Can hosing the Republicans stimulate the economy?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I saw this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/lobbyists-millions-obama-healthcare-reform) in another thread. A quote:

America's healthcare industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to block the introduction of public medical insurance and stall other reforms promised by Barack Obama. The campaign against the president has been waged in part through substantial donations to key politicians.

Supporters of radical reform of healthcare say legislation emerging from the US Senate reflects the financial power of vested interests ‑ principally insurance companies, pharmaceutical firms and hospitals ‑ that have worked to stop far-reaching changes threatening their profits.

The industry and interest groups have spent $380m (£238m) in recent months influencing healthcare legislation through lobbying, advertising and in direct political contributions to members of Congress. The largest contribution, totalling close to $1.5m, has gone to the chairman of the senate committee drafting the new law.

Do any other Republican causes have $380+ million to blow to defend their interests? Seems to me if we propose legislation to threaten enough of them, we could shake out billions for our information and entertainment industries (not to mention the, ahem, public sector). What if we proposed to cut the military budget by half; and phase in mandatory electric cars, for examples?

What is the word for this? And even though it is bad: comments?

[Sam Stone]

What is this, some sort of tongue-in-cheek Swiftian proposal? Or just another half-clever way to take a swipe at Republicans?

In case you were serious, I should point out that not even Keynesians believe you can stimulate the economy by forcing private industry to divert money away from productive ends and spend it on lobbying. A Keynesian stimulus only works if it's money borrowed by government and injected into the economy. The health care industry's money is already in the economy. The money they are spending fighting legislation will ultimately be paid for by people buying insurance policies.

Anyway, as a Swiftian proposal it misses the mark. Because if you really want to raise the big bucks, you need to threaten to hurt the unions.

In just pure political contributions, here is the top 200 list (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A). You'll notice that the top 20 places or so are heavily weighted towards unions, Indian bands, and 'progressive' PACs like ActBlue. The NEA is at the top, running away with the prize by a wide margin. And that only includes direct political contributions, which makes up a small percentage of their political spending (note that the first health-care provider doesn't appear until way, way down the list).

According to This study (http://www.mackinac.org/9971), on average, the biggest unions in the country spend roughly 10% of all the dues they collect on lobbying activities and campaign donations. The SEIU alone spent about $60 million dollars on Obama's election.

So if you want to get a lot of lobbying money into the economy, threaten the big unions, and threaten to shut down the Indian casinos. The health care lobbyists are pikers in comparison.

[septimus]

... I should point out that not even Keynesians believe you can stimulate the economy by forcing private industry to divert money away from productive ends and spend it on lobbying. A Keynesian stimulus only works if it's money borrowed by government and injected into the economy.

Not quite. First, borrowing is generally stimulative whether it's private or by government. Second, you contradict yourself, first "diverting money away from productive ends" and later ("money [spent lobbying] will ultimately be paid for by people buying insurance policies") tacking it on. So third, although OP was obviously striving for humor, unproductive activity can be stimulative.
A famous example of this was the Valdez oil spill which increased U.S. GDP and employment.

You do hint, correctly, that productive spending is better than non-productive spending. This is why rationalists are baffled that GOP thinks highly of ammunition for Iraq, but frowns on Obama's domestic infrastructure repair. And why rationalists are baffled that GOP, who brag in another thread about their sense of community, don't see health care and education as being particularly productive spending.

Because if you really want to raise the big bucks, you need to threaten to hurt the unions.

Interesting link you provide; better would be one with the relevant totals. The SEIU (Union) ranks #5 on your cited list, but represents no less than 2.2 million people. By comparison, Altria Group ranked #23 with only 10,400 employees.

By the way, your phrase "not even Keynesians" suggests that the phrase "We are all Keynesians now" (attributed to Milton Friedman and/or Richard Nixon) is no longer operative.

Are you a "fiscal conservative", Sam Stone? If so, perhaps you (or any "fiscal conservative" reading this) can clarify the term for me by answering some true/false questions:

(1) Reagan's deficit spending was better for America than Clinton's budget balancing.
(2) Obama's debt-increasing stimulus was bad for the economy.
(3) Cutting spending is generally good, but if there's still a deficit after all cutting, taxes should be raised to balance the budget.

(I don't intend these to be "loaded" questions. I honestly want to know what Dopers self-described as "fiscal conservatives" believe.)

[Shodan]

(1) Reagan's deficit spending was better for America than Clinton's budget balancing.False. (Clinton didn't balance the budget. Newt Gingrich and the Republicans who took over Congress balanced the budget. Clinton's first act upon becoming President was an attempt to increase the deficit.)

(2) Obama's debt-increasing stimulus was bad for the economy.Also false, because badly phrased. It implies that Obama has stopped increasing the debt, which he certainly has not. You are correct that Obama increased the deficit by $787 billion over and above the TARP package that Bush and the Democrats passed, but Obama has now proposed a budget spending more than any other President in history, and with a deficit much higher than any other in history - $1.56 trillion, IIRC.

(3) Cutting spending is generally good, but if there's still a deficit after all cutting, taxes should be raised to balance the budget.Also false. When no further cuts are possible, that is the point at which significant advances are possible in reducing the deficit.

The traditional advice on how to balance the federal budget is illustrative.
Make two lists of all the items in the federal budget.
On one list, put all the places where budget cuts are not really possible. The spending items on that list need to be maintained, because of the effects that cuts would have on those receiving the benefit of the spending. On the other list, put everything else. This is the list of non-essential spending, where cuts would be possible - waste, fraud, corruption, inefficiency, pork - all that kind of thing. Now crumple up the second list and throw it away. The government doesn't spend enough on those items to make any signficant difference. All your cuts will have to come off the first list.

Regards,
Shodan

[msmith537]

What is the word for this?


"Stupid".

[Try2B Comprehensive]

"Stupid".

Having a little trouble reading between the lines of your manifesto against our current system. Is that you clamoring for changes in the way big money influences our government? Campaign finance reform perhaps?

[mazinger_z]

Not quite. First, borrowing is generally stimulative whether it's private or by government. Second, you contradict yourself, first "diverting money away from productive ends" and later ("money [spent lobbying] will ultimately be paid for by people buying insurance policies") tacking it on. So third, although OP was obviously striving for humor, unproductive activity can be stimulative.
A famous example of this was the Valdez oil spill which increased U.S. GDP and employment. This is not right at all, particularly in context with this misleading notion of the Valdez spill. GDP always increases after disaster. There is no comfort in that. Your explanation is nothing more than a restatement of the broken window fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy) Repeat after me: "Destruction is bad." (Sorry, I forgot who actually said that.)

Additionally, money borrowed has to paid -- unless you think it's ok default on debt, destroy consumer confidence in your currency and markets and overall depress the general welfare of your country. In the meantime, paying back debt will lead to an increase in interest rates and adding a hurdle to growth as consumer dollars shift to savings accounts, making it tougher for businesses to borrow money. It will be interesting if the fed can navigate itself to raising interest rates to stave off inflation, but not so high as to crush growth. I think such activities are akin to timing the market, and if you have ever done any armchair investing, then you know it's a difficult prospect.

To the OP: So what are you proposing, that liberal leaning industries pool money together to against GOP causes? The word for that is politics. I'm fine with that. I'm not sure what they could go after, though...raising taxes on businesses, churches?

[septimus]

This is not right at all, particularly in context with this misleading notion of the Valdez spill. GDP always increases after disaster. There is no comfort in that.

Additionally, money borrowed has to paid....

You obviously misread everything I wrote; don't know if it was "willful." If I'd imagined someone might think I was endorsing the Valdez oil spill, I'd have connected the dots more thoroughly.

Your comment about repaying borrowings is also curious. Government borrowing in a recession is a substitute for the "normal" borrowing that business is not doing. And Republicans with their "supply side" theories are happy to claim future tax revenue from their tax-cut stimuli; I guess the same courtesy is not extended to Democrat stimulus. I hope it's not rude to suggest that your comments sound like those of a very naive "fiscal conservative." (My questions elicited one response so far, consisting of three very evasive answers.)

[Ruminator]

Your comment about repaying borrowings is also curious. Government borrowing in a recession is a substitute for the "normal" borrowing that business is not doing.

This is statement about government borrowing is beyond wrong. It's not the same as business borrowing.

When businesses borrow money (whether bank loans or issuing corporate bonds), they have to convince investors (banks, pension funds managers, mutual fund managers, etc) that they will repay the money. The investors cannot conscript tomorrow's children to pay interest on a loan the business failed to pay back.

Government borrowing doesn't have the same hurdles. The government can borrow billions on the weakest of justifications and dump the payment obligations on citizens, including subsequent citizens who weren't even alive to approve of it.

If Ford Motors borrows $1 billion from banks and can't pay it back, the bank must eat the loss. The bank can't go after Ford employees' children and garnish their wages to fulfill the loan. You make bad loans, you lose money. Taking losses on poor loans is the feedback loop for business lending.

There is no feedback loop for bad government borrowing. Actually, the feedback loop is currency devaluation, high import prices, and lower standards of living. However, the time interval between cause-effect of reckless government borrowing and lower standard of living are far enough apart that the average citizen can't connect the dots.

Government borrowing is not a substitute for business borrowing. It would only be a substitute if the buyers of government bonds (treasury bills) were willing to forgive the debt in cases of bad government spending -- and who's going to do that? Certainly not your grandmother that bought a bunch of USA Savings Bonds, or the pension fund that bought a portfolio of bonds, or China central banker who bought some for his foreign reserves.

[Bricker]

Repeat after me: "Destruction is bad." (Sorry, I forgot who actually said that.)


Frédéric Bastiat. :D

[mazinger_z]

You obviously misread everything I wrote; don't know if it was "willful." If I'd imagined someone might think I was endorsing the Valdez oil spill, I'd have connected the dots more thoroughly. Unless I'm giving you too much credit, you were trying to say that all spending is stimulative, and somehow criticizing the use of GDP as a measuring stick -- and, that is what I was responding to. I just wanted to make it clear to other readers that destruction is bad, even if it does raise the GDP. Increases to GDP via this method does have serious consequences, but I'm sure you already knew that.

Your comment about repaying borrowings is also curious. Government borrowing in a recession is a substitute for the "normal" borrowing that business is not doing. And Republicans with their "supply side" theories are happy to claim future tax revenue from their tax-cut stimuli; I guess the same courtesy is not extended to Democrat stimulus. I hope it's not rude to suggest that your comments sound like those of a very naive "fiscal conservative." (My questions elicited one response so far, consisting of three very evasive answers.) No my comments are those of college degree in economics. Ruminator already said most of what I was going to say. I'll add: Government borrowing can also come from inflating the currency, or in the classic case: printing more money. While I don't endorse the popularly known "supply side" theory (and there is only one theory traditionally taught, btw), I do recognize the place for government spending and wealth redistribution. Seeing as how economic indicators are pointing to recovery, is there really a need for even more increased government borrowing? Borrowing with no actual communicated theory of how how it will be paid back. But, I can guess: increased taxes.

[Ludovic]

Well, some Americans would be stimulated if they saw Palin being hosed....

[Sam Stone]

Not quite. First, borrowing is generally stimulative whether it's private or by government. Second, you contradict yourself, first "diverting money away from productive ends" and later ("money [spent lobbying] will ultimately be paid for by people buying insurance policies") tacking it on. So third, although OP was obviously striving for humor, unproductive activity can be stimulative.

Let's step back and examine the rationale for a Keynesian stimulus and a 'multiplier effect'. The idea is that when times get tough, people tend to save their money and not spend it. This causes a drop in demand, which causes productive assets to stop being productive (i.e. factories shut down). So the notion is that the government can replace the demand through borrowing money and injecting it back into the economy. That's what Keynesian 'pump priming' is all about.

Now, if your health insurance company is already operating at full capacity, spending all the money its business model says it should spend, and charging what the market will bear for insurance, and the government suddenly dumps a huge risk on it ("We might force you to change your business model in a way that will eat your profits!"), and therefore they are forced to spend more money than they wanted to in an attempt to mitigate their risk, you aren't stimulating anything. Sure, more money is going to PR flacks and politicians and advertising agencies, bu that money is coming from somewhere else - maybe they're cutting services to pay for it, or laying off employees, or raising premiums (which causes the health care consumer to divert his or her own funds).

Assuming that the health insurance industry is competitive and reasonably run (big ifs, I'll grant you), then this forced diversion of funds will make the enterprise less efficient, and ultimately hurt the economy. If there is a very short term stimulus because the firm has to work its employees harder or borrow money to pay for its lobbying campaign, it will certainly not have any kind of positive multiplier because the money is crowding out other investment. So once the money has run full cycle (i.e. the loan is paid back), you'll find that the net result is worse than if the government hadn't forced the diversion in the first place.

A famous example of this was the Valdez oil spill which increased U.S. GDP and employment.

You need to understand that GDP doesn't measure everything. If you raze a city to the ground, you will get an increase in GDP because everyone is working like crazy to rebuild. Would you suggest that razing cities to the ground is good for the economy? What's missing from the formulation is the capital destruction that took place when the city was destroyed.

A simple example: Let's say I've got a nice house, and I'm working part-time to build a second home. Now someone comes along and destroys my house. Now I have to work full-time to recover my asset. So GDP goes up. But by the time I've rebuilt the house, what does my personal economy look like? I have a house again. Had it not been destroyed and I continued to work part time, I'd still have the house, AND half a house I built in my part-time work. In this case, destroying my home raised annual GDP output from that point forward, but ultimately left the economy poorer.

This is the essence of the broken windows fallacy. The only way Keynesian spending can possibly overcome this is if there are so many assets lying idle, and the money circulates enough times, that the overall growth in GDP overwhelms the capital-destroying effect of wrecking my home. Theoretically, this is possible, but it would require exactly the right circumstances.

You do hint, correctly, that productive spending is better than non-productive spending. This is why rationalists are baffled that GOP thinks highly of ammunition for Iraq, but frowns on Obama's domestic infrastructure repair.

This is a glib and superficial analysis of the type that 'rationalists' like to make. I can easily give you a 'rationalist' response to both of these assertions. For example:

- spending money on ammunition in Iraq is a good investment, because a peaceful, democratic Iraq helps stabilize the region and reduce the influence of radical islam. This eventually cause more stable energy prices, reduces the risk of an economy-wrecking WMD attack, increases trade, and ultimately paves the way for a more peaceful middle east that will require a smaller U.S. military footprint, saving money in the long run.

- Spending money on a domestic infrastructure could easily lead to over-building, which in return leads to long-term maintenance costs. In the meantime, the forced infrastructure stimulus is likely to be timed to land after the recession is over, which means the useless infrastructure will crowd out investment in other things.

I'm not saying that these arguments are unambiguously true - just that your opponents are smarter than you give them credit for and likely have better arguments than the simplistic caricatures you offered.

And why rationalists are baffled that GOP, who brag in another thread about their sense of community, don't see health care and education as being particularly productive spending.

Again, this is a case of you not understanding your opponents arguments. They would argue that federal spending of this sort crowds out local structures that do the same thing, and ultimately destroys community. For example, before there was a widespread social safety net, personal welfare was provided for through extended families (i.e. grandparents moved back in with their children), parents saved more for the education of their children, which gave them more control and a vested interest in making sure their kids worked hard and got good value, etc. And the children relied more on their parents, which meant they had to accept more parental control and oversight. These forces bind families together.

Charity received from a relative, friend, or neighbor instills a sense of obligation and reciprocal behavior, which binds communities together. Charity given by a faceless bureaucrat instills a sense of entitlement and breeds resentment and class warfare.


Interesting link you provide; better would be one with the relevant totals. The SEIU (Union) ranks #5 on your cited list, but represents no less than 2.2 million people. By comparison, Altria Group ranked #23 with only 10,400 employees.

So what? The fact remains that Democrats may work for the benefit of this special interest, even when it conflicts with the general welfare. That's a bad thing. Have a look at California and New York, where the public unions are running their respective states into the ground.

By the way, your phrase "not even Keynesians" suggests that the phrase "We are all Keynesians now" (attributed to Milton Friedman and/or Richard Nixon) is no longer operative.

It was never operative. It was a political statement made to justify big government spending. Or are you suggesting that the words of Richard M. Nixon represent revealed truths?


Are you a "fiscal conservative", Sam Stone? If so, perhaps you (or any "fiscal conservative" reading this) can clarify the term for me by answering some true/false questions:

(1) Reagan's deficit spending was better for America than Clinton's budget balancing.
(2) Obama's debt-increasing stimulus was bad for the economy.
(3) Cutting spending is generally good, but if there's still a deficit after all cutting, taxes should be raised to balance the budget.


Again with the simplistic arguments. I don't have time for these right now, but I'll be happy to attack them later if you want me to.

[Zeriel]

In just pure political contributions, here is the top 200 list (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A). You'll notice that the top 20 places or so are heavily weighted towards unions, Indian bands, and 'progressive' PACs like ActBlue. The NEA is at the top, running away with the prize by a wide margin. And that only includes direct political contributions, which makes up a small percentage of their political spending (note that the first health-care provider doesn't appear until way, way down the list).

To be fair, if you order that list by Federal-level contributions instead of total, while ActBlue is still tops, the next several are all banks and finance types.

The unions (starting with Electrical Workers at 7th) are still higher than the first recognizable medical lobby (blue cross, at 15th).

[msmith537]

Having a little trouble reading between the lines of your manifesto against our current system. Is that you clamoring for changes in the way big money influences our government? Campaign finance reform perhaps?

Were you proposing finance reform? Because it basically seemed like a proposal to try and extort money from industries you find politically undesirable by proposing absurd legislation.



...unproductive activity can be stimulative.
A famous example of this was the Valdez oil spill which increased U.S. GDP and employment.

Well, the Valdez spill was certainly famous but can you point me to cite that describes how it increased employment and US GDP? Because on the surface it seems to be a classic case of the Broken Window Fallacy. Sure it may have put a lot of clean-up crews and lawyers and so on to work. But how does that compare to production lost through the loss of service of the Exxon Valdez, the lost fuel, damage to the Alaska fishing industry and whatever else I'm not thinking of.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

What is this, some sort of tongue-in-cheek Swiftian proposal? Or just another half-clever way to take a swipe at Republicans?

I'm not sure what a Swiftian proposal is, so probably not. It is part joke, part swipe, part serious. If 'big money' is to attempt to dominate the government, what can be done? Government lobbying seems like a rare instance of a thing that can squeeze cash out of a pubbie. Deserves a second look, no?

In case you were serious, I should point out that not even Keynesians believe you can stimulate the economy by forcing private industry to divert money away from productive ends and spend it on lobbying. A Keynesian stimulus only works if it's money borrowed by government and injected into the economy. The health care industry's money is already in the economy. The money they are spending fighting legislation will ultimately be paid for by people buying insurance policies.
I'm glad you pointed that out. However, if at some point the pubbies run out of money with which to lobby, then we can finally push through the legislation to halve the military budget and impose mandatory electric cars on America. Imagine how that would stimulate the economy!!!

Anyway, as a Swiftian proposal it misses the mark. Because if you really want to raise the big bucks, you need to threaten to hurt the unions.
From a 'pure bucks' perspective, maybe. But I'm pro-union, so I wouldn't do that. And anyway, unions are in fact a positive force, though I'm sure you can present examples of bad union behavior/effects.

In just pure political contributions, here is the top 200 list (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A). You'll notice that the top 20 places or so are heavily weighted towards unions, Indian bands, and 'progressive' PACs like ActBlue. The NEA is at the top, running away with the prize by a wide margin. And that only includes direct political contributions, which makes up a small percentage of their political spending (note that the first health-care provider doesn't appear until way, way down the list).

Yah, but I have an agenda, and it isn't 'max dollars possible'. I am not a pubbie you see.

According to This study (http://www.mackinac.org/9971), on average, the biggest unions in the country spend roughly 10% of all the dues they collect on lobbying activities and campaign donations. The SEIU alone spent about $60 million dollars on Obama's election.
It is a big part of why he won. But your 'ordinary Joe' types are generally pro-union too, so having a candidate stand next to a union for the photograph ends up appealing to voters. Unless it is a pubbie standing next to the union, in which case the pubbie breaks out in boils of revulsion and spoils the photo.
So if you want to get a lot of lobbying money into the economy, threaten the big unions, and threaten to shut down the Indian casinos. The health care lobbyists are pikers in comparison.
I can tell we aren't going to be on the same side in this. But that's okay! No I am not going to threaten the big unions, that is ridiculous. Indian casinos? Can't say I know enough about them either way, though I am inclined to throw the Natives a bone any chance I get, seeing as how they are generally the victims of American genocide.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

To the OP: So what are you proposing, that liberal leaning industries pool money together to against GOP causes? The word for that is politics. I'm fine with that. I'm not sure what they could go after, though...raising taxes on businesses, churches?

Well... I admit it is bad in the op. But I was considering proposing a volume of threatening legislation that would ultimately bankrupt the Republican opposition of certain things (if this is even possible), at which point meaningful changes could be made. Like going after the military budget with an axe. Then a scalpel.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

No my comments are those of college degree in economics.
Thanks for showing up :) I will probably end up on the other side of some issues with you too, though I'll wager for different reasons than with Sam Stone.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Were you proposing finance reform? Because it basically seemed like a proposal to try and extort money from industries you find politically undesirable by proposing absurd legislation.


I'm not proposing extorting anyone. The pubbies don't have to spend so much on lobbying. For instance, they could spend it on green energy technology instead. By halving the military budget and diverting some of the difference. We'll raise taxes on lobbying income too.

[elucidator]

They'd probably rather go Straight to the Wall. We should be willing to listen, and incorporate some of thier ideas. That one, for instance.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

They'd probably rather go Straight to the Wall. We should be willing to listen, and incorporate some of thier ideas. That one, for instance.

Excellent! We should implement your suggestion immediately!

[Try2B Comprehensive]

What is the word for this?


"Stupid".

Wrong. The word is 'hosed'.

[septimus]

Hi, Sam Stone. It's true that I was "snarky" about the holes in your argument. Much of your response seems devoted to pointing out that oil spills and broken windows are bad. I guess I should have mentioned that I already knew that; we could have saved some time. As for "You need to understand that GDP doesn't measure everything" I was espousing this "novel" concept before it became popular even in Chicago. (And please let's not turn this into a contest about whose dog can piss farther. I don't have a degree in Econ, but I got straight A's with the Chairman of the Econ Dept. begging me to change majors.)

Since you do seem focused on the efficacy of investments and therefore whether public or private borrowing is better, let me point out that Obama's stimulus (to repair existing infrastructure whose need for repair is not in doubt, what's with "Spending money on a domestic infrastructure could easily lead to over-building" ?) just might seem more efficacious than the private borrowing which led to the telecom and housing bubbles.

My questions, perhaps poorly phrased, were sincere. If Democrat deficits are bad, what about Reagan's? Unless you denounce those deficits unambigiously, I'm afraid I'll have to treat "fiscal conservative" as meaning "just another Beck-Limbaughist who's read an economics textbook."

Again with the simplistic arguments. I don't have time for these right now, but I'll be happy to attack them later if you want me to.

The questions weren't "arguments". I'm just looking for simple answers to find out what "fiscal conservatives" really believe.

[Sam Stone]

I'm not sure what a Swiftian proposal is, so probably not.

Jonathan Swift was a satirist who lived in the 1700's. He wrote a work called: "A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick", which is generally referred to as just "A Modest Proposal". Essentially, the proposal was that Irish babies be fattened up for English tables. The first in a long and distinguished line of satirical essays written by him and others since.

It is part joke, part swipe, part serious. If 'big money' is to attempt to dominate the government, what can be done? Government lobbying seems like a rare instance of a thing that can squeeze cash out of a pubbie. Deserves a second look, no?

Sure. I'm working on my own proposal to beat libbies with a club until they give me their money.

I'm glad you pointed that out. However, if at some point the pubbies run out of money with which to lobby, then we can finally push through the legislation to halve the military budget and impose mandatory electric cars on America. Imagine how that would stimulate the economy!!!

As a matter of fact, no it won't.


From a 'pure bucks' perspective, maybe. But I'm pro-union, so I wouldn't do that. And anyway, unions are in fact a positive force, though I'm sure you can present examples of bad union behavior/effects.

In this day and age, if you support the public unions you forfeit any claim you might have to be a champion of the poor or the underdog. Because the public unions have managed to extract for themselves favors from government (using taxpayer dollars) which gives them significantly higher salaries and much better benefits than the average person whose taxes are paying them. They are becoming the new Bourgeoisie.

And no, they are not an overall force for good. Because unions do not create wealth, their use of forced collective bargaining and government power represents nothing more than a transfer of wealth from a poorer sector of society to them. Everything they gain comes at the expense of everyone else.


Yah, but I have an agenda, and it isn't 'max dollars possible'. I am not a pubbie you see.

Well, at least you're being honest.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

In this day and age, if you support the public unions you forfeit any claim you might have to be a champion of the poor or the underdog. Because the public unions have managed to extract for themselves favors from government (using taxpayer dollars) which gives them significantly higher salaries and much better benefits than the average person whose taxes are paying them. They are becoming the new Bourgeoisie.

Aw geez. I think you want to change the subject to the 'public unions', which isn't really the same thing. Bourgeoisie, puh-leeze. I am one good proletariat.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Jonathan Swift was a satirist who lived in the 1700's. He wrote a work called: "A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick", which is generally referred to as just "A Modest Proposal". Essentially, the proposal was that Irish babies be fattened up for English tables. The first in a long and distinguished line of satirical essays written by him and others since.
Ok, I am familiar with that, the name just didn't ring any bells.
I guess you gravitate toward the idea of destroying wealth, whether it is kids for breakfast or crushed clunkers. I can dig it. But I don't why you wouldn't favor reduced military spending. Even if the plan is to export expensive tanks and planes and whatnot, these things have no purpose but to destroy things. And I think it is a safe bet that anyone willing to pay millions or billions for them is also willing to use them. So, on a global scale, military spending causes money to move around with the end result being something gets blown up. What does that help? Better to produce worthwhile products. Like an independent American energy infrastructure.

As a matter of fact, no it won't.
It is a proposal to create value. It is at the expense of the elites, but they are mostly dead weight anyway. I hope you'll elaborate. I could of course be wrong you know.


In this day and age, if you support the public unions you forfeit any claim you might have to be a champion of the poor or the underdog. Because the public unions have managed to extract for themselves favors from government (using taxpayer dollars) which gives them significantly higher salaries and much better benefits than the average person whose taxes are paying them. They are becoming the new Bourgeoisie.
To come back to this. The trouble is that the unions are too small. Bigger stronger unions would mean better jobs for more people and less exploitation of the vulnerable. Look at Germany. They're heavily unionized (and a little socialistic) yet have not only managed to hang on to their manufacturing base, they are the world's leading export economy (or maybe 2nd to China now...). Their workers are not rendered powerless by their system, people get 6 weeks vacation and health care, yet we, with our system that promotes powerless workers and really fat fat cats, can't compete and is losing its manufacturing sector altogether.
This new bourgeoisie thing is ridiculous. I'm talking about giving realistic pay and benefits to people who actually work for a living to make the wheels go 'round. You seem to want to take something away from them... because why?

And no, they are not an overall force for good. Because unions do not create wealth, their use of forced collective bargaining and government power represents nothing more than a transfer of wealth from a poorer sector of society to them. Everything they gain comes at the expense of everyone else.

Except for the fact that union workers are the ones who actually contribute value in the work world. Take them away and everything stops. You'd have a bunch of starving paper-pushers. In the dark. With no mail and garbage piled everywhere. Collective bargaining is a way to avoid exploitation and receive pay and benefits that are actually proportionate to the value they contribute. As we have seen, tilting the whole system toward fat cats who exploit workers until they can't pay their mortgages doesn't work. Those guys really need to get a real job.


Well, at least you're being honest.
Thanks, but let me do one better. I am being honest in the context of the Overton window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window).

[Ruminator]

Except for the fact that union workers are the ones who actually contribute value in the work world. Take them away and everything stops. You'd have a bunch of starving paper-pushers.

If union workers were truly the essential contributors of value, it would men they were irreplaceable. History has shown otherwise.

[Sam Stone]

If union workers were truly the essential contributors of value, it would men they were irreplaceable. History has shown otherwise.

It would also mean they wouldn't need forced collective bargaining to get the perks they enjoy.

And since they're only 12% of the workforce, I have a hard time believing they're the ones providing all the value. Especially since a good percentage of that 12% consists of government employees.

[elucidator]

It would also mean they wouldn't need forced collective bargaining to get the perks they enjoy....

You seem to imply, without really saying it, that unions workers are wildly overpaid, and management suffers under their yoke. Are we to take a moment and weep for the downtrodden CEOs, who can barely scrape $1,000/hr from the greedy grip of the labor bosses?

What sort of frivolous "perks" did you have in mind? The eight hour day? Health benefits? Pensions? Is it your reading of history that these things were freely given from the gentle hand of capital, and that lying labor bosses rushed to take credit for their largesse?

You imply a great deal more than you say. How about you just say it, so we can get a clearer view?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

If union workers were truly the essential contributors of value, it would men they were irreplaceable. History has shown otherwise.

Right, sorry. I was thinking in terms of my plans for much wider unionization. Workers are irreplaceable. The powerful are quick to point out that individual workers, however, are not irreplaceable. This is why nearly everyone who does something productive for a living needs to belong to a union. Individuals are very frequently (I'm not quite ready to say inevitably) exploited otherwise.

From that perspective my statement makes sense.

[Sam Stone]

You seem to imply, without really saying it, that unions workers are wildly overpaid, and management suffers under their yoke. Are we to take a moment and weep for the downtrodden CEOs, who can barely scrape $1,000/hr from the greedy grip of the labor bosses?

What sort of frivolous "perks" did you have in mind? The eight hour day? Health benefits? Pensions? Is it your reading of history that these things were freely given from the gentle hand of capital, and that lying labor bosses rushed to take credit for their largesse?


How about the CalPers pension? In case you're not familiar with it, you can retire at 55, and get 2% of your salary per year of service, calculated against your single highest year of earnings. So if someone starts working in a public union in California at age 25, they can retire at 55 at 60% of their highest salary. Not only that, but they get full medical benefits for life, AND, their spouse continues to draw their pension even if they die.

But wait - it gets better. Your unused sick benefits can be converted to years of service if you don't use them up.

So looking at the Calpers benefit tables, if you start working there at age 20, and you retire at 55 and have two years of sick time built up, you'll be given credit for 37 years of service, and you will receive 74% of your highest salary.

The use of your single highest earning year, instead of taking a 3 or 5 year average, makes the system ridiculously easy to game - and you can find all kinds of people who make much more in their final year than they did in the previous year - it's quite common for people to look for a higher paying job in their last year, and other people in the 'system' help them because they know why they're doing it. So someone driving a bus for $70,000 per year may suddenly move up to 'supervisor' at $100,000 per year for their last year - then they retire with a $74,000 annual pension at age 55. - higher than their previous annual earnings.

If you're willing to stick it out to age 60, you'll do even better. Someone who starts at age 20 and retires at 60 will get 92% of their highest salary as a permanent pension - plus COLAs of 2-5% per year, and adjustments based on purchasing power changes in your region.

Allowing the surviving spouse to continue collecting means the average lifespan of the pension goes up from maybe 80 years to 85-90. So you have a situation where a person can work for 30 years, then collect a full pension for another 30-35 years.

I have a private sector pension - one of the better ones with a large corporation. My benefits are less than HALF of that. And if I die, my wife does not continue collecting my pension, other than the amount I contributed.

You imply a great deal more than you say. How about you just say it, so we can get a clearer view?

I'm not sure what you are insinuating. Why don't YOU be more specific?

By the way, do you really think that the money the union workers negotiate comes out of the pocket of the business owner? You think this is a wealth transfer from the rich fatcats to the poor union employees?

If so, you need to learn a little bit about business. The fact is, when union wages go up, the company rolls the cost into the price of its products, just like it does when rent and raw materials go up in price. If the wages go high enough that the product is no longer competitive, the company goes out of business. That's the way it works.

So when my minimum-wage earning mother took out a 40 year mortgage and put up every nickel she had to buy a little home, the price of that home was higher than it otherwise would have been, because it was constructed in part by union labor which makes three or four times as much money as she did. When a young family buys their first GM automobile, they're also contributing several thousand dollars to the union's pension fund - to provide pensions far better than they'll probably ever get. And everyone who lives in California gets to pay tax to support the public pension - a pension almost certainly far better than they'll ever get.

In addition, public unionized employees are now earning as much as 30% more than their equivalent private-sector counterparts. See, at least private sector unions are constrained somewhat by the laws of the marketplace - take too much from the golden goose, and it stops laying eggs. But in the public sector, there is no such constraint. California's pension system is way underwater, with huge shortfalls. Employee salaries and benefits make up a large percentage of the California state budget, which is heavily in deficit. Who's ultimately going to pay for that? Everyone but the retired public employees.

Here's the Calpers benefits guide (https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xkfz8ga3khXN4_pub-6-2008%2011%201.pdf) if you want to do your own calculations.

[elucidator]

What! A group of scalawags have leveraged their political power to afford access to the public coffers! The horror, the horror! Just you wait until the Republicans find out, they take a very dim view of stealing their playbook!

Those CEOs who couldn't carry home their paychecks if it was in Benjamins, what union do they belong to? Their pay doesn't get passed along to the consumer? That's a neat trick, how do they manage that?

[Sam Stone]

Of course it does. You're offering a strawman argument.

The fact is that you support a system in which people use political power to force other people to give them money to finance salaries and benefits that are much higher than average. Because these costs are passed along as prices, and are therefore regressive, you support a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, in the name of union labor.

I personally support the poor. That's why I like Wal-Mart, and oppose things like the Davis-Bacon act, which shuts poorer, non-union laborers out of the government contracting business. How many lobbying dollars to you think the unions had to kick back to politicians to buy that particular favor?

You know that government stimulus package for weatherizing homes? It was supposed to help the economy by funneling jobs down to poor communities, giving semi-skilled people jobs putting weatherstripping on windows and whatnot. Guess what? The Unions got to that one, and managed to add a 'prevailing wage' rider to the work so that union labor rates would have to be paid for the job. So much for the semi-skilled guys.

And what's worse, that little clause has snarled the program in red tape while the government tries to figure out what the various prevailing wages are around the country. As a result, only a tiny percentage of the homes that were supposed to be weatherized by now have actually been done, and the program has turned into a complete waste.

But hey, the unions are happy. They kept all those non-union guys from getting jobs. Mission accomplished.

[elucidator]

...How many lobbying dollars to you think the unions had to kick back to politicians to buy that particular favor?...

I have no idea. Rather expect you to provide such information, since you are the one making the allegation. When might we expect such?

[Ruminator]

This is why nearly everyone who does something productive for a living needs to belong to a union.

This totally wrong advice to give to people. Unions and "collective bargaining" make you weaker not stronger. That is what history has shown.

The only thing a person can count on to be marketable in the working world is the knowledge in his brain and the skills in his arms & legs. (Hopefully more of the former than the latter as he gets older.) The only thing a worker can really count on is his willingness to constantly improve his raw skills. If you rely on a union, you're setting yourself up for an economic downfall.

If unions were great, they would have prepared their members (e.g. education/training) to earn a living in other ways unrelated to the company they were tied to. For example, an GM auto worker wins wage & benefit concessions via the union. Great. Things are seemingly wonderful for 20 years. Now the auto industry tanks. The union reluctantly gives back more and more benefits and cut wages. Also, more and more union workers are laid off. Now what? You're 50 years old and have zero value to the outside world because the only thing you know is how to operate some robot in a plant that's been shut down. Your entire family's economy was tied to what the union could "win" for you. Now you realize the union just castrated you into complacency.

In this modern world, you expect to work from age 18 to 67 and possibly even longer. There is no union in the world that will give you a stable job for 50 years. There is no union I know of that continously replenishes your brain with new skills so that the layoff from the job is not an economic disaster. If people join one, they deserve the downside they get.

The fundamental problem is that the only "leverage" unions have is to instruct their members to stop working. If one stops to think about it, that's very strange leverage. Instead of leverage of worker's improving knowledge (their workers' brains are better than anyone else's brains), the only tool they can use to threaten is the synchronization of a temporary work stoppage. History has shown that this type of leverage is very weak. This type of feeble leverage does not carry you through a lifetime of employment.

The only sane way to use unions is to treat their negotiated benefits as temporary "bonuses." Unfortunately, workers don't do that. They treat their union salary & benefits as lifetime "baselines." With that mentality, you will get blindsided by the economic winds of change: changing consumer preferences, globalization, layoffs, etc.

Organize and join a union in the 21st century?! Total financial suicide.

[Sam Stone]

I have no idea. Rather expect you to provide such information, since you are the one making the allegation. When might we expect such?

I already gave you all sorts of links and documents showing that big labor dominates the largest political contributors, and pointed to a specific case of union lobbying modifying a stimulus package to their benefit - to the point where it became useless as stimulus. So I suspect your question above is simply an attempt to deflect the issue by focusing on my rhetorical statement. In fact, the Davis-Bacon act has been around since the depression.

Here's a little story with the kinds of concrete numbers you're looking for. After Katrina, Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon act to attempt to speed up government reconstruction assistance. The labor unions and Democrats went ballistic. The AFL-CIO lobbied like crazy to halt the suspension.

Leading the charge to reinstate the Davis-Bacon act was representative George Miller. He was in charge of the labor subcommittee in the House, and got a lot of the credit for Bush having to ultimately rescind the suspension.

So... Who do you think George Miller gets his money from? OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00007390) has the list.

Here are all the groups that gave the maximum allowable contributions to his campaign:


Apollo Group
American Health Care Assn
Carpenters & Joiners Union
Communications Workers of America
International Assn of Fire Fighters
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Laborers Union
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union
Operating Engineers Union
Service Employees International Union
Teamsters Union
United Food & Commercial Workers Union


This guy is completely owned by the labor unions. And when the D-B act was reinstated, it did slow down reconstruction. So... If you supported this, you supported keeping desperately poor disaster victims from getting the rebuilding assistance they needed, so that union workers could maintain their higher-than-average pay and benefits, and shut out lower-cost competition.

I'm sorry, but this isn't 'progressive' at all. The labor unions (especially the public labor unions) are just a big-money special interest using government to carve themselves a bigger slice of the pie - generally at the expense of people less well off than they are.

Now, I'm guessing you think the answer to this is to expand the reach of the unions so that more people can get these benefits. If so, you need to understand that the unions aren't creating wealth - they're distributing wealth from others to them. For the big labor unions to get what they get, they HAVE to have lots of other people outside the system to pay for it. They're parasites.

When union power grows beyond a certain small percentage of the population, it becomes unsustainable. Then you get labor riots like had in Britain in the '70's, or you get an economic collapse like Greece or like what's about to happen to California. You can't vote yourself a free lunch.

Unions do many good things. They can help uphold safety standards, maintain codes of conduct for employees, etc. This is especially true of the more technical unions. I'm not criticizing unions per-se - I'm criticizing big labor - the organized power structures in the seats of government which buy politicians and work to modify laws to their benefit at the expense of the public.

Unions are a valuable tool for workers, allowing them to exercise their right to bargain collectively with their employers. But when they manage to protect themselves behind the shield of government at a national level, bad things happen.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I already gave you all sorts of links and documents showing that big labor dominates the largest political contributors, and pointed to a specific case of union lobbying modifying a stimulus package to their benefit - to the point where it became useless as stimulus. So I suspect your question above is simply an attempt to deflect the issue by focusing on my rhetorical statement. In fact, the Davis-Bacon act has been around since the depression.

Here's a little story with the kinds of concrete numbers you're looking for. After Katrina, Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon act to attempt to speed up government reconstruction assistance. The labor unions and Democrats went ballistic. The AFL-CIO lobbied like crazy to halt the suspension.

Leading the charge to reinstate the Davis-Bacon act was representative George Miller. He was in charge of the labor subcommittee in the House, and got a lot of the credit for Bush having to ultimately rescind the suspension.

So... Who do you think George Miller gets his money from? OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00007390) has the list.

Here are all the groups that gave the maximum allowable contributions to his campaign:



This guy is completely owned by the labor unions. And when the D-B act was reinstated, it did slow down reconstruction. So... If you supported this, you supported keeping desperately poor disaster victims from getting the rebuilding assistance they needed, so that union workers could maintain their higher-than-average pay and benefits, and shut out lower-cost competition.

I'm sorry, but this isn't 'progressive' at all. The labor unions (especially the public labor unions) are just a big-money special interest using government to carve themselves a bigger slice of the pie - generally at the expense of people less well off than they are.

Now, I'm guessing you think the answer to this is to expand the reach of the unions so that more people can get these benefits. If so, you need to understand that the unions aren't creating wealth - they're distributing wealth from others to them. For the big labor unions to get what they get, they HAVE to have lots of other people outside the system to pay for it. They're parasites.

When union power grows beyond a certain small percentage of the population, it becomes unsustainable. Then you get labor riots like had in Britain in the '70's, or you get an economic collapse like Greece or like what's about to happen to California. You can't vote yourself a free lunch.

Unions do many good things. They can help uphold safety standards, maintain codes of conduct for employees, etc. This is especially true of the more technical unions. I'm not criticizing unions per-se - I'm criticizing big labor - the organized power structures in the seats of government which buy politicians and work to modify laws to their benefit at the expense of the public.

Unions are a valuable tool for workers, allowing them to exercise their right to bargain collectively with their employers. But when they manage to protect themselves behind the shield of government at a national level, bad things happen.
I need to come back later to answer the content of your post. Thanks for it. For now I wonder how to calculate the 'dollar velocity' effects (is that the right terminology?) of Republican groups coughing up another $380 million to lobby against legislation empowering unions/unionization. The evangeli-proles and their counterparts are bilked most by corporate America. A portion of this income is handed to lobbyists to influence policy away from pro-union legislation. Those lobbyists blow wads of cash on hookers and drugs, cars and boats &etc. The hookers get a lot more manicures and pedicures, which increases immigration from Southeast Asia (I know this sounds crazy, but IMHO it is true). These immigrants really ought to be taught to join unions so they can lead prosperous, dignified lives. But the evangeli-proles disagree with their origins and will pay to take them down. I think in cases like this the money changes hands more often than in, say, bonds.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I'm sorry, but this isn't 'progressive' at all. The labor unions (especially the public labor unions) are just a big-money special interest using government to carve themselves a bigger slice of the pie - generally at the expense of people less well off than they are.
There is quite a lot to say to all this, so let's start with this series of points.
Unions are just a big money special interest huh? To champion people who do productive work for a living is just the dastardliest conspiracy ever conceived, no?
Now, I'm guessing you think the answer to this is to expand the reach of the unions so that more people can get these benefits. If so, you need to understand that the unions aren't creating wealth - they're distributing wealth from others to them. For the big labor unions to get what they get, they HAVE to have lots of other people outside the system to pay for it. They're parasites.
Congress doesn't create wealth. Shall we abolish it too?
You really should understand how this works by now. Financial Transactions 101: Money is exchanged for goods and services. I'm sure you've heard of that. The 'others' from whom unions are 'distributing wealth' are the people consuming the union workers' products and services. It is a shock to some when they find out what those products and services are worth. Your perspective seems to be 'parasite= not a slave'.

When union power grows beyond a certain small percentage of the population, it becomes unsustainable. Then you get labor riots like had in Britain in the '70's, or you get an economic collapse like Greece or like what's about to happen to California. You can't vote yourself a free lunch.
Well, I'll listen if you'd like to explain how unions are to blame for all these troubles, but I don't buy it. Unions in this country used to represent a larger percentage of the population, and overall people enjoyed a higher standard of living. California's main problem is that they've been spending more than they earn for way too long, and now they're trapped by their own laws. Conditions in California have changed a great deal in 50 years or so, and those changes were not handled well. I find absurd your suggestion that some people who actually do something productive for a living having the gall to demand a living wage is the common root of all these issues.

Not that I ever said you couldn't find examples of bad union behavior/effects. And I agree with the notion of a powerful union respecting the responsibility that comes with their power. But you strike me as basically demonizing unions.

[msmith537]

Unions are just a big money special interest huh? To champion people who do productive work for a living is just the dastardliest conspiracy ever conceived, no?
...
I find absurd your suggestion that some people who actually do something productive for a living having the gall to demand a living wage is the common root of all these issues.



Maybe you can explain your hard-on for "people who do productive work for a living"? By "productive" I assume you mean "work with their hands". Why do you think their work is more valuable than people who work with their mind? Or people whose work consists of leading and organizing others?

See, "productive" work isn't really all that valuable. Most things people can produce can be produced more cheaply and accurately by someone else or by a machine.

[Kearsen]

*snip* We'll raise taxes on lobbying income too.

This would be an interesting mechanic, especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling.

[elucidator]

....See, "productive" work isn't really all that valuable. Most things people can produce can be produced more cheaply and accurately by someone else or by a machine.

Reckon we have a problem then, what with our "work ethic" insisting that people who don't work aren't worth a damn, and not enough to work to go around. Whatever shall we do with all these useless people?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Maybe you can explain your hard-on for "people who do productive work for a living"? By "productive" I assume you mean "work with their hands". Why do you think their work is more valuable than people who work with their mind? Or people whose work consists of leading and organizing others?
It doesn't have to be working with their hands necessarily. My beef is that there is a strong trend to de-value labor. I'm also irritated by attempts by some people to dazzle the rest of us dumbasses with the vast mental prowess it takes to add up debits and credits or organize paperwork. The most special thing about those tasks is that people can get into a position where they can exploit genuinely productive workers with the stroke of a pen, without really having to do anything. It is one of the older injustices and really not a product of talent at all, but rather of privilege and avarice.

See, "productive" work isn't really all that valuable. Most things people can produce can be produced more cheaply and accurately by someone else or by a machine.
It is nice that you take such a polar position in these debates, msmith537. As many things as can be produced by a machine are already produced by a machine. As for 'someone else', that is part of the point of a union. You don't get to corner individuals and bully them one by one with your entire corporation to grind them all down into a bunch of serfs. Workers' interests are collectively represented. This seems drastically more fair to everyone except certain corporate apologists.

[Shodan]

Unions are just a big money special interest huh? Yes.To champion people who do productive work for a living is just the dastardliest conspiracy ever conceived, no? No.

Congress doesn't create wealth. Shall we abolish it too?No, most people agree on the value of a regulated free market. But you are probably more correct than you intended - Congress should not be taking sides in labor disputes, absent any violation of law.

I'm sure you've heard of that. The 'others' from whom unions are 'distributing wealth' are the people consuming the union workers' products and services. Also from stock holders and other owners (pension funds, for instance, hold a lot of stock). Unions also penalize non-union members in general, by artificially inflating labor costs.
Unions in this country used to represent a larger percentage of the population, and overall people enjoyed a higher standard of living. Actually, the peak for labor in the US was the 1950s. Could you please produce a cite demonstrating that people had a higher standard of living then than they do now?

Regards,
Shodan

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Actually, the peak for labor in the US was the 1950s. Could you please produce a cite demonstrating that people had a higher standard of living then than they do now?

The unemployment rate (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet) was certainly lower in the '50's than today. The rate was below 3% much of the time in the '50's, a figure we haven't seen since.
Tying standard of living only to the unemployment rate is a generalization, sure, but then again millions of out-of-work people can't expect a great standard of living. Especially down the road when the bills come due.

[Shodan]

The unemployment rate (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet) was certainly lower in the '50's than today. The rate was below 3% much of the time in the '50's, a figure we haven't seen since. Your link doesn't work right now, but a bit of Googling seems to indicate that by "much of the time" you mean nine months out of the decade. (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt)

Tying standard of living only to the unemployment rate is a generalization, sure, but then again millions of out-of-work people can't expect a great standard of living. Especially down the road when the bills come due.Well, that's true. On the other hand, unemployment in a union town like Detroit does not argue very well for your notion that unionization prevents unemployment. In fact, there is some evidence that just the opposite is the case.
Michigan has the highest unemployment of all 50 states, at 10.6 percent. Rhode Island, another non-right-to-work state, had the nation's second highest unemployment rate, at 10.0 percent. The six states with the lowest unemployment rates all have right-to-work laws.
Cite. (http://www.mackinac.org/10227)

Regards,
Shodan

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I am going on vacation and will disappear for awhile. I hope we can pick this up again next week.