Reversing Oregon’s economic slide requires better leadership
Intel’s massive layoffs are just the latest sign that Oregon’s economy is suffering from neglect and inattention
I’ve been tied up with family and lawyerin’ this week. Fortunately for Oregon Roundup but unfortunately for Oregon, the news cycle matches up perfectly with Mark Hester’s business and economy wheelhouse. Here’s another can’t-miss piece from him. - Jeff Eager
Intel’s announcement last week that it plans to lay off 2,400 workers, in addition to thousands of jobs they already have cut, generated an instant effort to assign blame.
For example, one of the first things Gov. Tina Kotek did after Intel filed its latest layoff warnings was to announce that she was directing state agencies to analyze how tariffs are affecting Oregon’s economy. As I’ve written before, I’m not a fan of President Trump’s tariff blitz. But I’m even less a fan of state officials who rail about something they can’t change while ignoring more immediate threats that they can address.
Instead of playing the blame game, everyone with influence in Oregon, both public and private sector, should be focused on how to replace the jobs that Intel is cutting. That type of leadership has been missing for too long.
If we’re honest with ourselves, Intel’s announcement had nothing to do with tariffs or Oregon taxes and regulations. They mostly are the result of bad decisions by Intel. However, they hit especially hard in Oregon because no state is more dependent on Intel than Oregon is. Since Nike was formally created in 1971 (it was a small company with a different name before) and Intel built its first Oregon plant in 1976, Oregon has done too little to diversify and grow the state’s economy. To the extent Oregon has had an economic policy it has centered around trying to appease Nike and Intel.
There’s nothing wrong with being attentive to the needs of two of the state’s most visible and largest employers. But ignoring the need to help new companies sprout and grow has left Oregon vulnerable to a downturn at any of the few major private employers it has.
Now, the state’s two signature employers are struggling, though Nike’s problems are less severe and more correctable than Intel’s.
No one in Oregon politics at any level, except maybe Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, has even minimal hope of influencing President Trump on tariffs. Similarly, few if any business leaders outside Intel can help the company, which has lost about 80 percent of its peak market value, reverse its free fall.
What all Oregon leaders should be asking is why has Oregon failed to attract or grow any new Nikes or Intels for a half century? Dutch Bros is the success story that comes closest to Nike and Intel, but the latest chapter in that company’s history also is discouraging for Oregon. The drive-thru coffee chain announced last month that it is moving its headquarters from Oregon to Arizona.
A good place to start is by compiling a list of strengths and weaknesses.
We’ll start with the weaknesses, which combined to land Oregon at No. 39 on CNBC’s recently released ranking of state business climates. CNBC ranked Oregon 47th for business friendliness, 43rd for cost of doing business and 41st for economic health. Taxes were included in cost of doing business, but if you break them out separately Oregon also would be bottom 10 for most businesses. The lack of sales tax helps a certain type of locally focused business but barely moves the needle for a large manufacturer or headquarters company.
Now, let’s look at strengths. Oregon’s best ranks were 14th for technology and Innovation and for infrastructure. What about “quality of life,” the thing that almost all Oregonians cite as one of our biggest strengths. CNBC put Oregon in the middle of the pack at 19. There was no explanation of why, but ubiquitous tent cities and Portland’s rapidly declining downtown can’t help. Personal opinion: Those who live here tend to forget that there are other states with fantastic scenery, plus more business-friendly state government than Oregon. Colorado, Washington, Utah, California, Idaho and Wyoming all ranked ahead of Oregon on the CNBC list. Keep quality of life on the strength list for now, but it does not appear to be enough to offset the weaknesses.
Colorado sets an example worth looking at for several reasons:
It ranked 11th on the CNBC business climate rankings, higher than any other Western state.
Culturally, it is similar to Oregon, even more progressive in some ways (it legalized marijuana first).
Like Oregon, it has to navigate tensions between a traditional resource economy and the desire to preserve its natural beauty.
Both states have influential environmental activists.
So, why has Colorado managed those tensions better? There are many reasons, but it starts with leadership. For the past 14 years, Colorado has been led by governors who were highly successful entrepreneurs. John Hickenlooper, now a U.S. Senator, opened the first microbrewery in Colorado. Current governor Jared Polis was an early pioneer in online businesses, first with an internet access provider and later with multiple e-commerce companies.
Both are Democrats. Unlike most Republicans, they are not opposed to regulation in concept. Unlike most Democrats, they understand what is needed, what isn’t and how to implement regulations.
Whether it’s a new governor or a private leader who the governor is willing to listen to, Oregon desperately needs someone with influence who respects business and understands how to nurture a welcoming business environment. The state hasn’t had a governor with a business background since Vic Atiyeh finished his second term in 1987 - and it shows.
 | A guest post by
|
“But I’m even less a fan of state officials who rail about something they can’t change while ignoring more immediate threats that they can address.”
well spoken
What Oregon’s Legislature Really Tells Us About Leadership
Mark Hester’s essay, “Reversing Oregon’s Economic Slide Requires Better Leadership,” rightly critiques the state’s long-standing reliance on a few economic pillars—Nike and Intel—at the expense of broader growth. But this isn’t a problem of inaction; rather, it’s a problem of misdirected action under Governor Tina Kotek and her Democratic-led legislature.
Progressive Ideological Priorities—Legislated, Not Earned
In 2023, the legislature passed HB 2002, a sweeping expansion of gender-affirming care coverage in Oregon. The law mandates insurance coverage for procedures such as facial feminization, hair removal, and tracheal shaves, and includes a “shield law” protecting providers from out-of-state disciplinary actions. Yet HB 2002 did not advance gay or lesbian rights; it expanded irreversible gender interventions for minors and adults without parental consent. Many within Oregon’s gay and lesbian communities argue it risks funneling proto-gay youth into the gender-affirmation system under ideological pressure, all while being billed rhetorically as a broad LGBTQ+ victory.
This scenario illustrates how Oregon’s political leadership is deeply invested in identity-driven legislation—and willing to overhaul medical-ethical norms—rather than building economic capacity or workforce resilience.
Union-Centric Lawmaking
During both legislative sessions, Kotek and her allies prioritized public-sector union interests. Key measures included widening prevailing wage requirements, preserving automatic union dues deductions, expanding unemployment benefits for striking workers, and shielding public employees from repayment mandates when overpayment occurs. In 2025, a law requiring landlords to conduct private well-water testing under the guise of public health shifted enforcement burdens onto individuals—while placating tenant-advocacy groups aligned with unions.
These moves disproportionately benefit organized government employees, with no direct return in job creation or economic expansion. Instead, they reinforce an entrenched public-sector base.
Housing Reform: Announced Boldly, Executed Poorly
Nowhere is the gap between rhetoric and execution more apparent than in Governor Kotek’s high-profile housing production pledge. In early 2023, she set a statewide target of 36,000 new homes per year—a figure well above current annual production levels and presented as essential to solving Oregon’s worsening affordability crisis. Yet the effort quickly stalled.
Instead of aligning incentives with the private sector—developers, builders, buyers, lenders, and suppliers—the plan became bogged down in the formation of a Housing Production Advisory Council and ultimately proposed the creation of yet another bureaucratic oversight entity, the Oregon Housing Accountability Office. Rather than mobilize the economic actors who create and fund housing, the plan relies heavily on regulatory penalties for cities and towns that fail to meet state-defined benchmarks for land-use streamlining. It’s a classic example of upstream control without downstream buy-in.
Two years later, the promised acceleration in housing production has not materialized, and the machinery meant to implement the governor’s vision is only now being stood up. Without meaningful incentives for those who actually finance and build homes, the plan—however well-intentioned—is structurally doomed to fall short.
Infrastructure Neglected, Commissions Created
Meanwhile, both the 2023 and 2025 sessions failed to pass any transformative infrastructure or economic diversification bills. In 2025, an $11.7 billion transportation package collapsed in cliffhanger negotiations. What did pass, by contrast, were advisory boards, technical planning bodies, and one-off regulatory tweaks—initiatives that signal intent more than actual delivery.
This reflects a broader governance pattern under Kotek: legislation for optics and structure, not for action and impact.
Betting the Farm on Intel—Again
In 2023, the legislature adopted SB 4, a sweeping incentive bill setting aside $210 million in grants and loans to attract semiconductor investment, chiefly for Intel. It even granted the governor temporary authority to override urban growth boundaries to accommodate fab sites. The CHIPS-focused strategy succeeded in attracting roughly $1.8 billion in federal funding for Intel’s Hillsboro facility.
Governor Kotek heralded this as a victory, but it has failed to catalyze new growth. Intel recently announced another 2,392 layoffs in Oregon, contributing to over 5,400 job losses in the state since 2024. Despite hundreds of millions in public subsidy, Intel’s continued retrenchment underscores Oregon’s deep and risky dependence on a single, faltering employer.
Oregon today is not suffering from apathy—it’s suffering from purposeful misalignment. Legislative energy is being spent on gender ideology, union benefits, and symbolic governance rather than economic dynamism, infrastructure renewal, or strategic investment. Even when the state sets worthy goals, as with housing production, it undermines them through over-centralized planning and a failure to engage the actors who actually deliver results.
Mark Hester is right: Oregon needs better leadership. But what it really needs is leadership that:
Sees economic health as a purpose in itself, not a byproduct of cultural signaling.
Balances private-sector innovation with progressive goals instead of treating them as adversarial.
Understands that jobs, investment, and housing require infrastructure, capital, and coherent policy—backed by incentives, not just mandates.
Until that kind of leadership arrives, Oregon’s government will remain busy, active, and highly ideological—but still economically stalled.