Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some people like to use questionable statistics to show that the decline of union representation has been a big factor on the decline of the middle class and the economy in general. I would argue the opposite and say that over the long term they have hindered what should be a very dynamic economy across the board.
With the exception of Washington State, which has many large corporations such as Boeing and Amazon and many military bases to keep the economy going as well as a large agricultural sector in some parts, the states with the most union representation currently are losing population. If the union was good for an economy, should't the ones with the most union representation be gaining population due to a growing and healthy economy? What do you thinkis causing the losses of population?
Alaska is another exception because it is losing residents to out-migration but the offset in in state births is more than the loss. It has a small population of Alaska is only about 741,000.
The top ten states by union representation by percentage of employed are:
New York-25.2%
Hawaii-19.9%
Alaska-18.5%
Connecticut-18.5
Washington-17.4%
New Jersey-16.1%
California-15.9%
Illinois-14.5%
Michigan-14.4%
Illinois lost the most residents for the third year in a row in 2016, losing about 38,000 residents.
If unions are and were in fact really good for the economy why are the majority of states with the highest union representation losing population the most and why are many of the historically heavily union represented cities in such poor condition economically with crumbling infrastructures?
Problem here being, the rules and pay schedules set up in an earlier time are outdated due to changing market conditions, but the union has much to lose, and nothing to gain by addressing them, especially if the public sector is involved.
So the problems continue to fester-- until the workings of the markets finally force some of the hard choices and the REAL "inconvenient truths" to be brought to light.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-15-2017 at 01:37 PM..
Some people like to use questionable statistics to show that the decline of union representation has been a big factor on the decline of the middle class and the economy in general. I would argue the opposite and say that over the long term they have hindered what should be a very dynamic economy across the board.
With the exception of Washington State, which has many large corporations such as Boeing and Amazon and many military bases to keep the economy going as well as a large agricultural sector in some parts, the states with the most union representation currently are losing population. If the union was good for an economy, should't the ones with the most union representation be gaining population due to a growing and healthy economy? What do you thinkis causing the losses of population?
Alaska is another exception because it is losing residents to out-migration but the offset in in state births is more than the loss. It has a small population of Alaska is only about 741,000.
The top ten states by union representation by percentage of employed are:
New York-25.2%
Hawaii-19.9%
Alaska-18.5%
Connecticut-18.5
Washington-17.4%
New Jersey-16.1%
California-15.9%
Illinois-14.5%
Michigan-14.4%
Illinois lost the most residents for the third year in a row in 2016, losing about 38,000 residents.
If unions are and were in fact really good for the economy why are the majority of states with the highest union representation losing population the most and why are many of the historically heavily union represented cities in such poor condition economically with crumbling infrastructures?
I can see why NY is first. We are taxed to death. Downstate we have such a high cost of living its ridiculous. Upstate there are no jobs. Literally, no jobs. People are running fast and not looking back. I do think though that there will always be people to take the place of those who flee. Just like all our retirees head to Florida, new young people willing to fork over the dough take their spots. Not sure about upstate though.
Last edited by lisanicole1; 11-15-2017 at 01:22 PM..
Now here is is a link to the the states gaining the most in population. With the exception of Oregon and Washington they are the ones with the least amount of union representation. I understand why the Washington economy is strong and something tells me that many people are moving or migrating from California to Oregon for many reasons which is a primary reason for the population growth in that state.
Some people like to use questionable statistics to show that the decline of union representation has been a big factor on the decline of the middle class and the economy in general.
You then proceed to use questionable statistics to prove a point. Missing that correlation may not be related to causation, because of course when a couple states don't reflect your desired end goal, you simply throw them out.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisanicole1
I can see why NY is first. We are taxed to death. Downstate we have such a high cost of living its ridiculous. Upstate there are no jobs. Literally, no jobs. People are running fast and not looking back. I do think though that there will always be people to take the place of those who flee. Just like all our retirees head to Florida, new young people willing to fork over the dough take their spots. Not sure about upstate though.
I'm from New York originally, and I left mainly because of the ****** winter weather, I am a union supporter myself
I'm from New York originally, and I left mainly because of the ****** winter weather, I am a union supporter myself
What year did you leave?
Winters are pretty mild now, with the exception of the two back-to-back “polar vortex” winters a few years ago.
Summer reliably lasts until the beginning of October now, and winter often fails to arrive until Christmas. Spring is still crappy, but it’s arriving sooner.
It's not the ONLY factor... if you take a look at the map with the exception of the Dakotas, many of the states that are growing are in better climates, while many of the states losing people are in poor climates, or they're just in the "south" which is undesirable in general. Some people do like really cold weather, and the Dakotas offer tax friendly climates for them, and Minneapolis is an attractive destination with more reasonable living costs as well. These western states have drier climates, more mountains, many less bugs and mosquitoes, and chinook winds which warm up the air in certain places in the winter and keep it from being cold all the time. I like it warm, but living in a state where it's 90 degrees with a dewpoint of 75 for months on end, with a long hours drive to get to an ocean, isn't my idea of enjoyable. These areas are popular in part because they are NEAR WATER, near mountains, or have more temperate, dry climates.
Also, it's much easier to grow a small state by a large percentage than grow an already populated state by a large percentage. You'd be better off using actual population NUMBERS rather than PERCENTS which can be used to manipulate data.
Here are the top states by numeric growth, not percentage growth, from 2015-2016
It should also be noted that 4 of the top 10 states in numeric population growth are legal marijuana states, and all states with legal marijuana or the prospect of it being legal in the near future are seeing excellent growth rates.
It’d be interesting to see the stats broken out for public sector vs private sector unions.
Here in NY state, private sector unions are dead just like they are everywhere else in America. Public sector unions, on the other hand, are probably as strong as ever.
Every union, and union shop, is a little bit different, but they tend to cluster around several profiles:
At the top of the heap are the unions in capital-intensive industries; safety and discipline tend to be important factors here; examples are oil and chemicals, public utilities and the railroads. Pay scales are well above average, but the employers demand, and get, a responsible labor force.
Public employee unions operate at about the same level when skills like police work and firefighting are involved, but there are also large bureaucracies where not as much is at stake, But since the government usually holds a monopoly. the jobs are secure, and the employer usually can't find a lower-cost alternative.
And a notch or two below this are the large unions in well-established industries -- United Steel, Auto, Rubber, Food and Commercial, etc. Workers; the pay scales aren't much different from the open-market rate, but the work rules tend to deter agressive management from "cracking the whip" too often, and too harshly. The problem here often is (and I'm speaking from experience (UFCW member -- 1978-1995) that the union won't, and usually can't help an ambitious employee with individual goals or attitudes he/she seeks to protect by "building a wall around his/her own, unique role"; those individuals, if they're competent and not too self-centered, are sometimes steered toward front-line supervision -- so they can see the other point of view -- and some of them find a niche and do quite well.
But anyone who thinks a union can offer much to a likely-young work force, often composed of "trailing spouses" (who are more likely to be female, and have "work/life balance" issues), and have few, or sub-par skills to offer, is fooling him/herself; people in this situation usually are easily replaced -- and a globalizing labor market isn't going to work to their advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockwiz
It should also be noted that 4 of the top 10 states in numeric population growth are legal marijuana states, and all states with legal marijuana or the prospect of it being legal in the near future are seeing excellent growth rates.
So the grass-heads think a union can "protect" them from the responsibilities, and consequences of a "mistake' while operating (potentially-)dangerous technology/machinery? I wouldn't count on that!
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-15-2017 at 03:28 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
