 Outline of Analysis
| An LSGL Diagnosis and Classification of Oregon Employment Growth by Major Industry: 2001-2012 Introduction: Who's on First? However they are phrased, the first round of questions that inevitably arise when the economic performance of the Oregon economy is discussed are:
In this United States Regional Economic Analysis Project module, we apply the LSGL framework of analysis to guide your investigation and endeavor to address these questions about the Oregon economy. LSGL analysis is a particularly handy and versatile vehicle for calibrating, classifying, illustrating and diagnosing the short vs. long-term growth and performance of the portfolio of individual industries that comprise, contribute to, and detract from, the overall average growth of the employment in Oregon. About LSGL Analysis "LSGL Analysis" is the moniker introduced on this United States Regional Economic Analysis Project website to characterize the technique adapted and borrowed from one that appears in the weekend finance sections of the popular press. In the press, for example, one rendition of this approach compares and classifies the market performance of the 30 stocks contained within the Dow over the past week, in contrast to their performance over the past month. The Dow's overall respective averages are the two key points of reference for judging the performance of the 30 individual securities comprising the Dow as Leading, Slipping, Gaining or Lagging. In like fashion, in this module we compare, characterize and classify the employment growth of the 24 principal industry sectors for which the employment data are reported for Oregon over the year 2012 (0.84%) in contrast with their average annual growth over the longer-term period of 2001-2012 (0.52%). Within the context of this module, Oregon's total employment two growth averages over the respective time periods are correspondingly the two key relative points of reference for calibrating and classifying the employment growth of the 24 major industry sectors as Leading, Slipping, Gaining, or Lagging. Further explanation and illustration follows. Highlights of Featured Sector Results: Health Care and Social Assistance is Classified Among Those 24 Oregon Industry Sectors Whose Employment Growth was Leading () in 2012 Over 2001-2012, Health Care and Social Assistance's employment growth rate of 2.65% surpassed the overall average for total employment of 0.52%, and its 1.20% growth rate also exceeded the industry-wide average of 0.84% over 2012. Accordingly, Health Care and Social Assistance is classified as "Leading" in that its employment growth recorded above the average for total employment in 2012 and its longer-term average also posted above that of the industry-wide average over 2001-2012. In 2012, the Health Care and Social Assistance's sector accounted for 256,987 jobs in Oregon and comprised 11.58% of the overall total of 2,219,981 jobs. In 2001, the 192,985 jobs in this sector comprised of 9.28% of the total job count. Accordingly, from 2001 to 2012, the sector posted a positive share-shift of 2.29%. Among the 24 principal industry sectors whose performance is examined in this report, the Health Care and Social Assistance's sector's growth ranked:
Oregon Employment Industry Shares in 2012 Leading, Slipping, Gaining, and Lagging Industries  In summary and in combination, of the total 2,219,981 jobs reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis for Oregon in 2012:
Note: Percent share of total figures may not add due to rounding by a factor of ± 0.01%. Employment Growth by Industry Sector An LSGL Analysis and Portrayal: 2001-2012 and 2012   Health Care and Social Assistance: 2001-2012 = 2.65% 2012 = 1.20%  Total Employment: 2001-2012 = 0.52% 2012 = 0.84% This figure displays the industries of Oregon as dots on a scattergram, with the vertical axis representing the average annual industry employment growth rate over the longer-term (2001-2012), and the horizontal axis representing the industry employment growth rate for the near-term (2012). This figure sets apart those industries whose long-term industry employment (2001-2012) growth exceeded the industry-wide average of 0.52%, by portraying them in the top two quadrants demarcated by the horizontal line positioned at 0.52% on the vertical axis. Industries whose long-term average annual industry employment growth rate trailed the industry-wide average (0.52%) are distributed in the bottom two quadrants. In all, 11 industries surpassed the industry-wide average over the years 2001-2012, while 13 industries fell below. Similarly, the two quadrants on the right of This figure demarcarted by the vertical line present the positions of the 14 industries whose most recent (2012) industry employment growth rate exceeded the industry-wide average (0.84%). The two quadrants on the left feature those 10 industries whose industry earnings growth over 2012 trailed the industry-wide average. Accordingly, each quadrant portrays the performance of all industries corresponding with their longer-term (2001-2012) and short-term (2012) performance relative to their respective industry-wide averages of 0.52% over 2001-2012 and 0.84% over 2012: Leading Industries() (top-right quadrant)...are industries whose average annual employment growth rate surpassed the industry-wide average both long-term (0.52%) and near-term (0.84%). Slipping Industries() (top-left quadrant)...are industries whose long-term average annual employment growth rate exceeded the industry-wide average (0.52%), but whose near-term growth has "slipped" by falling below the industry-wide average (0.84%). Gaining Industries() (bottom-right quadrant)...are industries whose long-term average annual employment growth rate fell below the industry-wide average (0.52%), but whose near-term growth has "gained" by registering above the average (0.84%) industry-wide. Lagging Industries() (bottom-left quadrant)...are indsutries whose average annual employment growth rate fell under the industry-wide average both long-term (0.52%) and near-term (0.84%).
Leading Industries 2012 vs. 2001-2012 Averages  Health Care and Social Assistance: 2001-2012 = 2.65% 2012 = 1.20% Total Employment: 2001-2012 = 0.52% 2012 = 0.84% Turning attention to the top-right quandrant and building from the discussion above, This figure features a display of the distribution of the 8 Oregon industries classified as Leading (). These 8 industries surpassed the industry-wide average annual employment growth both long-term (2001-2012 = 0.52%) as well as near-term (2012 = 0.84%). Each is identified by its corresponding ranking based on it's average annual employment growth rate over 2012 as listed below. By virtue of its growth rate over 2012, ranking highest among the leading sectors, Mining is dubbed the "Most Leading." All sectors within this category include:
Oregon Leading Industries Cumulative Share as a Percent of Total Employment: 2001-2012  This figure depicts the cumulative share of those industry sectors classified as "Leading" in 2012 when compared with their longer-term average over 2001-2012 and are shown in order of their relative importance from bottom to top. When an industry's growth rate exceeds that of the overall average it follows that its corresponding share of total employment rises. Accordingly, as both their long- and short-term growth rates of those industry sectors classified as Leading exceeded the overall industry average, their individual and collective share of total employment advanced over both 2001-2012 and 2012. In combination, the share of all leading sector employment advanced from 35.80% in 2001 to 40.81% in 2012, for a net share-shift gain of 5.01%. Between 2011-2012 the share of all leading sectors in combination rose from 40.21% to 40.81%, for a net share-shift increase of 0.60%. Note on "Other Leading Industries" The "Other Leading Industries" category portrayed in this graph represents a combined total of those industries whose percent share of total employment was so small that their representation individually in this figure would not be discernable. Those industries that are combined include: Slipping Industries 2012 vs. 2001-2012 Averages  Total Employment: 2001-2012 = 0.52% 2012 = 0.84% Focusing now on the top-left quadrant of the LSGL schema introduced earlier, This figure depicts the distribution of the Oregon industries classified as Slipping. The employment growth rate of these 3 industries outpaced the average industry-wide (2001-2012 = 0.52%), while they trailed the industry-wide average near-term (2012 = 0.84%). Again, each industry is identified by it's corresponding ranking based on its average annual employment growth rate over 2012 as noted below. Only 3 Oregon's industries which comprised 10.20% of the total jobs are classified as Slipping (), and are indentified below. By virtue of its growth rate over 2012, ranking lowest among the slipping sectors, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing is dubbed the "Most Slipping." All sectors within this category include: Oregon Slipping Industries Cumulative Share as a Percent of Total Employment: 2001-2012  This figure portrays the cumulative share of those industry sectors classified as "Slipping" over 2001-2012. In combination, their share of employment advanced from 8.94% in 2001 to 10.20% in 2012, for a net share-shift of 1.26%. However, their growth rate fell below that of the overall average in 2012. Therefore, their share of total employment slipped from 10.45% in 2011 to 10.20% in 2012, for a net share-shift of -0.26%. Gaining Industries 2012 vs. 2001-2012 Averages  Total Employment: 2001-2012 = 0.52% 2012 = 0.84% This figure shows the distribution of the 6 industries classified as Gaining () (bottom-right quadrant), in that their long-term average annual employment growth rate posted below the average industry-wide (2001-2012 = 0.52%), while they outperformed the industry-wide average near-term (2012 = 0.84%). Again, each industry is identified by its corresponding ranking based on its average annual employment growth rate over 2012 as noted below.
Oregon Gaining Industries Cumulative Share as a Percent of Total Employment: 2001-2012  This figure tracks the cumulative share of those industry sectors classified as "Gaining" over 2001-2012 by order of their importance from bottom to top. As the growth rate of these sectors trailed the overall average over 2001-2012, their share of total employment declined from 25.17% in 2001 to 21.30% in 2012, to yield a share-shift decline of -3.87%. However, in the terminal year 2012 their growth bested the overall average resulting in an advance in their share of total employment from 21.03% in 2011 to 21.30% in 2012, to make for a share-shift gain of 0.27%. Note on "Other Gaining Industries" The "Other Gaining Industries" category portrayed in this graph represents a combined total of those industries whose percent share of total employment was so small that their representation individually in this figure would not be discernable. Those industries that are combined include: Lagging Industries 2012 vs. 2001-2012 Averages  Total Employment: 2001-2012 = 0.52% 2012 = 0.84% This figure depicts the distributions of the 7 industries classified as Lagging () protrayed earlier in the bottom-left quadrant. These industries trailed the industry-wide average annual employment growth both long-term (2001-2012 = 0.52%) as well as near-term (2012 = 0.84%). Each industry is identified by its corresponding ranking based on it's growth rate over 2012 as noted below.
Oregon Lagging Industries Cumulative Share as a Percent of Total Employment: 2001-2012  This figure tracks the cumulative share of those industry sectors classified as "Lagging" over 2001-2012 by order of their average share from bottom to top. Their growth rates lagged below the overall average both long-term (2001-2012) and near-term (2012). As a result their share of total employment dropped from 30.09% in 2001 to 27.70% in 2012, producing a net share-shift of -2.40%. Similarly, over 2011-2012 their share of total employment also dropped from 28.30% to 27.70%, for a net share-shift of -0.61%. Note on "Other Lagging Industries" The "Other Lagging Industries" category portrayed in this graph represents a combined total of those industries whose percent share of total employment was so small that their representation individually in this figure would not be discernable. Those industries that are combined include:
| Analysis Options Menu | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
