Here we go again. The Bulletin publishes a set of statistics and comes up with different, even opposite, conclusions than I would.
REGIONAL ECONOMY IS DIVERSIFYING.
Lets see:
Construction (natural resources and mining),up from 2001, 7.7 vs. 11.1.
Professional and business services, up, 7.8 vs. 9.8
Retail trade, down, 15.5 vs. 13.8.
Manufacturing, down 12.6 vs. 9.7.
O.K. Am I wrong as seeing 'construction' and 'business services' as being tied into the housing market, which is headed down? The Bulletin itself says, "The largest industry gains over the six-year period have been in construction, professional and business services..."
Am I wrong to see a loss of manufacturing jobs as being less than healthy?
It seems to me we're headed in the wrong direction, as far as diversity goes.
When you look at averages compared to the state, it's worse. "Central Oregon has almost twice the percentage of construction jobs as the United States and Oregon. It also beats state and national numbers in retail, and the leisure and hospitality industries.
"In May 2007, 11.1 percent of the tri-county's jobs fell under construction, according to the data. In the nation, 6.1 percent of jobs were in construction...
"In retail, Central Oregon had 13.8 percent of its jobs tied to
this typically lower-wage industry, compared with 11 percent in the nation and 11.6 percent in the state.
"In leisure and hospitality, Central Oregon and it's 475 - million-a-year tourism industry comprised 12.6 percent of all employment, compared with 9.9 percent in the nation and Oregon."
This is diversity? Never mind we've lost manufacturing jobs, which are the kind of jobs we really need, relatively high-paying, non touristy jobs.
The text of the article, the quotes, seem to me to directly contradict the title of the article.
Oh, Bulletin. Your eyes say, yes, yes, yes but your words say no, no, no.
Construction, retail and hospitality "'have more eggs' of the Central Oregon employment basket, Williams said.
"If one of those industries were to take a huge hit, we would feel it more," he said. "We don't have the same diversity mix as the U.S and Oregon."
The italics are mine, just to highlight how the last paragraph of the article is opposite the first paragraph.
Edited to add:
It may not seem like it, but I like the Bulletin. Really I do. No irony or sarcasm attached.
Maybe because I started reading the paper in high school, I've always liked the layout, the selection of stories. It's always been too conservative for me, but that reflects the local populace. It's sometimes been a bit boosterish for me, but that is probably better than the alternative. It sometimes seems impelled to put positive slants into the titles and opening paragraphs of their articles, and then contradict them in the meat of the story. But, you know, putting up a neutral title, like,
NEW STATISTICS ABOUT JOBS RELEASED, probably wouldn't sell papers.
They went a little extreme, even weirdly conservative, when Chandler died. Coloring the bridge opponents as 'nuts', went too far for even the locals, and they immediately wised up and became a bit more subtle in their slams. They are so reliably conservative in their editorials that I can pretty much figure out the truth by assuming the opposite.
It may be a beginning paper for some of their reporters, but I believe the Bulletin does get the best and brightest, who often go on to very strong careers.
And while I'm at it. I also think that most of our local leaders, in the city council and county, mean well for the locals.
A caveat. I'm not much of a 'conspiracy' thinker. In college I wrote a paper for Orde Pinckney's COCC Government class, saying that I didn't believe the oil companies had conspired to raise gas prices. I was enamored of what I thought was 'inside' knowledge, from Washington Week in Review, and the New York Times, etc. Of course, a few years later, the oil companies were pleading guilty, and paying 'windfall' profits taxes. (I also got an A on the paper -- but I think Orde was just pleased to have a student who actually READ the New York Times on a regular basis, and watched Wash. Wk in Review.....)
I usually have to look at a situation and ADD the conspiracy element, because it's not my natural inclination.
But I don't believe our Boss Hogs are getting rich, or are corrupt. Unfortunately, I do believe that developers with vast experience in dealing with local government and in exploiting the landscape, can come in and outmaneuver and manipulate even the smartest local leader. It happened with the saving and loan debacle, too. What's happening to Bend is happening in many places, in kind if not degree, and it would almost take a local leader who has already been through the process somewhere else to navigate it all.
I'm sure BendBust will tell me I'm being mealy-mouthed. But I think its important not to tarnish people's reputation without proof.
O.K. Bilbo, have at it.
I also really dislike innuendo and rumor, when talking about local leaders. Not fair, not fair at all.
REGIONAL ECONOMY IS DIVERSIFYING.
Lets see:
Construction (natural resources and mining),up from 2001, 7.7 vs. 11.1.
Professional and business services, up, 7.8 vs. 9.8
Retail trade, down, 15.5 vs. 13.8.
Manufacturing, down 12.6 vs. 9.7.
O.K. Am I wrong as seeing 'construction' and 'business services' as being tied into the housing market, which is headed down? The Bulletin itself says, "The largest industry gains over the six-year period have been in construction, professional and business services..."
Am I wrong to see a loss of manufacturing jobs as being less than healthy?
It seems to me we're headed in the wrong direction, as far as diversity goes.
When you look at averages compared to the state, it's worse. "Central Oregon has almost twice the percentage of construction jobs as the United States and Oregon. It also beats state and national numbers in retail, and the leisure and hospitality industries.
"In May 2007, 11.1 percent of the tri-county's jobs fell under construction, according to the data. In the nation, 6.1 percent of jobs were in construction...
"In retail, Central Oregon had 13.8 percent of its jobs tied to
this typically lower-wage industry, compared with 11 percent in the nation and 11.6 percent in the state.
"In leisure and hospitality, Central Oregon and it's 475 - million-a-year tourism industry comprised 12.6 percent of all employment, compared with 9.9 percent in the nation and Oregon."
This is diversity? Never mind we've lost manufacturing jobs, which are the kind of jobs we really need, relatively high-paying, non touristy jobs.
The text of the article, the quotes, seem to me to directly contradict the title of the article.
Oh, Bulletin. Your eyes say, yes, yes, yes but your words say no, no, no.
Construction, retail and hospitality "'have more eggs' of the Central Oregon employment basket, Williams said.
"If one of those industries were to take a huge hit, we would feel it more," he said. "We don't have the same diversity mix as the U.S and Oregon."
The italics are mine, just to highlight how the last paragraph of the article is opposite the first paragraph.
Edited to add:
It may not seem like it, but I like the Bulletin. Really I do. No irony or sarcasm attached.
Maybe because I started reading the paper in high school, I've always liked the layout, the selection of stories. It's always been too conservative for me, but that reflects the local populace. It's sometimes been a bit boosterish for me, but that is probably better than the alternative. It sometimes seems impelled to put positive slants into the titles and opening paragraphs of their articles, and then contradict them in the meat of the story. But, you know, putting up a neutral title, like,
NEW STATISTICS ABOUT JOBS RELEASED, probably wouldn't sell papers.
They went a little extreme, even weirdly conservative, when Chandler died. Coloring the bridge opponents as 'nuts', went too far for even the locals, and they immediately wised up and became a bit more subtle in their slams. They are so reliably conservative in their editorials that I can pretty much figure out the truth by assuming the opposite.
It may be a beginning paper for some of their reporters, but I believe the Bulletin does get the best and brightest, who often go on to very strong careers.
And while I'm at it. I also think that most of our local leaders, in the city council and county, mean well for the locals.
A caveat. I'm not much of a 'conspiracy' thinker. In college I wrote a paper for Orde Pinckney's COCC Government class, saying that I didn't believe the oil companies had conspired to raise gas prices. I was enamored of what I thought was 'inside' knowledge, from Washington Week in Review, and the New York Times, etc. Of course, a few years later, the oil companies were pleading guilty, and paying 'windfall' profits taxes. (I also got an A on the paper -- but I think Orde was just pleased to have a student who actually READ the New York Times on a regular basis, and watched Wash. Wk in Review.....)
I usually have to look at a situation and ADD the conspiracy element, because it's not my natural inclination.
But I don't believe our Boss Hogs are getting rich, or are corrupt. Unfortunately, I do believe that developers with vast experience in dealing with local government and in exploiting the landscape, can come in and outmaneuver and manipulate even the smartest local leader. It happened with the saving and loan debacle, too. What's happening to Bend is happening in many places, in kind if not degree, and it would almost take a local leader who has already been through the process somewhere else to navigate it all.
I'm sure BendBust will tell me I'm being mealy-mouthed. But I think its important not to tarnish people's reputation without proof.
O.K. Bilbo, have at it.
I also really dislike innuendo and rumor, when talking about local leaders. Not fair, not fair at all.