Posted by: Josh Lehner | October 7, 2015

Portland Household Growth by Income (Housing)

There is an important piece of the housing conversation that I think is missing and the just released 2014 American Community Survey data can help answer. In short, much of the new construction in Portland has come at the higher end of the market. Rents of $2 per sqft, median home sale price back above $300,000 with nearly all homes in close-in neighborhoods selling well above that, including for demolitions. The question that keeps coming up is: who is buying or renting these expensive properties? It was asked again during the Q&A portion of Metro’s recent housing affordability presentation and panel as well. (If you happen to find yourself with a spare 90 minutes, do watch/listen to the whole thing.)

We knew that the economy in Oregon was growing at full-throttle rates, which combined with job polarization meant that many high-wage jobs were being created. Particularly in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, like Portland, that are faring the best overall. In fact, so far in recovery high-wage jobs in Portland are growing at 5%+ annually.


This meant there were more workers, and therefore households, out there with higher incomes, however measuring this is harder in real time given data limitations. The just released 2014 ACS data shows that, on net, nearly all of the household growth in Portland is in the higher income brackets, relative to 2007. Former colleague and current City of Portland economist, Josh Harwood, found similar patterns across some other big cities. I chose 2007 as the comparison point given that is the last time the region saw these same home prices. So we’re comparing housing peak to housing peak time periods, at least so far.


Clearly such households can afford the high rents and home prices. Furthermore, given these trends, on one level it makes sense that new construction is largely going to meet this higher end demand. Not only is the cost of production relatively high (land and labor), credit availability is still restricted for both developers and buyers. Right now there seems to be lots of low volume, high margin building, particularly on the ownership side.

Even so, it has still been disappointing from a big picture economic perspective that building has not been more evenly distributed across the income spectrum. Even if the number of households among the lower and middle income brackets is relatively unchanged in this snapshot, it still represents the bulk of the population which has struggled with rising rents and no real income gains.

One more thing. Not all of these more numerous higher income households are migrants, or Californians. Some certainly are, but there is considerable movement across these income groups during the past decade. In my own experience, I have been in 3 of the different groups and actually represent a net loss of one household as I got married (two single households turn into one). To help show such movements, below is a GIF of these changes. Notice how during the recession and immediate aftermath, the number of lower income households increased considerably (it was a recession, duh).


There is lots more of housing related items I am working on, from affordability to demographics to renting and its influences. I will be a part of both Multifamily NW’s apartment report breakfast (Oct. 14th) and the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland’s 2016 housing forecast (Nov. 6th).

Posted by: Josh Lehner | October 5, 2015

Housing Affordability and Residual Income

Over at City Observatory, Daniel Hertz, has a really interesting threepart series on housing affordability . Essentially, what it boils down to is how we commonly talk about housing affordability is incomplete, at best. Our most common rule of thumb is 30% of income as the affordability measure. I use it all the time and it’s a common figure people pull from Census data. The problem here — as with any ratio or percent, like debt to GDP, or the unemployment rate — is that it has both a numerator and a denominator. Movements in either, or both, can be driving the result. Furthermore, when it comes to household budgets, it’s not always shares of income or spending that matter but their overall level as well. In particular, do you have enough to afford the basics (housing, clothing, transportation, food, etc)? That’s really what we care about, and the 30% of income measure is a rough gauge to get us there, or at least we think so.

However, to really answer that question, Daniel highlights research about residual income. This work analyzes how much money a household needs to afford the basics after paying their mortgage or rent. Take a household’s total amount of income, subtract out their housing costs and what remains is the household’s residual income (hence the name). Is that remainder enough to pay for transit, food and the like?

Given the complexity of the actual research work — where it gets in-depth and nuanced as it adjusts for household composition (single, married, single parent, etc) and some cost of living type work — I set out to try and create a more simple, easy-to-use and replicable measure of residual income. The graphs below show residual income for renters by zip code in Oregon* by taking median household income for renters and subtracting median rents. I think that’s a pretty good estimate, although it does not adjust for those nuances of household composition.



Just as the 30% of income rule of thumb exists, I wanted to have a rough equivalent for residual income. As a starter — and I would love to hear your ideas — that measure is the non-shelter expenditures from the BLS consumer expenditure survey, for the second quintile of households. That’s a mouthful, I know. Non-shelter (or non-housing) expenditures are readily available from the BLS data and I chose the second quintile as most in the first quintile are below the poverty line. Clearly that is not sufficient to measure affordability. The second quintile represents households that are above poverty and how they spend their money. In this case, it works out to about $25,500 annually on non-shelter items.

Across Oregon, renters in 54% of the state’s zip codes are classically cost burdened, using the 30% rule. However, 70% of zip codes are facing residual income issues, meaning they do not have enough money left over after housing costs to afford what the typical low to moderate income household does. Some of the zip codes change from being affordable to not or vice versus depending upon the measure. That was Daniel’s whole point. A hypothetical example is a Doctor. She may spend 50 percent of her income on a really nice house in an expensive neighborhood, however her residual income would still be plenty. She is not truly cost burdened even if she would be counted as so by the traditional measure. Same here at the zip code level.

Zip codes are more granular and provide a more detailed look at the state then just county level data. Daniel even turned this same data into a nice interactive version of the graph (check it out!) although it includes both renters and owners, I believe. However, I think analysis along these lines would be great to incorporate at the neighborhood or census tract level when discussing housing affordability. Highlighting the amount of residual income vs the 30% measure can be illuminating in terms of identifying areas of need or concern.

*2013 ACS data, 5 year estimates. I will update in December when 2014 zip code data is released.


Posted by: Josh Lehner | September 29, 2015

Manufacturing Employment Update

Our office has spent a lot of time lately discussing one of the two reasons Oregon outperforms the typical state during an expansion: migration. However the other reason is in full force today as well: our industrial structure and ties to manufacturing, production and resource industries. In the second quarter, manufacturing was adding jobs at a 4 percent pace over the past year. That is as strong of gains as manufacturing has seen in the past couple of decades and is good news.


Manufacturing and production/resource jobs more broadly have a more pronounced boom/bust aspect to them over the business cycle. A lot has to do with the durable goods aspect which are generally bigger ticket items (homes, cars, computers, furniture, rail cars, boats, etc). Such products provide over 200,000 generally good-paying jobs in Oregon, however during a recession (and slow recovery) the demand for them dries up. Households that lose jobs cut back considerably on spending and focus on just the essentials. Even households that do not experience job loss also retrench, concerned about losing their job or having enough savings to make it through tough economic times. Having a computer that’s an extra year or three older than your typical replacement cycle is easily managed from a household’s perspective. Same with a car. And same with homes as well, it turns out, evidenced by the big growth in remodeling.

All told, these trends reverse during an expansion and pent-up demand is unleashed, driving sales higher. Along with increasing sales comes increasing employment for the production of such goods. This is where we are today, although the pent-up demand following the financial crisis and scarcity of credit availability has been muted. Except for autos of course.

Looking forward our office is less rosy in the sense we do not expect manufacturing gains of 4 percent to remain for long. This is beacuse historically such gains do not last long, however today the global economic slowdown is a bigger concern as is the stronger U.S. dollar (and Oregon dollar). Furthermore, manufacturing output (the value of the products) usually sees good growth but manufacturing employment generally lags output, due to increased productivity.

The technology cycle is waning and according to both media and firm reports, the state’s largest such business has made layoffs in recent months. The broader forest sector has added some 5,000 jobs in recent years but job growth has slowed in 2015. Until U.S. housing starts move higher, and closer to 1.5 million starts, the industry will see slower job growth. Overall our contacts within the industry are optimistic, seeing as eventually we need those homes due to population growth; it’s really just a matter of timing. Aerospace remains strong and the outlook is OK, although the China slowdown is impacting the industry. Similarly the state’s metal and machinery sectors have done well in recent years, yet the current recession in Canada is a big weight on the industry. These trends and global conditions impact the outlook and call for a relative slowdown in manufacturing, if not outright job losses. This is an ongoing situation, something our office is continuing to monitor. On a more positive note, construction employment should grow along with more housing starts. And food manufacturing continues to do very well and is expected to continue to do so moving forward.

Posted by: Josh Lehner | September 25, 2015

Metro Size and Employment, 2015

Our office’s work has focused quite a bit on the regional differences in economic recovery and expansion here in Oregon. Along these lines and by request from City Observatory‘s Joe Cortright, who also chairs the Governor’s Council of Economic Adivsors, I have updated our previous work looking at employment growth by metro size across the country. In the big picture, not much has changed in the past year or two. America’s largest metros (the 51 with a population of 1 million or more) have not only seen the strongest gains in recovery, they are growing at faster rates than their smaller metro and nonmetro counterparts. In other words, the gap is widening, even as the rural recovery is real, albeit slow.


In fact, as can be seen below, the largest metros are growing at about 2.5% over the past year, which is faster than they experienced during the housing boom and on par with much of the 1990s.


In terms of the outlook, our office wrote the following in our previous look at this:

The question is what is the normal pattern of growth? Is is the 1980s and housing boom years where most areas grow about the same? Or is it the mid to late 1990s and so far in the 2010s where larger cities outperform? It’s certainly an open ended question, but most outlooks call for continued urbanization of the population and for metro areas to outperform rural economies in general. This is at least partially due to the fact that all those good economic things — agglomeration effects, knowledge spillovers, clustering, etc — happen in certain locations, which are usually bigger cities. The case could also be made that the housing boom was an equalizer in which small and medium sized metros outperformed due to stronger population growth and the associated housing demand and activity that went along with it. This stronger growth also may have pulled some away from the larger cities at the same time. In this version of the story, today’s pattern of growth is simply a return to the expected one, which was interrupted by the housing boom where inflated asset prices/wealth may have impacted location decisions.

Finally, the map below shows such employment changes from 2007 through early 2015 at the individual county level. Counties in blue have more jobs today than back in 2007, while counties in yellow are a few percentage points below. Red counties still have employment levels that are more than 5 percent lower than in 2007.


Interestingly, rural America has actually seen a fairly typical number of counties doing well — compared with their small and medium sized metro brethren — with much of that in the oil and gas regions of the country. Yet the variance here is greater, with employment in 4 out of every 10 rural counties remaining substantially below its pre-Great Recession levels. This dichotomy between urban and rural economies is important from an economic and policy perspective. See our office’s recent report on rural Oregon for more, with many insights and anecdotes relevant to other regions of the country.

Lastly, while Oregon largely fits this narrative with Portland turning around first and outperforming much of the state, the big difference is the fact that Oregon’s second tier metros are booming today. Bend and Salem in particular are growing faster than Portland, and Eugene and Medford are growing well too. As with our state economy as a whole, a lot of this has to do with the fact Oregon always outperforms during expansions, due to our industrial structure and the migration flows. Both of these are in full force today, helping drive our economy higher.

Posted by: Josh Lehner | September 22, 2015

Jobs and Population Growth

Oregon’s economy is at full-throttle, but as our office has been discussing a lot more lately, migration flows have returned. A question that naturally arises is whether or not Oregon can handle and absorb these new job seekers. The answer is a clear yes. Today, Oregon needs approximately 2,000 jobs per month to keep up with population growth[1]. Oregon has gained just over 5,000 jobs per month in the past year. Furthermore, such job gains are more than enough to keep the unemployment rate steady and declining, despite the recent monthly pattern.

What the graph shows are both actual number of jobs gained by month compared with the number needed if the economy was operating at full strength. As such, the blue area represents an upper bound on the number of jobs needed to keep pace with population growth.


Back in 1990s it took about 3,000 jobs per month to keep up with population growth and thus keep the unemployment rate steady. This was due to both strong population growth and the fact the Baby Boomers were in their prime-working and peak-earning years. Today Oregon needs more like 2,000 jobs per month as population growth has slowed and the Baby Boomers are entering into their retirement years. Millennials are big enough to offset the retiring Boomers but not big enough to return potential labor force growth back to 3,000 per month.

What one also notices are the distinct periods during recessions and their aftermath where thousands of jobs were lost, yet population growth continued. It takes time to regain all those lost jobs and to catch up with the population gains. Today, Oregon’s economy has about 43,200 more jobs today than back at the onset of the Great Recession. However the number of potential workers has increased some 82,300. The state has made good progress on closing the gap, yet full recovery remains incomplete.JobsPop0717

According to our office’s economic and population forecasts, the number of jobs in Oregon will catch up and surpass the growth in the potential labor force in about another year. After that time, job gains are expected to slow considerably, more in-line with population gains. This can be seen in the first graph when the red line decelerates in late 2017. This is indicative of job growth when an economy is at full employment and the labor market slack has been eliminated. It is unreasonable to assume job growth of 4,000 per month forever, without the economy overheating (which would tend to cause a recession) or without much stronger population growth.

Of course this focuses just on the number of jobs and the number of workers, not the types or quality of those jobs. There are always winners and losers over the business cycle. Job polarization continues, even as middle-wage jobs are starting to pick up a little. Big service sector industries are at all-time highs, even as good producing industries remain below pre-recession levels (yet growing). These bigger, structural shifts are ongoing and will continue.

There are both upside and downside risks to this analysis and outlook. First to the downside, given the focus on potential labor force growth for an economy operating at full employment, should the weaknesses seen in LFPR across all age groups persist or become permanent, Oregon needs even fewer than 2,000 jobs per month to keep up with population. Second, to the upside, this analysis assumes our office’s population forecast is correct. To the extent that population growth exceeds our outlook, then Oregon will need more than 2,000 jobs per month to keep up with population growth.

[1] This analysis is a refinement and improvement over similar work from last year. This analysis compares actual job gains with growth in the potential labor force — the number of working age adults who would either have a job or look for work in an economy operating at full strength.

Posted by: Josh Lehner | September 16, 2015

Population and Housing, Some History

I was on OPB “Think Out Loud” on Tuesday, talking about housing, migration and the Timber Belt. One aspect we discussed was the fact Oregon had two really big wave of migrants, in the 1970s and 1990s. Below I plot annual population growth by decade for the past 65 years. Growth was strong in the 1950s and 1960s, however the 70s wave was a bit bigger, particularly at the state level. Furthermore by the 1970s the base population was bigger as well, thus resulting in more individuals moving, even with a similar growth rate. Migration and population growth were slow in the 1980s, in fact Oregon lost population for a couple years following the early 80s recession and timber industry restructuring. [See here for more on the timber industry’s history in Oregon, also a topic discussed on OPB.] Migration and population growth returned in full force in the 1990s, along with a booming economy. Many of these migrants were from California, particularly SoCal given their dismal economy following their housing bubble, aerospace industry losses and military base closures. Since 2000, population growth rates have been somewhat slower yet Oregon still outpaces the nation.

PopGrowthJust as important is the fact that new home construction follows population growth (and household formation). Much of Oregon’s housing stock was built in the 1970s and 1990s, when we saw lots of population growth. The concern today, as our office first laid out back in 2011, is whether or not housing will keep up with population growth. To the extent that it does not, prices will rise and affordability will erode. Today, this issue is most pressing in Bend and Portland. For more, see our previous work on the Portland housing market. HousingBuiltThe Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland were kind enough to ask me to speak again this year. I will have some more (and new!) material in the near future regarding housing.

Posted by: Josh Lehner | September 8, 2015

Migration (In Defense of Californians)

Migration is vital to Oregon’s economic health. It is one of the two primary reasons Oregon outperforms the typical state during an economic expansion. The other being our industrial structure. In both good times and bad, Americans want to live in and move to Oregon. In fact, Americans have been moving to Oregon in droves since Lewis and Clark and are likely to continue to do so. Our state’s ability to attract skilled, young working age households is a huge economic benefit. We rank quite well on the brain gain spectrum (the opposite of the brain drain). There is a reason Mark’s research and presentation at last year’s Oregon Economic Forum was on the impact of migration, to both urban and rural Oregon.  It is part of our economic foundation.

Yes, more migrants generally does result in stronger housing demand and yes, many of the migrants are from California, as we will discuss below. However, demand is just one component of housing costs. Thus, while there are certainly traces of truth in the underlying sentiment of the “No Californian” stickers — I also hear this at various presentations as well — the complaint, if not misguided, is certainly incomplete with a strong tinge of migration hypocrisy.

Focusing on just native born Americans, across the whole country 68% of the population lives in the same state they were born. Individuals living in Oregon today? Just 51% were born here. That’s a massive difference and mathematically works out to more than half a million “extra” migrants today in Oregon (582,300) than in typical state. In the map below, shown previously, orange and red counties have an above average share of migrants while green counties have few migrants.


As our office has been highlighting in the past couple of years, and we have an additional section in our latest forecast document, migration is picking up again. 2015 is shaping up to be as large of a year as the state saw during the housing boom. And yes, a sizable portion do come from California. Why do they come? Beyond a high quality of life, or high quality of place, migration is usually driven, economically speaking, by job opportunities and relative home prices. Where can one find a job and where can one find an affordable place to live, at least relatively speaking? Despite the rhetoric out there, Oregon when compared with our southern neighbor, ranks well along both of these lines in the past 25 years. Below are the graphs our office uses to illustrate this.

As relative job opportunities in Oregon are better (lower unemployment rate), migration is stronger and vice versus. Similarly, as home prices appreciate more quickly in California, migration into Oregon is stronger and vice versus. Note: relative home prices fit the data better over the housing bubble and Great Recession, however research has shown both to be statistically significant over time. Also the home price measure is a ratio of indexes, so a value of 1 means the indexes are the same, not that home prices are literally the same.


Where in California are many of these migrants coming from? Here it is a bit ironic that the online response has been coming from the Bay Area, since the majority of the migrants are coming from SoCal, at least last time our office dove into the county to county migration data from the IRS. Also this may be a bit different today with all the tech outposts in Portland in recent years.


Again, from an economic perspective, all of this migration into Oregon, both from California and elsewhere, is a positive development. It brings both skilled, young households who will set down roots (no, they are not all degree holding baristas) and a strong influx of retirees with a lifetime of experience and some wealth. These are good things and have been happening for the past 200 years. And for those who may prefer migrants not from California, the surrendered driver license data from the DMV shows the Californian share has been declining for the most part since the early 1990s.


For the record, while I am a transplant myself, I am not from California. I’m from the Great Plains and completed the Oregon Trail via the old route, wagon ruts and all.

Posted by: Josh Lehner | September 3, 2015

Job Vacancies and Shadow Unemployment

With headline unemployment back to normal levels and the number of job vacancies at an all-time high, some are increasingly asking the question of where the labor will come from. This was a topic of conversation at our latest forecast release as well.

As the New York Times’ Neil Irwin writes, such conditions generally should and will result in rising wages. Only they have not, at least nationally. George Mason University’s Tyler Cowen adds an important observation that this is not so much about workers vs firms[1], but firms vs firms. In stronger economic times and tighter labor markets, firms must compete on price to attract and retain workers.

Going back to Irwin’s piece, he cites shadow unemployment as a big reason for the lack of wage gains. No surprise here, I agree. Looking at just the official number of unemployed Oregonians shows that there are 2 per job opening in the state. The same ratio seen during the 1990s or the housing boom. However, adding back in the “missing” labor force participants, the ratio is more like 5 to 1 today. Or about halfway back from the depths of the tech recession to the peak of the housing boom.


While the number of jobs available is a good leading indicator and important for economic health, it alone doesn’t tell the whole story. In fact, one could argue a more important gauge is whether or not businesses are having a hard time filling positions, and the reasons why.

The Oregon Employment Department recently released their latest job vacancy survey results and report, written by Gail Krumenauer, senior economic analyst. Gail does a great job of walking the reader through the data in her report. I strongly encourage you to read it, particularly the last couple of pages focusing on the difficult to fill job vacancies and ways to address these issues. When it comes to discussing job openings and available labor, this is the key portion to focus on.

About a third (32%) of the difficult to fill vacancies are things one can reasonably tie directly to workers themselves — lack of qualified candidates, lack of soft or technical skills, or lack of certification. Last year I called these underqualified applicants. However that leaves two-thirds of difficult to fill jobs due to some other reason. Gail highlights some opportunities and challenges around training programs and the like. However some of the reasons jobs are difficult to fill are hard to address. For example, 20% are difficult to fill due to unfavorable working conditions or low wages.

Overall the economy is certainly improving. The labor market is getting tighter and Oregon is seeing wage gains above those in the typical state. However the headline unemployment rate likely overstates any such improvement. Slack remains and there does appear to be available workers for today’s job openings, particularly in the form of shadow unemployment. Even so, one must continue to monitor the difficult to fill jobs for structural issues and ways to address them, if possible.

[1] Of course the worker-firm relationship is important as well. Lower-wage occupations do tend to have higher unemployment rates. Meaning businesses have a larger pool from which to choose. All else being equal, this has an impact on wage growth or lack thereof.

Posted by: Josh Lehner | September 1, 2015

Rural Oregon

In recent years our office has conducted various analyses and reports with an eye toward the differences between the state’s urban centers and rural Oregon more broadly. Mark in particular has given a number of talks and presentations in and on rural Oregon. These include the annual Oregon Coast Economic Summit, meeting with and a visit to northeastern Oregon including the Port of Morrow, and probably the largest project was Mark’s address at the Oregon Economic Forum last year on the impact of migration to Oregon. Additionally in recent years the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors has visited businesses and communities throughout the state including Ashland/Medfrod, Astoria, Bend, Hood River, McMinnville and Pendleton, not all of those are rural of course.

As such, in our latest economic and revenue forecast document, we included a larger report on rural Oregon. It examines both past demographic and economic trends along with an eye toward the future. While broader prosperity is lacking across much of rural Oregon and rural America, pockets of strength certainty remain. Below we highlight the report and the accompanying set of slides. Download the files at the end of the post


Download the files below in PDF format:

Rural Oregon ReportRural Oregon Slides

Posted by: Josh Lehner | August 26, 2015

Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast, Sept 2015

This morning the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis released the latest quarterly economic and revenue forecast. For the full document, slides and forecast data please see our main website. Below is the forecast’s Executive Summary.

This economic expansion just celebrated its sixth birthday. In true-to-form fashion, the party included decent-but-not-great job gains and steady-but-subdued GDP growth. As such there are few signs from the U.S. economy that the expansion is about to end anytime soon, even if growth has been lackluster overall following the financial crisis. However, all expansions do end and the economy is more likely closer to its next recession than not. This is especially true as storm clouds are gathering offshore in the form of a stronger U.S. dollar, weaker global growth and a significant and potentially worrisome slowdown in China.

The Oregon economy is at full-throttle growth. Jobs and income are increasing as fast, if not faster than during the mid-2000s. Given demographic trends, such rates of growth are considered full-throttle. As in past expansions, Oregon has regained its traditional growth advantage relative to other states. Much of this advantage can be attributed to the state’s industrial structure and strong in-migration flows. More important are the indications that Oregon is seeing a deeper labor market recovery. Wages for the average Oregon worker are increasing quicker than in the typical state, and above the rate of inflation.

While growth rates, and the trajectory of the economy have improved considerably, Oregon is not yet fully healed from the Great Recession. The largest economic concern today is the participation gap – the difference between the share of the population with a job or looking for work and what the rate would be when operating at full strength. The improving economy is and will pull workers back into the labor force, helping to support future economic growth at the same time.


Oregon’s General Fund revenue growth slowed at the end of fiscal year 2015, as collections of personal income taxes dried up during May and June. Income taxes withheld out of paychecks slowed sharply, and the tax filing season ended with very weak payments as well. As a result of the weakness, General Fund revenues fell short of the May 2015 forecast by $56 million, which reduces the ending balances that were set aside by budget writers in June. Oregon’s tax collections have since picked back up, growing rapidly to start off fiscal year 2016.

Although the General Fund ending balance for the 2013-15 biennium has become smaller, the associated reduction in available resources for the current biennium is largely offset by Oregon’s kicker law. With less personal income tax having been collected than was expected in May, revenues have moved closer to the kicker threshold, resulting in a smaller credit for tax filers next year.

Excluding corporate taxes, General Fund revenues exceeded the 2% kicker threshold by $111 million (0.7%), resulting in a kicker credit of $402 million. Due to actions taken by the 2011 Legislature, this kicker payment will take the form of a credit on 2015 tax returns rather than being issued as a check at the end of the year.


Looking ahead through the rest of the current biennium, the outlook for available General Fund and Lottery resources has remained relatively unchanged. Although downside risks are mounting, the underlying outlook for employment and income growth has remained stable, leading to a stable revenue outlook.

The revenue outlook is stable, yet uncertain. Volatility in equity markets is injecting a great deal of risk into the forecast. Oregon’s budget depends heavily on personal income tax collections tied to realizations of capital gains. These collections are extremely volatile, with revenues subject to the sometimes unpredictable behavior of investors. Although housing wealth has played a larger role in driving taxable capital gains over the last decade than in the past, earnings and losses in stock markets account for the lion’s share of movements in taxable capital gains in the typical year.

See our full website for all the forecast details. Our presentation slides for forecast release to the Legislature are below.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 452 other followers