes 24,669,000 25,703,000 50,372,000 28,327,000 29,360,000 57,687,000 7,315,000 NA
Other Taxes 682,000 682,000 1,364,000 682,000 682,000 1,364,000 0 NA

Fines and Fees

State Court Fees 27,358,000 28,627,000 55,985,000 27,215,000 28,134,000 55,349,000 (636,000) NA
Secretary of State Fees 18,636,000 18,911,000 37,547,000 23,023,000 23,630,000 46,653,000 9,106,000 NA
Criminal Fines & Assessments 35,723,000 30,227,000 65,950,000 31,163,000 26,369,000 57,532,000 (8,418,000) NA
Securities Fees 7,750,000 8,082,000 15,832,000 9,459,000 9,739,000 19,198,000 3,366,000 NA

100
Central Service Charges 5,576,000 5,576,000 11,152,000 5,576,000 5,576,000 11,152,000 0 NA

Liquor Apportionment 91,820,000 95,568,000 187,388,000 91,820,000 95,568,000 187,388,000 0 NA

Interest Earnings 4,600,000 5,520,000 10,120,000 3,620,000 5,756,000 9,376,000 (744,000) NA

General Fund Revenue Statement - 2011-13

Miscellaneous Revenues 10,750,000 11,000,000 21,750,000 8,600,000 8,800,000 17,400,000 (4,350,000) NA

One-time Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA

Gross General Fund Revenues 6,739,043,000 7,116,496,000 13,855,539,000 6,689,417,000 7,084,969,000 13,774,386,000 (81,153,000) NA

Net General Fund Revenues 6,739,043,000 7,116,496,000 13,855,539,000 6,689,417,000 7,084,969,000 13,774,386,000 (81,153,000) NA

Plus Beginning Balance 0 0 0 NA

Less Anticipated Administrative Actions* 0 0 0 NA

Less Legislatively Adopted Actions** 0 0 0 NA

Available Resources 13,855,539,000 13,774,386,000 (81,153,000) NA

 TABLE B.2
General Fund Revenue Forecast March 2011
($Millions)
Table B.2

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar
Fiscal Years
Taxe s

Personal Income 5,443.6 5,596.7 4,972.0 5,118.6 4,943.2 5,514.9 5,848.0 6,184.7 6,786.0 7,291.5 7,626.0 7,995.6
Corporate Excise & Income 438.2 405.9 440.7 243.8 353.6 487.7 424.1 473.7 566.0 590.2 585.4 609.9
Insurance 60.9 53.8 44.4 48.9 43.2 44.7 48.6 51.6 53.7 56.5 57.5 59.1
Estate 89.3 79.6 109.5 87.3 98.0 97.9 100.6 103.7 106.9 110.3 114.0 117.8
Cigarette 44.3 44.5 41.0 39.9 37.5 39.3 38.5 37.7 36.8 35.8 34.5 33.2
Other T obacco Products 16.3 16.2 17.3 17.2 20.0 27.8 28.3 29.4 30.5 31.4 32.5 33.5
Other T axes 1.5 1.0 0.4 1.1 1.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

O the r Re ve nue s

Licenses and Fees 91.6 83.8 88.8 83.5 81.7 94.2 90.9 87.9 96.4 93.1 102.0 98.4
Charges for Services 3.4 3.3 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.1 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6
Liquor Apportionment 78.8 67.3 90.4 86.9 97.3 104.1 91.8 95.6 98.4 101.4 104.4 107.6
Interest Earnings 32.2 69.2 68.7 15.4 2.9 1.8 3.6 5.8 7.2 9.0 10.8 13.0
Others 11.7 8.9 10.9 88.6 321.4 7.5 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.0 9.2

Total Ge ne ral Fund 6,311.8 6,430.2 5,888.5 5,835.5 6,004.6 6,424.9 6,689.4 7,085.0 7,797.2 8,334.6 8,682.3 9,083.6

101
2005-07 Pe rce nt 2007-09 Pe rce nt 2009-11 Pe rce nt 2011-13 Pe rce nt 2013-15 Pe rce nt 2015-17 Pe rce nt
Biennial Totals Bie nnium Change Bie nnium Change Bie nnium Change Bie nnium Change Bie nnium Change Bie nnium Change
Taxe s

Personal Income 11,040.3 22.8% 10,090.6 -8.6% 10,458.2 3.6% 12,032.7 15.1% 14,077.5 17.0% 15,621.5 11.0%
Corporate Excise & Income 844.1 31.7% 684.5 -18.9% 841.3 22.9% 897.9 6.7% 1,156.2 28.8% 1,195.3 3.4%
General Fund Revenue Forecast by Fiscal Year

Insurance 114.7 7.5% 93.3 -18.6% 87.9 -5.8% 100.2 13.9% 110.2 10.0% 116.6 5.8%
Estate T axes 168.9 29.5% 196.8 16.5% 195.9 -0.5% 204.3 4.3% 217.2 6.3% 231.8 6.7%
Cigarette 88.8 7.4% 80.9 -8.9% 76.8 -5.1% 76.2 -0.7% 72.6 -4.7% 67.8 -6.6%
Other T obacco Products 32.6 48.5% 34.5 6.0% 47.7 38.4% 57.7 20.8% 61.9 7.2% 66.0 6.7%
Other T axes 2.5 -10.2% 1.5 -41.0% 2.4 60.4% 1.4 -42.4% 1.4 0.0% 1.4 0.0%

O the r Re ve nue s

Licenses and Fees 175.4 29.7% 172.3 -1.8% 175.9 2.1% 178.7 1.6% 189.5 6.1% 200.4 5.7%
Charges for Services 6.7 6.5% 8.7 30.3% 8.2 -6.2% 11.2 36.4% 11.2 0.0% 11.2 0.0%
Liquor Apportionment 146.1 18.5% 177.3 21.3% 201.5 13.6% 187.4 -7.0% 199.8 6.6% 212.0 6.1%
Interest Earnings 101.4 233.2% 84.1 -17.1% 4.8 -94.3% 9.4 96.7% 16.2 72.7% 23.7 46.7%
Others 20.5 -87.6% 99.5 385.0% 328.9 230.5% 17.4 -94.7% 18.2 4.6% 18.2 0.0%

Total Ge ne ral Fund 12,742.0 22.1% 11,723.9 -8.0% 12,429.4 6.0% 13,774.4 10.8% 16,131.8 17.1% 17,765.9 10.1%

Note: Detailed entries may not add to totals due to rounding. Other taxes include General Fund portions of the Eastern Oregon Severance T ax, Western Oregon Severance T ax and Amusement Device T ax.
Commercial Fish Licenses & Fees and Pari-mutual Receipts are included in Other Revenues.
Table B.3 Summary of Tax Model Adjustments
Table B.3 Summary of Tax Model Adjustments March 2011
Personal Income Tax (Thousands) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Federal Law Changes

Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 5,265 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tax Increase Prevention and Reconcilation Act of 2005 -11,000 6,300 24,200 19,700 6,500 0 0
Pension Protection Act of 2006 -1,500 -2,500 -19,300 -21,400 -25,700 -32,000 -37,000
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 2,810 2,300 1,730 1,460 950 670 290
Other Federal Legislation -2,400 -17,700 6,100 4,400 3,400 2,300 1,600
Measure 88 (Federal Tax Subraction Increase) -154,500 -157,000 -159,500 -162,000 -164,500 -167,000 -169,500
Multnomah County Income Tax
2005 Session
Total Tax Law Changes -18,872 -26,058 -17,143 -13,571 -13,846 -14,127 -14,406
Additional Audit and Compliance Efforts 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200
2007 Session (Regular & Special 1*)
Total Tax Law Changes -7,307 -12,713 -30,629 -25,286 -23,961 22,737 23,726
Additional Audit and Compliance Efforts 2,060 2,240 2,340 2,440 2,540 2,640 2,740
Projected Kicker
Personal IncomeTax Law Adjustments -172,244 -191,931 -179,002 -181,057 -201,417 -171,580 -179,350

Corporate Income Tax (Thousands) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Federal Law Changes

Job Creation Act of 2004 5,967 3,822 0 0 0 0 0

Tax Increase Prevention and Reconcilation Act of 2005 -1,400 500 500 400 300 0 0
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 17600 15260 12800 10400 6960 4400 2600
Other Federal Legislation -2,370 -2,660 -2,150 -2,150 -2,470 -1,870 -2,080
2005 Session
Total Tax Law Changes 7,045 6,914 6,450 7,045 6,914 6,783 6,652
Additional Audit and Compliance Efforts 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
2007 Session (Regular & Special 1)
H.B. 2031 (Small Business Tax Credit) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Tax Law Changes -1,480 -5,891 -10,373 -14,025 -11,401 -11,484 -11,392
Additional Audit and Compliance Efforts 1,360 1,460 1,560 1,660 1,760 1,860 1,960
Affordable Housing Lenders Credit -1,000 -2,000 -3,000 -3,000 -3,500 -4,000 -4,000
Projected Kicker
Corporate Income Tax Law Adjustments 28,222 19,905 8,287 2,830 1,063 -1,812 -3,761
Notes: Adjustments are from the 2009 regular and 2010 special sessions. Adjustment factors for recent tax law changes w ill be updated as part of the 2011 close of session forecast. Adjustments
factored into model results beginning w ith first forecast observ ation. Impacts phased out as impact becomes present in historical data.

102
Table B.3a Summary of 2009 Legislative Session Adjustments

Table B.3A Summary of 2009 Legislative Session Adjustments March 2011

Personal Income Tax (Millions) 2009-11 2011-13 2013-15

Tax Credit Sunsets - HB 2067 $0.0 $31.3 $42.6

Federal Connect - HB 2078 -$1.5 $3.9
PIT Package - HB 2649 $472.0 $375.0 $379.0
CORP Package - HB 3405 $17.4 $18.0 $20.0
Tax Amnesty - SB 880 $0.1 $0.6 $0.0
Film & Video Credit - SB 621 -$4.7 -$2.5 $0.0
Compliance Network - HB 2815 $3.0 $10.6 $12.2
Department of Revenue Enhancements $36.9
Personal IncomeTax Law Adjustments $522.8 $436.8 $454.2

Corporate Income Tax (Millions) 2009-11 2011-13 2013-15

Tax Credit Sunsets - HB 2067 $0.0 $28.0 $64.2

Federal Connect - HB 2078 $2.4 $0.4
CORP Package - HB 3405 $223.1 $221.0 $179.0
Corp Compliance - SB 180 $0.6 $1.2 $1.2
Tax Amnesty - SB 880 $0.1 $0.2 $0.0
Compliance Network - HB 2815 $0.8 $2.7 $3.0
Corporate Income Tax Law Adjustments $221.9 $253.4 $247.6

Other Tax/Revenue (Millions) 2009-11 2011-13 2013-15

Moist Snuff - HB 2672 $3.0 $1.9 $0.5

CORP Package - HB 3405 $20.5 $31.0 $32.0
Tobacco Tax Compliance - SB 300 $0.2 $0.4 $0.4
OUS Interest - HB 2208 $1.5 $1.9 $1.9
OLCC Revenue Enhancements (HB 3199) $23.9
DSL New Carissa (HB 3199) $0.7
DOJ Consumer Protection Acct (HB 3199) $2.0
9-1-1 Interest (HB 3199) $0.8
LUBA Filing Fees (HB 3199) $0.1
WRD Water Development Fund (HB 3199) $0.3
DAS Risk (HB 3199) $30.0
State Reserves - RDF to GF $225.0
Other Adjustments $307.5 $35.2 $34.8
1 Legislativ e adjustments are taken from the 2009 regular and 2010 special sessions. Updated estimates of legislativ e adjustments w ill be presented as part of the upcoming 2011 close

of session forecast.

103
 TABLE B.4 OREGON PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted March 2011
2005:3 2005:4 2006:1 2006:2 FY 2006 2006:3 2006:4 2007:1 2007:2 FY 2007
WITHHOLDING 1,064,107 1,087,942 1,177,488 1,075,476 4,405,013 1,118,878 1,172,656 1,182,336 1,088,108 4,561,977
Table B.4

%CHYA 8.4% 6.4% 10.5% 6.0% 7.8% 5.1% 7.8% 0.4% 1.2% 3.6%
EST. PAYMENTS 194,848 186,648 224,403 270,754 876,653 231,720 177,026 267,345 363,055 1,039,146
%CHYA 22.4% 36.4% 11.4% 0.3% 14.2% 18.9% -5.2% 19.1% 34.1% 18.5%
FINAL PAYMENTS 51,797 68,000 88,998 787,622 996,416 55,408 89,432 100,476 779,577 1,024,893
%CHYA 16.8% 27.6% 13.8% 49.4% 41.7% 7.0% 31.5% 12.9% -1.0% 2.9%
REFUNDS 62,638 94,755 345,524 358,699 861,617 89,254 126,707 444,768 369,456 1,030,186
%CHYA -9.4% 17.8% 0.7% -1.4% 0.6% 42.5% 33.7% 28.7% 3.0% 19.6%
OTHER (149,733) - - 176,911 27,178 (176,911) - - 177,781 870
TOTAL 1,098,381 1,247,835 1,145,365 1,952,063 5,443,644 1,139,841 1,312,406 1,105,388 2,039,066 5,596,701
%CHYA 10.9% 10.2% 14.3% 22.2% 15.3% 3.8% 5.2% -3.5% 4.5% 2.8%
2007:3 2007:4 2008:1 2008:2 FY 2008 2008:3 2008:4 2009:1 2009:2 FY 2009
WITHHOLDING 1,115,359 1,200,822 1,196,532 1,111,034 4,623,747 1,162,107 1,182,763 1,128,994 1,089,305 4,563,169
%CHYA -0.3% 2.4% 1.2% 2.1% 1.4% 4.2% -1.5% -5.6% -2.0% -1.3%
EST. PAYMENTS 250,749 217,163 281,441 399,475 1,148,828 264,440 174,826 217,305 263,135 919,707
%CHYA 8.2% 22.7% 5.3% 10.0% 10.6% 5.5% -19.5% -22.8% -34.1% -19.9%
FINAL PAYMENTS 57,503 129,817 104,841 971,325 1,263,486 70,306 99,430 104,105 529,995 803,836

104
%CHYA 3.8% 45.2% 4.3% 24.6% 23.3% 22.3% -23.4% -0.7% -45.4% -36.4%
REFUNDS 71,372 155,912 389,876 365,908 983,068 92,063 180,329 447,706 404,229 1,124,327
%CHYA -20.0% 23.0% -12.3% -1.0% -4.6% 29.0% 15.7% 14.8% 10.5% 14.4%
OTHER (177,781) (1,084,201) - 182,322 (1,079,660) (182,322) - - 138,521 (43,801)
TOTAL 1,174,457 307,689 1,192,938 2,298,247 4,973,332 1,222,469 1,276,690 1,002,698 1,616,726 5,118,583
%CHYA 3.0% -76.6% 7.9% 12.7% -11.1% 4.1% 314.9% -15.9% -29.7% 2.9%
Oregon Personal Income Tax Revenue Forecast

2009:3 2009:4 2010:1 2010:2 FY 2010 2010:3 2010:4 2011:1 2011:2 FY 2011
WITHHOLDING 1,092,795 1,151,673 1,157,857 1,116,552 4,518,878 1,146,189 1,196,214 1,266,874 1,189,619 4,798,896
%CHYA -6.0% -2.6% 2.6% 2.5% -1.0% 4.9% 3.9% 9.4% 6.5% 6.2%
EST. PAYMENTS 176,110 161,759 186,894 265,703 790,467 179,692 148,589 226,287 321,371 875,938
%CHYA -33.4% -7.5% -14.0% 1.0% -14.1% 2.0% -8.1% 21.1% 21.0% 10.8%
FINAL PAYMENTS 63,363 77,013 105,745 515,262 761,383 62,259 81,728 87,310 713,337 944,635
%CHYA -9.9% -22.5% 1.6% -2.8% -5.3% -1.7% 6.1% -17.4% 38.4% 24.1%
REFUNDS 96,477 188,704 459,550 380,459 1,125,190 92,291 151,515 406,246 468,285 1,118,338
%CHYA 4.8% 4.6% 2.6% -5.9% 0.1% -4.3% -19.7% -11.6% 23.1% -0.6%
OTHER (138,521) - - 136,193 (2,328) (136,193) - - 150,008 13,815
TOTAL 1,097,271 1,201,740 990,947 1,653,251 4,943,210 1,159,655 1,275,015 1,174,225 1,906,051 5,514,946
%CHYA -10.2% -5.9% -1.2% 2.3% -3.4% 5.7% 6.1% 18.5% 15.3% 11.6%
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.
 TABLE B.4 OREGON PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonall y Adjusted March 2011
2011:3 2011:4 2012:1 2012:2 FY 2012 2012:3 2012:4 2013:1 2013:2 FY 2013
WITHHOLDING 1,225,342 1,278,025 1,304,902 1,236,957 5,045,225 1,274,264 1,328,996 1,363,698 1,293,893 5,260,851
%CHYA 6.9% 6.8% 3.0% 4.0% 5.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.5% 4.6% 4.3%
EST. PAYMENTS 217,339 179,720 270,852 347,740 1,015,651 235,172 194,465 295,769 416,395 1,141,801
%CHYA 21.0% 21.0% 19.7% 8.2% 16.0% 8.2% 8.2% 9.2% 19.7% 12.4%
1
FINAL PAYMENTS 62,828 76,531 79,581 726,966 945,906 62,126 76,362 84,322 771,262 994,073
%CHYA 0.9% -6.4% -8.9% 1.9% 0.1% -1.1% -0.2% 6.0% 6.1% 5.1%
REFUNDS 100,136 104,628 445,767 522,598 1,173,129 110,948 115,542 461,044 539,925 1,227,460
%CHYA 8.5% -30.9% 9.7% 11.6% 4.9% 10.8% 10.4% 3.4% 3.3% 4.6%
OTHER (150,008) - - 164,401 14,393 (164,401) - - 179,823 15,422
TOTAL 1,255,366 1,429,648 1,209,568 1,953,465 5,848,046 1,296,213 1,484,282 1,282,744 2,121,449 6,184,688
%CHYA 8.3% 12.1% 3.0% 2.5% 6.0% 3.3% 3.8% 6.0% 8.6% 5.8%
2013:3 2013:4 2014:1 2014:2 FY 2014 2014:3 2014:4 2015:1 2015:2 FY 2015
WITHHOLDING 1,332,880 1,390,143 1,428,313 1,355,527 5,506,863 1,396,361 1,456,354 1,497,043 1,420,876 5,770,634
%CHYA 4.6% 4.6% 4.7% 4.8% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%
EST. PAYMENTS 281,602 232,859 353,133 483,258 1,350,853 326,821 270,251 404,781 485,519 1,487,372
%CHYA 19.7% 19.7% 19.4% 16.1% 18.3% 16.1% 16.1% 14.6% 0.5% 10.1%
1
FINAL PAYMENTS 68,407 84,328 100,511 948,215 1,201,461 79,089 97,782 114,111 1,089,058 1,380,040
%CHYA 10.1% 10.4% 19.2% 22.9% 20.9% 15.6% 16.0% 13.5% 14.9% 14.9%

105
REFUNDS 114,704 119,591 485,976 569,373 1,289,645 120,994 126,251 510,864 598,265 1,356,375
%CHYA 3.4% 3.5% 5.4% 5.5% 5.1% 5.5% 5.6% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2%
OTHER (179,823) - - 196,273 16,450 (196,273) - - 206,126 9,853
TOTAL 1,388,363 1,587,738 1,395,981 2,413,899 6,785,982 1,485,004 1,698,135 1,505,071 2,603,315 7,291,525
%CHYA 7.1% 7.0% 8.8% 13.8% 9.7% 7.0% 7.0% 7.8% 7.8% 7.4%
2015:3 2015:4 2016:1 2016:2 FY 2016 2016:3 2016:4 2017:1 2017:2 FY 2017
WITHHOLDING 1,463,675 1,526,562 1,567,567 1,487,524 6,045,328 1,532,339 1,598,173 1,633,577 1,548,844 6,312,933
%CHYA 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.2% 4.1% 4.4%
EST. PAYMENTS 328,350 271,516 408,628 516,887 1,525,380 349,563 289,057 435,191 552,714 1,626,526
%CHYA 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 6.5% 2.6% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.9% 6.6%
1
FINAL PAYMENTS 92,977 115,250 125,140 1,140,698 1,474,064 97,275 119,816 133,158 1,202,525 1,552,774
%CHYA 17.6% 17.9% 9.7% 4.7% 6.8% 4.6% 4.0% 6.4% 5.4% 5.3%
REFUNDS 127,241 132,694 538,301 630,533 1,428,769 134,039 139,797 567,485 664,724 1,506,045
%CHYA 5.2% 5.1% 5.4% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4%
OTHER -206,126 0 0 216,080 9,954 -216,080 0 0 225,482 9,402
TOTAL 1,551,635 1,780,633 1,563,034 2,730,657 7,625,958 1,629,059 1,867,248 1,634,441 2,864,841 7,995,589
%CHYA 4.5% 4.9% 3.9% 4.9% 4.6% 5.0% 4.9% 4.6% 4.9% 4.8%
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.
 TABLE B.5 OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonall y Adjusted March 2011
FY FY
2005:3 2005:4 2006:1 2006:2 2006 2006:3 2006:4 2007:1 2007:2 2007
Table B.5

ADVANCE PAYMENTS 119,391 183,280 59,091 163,812 525,573 129,737 236,441 59,754 162,465 588,396
%CHYA 29.6% 27.8% 46.0% 12.1% 24.5% 8.7% 29.0% 1.1% -0.8% 12.0%

FINAL PAYMENTS 14,985 17,619 24,327 39,526 96,457 19,718 17,154 25,440 65,628 127,941
%CHYA -9.6% 7.0% 20.9% -14.0% -2.7% 31.6% -2.6% 4.6% 66.0% 32.6%
REFUNDS 16,350 108,723 19,140 39,592 183,805 22,481 199,419 38,715 49,865 310,480
%CHYA -12.2% -16.6% 25.9% 17.4% -7.1% 37.5% 83.4% 102.3% 25.9% 68.9%
TOTAL 118,026 92,177 64,278 163,745 438,225 126,975 54,176 46,478 178,228 405,857
%CHYA 31.1% 212.4% 41.6% 3.4% 35.6% 7.6% -41.2% -27.7% 8.8% -7.4%

FY FY
2007:3 2007:4 2008:1 2008:2 2008 2008:3 2008:4 2009:1 2009:2 2009

ADVANCE PAYMENTS 133,408 205,375 64,256 155,284 558,323 100,589 145,285 63,802 97,368 407,044
%CHYA 2.8% -13.1% 7.5% -4.4% -5.1% -24.6% -29.3% -0.7% -37.3% -27.1%
FINAL PAYMENTS 23,631 45,064 35,076 52,143 155,912 23,501 26,721 22,314 21,822 94,357

106
%CHYA 19.8% 162.7% 37.9% -20.5% 21.9% -0.6% -40.7% -36.4% -58.1% -39.5%

REFUNDS 39,623 158,106 36,380 39,394 273,503 28,134 124,826 67,471 37,218 257,649
%CHYA 76.3% -20.7% -6.0% -21.0% -11.9% -29.0% -21.0% 85.5% -5.5% -5.8%
TOTAL 117,416 92,333 62,951 168,032 440,732 95,956 47,181 18,645 81,971 243,753
%CHYA -7.5% 70.4% 35.4% -5.7% 8.6% -18.3% -48.9% -70.4% -51.2% -44.7%
Oregon Corporate Income Tax Revenue Forecast

FY FY
2009:3 2009:4 2010:1 2010:2 2010 2010:3 2010:4 2011:1 2011:2 2011

ADVANCE PAYMENTS 79,579 163,877 66,451 147,313 457,220 115,286 175,561 64,258 191,371 546,476
%CHYA -20.9% 12.8% 4.2% 51.3% 12.3% 44.9% 7.1% -3.3% 29.9% 19.5%
FINAL PAYMENTS 20,404 24,009 38,412 45,714 128,539 21,781 21,206 28,827 38,494 110,308
%CHYA -13.2% -10.2% 72.1% 109.5% 36.2% 6.8% -11.7% -25.0% -15.8% -14.2%

REFUNDS 29,072 137,244 40,080 25,774 232,170 23,130 89,877 23,564 32,488 169,059
%CHYA 3.3% 9.9% -40.6% -30.7% -9.9% -20.4% -34.5% -41.2% 26.0% -27.2%
TOTAL 70,910 50,642 64,784 167,254 353,589 113,936 106,890 69,521 197,378 487,726
%CHYA -26.1% 7.3% 247.5% 104.0% 45.1% 60.7% 111.1% 7.3% 18.0% 37.9%
 TABLE B.5 OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonall y Adjusted March 2011
FY FY
2011:3 2011:4 2012:1 2012:2 2012 2012:3 2012:4 2013:1 2013:2 2013
1
ADVANCE PAYMENTS 113,564 226,238 87,500 187,853 615,156 111,665 227,397 89,280 207,808 636,150
%CHYA -1.5% 28.9% 36.2% -1.8% 12.6% -1.7% 0.5% 2.0% 10.6% 3.4%
1
FINAL PAYMENTS 22,651 26,635 34,761 28,945 112,992 21,525 25,412 24,950 22,774 94,660
%CHYA 4.0% 25.6% 20.6% -24.8% 2.4% -5.0% -4.6% -28.2% -21.3% -16.2%

REFUNDS 26,718 180,887 49,511 46,905 304,021 38,575 142,522 39,010 36,957 257,064
%CHYA 15.5% 101.3% 110.1% 44.4% 79.8% 44.4% -21.2% -21.2% -21.2% -15.4%
1
TOTAL 109,498 71,986 72,750 169,893 424,126 94,614 110,287 75,220 193,625 473,746
%CHYA -3.9% -32.7% 4.6% -13.9% -13.0% -13.6% 53.2% 3.4% 14.0% 11.7%

FY FY
2013:3 2013:4 2014:1 2014:2 2014 2014:3 2014:4 2015:1 2015:2 2015
1
ADVANCE PAYMENTS 123,870 261,290 102,854 227,361 715,375 135,288 279,171 108,623 227,056 750,138
%CHYA 10.9% 14.9% 15.2% 9.4% 12.5% 9.2% 6.8% 5.6% -0.1% 4.9%
1
FINAL PAYMENTS 18,560 22,097 26,044 28,253 94,955 21,151 25,199 35,174 40,655 122,179
%CHYA -13.8% -13.0% 4.4% 24.1% 0.3% 14.0% 14.0% 35.1% 43.9% 28.7%

107
REFUNDS 30,393 139,545 38,195 36,185 244,318 29,758 164,625 45,060 42,688 282,132
%CHYA -21.2% -2.1% -2.1% -2.1% -5.0% -2.1% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 15.5%
1
TOTAL 112,037 143,843 90,703 219,429 566,012 126,680 139,745 98,738 225,023 590,186
%CHYA 18.4% 30.4% 20.6% 13.3% 19.5% 13.1% -2.8% 8.9% 2.5% 4.3%

FY FY
2015:3 2015:4 2016:1 2016:2 2016 2016:3 2016:4 2017:1 2017:2 2017
1
ADVANCE PAYMENTS 134,836 271,141 105,253 228,533 739,763 135,900 278,188 108,186 229,276 751,550
%CHYA -0.3% -2.9% -3.1% 0.7% -1.4% 0.8% 2.6% 2.8% 0.3% 1.6%
1
FINAL PAYMENTS 26,893 31,913 43,356 45,421 147,584 29,211 34,443 47,507 49,747 160,908
%CHYA 27.1% 26.6% 23.3% 11.7% 20.8% 8.6% 7.9% 9.6% 9.5% 9.0%

REFUNDS 35,107 174,073 47,646 45,138 301,964 37,122 172,678 47,527 45,183 302,510
%CHYA 18.0% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 7.0% 5.7% -0.8% -0.2% 0.1% 0.2%
1
TOTAL 126,622 128,981 100,963 228,816 585,383 127,989 139,953 108,165 233,840 609,948
%CHYA 0.0% -7.7% 2.3% 1.7% -0.8% 1.1% 8.5% 7.1% 2.2% 4.2%

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.
 TABLE B.6 March 2011
Cigarette & Tobacco Tax Distribution (Millions of $)*
Cigarette Tax Distribution Other Tobacco Tax Distribution
Table B.6

Tobacco Use
Health Plan Reduction Cities, Tobacco Use
4
State GF (Measure 44) Account Counties & Health Plan Reduction
1 1 2 3 4
(22 cents) (87 cents) (3 cents) State Total Public Transit Total State GF (Measure 44) Account State Total

Gross Receipts
2007-08 41.012 162.823 6.495 210.329 12.989 223.318 17.253 13.326 1.482 32.061
2008-09 39.870 155.231 6.192 201.293 12.384 213.676 17.247 13.309 1.480 32.036
2007-09 Biennium 80.882 318.053 12.687 411.622 25.373 436.995 34.501 26.634 2.962 64.097
Net Distributions*
2007-08 40.664 161.442 6.440 208.546 12.879 221.425 16.817 12.988 1.445 31.250
2008-09 39.517 153.855 6.137 199.509 12.274 211.783 16.811 12.971 1.443 31.225
2007-09 Biennium 80.181 315.298 12.577 408.055 25.153 433.208 33.628 25.960 2.887 62.475

Distribution Forecast*
2009-10 37.517 146.676 5.851 190.043 11.701 201.745 19.956 15.532 1.727 37.215
2010-11 39.260 153.005 6.103 198.368 12.206 210.574 27.793 21.443 2.385 51.621
2009-11 Biennium 76.776 299.681 11.954 388.412 23.907 412.319 47.749 36.975 4.112 88.836

108
2011-12 38.540 150.202 5.991 194.734 11.983 206.717 28.327 21.855 2.431 52.613
2012-13 37.671 146.814 5.856 190.341 11.712 202.053 29.360 22.653 2.519 54.532
Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Distribution

2011-13 Biennium 76.211 297.016 11.847 385.075 23.695 408.770 57.687 44.508 4.950 107.145

2013-14 36.828 143.528 5.725 186.081 11.450 197.531 30.457 23.499 2.614 56.570
2014-15 35.764 139.381 5.560 180.704 11.119 191.823 31.398 24.225 2.694 58.317
2013-15 Biennium 72.591 282.909 11.285 366.785 22.569 389.354 61.855 47.724 5.308 114.887

2015-16 34.545 134.630 5.370 174.544 10.740 185.285 32.460 25.044 2.785 60.290
2016-17 33.233 129.519 5.166 167.918 10.332 178.250 33.543 25.880 2.878 62.301
2015-17 Biennium 67.778 264.148 10.536 342.462 21.073 363.535 66.003 50.924 5.664 122.591
* "Net Distributions" receipts net of Tobacco Task Force ex pense of $5.409 million for 2007-09 biennium. These ex penses are not determined for future biennia, and thus are not incorporated into the forecast.
1. The 1997 Legislature specified that the temporary 10 cent tax be counted as other funds starting July 1, 1997. As a result the Health Plan receiv ed 37 cents per pack as of July 1, 1997. The 10 cent tax has ex pired on January 1, 2004.
Voters approv ed 60 cents per pack tax increase dedicated to the Health Plan, effectiv e Nov ember 1, 2002.
2. Measure 44 created the TURA and funded it w ith a 3 cents per pack tax effectiv e February 1, 1997.
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.
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.
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.

Note: Tobacco Settlement Payment Forecast ($millions) Year 2007 2008 2009
Source: Bear Stearns Amount 75.1 97.4 98.9
 TABLE B.7 March 2011
Revenue Distribution to Local Governments (Millions of $)
Table B.7

Liquor Apportionment Distribution

Cigarette Tax
Total Liquor Available for City Revenue Distribution to
Revenue Less General Cities and Revenue Cities, Counties &
1
Available Fund 56% Counties Sharing Regular Total Counties Public Transit

2007-08 167.730 93.929 73.801 23.482 33.546 57.028 16.773 12.879

2008-09 186.390 104.378 82.011 26.095 37.278 63.372 18.639 12.273
2007-09 Biennium 354.120 198.307 155.813 49.577 70.824 120.401 35.412 25.151

2009-10 186.390 104.378 82.011 26.095 37.278 63.372 18.639 11.701

2010-11 185.961 104.138 81.823 26.035 37.192 63.227 18.596 12.180
2009-11 Biennium 372.351 208.517 163.834 52.129 74.470 126.599 37.235 23.881

109
2011-12 163.964 91.820 72.144 22.955 32.793 55.748 16.396 11.948
2012-13 170.657 95.568 75.089 23.892 34.131 58.023 17.066 11.677
Revenue Distribution to Local Governments

2011-13 Biennium 334.621 187.388 147.233 46.847 66.924 113.771 33.462 23.625

2013-14 175.776 98.435 77.342 24.609 35.155 59.764 17.578 11.415

2014-15 181.050 101.388 79.662 25.347 36.210 61.557 18.105 11.084
2013-15 Biennium 356.826 199.822 157.003 49.956 71.365 121.321 35.683 22.500

2015-16 186.481 104.429 82.052 26.107 37.296 63.404 18.648 10.705

2016-17 192.075 107.562 84.513 26.891 38.415 65.306 19.208 10.298
2015-17 Biennium 378.557 211.992 166.565 52.998 75.711 128.709 37.856 21.003
1
For details on cigarette revenues see TABLE B.6 on previous page
 B.8
Table B.8 Track Record for the March 2011 Forecast
(Quarter ending December 31, 2010)

Personal Income Tax Forecast Comparison Year/Year Change

Actual Latest Percent Prior Percent
(Millions of dollars) Revenues Forecast Difference Year Change
Withholding $1,196.2 $1,199.5 -0.3% $1,151.7 3.9%
Dollar difference -$3.2 $44.5
Estimated Payments $148.6 $126.5 17.4% $162.9 -8.8%
Dollar difference $22.1 -$14.3
Final Payments $81.7 $73.0 11.9% $75.8 7.8%
Dollar difference $8.7 $5.9
Refunds -$151.5 -$166.7 -9.1% -$188.7 -19.7%
Dollar difference $15.2 $37.2
Total Personal Income Tax $1,275.0 $1,232.3 3.5% $1,201.7 6.1%
Dollar difference $42.7 $73.3

110
Forecast Comparison Year/Year Change
Track Record for the June 2010 Forecast

Corporate Income Tax

Actual Latest Percent Prior Percent
(Millions of dollars) Revenues Forecast Difference Year Change
Advanced Payments $175.6 $183.8 -4.5% $163.9 7.1%
Dollar difference -$8.2 $11.7
Final Payments $21.2 $34.3 -38.1% $24.0 -11.7%
Dollar difference -$13.0 -$2.8
Refunds -$89.9 -$100.1 -10.2% -$137.2 -34.5%
Dollar difference $10.2 $47.4

Total Corporate Income Tax $106.9 $117.9 -9.4% $50.6 111.1%

Dollar difference -$11.0 $56.2

Total Income Tax Forecast Comparison Year/Year Change

Actual Latest Percent Prior Percent
(Millions of dollars) Revenues Forecast Difference Year Change
Corporate and Personal Tax $1,381.9 $1,350.2 2.3% $1,252.4 10.3%
Dollar difference $31.7 $129.5
 TABLE B.9 March 2011 Forecast
Summary of Lottery Resources
2009-11 2011-13 2013-15 2015-17
Table B.9

Current Change from Change from Current Change from Current Change from Current Change from
(in millions of dollars) Forecast Dec-10 LAB1 Forecast Dec-10 Forecast Dec-10 Forecast Dec-10
LOTTERY EARNINGS
Traditional Lottery2 131.860 0.350 8.977 126.633 3.504 126.729 4.271 126.329 4.290
Video Lottery 923.745 (5.086) (90.441) 990.287 (20.116) 1,087.654 (9.320) 1,188.763 (17.615)
Admin. Savings 29.305 (0.001) 29.305 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Total Available to Transfer 1,084.910 (4.736) (52.158) 1,116.920 (16.611) 1,214.383 (5.050) 1,315.092 (13.325)

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND

Beginning Balance 1.353 (0.000) 0.000 9.876 (11.563) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Transfers from Lottery 1,084.910 (4.736) (52.158) 1,116.920 (16.611) 1,214.383 (5.050) 1,315.092 (13.325)
Other Resources3 0.925 0.000 (3.575) 1.100 0.000 2.000 0.000 2.000 0.000
Total Available Resources 1,087.188 (4.736) (55.733) 1,127.897 (28.174) 1,216.383 (5.050) 1,317.092 (13.325)

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
Summary of Lottery Resources

County Economic Development4 29.797 (0.334) (4.290) 38.023 (0.771) 41.762 (0.356) 45.645 (0.675)

111
Education Stability Fund 5 195.284 (0.852) (9.389) 201.046 (2.990) 218.589 (0.909) 236.717 (2.398)
Parks and Natural Resources Fund6 162.737 (0.710) (7.824) 167.538 (2.492) 182.157 (0.758) 197.264 (1.999)
Collegiate Athletics 7 9.665 0.000 0.000 11.169 (0.166) 12.144 (0.050) 13.151 (0.133)
Gambling Addiction 7 8.728 (0.047) (0.522) 11.169 (0.166) 12.144 (0.050) 13.151 (0.133)
County Fairs 2.828 0.000 (0.193) 3.730 0.082 3.648 0.000 3.648 0.000
Debt Service on Lottery Bonds8 225.176 8.771 (2.980) 270.336 27.236 225.700 0.000 225.700 0.000
Other Legislatively Adopted Allocations 443.097 0.000 (30.412)
Total Distributions 1,077.311 6.827 (55.610) 703.011 20.733 696.144 (2.123) 735.275 (5.339)

Ending Balance/Discretionary Resources 9.876 (11.563) (0.124) 424.886 (48.907) 520.239 (2.926) 581.817 (7.986)

Note: Some totals may not foot due to rounding.

1. Represents change from the Legislativ ely Adopted Budget signed by the Gov ernor follow ing the 2009 Legislativ e Session.
2. Includes planned raffles throughout the forecast period.
3. Includes interest earnings on Economic Dev elopment Fund and rev ersions.
4. County Economic Dev elopment includes $1,023,139 for the Economic Rev italization Team
5. 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.
6. The Parks and Natural Resources Fund Constitutional amendment requires 15% of net proceeds be transferred to this fund.
7. One percent of net lottery proceeds are dedicated to Collegiate Athletics and Gambling Addiction programs, respectiv ely . Certain limits are imposed by HB 3199 and HB 2126 for 2009-11.
8. 2009-11 figures reflect gross debt serv ice on lottery bonds. Figures do not include future issuance.
Table B.10 Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook

Table B.10: Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook March 2011

Rainy Day Fund

(Millions) 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13 2013-15 2015-17
Beginning Balance $0.0 $112.5 $10.5 $78.4 $229.0
Interest Earnings $18.3 $1.5 $2.7 $14.6 $32.7
Deposits1 $94.3 -$103.4 $65.2 $136.0 $159.7
Ending Balance2 $112.5 $10.5 $78.4 $229.0 $421.4

3
Education Stability Fund
(Millions) 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13 2013-15 2015-17
Beginning Balance $178.9 $0.0 $101.2 $292.2 $488.9
Interest Earnings4 $17.2 $1.1 $8.2 $28.8 $52.1
Deposits5 -$178.9 $101.2 $191.0 $196.7 $213.0
Distributions -$17.1 -$1.1 -$8.2 -$28.8 -$52.1
Oregon Education Fund -$12.8 -$0.8 -$6.2 -$21.6 -$39.1
State Scholarship Commission -$4.3 -$0.3 -$2.1 -$7.2 -$13.0
Triggered Withdrawals
Ending Balance $0.0 $101.2 $292.2 $488.9 $702.0

Total Reserves
(Millions) 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13 2013-15 2015-17
Ending Balances $112.6 $111.8 $370.7 $718.0 $1,123.4
Percent of GF Revenues 1.0% 0.9% 2.7% 4.5% 6.3%
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.
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.

112
APPENDIX C: POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX

Table C.1 Population Forecasts Components of Change 1980-2017 ................................... 116

Table C.2 Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000-2017 .............................................. 117

Table C.3 Population of Oregon: 1980-2017 ....................................................................... 118

Table C.4 Children: Ages 0-4 ............................................................................................... 118

Table C.5 School Age Population: Ages 5-17 ...................................................................... 118

Table C.6 Young Adult Population: Ages 18-24 .................................................................. 118

Table C.7 Criminally “At Risk” Population: Males Ages 15-39 .......................................... 119

Table C.8 Prime Wage Earners: Ages 25-44 ........................................................................ 119

Table C.9 Older Wage Earners: Ages 45-64 ......................................................................... 119

Table C.10 Elderly Population by Age Group ........................................................................ 119

113
114
OREGON'S POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX

Procedure and Assumptions

Population forecasts by age and sex are developed using the cohort-component projection
procedure. The population by single year of age and sex is projected based on the specific
assumptions of vital events and migrations. Oregon’s population from the most recent decennial
census is the base for the forecast. The Intercensal estimates from July 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010
were done by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. However, age-sex details from the 2010
Census are not yet available. Hence previously developed distribution method is used for this
forecast cycle.

To explain the cohort-component projection procedure very briefly, the forecasting model
"survives" the initial population distribution by age and sex to the next age-sex category in the
following year, and then applies age-sex-specific birth and migration rates to the mid-year
population. Further iterations subject the in-and-out migrants to the same population.

Total populations for the years 2000 through 2010, called Intercensal estimates, in the following
tables are developed by OEA based on 2010 Census and post-censal estimates from 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 2017
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 2000-2017 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 78.7 years for males and 82.9 years for females by the year
2017.

Estimates and forecasts of the number of net migrations are based on the residuals from the
difference between population change and natural increase (births minus deaths) in a given
forecast period. The annual net migration between 2010 and 2017 is expected to remain in the
range of 13,000 to 37,100, averaging 28,900 persons annually. Slowdown in Oregon’s 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 to the situation in the early 1980s. Main reason for
this is the fact that other states of potential destination of Oregon out-migrants are not faring any
better either. Hence the potential out-migrants have very limited destination choices.

115
Table C. 1
STATE OF OREGON
POPULATION FORECASTS
COMPONENTS OF CHANGE 1980 -2017
Year Population Change Births Deaths Natural Net Migration
(July 1) Population Number Percent Number Rate/1000 Number Rate/1000 Increase Number Rate/1000
------ ----------- ----------- -------- ----------- -------- ----------- -------- ----------- ----------- --------
1980 2,641,200 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1981 2,668,000 26,800 1.01 43,196 16.27 21,870 8.24 21,326 5,474 2.06
1982 2,664,900 -3,100 -0.12 42,261 15.85 21,548 8.08 20,713 -23,813 -8.93
1983 2,653,100 -11,800 -0.44 40,378 15.19 22,039 8.29 18,339 -30,139 -11.33
1984 2,666,600 13,500 0.51 39,611 14.89 22,702 8.54 16,909 -3,409 -1.28
1985 2,672,600 6,000 0.23 39,296 14.72 23,531 8.81 15,765 -9,765 -3.66
1980-1985 31,400 204,742 111,690 93,052 -61,652
1986 2,683,500 10,900 0.41 39,332 14.69 23,403 8.74 15,929 -5,029 -1.88
1987 2,701,000 17,500 0.65 38,702 14.38 23,695 8.80 15,007 2,493 0.93
1988 2,741,300 40,300 1.49 39,120 14.38 24,752 9.10 14,368 25,932 9.53
1989 2,790,600 49,300 1.80 40,648 14.70 24,705 8.93 15,943 33,357 12.06
1990 2,860,400 69,800 2.50 42,008 14.87 24,763 8.76 17,245 52,555 18.60
1985-1990 187,800 199,810 121,318 78,492 109,308
1991 2,928,500 68,100 2.38 42,682 14.75 24,944 8.62 17,738 50,362 17.40
1992 2,991,800 63,300 2.16 42,427 14.33 25,166 8.50 17,261 46,039 15.55
1993 3,060,400 68,600 2.29 41,442 13.69 26,543 8.77 14,899 53,701 17.75
1994 3,121,300 60,900 1.99 41,487 13.42 27,564 8.92 13,923 46,977 15.20
1995 3,184,400 63,100 2.02 42,426 13.46 27,552 8.74 14,874 48,226 15.30
1990-1995 324,000 210,464 131,769 78,695 245,305
1996 3,247,100 62,700 1.97 43,196 13.43 28,768 8.95 14,428 48,272 15.01
1997 3,304,300 57,200 1.76 43,625 13.32 29,201 8.91 14,424 42,776 13.06
1998 3,352,400 48,100 1.46 44,696 13.43 28,705 8.62 15,991 32,109 9.65
1999 3,393,900 41,500 1.24 45,188 13.40 29,848 8.85 15,340 26,160 7.76
2000 3,430,600 36,700 1.08 45,534 13.34 28,909 8.47 16,625 20,075 5.88
1995-2000 246,200 222,239 145,431 76,808 169,392
2001 3,470,800 40,200 1.17 45,536 13.20 29,934 8.67 15,602 24,598 7.13
2002 3,503,100 32,300 0.93 44,995 12.90 30,828 8.84 14,167 18,133 5.20
2003 3,539,100 36,000 1.03 45,686 12.97 30,604 8.69 15,082 20,918 5.94
2004 3,579,500 40,400 1.14 45,599 12.81 30,721 8.63 14,878 25,522 7.17
2005 3,627,500 48,000 1.34 45,892 12.74 30,717 8.52 15,175 32,825 9.11
2000-2005 196,900 227,708 152,804 74,904 121,996
2006 3,685,700 58,200 1.60 46,471 12.71 30,771 8.42 15,700 42,500 11.62
2007 3,739,800 54,100 1.47 48,906 13.17 31,396 8.46 17,510 36,590 9.86
2008 3,784,600 44,800 1.20 49,211 13.08 32,011 8.51 17,200 27,600 7.34
2009 3,816,200 31,599 0.83 47,198 12.42 31,854 8.38 15,344 16,255 4.28
2010 3,836,100 19,901 0.52 45,538 11.90 31,699 8.28 13,839 6,062 1.58
2005-2010 208,600 237,324 157,731 79,593 129,007
2011 3,863,000 26,900 0.70 45,307 11.77 31,471 8.18 13,837 13,064 3.39
2012 3,899,200 36,199 0.94 45,566 11.74 31,800 8.19 13,766 22,433 5.78
2013 3,939,100 39,900 1.02 45,907 11.71 32,154 8.20 13,753 26,148 6.67
2014 3,984,900 45,800 1.16 46,141 11.65 32,489 8.20 13,652 32,148 8.11
2015 4,033,800 48,900 1.23 46,424 11.58 32,866 8.20 13,558 35,343 8.82
2010-2015 197,700 229,346 160,780 68,565 129,135
2016 4,083,500 49,700 1.23 46,926 11.56 33,315 8.21 13,611 36,088 8.89
2017 4,134,300 50,800 1.24 47,449 11.55 33,779 8.22 13,670 37,130 9.04
1980-1990 219,200 404,552 233,008 171,544 47,656
1990-2000 570,200 432,703 277,200 155,503 414,697
2000-2010 405,500 465,032 310,535 154,497 251,003

Sources: 1980-1999 population - U.S. Bureau of the Census; 2000-2010 population - intercensal estimates by Office of Economic Analysis
based on 2010 Census and post-censal estimates by Population Research Center, PSU.
1980-10 births and deaths: Oregon Center for Health Statistics.

116
Table C. 2
Oregon's Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000-2017 (July 1 population)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Age Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
0-4 114,058 109,079 223,138 114,635 109,862 224,498 115,030 109,796 224,826 115,846 110,437 226,282 116,689 111,205 227,894
5- 9 119,696 113,974 233,670 118,962 113,286 232,248 118,038 112,688 230,726 117,768 112,601 230,369 118,284 113,095 231,380
10-14 124,697 118,341 243,038 125,914 119,527 245,441 126,405 120,444 246,849 126,899 120,549 247,448 126,034 119,916 245,950
15-19 125,907 119,198 245,105 126,937 119,642 246,580 126,579 119,434 246,013 125,518 119,614 245,132 126,214 120,412 246,627
20-24 119,330 113,311 232,641 121,068 115,860 236,927 123,380 118,116 241,496 126,099 120,087 246,186 127,890 122,175 250,065
25-29 120,576 112,223 232,799 119,689 111,676 231,365 119,654 112,668 232,321 121,308 114,433 235,741 123,610 116,932 240,542
30-34 122,477 114,745 237,222 126,183 117,805 243,988 128,364 119,467 247,831 129,140 120,555 249,695 128,656 120,063 248,719
35-39 128,793 126,259 255,052 126,036 123,129 249,165 124,021 119,758 243,779 122,639 117,370 240,010 123,345 117,198 240,543
40-44 134,516 137,154 271,669 135,173 136,962 272,135 134,149 135,476 269,625 133,365 133,963 267,327 133,032 132,656 265,688
45-49 135,678 137,411 273,089 136,502 138,970 275,472 137,516 140,347 277,863 137,090 140,405 277,494 135,847 139,471 275,318
50-54 118,642 119,585 238,226 125,835 127,190 253,025 126,573 128,171 254,744 129,583 131,945 261,527 132,824 135,977 268,801
55-59 85,963 88,141 174,104 89,379 91,601 180,980 98,360 100,658 199,018 104,064 106,138 210,202 110,216 112,249 222,466
60-64 64,532 67,426 131,957 67,380 70,426 137,806 70,652 73,958 144,610 75,469 78,772 154,240 80,056 83,263 163,319
65-69 53,064 59,214 112,278 53,706 59,252 112,958 54,711 59,957 114,668 56,461 61,576 118,037 58,502 63,587 122,089
70-74 48,490 58,057 106,547 48,080 57,118 105,198 47,491 56,236 103,727 47,021 55,516 102,537 46,966 54,943 101,908
75-79 40,436 54,742 95,178 40,344 54,185 94,528 40,226 53,322 93,548 40,219 52,385 92,604 39,868 51,330 91,198
80-84 26,445 40,403 66,848 27,361 41,308 68,670 28,205 42,133 70,338 28,518 42,774 71,292 28,893 43,429 72,322
85+ 18,523 39,517 58,040 19,339 40,477 59,815 19,937 41,181 61,118 20,850 42,126 62,976 21,610 43,061 64,671

Total 1,701,821 1,728,779 3,430,600 1,722,524 1,748,276 3,470,800 1,739,291 1,763,809 3,503,100 1,757,854 1,781,246 3,539,100 1,778,538 1,800,963 3,579,500
Mdn. Age 35.2 37.6 36.4 35.3 37.8 36.6 35.5 38.0 36.8 35.7 38.2 36.9 35.9 38.3 37.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Age Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
0-4 117,428 112,037 229,465 118,329 112,901 231,230 120,454 114,923 235,376 122,046 116,433 238,479 122,428 116,786 239,213
5- 9 119,025 113,996 233,021 120,305 115,491 235,796 121,355 116,046 237,401 122,440 116,938 239,378 122,757 117,178 239,935
10-14 124,558 118,826 243,385 124,173 118,485 242,658 123,756 118,424 242,180 123,854 118,722 242,576 124,191 119,038 243,229
15-19 128,054 121,970 250,024 129,750 123,662 253,411 130,765 125,129 255,893 131,429 125,390 256,819 130,227 124,403 254,630
20-24 129,213 123,063 252,276 130,964 124,201 255,164 131,048 124,446 255,494 129,877 124,576 254,453 130,067 124,859 254,926
25-29 126,233 120,418 246,651 129,364 124,360 253,724 132,965 127,882 260,847 136,051 130,183 266,234 136,991 131,495 268,486
30-34 127,385 119,430 246,815 127,424 119,861 247,285 128,530 122,061 250,590 130,719 124,350 255,069 132,662 126,447 259,109
35-39 127,160 120,088 247,249 131,682 124,003 255,686 134,829 126,645 261,474 135,986 128,158 264,144 135,160 127,291 262,451
40-44 131,748 130,198 261,946 129,450 127,543 256,993 128,033 124,748 252,781 126,889 122,553 249,442 127,416 122,136 249,552
45-49 135,523 139,432 274,955 136,580 139,663 276,243 136,026 138,678 274,704 135,427 137,353 272,779 134,935 135,839 270,774
50-54 135,102 138,463 273,565 136,278 140,452 276,730 137,686 142,290 279,977 137,404 142,490 279,895 136,018 141,327 277,345
55-59 117,452 119,917 237,368 125,076 128,053 253,130 126,261 129,515 255,775 129,347 133,422 262,768 132,278 137,165 269,443
60-64 83,999 87,666 171,665 87,773 91,559 179,332 97,102 101,112 198,214 102,891 106,752 209,643 108,713 112,592 221,305
65-69 60,896 65,513 126,409 63,917 68,755 132,672 67,410 72,603 140,013 72,208 77,525 149,733 76,509 81,825 158,334
70-74 47,555 54,972 102,526 48,362 55,184 103,547 49,557 56,103 105,660 51,312 57,796 109,108 53,197 59,739 112,936
75-79 39,711 50,689 90,399 39,578 50,055 89,633 39,319 49,482 88,801 39,059 48,956 88,016 39,078 48,500 87,578
80-84 29,257 43,561 72,818 29,433 43,317 72,750 29,598 42,831 72,429 29,713 42,191 71,904 29,503 41,434 70,937
85+ 22,612 44,351 66,963 23,818 45,900 69,717 24,903 47,286 72,189 25,691 48,472 74,162 26,399 49,617 76,016

Total 1,802,910 1,824,591 3,627,500 1,832,255 1,853,446 3,685,700 1,859,596 1,880,204 3,739,800 1,882,343 1,902,258 3,784,600 1,898,528 1,917,672 3,816,200
Mdn. Age 36.0 38.4 37.2 36.3 38.4 37.3 36.5 38.5 37.5 36.7 38.7 37.7 37.0 38.9 37.9

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Age Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
0-4 121,713 116,093 237,806 120,977 115,388 236,365 119,433 113,918 233,351 117,985 112,535 230,520 117,751 112,313 230,063
5- 9 122,218 116,755 238,973 121,889 116,410 238,299 123,492 117,924 241,416 125,150 119,505 244,655 126,232 120,550 246,782
10-14 124,099 119,101 243,200 124,234 119,445 243,679 124,486 119,184 243,670 125,091 119,601 244,691 125,671 120,111 245,782
15-19 127,935 122,456 250,391 126,756 121,293 248,049 125,964 120,857 246,821 125,842 120,943 246,786 126,463 121,564 248,027
20-24 130,990 125,468 256,459 131,941 126,381 258,322 132,733 127,612 260,345 133,505 127,958 261,463 132,825 127,496 260,322
25-29 136,288 130,402 266,691 136,191 129,710 265,901 135,479 129,170 264,649 134,439 129,432 263,871 135,796 130,839 266,635
30-34 133,806 128,439 262,245 135,059 130,530 265,588 137,631 133,052 270,684 140,574 135,240 275,814 142,475 137,591 280,066
35-39 132,724 125,438 258,161 131,285 124,332 255,616 131,515 125,646 257,160 133,490 127,727 261,217 136,082 130,524 266,606
40-44 130,522 124,234 254,755 134,022 127,064 261,085 136,529 129,029 265,558 137,527 130,391 267,918 137,174 130,018 267,192
45-49 133,066 132,673 265,739 130,022 129,137 259,159 128,282 125,917 254,199 127,080 123,613 250,693 127,922 123,514 251,436
50-54 135,228 140,673 275,902 135,728 140,209 275,937 135,023 139,003 274,026 134,488 137,724 272,212 134,364 136,616 270,980
55-59 133,856 138,900 272,756 134,399 140,144 274,544 135,664 141,786 277,450 135,557 142,114 277,671 134,698 141,472 276,170
60-64 115,123 119,470 234,593 121,803 126,697 248,500 122,757 127,904 250,661 125,909 131,894 257,803 129,348 136,203 265,551
65-69 79,861 85,642 165,502 82,922 88,808 171,730 91,552 97,791 189,343 97,116 103,302 200,417 103,089 109,438 212,527
70-74 55,266 61,433 116,699 57,791 64,216 122,007 60,858 67,665 128,522 65,293 72,288 137,581 69,455 76,521 145,976
75-79 39,607 48,522 88,129 40,290 48,676 88,966 41,359 49,530 90,889 42,966 51,149 94,115 44,739 53,055 97,793
80-84 29,410 40,970 70,380 29,353 40,510 69,864 29,284 40,148 69,432 29,271 39,872 69,143 29,491 39,685 69,176
85+ 27,192 50,528 77,720 28,007 51,384 79,390 28,877 52,147 81,024 29,663 52,867 82,530 30,251 53,565 83,816

Total 1,908,903 1,927,197 3,836,100 1,922,667 1,940,334 3,863,000 1,940,917 1,958,283 3,899,200 1,960,946 1,978,154 3,939,100 1,983,824 2,001,075 3,984,900
Mdn. Age 37.2 39.2 38.2 37.4 39.5 38.4 37.7 39.7 38.6 37.9 39.8 38.8 38.1 40.0 39.0

2015 2016 2017

Age Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
0-4 118,468 112,999 231,467 119,455 113,941 233,397 120,521 114,956 235,477
5- 9 126,601 120,923 247,524 126,661 121,001 247,662 125,567 119,971 245,537
10-14 126,050 120,612 246,663 126,480 121,029 247,509 128,660 123,123 251,782
15-19 127,086 122,372 249,458 127,803 123,322 251,125 128,438 123,439 251,877
20-24 131,309 126,354 257,663 130,686 125,764 256,450 130,235 125,684 255,918
25-29 138,531 133,215 271,746 140,888 135,506 276,394 142,633 137,698 280,331
30-34 143,668 138,407 282,075 145,060 139,187 284,248 145,278 139,590 284,868
35-39 138,662 134,079 272,741 141,072 137,458 278,530 144,510 140,911 285,421
40-44 135,731 129,215 264,946 135,066 128,934 264,001 135,840 130,862 266,703
45-49 131,672 126,306 257,978 135,690 129,709 265,399 138,549 132,054 270,603
50-54 133,059 134,059 267,118 130,422 130,943 261,365 128,818 127,839 256,657
55-59 134,604 141,555 276,159 135,618 141,643 277,261 135,136 140,654 275,790
60-64 131,770 138,840 270,611 132,958 140,767 273,725 134,563 142,738 277,301
65-69 109,999 117,008 227,007 117,023 124,763 241,786 118,394 126,391 244,784
70-74 72,973 80,518 153,492 76,143 83,839 159,982 84,498 92,722 177,221
75-79 46,785 54,817 101,601 49,166 57,506 106,672 51,994 60,780 112,774
80-84 30,175 39,943 70,118 30,920 40,247 71,166 31,939 41,118 73,057
85+ 31,050 54,382 85,433 31,802 55,027 86,829 32,555 55,644 88,198

Total 2,008,194 2,025,607 4,033,800 2,032,914 2,050,586 4,083,500 2,058,127 2,076,173 4,134,300
Mdn. Age 38.3 40.1 39.2 38.5 40.3 39.4 38.7 40.5 39.6

117
Table C. 3
Population of Oregon: 1980-2017

Year Total Change from previous year

(July 1) Population Number Percent
----------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
1980 2,641,200 ---
1981 2,668,000 26,800 1.01%
1982 2,664,900 -3,100 -0.12% Oregon's Population and Annual Percent Change, 1980-2017
1983 2,653,100 -11,800 -0.44%
1984 2,666,600 13,500 0.51% 4,500,000 4.0%
1985 2,672,600 6,000 0.23%
1986 2,683,500 10,900 0.41%
1987 2,701,000 17,500 0.65% 4,000,000 3.0%
1988 2,741,300 40,300 1.49% Annual Percent Change
1989 2,790,600 49,300 1.80% (right scale)
1990 2,860,400 69,800 2.50%

Percent Change
Population
3,500,000 2.0%
1991 2,928,500 68,100 2.38%
1992 2,991,800 63,300 2.16%
1993 3,060,400 68,600 2.29%
3,000,000 1.0%
1994 3,121,300 60,900 1.99%
1995 3,184,400 63,100 2.02% Total Population
(left scale)
1996 3,247,100 62,700 1.97%
1997 3,304,300 57,200 1.76% 2,500,000 0.0%

1998 3,352,400 48,100 1.46% Forecast

1999 3,393,900 41,500 1.24%
2000 3,430,600 36,700 1.08% 2,000,000 -1.0%

2001 3,470,800 40,200 1.17% 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
2002 3,503,100 32,300 0.93% Year
2003 3,539,100 36,000 1.03%
2004 3,579,500 40,400 1.14%
2005 3,627,500 48,000 1.34%
2006 3,685,700 58,200 1.60%
2007 3,739,800 54,100 1.47%
2008 3,784,600 44,800 1.20%
2009 3,816,200 31,599 0.83%
2010 3,836,100 19,901 0.52%
2011 3,863,000 26,900 0.70%
2012 3,899,200 36,199 0.94%
2013 3,939,100 39,900 1.02%
2014 3,984,900 45,800 1.16%
2015 4,033,800 48,900 1.23%
2016 4,083,500 49,700 1.23%
2017 4,134,300 50,800 1.24%

Table C. 4 Table C. 5 Table C. 6

Children: Ages 0-4 School Age Population: Ages 5-17 Young Adult Population: Ages 18-24

Year Change from previous decade/yr. Change from previous decade/yr. Change from previous decade/yr.
(July 1) Population Number Percent Population Number Percent Population Number Percent
----------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
1980 199,525 --- --- 524,446 --- --- 329,407 --- ---
1990 209,638 10,113 5.07% 532,727 8,281 1.58% 268,134 -61,273 -18.60%
2000 223,138 13,500 6.44% 624,185 91,458 17.17% 330,268 62,135 23.17%
2001 224,498 1,360 0.61% 624,551 366 0.06% 336,646 6,377 1.93%
2002 224,826 328 0.15% 624,340 -211 -0.03% 340,744 4,098 1.22%
2003 226,282 1,457 0.65% 623,913 -427 -0.07% 345,222 4,478 1.31%
2004 227,894 1,611 0.71% 624,915 1,002 0.16% 349,107 3,884 1.13%
2005 229,465 1,571 0.69% 627,629 2,714 0.43% 351,076 1,970 0.56%
2006 231,230 1,765 0.77% 632,724 5,095 0.81% 354,306 3,229 0.92%
2007 235,376 4,146 1.79% 634,689 1,965 0.31% 356,280 1,974 0.56%
2008 238,479 3,103 1.32% 634,331 -357 -0.06% 358,893 2,613 0.73%
2009 239,213 734 0.31% 632,621 -1,710 -0.27% 360,099 1,206 0.34%
2010 237,806 -1,408 -0.59% 629,415 -3,206 -0.51% 359,608 -491 -0.14%
2011 236,365 -1,441 -0.61% 628,834 -582 -0.09% 359,515 -93 -0.03%
2012 233,351 -3,014 -1.27% 632,994 4,161 0.66% 359,258 -257 -0.07%
2013 230,520 -2,831 -1.21% 637,626 4,632 0.73% 359,969 712 0.20%
2014 230,063 -457 -0.20% 640,994 3,368 0.53% 359,918 -51 -0.01%
2015 231,467 1,404 0.61% 643,248 2,254 0.35% 358,060 -1,858 -0.52%
2016 233,397 1,930 0.83% 645,723 2,475 0.38% 357,023 -1,037 -0.29%
2017 235,477 2,081 0.89% 648,649 2,926 0.45% 356,466 -557 -0.16%

118
Table C. 7 Table C. 8 Table C. 9
Criminally "At Risk" Population: Prime Wage Earners: Ages 25-44 Older Wage Earners: Ages 45-64
Males Ages 15-39
Year Change from previous decade/yr. Change from previous decade/yr. Change from previous decade/yr.
(July 1) 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 617,083 72,345 13.28% 996,742 70,416 7.60% 817,376 286,195 53.88%
2001 619,913 2,830 0.46% 996,653 -88 -0.01% 847,283 29,906 3.66%
2002 621,998 2,085 0.34% 993,556 -3,097 -0.31% 876,235 28,952 3.42%
2003 624,704 2,706 0.44% 992,773 -783 -0.08% 903,464 27,229 3.11%
2004 629,715 5,011 0.80% 995,493 2,720 0.27% 929,903 26,439 2.93%
2005 638,045 8,330 1.32% 1,002,661 7,168 0.72% 957,553 27,650 2.97%
2006 649,184 11,139 1.75% 1,013,688 11,027 1.10% 985,435 27,881 2.91%
2007 658,137 8,953 1.38% 1,025,693 12,005 1.18% 1,008,670 23,236 2.36%
2008 664,062 5,925 0.90% 1,034,889 9,196 0.90% 1,025,085 16,415 1.63%
2009 665,107 1,045 0.16% 1,039,598 4,709 0.46% 1,038,867 13,782 1.34%
2010 661,743 -3,364 -0.51% 1,041,852 2,254 0.22% 1,048,990 10,123 0.97%
2011 661,232 -511 -0.08% 1,048,191 6,339 0.61% 1,058,139 9,150 0.87%
2012 663,322 2,091 0.32% 1,058,051 9,860 0.94% 1,056,335 -1,804 -0.17%
2013 667,850 4,528 0.68% 1,068,819 10,768 1.02% 1,058,379 2,044 0.19%
2014 673,642 5,792 0.87% 1,080,499 11,680 1.09% 1,064,136 5,757 0.54%
2015 679,255 5,614 0.83% 1,091,508 11,009 1.02% 1,071,866 7,730 0.73%
2016 685,509 6,253 0.92% 1,103,172 11,664 1.07% 1,077,750 5,884 0.55%
2017 691,094 5,585 0.81% 1,117,323 14,151 1.28% 1,080,351 2,601 0.24%

Table C. 10
Elderly Population by Age Group

Change from Change from Change from Change from

Year previous previous previous previous
(July 1) Ages 65+ decade/yr. Ages 65-74 decade/yr. Ages 75-84 decade/yr. Ages 85+ 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 438,891 11.86% 218,825 -2.65% 162,026 25.78% 58,040 49.65%
2001 441,170 0.52% 218,157 -0.31% 163,198 0.72% 59,815 3.06%
2002 443,400 0.51% 218,395 0.11% 163,886 0.42% 61,118 2.18%
2003 447,445 0.91% 220,573 1.00% 163,896 0.01% 62,976 3.04%
2004 452,189 1.06% 223,997 1.55% 163,521 -0.23% 64,671 2.69%
2005 459,115 1.53% 228,935 2.20% 163,217 -0.19% 66,963 3.54%
2006 468,319 2.00% 236,218 3.18% 162,383 -0.51% 69,717 4.11%
2007 479,092 2.30% 245,673 4.00% 161,230 -0.71% 72,189 3.55%
2008 492,923 2.89% 258,841 5.36% 159,920 -0.81% 74,162 2.73%
2009 505,801 2.61% 271,270 4.80% 158,515 -0.88% 76,016 2.50%
2010 518,430 2.50% 282,201 4.03% 158,509 0.00% 77,720 2.24%
2011 531,957 2.61% 293,737 4.09% 158,829 0.20% 79,390 2.15%
2012 559,210 5.12% 317,865 8.21% 160,321 0.94% 81,024 2.06%
2013 583,787 4.39% 337,998 6.33% 163,258 1.83% 82,530 1.86%
2014 609,289 4.37% 358,503 6.07% 166,969 2.27% 83,816 1.56%
2015 637,651 4.65% 380,498 6.14% 171,720 2.85% 85,433 1.93%
2016 666,435 4.51% 401,768 5.59% 177,838 3.56% 86,829 1.63%
2017 696,034 4.44% 422,005 5.04% 185,830 4.49% 88,198 1.58%

119
120