New study: A right-to-work law in Oregon would give a big boost to employment and incomes

In Oregon, employers can have an agreement with unions that make union membership—and the payment of union dues—an employment requirement. Refusal to stay in the union or to pay dues can result in termination.

Right-to-work laws provide job seekers the right to work for an employer whether or not they choose to join the union. Twenty-three states have right-to-work laws, with Indiana enacting its legislation yesterday. Research has found that as a group, right-to-work states have enjoyed more rapid employment growth, better job preservation, and faster recoveries from recession.

A recently released study from Cascade Policy Institute examines the impacts right-to-work legislation would have on Oregon. The study is consistent with the vast majority of peer-reviewed research in finding that if Oregon were a right-to-work state, we would see improved employment and income growth. For example, if Oregon enacted right-to-work legislation this year, in five years, the state would have 50,000 more people working than if it maintained the status quo. Similarly, in five years, Oregonians would have $2.7 billion more in wage and salary income by enacting right-to-work legislation.

Statewide business and business labor organizations endorse Oregon Investment Act

Statewide business and business labor organizations have endorsed the Oregon Investment Act, the bipartisan strategy that will prioritize state resources to help the private sector create jobs.The list of organizations asking the Legislature to approve the multifaceted economic development blueprint includes Associated Oregon Industries, the Oregon Business Association, Oregon Business Council and the Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council.

The legislation responds directly to needs articulated by business and community leaders across the state. Chief among those: Businesses need better access to capital to grow and hire.

The plan will better coordinate economic development spending, which will be targeted to create jobs and to attract new private sector investments. It also proposes to better measure the results of the state’s myriad economic development investments.

The Oregon Investment Act has 37 legislative sponsors and cosponsors. It was designed at the direction of Gov. John Kitzhaber and in partnership with Business Oregon, the state’s economic development department. The chief sponsors are state Rep. Tobias Read, D-Beaverton; Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem; Sen. Chris Telfer, R-Bend; and Sen. Richard Devlin, D-Tualatin.

“Oregon’s major business and business labor organizations understand that a more coordinated economic development strategy will help advance more opportunities and encourage more job creation,” said State Treasurer Ted Wheeler. “We are grateful for their support of this important legislation.”

Today, the state’s tools for job creation are spread across multiple agencies and not all of them are strategically connected. Under the legislation, those resources would be catalogued and coordinated by a new Oregon Growth Board, which would work with private sector experts to set priorities and attract additional business capital into the state. The goal is for the new structure to be the foundation of a larger and more effective business development fund.

At least one existing state panel would be dissolved and folded into the new entity.

Ryan Deckert, President of the Oregon Business Association, said: “Oregon Business Association supports the Oregon Investment Act as a practical and meaningful improvement for Oregon’s economic development strategy.”

“AOI believes the state can play a vital role in competing for business and job growth,” said Jay Clemens, Chief Executive Officer at Associated Oregon Industries. “AOI endorses the Oregon Investment Act because it will consolidate the state’s economic development programs to bring more efficiency and clout to our economic development efforts.”

“The Oregon Investment Act takes the limited resources the state is already using to support entrepreneurs and makes them more effective,” said Pat Reiten, President of Pacific Power and chair of The Oregon Business Plan, an economic blueprint put together by the state’s leading business associations.

“Oregon and Oregon’s workers will benefit from the Oregon Investment Act, which will ensure our state’s job-creation investments are effective, coordinated, and responsive to business needs,” said John Mohlis, Executive Secretary of the Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council.

Details about the legislation can be found at www.oregoninvestmentact.org.

The State Treasury protects public assets and saves Oregonians money through its investment, banking, and debt management functions. The office also promotes public outreach and education to help Oregonians learn strategies to save money, invest for college and make smart financial choices.

Oregon Law FrimIs Super Bowl Protected by Trademark or Copyright Law? Try Both

One of the questions we commonly get from broadcasters and others around this time of year is whether and/or how they can use the term SUPER BOWL. Some refer to it as a trademark while others call it a copyright. Who is right…and how can it be used? The term SUPER BOWL is a registered trademark owned by the National Football League. We previously discussed this issue in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Actually, the NFL owns at least eight trademark registrations containing the words SUPER BOWL, as well trademark registrations for the terms PRO BOWL and even SUPER SUNDAY. Aside from these trademark registrations, the NFL also owns the copyright to the telecast of the game itself. You may have heard that in past years, the NFL tried to stop Super Bowl parties shown on large TV screens. This was an enforcement of the NFL’s copyright in the game. Now, the NFL apparently no longer tries to stop Super Bowl parties unless the proprietor charges admission to see the game. Again, this is a copyright issue. But what do these rights mean for a broadcaster who wants to run a Super Bowl promotion or an advertiser who wants to run a campaign involving the Big Game?

When it comes to use of the trademarked term SUPER BOWL, the NFL will take action against third party attempts to use that term in a commercial sense, in other words, to sell goods and services using the term SUPER BOWL in advertising. This is because commercial sponsors pay the NFL to be the official car or soft drink or whatever of the SUPER BOWL. Any unauthorized use of that term in advertising could imply a false sponsorship or affiliation with the NFL.

So, what is permitted? It is fine to use the term SUPER BOWL in news stories about the game and in conversations about the game. There is a trademark concept called “nominative fair use” that allows others to use a trademarked term when there is simply no better way to refer to it. But that concept does not extend to commercial use of the term.

In summary, you can discuss the Super Bowl and do news stories about the Super Bowl, all while referring to it as the Super Bowl. But any commercials or promotional announcements should avoid use of that trademarked term. It is OK for commercials to refer to it as the “Big Game” or any other term that does not include the words “Super Bowl” or “Super Sunday.”

And go ahead and have that TV Super Bowl party you were planning. You will not be violating any copyright enforced by the NFL so long as you do not charge admission to see the game. By contrast, selling food and drink at the venue is permitted. In fact, that is pretty much what every bar in the US will be doing on Super Sunday.

Huge Price Drops for Tablets, TVs, Travel & Super Bowl Tickets.

While the cost of essential items like gas and food will continue to rise, analysts predict that current economic trends favor lower prices on tablets, televisions, and travel in 2012.

Big screen TVs

If the past few years are any guide, consumers could purchase an LCD or 3D television for significantly less, as well. In just two years, the price of a 42” LCD TV has been cut in half and now sells for roughly $500. Recent reports indicate that the price of a 3D TV dropped more than 30% in 2011. According to one study, the number of households with an HDTV may now run as high as 60%, making market saturation of similar products a key driver of cheaper prices. Moreover, PCWorld recently reported that television manufactures are introducing new technology this year—think even thinner, lighter, more vivid TVs—in hopes of creating interest and demand for newer, more expensive televisions. Expect prices of current models to drop further as these new products are introduced and retailers respond by marking down existing inventory.

Super Bowl Tickets

The Boston Globe reports that cost for a 2012 Super Bowl ticket has dropped $300 as the big game  nears. The price dropped from $3,982 to $4,311.  Some prices in different markets have dropped by more than 20%.  The data was collected by aggregating ticket sales websites StubHub, EBay, TicketNetwork & TicketsNow. Ticket prices drop dramatically as unsold spaces remain open near game day.

Tablets

Consumers could get their favorite tablets for hundreds of dollars less in coming months. Among other things, Apple is expected to release its iPad 3 this year, which will likely make the iPad 2 more affordable. Whatever Apple does in the tablet market will inevitably challenge lesser competitors to respond with better products, lower prices, or some combination of both. Regardless of Apple, experts say the recent influx of poorly made, overpriced tablets that have flooded the market has set the stage for a market correction that will generally result in cheaper prices. According to USA Today, the new year has already seen manufactures slash prices as much as one-third in an effort to separate themselves from the competition. Research in Motion, for example, which makes the Blackberry Playbook tablet, has cut the price of its product from $299 to $100 in a well-advertised promotion. And Amazon and Barnes & Noble will continue to exert a downward pressure on prices as their increasingly popular tablets sell at cost and generate profit instead from additional content.

Travel

There are dueling predictions that world travel costs will either increase or decrease in 2012.    Here is the case that world travel prices could decline.    Empty airplane seats and fewer drivers may cause transportation companies to temporarily lower prices—at least in some destinations. While airplane tickets are expected to rise overall, major airlines are having trouble filling seats on cross-Atlantic flights. Travel to Europe might, therefore, be more accessible than in recent years if the trend continues and airlines begin slashing prices. Not only may it be cheaper in 2012 to fly to Europe, a weakening Euro and Europe’s ongoing economic problems may help your dollar go farther than it has in years in terms of meals, lodging, and other items. As for domestic travel, analysts predict that car rental companies will have more inventory than demand this year. That could bode well generally for many domestic travelers in search of cheap rental deals. And consumers will get a little help from a new federal rule that requires airlines to make the actual costs of a ticket—fees and all—more transparent. That means more informed decisions and fewer surprises when time to checkout at the ticket counter.

Report: Portland has 5th highest water and sewer rates in the U.S.

However, in several cities, water and sewer rate increases were considerably higher. For instance, Portland had one of the biggest increases at 9 percent.

The study also identified those cities with the most expensive and the least costly water and sewer rates.

The five cities with the highest water/sewer rates in the United States in 2011:

- Atlanta, Georgia
- Seattle, Washington
- Newport, Rhode Island
- San Francisco, California
- Portland, Oregon

And the lowest rates:

•Biloxi, Mississippi
•El Paso, Texas
•Memphis, Tennessee
•Chicago, Illinois
•Greenville, South Carolina

Yet another sign today that the US may be on the road to recovery: the US grew at an annualized rate of 2.8% last quarter. This is good news considering where we have been these last few years, but not good enough to may anyone feel good about the staying power of such a trend. And the trend itself isn’t good enough: at a 2.8% rate we’ll be lucky to keep up with jab market growth – so we won’t be making any real progress on unemployment. But if this presages a more robust recovery, and if Europe doesn’t slide into serious recession and drag us down with it, then it is good news.

As you can tell, all of the qualifiers are the problem. But it is much better to be fretting over whether this positive momentum can be maintained and accelerated than wondering when the economy will hit bottom. Unlike recovery of years past, this does not look like one that will have a sharp and rapid recovery. Just about everyone, myself included, think it is going to take a very long time.

One interesting aspect of the current growth is that businesses have become a little more bullish on the future, building up inventories, but consumers are not keeping pace. There is a concern that unless consumers jump back into the market, the whole thing will sputter. From The New York Times:

Growth in the fourth quarter … was driven mostly by companies rebuilding their stockroom inventories, and not by consumers who were shopping more or foreign businesses buying more American-made products. And companies are likely to have only so much appetite for refilling their backroom shelves if consumers are still unwilling to buy those products.

Consumer spending rose at an annual pace of 2 percent, slightly better than the 1.7 percent in the previous quarter, Friday’s report showed. But based on early data, it looks as if consumer spending deteriorated toward the end of the year. This may be because of unseasonably warm December weather, which probably lowered families’ household electricity and gas bills, said Jay Feldman, an economist at Credit Suisse.

But the investment in inventories should help incomes and employment which, in turn, should help spur more consumption – so there is reason for some optimism there. And there is evidence that both orders for durable goods are up, and that credit for small business is easing, as the general level of confidence in the recovery grows. But then there is the old bugaboo of sharp cuts in government spending:

One of the biggest drags on growth in the last quarter was government spending cuts at the federal, state and local levels, according to the Commerce Department report. National defense spending fell a whopping 12.5 percent, for example, an unusually large dip that economists do not expect to see repeated in the beginning of 2012. Strapped state and local governments are likely to continue cutting back in 2012, as they have done nearly every quarter for the last several years.

So as long as state and local governments are still cutting and Europe is still dealing with a potentially debilitating crisis, we are unlikely to see really strong growth. I guess we’ll have to be satisfied with what we can get in the interim.

Video of the week: CNN interviews Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, on the tax debate coming right out of President Obama’s State of the Union. See Bill Gates interview below.

Since the financial crisis of 2008 western economies have been in a continual state of crisis. In Europe one sovereign nation after another has faced the prospect of significantly reducing government spending or defaulting on its debt. So deep is this problem that now formerly solid economies such as that of France stare into the abyss of an intractable problem of weak economic growth and unmanageable debt.

In the United States as well there continues to be the hangover from our long national cheap credit binge. America’s largest financial institutions, many of which are insolvent if their assets were marked-to-market, continue to play a disproportionately large role in the economy and the thinking of government policymakers. While the real economy continues to slowly grow it remains ever subject to the threat of being strangled by insurmountable government debt.

These then are the crises of capitalism: out of control government spending, and private sector institutions, largely financial companies, that remain on government life support. So dire is the situation that citizens of nations like China and Russia now mock the West, and question the very system that made Americans and Europeans the wealthiest people on the planet.

What is largely missing from the public discussion is an acknowledgment that this is a crisis not of capitalism but rather one created by the absence of capitalism. In response to failed industries and business models governments in the US and Europe chose to prop up broken companies, rather than suffer the political consequences of letting them fail. Rather than capitalism the West embraced crony capitalism, where the well connected were rescued by public subsidy under the guise of economic stability.

True capitalism requires winners and losers. In exchange for the creative destruction and instability of competition consumers are rewarded with more innovative products at lower prices. Although capitalism is inherently volatile it has proved time and again to be the fairest and most successful way of distributing scares goods and services in a society.

Unfortunately governments in the US and Europe have take a different route, choosing to prop-up banks and borrowers rather than letting bad bets settle as they must. The result is a long, drawn out crisis where everyone in society pays the price of bailing out the few.

The crisis of capitalism in the West, then, must be seen as a crisis of the absence of capitalism. Until policymakers are willing to withstand the volatility in their own job security by letting businesses fail, we will continue to suffer from strangled growth and diminished dreams.

What was once said of democracy (another competitive, winner-take-all system that has proved remarkably resilient) is true of free markets as well: the cure for the ails of capitalism is more capitalism. Only by unleashing competition and removing government from picking winners and losers, will we return to the path of prosperity and growth set by generations of hardworking Americans before us.

Oregon Employers: Mandatory Union Notices Delayed Again Until April 30

Late last year, AOI advised its members that they needed to comply with new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rules – slated to go into effect on January 31 – that requires nearly all employers in Oregon to post a notice of an employee’s right to unionize. The posting also lists a number of unlawful employer actions as well as contact information for the NLRB.

The regulation requires that all employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act conspicuously post the notice where other employment notices are customarily posted, as well as on a company “intranet or internet site if the employer customarily communicates with its employees about personnel rules or policies by such means.”

This regulation has been delayed again – this time until April 30.

Why is the regulation so important?

AOI members should be advised that the potential penalties for failing to post the notice are significant. First, the very failure to post this new notice can, by itself, constitute an unfair labor practice according to the regulation.

Additionally, the Board may extend the Act’s six-month limitation period for the filing of any other unfair labor practice charge against an employer who fails to post, even if the failure to post has nothing whatsoever to do with that charge. Furthermore, a knowing and willful failure to post may be used as evidence of unlawful motive by the employer regarding any such charge.

These are very significant penalties. AOI members are advised to understand the new regulation and prepare for compliance.

The good news; however, is that the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has challenged the new rule in federal court. AOI, NAM, and a litany of other business groups believe that the NLRB is out-of-bounds and does not have authority under the law to issue such regulations.

For instance, the National Labor Relations Act only allows the NLRB to enforce notice postings for specific employers only in the event of a filing of representation or an unfair labor practice charge. It does not give broad authority to the NLRB to assert jurisdiction over any employer absent these events. You can see NAM’s legal challenge here.

Oral arguments in the case – NAM v. NLRB – were made in federal court on December 19. As a result of the pending lawsuit, Judge Amy Berman Jackson requested that the NLRB postpone implementation of the new rule until April 30.

A decision on this important case is expected soon.

AOI will continue to monitor these new regulations and court challenges and report to our members.

In 2011, Better Business Bureau serving Alaska, Oregon and Western Washington provided 2,975,099 BBB Business Reviews on local companies

Top 20 Complaints
1. Cellular Telephone Service & Supplies
2. Internet Selling Services
3. Internet Access Provider
4. Computers Software & Services
5. Travel Agencies & Bureaus
6. Computer Software Publishers & Developers
7.  Auto Dealers – New Cars
8. Collection Agencies
9. Auto Dealers – Used Cars
10. Property Management
11. Coupon Book Promotions
12. Online Networking
13. Auto Repair & Service
14. Searchers of Records
15. Financial Services
16. Television – Cable, CATV & Satellite
17. Apartments
18. Restaurants
19. Furniture – Retail
20. Lighting Fixtures – Retail

Top Inquries

1. Games & Supplies
2. Contractors – General
3. Roofing Contractors
4. Auto Dealers – Used Cars
5. Construction & Remodeling Services
6. Heating & Air Conditioning
7. Auto Repair & Service
8. Real Estate Loans
9. Auto Dealers – New Cars
10. Plumbing Contractors
11. Property Management
12. Painting Contractors
13. Movers
14. Cellular Telephone Service & Supplies
15. Contractors – Electrical
16. Collection Agencies
17. Home Builders
18. Internet Selling Services
19. Landscape Contractors
20. Auto Body Repair & Painting

Ninth Circuit rejects nationwide class action for false advertising from

The Ninth Circuit continues to grapple with the standards for certifying class actions following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). Last week, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit refused to certify a nationwide class action on behalf of individuals who bought or leased Acura RL automobiles equipped with a Collision Mitigation Braking System.

In Mazza v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., plaintiffs claimed that Honda misrepresented and concealed material information about the braking system in the marketing and sale of Acura RL vehicles. Plaintiffs made claims under California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws. While the District Court found common issues of law and fact sufficient to certify a nationwide class, the Ninth Circuit reversed. Judge Ronald M. Gould, writing for the majority, focused on the admonition in Wal-Mart that commonality means that an issue central to each class member’s claim is subject to resolution “in one stroke.”

Material differences in the consumer protection laws of the states in which class members reside, and those states’ interests in having their own laws apply, caused the court to conclude that common issues of law do not predominate. Further, the small scale of the advertising campaign for the braking system did not support a presumption that all purchasers and lessors relied on the alleged false advertising. The proposed class, as defined, would almost certainly include members who were not exposed to the allegedly misleading advertising material, and as a result common issues of fact would not predominate.

Judge Dorothy W. Nelson issued a strong dissent. She stated first that, because the allegations of false advertising are based on omissions rather than affirmative statements, it is appropriate to impute reliance to the class. Second, the differences among the consumer protection statutes of the states in which class members reside are not material and should not block a class action. Finally, because American Honda and its advertising agency are headquartered in California, that state’s interest in deterring false advertising makes it appropriate to apply California law. Judge Nelson decried the seemingly insurmountable hurdles to a nationwide class action by consumers subjected to false advertising: “If the harm to individual consumers is small enough to create a disincentive to individual litigation, and if a nationwide class action is not a potential consequence, corporations can choose increased revenues over the consumer with impunity.”

In Portland, road maintenance takes a backseat to bikes and streetcars

Following up on a previous article, the figure below shows that as Portland’s road paving backlog has grown, the city has expanded bikeways and streetcar lines.

Yes, yes, I know, correlation is not the same as causation.

Nevertheless, the figure demonstrates that the city appears to have sacrificed road maintenance in favor of alternative modes of transportation.

U.S. Chamber Pledges to Continue to Find Effective Solution to Foreign Rogue Websites

WASHINGTON D.C.—David Hirschmann, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center, released the following statement in response to the postponement of the consideration of S. 968 (the PROTECT IP Act) and H.R. 3261 (the Stop Online Piracy Act):

“Throughout this debate we have been encouraged that all parties have recognized the need to address this critical threat to consumers and American jobs. The Chamber will continue to work with Congress to help advance solutions that will both effectively protect intellectual property while preserving a vibrant and innovative Internet.
“We thank the U.S. Senate, and in particular Chairmen Leahy and Smith, for having the will to work on a bipartisan basis to tackle the widespread theft of intellectual property (IP).

“The right legislation is a win-win-win—good for jobs, consumers, and the Internet. With 19 million jobs in the balance, we appreciate that Congress will continue to make the issue of foreign criminal websites a priority.”

The Chamber’s Global Intellectual Property Center is working around the world to champion intellectual property (IP) rights as vital to creating jobs, saving lives, advancing global economic growth, and generating breakthrough solutions to global challenges.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations.

Oregon Court: Good News – Businesses Can Offset Corporate Minimum Tax with Credits

In a key court decision that flew under the radar during the Christmas holiday, the Oregon Tax Court sided with Con-Way, Inc. in its dispute with the Oregon Department of Revenue.

At issue: Con-Way’s use of Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) to offset its corporate minimum tax liability under Measure 67.

For the 2009 tax year, Con-Way acquired a BETC credit of $75,000. Con-Way reported no net income for 2009, but generated enough sales to trigger a $75,000 corporate minimum tax liability under Measure 67. Con-Way applied its BETC credit to offset its 2009 tax liability.

The Oregon Department of Revenue disallowed Con-Way’s use of the BETC credit and instead assessed penalties and interest, asserting that the Measure 67 corporate minimum tax law requires a cash payment each year in the amount of any liability calculated under the Measure 67 scheme regardless of any tax credits.

The Tax Court disagreed. It admonished the Department, saying, “…the department asks the court to add words to the statute so that it reads that there is an obligation to pay ‘in cash and without regard to any tax credit otherwise available to the taxpayer.’ Not only does the statute not contain those words, the context of the revenue laws as a whole indicates that when the legislature desires to prevent a tax credit from being used to satisfy a minimum tax obligation, it knows how to say so and has, in fact, said so.”

In short the Court found no legislative evidence supporting the Department’s position.

The effect of the ruling to AOI members is that BETC credits may now be applied against corporate minimum tax liabilities.

Might the Legislature try and intervene? The interim legislative Revenue Committees discussed this issue last September. Representative Phil Barnhart (D-Eugene) argued that he and his Democratic colleagues meant to deny offsetting when they passed the tax increases in the 2009 Legislative session. Representative Vicki Berger (R-Salem) countered that she wasn’t in the group of legislators that passed Measure 67 and she didn’t see the words in the statute. The Tax Court affirmed her position.

AOI will keep a close watch on this issue during the February 2012 Legislative session. It is likely that a 3/5 supermajority vote of the legislature would be needed to deny Oregon companies the ability to offset corporate minimum tax liabilities with the BETC credit.

New Ballot Measure Says “NO” to Double Taxation of Property

Already nearly 100,000 Oregonians have signed the petition to stop real estate transfer taxes in Oregon. Over 116,284 signatures will be needed to put this measure on the November 2012 ballot.

The measure, Initiative Petition 5, prohibits the practice of taxing home sales in Oregon. These taxes are a form of double taxation on top of property taxes that are paid to support schools and local government.

In reality, these taxes on home sales, known as Real Estate Transfer Taxes, are not common practice in Oregon, though they are common throughout the country. In Oregon, only Washington County levies a small tax on the sale of property.

However, over the past decade, the Oregon Legislature has considered nine attempts to authorize a home sales tax at the state or local level.

It’s a real issue, and the impact of a Real Estate Transfer tax is significant. At a 2% tax rate (the current national average), it would add $3,800 to the average home sale in Oregon, further dampening this critical sector in our economy.

For more information on the petition click here

If you have ever visited Portland, it’s fairly certain that someone will proclaim that the city has more strip clubs per capita than any other city. Indeed, Portland’s reputation is international. Earlier this year, the UK’s Guardian newspaper dropped the factoid in its review of Voodoo Donut.

More recently (in an article that doesn’t seem to have much of a point), The Economist magazine paints a scene in which progressives bike side-by-side with the prurient:

“Peaceful, green, and liberal, Portland has a reputation for being unusually socially conscious. So visitors are sometimes surprised to learn that it is a plausible contender for the title of lewdest place in America. It has more strip clubs per head than any other city; in its compact downtown, sex shops are scattered amid the bookstores, coffee bars and social services.”

Aside from that fact that there is hardly a scattering of sex shops and—truth be told—downtown is somewhat bereft of bookstores, The Economist article repeats Portland’s most famous statistic that it has more strip clubs per person than any other city.

Is it true?

Ask a Portlander if the statistic is true and he or she will say, “Sure it’s true, just ask anyone!”

It’s not a statistic that the Census Bureau collects. The Chamber of Commerce does not spend any energy counting its members who own strip clubs.

So where did the statistic come from?

The oldest article I could find online came from a 1995 Willamette Week article which suggests the newspaper conducted its own survey:

“And what of that “most strip clubs” boast? Our Internet survey of Las Vegas, the gold standard of urban debauchery, reveals 30 clubs, which works out to 5.85 strip joints per 100,000 residents. San Francisco, that legendarily libidinous burg, is estimated by SF’s adult weekly, The Spectator, to have 17 strip clubs, or 2.2 per 100,000 residents. By comparison, Uncovered and Exotic list 41 strip clubs within the Portland city limits. With a whopping 7.74 clubs per 100,000 residents, Portland solidly trounces these two centers of vice in number of brass poles per citizen. In your face, San Francisco!”

Bottom line: A local paper began with the assumption that only Las Vegas and San Francisco could possibly beat Portland in the metric of strip clubs per person. The paper counted clubs, divided by population, and—voilà!—a legend was born. The methodology is pretty shaky, so you should take a generous grain of salt next time you’re told Portland has the most strips per person of any city. If this were PolitiFact, the claim would be rated “Barely True.”

Chevrolet Volt Energizes the Rich

The Chevrolet Volt is far from being the everyday driver for the average American. In fact only 7,671 were sold in 2011 which is just short of General Motors goal of 10,000 vehicles. It has an average price of over $40K which immediately eliminates many buyers. The average Volt buyer earns about $170K per year so I guess you can call them rich. As of 2011 you could get $7500 federal and $1500 Oregon tax credits to assist with your purchase. This is a nice chunk of change and is about 25% of the overall cost of the car!

Electric vehicles as well as hybrids are here to help with overall fuel consumption and the dependence of foreign oil. This of course is a good thing to many but in the end I would like to pose this question. Should those that make far less than those that can afford these vehicles pay taxes to the federal government so that they can turn around and give them to the rich as tax credits to buy these types of vehicles? I am not picking on Chevrolet Volt but using it as an example. The Nissan Leaf falls into my point as well even though it has an average cost around the low $30K’s.

It is President Obama’s goal to get 1 million electric vehicles on the road within four years. At current figures this amounts to $7.5 billion in subsidy that is paid by the US taxpayer. Maybe seeing this in long form might make a grander statement. That’s $7,500,000,000. This is a lot of money regardless of how you look at it! If the rich or anyone for that matter wants one of these electric vehicles then let them buy it on their own without the subsidies.

I am all for advancing technology but I really do not think these subsidies are needed on vehicles that cost this much money since it really is not helping most Americans. If anything let’s stay on track to build vehicles that get great miles per gallon for the majority of Americans including low and medium income households that can afford them. Going green is great but putting green bills in the pockets of rich Americans is not what it is all about!

This article was written by José Pinomesa who is the owner of José Mesa Auto Wholesale, LLC. JMAW is a retail auto dealer in Portland who has been selling new and used cars and trucks since 1992. For more information please visit www.josemesa.com.