Portland, Oregon: Where "Hip" and "Unemployed" Collide

I'm fascinated by cities --- how they work; why they work; why people prefer some over others. (My work in graduate school focused on the physical city.) A

nyway, one of my favorite cities is Portland, Oregon. It offers a delightful climate, an abundance of art, great food, Powells. Excellent grocery stores (my favorite tourist activity is prowling the aisles of grocery stores. Weird but true.)

No surprise, the city has long been a "magnet" for the young, the ambitious, the hip (YAH). One of my cousins hightailed it out of Iowa in 1970 for the greener pastures of Portland, along with, I realized later, thousands of other kids in search of the Ultimate Hip Home. (Back then, we were "hippies" rather than "hip."

Anyway, Portland's current generation of YAH is colliding with the city's nearly 12% unemployment rate. Good article about all of this in today's Wall Street Journal.

This brings to mind the work of Richard Florida and his colleagues. If you've not read any of his books, they're worth a look. As near as I can tell, the website doesn't have a specific link for "further reading" link, but there's tons of information there from other sites/writers.

In the Kitchen: Edible Muffins (As Opposed to Crap Airport Muffins)

In my kitchen: Muffins. They're easy to make; easy to freeze; easy to eat. These are good for late afternoon snacking and that mid-morning sugar/carb crash.

I think I got the base of this recipe from a runners' magazine (way back when, before my knees and back conked out, I ran. A lot. Now I walk. A lot. And swim. And other things.)

But I lost the original copy of the recipe, and re-created what I could remember from memory, and then added and subtracted as my tongue dictated.

These are not like those icky things you find in airports. (You know: those objects that taste like air and cost like a mortgage). Save your money.

Take a couple of these along next time you travel, and the righteous virtue will ooze from every pore.

The recipe makes about two dozen muffins. I stash 'em in the freezer, and thaw (which doesn't take long) as needed.

• 2 eggs
• 3 mashed bananas (one large or two medium)
• 2/3 canola oil (or corn or vegetable oil)
• 1/2 c. molasses
• 1/2 c. yogurt
• 1-1/2 c. whole wheat pastry flour (or regular wheat flour if that’s what you have)
• 1-1/2 c. bran flakes OR wheat germ
• 1 c. chopped walnuts (optional)
• 1 c. or so of chocolate chips (optional) (but let's be honest: without them, what’s the point?)
• 1 teaspoon baking soda
• 1 teaspoon baking powder
• 1 teaspoon cinnamon

Preheat oven to 375 degrees. Grease the muffin tin.

Mash the bananas, or, if you’re using a mixer, use the beaters to mash them. Add the egg and mix. Add the oil, molasses, and yogurt and mix well.

In another bowl, use a fork or sifter to thoroughly mix the flour, bran (or wheat germ), walnuts, baking powder, baking soda, and cinnamon. Add dry ingredients to the mixing bowl and stir until combined. Stir in the chocolate chips.

Use a big spoon to drop the batter into the muffin cups. Bake 18-20 minutes and cool on a wire rack.

On Second Thought . . .

. . . I'm not sure the "Comment of the Week" is such a great idea, because all of the comments I get are either smart, funny, thoughtful, or all three. Evidence: This truly thoughtful (and much appreciated) comment a few days ago from Matt Dunn.

I agree with what you’re saying here. I’m interested to see how Greg Koch deals with the slowing of organic growth in 20 years, when (if) Stone is making 1,000,000+ bbl a year, which I don’t think is a stretch. Though I think there are other, better reasons why firms have a grow-grow-grow mentality.

Yes, it has to do with the fact that entrepreneurs are motivated, driven, ambitious creatures, but there are real market forces that cause market shares to grow, consolidation to occur, and oligopolies to develop.

For example, as costs of raw materials and shipping rise due to various reasons, firms do not want to increase the price of their product to make up the increase in cost. Rather, they scale up to get better economies of scale. In fact, it’s generally a good idea to be as big as possible to absorb typical cost fluctuations.

The recent hop shortage is a great example that should be fresh in everyone’s mind. Bigger brewers that were able to pre-buy bigger lots of hops could and will continue to be able to absorb fluctuations in hop prices better than smaller brewers.

Anita McGahan’s 1991 article in Harvard Business Review (which I’m sure you know about) is a great account of how market and socio-cultural forces shaped the American beer industry in the 20th century. It’s not like AB and Pabst and Ballantine sat down in 1904 and said we’re going to be a soulless giant corporation in fifty years, here is a our long term soulless strategic plan.

Tremblay and Tremblay’s book also gives a great overview of the market forces at work from a more formal standpoint with less historical consideration. There is no reason to expect craft beer to be any different. We see it over and over again in the history of beer, from the introduction of hopped beer to England in the 15th and 16th century, the advent of porter in the 18th and early 19th centuries, pure-culture lager brewing in the late 19th century, and post-prohibition brewing in the US- there are strong trends in growth of market share, consolidation, and the development of oligopolies. Most industries besides brewing show these same patterns. There is no reason to expect craft beer to be substantially different.

I agree with you and just wanted to throw this out there. I just started teaching a history of beer class after a year hiatus and I’m fired up about it again.

"Comment of the Week" Winner Is Jeff Alworth

I just had to pull this out of the comments I received this week. It's from the always engaging, lively, witty, and just plain groovy Jeff Alworth. He was commenting on my post titled Alcohol As Stimulus to Creativity, which referenced an article about the delicate balance between alcohol and creativity.

Jeff wrote:

Any bar pool player knows this ratio all too well. There’s a moment when the beer lubricates your limbs and vanquishes shot anxiety. It’s the moment just before your innate sense of physics gives way to your lizard brain’s desire to HIT THE BALL REALLY HARD. Ah, but in that moment!

That, folks, is the Comment of the Week. And hey, now, there's an idea. Every Friday (assuming my tired brain can remember), I post for your delight the best comment of the week. Or, hmmm, maybe not such a great idea, given that I don't get many comments. But, well, maybe. Maybe.

On Rational Drinking and Irrational Zealots

I'm obviously not running up to speed this week, blogging-wise. (But hey, I'm getting a lot of other stuff done . . .  .  Mr. Cranky Beer Magazine Publisher better like this essay, 'cause it's sure gobbling my blogging time....)

Anyway, I only just heard about the Senate Finance Committee "round table" discussion, on, among other things, the wisdom of raising taxes on alcohol. And about it, I say: Ugh. WHEN is Michael Jacobson going to go away? (Not, frankly, that it matters if he goes away, because some other nanny do-gooder numbskull will promptly take his place.)

(And no, I'm not bothering to create a link to his wikipedia page or his nut-job center for "science." There ain't no science, and the only center is the empty space in his head.) 

He's been at this "alcohol is EVIL and we need to TAX it out of EXISTENCE" routine for over thirty years. Give it up already.

Glib ranting aside, every one of us would do well to keep an eye on this "discussion" about taxation on alcohol. Because this historian is here to tell all of you that this is precisely how the prohibitionists did their work one hundred years ago.

Anyway, my buddy Jay Brooks dismantled the discussion at his blog. (You think I'm fanatical on the subject of rational drinking; you ain't seen/heard/read nuthin' till you've imbibed one of Jay's rants.) Here's his money quote:

The number one priority of most, if not all, politicians is to stay in office. Using alcohol as a bogeyman can be an attractive alternative from having to face the real causes and consequences of our current economic situation.

True, true, and true. A century ago, politicians hopped on the alcohol-is-evil bandwagon like rats on an overturned garbage can because it was the politically expedient thing to do. As I noted in Ambitious Brew (pp. 150-51):

An Alabama politician who had been "run over" [by the prohibition] "steam-roller" moaned that . . . "gullible people" [had allowed] themselves to be humored and hoodwinked . . ." Politicians who "surrendered, save themselves from slaughter." But he and others who resisted "were just swept aside to make room for the more susceptible."

Jacobson and his pals are just as determined. Don't think it can't happen again. It can --- and it'll start with something like a hefty tax. Because of course the tax will only prove Jacobson's point: alcohol is evil and dangerous and ought not be allowed.

How do we know that? Because, ya know, we taxed it in order to pay for the damage it does. See how this works? Beware. (Can you tell I'm in a pissy mood after a loooooooong week at the keyboard?)

And I Thought I Was Experiencing "Life" . . . .

Holymoly, I ain't experiencing nuthin'. Shawn Connelly, founder of Aleuminati and blogger-known-as-Beer-Philosopher just explained his recent absence from his online home. Life didn't just get in his eyes. It got in his brain, his feet, his toes . . . . Wow. I'll stop complaining now. Shawn: I wish you well. Correction: I wish you dry weather, a healthy baby, a healthy mother, a healthy mother-in-law, and good insurance coverage.