Should Ohio become right to work state ? (Cleveland: subsidized, wage)

[Cleveland_Collector]

A true, "right to work" state should not care whether organized labor exists nor what industries or sectors it exists in. It should do as it says- let free markets reign. And, as corporations have the right to lobby and influence government, so should collective labor. The problem is, unions would eventually gain strength as workers are exploited just as it happened in the previous century. That's why some states have laws explicitly weakening or forbidding the ability of workers to unionize. They think it's an enticement for industry and, for some, it is. However, once they sell their soul, they begin to realize how expendable and powerless they truly are. By then, it's too late.

[Boss]

Having moved from NJ to NC i believe that in the right to work states Corp. have the ability to pay lower wages and give less in benefits. I transfered within the Corp. to the same pos. in NC. Pay rate lower the idea of working 6 days a week for a 5 day job is common place. Upon Retirement had to read the employee handbook to Mgt. and HR to be able to get all retirement benefits that i worked 31 yrs for.
In both states I was a non-union employee. In NJ the payscale was better because the idea a union could be voted in was always in the mind of mgt. The Right to work Idea is a way to split up the strength of unions.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by ZnGuy

Cover Story: Top U.S. Business Climates: A Better Moustrap
Not sure if it is coincidence that the top ranked states are right to work, just wondering...

The following 22 states are right-to-work states:
Alabama
Arizona †
Arkansas †
Florida †
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi †
Nebraska
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma †
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming

The statistical breakdown of job growth and decline in the aforementioned 22 right to work states between 2000-2008.

1) Alabama- neagtive job growth
2) Arizona- positive job growth (albeit much lower than population growth)
3) Arkansas- negative job growth
4) Florida- positive job growth (albeit much lower than population growth)
5) Georgia- negative job growth
6) Idaho- positive job growth (albeit much lower than population growth)
7) Indiana- negative job growth
8) Iowa- positive job growth
9) Kansas- barely positive job growth
10) Louisiana- barely positive job growth
11) Mississippi- negative job growth
12) Nebraska- positive job growth
13) Nevada- positive job growth (albeit much lower than population growth)
14) North Carolina- negative job growth
15) North Dakota- positive job growth
16) Oklahoma- positive job growth
17) South Carolina- negative job growth
18) Tennessee- negative job growth
19) Texas- positive job growth (albeit much lower than population growth)
20) Utah- positive job growth (albeit much lower than population growth)
21) Virginia- positive job growth
22) Wyoming- positive job growth

The summation is that very few of these right to work states had a very good performance in terms of job growth between 2000-2008 with the exception of energy boom states in the Great Plains where the population is very low. The other model, the Sun Belt, features high population growth rates that have increased far faster than job growth. This plays right into the hands of the big businesses which face a surplus of available workers and therefore wages stagnate or fall. I could pull up the reamaining 28 states that aren't right to work and you will probably see the same mixed results as the 2000s have been classified as the lost decade economically anyway...

[RememberMee]

"Race to the bottom" was coined in reference to the states luring in corporations by offering more and more cheap labor, scared labor, cheap resources, subsidies, tax breaks, ease of pollution and less and less protection to its citizenry.... Arithmetic of the "race to the bottom" is pretty simple, the states that allow businesses to "externalize" the maximum amount of production costs on taxpayers, labor, environment & future generations will get a "business", for a short time at least. How much of "externalization" would you personally take up your arse? Ohio's governor doesn't hide his "race to the South" intentions, as far as he's concerned Ohioans are too "emboldened" for the corporate liking.

In the sane world, corporations would be competing for the right to make lives of Ohio, KY, IL, MI .... citizens more prosperous and dignified in an exchange for an opportunity to make a profit. Why our world is insane? I think you know why, there is not much sanity, freedom or democracy when 2-5% controls most of society's resources, wealth & production capacity and everybody and everything else "deserves" his/her right to exist by making himself "attractive" to the stake-holders.

[daddyody]

Originally Posted by chance2jump

Yet, Sweden continues to be very successful with their model.

If you call full socialism successful there are plenty of flights out of NYC to sweden - I'm sure you can afford a ticket, if not I'll make a donation.

The US was founded on the premise that if you work hard and have a marketable skill or product you have the chance to become successful, and yes, rich.
Removing the incentive to work hard and develope a marketable skill/product leads to diminished innovation, and lower productivity. Case in point - SWEDEN - who's two largest (and gov't subsidised I might add) companies (Volvo ansd Saab) have been sold off to China (as the case with Volvo) and the US (Sabb to GM before bankrupcy - Saab is no longer)
How successful is the Swedish model?

[daddyody]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

The statistical breakdown of job growth and decline in the aforementioned 22 right to work states between 2000-2008.

1) Alabama- neagtive job growth
2) Arizona- positive job growth (albeit much lower than population growth)
3) Arkansas- negative job growth
4) Florida- positive job growth (albeit much lower than population growth)
5) Georgia- negative job growth
6) Idaho- positive job growth (albeit much lower than population growth)
7) Indiana- negative job growth
8) Iowa- positive job growth
9) Kansas- barely positive job growth
10) Louisiana- barely positive job growth
11) Mississippi- negative job growth
12) Nebraska- positive job growth
13) Nevada- positive job growth (albeit much lower than population growth)
14) North Carolina- negative job growth
15) North Dakota- positive job growth
16) Oklahoma- positive job growth
17) South Carolina- negative job growth
18) Tennessee- negative job growth
19) Texas- positive job growth (albeit much lower than population growth)
20) Utah- positive job growth (albeit much lower than population growth)
21) Virginia- positive job growth
22) Wyoming- positive job growth

The summation is that very few of these right to work states had a very good performance in terms of job growth between 2000-2008 with the exception of energy boom states in the Great Plains where the population is very low. The other model, the Sun Belt, features high population growth rates that have increased far faster than job growth. This plays right into the hands of the big businesses which face a surplus of available workers and therefore wages stagnate or fall. I could pull up the reamaining 28 states that aren't right to work and you will probably see the same mixed results as the 2000s have been classified as the lost decade economically anyway...

Don't know where you get your "facts" but Indiana is NOT a RTW state - and I noticed that you gave no comparison to closed shop states -
[LEFT]For example, Economist James T. Bennett finds that the median income in
right-to-work states is about $2,333 higher than in non-right-to-work states when taxes and living costs are accounted for.
So why didn't you list the "closed shop states", like Michigan, or Ohio, or California and the economic data on their growth? Could it be that these facts don't support your agenda? Come on - if you're gonna make a factual argument include ALL the facts - not just those that support your position while excluding those that contradict your argument.[/LEFT]

[UKUKUK]

Originally Posted by daddyody

If you call full socialism successful there are plenty of flights out of NYC to sweden - I'm sure you can afford a ticket, if not I'll make a donation.

The US was founded on the premise that if you work hard and have a marketable skill or product you have the chance to become successful, and yes, rich.
Removing the incentive to work hard and develope a marketable skill/product leads to diminished innovation, and lower productivity. Case in point - SWEDEN - who's two largest (and gov't subsidised I might add) companies (Volvo ansd Saab) have been sold off to China (as the case with Volvo) and the US (Sabb to GM before bankrupcy - Saab is no longer)
How successful is the Swedish model?

Volvo and Saab were owned by Ford and GM respectively.

Toyota is government subsidized. As is Nissan. The only companies that aren't are the American ones and even then they receive the occasional kickback from the US gov't. There's also a reason we're not profitable on our small cars (hint: we're not as heavily subsidized).

"Full socialism" (even though you obviously have no clue what socialism is) must be successful, though, as Sweden has a higher average wealth, better health, better education, longer lifespans, higher rates of human development in general.

[UKUKUK]

Originally Posted by daddyody

Don't know where you get your "facts" but Indiana is NOT a RTW state - and I noticed that you gave no comparison to closed shop states -
[LEFT]For example, Economist James T. Bennett finds that the median income in
right-to-work states is about $2,333 higher than in non-right-to-work states when taxes and living costs are accounted for.
So why didn't you list the "closed shop states", like Michigan, or Ohio, or California and the economic data on their growth? Could it be that these facts don't support your agenda? Come on - if you're gonna make a factual argument include ALL the facts - not just those that support your position while excluding those that contradict your argument.[/LEFT]

If you trust anything Bennett says you're just asking for manipulated facts.

Try a wage drop of 17%. The reason right to work works in some states is because they're largely rural, often times, with no major metro areas. The major metros in right to work states usually aren't very lively or economically stable.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by UKUKUK

Volvo and Saab were owned by Ford and GM respectively.

Toyota is government subsidized. As is Nissan. The only companies that aren't are the American ones and even then they receive the occasional kickback from the US gov't. There's also a reason we're not profitable on our small cars (hint: we're not as heavily subsidized).

"Full socialism" (even though you obviously have no clue what socialism is) must be successful, though, as Sweden has a higher average wealth, better health, better education, longer lifespans, higher rates of human development in general.

Ford sold off Volvo several years ago, and GM dumped Saab soon after.

The "American" car companies get subsidies to build/keep facilities in the US. Toledo gave Chrysler huge tax breaks several years ago to keep the Jeep plant in Toledo.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by ram2

Ford sold off Volvo several years ago, and GM dumped Saab soon after.

His point was that the success or failure of Volvo and Saab had little to do with the aforementioned "Swedish model" as they were not technically Swedish companies.

The "American" car companies get subsidies to build/keep facilities in the US. Toledo gave Chrysler huge tax breaks several years ago to keep the Jeep plant in Toledo.

The US manufacturers of automobiles do not generally get direct subsidies. A property tax break is not really a subsidy. It's more of an incentive to build or expand. Japanese automakers were directly subsidized for decades with some of them finally coming to an end only within the past year. Then, there's the artificial Yen valuation which is another issue. Nonetheless, it makes the cost of Japanese vehicles remain lower abroad.