Well, some of the facts, anyway. As with any good propagandist, the secret is in what they leaves out. So maybe workers in states without Right-to-Work laws earn more than workers elsewhere. Let's see how much they have to give up in order to get it.
We'll use the list of states from National Right to Work. For purposes of the comparison we'll ignore DC, because it wouldn't be fair to include a forced-union district where the whole city is a company town. (It also skews the numbers, since we're primarily concerned with private-sector competitions here.)
According to the Missouri Department of Economic Development, the cost of living index averages 16% higher in non-right-to-work states (111-95). According to the Tax Foundation, for the year 2007, the state and local tax burden is over 8% higher (almost a full percentage point), 11.1% vs. 10.2%. So not only do you have to pay more for dinner, you've got less to cover it with.
I've also used BLS statistics to calculate the average unemployment rates for July 2007, but that's mostly a time limitation. It's basically a snapshot of what should be viewed as a movie, but I don't have the time at the moment to do much more. Yes, it's higher in the non-right-to-work states: 4.7% to 4.1%.
The one thing I haven't done is adjust for population. California, New York, the high-population Northeast and the old industrial midwest are all non-right-to-work. (There's a reason it's call the Rust Belt.) For the moment, that would just highlight how much more of the population lives under the threat of a closed shop.
At least until the rest of the jobs move to the South.
Cross-posted at Politics West.
