Thursday, July 25, 2013

Stalking the Wealthy in Oregon

Forbes is very helpful in reporting on the richest in the world or the United States.  Phil Knight is the only Oregonian currently on that list.  We know his net worth, depending on where the markets close on any particular day, is somewhere around $14.4 billion.  Tim Boyle, CEO of Columbia Sportswear, made the list in 2007. With somewhere around $1 billion, he was 891st wealthiest person in the world.
 
If a Who’s Who of captains of industry could provide any indication of who is wealthy, such a list of privately held companies in Oregon was compiled by Oregon Business in 2011.  The top two classifications on that list are “More Than $1 Billion” (annual revenue, I presume) and “$1Billion - $250 Million.”  There are five Oregon companies in the first category and 22 more make up the second rank.  A similar list for publicly traded companies could probably be found or compiled easily enough – and those CEOs would certainly be fairly well-off.  But “privately held” suggests that the CEO has a strong family connection to the company.

Here are the first ten names on the list, in order of company revenues:  Roderick C. Wendt, President and CEO of JELD-WEN;  Peter Maslen, Acting U.S. CEO of Knowledge Universe – US;  Dick Borgman, CEO of Les Schwab Tire Centers; Robert G. Gootee, CEO of ODS Health;  Scott B. Walker, President of EPIC Aviation LLC; Delford M. Smith, Chairman of Evergreen Holdings, Inc.;  Cal Collins, CEO of ESCO Corp.;  Allyn C. Ford, CEO of Roseburg Forest Products;  Ron King, President and CEO of Western Family Foods; Wayne A. Drinkward, President of Bi-Mart Corp.

Understandably, the truly wealthy like their privacy and can afford to buy it.  But some are not shy about “outing” themselves or they simply can’t avoid it.  Celebrity and notoriety can provide hints or glaring evidence of who else should be on the list.

Phil Knight is mostly on the celebrity side, up there on the Forbes list.  The legend of his collaboration with Bill Bowerman and the waffle-soled Nike prototype is well-known.  So is Knight’s philanthropy.  Perhaps less known are the continuing controversies surrounding labor conditions at Nike’s overseas manufacturing partners.

How about Arlene Schnitzer?  She’s famous.  The namesake of the Portland landmark, Schnitzer Hall, is frequently associated with Schnitzer Steel.  Actually, Arlene’s husband, Harold, quit the family business.  Wikipedia reports:
After the war, Schnitzer entered the family business, Schnitzer Steel Industries, for a time. He did not wish to compete with his four brothers in the company, however, so in 1950 Harold Schnitzer decided to shift gears, selling his share of the business to provide capital for a new enterprise. The new enterprise founded was a real estate investment company known as Harsch Investment Properties. The name of the firm, Harsch, derived from the first three letters of Harold Schnitzer's first and last names.

The Schnitzer’s are known, somewhat erroneously, for their association with Schnitzer Steel and for their philanthropy.  Harold is deceased.
Loren Parks “is the biggest political contributor in the history of (Oregon)” per Wikipedia.  He lived in Oregon from 1957 to 2002 and now resides in Nevada.  He is a long-running political activist, fighting union penetration in Oregon for quite some time.
Andrew Miller is CEO of Stimson Lumber which has revenues somewhere in the neighborhood of $260 million a year.  He has a very high profile as an activist and political contributor.  A recent quote by him is, “The Democratic Party has been a monolithic front for public-employee unions.”
What do we know about these folks as a group? It’s like squeezing blood from a stone to find useful public information.  The census statistical abstract a provides this tidbit which was current in 2004:  In Oregon, there were 15000 Top Wealth Holders with total net worth of $61.328 billion.  A Top Wealth Holder has a net worth of $1.5 million or more.
Why should we care?  The very wealthy are in a position to comprise a plutocracy.  Many argue that  they are indeed.  Money buys access to political power and the ability to promote one’s agenda and interests.  This disproportionate concentration of power is contrary to the interests of the many wherever those interests diverge.  The concentration of wealth by itself is also a concern. 
The trillions locked up in personal net worth are not necessarily being actively invested in useful economic pursuits.  How much of it is sitting in accounts representing shares owned?  If it’s not being traded, the transactions are not being taxed and the cash is not ending up in accounts to be loaned, invested, spent, re-deposited and loaned again.  Much innovation and cleverness has been applied to provide arcane avenues of speculation that yield huge personal windfalls but miniscule macro-economic returns. 
The public interest outweighs customary values that protect such personal opulence.  Wealth that can’t be spent in several lifetimes has no relationship to the expected rewards of hard work, character and entrepreneurship.  Dynasties and fortunes that beggar the public are at odds with democratic values and the ideal of a large, thriving middle class.


PS  Who else belongs on the list?  I’d love to hear from you.

No comments:

Post a Comment