New Study Shows The Effects of Unionism That We All Suspected Was The Case All Along
You’ve seen the bumper sticker: “live better, work union.” But is it true?
According to a new report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the answer is a resounding no. Especially when states or the nation as a whole is taken into consideration.
The study analyzed income and union labor trends from 1964 to 2011. The key findings:
- Unions raise the cost of labor in unionized industries, decreasing the number of jobs available in those industries. In other words, those that actually get and keep union jobs do better, if you just look at those jobs and nowhere else.
- Unions increase the supply of labor for non-union jobs, driving those wages down. This results in an increase to the natural rate of unemployment and imposes a deadweight loss of economic output on the economy.
- Increases in productivity are the key to overall job and economic growth, not artificial increases in labor prices.
- Over the last 50 years, the net cumulative reduction in overall wages is about 15%, which translates to about a 10% reduction in Gross Domestic Product over that time. In other words, our economy is doing 90% of what it could be doing without the lingering effects of union-impacted employment and wages.
- This effect can be measured within every state in the nation.
For example, take a look at Michigan, the most affected state, and South Carolina, the least affected state. Michigan:
 Even though Michigan’s unionization has dropped significantly, and its per-capita income has decreased, the huge percentage of union workers within that state over the time period contributed to a likely 23.1% loss in income. A word like “catastrophic” comes to mind.
South Carolina:
 Note that in South Carolina, its high-point of unionization was half of the low-point of Michigan. Even so, the trend of income rising as unionization decreased can still be seen. Furthermore, even here the amount of income lost can be calculated, although it’s not a very large number. The remainder of the 48 states fall between these two.
The overall conclusion is so crystal clear, only politicians whose financial bread is buttered by unions can avoid it; the majority of that butter, by the way, goes on the bread of Democrats.
Collective bargaining inhibits growth, and the less a state is impacted by unions, the better off its citizens will be.
|
