What does "business-friendly" mean?

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

There's been a lot of talk in the run-up to the special election and in its aftermath about whether Oregon and its legislative leaders are "business-friendly". I've had some fascinating conversations with advocates and legislators in recent days about what term means - not just in theory, but also in practice.

Let's start by stipulating a few things: Businesses, large and small, are the primary employers of Oregonians - and the engine of our economy. It is in everyone's interest to ensure a growing and robust business sector. Legislators have a responsibility to do whatever they can reasonably do to grow the economy, encourage local business growth, and increase employment.

So, what does it mean to be "business-friendly"?

Obviously, there are ideological anti-tax activists who will argue that being business-friendly simply means cutting taxes - no matter what the impact is. (Or, perhaps, precisely because of the radical impact on government services.) And they'll argue that it means slashing regulation and limiting litigation - all in the name of the free market.

We progressives will argue that being business-friendly means ensuring that businesses have access to a high-quality educated workforce, efficient and well-maintained transportation systems, public safety and a functioning court system, and access to state-funded research programs (like agricultural extension, etc.) We also argue that a free market means regulations that ensure a level playing field, protect consumers and businesses from bad actors, and improve transparency for buyers and sellers. We also believe that a free market requires a way to adjudicate disputes between parties and fairly compensate people and businesses that are harmed by bad actors.

These principles, on both sides, are often used in the rhetoric on the floor and in the political debates outside the halls of the Legislature.

But it turns out that these lofty arguments aren't really what corporate lobbyists mean when they use the phrase "business-friendly" to describe a legislator.

Rather, the phrase "business-friendly" has come to be defined by some lobbyists as the rate at which a particular legislator will do the bidding of those corporate lobbyists and their clients -- irrespective of whether the particular request is actually good for the broader business community or not.

Sure, they'll couch it in terms of "relevance" (as the AGC's Mike Salsgiver did last month) - or "keeping the door open" or "listening to us" or "working with us."

But as one legislator told me, "business-friendly" has come to mean: How many votes will a particular legislator make at the behest of particular lobbyists? Is he or she the kind of legislator who makes sure that each of the prominent corporate lobbyists "gets a win" from them?

Around here, we've often complained about Willamette Week's "Good, Bad & Awful" lobbyist-generated reviews of legislators. And the reason is simple: it's the most obvious manifestation of the lobby-based chattering class that defines the effectiveness of a legislator by how often he or she is willing to "toss a vote" to the key lobbyists in the building.

(Remember 2007, when Rep. Ben Cannon was hammered by an anonymous lobbyist who complained, "[He] over-thinks way too much ... Trust us, Ben, we did the research." -- as if it's a legislator's job to blindly trust anybody and not think about the issues.)

So, dear readers, next time you hear "so-and-so just isn't business-friendly", don't accept the premise. Instead, evaluate for yourself: Are they doing what it takes to build a robust and successful economy that works for all businesses, employees, and consumers? Or are they simply doing the bidding of particular corporate special interests and their consigliere in Salem?

We should have legislators that work hard to support a robust business climate in Oregon. But that doesn't mean they should be checking off a list of corporate lobbyists, making sure each one got a cookie. And the lobbyists shouldn't be demanding and expecting that sort of treatment.

  • JonB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks for this post, Kari.

    I agree this is far from a black/white issue. Some try to say that any consumer protection rules are not business-friendly. That assumes that businesses are all predatory and willing to be unethical in pursuit of a buck. But I don't believe that. Consumer protection rules are good for businesses that are ethical already.

    For example, I would like to see a law that states that if a lender denies a loan modification request so a homeowner can avoid foreclosure, the lender must show their calculations as to how they made their decision. There are federal guidelines to determine who should get a loan modifications.

    How is this not business friendly? It would only be businesses who are lying about whether or not a homeowner fits the guidelines who would be impacted by it. Or perhaps those who aren't even bothering to do any calculations.

    The typical lender makes these calculations already, so all they would need to do is send them to the homeowner with other materials they send and file them with the county with all those materials they already must provide.

    By providing this kind of information, it ensures that everyone processing loan modification requests are operating on the up and up. It also increases consumer confidence. Both of these factors are good for business.

    This is but one example of many I can point at that support your post.

  • KenRay (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This topic is often over simplified, IMO. I maintain it is the cumulative effect of all the layers of government and how they add up to many little straws that make Oregon’s business back break.

    It isn’t just taxes. In fact, fees and license red tape are bigger sources of frustration for most businesses I know. The state should encourage business development and entrepreneurship. By business development, I do not mean tax Peter to offer Paul a tax break. I mean make the process friendly.

    The woman I used to go to for dog training is an example. She and her husband built a facility in Rural Clackamas County and for over 10 years offered training for agility competition. She used local contractors, she patronized local businesses, she paid her taxes, and she had plenty of insurance. She never had a complaint filed. Then in 2009 after the democrats assumed full control of the county commission, Clackamas County decided she shouldn’t have this business anymore. A law passed in 2002 changed uses allowed on her zoning and even though her business dated before the change and even though there is a grandfather exclusion allowed under Clackamas County ordinance, the hearings officer shut her down. She spent a few thousand dollars fighting it, but the bureaucrats wore her down. Now dozens of students that used to come into Clackamas County to attend classes won’t be buying gas, stopping at the store or patronizing Clackamas County businesses. She’ll move to Marion County or up to Washington.

    Multiply this times however many thousands of incidents and that is a business that disappears.

    Then you have the ones who try to start a business. You try to do the right thing, but one hand doesn’t know what the other is doing in government. The potential business owner has to go from department to department, paying fee after fee. Then some inspector comes along and says he or she didn’t follow some procedure and they have to go get another license and endure a wait while government plods along.

    Fees go up. In January, a business licensing their pickup truck as they are supposed to do just had their annual tags go from $350 to over $700. Licenses, ground water runoff fee, environmental impact fee, sidewalk fee, traffic fee, ad naseum. Now, if they successfully wade through all this and open their business anyway, God bless them. Except for the first few years where they make no profit, now they are taxed by how much money they receive, even if they pay more than that back out again in expenses.

    Yeah, it all adds up. But then you guys successfully convinced everyone it was only about taking the minimum tax from $10 to $150 and cleverly (and deceptively) never mentioned how it also added a new tax on gross receipts regardless of profit.

    Hear that camel’s back breaking? That wasn’t just a straw, that was a whole bale that (Retroactively) just hit that camel.

  • (Show?)

    Thoughtful post Kari. We know who paid to put measures 66 and 67 on the ballot. We will need courageous legislators to finally create a stable funding formula for higher ed and K-12. Here's hoping the legislators consider alternatives, consider restructuring, and demand a state funding floor to reverse the race to the bottom.

  • (Show?)

    The biggest issue facing small business owners right now is access to credit and financing. Many business owners say, "well, if I just had that extra bit I could hire a few more people, get that new piece of equipment or overhaul our database."

    Unfortunately, much of the TARP money has gone to Wall Street bonuses instead of Main Street stimulus. We're working hard to support Senator Merkley's Bank on our Communities Act, which will divert bailout money away from Wall Street and into the hands of community banks like Portland's Albina for small business lending.

    Additionally, the Big Business crowd are horribly out of touch with the realities facing small businesses around the state. For example, just today, AOI posted a piece on "Oregon Report" about the "4 key business bills" in the special session.

    These were all bills that AOI opposes for being "too much guvmint" or "increasing taxes." It wasn't so much a legislative assessment as it was a hitlist. Rep. Jefferson Smith's economic gardening bill didn't even merit a mention, and it was another example of how far the Big Business lobbies have strayed from representing the needs of small businesses across the state.

    Progressives need to remember that each dollar you spend is, in effect, a vote, and that there are options out there to support local businesses that are dedicated to building a stronger economy and brighter future for all Oregon.

    Look for a directory of OSBC businesses (that supported Measures 66 & 67 and have been working hard on financial reform and health care reform) coming with our new Web site soon.

  • Bill Holmer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Most businesses aren't looking for government contracts. What business desires most are clear, concise rules and regulations that are impartially and consistently enforced, plus needed public services delivered in a cost effective manner.

    Businesses don't want government using tax revenues to subsidize competitors that meet "favored business" criteria, such as anything with "green" or "minority" in front of it. And any public employee that spends any time trying to regulate what kind of grocery bags we use, needs to find a real job.

  • (Show?)

    I hear comments like KenRay's all the time, but when I sit down with fellow businessmen I usually find that there is a good reason for the government's position vs. the environment or consumers or worker safety. I view a business friendly environment at the state and local level as one where the public employees try to help the business succeed while enforcing the law fairly. We all know that someone in authority can be helpful (here's how you can get this approved) or arbitrary and rude.

    My experience after 20 years as a small business guy in Portland and Beaverton is that generally people here are friendly and helpful. Business people complain about environmental restrictions, but both when I worked at Intel and with my current employer I have found the environmental rules sensible and the enforcement folks helpful. We have water discharge that met federal standards, but not tighter local standards. The inspectors helped us find solutions so we could meet the local standards. I call that business friendly. Someone else could look at the local standards and call them unfriendly.

    Most business people who claim we live in an unfriendly state would make the same claims in any state that they wanted to live in. They just do not believe that the public has a right to tax and impose conditions for conducting business.

  • Janiiisss23 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Great job ! I will keep reading !

  • (Show?)

    "Business friendly" is code word, just like "family values". It is, as you point out Kari, simply a line of demarcation of whether or not a legislator (or group) is bought and paid for by a specific special interest within the "corporate" or "business" community, and is willing to put those interest (which are mainly ever increasing profit margins) above other ancillary considerations like the rest of the economy, the consumers, the community, etc.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Suppose one business pollutes the air and another business relies on out door fresh air. Is it "business friendly" to stand up for the business that needs the fresh air?

    My guess is that there are lobbyists who would say that depends on who was lobbying for either of the above businesses.

    Cynics have long thought this is true.

    "But as one legislator told me, "business-friendly" has come to mean: How many votes will a particular legislator make at the behest of particular lobbyists? Is he or she the kind of legislator who makes sure that each of the prominent corporate lobbyists "gets a win" from them? "

    It goes to the whole "who speaks for business" issue. Some of us know business owners who voted yes on 66 & 67. Were those business owners "anti-business" because of the lobbyists involved in the NO campaign?

    It is time to have that debate in public!

  • Dave Lister (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Since you brought this up, I want to share an e mail I sent to Mark Mason and Dave Anderson on 1190 KEX during their discussions of measures 66/67:

    Hi guys,

    I tried to call in yesterday afternoon but your lines were busy. I just wanted to mention a couple things.

    When evaluating the overall business climate in Oregon, the business tax rates by themselves are not necessarily indicative of a good climate. Even though we are in the top ten for lowest taxes, you also have to consider additional charges on businesses like systems development charges and local business license fees, utility costs, etc..

    Beyond direct costs, there are other factors which contribute to Oregon’s poor business climate. Land use policies make it difficult for companies to build new plants and poor infrastructure, highway gridlock and a deteriorating rail system make it difficult to distribute goods and services. Also, environmental activists have made it difficult for companies to harvest our natural resources in even a responsible fashion.

    It is true that most of the companies Phil Knight referred to are no longer in the state because of external factors like buyouts or takeovers. The problem is that we should be seeing new companies coming in to replace those and we aren’t.

    When I served on Portland’s small business advisory council I chaired an ad-hoc committee that was charged with a daunting task. After tons of voluminous blue ribbon studies on economic development had been presented to the city council and never read, we attempted to define economic development in one page. The attached is the result of that effort. It was accepted by council and was intended to be used as a litmus test when the council weighed matters that affected businesses in Portland. Unfortunately, they didn’t really use it.

    Here it is:

    Small Business Advisory Council

    Economic Development Position Statement

    The essential elements for quality of life are a job and economic stability. A former President once said "the best social program is a job." Finding and keeping a well paying job is, for most citizens, essential to enjoying a high quality of life. Neighborhood residents, business owners and property owners must recognize that their concerns are interdependent rather than adversarial. Economic development must be a priority at both the policy and bureau levels. Business associations, neighborhood associations, City Council, City Bureaus, planners and regulators must work in concert to achieve a balance of economic vitality and livability.

    When City bureaus and other public agencies concerned with development issues are pursuing redevelopment, changes to commercial corridors, or areas of commercial concentration, job retention and creation must be the primary factor. The anticipated impact on jobs through redevelopment must consider not only the number of jobs, but the wage and benefit quality of the jobs. Gentrification and densification of commercial corridors must not eliminate the availability of affordable commercial space which is vital to a wide spectrum of essential service industries. Existing industrial zones must be protected.

    In order to be profitable and to create jobs, business requires a cost climate of certainty and constancy. Expanding regulations, high system development charges, the Business Income Tax/Business License Fee, retroactive tax increases and ever increasing water and sewer rates are all factors which will lead to a business decision to either leave, not expand, or not locate in the City of Portland or Multnomah County.

    A sound transportation infrastructure is vital for a healthy business environment. Portland’s position as a global import/export facility is dependent upon the ability of goods and services to flow freely into and within the region. The City must be proactive in its endeavors and cooperate with both Multnomah County and Metro to prevent further degradation of our highway, rail and water transportation routes and facilities. The time and difficulty involved in offloading and transporting goods will be the primary factor in consideration of this region as a distribution center.

    Small businesses and large businesses are mutually reliant. Small businesses, in most cases, rely on large businesses to purchase their goods and services. Consumer oriented businesses rely on the quality employment provided by larger businesses for the discretionary dollars which allow people to shop. Large businesses rely on the diverse range of products and services provided by the small employers. The City must recognize this mutual reliance and not adopt policies which appear to be small business friendly to the detriment of large business.

    Availability of capital financing is essential to a healthy business environment. City policy makers and regulators must recognize that barriers to business not only impact the ability of a business to be profitable, but also affect its ability to obtain financing. Since most business failures are associated with debt burden, the city must recognize that high permit fees and system development charges increase the capital required for a business start. The city must fight to retain economic development dollars in the budget and distribute those dollars in such a way as to provide the broadest assistance possible.

    That was what we provided to the council.

    This document, of course, was primarily concerned with the city of Portland and Multnomah county, but I believe the pricinples apply statewide.

    Dave Lister

  • KenRay (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nobody said that the goals of the environmental or any other government agency rules and laws, at least as originally proposed, aren't laudable. The problem is the implementation. So, you are a potential small businessperson. You want to open a store in Beaverton. Call up Beaverton and ask them how much it will cost.

    They won't know. Oh they can sell you a business license for Beaverton, but no one in any Government agency can tell you how much to budget for government fees to open a business. There are so many layers of government and they all have their own fees and their own rules. The point being deliberately missed by some of you is that (pick your city)'s rules may be fair. But then there's the County. Then there's Metro. Then there is the state. Then there's OSHA, Oregon OSHA, EPA, DEQ, etc. etc. etc. Rarely is there any cohesion or communication between any of these agencies.

    You want to make the state business friendly? Have any government licensing body be able to answer "How much will I have to pay to start my business?" If the answer is $5000 or $25000, at least then it can be budgeted.

    The way it is now you spend money, spend money and then after spending money, you find out more money you have to spend. It seems like there's another new fee every time you turn around. Then the prospective business has to either decide to flush the previous money down the toilet and give up, or pay the Danegeld to continue the process so that he or she can start generating tax revenue for those same governments.

    The potential business doesn't care if the roadblock is from Metro, or the state, or the city, or the county. The point is: it's there preventing success.

    The other point is that it is the aggregate of all of these government fees, rules and agencies that go into business "friendly" or "unfriendly." So far, except for Dave Lister, everyone else has parsed out one example as if that explained the whole.

  • Darrell Fuller (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari: Could you not say the same thing about legislators being "pro-education", "pro-labor" or "pro-environment"? Some folks might suggest that a legislator being "pro-education" means giving OEA a vote on whatever they want whether or not it has anthing to do with actually improving what children learn (or whether they learn in public schools or another learning paradigm). It's pretty much a goose/gander issue, isn't it? If a legislator can be "pro-business" while still opposing everything supported by AOI/NFIB, then can't another legislator be "pro-education" whilst opposing OEA's legislative agenda?

  • Greg D. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Seems to me that "business friendly" is a relative term and meaningful only when comparing two or more potential locations against each other. Taxation costs are relevant, but so are the regulatory environment, infrastructure, land costs, labor costs, and the overall cost of doing business. If you are looking for a location to build Toyota cars and are comparing Oregon to Tennessee, I suspect that Tennessee would be deemed the more business friendly state. If you are looking for a location to manufacture gourmet tea blends, then it would appear that Oregon is more business friendly than the alternatives considered by the Tazo people.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Darrell, your comment gets to the point of individuals vs. groups.

    In the late 1980s/early 1990s, there was an OEA lobbyist that many teachers did not like. He got really angry when the Democratic House voted opposite of the way he had "told" him to vote. A friend saw him stomping (over 6'4", probably well over 250 lbs, that is the proper verb) around the capitol saying WE WON'T STAND FOR THIS!

    A friend of mine who once worked for a union said she wouldn't trust a union lobbyist saying "my membership wants..." unless she knew the lobbyist had spoken with the assembled membership in the preceeding 72 hours.

    And that was what happened to this lobbyist---got too full of himself and legend has it that he was given a choice of retirement or being fired.

    If someone says they want administrators (esp. those in the central office)to have their performance and pay packages evaluated with as sharp a magnifying glass as teachers, what would you call that person? Could that person be someone who tangled with local school district management and was furious the district had given top administrators car allowances for decades?

    If Stand for Children, AFT, OEA, Chalkboard all debate education policy, does one deserve " pro-education" more than another? Are they helping the cause by having a public debate on issues?

    There was a story in our local paper that a business was moving from Corvallis to Salem. Reason for the move was not given. But if all the hype about the ballot measures was correct, why isn't that business moving out of state?

    One more thing about lobbyists. A relative who stays home with her 3 kids (but once had a career) has a husband who works in the private sector. This relative says "lobbyists don't care about ordinary people, they just care about their clients".

    My guess is that many people feel that way about lobbyists. They don't directly educate children, run businesses, or do much other than lobby. In some cases, they have gotten out ahead of who they represent and when what they said at a press conference gets back to their employer, they can end up losing their job.

    My nominee for business friendly would be the partnerships community colleges have with business. Chemeketa has a facility where new employers to the area who need to hire people with specific skills can train those employees in a training facility. PCC has that food business incubator program which goes for 3 months or whatever and at the competition at the last meeting, whoever wins gets (among other things) guaranteed shelf space at a famous grocery store.

    But that is actual problem solving, rather than "vote for my bill or we will say you are not business friendly"--which I believe was the point of this post.

    There have been politicians who spoke one way and voted another. When that was found out, the explanation was "well, I took it to these lobbyists, and they said it was OK".

    Maybe bringing up the issue with constituents would have been smarter? Or are they "only voters" and lobbyists really run the show?

  • alcatross (unverified)
    (Show?)

    To somewhat back up KenRay's point about the degree of business regulation in Oregon, in the Forbes.com report lauded here at Blue Oregon several months ago where they ranked Oregon the 10th overall best state for business, Oregon's 'regulatory environment' was ranked 41st.

    Not saying we should throw all our regulations overboard and go back to the wild west days, but it really is possible Oregon has overdone it a bit in this space.

  • (Show?)

    Dave & KenRay -- You raise good discussion points. We might agree or disagree on the specific details, but those questions are the ones at the heart of "business-friendly."

    My complaint is that for many corporate lobbyists, those questions - for or against - are irrelevant. They just want a cookie for their clients.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, gee: the clients only WANT cookies.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have long thought that labels short-circuit thought.

    Here is a story and someone can tell me if this person fits the "business friendly" label.

    Famous person had been living in the town where I graduated from high school. (Small town? Our "biggest ever" high school graduating class was 229 students.)

    The owner of a splendid Japanese nursery in downtown (about a block over from where my Dad had once had a store) retired. What would happen to the property?

    The famous person decided he would open a restaurant with an office building next door to it. But my gosh, the red tape and complaints he ran into. "You can't do that...". It wasn't just government intervention, it was people writing letters to the editor of the local paper about the design of the office building, stuff like that. Worst thing was, he could never get a straight answer. So he sued the city. Not for money, but for "give me a list of things I need to do and if I follow the list there will be no red tape."

    He won and got his list. Then he decided to run for mayor--if that sort of thing could happen to him, what would happen to an ordinary person? He was elected and served one term, and in that time got a lot of things changed, good people on the council, etc.

    There were reasons for many regulations but some of the enforcement had gone overboard. And as a famous person, this mayor was able to be the sort of civic booster that an ordinary person could never be.

    So, was he "business-friendly"?

    Or is that label just for "please the lobbyist and we will call you business friendly".

    My sense of the term (business or any other lobby group for that matter) is that it is very inside baseball.

    "The ---- friendly vote is for HB 1234, not SB 567" sort of thing.

    My guess is that many people who pay attention to such things would welcome a more intelligent debate. Something like "compare and contrast HB 1234 and SB 567 --is there some good in both bills?".

    Of course that requires thought, not just spin.

  • (Show?)

    My complaint is that for many corporate lobbyists, those questions - for or against - are irrelevant. They just want a cookie for their clients.

    You're kidding! You mean lobbyists aren't a reliable source of objective information?

    I suppose next you'll be telling us we shouldn't trust a 30 second TV commercial that quotes a political candidate's blog comments out of context to make him look like a hothead. (Not that anyone would actually do that.)

  • alcatross (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari Chisholm commented: My complaint is that for many corporate lobbyists, those questions - for or against - are irrelevant. They just want a cookie for their clients.

    Let's not leave out LABOR UNION lobbyists in our discussion here... for they too want cookies for their clients.

  • Jason (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "We progressives will argue that being business-friendly means ensuring that businesses have access to a high-quality educated workforce, efficient and well-maintained transportation systems, public safety and a functioning court system, and access to state-funded research programs (like agricultural extension, etc.) We also argue that a free market means regulations that ensure a level playing field, protect consumers and businesses from bad actors, and improve transparency for buyers and sellers. We also believe that a free market requires a way to adjudicate disputes between parties and fairly compensate people and businesses that are harmed by bad actors."

    Kari,

    I would argue that these values criss-cross both parties, and aren't just "liberal" ideals. I think the difference is how those policies are funded and at what level government is involved. If the regulations and requirements are so taxing and onerous to businesses that it makes development difficult and time-consuming (and government/elected officials are unwilling to negotiate and think outside-the-box), I'd contend that's being "business unfriendly."

    As an economic development professional, I can tell you that I believe wholeheartedly that higher education (and K-12), a good healthcare system, and fair access to all business is absolutely essential. I sit on two boards: 1. OSU Open Campus; pilot program that's aimed at providing higher ed in rural communities 2. Partnership to End Poverty, an organization that links non-profits and other groups to end poverty and increase access to educational opportunities. (And this is in a conservative community, no less.)

    There is also a non-profit group that just formed (Rimrock Health Alliance) with the goal of organizing the entire healthcare system to ensure more access, technology upgrades, and renovations of the 50-year-old hospital. Without groups like this, my job would be much more difficult.

    All of the elements you listed above are essential, but in my experience, it's more about form than function. Is a community willing to extend an olive branch? Is it willing to recognize when regulations and ordinances don't make sense? Is it willing to meet in the middle so a project can move forward, while at the same time not compromising the values of the community or negatively impacting services or exisiting tax payers?

    You can have all the assets in the world (including tax incentives), but if a community isn't professional, sincere, and willing to proactively solve problems and help businesses, then that's the epitome of being business unfriendly.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jack, loved the comment.

    Out in the real world (working parents of small children, for instance) there aren't a lot of spare minutes to spend on watching TV, much less paying attention to commercials.

    For all the ads, rhetoric, blogging, etc. we had a family Christmas breakfast with one such young family. We'd seen them at a mid-October family reunion. I'd told them in some depth about the measures that were going to be on the Jan. ballot (incl. explaining marginal tax rate).

    The reaction of the young Mom was OH THAT'S RIGHT!! She had totally forgotten.

    Next time someone says "we have all that money for ads, therefore we will win the election", a little humility would be advisable.

    Many of us over the years have had the experience over the years running into a friend at a store or something and saying "Did you see that political ad..." and gotten the response "so busy I haven't seen TV in over a week".

    I have talked with people on both sides of the recent ballot measures who were blown away by the results---had not seen it coming.

    Maybe that is a good thing if people go into the primary and general elections this year not assuming one strategy, one tactic, one candidate will win just because of money, ads, etc.

  • (Show?)

    Jack Roberts: You're kidding! You mean lobbyists aren't a reliable source of objective information?

    Shocked! Shocked, I say!

    It's kind of obvious, as you note -- but somehow the lobby-generated chatter... "so-and-so just isn't business-friendly" tends to seep into the broader political milieu.

    Just because some politician is against giving a cookie to MegaCorpInc at the behest of their lobbyist doesn't mean that they're not business-friendly.

    But that's often how this plays out.

  • John McIlhenny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I've burned through 2 passports, and there is certainly a difference in degrees of business friendliness places exhibit. What I have also noticed is that it has no impact on business. Successful biz deals with it. Unsuccessful ones go under, even with massive help and subsidies. Business picks a location the same way people do. It's hilarious to read how many people on here hate Oregon polcies...but picked here to live. You went were the job or family was, and moan about the rest. You don't act on it. Biz is exactly the same. If you want to keep Oregon competitive, keep the reasons that people want to be in Oregon strong. Be more Oregon, not less. Back to the Chicago thread, THAT should be the counter argument. "Reduce taxes all you like. Does anybody want to live there over Oregon? If they do, pay their way!!!"

    Bottom line, debating "business-friedly" is like debating pornography. Most know it when they see it. The question for policy is, does it matter? The answer to that one is, "only in the debates". If we had a more mature electorate, stupid parlor games like that wouldn't work. But, go right ahead, give the peeps what they wonk!

  • Oksy Moreon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari said, "We progressives will argue..."

    Good joke!

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oh, Oksy, you're fast making me redundant!

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Love this:

    "What I have also noticed is that it has no impact on business. Successful biz deals with it. Unsuccessful ones go under, even with massive help and subsidies. Business picks a location the same way people do. It's hilarious to read how many people on here hate Oregon polcies...but picked here to live."

    How could someone possibly have a thriving business if AOI and OBA etc. don't get everything they want?

    Gosh--maybe a strong customer base, making good judgements (not expanding too fast, for instance) giving value for the money, having excellent customer service.

    And if a merger causes downsizing, could any government policy have changed that?

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yes, agreed, LT. Between our mutual sarcasm, I think we were making the same point.

    The really galling thing is the way the ones that do as you say and become successful get eaten up in mergers, whose goal is not so much to increase market share, as to eliminate best practices from the market.

    That's what' stinks the most about the financial bail-out. Back in 2005, I was regularly making comments to the effect that merger mania had played out, and there were some small banks left that were actually delivering value for money. How would they be gotten? Then the panic, and the ones I was watching have been merged into the two that I saw positioning themselves for this, as early as 1996, B of A and US Bank.

  • Jake Leander (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Business is not monolithic. Businesses do not share all interests in common. Regulation and taxation of business are necessary, but often structured and administered in ways that place a disproportionate burden on small business. One reason for this is the effort required to comply. The bookkeeping and form-filling time of a hundred thousand dollar business is not 1/1000 of that of a hundred million dollar business. The multiplicity of regulations and taxations give large businesses a competitive advantage over small businesses.

    The situation is made worse by the ability of big business to lobby for regulatory language that suits them, often at the cost of small business. Unfortunately most business organizations, such as chambers of commerce, are financially dominated by large businesses and fail to do much for the small business majority of their membership.

    Small business, like unorganized workers, have little voice in governmental process and suffer for it.

  • Jerry Carter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is one of the most familiar tactics used by pundits and politicians: drawing a correlation between public approval (or disapproval) of a particular policy and an election or poll result.

    That was a nice one you said in your post. So true.
    Football Betting

    <hr/>

connect with blueoregon