Unions Call for Civil War!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Facts and history demonstrate that right-to-work laws are just as important to a state’s economic competitiveness as a sound and hospitable business tax climate. From 2000 to 2008, approximately 4.7 million Americans moved from forced-union states to right-to-work states, according to a Cato Journal study by economist Richard Vedder.

Right-to-work states are indeed witnessing greater prosperity. Between 1977 and 2007, per capita income rose 23 percent faster in right-to-work states than in non-right-to-work-states.

The advantages don’t end there. Right-to-work states outperform non-right-to-work states in practically every metric of economic health, according to National Institute for Labor Relations Research data, from lower unemployment rates to greater after-tax purchasing power and beyond.

http://blogs.reuters...r-gop-optimism/

You forgot the credit:

By Grover G. Norquist and Patrick Gleason

The fact remains that right to work states dominate the bottom of the list of states measured by economic output. Right to work states are barely visible in the top of the list of states measured by economic performance.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And yet, Right to Work states are barely visible in the top of the performance scale while crowding the bottom of the list.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

And yet, Right to Work states are barely visible in the top of the performance scale while crowding the bottom of the list.

You keep saying that as if it should mean something.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You keep saying that as if it should mean something.

It does. RTW seems to coincide with low economic output.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It does. RTW seems to coincide with low economic output.

And Being Forced to Pay Union Dues To Elect Democrats coincides with declining economic output and after tax income. There must be a point you are trying to make.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And Being Forced to Pay Union Dues To Elect Democrats coincides with declining economic output and after tax income.

It does? Because you say so?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It does? Because you say so?

The US Labor Department’s statistics reveal that New York’s economic track record comes up short when compared to Right to Work states.

Over the past decade, private-sector employment as measured by the Bureau of Economic Analysis grew by an average of 12.5 percent in Right to Work states. Meanwhile, New York’s private sector-growth was just 8.8 percent. Indeed, Right to Work states as a whole have long outperformed on job creation, compared to compulsory-unionism states.

And those numbers don’t tell the whole story. Not only are more jobs created in Right to Work states, employees’ paychecks go farther in states with protections against compulsory unionism.

A recent study conducted by University of Colorado economist Barry Poulson showed striking results: Households in Right to Work states enjoy nearly $4,300 more in purchasing power than their counterparts in non-Right to Work states.

And those numbers don’t tell the whole story. Basically, these overpowered unions push up prices for a host of other products and services – increasing the cost of living for everyone. They also drive up taxes, cutting deeper into take-home pay.

When you adjust for New York’s higher cost of living the contrast is particularly stark. In 2011, individual New Yorkers had an average disposable income of $32,875, a figure that accounts for cost of living adjustments. Residents in Right to Work states, on the other hand, had an average real disposable income of $36,938

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/what_right_to_work_would_do_for_53PdI2W8HTPOBjIp4UCa1L

[bsd058 296]

Hey, Patriot.

If you can get me that full chart I can analyze it and put an end to the debate from a stats perspective. Unless you can/want to do it. Seems to me that your contention is correct, but I want to make sure. I would like to know for sure if RTW States grow faster than non-RTW states.

Do you have multiple years?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Hey, Patriot.

If you can get me that full chart I can analyze it and put an end to the debate from a stats perspective. Unless you can/want to do it. Seems to me that your contention is correct, but I want to make sure. I would like to know for sure if RTW States grow faster than non-RTW states.

Do you have multiple years?

Find the URL for the pic and back-track it. It was posted in an article somewhere.

I think he got the data from here:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm

Edited December 13, 2012 by The Patriot

[bsd058 296]

Find the URL for the pic and back-track it. It was posted in an article somewhere.

I think he got the data from here:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm

Cool. Thanks.

[bsd058 296]

The data has been analyzed.

Non-RTW states grew on average (on a per state/district) more than RTW states in 2011; the statistical certainty of this conclusion was between 75%-80%. Not the best certainty (I try to get between 95%+ before I feel sure), but once I have multiple years, I can put these random variables together to see if this happens all of the time or if 2011 was just a weird year.

2011 may have been a weird year since the recession was still hitting states hard, and non-RTW state may have laws which prevent laying people off which might have kept GDP up since the middle class were able to keep their income flow. One year doesn't tell the whole story. If I had multiple years (I'll try and find them tomorrow) then I could get a better picture.

This actually surprised me. I thought for sure RTW states would grow faster than non-RTW states. We'll see, though. Still more to find and analyze.

Edited December 14, 2012 by bsd058

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And Being Forced to Pay Union Dues To Elect Democrats coincides with declining economic output and after tax income.

Say, lots of sub-par growth in these Right to Work states. Your source, by the way. Michigan did pretty well not being a right to work state. I'm sure they'll see a decline now that they have joined the race to the bottom.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[jamster 31]

the op is confusing correlation with causation. that's one of the problems with using an ideological analysis of an issue rather than a scientific analysis.

here's another fun false correlation for your reading enjoyment:

"...in the past decade, average job growth was nine times higher in the states whose names start with the letters N-Z than in states whose names begin with A–M (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010a). Yet no one would suggest that a state could improve job growth by changing its name."

Right to Work: The Wrong Answer for Michigan's Economy.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]