Forum Post: Would the last one to leave Kalifornya please turn out the lights...
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 26, 2011, 5:39 p.m. EST by mee44
(71)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Businesses Exit California and Illinois; Tax and Destroy Policies of Governors Quinn and Brown; Unemployment Rates By State....
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/12/businesses-exit-california-and-illinois.html
And people still aren't clear that socialism fails every time.
Wealth disparity and contempt for poor and workers is what killed California. There is zero respect for workers. Some better-off people think they are gods because they have a Mexican maid, while treating retail workers and others like utter trash.
States with an excess of rich people (California & Illinois ), who have bought off state officials- over tax its corporation's and under tax the rich. - driving them into states where their officials haven't been bought. solution- just tax the rich!!!!
who on earth do you think owns the corporations, the poor? wow. taxing corporations is taxing the rich.
Oh my, you have a lot to learn. LOLOL
You are right- the payed off corrupt state officials will refuse to loose their easy money. They will either let the corporations to leave the state of tax the poor more. see you taught me a lot thanks.
Try writing sentences that make sense.
They can go. The unemployment rate in Illinois is quite high and has been for some time. It's next door neighbor Indiana is "business friendly" and nobody wants to move there either.
well let them frack some on the edge of the pacific ring and californicate will go
Fine, then sit around, go broke and become homeless in Illinois. I have zero sympathy for pride and stupidity.
You are trying to make a connection between taxes and unemployment that creates this illusion. It isn't so.
I'm telling you if enough businesses exit the state and go elsewhere, unemployment will go up.
There's no illusion here. When taxes get too high, businesses move to more friendly climates taking work with them. This isn't rocket science.
I'm telling you that if that were so then business would be booming in the other states that are "business friendly". Is that not true?
We cannot be held hostage by the businesses.
there is this weird sense of entitlement on this site. people appear to want the jobs to come to them, rather than go where the jobs are. pure insanity.
california is being raped by the Public Employee Unions.
From a 2007 paper written by the Mackinac Center in MIchigan:
Executive Summary By PAUL KERSEY | Aug. 28, 2007 This paper is an update to Dr. William T. Wilson’s 2002 study, "The Effect of Right to Work Laws on Economic Development."
In that report, Wilson compared right-to-work and non-right-to-work states on basic measurements of economic performance, such as gross state product growth, job creation and per-capita disposable income between 1970 and 2000. Wilson found that right-to-work states had significant advantages in economic growth and job creation. While incomes were still somewhat lower in right-to-work states, incomes were also growing faster in those states. Michigan, on nearly every economic measurement, had lagged behind.
This paper picks up where Wilson’s study left off, tracking the same measurements from 2001 to 2006. We find that little has changed — if anything the apparent advantages of right-to-work states have grown larger. The economies of right-to-work states grew by an average of 3.4 percent compared to 2.6 percent for non-right-to-work states and 0.7 percent for Michigan. Jobs grew by 1.2 percent annually in right-to-work states, compared to 0.6 percent for non-right-to-work states, while jobs decreased by an average of 0.8 percent in Michigan.
Meanwhile, the gap in per-capita disposable income continues to shrink, to the point where most right-to-work states are likely to have higher incomes than Michigan does within just a few years.
On several measurements, the trends between 2001 and 2006 were more favorable towards right-to-work states than they had been in the period covered by Wilson’s earlier study. In light of Michigan’s current economic difficulties, this leads to the conclusion that the case for making Michigan a right-to-work state has only become stronger.
http://www.mackinac.org/8944
Recent proposals to advance so-called “right-to-work” (RTW) laws are being suggested in states as a way to boost economic growth. In this economic climate, something called right-to-work legislation sounds positive, but the name is misleading: these laws do not guarantee a job for anyone. In fact, they make it illegal for a group of unionized workers to negotiate a contract that requires each employee who enjoys the benefits of the contract terms to pay his or her share of costs for negotiating and policing the contract. This provision directly limits the financial viability of unions, reducing their strength and ability to negotiate favorable contracts, higher wages, and better benefits. Similarly, by diminishing union resources, an RTW law makes it more difficult for unions to provide a workers’ voice on policy issues ranging from unemployment insurance to workers compensation, minimum wages, and other areas. The simple reality is that RTW laws undermine the resources that help workers bargain for better wages and benefits.
This briefing paper directly examines the impact of RTW on the wages and benefits received by workers, both union and nonunion. It does this by examining differences in the wages and benefits workers receive in RTW and non-RTW states. In a regression framework, we analyze the relationship between RTW status and wages and benefits after controlling for the demographic and job characteristics of workers, in addition to state-level economic conditions and cost-of-living differences across states. We find the following:
Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state. The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in our regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions. This briefing paper provides the most comprehensive study to date of the relationship between RTW status and compensation. Using a full set of explanatory variables, including state-level controls, it is clear that our analysis stands apart as being more rigorous than others of this type. Read Briefing Paper http://www.epi.org/publication/bp299/