Skip to comments.History, Economics and Right-to-Work
Posted on 01/29/2013 1:12:56 PM PST by MichCapCon
The historic December 2012 passage of a right-to-work law in Michigan was filled with drama, not least of which was unions behaving badly outside the state Capitol on the day of the vote.
Media reports were filled with images of the vandalism and violence in front of the building, but less attention was paid to the histrionics and bad economics displayed by anti-right-to-work politicians on the inside.
The House and Senate chambers resounded with economically faulty and/or misleading claims about the economic effects of right-to-work laws, some of which warrant rebuttal.
For example, Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, asserted, You want to pass right-to-work legislation that hurts workers and our economy by lowering employee wages, benefits and workplace protections.
However, while the evidence on the economic effects of right-to-work laws is mixed, extensive empirical research generally shows neutral to very positive impacts. Examples include:
A 1998 study by economist Thomas Holmes examined manufacturing employment in counties that border each other in right-to-work and non-right-to-work states. He found that manufacturing employment was one-third higher in counties on the right-to-work side. This study is important because the employment rate differences it found cannot be explained away by widely different attitudes toward unions, climate or other variables that can confound comparisons of geographically distant jurisdictions. Economist Richard Vedder, an adjunct scholar with the Mackinac Center, found that between 2000 and 2009 some 5 million Americans migrated to right-to-work states from non-right-to-work states. His research statistically controlled for other variables that influence migration and still found that right-to-work laws were a causal factor in net migration patterns. A 2012 study from economist Michael Hicks, also an adjunct scholar with the Mackinac Center, found that seven of the most recent 10 states to adopt right-to-work laws saw manufacturing incomes increase between 15 percent and 40 percent. His more sweeping analysis of right-to-work from 1929 through 2005 showed no impact from right-to-work on industrial composition or manufacturing income. On the subject of workplace injuries and deaths, workers in right-to-work states actually appear to be somewhat safer. As my colleague James Hohman has pointed out, workplace fatalities "are typically concentrated in just a few industries and occupations like farming, fishing and forestry regardless of whether the state has a right-to-work law." So, both injuries and deaths may be a function of some variable unrelated to right-to-work.
Sen. Whitmer also dissed Indiana which enacted its own right-to-work law in early 2012 as a "bad role model" in terms of income levels, unemployment rates, welfare dependency, and having an educated and qualified workforce." As evidence for the first, she cited Indianas ranking as No. 33 among the states in per capita income.
Politicians and lobbyists often use such static "snapshots" of economic data to support spurious conclusions. What matters much more to real people are the trends. To put it simply, would you rather raise your children in a state where incomes and the economy are growing or one where they are in decline? At the risk of committing the same error, it may be worth noting that in the first nine months of 2012, personal income in Indiana increased 4.1 percent, vs. just 2.5 percent in Michigan.
There's no need to quibble, however, because better evidence is available. A 2003 study by economist W. Robert Reed, which controlled for each states economic well-being at the time right-to-work was adopted, found that "RTW states have average wages (per-capita personal income, in this case) that are significantly higher than non-RTW states." The key approach to this finding, according to Reed, was to control the economic well-being of each state at the time its right-to-work law was adopted. Reed estimated that in 2000 right-to-work states enjoyed per-capita personal income 6.68 percent higher than in non-right-to-work states.
On unemployment levels, Sen. Whitmer was just plain wrong. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there has not been a single month since 1976 when these particular records began in which unemployment was not greater in Michigan than in Indiana; at this moment, 8.9 percent of Michiganders are out of work compared to 8 percent of Hoosiers.
She also appears to have been wrong on welfare.
The Urban Institute reports in a 2012 paper prepared for by the federal governments Administration for Children and Families that Indiana had 36,214 cases in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, while Michigan had 68,233. As a percent of 2010 population for each state that works out to 0.56 percent in Indiana and 0.69 percent in Michigan. And that is arguably only one way to measure "welfare."
According to the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, between 2000 and 2011 growth in "income maintenance," which includes such things as welfare transfers, day care subsidies and social security, went up 177 percent in Indiana and 179 percent in Michigan a dead heat.
Hohman has examined Census Bureau survey data and found that from 2004 through 2011 poverty rates increased at a faster rate in forced unionism states compared to right-to-work states. He argued that the presence of a right-to-work law had little to do with whether or not poverty increased or fell in a particular state.
No one will be shocked to hear that politicians frequently cherry pick data and present information lacking vital context. When it comes to right-to-work, the empirical findings of scholars without political axes to grind present a very different picture.
Michael D. LaFaive is director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center are properly cited.
In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as right to work. It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.
Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone. Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped.
This is the same guy, a so-called "Reverend", whose last days on the planet were not preaching the Gospel but preaching the false gospel of unionism as he marched in support a government union thugs in Memphis. If ol' Marty King the adulterer/plagiarizer/Reagan-hater was against right to work, then that alone is very compelling argument in its favor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.