2012 michigan economic competitiveness · pdf filemichigan-based companies like amway, ......
TRANSCRIPT
2012 Michigan Economic
COMPETITIVENESS STUDY
An analysis of issues to advance Michigan in a complex global economy
2012 Michigan Economic Competitiveness Study:
An analysis of issues to advance Michigan in a complex
global economy
Executive Brief
2012 Michigan Economic Competitiveness Study Executive Brief
Page 2 of 12
About the Michigan Chamber Foundation
The Michigan Chamber Foundation was established as a non-profit supporting organization to the Michigan Chamber of Commerce in 1985 for the following purposes:
• To plan and conduct nonpartisan public education programs regarding free enterprise, productivity and basic economic issues affecting the state of Michigan;
• To establish and operate a leadership institute designed to provide promising future leaders assessment of Michigan’s assets, challenges and opportunities to give participants the background and network of contacts necessary to make a positive impact on Michigan’s future;
• To conduct nonpartisan research and distribute policy studies on issues facing Michigan including, but not limited to taxation, government regulation, government spending, health care and transportation.
Michigan Chamber Foundation Board of Directors
Chair: Kelly Rossman-McKinney, Truscott Rossman
Vice Chair: John Schreuder, First National Bank of Michigan
President: Rich Studley, Michigan Chamber of Commerce
At-Large: Gordon Kummer, Lloyd & Mabel Johnson Foundation
Steve Mitchell, Mitchell Research & Communications
Dan Ponder, Franco Public Relations Group
Jon Sorber, TWO MEN AND A TRUCK/INTERNATIONAL, Inc.
Bill Woodbury, Auto-Owners Insurance
Executive Director: Bob Thomas
2012 Michigan Economic Competitiveness Study Executive Brief
Page 3 of 12
Acknowledgements
The Michigan Chamber Foundation (MCF) would like to thank Northwood University for agreeing to conduct this study and assembling a first class team of researchers to bring it to fruition. In particular, the MCF like to thank Northwood University President and CEO Dr. Keith A. Pretty; Study Director, Dr. Timothy G. Nash, Vice President for Strategic and Corporate Alliances and the David E. Fry Endowed Chair in Free Market Economics for shepherding the project from inception to completion. The chamber would also like to thank the research team led by Dr. Nash, which is a diverse and talented group of economists and public policy thinkers from across Michigan and nationally. Dr. Debasish Chakraborty, Professor of Economics, Central Michigan University; Dr. Richard Ebeling, Professor of Economics, Northwood University; Dr. Adam Guerrero, Associate Professor of Economics, Northwood University; Dr. John Grether, Professor of Economics, Northwood University; Dr. Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Rutgers University; Adam N. Matzke, Economics and Finance graduate, Northwood University; Adam Pretty, Law student, University of Notre Dame; and Charles Ruger, graduate student in Economics, University of Detroit-Mercy.
Finally, we would like to thank Joseph T. Nash, Rita G. Nash, Jeffrey G. Phillips, Susan Woodcock, John Young and Rochelle Zimmerman for their assistance with the chart construction, editing, typing and researching of this project.
2012 Michigan Economic Competitiveness Study Executive Brief
Page 4 of 12
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the Michigan economy
and evaluate its rank and performance across a number of metrics including, but not limited to,
Gross State Product (GSP) growth, tax policy, regulatory policy, and cost of doing business.
Accordingly, the focus was primarily on the Michigan economy and its outlook for the future. It
accomplishes that objective by focusing on different aspects of the Michigan economy and
compares it with all other states within the United States. The study briefly outlines the current
state of U.S. competitiveness in the global economy and then focuses on Michigan’s economic
performance relative to national averages and the other 49 U.S. states. It is important to note
that the Michigan economy moved in tandem with the U.S. economy in the sense that both
experienced a decline in competitiveness relative to its competitors. In order to find answers
for what contributed to this decline, the study’s authors conducted a comprehensive survey of
the literature regarding sources of economic growth to determine what was absent from or
hindering the Michigan economy. The authors focused on productivity in Michigan and the
factors that impact productivity. Specifically, the study focused on tax structures, the
regulatory framework governing businesses, education and other components reflected of the
general business environment. With a focus on productivity, this study also analyzed the issue
of Right To Work legislation both at a theoretical and an empirical level. The results are
interesting to say the least. Although the topic is controversial in some quarters, the results
deserve serious attention and discussion at all levels of the public policy decision making
process in Michigan.
To begin, there is fundamental agreement among economists as to the sources that drive
economic growth. There are definite reasons why some nations grow and others don't. Robert
Barro (1991) in his seminal paper, “Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries,” tried to
answer that question. He studied the key economic and political factors that determined 98
countries’ competitiveness that led to economic growth and standards of living. It is clear from
his study and others that economic growth is helped by investments in human capital, lower tax
2012 Michigan Economic Competitiveness Study Executive Brief
Page 5 of 12
rates, a lower regulatory burden on businesses and emphasis on the overall human
development matrix. It is also clear that the U.S. has been steadily falling behind in these
critical investment areas, or at least unable to keep up with the investments vis-à-vis its
competitors. Also, government is becoming increasingly more important in the overall scheme
of things as compared to the private sector. In addition, the federal government budget deficit
and national debt is growing alarmingly high and the financing of the deficit has been
instrumental in increasing the cost of capital, making it difficult for private businesses to invest
in critical areas. Many economists would argue that this unprecedented increase in government
spending has been the primary reason behind the relative decline in American competitiveness.
In the appendix of the study, numerous tables and charts are provided that highlight this
decline in U.S. competitiveness.
The 20th century clearly was the “American Century.” The 1900’s saw the United States
become the world’s largest, most productive and most competitive economy while also
becoming the world leader in invention and innovation. However, towards the end of the 20th
century, grave concerns began to be voiced as to whether or not the U.S. could maintain its
standing in the global economy. Income growth and job growth began to slow toward the end
of the 20th century and has continued to slow into the 21st century. While this was happening,
it is also true that government was becoming more and more significant in the U.S. economy.
According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Heritage Foundation, government at all
levels in the United States consumed less than eight percent of GDP by expenditures in 1902
and today consumes more than 42 percent. The U.S. now has the highest corporate income tax
rate in the industrialized world at 39.2% (the industrialized world average is 24%) according to
the Tax Foundation, not because the U.S. has raised taxes, but rather because many of its
competitors have lowered their rates over the last decade. Based on 2010 data, the U.S. also
has among the highest long-term and integrated capital gains tax rates in the industrialized
world at 19% and 51.5% respectively. The U.S. tax system has become more and more
burdensome and has contributed to decline in U.S. competitiveness.
2012 Michigan Economic Competitiveness Study Executive Brief
Page 6 of 12
The 2012 Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal’s Index of Economic Freedom measures
political freedom, prosperity, and economic freedom across 10 metrics to gauge the economic
success of 184 countries around the world. In 1995, the U.S. was ranked fourth in the world on
the index and in 2012 the U.S. has dropped to tenth.
Over the last one hundred years, the United States as a country lost sight of what made it great.
The case is similar for Michigan. The U.S. economy’s pace for invention, innovation and new
business formation was staggering in the 1900’s, with Michigan at the epicenter of much of that
growth. Michigan-based companies like Amway, Chrysler, The Dow Chemical Company, The
Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Kellogg, Upjohn and Whirlpool were complemented and
supplemented by thousands of small and medium-sized entrepreneurial organizations making
Michigan a center for business excellence for much of the 20th century (U.S. Department of
Commerce Report, 2012). However, Michigan began to lose its competitive edge to lower-cost
U.S. states and foreign countries starting in the 1970’s and continuing into the twenty-first
century. Today, the Michigan economy is heavily dominated by the automobile industry and
has not attracted sufficient new businesses or developed home-grown entrepreneurs to ensure
strong economic growth and wide scale economic diversification.
The following are examples of the many factors used in this study to evaluate the
competitiveness of the Michigan economy relative to the U.S. as a whole, as well as Right To
Work (RTW) states and Non-Right-To-Work (NRTW) states:
1. Growth in Personal Income
Personal income per capita
growth in Michigan grew 20.3%
from 2000-2010 while the U.S.
average income grew at 36.4%
over the same period. Personal
income growth over the period
grew at just under 40% in RTW
2012 Michigan Economic Competitiveness Study Executive Brief
Page 7 of 12
states and at 34.2% in NRTW states (see Exhibit 29).
2. Real Gross State Product (GSP) Growth From 1998-2011 Michigan Real Gross
State Product (GSP) lagged the national
average significantly. While the U.S.
economy grew from an overall Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) level of more
than $8 trillion in 1998 to just under $15
trillion in 2011 or 71.5%, the Michigan
economy grew by only 26.5% over the
same period. Gross State Product grew at
an average rate of 85% over the same
period in RTW states while realizing a
slower growth rate in NRTW states of
64.2% (see Exhibit 17).
3. Net Population Migration
Michigan’s population net migration from
2000-2010 was among the worst in the
United States with a loss of 554,374 people.
Net migration is defined by the difference
in people leaving a state relative to people
migrating to a state over a given period of
time. The overall U.S. population net
migration for the same period was just
under 1,000,000 people net positive with
RTW states experiencing a positive net
migration total of just under 6,000,000 and
2012 Michigan Economic Competitiveness Study Executive Brief
Page 8 of 12
NRTW states suffering a net
migration loss of just under
5,000,000 (see Exhibit 13).
4. State Job Growth
During the same period, Michigan
Non-Farm Employment growth
declined 16.9% while U.S. overall
growth was just 2.0%. RTW
states saw employment growth
at just under 4.0% while NRTW
states job growth was .5% (see
Exhibit 15).
5. Total Government Employees
Per 10,000 People
Michigan, as of 2010, has 657
government employees per
10,000 people, ranking it fourth
best in the country (see Exhibit
53).
2012 Michigan Economic Competitiveness Study Executive Brief
Page 9 of 12
6. Monthly New Business Starts Per
100,000 People
The Kauffman Foundation ranked
new business start-ups per 100,000
people per month per state in 2011
with the national average being 296
and the Michigan average at just
220. The RTW state average was
310 and the NRTW state average
was 285 (see Exhibit 79).
7. Industrial Cost of Natural Gas
Michigan seems to be very
competitive in the area of average
cost of electricity, but not natural gas
per unit. It was below the national
average for electricity as well as
below the RTW average price for
electricity per unit in 2010.
However, the RTW average for
natural gas was below the national,
NRTW, and Michigan averages in all
2012 Michigan Economic Competitiveness Study Executive Brief
Page 10 of 12
three natural gas categories we studied for 2010 (see Exhibit 71).
8. Automobile Insurance Cost
The cost of doing business in
Michigan is high by a number of
key metrics. The median price
for an automobile insurance
policy in Michigan is the highest
in the country, according to a
recent study released by
CarInsuranceQuotes.com. The
median average in Michigan is
$4,490 while the national
average is just under $1,700. The
RTW average is $1,580 while the
NRTW average is just under
$1,750. Because Michigan requires long-term catastrophic care as a part of its no fault
coverage, the cost figures out to be 8% of household family income to purchase insurance.
Massachusetts is the best bargain at 1.43% of household family income (see Exhibit 59).
9. The Northwood University
Competitiveness Index
The Northwood University
Competitiveness Index was developed for
this study and is comprised of five factor
categories measuring various areas of
economic performance for all 50 states (1
is the most favorable and 50 is the least
favorable). Unlike many other indices
2012 Michigan Economic Competitiveness Study Executive Brief
Page 11 of 12
where the data and/or categories
are assigned weights by the
researchers, the Northwood Index
assigns weights based on factor
analysis which initially involved
200 variables. The weights are
market sensitive since these
weights are susceptible to change
with changes in the economic
conditions, so the indices based on
these weights are snapshots of
current market conditions. Thus,
the model delivers an overall
ranking for a state, provides
evidence of strengths and
weaknesses relative to other states by category, and the weights assigned in each category by the model
may be useful in prioritizing efforts to improve a state’s relative competitiveness (See Exhibits 98 - 99).
Below are the Factor Categories and the key variables that influenced each factor: Factor 1 (General Macroeconomic Environment) - considers general measures of state-wide economic health such as unemployment rates, labor for participation rates, per-capita income, and life-satisfaction (another measure of well-being in addition to per-capita income). Factor 2 (State Debt and Taxation) - considers state debt per capita, cost of living, and tax burden per capita (tax burden considers state sales taxes, selective taxes, license taxes, corporate income taxes, and state income taxes). Factor 3 (Workforce Composition and Cost) - percentage of the working population that is part of a union, percentage of the private working population that is a member of a union, the percentage of the public working population that is a member of a union, and cash payments to beneficiaries (including withdrawals of retirement contributions) of employee retirement, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, and disability benefit social insurance programs. Factor 4 (Labor and Capital Formation) - considers employment growth, population growth, migration, and organizational birth and death data. Factor 5 (Regulatory Environment) - is a composite of other indices that consider the business friendliness of a state's regulatory framework/environment.
2012 Michigan Economic Competitiveness Study Executive Brief
Page 12 of 12
Based on the most current available data, Michigan’s economic performance in the five categories is:
1. General Macroeconomic Environment - 48th 2. Debt and Taxation - 10th 3. Workforce Composition and Costs - 45th 4. Labor and Capital Formation - 45th 5. Regulatory Environment - 24th
Overall, Michigan ranks 47th out of the 50 states in the Index. Consequently, the state’s relatively strong
performance in terms of Debt and Taxation and Regulatory Environment are outweighed by its relatively
weak performance in the factor categories of the General Macroeconomic Environment, Workforce
Composition and Costs, and Labor and Capital Formation. A careful analysis of factors 1, 3 and 4 coupled
with sound public policies designed to address said issues will enhance Michigan competitiveness in the
future.
Conclusion
It is important that the reader understands how large and important the Michigan economy still is
within the U.S. and global economy. Michigan’s GSP is roughly equivalent to the GDP of the country of
Austria which would make Michigan one of the 30 largest economies in the world if it were a country.
However, this study does not paint a rosy picture of Michigan’s competitive position relative to most
other U.S. states. Michigan’s ranking on The Northwood University Competitiveness Index of 47 indicates
Michigan has tremendous room for improvement but also reasons for optimism. This study’s regression
analysis indicates that RTW states have a strong statistically significant relationship on productivity
growth. However, effect of RTW legislation is often hard to isolate since most RTW states are business
friendly. Since RTW states are generally business friendly, capital formation is higher resulting in higher
productivity growth. This study indicates further consideration is needed to better determine the causal
relationship between RTW legislation and competitiveness. The research contained in this study should
serve as a guidepost and tool for benchmarking for Michigan public policy leaders. For many years
Michigan was the economic catalyst for much of the U.S. economy; Detroit put America and much of the
world on wheels, and Michigan was the “Arsenal of Democracy” in World War II. Can Michigan return to
the position of greatness it once occupied in the U.S. business structure? The answer is unequivocally
yes, but only if we confront the economic reality facing this great state. Michigan must set its sights
high and benchmark to best economic and political practices of this country’s top performing states.
Finally, this study references reasons for optimism found by studying the countries of Canada and New
Zealand, which have recently experienced reform in their business climates.
1
Introduction
The following research and conclusions emanate from a series of meetings and discussions between the study authors and members of the Michigan Chamber Foundation board and staff. The study has been conceived and is designed to take a careful and unbiased look at economic competitiveness in general and the U.S. and Michigan economies in detail.
The U.S., and therefore the Michigan economy, is part of a highly complex global economy which faces constant and often radical change. The study briefly outlines the current state of U.S. competitiveness in the global economy and then focuses on Michigan’s economic performance relative to the other 49 U.S. states. The purpose of the study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the Michigan economy and evaluate its rank and performance across a number of metrics including but not limited to Gross State Product (GSP) growth, tax policy, regulatory policy, and cost of doing business.
This study also focuses on the issue of Right to Work legislation at both a theoretical and an empirical level. The results are interesting to say the least. Although the topic is controversial in some quarters, it deserves serious discussions at all levels of the decision making process. After comparing Michigan to many national norms, the same details were used to compare Michigan’s performance to Right to Work (RTW) states and Non-Right to Work (NRTW) states to see if there might be significant differences relative to this metric as well. The results are interesting and unique and make a compelling case for bi-partisan discussion, action and objective pro-business reforms.
The U.S. in a Complex Global Economy
Economists fundamentally agree about the source of economic growth. There are definite reasons why some nations grow and others don't. Robert Barro (1991) in his seminal paper “Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries” tried to answer that question. He studied the key economic and political factors that determined 98 countries’ competitiveness that led to economic growth and improved standards of living. It is clear from his studies and others that economic growth is helped by investments in human capital, lower tax rate, less regulatory burden on businesses and emphasis on the overall human development matrix. It is also clear that U.S. has been steadily falling behind in these critical investment areas, or at least unable to keep up with the investments vis-à-vis many of its competitors. Also, government is becoming
2
increasingly more important in the overall scheme of things as compared to the private sector. In addition, the federal government budget deficit and national debt have grown alarmingly high, and the financing of the deficit, along with additional post-recession banking regulation, has been instrumental in decreasing the cost of capital, making it difficult for private businesses to invest in critical areas. Many economists argue that these unprecedented increases in government spending and new regulation have been the main reasons behind the relative decline in American competitiveness. In the appendix of this paper tables and charts are provided that highlight this decline in US competitiveness across a variety of factors.
It is important to note that the 20th century was clearly was the “American Century.” The 1900s saw the United States become the world’s largest, most productive and most competitive economy while also becoming the world leader in invention and innovation. The U.S. was the envy of the world, producing new technologies and abandoning old ones while successfully commercializing the best at a rate the rest of the world could only dream of (see Exhibit 1). While the American competitive free enterprise system produced individual giants like Ford, GM, Standard Oil and U.S. Steel and billionaires named Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford, the educated middle class realized rapid income growth and soaring standards of living that was the U.S. hallmark during this time (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012).
U.S. economic performance was nothing short of exceptional during the 20th century driven by inventors and innovators. The U.S. became the world’s most entrepreneurial, most educated and most competitive economy and remained that way throughout most of the century. This creation of millions of jobs and newly founded businesses and industries, combined with phenomenal economic performance allowed America to comfortably shoulder the burden of World War I and II and to realize a 213 % increase in real disposable personal income from $9,240 in 1950 to $28,899 in 2010 (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010).
Toward the end of the 20th century grave concerns were voiced as to whether or not the U.S. could or would remain in its position of prominence atop the global economy. Income growth and job growth began to slow toward the end of the 20th century and have continued to slow into the 21st century (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012). Simultaneously other countries began to appear on the global economic stage as viable competitors to the United States. Over the last decade or more, evidence of a decline in American competitiveness has continued to mount. As an example, U.S. 15 year olds ranked just 25th in math among the 34 industrialized countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and scored in the middle in science and reading on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test given to students in more than 70 countries in 2009 as reported in December, 2010. The test is given every three years with the Shanghai region of China finishing number one among the 72 countries taking the exam (see Exhibit 2). In response to
3
this report, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated that “the brutal fact here is there are many countries that are far ahead of the U.S. and improving more rapidly than we are. This should be a massive wake-up call to the entire country” (Bloomberg, 2010).
In addition, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Heritage Foundation, government at all levels in the United States consumed less than 8 % of GDP by expenditures in 1902 and today consumes more than 42 % (see Exhibit 3). We believe that 8 % government expenditures as a percent of GDP is unrealistically too low in today’s complex global economy; yet we also believe that 42 % is excessively high, creating a crushing burden on business and economic growth in the United States.
Additionally, The U.S. tax system is becoming more and more burdensome to U.S. competitiveness relative to the rest of the world. According to the Tax Foundation, the U.S. now has the highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world at 39.2 %, not because the U.S. has raised taxes but rather because many of its competitors have lowered their rates over the last decade (see Exhibit 4). The U.S. also has among the highest long-term and integrated capital gains tax rates in the industrialized world at 19 % and 51 % respectively (see Exhibit 5).
In reviewing the 16 key indicators (including the number of scientists and engineers, corporate and government R&D, venture capital, productivity, trade performance and others) contained in the July 2011 Atlantic Century (Atkinson, 2011) report, the results show the U.S. ranked number four behind Singapore, Finland and Sweden.
While a fourth place ranking doesn’t appear to be too bad, additional studies and data sources paint a picture of a less nimble and less competitive U.S. economy and business environment. The 2012 Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal’s Index of Economic Freedom measures political freedom, prosperity, and economic freedom across 10 metrics to gauge the economic success of 184 countries around the world. In 1995 the U.S. was ranked 4th in the world on the index, and in 2012 the U.S. dropped to 10th (see Exhibit 6). Another measure of economic competitiveness is the highly regarded International Institute for Management Development’s (IMD) Global Competitiveness Index, which consists of 323 variables and four sub-indices (Economic Performance, Government Efficiency, Business Efficiency and Infrastructure) and measures the competitiveness of nations by analyzing how they create a competitive business environment. The U.S. has dropped from being ranked number one on the 1999-2000 index to number five on the 2011-12 index behind Switzerland, Singapore, Sweden and Finland (see Exhibit 7).
U.S. competitiveness is being adversely impacted by a number of factors, including a mounting national debt which now stands at $16 trillion and is greater than 100% of projected 2012 GDP.
4
The national debt of the United States took more than 205 years to reach the one trillion dollar mark, and in roughly 30 years it increased 15 fold (see Exhibit 8). According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), U.S. gross interest rate payments on treasury debt securities in 2011 was $454 billion dollars (more than the total GDP of some of the most advanced economies in the world). It is also important to note that the debt was serviced at a historically low average interest rate of just 2.62 % (see Exhibit 9). There is concern with the future burden of gross interest rate payments in the United States if the economy recovers or if it enters an inflationary spiral; in either case, interest rates will rise as will the cost of servicing the national debt.
Many believe that the solution to the U.S. deficit problem is simply to raise taxes, especially on those in the top 1 % on personal income and on corporations. According to the Tax Foundation in 2009 (the most recent tax data available), the top 1 % of income earners paid 36.7 % of total U.S. personal income taxes while the top 10 % percent paid 70.5 % (Tax Foundation, 2012). Additionally, in 2012 the U.S. gained the dubious distinction of having the highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world, making the U.S. and the North American region less competitive (see Exhibit 10).
Somewhere over the last one hundred years the United States as a country has lost sight of what made it great. There is less understanding of the contributions of (a) economic and political freedom and (b) entrepreneurship and investment to (c) business success, infrastructure development and rising standards of living. Productivity and wealth generated by a free and dynamic business sector allow for households to prosper and government to exist and operate and play a vital role in the economy. All three of the macro flow variables (households, business and government) are important (see Exhibit 11). The mix of resource allocation among households, businesses, and government needs to be closely reexamined as government is consuming an ever-increasing share of U.S. GDP thus thwarting U.S. competitiveness and growth.
Michigan in a Changing U.S. Economy
The U.S. economy’s pace for invention, innovation and new business formation was staggering throughout the 20th century, and Michigan was at the epicenter of much of that growth. Michigan- based companies like Amway, Chrysler, The Dow Chemical Company, The Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Kellogg, Upjohn and Whirlpool were complemented and supplemented by thousands of small and medium-sized entrepreneurial organizations, making Michigan a center for business excellence (U.S. Department of Commerce Report, 2012). A
5
further measure of Michigan’s success in that period is the fact that Detroit had the highest per capita average income in the United States in 1950 (Skorup, 2009)
However, Michigan began to lose its competitive edge to lower-cost U.S. states and foreign countries starting in the 1970s and continuing into the 21st century. Today, the Michigan economy is still heavily reliant upon the automobile industry and has not attracted sufficient new businesses to the state or developed home-grown entrepreneurs to ensure strong economic growth and wide scale economic diversification. The following analysis will shed some light on the factors impeding economic growth in Michigan while comparing Michigan to numerous national averages and the average for U.S. Right to Work (RTW) states and U.S. Non-Right to Work (NRTW) states.
Population, Employment and GDP Growth in Michigan and the United States
Michigan’s U.S. population net migration from 2000-2010 was among the worst in the United States with a net loss of 554,374 people. Net migration is defined as the difference in people leaving a state relative to people migrating to a state over a given period of time. The overall U.S. population net migration for the same period was just under 1,000,000 people net positive with RTW states experiencing a positive net migration total of just under 6,000,000 and NRTW states suffering a net migration loss of just under 5,000,000 (see Exhibits 12 and 13). During the same period, Michigan Non-Farm Employment growth declined 16.9% while the U.S. overall average grew just 2.0 %. RTW states saw employment growth at just under 4.0 % while NRTW states’ job growth was 0.5 % (see Exhibits 14 and 15).
From 1998-2011 Michigan Gross State Product (GSP) lagged the national average significantly. While the U.S. economy grew from an overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP) level of more than $8 trillion in 1998 to just under $15 trillion in 2011 or 71.5 %, the Michigan economy grew by only 26.5 % over the same period. Gross State Product grew at an average rate of 85 % over the same period in RTW states while realizing a slower growth rate in NRTW states of 64.2 % (see Exhibits 16-21). As one should expect, poor growth or negative growth in GSP is generally correlated with higher levels of unemployment. From 2000-10, the average unemployment rate in Michigan was 7.23 % while the average for the United States was 5.49 %. Somewhat surprising is the fact that average unemployment in RTW states was 5.55 % while NRTW states averaged 5.44 % over the same period (see Exhibits 22 and 23).
Employment growth in the Non-Farm segment of the U.S. economy from 2000-2010 averaged just 2.0 %, as noted earlier. Michigan’s job creation was negative, ranked dead last out of the fifty states for job growth during this period. The average rank for job growth in RTW states over the same period was 21.3 while the average rate out of 50 states for NRTW states was 28.8 (see Exhibits 24-27). In addition, Michigan was the only state to realize net population loss
6
based on the 2010 U.S. Census. Michigan clearly underperformed versus the U.S. and RTW averages in the areas of economic growth, population, migration, and job creation.
Household Income Growth and Minimum Wage in Michigan and the United States
Personal income per capita growth in Michigan grew 20.3 % from 2000-2010 while the U.S. average income grew at 36.4 % over the same period. Personal income growth over the period grew at just under 40 % in RTW states and at 34.2 % in NRTW states (see Exhibits 28 and 29).
Household income can be measured by median income (generally the parent or parents in the household). Michigan lags the national average while having roughly the same averages as the RTW states. NRTW states have higher average incomes, but the margin is narrowing relative to RTW states due to more rapid income growth and GSP growth in RTW states over the past decade (see Exhibits 30-31).
Minimum wage rates are often considered to be a barrier to entry for young and/or unskilled workers who either lack necessary skills or job experience or both. The U.S. federally mandated minimum wage floor is $7.25, thus no state may set their minimum wage below this rate. The Michigan minimum wage for 2012 is $7.40. Michigan is $.07 below the national average and only $.07 above the RTW average. There is a $.26 differential premium between RTW and NRTW states regarding minimum wage rates (see Exhibits 32 and 33).
Assessing the Cost of Government in Michigan and the United States
Tax burdens, especially on business, have a generally negative effect on job creation, job growth and in attracting new businesses. The average state and local income tax burden as a % of income in Michigan in 2010 was 9.7 % with the U.S. average at 9.4 %. The average in RTW states was 8.8 % while the average in NRTW states was 9.9 %, more than a full point higher (see Exhibits 34 and 35). The average combined state and local tax rate on corporations in Michigan in 2010 was 5 % (see Exhibit 36-41).
Like the federal government and many other states, Michigan’s state debt as a % of Michigan Gross State Product (GSP) is a problem and is slightly above the national average of 8.35% of GSP. This compares to 5.31 % on average in RTW states and 10.39 % in NRTW states (see Exhibits 42 and 43). State debt per capita in Michigan is relatively low compared to NRTW states at $2,915 per capita, with the U.S. average at $3,449 and the NRTW state average at $4539 . However, the RTW average is considerably lower at $2,061 (see Exhibit 44 and 45). In examining state debt as a % of tax revenue, Michigan fared well with the national average at
7
160.37 % and the Michigan average at 144.77 %, while RTW states’ state debt as a share of tax revenue was just over 117.15 % and NRTW states average 194.32 % (see Exhibits 46 and 47). Michigan’s debt service as a share of GDP tax revenue is also below the national average at 5.37 % and below the RTW average at 5.08 % (see Exhibits 48 and 49).
Michigan’s state liability ranking is 30 out of 50 with RTW states average rank at 23.6 and NRTW states at 27 (see Exhibits 50 and 51). The effects of a challenging economy in Michigan have caused the state to see a reduction in the number of government employees at all levels over the past decade (citation). As of 2010 Michigan has 657 government employees per 10,000 people, ranking it fourth lowest in the country (see Exhibits 52 and 53). Looking at state and local government employees alone, Michigan ranks among the ten leanest-government states in the country (see Exhibits 54 and 55).
Government operating efficiencies notwithstanding, Michigan received the highest level of federal bailout funds per capita associated with the financial crisis of 2008-2009. It can be argued that without said funds, the economic downturn in Michigan and in the U.S. automobile industry would have been dramatically worse, yet many debate the long-term effect the bailout will have on the competitiveness of both Michigan and the U.S. automobile industry (see Exhibits 56 and 57).
Cost of Key Goods and Services in Michigan and Nationally
The cost of doing business in Michigan is high by a number of key metrics. The median price for an automobile insurance policy in Michigan is the highest in the country, according to a recent study released by CarInsuranceQuotes.com (Johnson, 2012). The median average in Michigan is $4,490 while the national average is just under $1,700. The RTW average is $1,580 while the NRTW average is just under $1,750. Because Michigan requires long term catastrophic care as a part of its no fault coverage, the cost figures out to be 8 % of household family income to purchase insurance. Massachusetts is the best bargain at 1.43 % of household family income (see Exhibits 58-61).
Michigan seems to be very competitive in the area of average cost of electricity, but not natural gas per unit or gasoline taxes. It was below the national average for electricity as well as below the RTW average price for electricity per unit in 2010. However, in 2012 Michigan’s gasoline tax is well above the national, NTRW, and RTW state averages with the fourth highest total gasoline tax in the nation. Moreover, the RTW average for natural gas was below the national, NRTW, and Michigan averages in all three natural gas categories studied for 2010 (see Exhibits 62-71).
8
Finally, the average insurance trust expenditure in Michigan was among the highest in the country at $1,018.18 per capita in 2010. The national average was less than $600 while the RTW cost was above the NRTW level, which was a rare occurrence in this study (see Exhibits 72-75).
Competitiveness Metrics in Michigan and the United States
In this section a number of measurement tools related to the business environment and business competitiveness of a state and the subsequent rankings are compiled. They are broken-down to compare Michigan with RTW and NRTW states.
A study by hospitality marketing research firm Cvent noted the top 50 cities for meetings and conventions, and Michigan did not have one city in the top 50 (see Exhibit 76 and 77). Also, the Kauffman Foundation ranked new business start-ups per 100,000 people per month per state in 2011 with the national average being 296 and the Michigan average at just 220. The RTW state average was 310 and the NRTW state average was 285 (see Exhibits 78 and 79). There is some interesting data on business births and deaths from 2002-2007. Michigan trails the national average and the RTW average in births. RTW states are producing new organizations at a faster pace than NRTW states as well (See exhibits 80-87).
Professors from the University of Warwick in England and Hamilton College in New York have done some path-breaking work trying to measure happiness and quality of life, having published it in the journal Science. The survey rankings from 2005-2008 were used to compare Michigan to RTW and NRTW states. Michigan ranked 48th or third “least happy” overall with RTW states citizens seeming to be much happier at an average rank of 16.95 while NRTW states had an average happiness rank of 32.71 (see Exhibits 88 and 89).
The American Legislative Exchange Council annually ranks states on economic performance considering seven factors ranging from corporate tax rates and GSP growth to non-farm payroll growth and population growth. The 2011 rankings of the above variables showed that Michigan ranked dead last at 50 in economic performance with the average ranking for RTW states being 18.27 and NRTW states averaging 31.18 (see Exhibits 90 and 91).
The 2011 Forbes Best States for Business Index and broke it down to compare Michigan to RTW and NRTW states. The Forbes Index considers seven variables ranging from business costs and the regulatory environment to the economic climate and a state’s growth prospects. Michigan ranked 47 overall out of 50 with 1 being the highest and 50 being the lowest. RTW states average 17.64 on the Forbes Index while NRTW states measured 31.64 (see Exhibits 92 and 93). A similar analysis was conducted with data from the 2011 CNBC Index of America’s Top States
9
for Business. The ten general variables used by CNBC range from education and infrastructure to cost of living and cost of business. Michigan fared a little better here with an overall rank of 34 out of 50 (50 being least favorable) with RTW states averaging just under 21 and NRTW states averaging 29 (see Exhibits 94 and 95). Michigan fared best on the Beacon Hill Institute’s Competitiveness Index which includes government and fiscal policy, security, infrastructure, human resources, technology, business incubation, openness, and environmental policy factors with a ranking of 25 (1 being most favorable) while RTW states averaged just below than 24 and NRTW states averaged just under 27 (see Exhibits 96 and 97).
The Northwood University Competitiveness Index
Michigan does not fare well in most measures of competitiveness on any of the indices or in the studies mentioned above for happiness, business climate, competitiveness, or economic performance in general. To define the combined effects of the data, roughly 200 variables were examined in this study for all 50 states and a factor analysis was conducted to find five categories or aggregate factors.
Unlike many other indices where the data and/or categories are assigned weights by the researchers, the Northwood Index assigns weights based on factor analysis. The weights are market sensitive since they change with changes in the economic conditions, and the indices are therefore subject to change as the values of the data change over time. Thus, the model delivers an overall ranking for a state, provides evidence of strengths and weaknesses relative to other states by category, and the weights assigned in each category by the model may be useful in prioritizing efforts to improve a state’s relative competiveness.
The Factor Categories and the key variables that influenced each factor are:
Factor 1 (General Macroeconomic Environment) - considers general measures of state-wide economic health such as unemployment rates, labor force participation rates, per-capita income, and life-satisfaction (another measure of well-being in addition to per-capital income).
Factor 2 (State Debt and Taxation) - considers state debt per capita, cost of living, and tax burden per capita (tax burden considers state sales taxes, selective taxes, license taxes, corporate income taxes, and state income taxes).
Factor 3 (Workforce Composition and Cost) – considers % of the working population that is part of a union, % of the private working population that is a member of a union, the % of the public working population that is a member of a union, and cash payments to beneficiaries (including withdrawals of retirement contributions) of employee retirement, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, and disability benefit social insurance programs.
10
Factor 4 (Labor and Capital Formation) - considers employment growth, population growth, migration, and organizational birth and death data.
Factor 5 (Regulatory Environment) – represents a composite of other indices that consider the business friendliness of a state's regulatory framework/environment.
Based on the most current available data, Michigan’s economic performance in the five categories is:
1. General Macroeconomic Environment - 48th
2. Debt and Taxation - 10th
3. Workforce Composition and Costs - 45th
4. Labor and Capital Formation - 45th
5. Regulatory Environment - 24th
Overall, Michigan ranks 47th out of the 50 states in the Index. Consequently, the state’s relatively strong performance in terms of Debt and Taxation and Regulatory Environment are outweighed by its relatively weak performance in the factor categories of the General Macroeconomic Environment, Workforce Composition and Costs, and Labor and Capital Formation. In addition, RTW states averaged 15 and NRTW states averaged 33.8 (see Exhibits 98 to 109). A careful analysis of factors 1, 3 and 4 coupled with sound public policies designed to address said issues will enhance Michigan competitiveness in the future which should be demonstrated by an improvement in Michigan’s position within the Index.
Right to Work (RTW) and Non-Right to Work States
Introduction to the Right to Work Debate
Having come out of the second-worst economic downturn of the past 100 years and faced with a sluggish recovery, the Right To Work (RTW) concept is among the most controversial issues facing the nation today. Two recent political battles -- Indiana’s adoption of a RTW law and the failed attempt by organized labor to engineer the recall of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, as well as the impending placement of the “Protect Our Jobs” Amendment on the November 2012 (see Appendix) Michigan ballot-- are indicative of this.
11
Both the opponents and the proponents of RTW base their arguments in several different contextual frames. One approach is the use of rights-based legal theory that shows that RTW laws are legally neutral insomuch as they give no legal advantage to workers, employers, or labor organizations and therefore maximize individuals’ freedom of contract and freedom of association; with which this section begins. However, the pure legal or ethical value placed on individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms alone is not the basis of existing law. Sound public policy, while rightly determining the extent and boundaries of individual rights, must also look to maximize economic opportunity in terms of general economic growth, job creation, investment, and the standards of living afforded to those served by policymakers.
Understanding this, the approach taken here in examining RTW follows the sentiments of Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Thomas A. Kochan in his recent piece “Resolving America's Human Capital Paradox: A Jobs Compact for the Future” (2012), where he states:
The purpose of a 21st century labor law and policy should be twofold: 1) to protect and support worker rights to choose whether or not to be represented by a union, and 2) to promote and sustain positive labor management relations—ones that have demonstrated their value in supporting high-productivity and high-wage practices and relationships.
This section continues with a general exposition of the primary pro and anti-RTW positions, followed by the basic economic arguments surrounding RTW and a review of the literature surrounding the economic effects of RTW laws (See Exhibit 119), which also serves to illustrate the technical challenges associated with such studies. This is followed with a discussion and analysis of recent data, finishing with the identification of opportunities for further inquiry.
A Legal History and Analysis of Right to Work
The Right to Organize (or Not) The legal status conferred to workers’ rights to organize for their mutual benefit can be viewed to fall on a spectrum or continuum defined by common law concepts of freedom of association and freedom of contract. At one end of the continuum, organized labor is viewed as a criminal conspiracy against the employer, and the freedom of association and contract as applied to workers with other workers is thwarted for the benefit of the employer. At the opposite end of the continuum, employment can only be legally obtained through membership in a labor organization, and employers must only hire through the union. Here, under compulsory
12
unionization, freedom of association and contract between individual workers and employers is undermined, and the law favors organized labor. The midpoint of this continuum represents the position where both individual workers are free to associate with other workers, or not, and labor organizations are free to negotiate with employers as they choose. Employers, likewise, are free to choose whom they hire, maximizing freedom of association and freedom of contract for all involved and effectively guaranteeing workers the right to work wherever they can find employment. Hunter (1999) considered this midpoint to be the legally-neutral position insomuch as at that point, the law does not favor one person or group of persons over another. When viewed from a historical perspective over the last 200 years, the law governing the rights of workers to act individually or through labor organizations has occupied most points on this continuum at one time or another.
Early Common Law in the United States A series of cases in the 19th century shows the gradual change in the common law treatment of labor organizations and the acceptance of collective bargaining. At the time of the founding, the legal treatment of trade unions and workers was almost exclusively seated in the common law of contract and association where trade associations developed for the purposes of mutual aid, worker training, and improving worker-management relations. However, in Commonwealth v. Pullis (1806), the Philadelphia Mayor’s Court held that a union of shoemakers, striking to earn higher wages, were engaging in a conspiracy against their employer, and each member was fined a week’s wages and the union was required to pay all court costs. The court’s holding made all labor union activity directed against an employer illegal in industrial Pennsylvania and potentially served as legal precedent elsewhere.
However, by 1842 in Commonwealth v. Hunt, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that workers had a right to organize, collectively bargain and strike as long as they did not use violence or illegal means to accomplish their goals. More than fifty years later, in Vegelahn v. Gunter (1896) the Massachusetts Court clarified its earlier position by stating that the right to strike stopped at the point where the strikers interfered with the ongoing operations of the business, including the employer hiring replacement workers. The Massachusetts Court cited In re Debs (1894) where the United States Supreme Court determined that an injunction against a labor strike is allowed when there is evidence of harm to business or the general public. Thus, by the end of the 19th century, organized labor had moved from illegality to legally-neutral status, even if that was not yet fully-defined.
Federal Law and Labor Unions Moving into the 20th century, legal neutrality towards organized labor began to face new challenges. In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act which prohibits activities that reduce market competition. The Act was applied to labor unions in Loewe v. Lawlor (1908)
13
where the United States Supreme Court found that union strikes, boycotts and secondary boycotts (of suppliers or customers) were illegal if they interfered with interstate commerce by limiting competition. The court also found that individual union members could be charged under the Act if it could be shown they had engaged in conspiracy to cause such interference.
In response to the Loewe decision, labor unions successfully lobbied Congress to exempt union activities from the Sherman Act through passage of the Clayton Act in 1914. While further defining additional illegal activities in restraint of trade, Section 6 of the Clayton Act allows labor unions the right to boycott, peacefully strike and picket, and engage in collective bargaining regardless of any effect on interstate commerce. In subsequent cases the Supreme Court further clarified the extent to which Section 6 of the Clayton Act protected organized labor activities.
In 1921, the Supreme Court heard the case of Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering. In this case, the Court found that even under Section 6, secondary boycotts and other activities directed towards a company with which the union was not directly concerned were in violation of the Sherman Act. A year later, the Court expanded this ruling to apply to union activities directed at non-union companies in the same industry in United Mine Workers v. Coronado Coal (1922).
In addition to these adjustments to the legal standing of organized labor, federal rules surrounding collective bargaining began to take shape. During the First World War, President Woodrow Wilson created the National War Labor Board to direct various national resources to the war effort. The general principle followed by the Board was that in exchange for giving up the right to strike, unions would be guaranteed the right to good-faith collective bargaining with employers through “arbitration, mediation, and conciliation” providing a mechanism to mend labor-management disputes that might have otherwise interfered with war production.
After the Sherman and Clayton Acts, their interpretation by the Supreme Court, and moving towards the Great Depression and the New Deal, the legal status of labor unions remained largely in the position of legal neutrality. Individuals and unions both had the right to seek work from employers and employers retained the right to deal with unions or not. Unions were not only allowed but guaranteed the right to collectively bargain under certain circumstances and to recruit new members as long as these activities did not interfere with individual choice or restrain trade.
The only exceptions to unions’ general legal status heading into the New Deal were the railroad workers’ unions. As early as the Erdman Act of 1898, Congress created the means for the railroads and the railroad workers’ unions to settle labor disputes without interruption to rail services, which were seen as vital to the functioning of the economy. The Erdman Act allowed voluntary but binding arbitration, enforceable in federal court. Moreover, in 1920 Congress
14
passed the Esch–Cummins Act, (otherwise known as the Railroad Transportation Act), establishing the Railroad Labor Board which in turn granted railroad unions exclusive representation in labor disputes and disallowed individuals’ rights to negotiate for themselves. However, in Davis v. Wechsler (1923), the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to deny individuals the right to negotiate with the railroads independently from the union.
In 1926 in response to the Davis decision, Congress passed the Railway Labor Act. The Act explicitly granted workers the right to organize and created for the railroad companies a legal “duty to bargain” with railroad unions. The Act was amended to include airlines in 1936. In 1951, the Act was once again amended to permit compulsory unionization, making it illegal for a railroad or airline to hire outside the labor unions representing their workers. These provisions are still in effect today. These amendments notwithstanding, the “new” requirements under the Railway Labor Act would set the stage for additional federal regulation regarding the rights of unions moving into the Great Depression.
In 1932, President Herbert Hoover signed the Norris-LaGuardia Act. In general, the Act limited the legal power of employers over labor unions as opposed to directly empowering unions. It prohibited the creation of worker agreements to refrain from future union membership (so-called “yellow-dog contracts”) and it disallowed such agreements already in existence from being entered into the record in a federal case. It also exempted unions from potential violations of antitrust law under the Sherman Act. The Act furthermore prohibited employers from filing private damage suits arising from or injunctions against striking labor unions.
A year later, the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt. NIRA was intended as a general plan to promote economic recovery and only a small part of it, Title I, Section 7(a) applied directly to labor unions. That section gave all workers statutory rights to organize labor unions and bargain collectively. In Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court found NIRA unconstitutional on the grounds that Title I was vague in its construction and delegated overbroad authority to the executive branch, but the language in Title I, Section 7(a) was never specifically cited in the Court’s opinion, leaving the labor issue open for further legislation.
The Wagner Act The basis of all modern federal law regarding the legal status of organized labor in the private sector is the National Labor Relations Act, often referred to as the NLRA or Wagner Act. The Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Roosevelt in early July 1935, roughly six weeks after the Court’s decision in Schechter. The NLRA created legal rights and obligations for both employers and unions. For employers it became an “unfair labor practice” to fail to “bargain in good faith,” or to interfere with 1) workers organizing into labor unions, 2)
15
workers engaging in collective bargaining through labor unions, and 3) concerted labor activities such as striking and picketing.
For unions, the NLRA established a process for workers to adopt membership in a particular union. If a majority of workers voted in favor of union representation, the elected union was allowed to establish one of three different worker-union relationships. The first, referred to as a “closed shop,” required workers to be a member of the union prior to employment. Second, unions could establish a “union shop” by allowing companies to hire non-union members, but requiring those workers to join the union within some set time following their hiring. Third, the union could declare itself an “agency shop” where union membership is not required but where all workers are required to pay dues for all union activities through which they receive benefit. In addition, a new federal agency, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), was created to oversee the enactment of the NLRA and enforce its various provisions.
As a result (with the single exception of the railroad industry), the common-law based legal foundation of business-labor relations that had emerged through the common law over one hundred years was largely discarded. By allowing unions to operate closed shops, union membership could become compulsory, employees could be denied access to jobs and employers would have no opportunity to contract with workers of their own choosing.
The Taft-Hartley Act The NLRA operated as the law of the land from its passage until after World War II. In 1947, Congress enacted the Labor-Management Relations Act (commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act), by overriding President Harry S. Truman’s veto. The goal of the Act was to amend the NLRA to reduce the degree of power afforded labor unions by re-establishing legal rights of individual workers and mandating administrative changes within the NLRB. The major provisions the Taft-Hartley amendments were nearly as broad if not as deep as the NLRA itself.
First, Taft-Hartley recognizes the right of individual workers to refrain from union activities. Second, the Act adds prohibitions on unfair union labor practices and further defines requirements for both unions and businesses in collective bargaining. Third, it specifically prohibits coercive conduct against neutral persons in certain circumstances such as disputes among two or more unions at a workplace regarding work assignments, and prescribes standards for injunctive relief in such circumstances. Fourth, the Act allows both labor and management to file suit for breach of a labor contract. Fifth, it eliminates the closed-shop option for union organization but still allows for union and agency shop arrangements.
Last, and most importantly, section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act states that the act “shall not be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership
16
in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.”
The language of section 14(b) allows the individual states to “opt out” of the union shop requirements of the NLRA, effectively making the agency shop structure the only legal method of union organization within those states. In opting out, and disallowing a union membership requirement for purposes of employment, several states took the opportunity to re-establish the legal neutrality and maximum freedom of association and contract that have become known as the “right to work.”
The Right to Work States In 1944, three years prior to the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, Florida and Arkansas established right to work provisions in their state constitutions, expressly forbidding employers from hiring workers based on their status as a member or non-member of a labor union, even though these provisions were contrary to existing federal law under the Wagner Act. In 1946, three states, Arizona, Nebraska, and South Dakota, adopted similar constitutional provisions. Both before and after passage of Taft –Hartley in 1947, the legislatures of six additional states-- Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee and Virginia--enacted right to work statutes.
Various organized labor groups in Arizona, Nebraska and North Carolina challenged the state laws almost immediately upon passage in their respective state courts where they were all upheld. The state cases from Nebraska and North Carolina reached the United States Supreme Court on appeal in late 1948 in Lincoln Federal Labor Union v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co. where the Court held that state laws can forbid union membership as a requirement for employment when they create equal rights to employment for both union and non-union workers.
Since 1947, twelve additional states have enacted right to work laws either through statute, constitutional amendment in the case of Oklahoma and Kansas, or in the case of Mississippi, first by statue and later by constitutional amendment. Chronologically, they are: North Dakota (1948), Nevada (1952), Alabama (1953), South Carolina (1954), Mississippi (1954, 1960), Utah (1955), Kansas (1958), Wyoming (1963), Louisiana (1976), Idaho (1985), Oklahoma (2001), and most recently, Indiana (2012). In addition to these states, the Territory of Guam adopted right to work legislation in 2001.
Indiana is the only state to have had right to work legislation implemented and then repealed. As summarized by Vedder, et al. (2011), the state originally passed right to work legislation in 1957, but in the time between its enactment and when it was scheduled to go into effect, several unions negotiated contract extensions that would be honored under the law until they expired. Union leaders then brought suit against the state, arguing that agency shop contracts
17
that charged workers dues but that did not require union membership were permitted under state law. In 1959 the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the unions in Meade Electric Co. v. Hagberg. This decision ostensibly resulted in no greater employment opportunity for individual workers under the law than under a union shop setting, and as a consequence the law was repealed in 1965.
The Right to Work in Michigan Michigan workers played a central role in the development of labor unions in the interwar period and have held a position of power in the state since the 1940s. It has only been in the face of a weakened economy and job losses in the automobile industry that right to work legislation under the provisions of section 14(b) of Taft-Hartley has been considered.
On March 13, 2007, Representative Jacob Hoogendyk, et al., introduced House Bill 4457 “The right work law”(see Exhibit 117), described in its preamble as:
A bill to prohibit employers from placing certain conditions on employment; to grant rights to employees; to impose duties and responsibilities on certain state and local officers; to make certain agreements unlawful; and to provide remedies and penalties.
Upon introduction the bill was referred to the House Committee on Labor, where it was never opened for comment or discussion. Senate Bill 0607 (2007) with identical language was introduced by Senator Nancy Cassis and assigned to the Senate Committee on Commerce and Tourism on June 26, 2007. This Committee also failed to take up the bill for discussion. On December 2, 2008, the bill was dismissed on an adverse roll call vote, maintaining the status quo with Michigan workers and employers continuing to abide by the union-shop provisions of the Wagner Act.
More recently, organized labor has promoted a ballot initiative known as the “Protect Our Jobs” amendment to the Michigan Constitution for November 2012 election (see Exhibit 118). The amendment as currently written would establish a Constitutional right for both private and public workers to organize, forgo binding arbitration for the settlement of disputes with management, and bargain to have their dues withheld and submitted to their union by their employer. The language of the amendment would apply retroactively. Critics of the amendment claim that its enactment would affect between 80 and 120 current laws, most of which would need to be reevaluated in the courts, prompting a spate of lawsuits. The State Board of Canvassers declined to put the proposal on the November ballot primarily because it believed that the ballot language needed to discuss this impact on existing laws. Supporters of the proposal challenged the Board, and on August 27, 2012 the Michigan Court of Appeals decided that this was not a requirement for a valid ballot initiative. Upon review, the Michigan Supreme Court agreed with Court of Appeals on September 6, 2012.
18
Review of the Economic Literature on Right to Work
As outlined in the previous section, an underlying and fundamental principle in the American political and economic system is the idea of freedom of association. Individuals should have the personal liberty to freely associate with any other members of society for lawful and commonly shared goals, purposes, and activities. This principle also implies the opposite: that individuals may not be compelled or coerced into joining or participating in any association without their voluntary consent. The underlying premise of a free society is the right of individuals to say, “No,” whether this involves joining a church, entering into a contract, participating in any social club or group, or membership in a labor union (Baird, 1988). Broadly, the arguments against an individual employee’s right to work without membership in a union have been of three general types: First, only unified union membership can protect all workers against the superior bargaining power of the employer; Second, only compulsory membership can protect other workers from the “unfair” competition of non-union members that may result in the wages of all workers in that industry being pushed below their “fair market value”; and third, only mandatory union membership (and dues paying) prevents non-union members from a “free ride” at the expense of union workers in a company or industry. The Superior Bargaining Power of the Employer The inferior position of the individual worker is claimed to be due to a number of factors. First, it is argued that the individual worker must accept the wage offered by the employer, since if she or he does not accept it, there are always many other workers looking for jobs ready to take that place. This ignores the fact that competition is two-sided in virtually every modern, developed market, and especially in a country like the United States. Any employer who fails to offer a wage tending to reflect the anticipated value that the worker contributes to a company’s profitability runs the risk that the potential employee with useful and productive skills will search out alternative employment where those skills are more highly valued by another employer wishing to get ahead of the competition. The same applies to currently employed workers who, if they believe that they are not receiving a wage commensurate with their actual market value, will see the advantage of changing employers in the same or a related market. This forces any employer attempting to “low ball” workers to raise the wage offers, or run the risk of losing a growing number of qualified workers without whom she or he may not be able to retain the market position relative to his or her rivals.
19
Another argument claims that the individual worker has an inferior bargaining position because the individual worker cannot “wait” to look for a better job. First, if the worker does not earn wages she or he cannot eat. The employer can wait to find a worker willing to take any salary she or he wishes to offer because, she or he has “capital” to live off until such a worker comes along who will accept the lower wage the employer wishes to pay. Second, it is stated that labor is a perishable “commodity.” It cannot be “stored” to sell on another day. So if the worker does not take the wage offered that lost day’s labor can never be regained. However, there are limits to any such claimed “waiting” advantage on the part of the employer. First, every day of less output produced because needed workers are not yet hired is a day with lost sales revenues resulting from reduced output that could have been produced and sold on the market. Thus, waiting to find workers who might be willing to accept wages less than their real market value imposes a cost on the employer in the form of smaller profits and less market share that could have been acquired, if a wage more in line with workers’ worth was offered and accepted. Second, financial capital may be “stored” rather than invested in hiring workers and producing output. It can be held as cash or loaned out (short-term) for some interest return. However, delaying the hiring of workers who would otherwise have gladly worked at reasonable market-valued wages results in prospective employers earning neither profit nor interest if a part of his or her financial capital is held as cash. And even if lent out to earn short-term interest, the potential employer loses every day the difference between the interest s/he may earn and the greater profits that could have been had by not delaying hiring needed workers for production that could have been manufactured and sold (Hutt, 1954; 1973, pp. 61-76; Machlup, 1952, pp. 348-352; Chamberlin, 1951, pp. 168-187).
Unions Protect Wages from Unfair Non-Union Competition It is argued that unions are able to collectively negotiate wages above what individual workers were individually could negotiate on their own. If non-union workers could compete for union jobs, those union-secured, higher wages would be competed down. Thus, all workers will be better off if required to join and jointly negotiate through the representing union. Labor, however, like every other good or service offered on the market, is subject to the law of supply and demand. If a union successfully negotiates a wage above the one that would have been competitively established on the market, fewer workers may be employed, since the higher the wage the less profitable the number of workers potential employers find it attractive to hire (or retain). In other words, wages that compulsory unions may successfully impose runs the risk of pricing some workers out of the labor market (Velasco, 1973).
20
In this instance, the “conflict” is not between “labor” and “management,” but instead between union workers and non-union workers. The union “locks out” members of the labor force who would have been willing to work for prospective employers on terms mutually attractive to the two sides. This forces the locked out and displaced workers to search out alternative gainful employment in jobs and with employers who may be less well paying and not as attractive. The union members’ gains are, as a consequence, at the expense of other workers, who must find employment in other markets. As non-union workers fill these other markets, wages in that alternative part of the labor market fall below what would have prevailed if the all the jobs had been available to all the workers. This process can and often does entail workers having to migrate out of the state where they had previously found work, or where they would have chosen to reside, if not for compulsory union membership rules pushing non-union workers out of that part of the labor market, and that part of the country in which “closed shop” conditions prevail (Hayek, 1960, pp. 267-284; Knight, 1959, pp. 21-45).
The Need for Union Membership to Avoid Non-Union Free Riders It has been argued that the higher wages and better working conditions negotiated by a labor union benefit not only the union members but all other workers in the company or industry who are covered by the union terms of employment. If non-union members are able to benefit from the “positive” results of union activities, it is only reasonable that they should be required to bear a part of the costs of obtaining those favorable work conditions and wages. Thus, non-union workers should, if not required to join the union, to be at least obligated to pay union dues to assist in defraying the organizational and related expenses to provide those benefits. At the same time, the potential for “free riding” reduces the incentive to belong to a union, and thus may result in fewer union members and weaker unions unable to effectively negotiate on behalf of workers’ interest (Ickniowski and Zax, 1991). The free rider problem can only arise when the gains from the actions of some cannot be prevented from benefiting others who have not participated in covering the costs that have generated those “positive” results. However, excludability is possible in the case of union-generated wages or work conditions by simply stipulating in the negotiated union contract that the terms of that contract apply only to union members. If non-union workers are unable to obtain from the employers wages and work conditions equal to or better than those arranged by the union, that will act as a positive incentive for non-union employees to join the union. If, however, non-union employees are able to negotiate for themselves wages and work conditions not much different from (or even superior to) those
21
covered by the union contract, it would demonstrate clearly that union membership and dues are superfluous (Baird, p. 37).
In addition to the economic considerations raised by organized labor, a number of arguments have been offered in support of Right-to-Work Laws, among them: the case for personal freedom; the gains from competition; the benefits from labor mobility and workplace flexibility; and the efficient use of scarce resources for improved productivity. The Case for Personal Freedom The hallmark of a free society is the extent to which the individual has the liberty to make decisions guiding his or her own life, including the occupation or profession she or he chooses to follow to earn a living and that gives meaning and enjoyment to his or her daily activities. By definition then, union shops exclude workers who would otherwise find gainful employment on the basis of free and voluntary contract between themselves and willing employers. This is a restraint not only on trade in general, but a restriction on the personal freedom of workers to enter into consensual association with others for peaceful and lawful mutual benefit. The same applies to compulsory payment of union dues as a “tribute” to a union for the right to work for a particular employer or in a specific industry. Indeed, it can be argued that it is a form of imposed tax for the privilege of working within the “jurisdiction” over which the union claims authority (Richberg, 1957, pp. 114- 126).
The Gains from Labor Market Competition “Closed shops” have historically had one essential goal, anti-competitive and monopoly restriction on segments of the labor market (Simons, 1944, pp. 121-159). The purpose is to limit the supply in various occupations, professions, and trades as a means to raise the price of labor above the levels at which the free interactions of market supply and demand would have set wages. Companies or cartels that attempt to act monopolistically bear the cost of leaving a portion of their capital and equipment idle precisely to withhold potential output with the hope of deriving higher profits by selling less output at a higher price. They must weigh the cost of underutilized plant and equipment relative to the higher price with the decreased output. Compulsory unions, however, restrict entry into their market to reduce the supply and raise the price of labor – wages – but bear no such cost. Their responsibility and “costs” extend no further than a weighing of the advantages and disadvantages to the workers who remain employed under the union wage and work condition rules negotiated on the basis of collective bargaining. Those workers priced out of employment in the closed shop are no longer voting or dues-paying members, and therefore no longer of an element in the union leadership’s decision-making. The burden of the compulsory union’s actions, therefore, falls on the
22
shoulders of the excluded workers. They bear a cost they had not bargained for or agreed to. Thus, the unemployment or less valued employment that these displaced workers now face exists as a cost that these unions impose on others without their agreement or consent. Right-to-Work Laws therefore may serve to reduce the unions’ anti-competitive and potentially monopolist practices in the labor market. The number of workers employed in an industry, occupation and trade reflects the consumer demand for the products workers can produce. As long as the value of the product is greater than workers’ opportunity costs of being employed in some other way of earning a living, the supply of workers will increase, the output of the desired goods and services will expand in supply and the prices at which those goods are offered to consumers on the market will decline. The Benefits from Labor Mobility and Workplace Flexibility Compulsory unionism and the closed shop tend to reduce and limit labor mobility between industries and regions of the country. Competitive markets normally experience constant change requiring continual adjustment and adaptation to new circumstances. Consumer demands change, resource availabilities are modified, and capital investments shift from one line of production to another and technological innovations transform how and where goods and services can be profitably supplied and in what amounts. Some union restrictions inhibit the required adaptations and adjustments that must constantly be undertaken in different ways and different places if markets are to be continuously moving in the direction of sustainable balance and stability. Under Right-to-Work Laws, workers and employers have the flexibility and openness to find the “right” patterns of worker employment, to perform the tasks and types of work in and between industries that the shifting conditions of market supply and demand suggest are the most profitable and advantageous for both employees and employers. This also means that more flexible labor markets, like those where Right-to-Work Laws are present, are likely to offer the flexibility and profitableness to attract more industry into regions and states, allowing more adaptive labor markets to effectively function. At the same time, a more competitive labor market also is likely to attract qualified and energetic workers from other areas who are looking for more attractive and gainful employment.
More Efficient and Productive labor Right-to-Work environments enable labor and other resources and capital to be better allocated and employed where business judgments suggest it should in a world that is always changing and therefore contains an irreducible amount of uncertainty and risk. This is not to
23
infer that managers never get it “wrong” or workers never have second thoughts about jobs they’ve taken. It is rather that given the inescapable fact that some decisions will always turn out to be wrong, labor markets, as well as all other resource and capital markets, must have the greatest potential to readjust and transform what, how, and where production is undertaken and which job opportunities exist. It has become a cliché to say that America now exists in a far more competitive, global economy. It is nonetheless very true. Any state such as Michigan that wishes to meet this challenge, not only by retaining businesses and jobs within this part of the country, but also wants to attract new investment and an expanding workforce, needs to offer businesspeople and workers the type of economic environment that makes that state a magnet.
In spite of the impressions sometimes created, Right-to-Work Laws are not “anti-labor” or “anti-union.” The theoretical literature simply suggests that worker opportunities for the greatest number of people in a place such as Michigan and the country as a whole are most likely to be present in an “open shop” market-setting, rather than in labor markets that are “closed.” The flexibility and adaptability in labor markets that come with “Right-to-Work” legislation can serve as an important aspect of a policy focused on job maintenance and job creation, when combined with other policy reforms in the wider setting of fiscal and regulatory policy in the state of Michigan. Determining the Cause and Effect of Right to Work Laws Revisiting the case made by organized labor and applying simple economics (supply and demand analysis), it is clear that “Right to Work” laws make it more expensive for unions to provide its services to members because of the free-rider problem. In terms of demand and supply of union services, this reduces the supply of union services, thereby increasing the price of union services and reducing the quantity of union services. It is also true that very often RTW legislation passes in states where the support for unions is very thin. So in most RTW states, public attitudes towards unions are likely already very low, and this is reflected by a reduction in the demand for union services. This reduction in the demand for union services also results in reducing the quantity of union services being offered to the labor market.
Thus the following key question must be answered correctly to ascertain the true effects of the RTW legislation: Is the level of unionization lower in RTW states because of the passage of the law or because of the negative attitude citizens of that state have about unions? This is precisely why it is difficult to assess the economic effects of RTW legislation. Specifically, the inability to control for many systematic observed and unobserved differences across states makes it very difficult to assess the economic effects of RTW legislation as compared to other relevant state characteristics. Since RTW states are often unsupportive of unions and are
24
considered to be “business friendly,” they have a lower corporate tax rate, lower regulations, less absenteeism, and sometimes higher subsidies for businesses. Thus the beneficial effects of RTW on employment and wages could also be the effects of those pro-business policies. In that case RTW is just symptomatic of the pro-business attributes of the state. In the absence of an effective control for these across-state differences, any empirical analysis might lead to spurious and unreliable estimates.
Therefore, determining the effects of the RTW legislation on wages, employment and location decisions of businesses is crucially dependent on the nature and type of controls that are applied in different studies. It must be recognized that a whole range of variables may contribute to differences in employment and wages across states and regions. What specifically can be attributed solely to RTW depends on how successful the studies are in controlling these other factors. There is a need to treat descriptive comparisons based on raw numbers with skepticism because there are many observed and unobserved factors that influence those numbers.
In all the papers dealing with the effects of RTW legislation, four central questions have emerged as important:
1. Does RTW legislation inhibit union growth? 2. Does RTW legislation inhibit union bargaining strength? 3. Does RTW legislation drive location decisions of businesses? 4. Does RTW legislation impact employment, wage and growth in Gross State Product
(GSP)?
Meyers (1959) argued that RTW proposals are of much less importance than either side to the controversy has been willing to admit. This issue is a symbolic one. He argued that “what is at stake is the political power and public support of management and unions.” Meyers argued that RTW itself had very minor effects on union growth or union power. Kuhn (1961) concluded that RTW did inhibit union growth. Barkin (1961) also concluded that RTW provided legal confirmation to anti- union movement. It contributed to decline in union membership and also weakened bargaining power of existing unions. Marshall (1963) concluded that the only impact of RTW was political. It showed the political weakness of the union. Shister (1968), on the other hand, concluded that RTW did inhibit both union growth and union bargaining power, but its impact on union growth was substantially higher than its impact on union bargaining power.
A comprehensive model trying to analyze the effects of “Right To Work” Legislation was developed by Ashenfelter and Pancavel (1969) and Pancavel (1971). They developed a formal model of Demand and Supply of union services to explain three competing hypotheses about the effects of RTW legislation on union membership and bargaining rights of unions. Three
25
competing hypotheses emerged from their analysis about the effects of RTW legislation: All subsequent analysis of RTW legislation has revolved around these three hypotheses.
1. The Taste Hypothesis: RTW laws exist only in states where anti-union sentiment among workers, employers and the public is substantial. Based on this hypothesis, RTW does not have independent effect on the extent of unionism in a state, but it simply reflects the hostile attitude towards unions. Thus a repeal of section 14b of the Taft Hartley legislation will have no impact on union membership in RTW states.
2. The Free-Rider Hypothesis: RTW increases the cost of union organizing and union maintenance. The supply of union services and the equilibrium level of unionism will be lower in RTW states than in other non-RTW states, so a repeal of section 14b of the Taft Hartley legislation would have statistically significant positive impact on union membership in RTW states.
3. The Bargaining Power Hypothesis: This hypothesis argues that the RTW legislation directly weakens the bargaining position of the unions, since this law prevents unions from requiring universal membership within the union. Since unions cannot demand membership, it will diminish the union’s bargaining position and members will perceive less value in union membership. This will have significant negative impact on the extent of unionization in a RTW state. The repeal of section 14b of the Taft Hartley legislation will have significant positive impact on the extent of unionism in RTW states.
Palomba et al. (1971) argued that for RTW to pass it must receive strong support from non-union members or employers of union labor. The rationale for their support of RTW may be that with RTW, business environments improve in a state and that attracts industries in their state. However, Palomba concluded that RTW legislation had no impact on economic development, since their research showed that RTW states ranked lower in economic development once the impact of RTW is fully taken into consideration.
Moore, Newman and Thomas (1974) contradict the assumption of Palomba, that non-union members vote for RTW to ensure more investment in their states. Instead, they argue that RTW laws are passed to weaken the union, slow their growth and to destroy the existing union. However, they find no evidence to support that RTW does accomplish any of those objectives. Lunsden and Peterson (1975) showed that the proportion of workers who belonged to unions in RTW states was not significantly different in 1953 compared to 1939. They argued that the lower proportions of workers belonging to unions in RTW states can be attributed to their tastes and preferences rather than the impact of the law itself. Moore and Newman (1975)
26
argue that RTW laws did not have a statistically significant impact on the proportions of workers who belong to unions.
Carroll (1983) argued that “Right To Work” legislation did matter. He argued that RTW legislation did not destroy unions but significantly slowed down the rate of growth of union activities. The paper concluded that:
1. A significantly larger proportion of workers in union shop states belonged to a union than RTW states between 1964 and 1978. Carroll however contends that it is impossible to conclude that this lower union membership in RTW states is caused by prohibition of union shop contracts.
2. RTW laws are associated with lower union membership than would be otherwise. He arrived at this conclusion of relative union membership by using the following rationale: proportion of workers belonging to unions divided by the predicted proportion of workers in unions based on the state’s industrial composition. While union shop states consistently met or exceeded their expected union membership, a RTW state was consistently below 100 %, implying that RTW laws reduce union membership more than would otherwise be the case in their state.
3. Wage rates in RTW states were significantly lower than wage rates in non RTW states.
4. Manufacturing jobs paid consistently lower in RTW states than in non RTW states. 5. Except in the South, the value added per production hour was higher in RTW states
than in non RTW states. 6. Manufacturing employment grew more rapidly in the right to work states than in
non RTW states. 7. RTW states demonstrated significantly lower unemployment rates compared to non
RTW states.
Newman (1983) used changes in corporate taxes, unionization and a RTW variable as his explanatory variable, and in his analysis he was able to control for other factors by including them as explanatory variables that influence manufacturing employment, so that the net impact of RTW can be estimated. He concluded that RTW had a significant positive effect on employment in 11 out of the 13 industries he analyzed. The impact was more substantial in industries that used more labor compared to capital. However, the effects of RTW laws lose their impact over time.
Schmenner et al. (1987) investigated the effects of RTW legislation on location decisions of firms by using Fortune 500 survey data, and state and plant level data. The paper used those dates to estimate location decisions as a two stage process. In the first stage states were being seriously considered, whereas in the second stage the final decisions about plant location were
27
made. The paper concluded that although RTW laws were significant in the first stage, it was not significant in the final choice.
Ellwood and Fine (1987) studied the effects of RTW legislation on the flow of unionism rather than the stock of unionism. The paper concluded that RTW legislation has significant effect on the flow to unions, but the impact is lost over time.
Holmes (2000, 1998) controlled for all other cultural, geographical, climatic and industry mix by comparing the effects of RTW on the border regions between a right to work and a non-right to work state. He did this to isolate the effects of RTW legislation, because the counties bordering two states share most of the same geographical, climatic, cultural traits. He found a significant difference in the growth of manufacturing employment from 1947 to 1992 for the RTW states of 88.5 % compared to 62.6 % for the Non-RTW states, a difference of 26 %, for the RTW states.
Mishel (2001) of the Economic Policy Institute studied the effects of RTW on (1) union wage premium and (2) on wages. The paper basically uses three models each differing from others in terms of the control variables. In model 1 he controlled for personal and geographic characteristics like race, ethnicity, age, marital status, industry and occupation. In model 1 he compared workers with similar demographics and occupation within an industry between RTW and Non-RTW states. He concluded that workers in RTW states earn 6.5 % less than comparable workers in non-RTW states. In model # 2 he controlled for state of residences, which according to him should control all the characteristics of a state other than RTW. He concluded that workers living in RTW states earned, on the average, 7.8 % less than a comparable worker in non-RTW states. This difference in earnings, according to Mishel, captures the price difference between the states. In model #3, he compared workers with similar demographic characteristics, industry and occupation and also controlled for cost of living using an index of the fair market rent. He concluded that on the average, a worker, living in a RTW state, earned 3.8 % less than a worker living in a non-RTW state.
William Wilson (2002) of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy concluded that RTW states did better compared to non RTW states in many of the economic variables that are supposed to be impacted by RTW legislation. Specifically, he found that Gross State Product has grown by 0.5 % more per year in RTW states between 1977 and 1999. He also found that overall employment increased by 0.9 % more per year in RTW states and manufacturing employment increased more by 1.7 % per year in RTW states.
Kalenkoski and Lacombe (2006) employing the 2000 census data found that RTW has a significant positive impact on the manufacturing share of private sector employment of 2.1 %. Kersey (2007) using data from 2001 to 2006 showed that the general trends in Wilson’s paper remained the same and the differentials between RTW and Non-RTW states, and in some cases
28
even had widened. Both Wilson and Kersey attributed the positive effects of RTW legislation due to its ability to reduce rigid labor laws and address the issue of lower labor productivity.
Stevens (2009) examined the average differences in business conditions, employment, personal income, wages and salaries, and proprietors’ income between states with RTW legislation and states without RTW legislation. The paper concluded that the numbers of self-employed were higher and business bankruptcies were lower in RTW states. However, there were no significant differences in capital formation, employment rates and personal income between RTW and non RTW states. In addition, the paper concluded that while wages were lower in RTW states, proprietors' income was higher.
Garrett and Rhine (2010) evaluated the impact of economic freedom on employment in different states. To define economic freedom they included size of government (smaller government and lower taxation are associated with higher economic freedom) and more labor market freedom. Their study concluded that states with higher economic freedom have experienced higher economic growth. Their paper controlled for other factors such as human capital, population density, and industry mix. It is important to note that RTW legislation is one factor included in the economic freedom index. So the favorable effects of economic freedom are due to the overall business environment, and RTW is only a part of that overall environment.
Richard Vedder (2010) of the Cato Institute, a respected conservative think tank, using data from 1970 to 2008, concluded that RTW states generated a cumulative economic growth of 61.5 % over the thirty years which was about 23 % higher compared to the growth experienced by non-right to work states. In addition, the research showed that right-to-work states have almost doubled their population, whereas the population in non-right-to-work state has increased by a modest 26 %.
General Conclusions Regarding the Effects of RTW Laws
By examining the body of literature on the economic effects of RTW, a few key conclusions can be drawn. First, the effects of RTW laws on union membership are highly sensitive to the choice of estimation techniques. Second, if RTW variables are treated as exogenous (that is they are assumed to be independent of a pro or anti-union bias), then RTW laws have a significant impact on the extent of unionism; however results are mixed if RTW and the extent of unionism were both treated as exogenous. Third, there is an identification problem regarding what a significant RTW coefficient indicates. It can indicate one of the following. A) There is already a bias against unions and RTW coefficient reflects that sentiment and not the effect of anti-union activities as reflected in the RTW laws. B) It could reflect the effects of the elimination free rider phenomenon where the cost of organizing becomes tougher and has a
29
negative consequence on the extent of unionism. C) It could reflect the effects of the diminished bargaining power of the union and its consequent effects on the level of unionism. Thus it is very important to attempt to isolate these independent effects and actually assess the effects of RTW legislation on the extent of unionism. The fourth conclusion is that there seems to be evidence of a strong and significant slowing down of union organizing with the passage of RTW laws.
The effects of RTW on wages are also mixed. It is clear that states with RTW laws have a lower average wage than states without RTW legislation. Yet RTW states have experienced significantly greater wage rate growth in the last decade (2000-10). However, while the causality for either is not well-established, there is evidence to suggest that union wage premiums are significantly higher in RTW states than in non-RTW states.
The effect of RTW legislation on choice of location by industry is functionally dependent upon the employers’ perception whether the effect of RTW legislation on the extent of unionism is real or symbolic. If it is real then the decision to relocate is a result of a cost benefit analysis of the benefits of reduced union activities compared to the cost of relocation. If on the other hand the benefits of RTW legislation are merely symbolic, then the movement of industries to states with RTW legislation would be severely restricted.
It is clear that RTW states have a negative impact on the extent of unionism. It is also clear that the extent of unionization has a significant impact on the existence of RTW legislation. Some economists have tried to estimate simultaneous equation models to determine jointly unionization level and the presence / absence of RTW laws, but determining cause and effect is difficult.
Cobb-Douglas Analysis The difficulty of assessing whether RTW laws are a cause or effect requires the use of a different approach towards identifying whether RTW matters with regard to a state’s economic performance. In this study, regression analysis was used to estimate a standard Cobb-Douglas production function. The Cobb-Douglas production function is a tool used by economists to examine the dependency between economic output and inputs such as capital, labor, and technology.
The percentage changes in state gross domestic product, employment, and organizational births were used to measure output, labor, and capital formation in the Cobb-Douglas function. It was from this equation a measure for technological formation was derived, a proxy for business competitiveness. A series of regression models were then estimated to examine the relationship between business competitiveness and whether a state had in place RTW legislation, controlling for factors including, but not limited to, state-by-state union
30
participation rates, government expenditures, and tax policy. In all of the models estimated, empirical support was provided for the notion that Right-To-Work states are more economically competitive. All of the results were statistically significant at 99 % level of confidence. (See Exhibit 110-116)
Conclusion
The Michigan economy still is very large and important within the U.S. and global economy. Michigan’s GSP is roughly equivalent to the GDP of the country of Austria which would make Michigan one of the 30 largest economies in the world if it were a country. However, this study does not paint a rosy picture of Michigan’s competitive position relative to most other U.S. states. Michigan’s ranking on The Northwood University Competitiveness Index of 47 indicates Michigan has tremendous room for improvement but also reasons for optimism. The study’s regression analysis indicates that RTW states have a strong and statistically significant relationship on productivity growth. However, effects of RTW legislation are often hard to isolate since most RTW states are business friendly. Since RTW states are generally business friendly, capital formation is higher resulting in higher productivity growth. The study indicates further consideration is needed to better determine the causal relationship between RTW legislation and competitiveness.
There are also recent historical examples of policy changes leading to economic recovery and accelerated growth. In a recent Cato Institute policy report, entitled “We can cut government, Canada did,” the authors outlined Canada’s economic reforms since the 1980s which have been comprehensive and effective.
The examples and processes used in the following reforms implemented in Canada might be considered by policymakers at the federal level in the United States or at the state level here in Michigan. Canada has reformed its trade policy, engaged in privatization of many government programs and services, cut spending, maintained a sound monetary policy, cut corporate tax rates, reformed the personal income tax code, balanced its federal budget, and reduced the size of its central government. In fact, Canadian federal spending was cut from 23.3 % of GDP in 1993 to 16.5 % by 2000. Canadian spending cuts of the 1990s were coincident with the beginning of a 15 year economic boom. (Edwards, 2012).
A similar story can be told regarding the economy of New Zealand. John McMillan, in an article entitled, “Managing Economic Change: Lessons from New Zealand,” points out that New Zealand saw vast economic improvement from the early 1980s to the late 1990s by
31
transforming New Zealand from one of the most regulated of the developed world economies to one of the least regulated (McMillan, 1998).
The research contained in this study should serve as a guidepost and tool for benchmarking for Michigan public policy leaders. For many years Michigan was the economic catalyst for much of the U.S. economy, Detroit put America and much of the world on wheels, and Michigan was the “Arsenal of Democracy” in World War II. Can Michigan return to the position of greatness it once occupied in the U.S. business structure? The answer is unequivocally yes, but only if Michigan confronts the economic reality facing this great state. Michigan must set its sights high and benchmark to the best economic and political practices of this country’s top performing states.
32
References Ala. Code§ § 25-7-30 through 35 (1953).
Ariz. Const. art. XXV (1946).
Ark. Const. amend. 34 (1944).
Atkinson, Robert D. & Andes, Scott M. (2011) The Atlantic Century II: Benchmarking U.S. and
E.U. Competitiveness. European-American Business Council and the Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.itif.org/files/2011-
atlantic- century.pdf.
Baird, C.W. (1988). Varieties of ‘right to work’. Managerial and Decision Economics, Winter, 33-
43.
Barro, R. (1991). Economic Growth in a Cross-Section of Countries. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics 106, No.2, 407-433.no.
Carroll, T. M. (1986). Do right to work laws matter? Reply. Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 53,
No. 2, Oct., 525-528.
Carroll, T.M. (1983). Right to work laws do matter. Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 50, No. 2,
Oct., 494-509.
Chamberlin, Edward H. (1951) “The Monopoly Power of Labor,” in David McCord Wright, ed.,
The Impact of the Union. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730 (1914), 15 U.S.C. §§ 12–27 (2011).
33
Commonwealth v. Hunt, 45 Mass. 111 (1842).
Commonwealth v. Pullis, Mayor's Court of Philadelphia (1806) in David P. Twomey (2009).
Labor & Employment Law: Text and Cases, 14th ed. South-Western / West.
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 (1923).
Dickman, Howard. (1987), Industrial Democracy in America: Ideological Origins of National
Labor Relations Policy. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.
Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443 (1921).
Edwards, C. (2012). We can cut government: Canada did. Cato Policy Report, Vol. XXIV, No. 3
Ellwood, D. & Fine, G. (1987). The impact of right to work laws on union organizing.
Journal of Political Economy 250-273.
Erdman Act, 30 Stat. 424 (1898).
Esch-Cummins Act, 41 Stat. 456 (1920).
Fla. Const. Article 1, § 6 (1944).
Garett, T. & Rhine, R. (2011). Economic freedom and employment growth in U.S. states, Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, January/February 93(1), 1-18.
Guam Code Ann., Title 22, Div. 1, Ch. 4 (22 G.C.A. §§ 4101 et seq.)(2001).
H.Enr.Act 1001.1.1 to Ind. Code 22-6-6 §§ 1-13 (2012).
Hartley, Fred A. (1947). Our New Labor Relations Policy. New York: Funk & Wagnall.
Hayek, Friedrich A. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Holmes, T. J. (1998). The Effects of State Policies on the location of Manufacturing: Evidence for
State Borders. Journal of Political Economy, Vol, 106, no 4 August, 667-705.
34
Hunter, R.P. (1999) Michigan Labor Law: What Every Citizen Should Know. Mackinac Center for
Public Policy, Midland, Michigan, retrieved from http://www.mackinac.org/2286.
Hutt, W. H. (1973), The Strike-Threat System: The Economic Consequences of Collective
Bargaining. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House.
Hutt, W. H. (1954). The Theory of Collective Bargaining. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Ichniowski, C. & Zax, J. S. (1991), “Right-to-Work Laws, Free Riders, and Unionization in the
Local Public Sector,” Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 9, No. 3.
Idaho Code §§ 44-2001 through 44-2011 (1986).
In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895).
Iowa Code Ann. §§ 20.8, 20.10, 731.1 through 731.8. (1947).
Johnson, Allie. (2012) 10 states where car insurance really bites your budget. Retrieved from:
http://www.carinsurancequotes.com/car_insurance-costs.
Kalenkoski, C.M. & Lacombe D.J. (2006). Right to work laws and manufacturing employment:
The importance of spatial dependence. Southern Economic Journal (2006) 73(2) 402-
418.
Kan. Const. art. 15, § 12 (1958).
Kersey. P (2007). The economic effects of right to work laws. Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Kuhn, J. W. (1961). Right to work laws-symbols or substance?. Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, Vol. 14 no. 4, July, 587-594.
35
Knight, F. H. (1959), “Wages and Labor Union Action in the Light of Economic Analysis,” in Philip
D. Bradley, ed., The Public Stake in Union Power. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of
Virginia.
Kochan, Thomas A. (2012). Resolving America's Human Capital Paradox: A Jobs Compact for the
Future. Policy Paper No. 2012-011. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research. Retrieved from http://research.upjohn.org/up_policypapers/11.
Labor-Management Relations Act (Taft-Hartley), 61 Stat. 136 (1947), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169
(2011).
Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co., 335 U.S. 525 (1949).
Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908).
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 23:981-987 (1976).
Lumsden K. & Petersen, C. (1975). The effect of right to work laws on unionization in the United
States. Journal of Political Economy, Vol 83, no 6.
Machlup, F. (1952), The Political Economy of Monopoly. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
McMillan, J. (1998). Managing economic change: lessons from New Zealand. Working paper
University of California San Diego.
Meade Electric Co. v. Hagberg, 129 Ind. App. 631, 159 N.E.2d 408 (1959).
Meyers, F. (1955). Effects of “right to work” laws: a study of the Texas act. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, Oct., 77-84.
36
Michigan House Bill 4454 §§1-13(2007). Retrieved from
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billintroduced/House/pdf/2007-
HIB-4454.pdf.
Michigan Protect our Jobs Amendment. Retrieved from
http://www.miaaup.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=156:protect-
our-jobs-petition-campaign&catid=38:2011-news&Itemid=223.
Mishel, L. (2001).The wage penalty of right to work. Economic Policy Institute. August 2001.
Miss. Code Ann. § 71-1-47 (1954).
Miss. Const. art. 7 § 198-A (1960).
Moore, W.J. & Newman, R. J. (1985). The effects of right to work laws: a review of the
literature. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 38, No. 4 July, 571-585.
Moore, W. J., Newman, R. J. & William, T. R. (1974). Determinants of the passages of right to
work laws: an alternative Interpretation" Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 17, No 1
Apr., 197-211.
Moore, W.J., Dunlevy, J. & Newman R. (1986). Do right to work laws matter? comment.
Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 53, No. 2, 515-524.
National Industrial Recovery Act, 48 Stat. 195 (1933), repealed.
National Labor Relations Act (Wagner), 49 Stat. 452 (1935), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 (2011).
N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-78 through 84 (1947).
37
N.D. Cent. Code §§ 34.01.14 (1948).
Neb. Const. Art. XV, §§ 13, 14, 15 (1946).
Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 613.230, 613.250 - 613.300 (1952).
Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 70 (1932), 29 U.S.C. 102 et seq. (2011).
O.C.G.A § 34-6, et seq. (1947) (2011).
Okla. Const. art. XXIII (2001).
Palomba, C.A. & Palomba N. A. (1971). Right to work laws: a suggested economic rationale.
Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 14, No. 2, 475-483.
Pancavel, J.H. (1971).The demand for union services: an exercise. Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, 180-190.
Petro, Sylvester. (1957), The Labor Policy of the Free Society. New York: The Ronald Press.
Principles and Rules of the National War Labor Board, United States Government Printing
Office, Washington D.C. (1919), http://play.google.com/books/reader, retrieved
February 27, 2012.
Reynolds, Morgan O. (1984), Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America. New York: Universe
Books.
Richberg, Donald R. (1957), Labor Union Monopoly. Chicago: Henry Regnery.
Railway Labor Act, 44 Stat. 577 (1926), 45 U.S.C. 151 et seq. (2011).
38
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 41-7-10 through 90 (1954).
S.D. Const. art. VI, § 2 (1946).
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).
Schmenner, R.W., Huber, J. & Cook, R.L. (1987). Geographic differences and the location of new
manufacturing facilities. Journal of Urban Economics 21(1), 83-104.
Schmidt, Emerson P. (1971), Union Power and the Public Interest. Los Angeles: Nash Publishing.
Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209 (1890), 15 U.S.C. §§1-7 (2011).
Simons, Henry. ([1944] 1948), “Some Reflections on Syndicalism” in Economic Policy for a Free
Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stevans, L.K. (2009). The effect of endogenous right to work laws on business and economic
conditions in the United States: a multivariate approach. Review of Law and Economics
5(1), 596-614.
Skorup, J. (2009). Detroit: the triumph of progressive public policy. Mackinac Center for Public
Policy. Retrieved from http://www.mackinac.org/10743
Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 50-1-201 through 204 (1947).
Texas Codes Ann. Title 3 §§ 101.003, 004, 052, 053 (1947).
U.S. Department of Commerce (2012). U.S. Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity Report.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2010). Survey of Current Businesses.
United Mine Workers v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344 (1922).
Utah Code Ann. §§ 34-34-1 through 34-17 (1955).
Va. Code Ann. §§ 40.1-58 through 40.1-69 (1947).
39
Vedder, R., Denhart, M. & Robe, J (2011). Right-to-Work and Indiana’s Economic Future
Vedder R. (2010). Right to work laws: Liberty, prosperity and quality of life. Cato Journal, 30(1)
171-180.
Vegelahn v. Gunter, 167 Mass. 92; 44 N.E. 1077 (1896).
Velasco, Gustavo R. (1973), Labor Legislation from an Economic Point of View. Indianapolis, IN:
Liberty Fund.
Wilson, W. (2002). The Effect of right to work laws on economic development” Mackinac
Center for Public Policy, Midland, Michigan.
Witney, F. (1958). The Indiana Right-to-Work Law. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol.
11, No. 4, 506-517.
Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 27-7-108 through 115 (1963).
40
Exhibits
Exhi
bit 1
: Eco
nom
ic C
ycle
of H
uman
Pro
gres
s
Sour
ces:
Myt
hs o
f Ric
h an
d Po
or (
1999
) an
d W
hen
We
Are
Free
(20
05)
Exhi
bit 2
: Wor
ld E
duca
tion
Rank
ings
Read
ing
Mat
hSc
ienc
eSo
uth
Kore
a1
13
Finl
and
22
1Ca
nada
35
5Ja
pan
54
2N
ethe
rland
s7
68
Switz
erla
nd11
310
Uni
ted
Stat
es14
2517
Germ
any
1610
9Fr
ance
1816
21U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m20
2211
Sour
ces:
The
Pro
gram
me
for I
nter
natio
nal S
tude
nt A
sses
smen
t (PI
SA)
and
the
Org
aniz
atio
n fo
r Ec
onom
ic C
oope
ratio
n an
d D
evel
opm
ent (
OEC
D, 2
010)
Sour
ces:
Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
the
Join
t Ec
onom
ic C
omm
ittee
Rep
ort (
1999
), U
.S. S
tatis
tical
Abs
trac
t and
the
Bure
au o
f Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis
(201
2) a
nd H
erita
ge F
ound
atio
n (2
012)
2.6%
5.0%
18.7
%
9.4%
25.6
%
16.6
%
0%2%4%6%8%10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
26%
28%
Fede
ral
Stat
e/Lo
cal
Fede
ral
Stat
e/Lo
cal
Fede
ral
Stat
e/Lo
cal
1902
1998
2011
(est
imat
e)
Exhi
bit 3
: Gov
ernm
ent E
xpen
ditu
res a
s a
Perc
enta
ge o
f GDP
0%5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Aust
ralia
Aust
riaBe
lgiu
mCa
nada
Chile
Chin
aCz
ech
Rebu
plic
Denm
ark
Esto
nia
Finl
and
Fran
ceGe
rman
yGr
eece
Hung
ary
Icel
and
Indi
aIre
land
Isre
alIta
lyJa
pan
Kore
aLu
xem
bour
gM
exic
oN
ethe
rland
sN
ew Z
eala
ndN
orw
ayPo
land
Port
ugal
Russ
iaSl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Slov
enia
Spai
nSw
eden
Switz
erla
ndTu
rkey
Uni
ted
King
dom
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Exhi
bit 4
: 201
2 Co
rpor
ate
Tax
Rate
s (20
10)
2012
2002
Sour
ces:
The
Tax
Fou
ndat
ion
(201
2) a
nd K
PMG
(201
2)
Top
Long
-Ter
m C
apita
l Gai
ns T
ax R
ate
Inte
grat
ed C
apita
l Gai
ns T
ax R
ate
Aust
ralia
23%
46%
Aust
ria0%
25%
Belg
ium
0%34
%Ca
nada
23%
44%
Chile
20%
34%
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
0%19
%De
nmar
k42
%57
%Es
toni
a0%
38%
Finl
and
28%
47%
Fran
ce31
%55
%Ge
rman
y25
%48
%Gr
eece
0%20
%Hu
ngar
y16
%32
%Ic
elan
d0%
36%
Irela
nd25
%34
%Is
real
20%
39%
Italy
45%
60%
Japa
n10
%46
%Ko
rea
0%24
%Lu
xem
bour
g0%
29%
Mex
ico
0%30
%N
ethe
rland
s0%
25%
New
Zea
land
0%26
%N
orw
ay28
%48
%Po
land
19%
34%
Port
ugal
0%27
%Sl
ovak
Rep
ublic
19%
34%
Slov
enia
0%20
%Sp
ain
21%
45%
Swed
en30
%48
%Sw
itzer
land
0%21
%Tu
rkey
0%20
%U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m28
%47
%U
nite
d St
ates
19%
51%
Exhi
bit 5
: 201
1 Ca
pita
l Gai
ns R
ate
By C
ount
ry
Sour
ce: T
ax F
ound
atio
n (2
012)
76.7
010
2030
4050
6070
8090
Mal
aysia
Sout
h Ko
rea
Aust
ralia
Taiw
anJa
pan
Bahr
ain
Uni
ted
Stat
esU
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mSi
ngap
ore
Hong
Kon
g
Exhi
bit 6
::1
995
Herit
age/
WSJ
Eco
nom
ic F
reed
om In
dex
76.4
010
2030
4050
6070
8090
Irela
ndEl
Sal
vado
rLu
xem
bour
gU
nite
d St
ates
Switz
erla
ndAu
stra
liaU
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mN
ew Z
eala
ndSi
ngap
ore
Hong
Kon
g
2000
Her
itage
/WSJ
Eco
nom
ic F
reed
om In
dex
Sour
ces:
The
Her
itage
Fou
ndat
ion
and
the
Wal
l Str
eet J
ourn
al (
2012
)
76.3
010
2030
4050
6070
8090
Uni
ted
Stat
esIre
land
Mau
ritiu
sCh
ileCa
nada
Switz
erla
ndN
ew Z
eala
ndAu
stra
liaSi
ngap
ore
Hong
Kon
g
2012
Her
itage
/WSJ
Eco
nom
ic F
reed
om In
dex
Exhi
bit 7
: Wor
ld E
cono
mic
For
um's
Glob
al C
ompe
titiv
enes
s Rep
ort
1999
-200
020
11-2
012
1U
nite
d St
ates
Switz
erla
nd
2Fi
nlan
dSi
ngap
ore
3N
ethe
rland
sSw
eden
4Sw
eden
Finl
and
5Sw
itzer
land
Uni
ted
Stat
es
6Ge
rman
yGe
rman
y
7De
nmar
kN
ethe
rland
s
8Ca
nada
Denm
ark
9Fr
ance
Japa
n
10U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mU
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
Sour
ce: I
MD
(201
2)
Sour
ce:
U.S.
Dep
artm
ent o
f the
Tre
asur
y (2
012)
$16,
000
$-
$2,
000
$4,
000
$6,
000
$8,
000
$10
,000
$12
,000
$14
,000
$16
,000
177617811786179117961801180618111816182118261831183618411845185018551860186518701875188018851890189519001905191019151920192519301935194019451950195519601965197019751980198519901995200020052010
BillionsEx
hibi
t 8: H
istor
y of
the
U.S
. Nom
inal
Nat
iona
l Deb
t Out
stan
ding
Priv
ate
Debt
:$4
.96
trill
ion
Publ
ic D
ebt:
$11.
04tr
illio
n
Sour
ces:
Com
pile
d fr
om C
ongr
essi
onal
Bud
get
Offi
ce a
nd U
.S. D
epar
tmen
t of
the
Trea
sury
(20
12)
Exhi
bit 9
:Fin
anci
ng T
he U
.S. N
atio
nal D
ebt:
2011
Dat
aDe
bt Debt
Hel
d by
the
Publ
ic A
s a P
erce
ntag
e of
GDP
Actu
al 2
010
67.7
3%Pr
ojec
ted
for 2
015
73.7
7%Pr
ojec
ted
for 2
020
61.4
2%In
tere
st-B
earin
gDe
bt H
eld
By P
ublic
Inve
stor
s (As
of D
ecem
ber 2
011)
Falli
ng D
ue W
ithin
1 Y
ear
32.1
9%Fa
lling
Due
With
in 5
Yea
rs71
.82%
Falli
ng D
ue W
ithin
10
Year
s90
.16%
Hold
ers o
f the
Pub
lic D
ebt (
At E
nd o
f 201
1 Fi
scal
Yea
r)Do
mes
tic In
vest
ors
54.0
%Fo
reig
n In
vest
ors
46.0
%In
tere
stAv
erag
e In
tere
st R
ates
(As o
f Jul
y31
, 201
1)M
arke
tabl
e2.
13%
Non
-mar
keta
ble
3.64
%To
tal
2.62
%Gr
oss I
nter
est P
aym
ents
on
Trea
sury
Deb
t Sec
uriti
es (i
n bi
llion
s)Fi
scal
Year
201
2 To
Dat
e32
3Ac
tual
201
145
4Pr
ojec
ted
Net
Inte
rest
Out
lays
(in
billi
ons)
Actu
al 2
011
227
From
201
3-20
171,
503
From
201
3-20
224,
247
Net
Inte
rest
as a
Per
cent
of G
DPAc
tual
in 2
011
1.50
%Pr
ojec
ted
for 2
015
1.60
%Pr
ojec
ted
for 2
020
2.5%
Sour
ce: K
PMG
(201
2)
40%
29.2
2%
33.0
0%
23.1
2%
20.6
0%
28.3
0%
22.7
5%25.7
3%
31.8
0%
24.4
7%
0%5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Afric
a
Nor
th A
mer
ica
Asia
Euro
pe
Latin
Am
eric
a
EU
OEC
D
Non
-US
G-7
Glob
alExhi
bit 1
0: 2
012
Aver
age
Corp
orat
e Ta
x Ra
tes
Exhi
bit 1
1: T
he C
ircul
ar F
low
Mod
el
Sour
ce:
IRS.
GO
V (2
012)
Exhi
bit 1
2: U
.S. P
opul
atio
n N
et M
igra
tion
by S
tate
(200
1-20
10)
Alab
ama
88,4
77M
onta
na40
,163
Alas
ka-6
,221
Neb
rask
a39
,152
Arizo
na70
2,88
3N
evad
a35
8,40
7Ar
kans
as77
,407
New
Ham
pshi
re31
,706
Calif
orni
a-1
,505
,126
New
Jers
ey-4
06,2
61Co
lora
do20
8,99
0N
ew M
exic
o28
,518
Conn
ectic
ut-9
7,73
1N
ew Y
ork
-1,6
73,0
59De
law
are
45,8
27N
orth
Car
olin
a67
1,98
4Fl
orid
a1,
164,
630
Nor
th D
akot
a-1
7,30
0Ge
orgi
a55
2,24
6O
hio
-370
,708
Haw
aii
29,8
83O
klah
oma
44,0
22Id
aho
109,
961
Ore
gon
178,
802
Illin
ois
-627
,662
Penn
sylv
ania
-26,
994
Indi
ana
-23,
820
Rhod
e Is
land
-46,
343
Iow
a-4
9,49
4So
uth
Caro
lina
310,
871
Kans
as67
,438
Sout
h Da
kota
7,82
8Ke
ntuc
ky84
,631
Tenn
esse
e26
3,37
2Lo
uisia
na30
6,66
2Te
xas
868,
292
Mai
ne28
,188
Uta
h53
,813
Mar
ylan
d-9
5,64
5Ve
rmon
t-1
,637
Mas
sach
uset
ts-2
77,3
09Vi
rgin
ia17
0,13
5M
ichi
gan
-554
,374
Was
hing
ton
242,
663
Min
neso
ta-4
9,98
9W
est V
irgin
ia19
,208
Miss
issip
pi-3
7,04
5W
iscon
sin-1
4,78
8M
issou
ri41
,252
Wyo
min
g22
,709
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Labo
r Sta
tistic
s (20
00 –
2010
)
-554
,374
978,
614
5,77
6,45
0
-4,7
97,8
36
-6,0
00,0
00
-4,0
00,0
00
-2,0
00,0
000
2,00
0,00
0
4,00
0,00
0
6,00
0,00
0
8,00
0,00
0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 1
3: U
.S. P
opul
atio
n N
et M
igra
tion
by S
tate
(200
1-20
10)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Labo
r Sta
tistic
s (20
00 –
2010
)
Exhi
bit1
4: U
.S.E
mpl
oym
ent G
row
th b
y St
ate
(200
0-20
10)
Alab
ama
-3.2
%M
onta
na9.
8%Al
aska
16.9
%N
ebra
ska
3.6%
Arizo
na7.
1%N
evad
a9.
9%Ar
kans
as1.
1%N
ew H
amps
hire
1.5%
Calif
orni
a-2
.5%
New
Jers
ey-3
.0%
Colo
rado
1.9%
New
Mex
ico
8.2%
Conn
ectic
ut-4
.0%
New
Yor
k0.
0%De
law
are
-1.2
%N
orth
Car
olin
a-0
.9%
Flor
ida
2.9%
Nor
th D
akot
a16
.8%
Geor
gia
-2.3
%O
hio
-10.
4%Ha
wai
i8.
7%O
klah
oma
3.5%
Idah
o9.
5%O
rego
n0.
0%Ill
inoi
s-6
.6%
Penn
sylv
ania
-0.4
%In
dian
a-7
.1%
Rhod
e Is
land
-3.2
%Io
wa
-0.5
%So
uth
Caro
lina
-2.6
%Ka
nsas
-1.4
%So
uth
Dako
ta6.
9%Ke
ntuc
ky-2
.4%
Tenn
esse
e-3
.8%
Loui
siana
-1.3
%Te
xas
11.2
%M
aine
-1.0
%U
tah
11.3
%M
aryl
and
3.6%
Verm
ont
0.3%
Mas
sach
uset
ts-3
.1%
Virg
inia
4.5%
Mic
higa
n-1
6.9%
Was
hing
ton
31.1
%M
inne
sota
-0.6
%W
est V
irgin
ia2.
2%M
ississ
ippi
-5.4
%W
iscon
sin-3
.0%
Miss
ouri
-3.7
%W
yom
ing
19.1
%So
urce
: Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
Bur
eau
of La
bor S
tatis
tics (
2000
–20
10)
-16.
9%
2.0%
3.9%
0.5%
-20.
0%
-15.
0%
-10.
0%
-5.0
%
0.0%
5.0%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 1
5: U
.S. E
mpl
oym
ent G
row
th b
y St
ate
(200
1-20
10)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Labo
r Sta
tistic
s (20
00 –
2010
)
Exhi
bit 1
6: R
eal U
.S. G
ross
Sta
te P
rodu
ct G
row
th (1
998-
2011
)Al
abam
a62
.6%
Mon
tana
89.9
%Al
aska
120.
4%N
ebra
ska
81.3
%Ar
izona
85.6
%N
evad
a10
3.4%
Arka
nsas
71.0
%N
ew H
amps
hire
64.3
%Ca
lifor
nia
75.8
%N
ew Je
rsey
56.1
%Co
lora
do86
.0%
New
Mex
ico
70.9
%Co
nnec
ticut
60.1
%N
ew Y
ork
70.1
%De
law
are
83.9
%N
orth
Car
olin
a81
.1%
Flor
ida
79.3
%N
orth
Dak
ota
136.
2%Ge
orgi
a64
.1%
Ohi
o38
.2%
Haw
aii
76.2
%O
klah
oma
92.0
%Id
aho
95.6
%O
rego
n92
.5%
Illin
ois
56.6
%Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia59
.0%
Indi
ana
54.5
%Rh
ode
Isla
nd70
.1%
Iow
a77
.8%
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a60
.5%
Kans
as69
.1%
Sout
h Da
kota
100.
6%Ke
ntuc
ky52
.6%
Tenn
esse
e64
.0%
Loui
siana
105.
4%Te
xas
106.
2%M
aine
60.7
%U
tah
103.
4%M
aryl
and
86.1
%Ve
rmon
t61
.9%
Mas
sach
uset
ts66
.1%
Virg
inia
90.2
%M
ichi
gan
26.5
%W
ashi
ngto
n77
.8%
Min
neso
ta71
.5%
Wes
t Virg
inia
71.0
%M
ississ
ippi
61.1
%W
iscon
sin58
.9%
Miss
ouri
51.5
%W
yom
ing
156.
1%So
urce
: Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
Bur
eau
of E
cono
mic
Ana
lysis
(199
8 –
2010
)
26.5
%
71.5
%
85.0
%
64.2
%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 1
7: R
eal G
ross
Sta
te P
rodu
ct G
row
th (1
998-
2011
)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (1
998
–20
10)
Exhi
bit 1
8:Re
al 1
998
Gros
s Sta
te P
rodu
ct (m
illio
ns o
f dol
lars
)Al
abam
a$
1
06,4
49.0
0 M
onta
na$
20
,009
.00
Alas
ka$
23,
306.
00
Neb
rask
a$
51
,931
.00
Arizo
na$
1
39,7
26.0
0 N
evad
a$
64
,009
.00
Arka
nsas
$
6
1,88
8.00
N
ew H
amps
hire
$
38,6
91.0
0 Ca
lifor
nia
$ 1
,114
,035
.00
New
Jers
ey$
311
,981
.00
Colo
rado
$
142
,086
.00
New
Mex
ico
$
46,4
79.0
0 Co
nnec
ticut
$
143
,725
.00
New
Yor
k$
687
,860
.00
Dela
war
e$
35,
750.
00
Nor
th C
arol
ina
$ 2
42,7
99.0
0 Fl
orid
a$
4
20,5
69.0
0 N
orth
Dak
ota
$
17,0
72.0
0 Ge
orgi
a$
2
54,3
46.0
0 O
hio
$ 3
50,2
93.0
0 Ha
wai
i$
38,
019.
00
Okl
ahom
a$
80
,711
.00
Idah
o$
29,
618.
00
Ore
gon
$ 1
01,1
64.0
0 Ill
inoi
s$
4
28,3
14.0
0 Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia$
364
,050
.00
Indi
ana
$
180
,015
.00
Rhod
e Is
land
$
29,4
46.0
0 Io
wa
$
8
3,81
3.00
So
uth
Caro
lina
$ 1
03,2
74.0
0 Ka
nsas
$
7
7,44
1.00
So
uth
Dako
ta$
21
,000
.00
Kent
ucky
$
108
,002
.00
Tenn
esse
e$
162
,521
.00
Loui
siana
$
120
,625
.00
Texa
s$
634
,286
.00
Mai
ne$
32,
104.
00
Uta
h$
61
,217
.00
Mar
ylan
d$
1
61,7
79.0
0 Ve
rmon
t$
16
,002
.00
Mas
sach
uset
ts$
2
35,7
93.0
0 Vi
rgin
ia$
225
,493
.00
Mic
higa
n$
3
04,4
72.0
0 W
ashi
ngto
n$
199
,706
.00
Min
neso
ta$
1
64,2
56.0
0 W
est V
irgin
ia$
39
,080
.00
Miss
issip
pi$
60,
725.
00
Wisc
onsin
$ 1
60,3
24.0
0 M
issou
ri$
1
64,7
16.0
0 W
yom
ing
$
14,6
89.0
0 So
urce
: Bur
eau
of E
cono
mic
Ana
lysis
(199
8)
$304
,472
.00
$173
,484
.22
$138
,215
.82
$201
,195
.11
$-
$50
,000
$10
0,00
0
$15
0,00
0
$20
0,00
0
$25
0,00
0
$30
0,00
0
$35
0,00
0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 1
9: R
eal 1
998
Aver
age
Gros
s Sta
te P
rodu
ct (m
illio
ns o
f dol
lars
)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (1
998)
Exhi
bit 2
0: R
eal 2
011
Gros
s Sta
te P
rodu
ct (m
illio
ns o
f dol
lars
)Al
abam
a$
1
73,1
22.0
0 M
onta
na$
37,
990.
00
Alas
ka$
51,
376.
00
Neb
rask
a$
94,
160.
00
Arizo
na$
2
58,4
47.0
0 N
evad
a$
1
30,6
66.0
0 Ar
kans
as$
1
05,8
46.0
0 N
ew H
amps
hire
$
6
3,55
6.00
Ca
lifor
nia
$ 1
,958
,904
.00
New
Jers
ey$
4
86,9
89.0
0 Co
lora
do$
2
64,3
08.0
0 N
ew M
exic
o$
79,
414.
00
Conn
ectic
ut$
2
30,0
90.0
0 N
ew Y
ork
$ 1
,157
,969
.00
Dela
war
e$
65,
755.
00
Nor
th C
arol
ina
$
439
,826
.00
Flor
ida
$
754
,255
.00
Nor
th D
akot
a$
40,
323.
00
Geor
gia
$
418
,943
.00
Ohi
o$
4
83,9
62.0
0 Ha
wai
i$
66,
991.
00
Okl
ahom
a$
1
54,9
66.0
0 Id
aho
$
5
7,92
7.00
O
rego
n$
1
94,7
42.0
0 Ill
inoi
s$
6
70,7
27.0
0 Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia$
5
78,8
39.0
0 In
dian
a$
2
78,1
28.0
0 Rh
ode
Isla
nd$
50,
091.
00
Iow
a$
1
48,9
86.0
0 So
uth
Caro
lina
$
165
,785
.00
Kans
as$
1
30,9
23.0
0 So
uth
Dako
ta$
40,
117.
00
Kent
ucky
$
164
,799
.00
Tenn
esse
e$
2
66,5
27.0
0 Lo
uisia
na$
2
47,7
20.0
0 Te
xas
$ 1
,308
,132
.00
Mai
ne$
51,
585.
00
Uta
h$
1
24,4
83.0
0 M
aryl
and
$
301
,100
.00
Verm
ont
$
2
5,90
5.00
M
assa
chus
etts
$
391
,771
.00
Virg
inia
$
428
,909
.00
Mic
higa
n$
3
85,2
42.0
0 W
ashi
ngto
n$
3
55,0
83.0
0 M
inne
sota
$
281
,712
.00
Wes
t Virg
inia
$
6
6,82
1.00
M
ississ
ippi
$
9
7,81
0.00
W
iscon
sin$
2
54,8
18.0
0 M
issou
ri$
2
49,5
25.0
0 W
yom
ing
$
3
7,61
9.00
So
urce
: Bur
eau
of E
cono
mic
Ana
lysis
(201
1)
$385
,242
.00
$297
,473
.68
$255
,704
.18
$330
,292
.57
$-
$50
,000
$10
0,00
0
$15
0,00
0
$20
0,00
0
$25
0,00
0
$30
0,00
0
$35
0,00
0
$40
0,00
0
$45
0,00
0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 2
1: R
eal 2
011
Aver
age
Gros
s Sta
te P
rodu
ct (m
illio
ns o
f dol
lars
)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (2
011)
Exhi
bit2
2: A
vera
ge U
nem
ploy
men
t Rat
e (2
000-
2010
)Al
abam
a6.
93%
Mon
tana
6.53
%Al
aska
6.96
%N
ebra
ska
5.63
%Ar
izona
5.35
%N
evad
a5.
45%
Arka
nsas
5.20
%N
ew H
amps
hire
5.43
%Ca
lifor
nia
4.60
%N
ew Je
rsey
5.85
%Co
lora
do4.
11%
New
Mex
ico
5.65
%Co
nnec
ticut
6.52
%N
ew Y
ork
5.75
%De
law
are
5.84
%N
orth
Car
olin
a5.
69%
Flor
ida
6.51
%N
orth
Dak
ota
5.03
%Ge
orgi
a5.
18%
Ohi
o4.
30%
Haw
aii
4.71
%O
klah
oma
5.15
%Id
aho
5.33
%O
rego
n5.
54%
Illin
ois
7.68
%Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia7.
12%
Indi
ana
4.96
%Rh
ode
Isla
nd3.
65%
Iow
a5.
85%
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a6.
44%
Kans
as4.
53%
Sout
h Da
kota
6.41
%Ke
ntuc
ky4.
16%
Tenn
esse
e3.
36%
Loui
siana
5.65
%Te
xas
4.75
%M
aine
5.37
%U
tah
6.96
%M
aryl
and
5.85
%Ve
rmon
t3.
56%
Mas
sach
uset
ts6.
35%
Virg
inia
6.15
%M
ichi
gan
7.23
%W
ashi
ngto
n5.
80%
Min
neso
ta5.
59%
Wes
t Virg
inia
4.83
%M
ississ
ippi
6.37
%W
iscon
sin4.
08%
Miss
ouri
4.28
%W
yom
ing
4.22
%So
urce
: Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
Bur
eau
of E
cono
mic
Ana
lysis
(200
0 -2
010)
7.23
%
5.49
%5.
55%
5.44
%
0.00
%
1.00
%
2.00
%
3.00
%
4.00
%
5.00
%
6.00
%
7.00
%
8.00
%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 2
3: A
vera
ge U
nem
ploy
men
t Rat
e (2
000-
2010
)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (2
000
-201
0)
Exhi
bit 2
4: N
on-fa
rm P
ayro
ll Em
ploy
men
t Gro
wth
Ran
k (2
001-
2010
)Al
abam
a42
Mon
tana
8Al
aska
3N
ebra
ska
16Ar
izona
12N
evad
a7
Arka
nsas
22N
ew H
amps
hire
21Ca
lifor
nia
36N
ew Je
rsey
38Co
lora
do20
New
Mex
ico
11Co
nnec
ticut
45N
ew Y
ork
25De
law
are
31N
orth
Car
olin
a29
Flor
ida
18N
orth
Dak
ota
4Ge
orgi
a34
Ohi
o49
Haw
aii
10O
klah
oma
17Id
aho
9O
rego
n24
Illin
ois
47Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia26
Indi
ana
48Rh
ode
Isla
nd41
Iow
a27
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a37
Kans
as33
Sout
h Da
kota
13Ke
ntuc
ky35
Tenn
esse
e44
Loui
siana
32Te
xas
6M
aine
30U
tah
5M
aryl
and
15Ve
rmon
t23
Mas
sach
uset
ts40
Virg
inia
14M
ichi
gan
50W
ashi
ngto
n1
Min
neso
ta28
Wes
t Virg
inia
19M
ississ
ippi
46W
iscon
sin39
Miss
ouri
43W
yom
ing
2
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (2
001
-201
0)
50.0
25.5
21.3
28.8
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 2
5: N
on-fa
rm P
ayro
ll Em
ploy
men
t Gro
wth
Ran
k (2
001-
2010
)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (2
001
-201
0)
Exhi
bit 2
6: N
on-fa
rm P
ayro
ll Em
ploy
men
t Gro
wth
(200
1-20
10)
Alab
ama
-3.2
%M
onta
na9.
8%Al
aska
16.9
%N
ebra
ska
3.6%
Arizo
na7.
1%N
evad
a9.
9%Ar
kans
as1.
1%N
ew H
amps
hire
1.5%
Calif
orni
a-2
.5%
New
Jers
ey-3
.0%
Colo
rado
1.9%
New
Mex
ico
8.2%
Conn
ectic
ut-4
.0%
New
Yor
k0.
0%De
law
are
-1.2
%N
orth
Car
olin
a-0
.9%
Flor
ida
2.9%
Nor
th D
akot
a16
.8%
Geor
gia
-2.3
%O
hio
-10.
4%Ha
wai
i8.
7%O
klah
oma
3.5%
Idah
o9.
5%O
rego
n0.
0%Ill
inoi
s-6
.6%
Penn
sylv
ania
-0.4
%In
dian
a-7
.1%
Rhod
e Is
land
-3.2
%Io
wa
-0.5
%So
uth
Caro
lina
-2.6
%Ka
nsas
-1.4
%So
uth
Dako
ta6.
9%Ke
ntuc
ky-2
.4%
Tenn
esse
e-3
.8%
Loui
siana
-1.3
%Te
xas
11.2
%M
aine
-1.0
%U
tah
11.3
%M
aryl
and
3.6%
Verm
ont
0.3%
Mas
sach
uset
ts-3
.1%
Virg
inia
4.5%
Mic
higa
n-1
6.9%
Was
hing
ton
31.1
%M
inne
sota
-0.6
%W
est V
irgin
ia2.
2%M
ississ
ippi
-5.4
%W
iscon
sin-3
.0%
Miss
ouri
-3.7
%W
yom
ing
19.1
%So
urce
: Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
Bur
eau
of E
cono
mic
Ana
lysis
(200
1 -2
010)
-16.
9%
2.0%
3.9%
0.5%
-20.
0%
-15.
0%
-10.
0%
-5.0
%
0.0%
5.0%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 2
7: N
on-fa
rm P
ayro
ll Em
ploy
men
t Gr
owth
(200
1-20
10)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (2
000
-201
0)
Exhi
bit 2
8: U
.S. P
erso
nal I
ncom
e Pe
r Cap
ita G
row
th (2
000-
2010
)Al
abam
a39
.6%
Mon
tana
48.5
%Al
aska
45.3
%N
ebra
ska
40.8
%Ar
izona
31.9
%N
evad
a20
.2%
Arka
nsas
45.3
%N
ew H
amps
hire
26.6
%Ca
lifor
nia
28.7
%N
ew Je
rsey
29.6
%Co
lora
do24
.8%
New
Mex
ico
46.0
%Co
nnec
ticut
30.3
%N
ew Y
ork
38.0
%De
law
are
28.3
%N
orth
Car
olin
a25
.7%
Flor
ida
31.6
%N
orth
Dak
ota
72.0
%Ge
orgi
a23
.0%
Ohi
o27
.6%
Haw
aii
43.3
%O
klah
oma
44.4
%Id
aho
30.5
%O
rego
n28
.2%
Illin
ois
29.6
%Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia35
.0%
Indi
ana
25.7
%Rh
ode
Isla
nd42
.5%
Iow
a41
.3%
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a30
.0%
Kans
as38
.9%
Sout
h Da
kota
52.7
%Ke
ntuc
ky30
.8%
Tenn
esse
e32
.2%
Loui
siana
58.0
%Te
xas
34.0
%M
aine
36.6
%U
tah
33.2
%M
aryl
and
40.8
%Ve
rmon
t41
.5%
Mas
sach
uset
ts33
.5%
Virg
inia
39.4
%M
ichi
gan
20.3
%W
ashi
ngto
n33
.3%
Min
neso
ta32
.5%
Wes
t Virg
inia
44.1
%M
ississ
ippi
45.1
%W
iscon
sin32
.1%
Miss
ouri
33.1
%W
yom
ing
53.1
%So
urce
: Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
Bur
eau
of E
cono
mic
Ana
lysis
(200
0 -2
010)
20.3
%
36.4
%
39.2
%
34.2
%
0%5%10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 2
9: A
vera
ge P
erso
nal I
ncom
e Pe
r Cap
ita G
row
th (2
000-
2010
)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (2
000
-201
0)
Exhi
bit 3
0: U
.S. M
edia
n Ho
useh
old
Inco
me
(201
0)Al
abam
a$
40,
976.
00
Mon
tana
$ 4
1,46
7.00
Al
aska
$ 5
8,19
8.00
N
ebra
ska
$ 5
2,72
8.00
Ar
izona
$ 4
7,27
9.00
N
evad
a$
51,
525.
00
Arka
nsas
$ 3
8,57
1.00
N
ew H
amps
hire
$ 6
6,70
7.00
Ca
lifor
nia
$ 5
4,45
9.00
N
ew Je
rsey
$ 6
3,54
0.00
Co
lora
do$
60,
442.
00
New
Mex
ico
$ 4
5,09
8.00
Co
nnec
ticut
$ 6
6,45
4.00
N
ew Y
ork
$ 4
9,82
6.00
De
law
are
$ 5
5,26
9.00
N
orth
Car
olin
a$
43,
753.
00
Flor
ida
$ 4
4,24
3.00
N
orth
Dak
ota
$ 5
1,38
0.00
Ge
orgi
a$
44,
108.
00
Ohi
o$
46,
093.
00
Haw
aii
$ 5
8,50
7.00
O
klah
oma
$ 4
3,40
0.00
Id
aho
$ 4
7,01
4.00
O
rego
n$
50,
526.
00
Illin
ois
$ 5
0,76
1.00
Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia$
48,
460.
00
Indi
ana
$ 4
6,32
2.00
Rh
ode
Isla
nd$
51,
914.
00
Iow
a$
49,
177.
00
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a$
41,
709.
00
Kans
as$
46,
229.
00
Sout
h Da
kota
$ 4
5,66
9.00
Ke
ntuc
ky$
41,
236.
00
Tenn
esse
e$
38,
686.
00
Loui
siana
$ 3
9,44
3.00
Te
xas
$ 4
7,46
4.00
M
aine
$ 4
8,13
3.00
U
tah
$ 5
6,78
7.00
M
aryl
and
$ 6
9,02
5.00
Ve
rmon
t$
55,
942.
00
Mas
sach
uset
ts$
61,
333.
00
Virg
inia
$ 6
0,36
3.00
M
ichi
gan
$ 4
6,44
1.00
W
ashi
ngto
n$
56,
253.
00
Min
neso
ta$
52,
554.
00
Wes
t Virg
inia
$ 4
2,83
9.00
M
ississ
ippi
$ 3
7,98
5.00
W
iscon
sin$
50,
522.
00
Miss
ouri
$ 4
6,18
4.00
W
yom
ing
$ 5
2,35
9.00
So
urce
: Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
Bur
eau
of E
cono
mic
Ana
lysis
(201
0)
$46,
441
$49,
445
$46,
402
$53,
018
$-
$10
,000
$20
,000
$30
,000
$40
,000
$50
,000
$60
,000
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 3
1: U
.S. M
edia
n Ho
useh
old
Inco
me
(201
0)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (2
010)
Exhi
bit 3
2: S
tate
Min
imum
Wag
e (2
012)
Alab
ama
$ 7
.25
Mon
tana
$ 7
.65
Alas
ka$
7.7
5 N
ebra
ska
$ 7
.25
Arizo
na$
7.6
5 N
evad
a$
8.2
5 Ar
kans
as$
7.2
5 N
ew H
amps
hire
$ 7
.25
Calif
orni
a$
8.0
0 N
ew Je
rsey
$ 7
.25
Colo
rado
$ 7
.64
New
Mex
ico
$ 7
.50
Conn
ectic
ut$
8.2
5 N
ew Y
ork
$ 7
.25
Dela
war
e$
7.2
5 N
orth
Car
olin
a$
7.2
5 Fl
orid
a$
7.6
7 N
orth
Dak
ota
$ 7
.25
Geor
gia
$ 7
.25
Ohi
o$
7.7
0 Ha
wai
i$
7.2
5 O
klah
oma
$ 7
.25
Idah
o$
7.2
5 O
rego
n$
8.8
0 Ill
inoi
s$
8.2
5 Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia$
7.2
5 In
dian
a$
7.2
5 Rh
ode
Isla
nd$
7.4
0 Io
wa
$ 7
.25
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a$
7.2
5 Ka
nsas
$ 7
.25
Sout
h Da
kota
$ 7
.25
Kent
ucky
$ 7
.25
Tenn
esse
e$
7.2
5 Lo
uisia
na$
7.2
5 Te
xas
$ 7
.25
Mai
ne$
7.5
0 U
tah
$ 7
.25
Mar
ylan
d$
7.2
5 Ve
rmon
t$
7.2
5 M
assa
chus
etts
$ 8
.00
Virg
inia
$ 7
.25
Mic
higa
n$
7.4
0 W
ashi
ngto
n$
9.0
4 M
inne
sota
$ 7
.25
Wes
t Virg
inia
$ 7
.25
Miss
issip
pi$
7.2
5 W
iscon
sin$
7.2
5 M
issou
ri$
7.2
5 W
yom
ing
$ 7
.25
Sour
ce: B
urea
u of
Labo
r Sta
tistic
s (20
12)
$7.4
0 $7
.47
$7.3
3 $7
.59
$-
$1.
00
$2.
00
$3.
00
$4.
00
$5.
00
$6.
00
$7.
00
$8.
00
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 3
3: S
tate
Min
imum
Wag
e (2
012)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Labo
r Sta
tistic
s (20
12)
Exhi
bit 3
4: A
vera
geSt
ate
and
Loca
l Tax
Bur
den
as a
% o
f Inc
ome
(FY
2009
-10)
Al
abam
a8.
5%M
onta
na8.
7%Al
aska
6.3%
Neb
rask
a9.
8%Ar
izona
8.7%
Nev
ada
7.5%
Arka
nsas
9.9%
New
Ham
pshi
re8.
0%Ca
lifor
nia
10.6
%N
ew Je
rsey
12.2
%Co
lora
do8.
6%N
ew M
exic
o8.
4%Co
nnec
ticut
12.0
%N
ew Y
ork
12.1
%De
law
are
9.6%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
9.8%
Flor
ida
9.2%
Nor
th D
akot
a9.
5%Ge
orgi
a9.
1%O
hio
9.7%
Haw
aii
9.6%
Okl
ahom
a8.
7%Id
aho
9.4%
Ore
gon
9.8%
Illin
ois
10.0
%Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia10
.1%
Indi
ana
9.5%
Rhod
e Is
land
10.7
%Io
wa
9.5%
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a8.
1%Ka
nsas
9.7%
Sout
h Da
kota
8.1%
Kent
ucky
9.3%
Tenn
esse
e7.
6%Lo
uisia
na8.
2%Te
xas
7.9%
Mai
ne10
.1%
Uta
h9.
7%M
aryl
and
10.0
%Ve
rmon
t10
.2%
Mas
sach
uset
ts10
.0%
Virg
inia
9.1%
Mic
higa
n9.
7%W
ashi
ngto
n10
.3%
Min
neso
ta11
.0%
Wes
t Virg
inia
9.4%
Miss
issip
pi8.
7%W
iscon
sin11
.0%
Miss
ouri
9.0%
Wyo
min
g7.
8%So
urce
: Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
Bur
eau
of E
cono
mic
Ana
lysis
and
ALE
C’s R
ich
Stat
es, P
oor S
tate
s (20
12)
9.7%
9.4%
8.8%
9.9%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0
%
12.0
%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 3
5: A
vera
ge S
tate
and
Loc
al T
ax B
urde
n as
a %
of I
ncom
e (F
Y 20
09-1
0)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis a
nd A
LEC’
s Ric
h St
ates
, Poo
r Sta
tes (
2012
)
Sour
ce: T
ax F
ound
atio
n (2
010)
Exhi
bit 3
6: A
vera
ge S
tate
and
Loc
al C
orpo
rate
Tax
Rat
e (2
010)
Alab
ama
6.50
%M
onta
na6.
80%
Alas
ka9.
40%
Neb
rask
a7.
80%
Arizo
na7.
00%
Nev
ada
0.00
%Ar
kans
as6.
50%
New
Ham
pshi
re8.
50%
Calif
orni
a8.
80%
New
Jers
ey9.
00%
Colo
rado
4.60
%N
ew M
exic
o7.
60%
Conn
ectic
ut7.
50%
New
Yor
k7.
10%
Dela
war
e8.
70%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
6.90
%Fl
orid
a5.
50%
Nor
th D
akot
a6.
50%
Geor
gia
6.00
%O
hio
0.30
%Ha
wai
i6.
40%
Okl
ahom
a6.
00%
Idah
o7.
60%
Ore
gon
7.90
%Ill
inoi
s7.
30%
Penn
sylv
ania
10.0
0%In
dian
a8.
50%
Rhod
e Is
land
9.00
%Io
wa
12.0
0%So
uth
Caro
lina
5.00
%Ka
nsas
7.10
%So
uth
Dako
ta0.
00%
Kent
ucky
6.00
%Te
nnes
see
6.50
%Lo
uisia
na8.
00%
Texa
s0.
00%
Mai
ne8.
90%
Uta
h5.
00%
Mar
ylan
d8.
30%
Verm
ont
8.50
%M
assa
chus
etts
9.50
%Vi
rgin
ia6.
00%
Mic
higa
n5.
00%
Was
hing
ton
0.00
%M
inne
sota
9.80
%W
est V
irgin
ia8.
50%
Miss
issip
pi5.
00%
Wisc
onsin
7.90
%M
issou
ri6.
30%
Wyo
min
g0.
00%
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om Ta
x Fo
unda
tion
(201
0)
5.00
%
6.54
%
5.50
%
7.36
%
0.00
%
1.00
%
2.00
%
3.00
%
4.00
%
5.00
%
6.00
%
7.00
%
8.00
%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 3
7: A
vera
ge S
tate
and
Loc
al C
orpo
rate
Tax
Rat
e (2
010)
Sour
ce: T
ax F
ound
atio
n (2
010)
Exhi
bit 3
8: A
vera
ge S
tate
Sal
es T
ax R
ate
(201
0)Al
abam
a4.
00%
Mon
tana
0.00
%Al
aska
0.00
%N
ebra
ska
5.50
%Ar
izona
5.60
%N
evad
a6.
90%
Arka
nsas
6.00
%N
ew H
amps
hire
0.00
%Ca
lifor
nia
8.30
%N
ew Je
rsey
7.00
%Co
lora
do2.
90%
New
Mex
ico
5.40
%Co
nnec
ticut
6.00
%N
ew Y
ork
4.00
%De
law
are
2.10
%N
orth
Car
olin
a4.
50%
Flor
ida
6.00
%N
orth
Dak
ota
5.00
%Ge
orgi
a4.
00%
Ohi
o5.
50%
Haw
aii
4.00
%O
klah
oma
4.50
%Id
aho
6.00
%O
rego
n0.
00%
Illin
ois
6.30
%Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia6.
00%
Indi
ana
7.00
%Rh
ode
Isla
nd7.
00%
Iow
a6.
00%
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a6.
00%
Kans
as5.
30%
Sout
h Da
kota
4.00
%Ke
ntuc
ky6.
00%
Tenn
esse
e7.
00%
Loui
siana
4.00
%Te
xas
6.30
%M
aine
5.00
%U
tah
6.00
%M
aryl
and
6.00
%Ve
rmon
t6.
00%
Mas
sach
uset
ts6.
30%
Virg
inia
5.00
%M
ichi
gan
6.00
%W
ashi
ngto
n6.
50%
Min
neso
ta6.
90%
Wes
t Virg
inia
6.00
%M
ississ
ippi
7.00
%W
iscon
sin5.
00%
Miss
ouri
4.20
%W
yom
ing
4.00
%
6.00
%
5.08
%5.
39%
4.84
%
0.00
%
1.00
%
2.00
%
3.00
%
4.00
%
5.00
%
6.00
%
7.00
%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 3
9: S
tate
Sal
es T
ax R
ate
(201
0)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om Ta
x Fo
unda
tion
(201
0)
Sour
ce: U
nite
d St
ates
Cen
sus B
urea
u (2
009)
Exhi
bit 4
0:Pr
oper
ty T
ax C
olle
ctio
ns P
er C
apita
Ran
king
(200
9)Al
abam
a50
Mon
tana
23Al
aska
10N
ebra
ska
17Ar
izona
32N
evad
a21
Arka
nsas
49N
ew H
amps
hire
3Ca
lifor
nia
15N
ew Je
rsey
1Co
lora
do24
New
Mex
ico
47Co
nnec
ticut
2N
ew Y
ork
5De
law
are
43N
orth
Car
olin
a38
Flor
ida
13N
orth
Dak
ota
29Ge
orgi
a34
Ohi
o30
Haw
aii
35O
klah
oma
48Id
aho
40O
rego
n28
Illin
ois
9Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia25
Indi
ana
31Rh
ode
Isla
nd7
Iow
a22
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a36
Kans
as19
Sout
h Da
kota
33Ke
ntuc
ky46
Tenn
esse
e42
Loui
siana
45Te
xas
14M
aine
11U
tah
39M
aryl
and
27Ve
rmon
t6
Mas
sach
uset
ts8
Virg
inia
18M
ichi
gan
16W
ashi
ngto
n26
Min
neso
ta20
Wes
t Virg
inia
44M
ississ
ippi
41W
iscon
sin12
Miss
ouri
37W
yom
ing
4
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Cen
sus B
urea
u (2
009)
16.0
25.5
31.1
21.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 4
1: P
rope
rty
Tax
Colle
ctio
ns P
er C
apita
Ran
king
(200
9)
Exhi
bit 4
2: S
tate
Deb
t AsA
Per
cent
ofG
DP (2
010)
Alab
ama
5.11
%M
onta
na12
.31%
Alas
ka12
.68%
Neb
rask
a2.
62%
Arizo
na5.
47%
Nev
ada
3.56
%Ar
kans
as4.
16%
New
Ham
pshi
re13
.70%
Calif
orni
a7.
70%
New
Jers
ey12
.45%
Colo
rado
6.37
%N
ew M
exic
o10
.75%
Conn
ectic
ut12
.81%
New
Yor
k11
.21%
Dela
war
e8.
79%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
4.44
%Fl
orid
a5.
38%
Nor
th D
akot
a6.
30%
Geor
gia
3.41
%O
hio
6.55
%Ha
wai
i11
.63%
Okl
ahom
a6.
69%
Idah
o6.
84%
Ore
gon
7.26
%Ill
inoi
s9.
46%
Penn
sylv
ania
7.91
%In
dian
a8.
62%
Rhod
e Is
land
19.3
3%Io
wa
3.61
%So
uth
Caro
lina
9.73
%Ka
nsas
5.09
%So
uth
Dako
ta8.
60%
Kent
ucky
8.91
%Te
nnes
see
2.28
%Lo
uisia
na8.
00%
Texa
s3.
40%
Mai
ne11
.76%
Uta
h5.
65%
Mar
ylan
d8.
28%
Verm
ont
13.5
2%M
assa
chus
etts
19.3
6%Vi
rgin
ia5.
88%
Mic
higa
n8.
35%
Was
hing
ton
8.03
%M
inne
sota
4.30
%W
est V
irgin
ia11
.43%
Miss
issip
pi6.
65%
Wisc
onsin
9.03
%M
issou
ri8.
42%
Wyo
min
g3.
94%
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Cen
sus B
urea
u (2
009)
8.35
%8.
15%
5.31
%
10.3
9%
0.00
%
2.00
%
4.00
%
6.00
%
8.00
%
10.0
0%
12.0
0%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 4
3: S
tate
Deb
t As A
Per
cent
of G
PD (2
010)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Cen
sus B
urea
u (2
009)
Exhi
bit 4
4: S
tate
Deb
t Per
Cap
ita (2
010)
Alab
ama
$
1
,644
M
onta
na$
3,9
53
Alas
ka$
8,0
02
Neb
rask
a$
1,1
40
Arizo
na$
1,9
49
Nev
ada
$
1
,469
Ar
kans
as$
1,3
06
New
Ham
pshi
re$
5,6
77
Calif
orni
a$
3,5
72
New
Jers
ey$
6,2
04
Colo
rado
$
2
,965
N
ew M
exic
o$
3,7
89
Conn
ectic
ut$
7,5
69
New
Yor
k$
5,9
81
Dela
war
e$
5,4
90
Nor
th C
arol
ina
$
1
,766
Fl
orid
a$
1,9
21
Nor
th D
akot
a$
2,9
18
Geor
gia
$
1
,272
O
hio
$
2
,420
Ha
wai
i$
5,0
59
Okl
ahom
a$
2,3
73
Idah
o$
2,2
08
Ore
gon
$
3
,152
Ill
inoi
s$
4,2
83
Penn
sylv
ania
$
3
,151
In
dian
a$
3,2
61
Rhod
e Is
land
$
8
,082
Io
wa
$
1
,509
So
uth
Caro
lina
$
3
,046
Ka
nsas
$
2
,029
So
uth
Dako
ta$
3,8
20
Kent
ucky
$
2
,965
Te
nnes
see
$
822
Lo
uisia
na$
3,4
37
Texa
s$
1,4
91
Mai
ne$
4,0
72
Uta
h$
2,0
90
Mar
ylan
d$
3,7
89
Verm
ont
$
4
,998
M
assa
chus
etts
$
10,
102
Virg
inia
$
2
,787
M
ichi
gan
$
2
,915
W
ashi
ngto
n$
3,6
50
Min
neso
ta$
1,9
70
Wes
t Virg
inia
$
3
,451
M
ississ
ippi
$
1
,950
W
iscon
sin$
3,5
12
Miss
ouri
$
3
,051
W
yom
ing
$
2
,402
So
urce
: Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
Uni
ted
Stat
es C
ensu
s Bur
eau
(200
9)
$2,9
15
$3,4
49
$2,0
61
$4,5
39
$0
$500
$1,0
00
$1,5
00
$2,0
00
$2,5
00
$3,0
00
$3,5
00
$4,0
00
$4,5
00
$5,0
00
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 4
5: S
tate
Deb
t Per
Cap
ita (2
010)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Cen
sus B
urea
u (2
009)
Exhi
bit 4
6: S
tate
Deb
t as a
Sha
re o
f Tax
Rev
enue
(201
0)Al
abam
a10
7.33
%M
onta
na20
4.12
%Al
aska
141.
23%
Neb
rask
a61
.17%
Arizo
na13
6.84
%N
evad
a76
.01%
Arka
nsas
58.5
3%N
ew H
amps
hire
392.
81%
Calif
orni
a14
2.05
%N
ew Je
rsey
235.
11%
Colo
rado
194.
60%
New
Mex
ico
198.
00%
Conn
ectic
ut24
5.93
%N
ew Y
ork
203.
89%
Dela
war
e19
9.12
%N
orth
Car
olin
a87
.62%
Flor
ida
128.
27%
Nor
th D
akot
a83
.09%
Geor
gia
93.2
8%O
hio
132.
20%
Haw
aii
159.
17%
Okl
ahom
a14
0.73
%Id
aho
131.
19%
Ore
gon
185.
34%
Illin
ois
223.
22%
Penn
sylv
ania
148.
29%
Indi
ana
171.
31%
Rhod
e Is
land
369.
74%
Iow
a75
.49%
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a21
5.67
%Ka
nsas
99.7
7%So
uth
Dako
ta26
7.01
%Ke
ntuc
ky15
1.01
%Te
nnes
see
55.5
0%Lo
uisia
na19
9.18
%Te
xas
106.
69%
Mai
ne17
2.90
%U
tah
127.
21%
Mar
ylan
d16
0.76
%Ve
rmon
t13
9.08
%M
assa
chus
etts
368.
77%
Virg
inia
152.
13%
Mic
higa
n14
4.77
%W
ashi
ngto
n17
0.61
%M
inne
sota
67.8
9%W
est V
irgin
ia15
3.48
%M
ississ
ippi
103.
17%
Wisc
onsin
155.
33%
Miss
ouri
210.
34%
Wyo
min
g71
.53%
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Cen
sus B
urea
u (2
009)
144.
77%
160.
37%
117.
15%
194.
32%
0%50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 4
7: S
tate
Deb
t as a
Sha
re o
f Tax
Rev
enue
(201
0)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Cen
sus B
urea
u (2
009)
Exhi
bit 4
8:De
bt S
ervi
ce a
s a S
hare
of T
ax R
even
ue (2
010)
Alab
ama
4.55
%M
onta
na7.
95%
Alas
ka6.
69%
Neb
rask
a2.
56%
Arizo
na5.
86%
Nev
ada
3.48
%Ar
kans
as2.
04%
New
Ham
pshi
re18
.98%
Calif
orni
a6.
40%
New
Jers
ey8.
34%
Colo
rado
9.77
%N
ew M
exic
o7.
69%
Conn
ectic
ut11
.87%
New
Yor
k8.
39%
Dela
war
e10
.41%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
2.80
%Fl
orid
a4.
31%
Nor
th D
akot
a4.
33%
Geor
gia
4.73
%O
hio
6.46
%Ha
wai
i6.
38%
Okl
ahom
a7.
25%
Idah
o5.
88%
Ore
gon
6.11
%Ill
inoi
s11
.33%
Penn
sylv
ania
5.76
%In
dian
a7.
25%
Rhod
e Is
land
16.7
2%Io
wa
3.68
%So
uth
Caro
lina
9.65
%Ka
nsas
5.25
%So
uth
Dako
ta9.
68%
Kent
ucky
6.28
%Te
nnes
see
2.31
%Lo
uisia
na12
.08%
Texa
s2.
97%
Mai
ne7.
31%
Uta
h5.
01%
Mar
ylan
d6.
78%
Verm
ont
6.14
%M
assa
chus
etts
17.4
8%Vi
rgin
ia6.
52%
Mic
higa
n5.
37%
Was
hing
ton
7.25
%M
inne
sota
3.21
%W
est V
irgin
ia5.
74%
Miss
issip
pi3.
75%
Wisc
onsin
6.79
%M
issou
ri8.
45%
Wyo
min
g2.
99%
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Cen
sus B
urea
u (2
009)
5.37
%
6.98
%
5.08
%
8.48
%
0.00
%
1.00
%
2.00
%
3.00
%
4.00
%
5.00
%
6.00
%
7.00
%
8.00
%
9.00
%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 4
9: D
ebt S
ervi
ce a
s a S
hare
of T
ax R
even
ue (2
010)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Cen
sus B
urea
u (2
010)
Exhi
bit5
0: S
tate
Lia
bilit
y Sy
stem
Ran
king
(201
0)Al
abam
a47
Mon
tana
43Al
aska
33N
ebra
ska
3Ar
izona
13N
evad
a28
Arka
nsas
44N
ew H
amps
hire
16Ca
lifor
nia
46N
ew Je
rsey
32Co
lora
do8
New
Mex
ico
41Co
nnec
ticut
24N
ew Y
ork
23De
law
are
1N
orth
Car
olin
a17
Flor
ida
42N
orth
Dak
ota
2Ge
orgi
a27
Ohi
o29
Haw
aii
35O
klah
oma
31Id
aho
18O
rego
n21
Illin
ois
45Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia34
Indi
ana
4Rh
ode
Isla
nd38
Iow
a5
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a39
Kans
as14
Sout
h Da
kota
10Ke
ntuc
ky40
Tenn
esse
e19
Loui
siana
49Te
xas
36M
aine
12U
tah
7M
aryl
and
20Ve
rmon
t25
Mas
sach
uset
ts9
Virg
inia
6M
ichi
gan
30W
ashi
ngto
n26
Min
neso
ta11
Wes
t Virg
inia
50M
ississ
ippi
48W
iscon
sin22
Miss
ouri
37W
yom
ing
15
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Cha
mbe
r of C
omm
erce
(201
0)
30.0
25.5
23.6
27.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 5
1: S
tate
Lia
bilit
y Sy
stem
Ran
king
(201
0)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Cha
mbe
r of C
omm
erce
(201
0)
Exhi
bit 5
2: To
tal G
over
nmen
t Em
ploy
ees p
er 1
0,00
0 Pe
ople
(201
0)Al
abam
a86
5M
onta
na98
1Al
aska
1515
Neb
rask
a96
7Ar
izona
700
Nev
ada
632
Arka
nsas
813
New
Ham
pshi
re73
1Ca
lifor
nia
720
New
Jers
ey73
5Co
lora
do90
0N
ew M
exic
o10
52Co
nnec
ticut
742
New
Yor
k78
3De
law
are
805
Nor
th C
arol
ina
902
Flor
ida
640
Nor
th D
akot
a12
56Ge
orgi
a81
6O
hio
723
Haw
aii
1328
Okl
ahom
a10
10Id
aho
812
Ore
gon
780
Illin
ois
707
Penn
sylv
ania
649
Indi
ana
705
Rhod
e Is
land
694
Iow
a87
5So
uth
Caro
lina
859
Kans
as10
59So
uth
Dako
ta10
48Ke
ntuc
ky88
5Te
nnes
see
720
Loui
siana
901
Texa
s79
7M
aine
835
Uta
h84
2M
aryl
and
977
Verm
ont
917
Mas
sach
uset
ts69
2Vi
rgin
ia10
95M
ichi
gan
657
Was
hing
ton
937
Min
neso
ta78
9W
est V
irgin
ia87
3M
ississ
ippi
954
Wisc
onsin
766
Miss
ouri
819
Wyo
min
g13
26So
urce
: Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
Bur
eau
of E
cono
mic
Ana
lysis
(201
0)
657
872
904
846
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 5
3: To
tal G
over
nmen
t Em
ploy
ees p
er 1
0,00
0 Pe
ople
(201
0)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (2
010)
Exhi
bit 5
4: S
tate
and
Loc
al G
over
nmen
t Em
ploy
ee p
er 1
0,00
0 pe
ople
(201
0)Al
abam
a67
4M
onta
na74
9Al
aska
890
Neb
rask
a79
9Ar
izona
552
Nev
ada
500
Arka
nsas
672
New
Ham
pshi
re63
4Ca
lifor
nia
588
New
Jers
ey63
8Co
lora
do68
1N
ew M
exic
o80
6Co
nnec
ticut
645
New
Yor
k68
3De
law
are
640
Nor
th C
arol
ina
675
Flor
ida
512
Nor
th D
akot
a93
2Ge
orgi
a59
9O
hio
619
Haw
aii
659
Okl
ahom
a77
0Id
aho
662
Ore
gon
668
Illin
ois
598
Penn
sylv
ania
534
Indi
ana
606
Rhod
e Is
land
524
Iow
a77
0So
uth
Caro
lina
668
Kans
as82
9So
uth
Dako
ta79
4Ke
ntuc
ky65
3Te
nnes
see
600
Loui
siana
736
Texa
s64
1M
aine
660
Uta
h64
4M
aryl
and
600
Verm
ont
739
Mas
sach
uset
ts58
3Vi
rgin
ia66
7M
ichi
gan
578
Was
hing
ton
704
Min
neso
ta68
4W
est V
irgin
ia68
7M
ississ
ippi
757
Wisc
onsin
681
Miss
ouri
650
Wyo
min
g10
71So
urce
: Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
Bur
eau
of E
cono
mic
Ana
lysis
(201
0)
578
678
706
656
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 5
5: S
tate
and
Loc
al G
over
nmen
t Em
ploy
ee p
er
10,0
00 p
eopl
e (2
010)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (2
010)
Exhi
bit 5
6: B
ailo
ut F
unds
Per
Cap
ita (2
010)
Al
abam
a61
.95
Mon
tana
0.91
Alas
ka4.
47N
ebra
ska
2.79
Arizo
na7.
67N
evad
a25
.13
Arka
nsas
9.30
New
Ham
pshi
re5.
16Ca
lifor
nia
11.1
7N
ew Je
rsey
19.7
1Co
lora
do8.
74N
ew M
exic
o5.
07Co
nnec
ticut
134.
00N
ew Y
ork
219.
20De
law
are
2063
.83
Nor
th C
arol
ina
135.
42Fl
orid
a4.
32N
orth
Dak
ota
31.8
1Ge
orgi
a23
.53
Ohi
o31
.11
Haw
aii
33.2
4O
klah
oma
7.79
Idah
o7.
79O
rego
n18
.04
Illin
ois
6.94
Penn
sylv
ania
23.1
3In
dian
a5.
73Rh
ode
Isla
nd34
.97
Iow
a15
8.48
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a9.
75Ka
nsas
2.93
Sout
h Da
kota
24.8
4Ke
ntuc
ky8.
57Te
nnes
see
8.84
Loui
siana
6.22
Texa
s5.
99M
aine
8.82
Uta
h20
2.37
Mar
ylan
d3.
96Ve
rmon
t1.
74M
assa
chus
etts
27.6
4Vi
rgin
ia28
5.49
Mic
higa
n41
8.12
Was
hing
ton
7.73
Min
neso
ta65
.10
Wes
t Virg
inia
15.5
8M
ississ
ippi
11.3
5W
iscon
sin18
.44
Miss
ouri
9.19
Wyo
min
g6.
26So
urce
: Pro
publ
ica(2
010)
418.
12
85.0
1
47.2
7
114.
65
050100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 5
7: B
ailo
ut F
unds
Per
Cap
ita (2
010)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om P
ropu
blic
a(2
010)
Exhi
bit 5
8: M
edia
n Pr
ice
of A
nnua
l Car
Insu
ranc
e Po
licy
(201
2)Al
abam
a$
1
,476
.00
Mon
tana
$
1,3
54.0
0 Al
aska
$
1,2
44.0
0 N
ebra
ska
$
1,3
48.0
0 Ar
izona
$
1,7
24.0
0 N
evad
a$
2
,070
.00
Arka
nsas
$
1,7
22.0
0 N
ew H
amps
hire
$
1,4
84.0
0 Ca
lifor
nia
$
1,3
04.0
0 N
ew Je
rsey
$
2,5
56.0
0 Co
lora
do$
1
,562
.00
New
Mex
ico
$
1,3
06.0
0 Co
nnec
ticut
$
1,9
84.0
0 N
ew Y
ork
$
2,3
34.0
0 De
law
are
$
2,4
56.0
0 N
orth
Car
olin
a$
860
.00
Flor
ida
$
1,7
84.0
0 N
orth
Dak
ota
$
1,3
84.0
0 Ge
orgi
a$
1
,636
.00
Ohi
o$
1
,128
.00
Haw
aii
$
1,2
44.0
0 O
klah
oma
$
1,6
10.0
0 Id
aho
$
1,2
90.0
0 O
rego
n$
1
,108
.00
Illin
ois
$
1,7
16.0
0 Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia$
1
,828
.00
Indi
ana
$
1,2
68.0
0 Rh
ode
Isla
nd$
2
,132
.00
Iow
a$
1
,202
.00
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a$
1
,682
.00
Kans
as$
1
,480
.00
Sout
h Da
kota
$
1,7
72.0
0 Ke
ntuc
ky$
2
,292
.00
Tenn
esse
e$
1
,452
.00
Loui
siana
$
2,9
12.0
0 Te
xas
$
1,4
20.0
0 M
aine
$
1,1
60.0
0 U
tah
$
1,2
70.0
0 M
aryl
and
$
2,0
30.0
0 Ve
rmon
t$
1
,380
.00
Mas
sach
uset
ts$
1
,228
.00
Virg
inia
$
1,4
44.0
0 M
ichi
gan
$
4,4
90.0
0 W
ashi
ngto
n$
1
,458
.00
Min
neso
ta$
1
,924
.00
Wes
t Virg
inia
$
2,0
74.0
0 M
ississ
ippi
$
1,8
40.0
0 W
iscon
sin$
1
,400
.00
Miss
ouri
$
1,5
50.0
0 W
yom
ing
$
1,3
94.0
0 So
urce
: Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
Bur
eau
of E
cono
mic
Ana
lysis
(201
2)
$4,4
90.0
0
$1,6
75.3
2 $1
,580
.55
$1,7
49.7
9
$-
$50
0
$1,
000
$1,
500
$2,
000
$2,
500
$3,
000
$3,
500
$4,
000
$4,
500
$5,
000
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 5
9: M
edia
n Pr
ice
of A
nnua
l Car
Insu
ranc
e Po
licy
(201
2)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (2
012)
Exhi
bit6
0: %
of F
amily
Hou
seho
ld In
com
e to
Pur
chas
e Ca
r Ins
uran
ce (2
012
& 2
010)
Alab
ama
2.92
7%M
onta
na2.
484%
Alas
ka1.
634%
Neb
rask
a2.
217%
Arizo
na3.
115%
Nev
ada
3.43
9%Ar
kans
as3.
660%
New
Ham
pshi
re1.
988%
Calif
orni
a1.
991%
New
Jers
ey3.
101%
Colo
rado
2.30
4%N
ew M
exic
o2.
560%
Conn
ectic
ut2.
442%
New
Yor
k3.
542%
Dela
war
e3.
573%
Nor
th C
arol
ina
1.62
5%Fl
orid
a3.
360%
Nor
th D
akot
a2.
122%
Geor
gia
2.95
6%O
hio
1.99
6%Ha
wai
i1.
634%
Okl
ahom
a3.
099%
Idah
o2.
465%
Ore
gon
1.95
5%Ill
inoi
s2.
623%
Penn
sylv
ania
2.95
4%In
dian
a2.
290%
Rhod
e Is
land
3.14
4%Io
wa
1.97
3%So
uth
Caro
lina
3.25
3%Ka
nsas
2.42
6%So
uth
Dako
ta2.
954%
Kent
ucky
4.54
8%Te
nnes
see
2.84
2%Lo
uisia
na5.
551%
Texa
s2.
510%
Mai
ne1.
993%
Uta
h2.
061%
Mar
ylan
d2.
442%
Verm
ont
2.20
5%M
assa
chus
etts
1.43
4%Vi
rgin
ia1.
992%
Mic
higa
n8.
003%
Was
hing
ton
2.16
6%M
inne
sota
2.76
3%W
est V
irgin
ia4.
239%
Miss
issip
pi4.
045%
Wisc
onsin
2.25
5%M
issou
ri2.
757%
Wyo
min
g2.
177%
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (2
010)
and
Car
Insu
ranc
eQuo
tes.c
om (2
012)
8.00
3%
2.79
6%2.
853%
2.75
1%
0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 6
1: %
of F
amily
Hou
seho
ld In
com
e to
Pur
chas
e Ca
r Ins
uran
ce
(201
2 &
201
0)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
urea
u of
Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis (2
010)
and
Car
Insu
ranc
eQuo
tes.c
om (2
012)
Exhi
bit 6
2: A
vera
ge R
etai
l Pric
e Fo
r Ele
ctric
ity (c
ents
/kW
h)(2
010)
Alab
ama
7.57
Mon
tana
7.13
Alas
ka13
.28
Neb
rask
a6.
28Ar
izona
8.54
Nev
ada
9.99
Arka
nsas
6.96
New
Ham
pshi
re13
.98
Calif
orni
a12
.8N
ew Je
rsey
13.0
1Co
lora
do7.
76N
ew M
exic
o7.
44Co
nnec
ticut
16.4
5N
ew Y
ork
15.2
2De
law
are
11.3
5N
orth
Car
olin
a7.
83Fl
orid
a10
.33
Nor
th D
akot
a6.
42Ge
orgi
a7.
86O
hio
7.91
Haw
aii
21.2
9O
klah
oma
7.29
Idah
o5.
07O
rego
n7.
02Ill
inoi
s8.
46Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia9.
08In
dian
a6.
5Rh
ode
Isla
nd13
.12
Iow
a6.
83So
uth
Caro
lina
7.18
Kans
as6.
84So
uth
Dako
ta6.
89Ke
ntuc
ky5.
84Te
nnes
see
7.07
Loui
siana
8.39
Texa
s10
.11
Mai
ne14
.59
Uta
h6.
41M
aryl
and
11.5
Verm
ont
13.0
4M
assa
chus
etts
15.1
6Vi
rgin
ia7.
12M
ichi
gan
8.53
Was
hing
ton
6.37
Min
neso
ta7.
44W
est V
irgin
ia5.
34M
ississ
ippi
8.03
Wisc
onsin
8.48
Miss
ouri
6.56
Wyo
min
g5.
29So
urce
: USA
Toda
y (2
010)
8.53
9.18
7.47
10.5
2
024681012
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 6
3: A
vera
ge R
etai
l Pric
e Fo
r Ele
ctric
ity
(cen
ts/k
Wh)
(201
0)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
SA To
day
(201
0)
Sour
ce: B
ankr
ate.
com
(201
0)
Exhi
bit 6
4: 2
011
Tota
l Gas
olin
e Ta
xes (
per g
allo
n)Al
abam
a$
0.
39
Mon
tana
$
0.46
Al
aska
$
0.26
N
ebra
ska
$
0.46
Ar
izona
$
0.37
N
evad
a$
0.
52
Arka
nsas
$
0.40
N
ew H
amps
hire
$
0.38
Ca
lifor
nia
$
0.67
N
ew Je
rsey
$
0.33
Co
lora
do$
0.
40
New
Mex
ico
$
0.37
Co
nnec
ticut
$
0.67
N
ew Y
ork
$
0.67
De
law
are
$
0.41
N
orth
Car
olin
a$
0.
58
Flor
ida
$
0.53
N
orth
Dak
ota
$
0.41
Ge
orgi
a$
0.
48
Ohi
o$
0.
46
Haw
aii
$
0.66
O
klah
oma
$
0.35
Id
aho
$
0.43
O
rego
n$
0.
49
Illin
ois
$
0.57
Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia$
0.
51
Indi
ana
$
0.57
Rh
ode
Isla
nd$
0.
51
Iow
a$
0.
40
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a$
0.
35
Kans
as$
0.
43
Sout
h Da
kota
$
0.42
Ke
ntuc
ky$
0.
46
Tenn
esse
e$
0.
40
Loui
siana
$
0.38
Te
xas
$
0.38
M
aine
$
0.50
U
tah
$
0.43
M
aryl
and
$
0.42
Ve
rmon
t$
0.
45
Mas
sach
uset
ts$
0.
42
Virg
inia
$
0.38
M
ichi
gan
$
0.58
W
ashi
ngto
n$
0.
56
Min
neso
ta$
0.
46
Wes
t Virg
inia
$
0.52
M
ississ
ippi
$
0.37
W
iscon
sin$
0.
51
Miss
ouri
$
0.36
W
yom
ing
$
0.32
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om B
ankr
ate.
com
(201
0)
$0.5
8
$0.4
6 $0
.42
$0.4
9
$-
$0.
10
$0.
20
$0.
30
$0.
40
$0.
50
$0.
60
$0.
70
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 6
5: To
tal G
asol
ine
Taxe
s (pe
r gal
lon)
Sour
ce: U
.S. E
nerg
y In
form
atio
n Ad
min
istra
tion
(201
0)
Exhi
bit 6
6: R
esid
entia
l Nat
ural
Gas
Pric
es (2
010)
Alab
ama
$
8
.89
Mon
tana
$
12.
24
Alas
ka$
9.9
2 N
ebra
ska
$
11.
39
Arizo
na$
8.1
3 N
evad
a$
1
0.34
Ar
kans
as$
1
4.93
N
ew H
amps
hire
$
15.
81
Calif
orni
a$
1
5.12
N
ew Je
rsey
$
15.
87
Colo
rado
$
12.
44
New
Mex
ico
$
11.
53
Conn
ectic
ut$
9.3
9 N
ew Y
ork
$
17.
89
Dela
war
e$
8.6
2 N
orth
Car
olin
a$
1
5.17
Fl
orid
a$
1
0.02
N
orth
Dak
ota
$
8
.95
Geor
gia
$
14.
14
Ohi
o$
9.5
7 Ha
wai
i$
1
2.44
O
klah
oma
$
10.
54
Idah
o$
1
4.53
O
rego
n$
1
1.73
Ill
inoi
s$
1
1.32
Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia$
1
0.19
In
dian
a$
8.7
6 Rh
ode
Isla
nd$
8.9
5 Io
wa
$
11.
66
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a$
1
2.25
Ka
nsas
$
8
.64
Sout
h Da
kota
$
12.
50
Kent
ucky
$
15.
07
Tenn
esse
e$
8.0
8 Lo
uisia
na$
1
2.84
Te
xas
$
11.
13
Mai
ne$
9.6
3 U
tah
$
11.
13
Mar
ylan
d$
1
4.04
Ve
rmon
t$
8.7
7 M
assa
chus
etts
$
12.
49
Virg
inia
$
10.
46
Mic
higa
n$
1
2.90
W
ashi
ngto
n$
1
0.81
M
inne
sota
$
16.
48
Wes
t Virg
inia
$
8
.22
Miss
issip
pi$
1
3.03
W
iscon
sin$
1
2.73
M
issou
ri$
1
6.14
W
yom
ing
$
8
.58
$12.
90
$11.
73
$11.
24
$12.
11
$10
.00
$10
.50
$11
.00
$11
.50
$12
.00
$12
.50
$13
.00
$13
.50
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 6
7: R
esid
entia
l Nat
ural
Gas
Pric
es (2
010)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
.S. E
nerg
y In
form
atio
n Ad
min
istra
tion
(201
0)
Exhi
bit 6
8: C
omm
erci
al N
atur
al G
as P
rices
(201
0)Al
abam
a$
8.
78
Mon
tana
$
10
.49
Alas
ka$
8.
30
Neb
rask
a$
10.2
7 Ar
izona
$
7.58
N
evad
a$
8.
53
Arka
nsas
$
9.55
N
ew H
amps
hire
$
13
.36
Calif
orni
a$
13.2
6 N
ew Je
rsey
$
10
.72
Colo
rado
$
9.87
N
ew M
exic
o$
8.
89
Conn
ectic
ut$
8.
76
New
Yor
k$
10.6
0 De
law
are
$
7.54
N
orth
Car
olin
a$
10.9
5 Fl
orid
a$
8.
61
Nor
th D
akot
a$
8.
21
Geor
gia
$
11
.71
Ohi
o$
7.
81
Haw
aii
$
9.87
O
klah
oma
$
9.61
Id
aho
$
12
.20
Ore
gon
$
9.87
Ill
inoi
s$
8.
95
Penn
sylv
ania
$
8.75
In
dian
a$
7.
60
Rhod
e Is
land
$
7.07
Io
wa
$
10
.28
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a$
9.
77
Kans
as$
8.
54
Sout
h Da
kota
$
10
.18
Kent
ucky
$
12
.23
Tenn
esse
e$
7.
03
Loui
siana
$
10
.11
Texa
s$
9.
25
Mai
ne$
7.
47
Uta
h$
9.
78
Mar
ylan
d$
10.8
8 Ve
rmon
t$
7.
13
Mas
sach
uset
ts$
10.1
0 Vi
rgin
ia$
9.
39
Mic
higa
n$
10.4
7 W
ashi
ngto
n$
7.
90
Min
neso
ta$
14.4
6 W
est V
irgin
ia$
6.
83
Miss
issip
pi$
10.3
4 W
iscon
sin$
9.
55
Miss
ouri
$
11
.82
Wyo
min
g$
7.
13
Sour
ce: U
.S. E
nerg
y In
form
atio
n Ad
min
istra
tion
(201
0)
$10.
47
$9.5
7 $9
.45
$9.6
6
$-
$2.
00
$4.
00
$6.
00
$8.
00
$10
.00
$12
.00
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 6
9: C
omm
erci
al N
atur
al G
as P
rices
(201
0)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
.S. E
nerg
y In
form
atio
n Ad
min
istra
tion
(201
0)
Exhi
bit 7
0:In
dust
rial N
atur
al G
as P
rices
(201
0)Al
abam
a$
4.2
3 M
onta
na$
9.3
7 Al
aska
$
7
.02
Neb
rask
a$
5.4
0 Ar
izona
$
5
.84
Nev
ada
$
7
.56
Arka
nsas
$
9
.60
New
Ham
pshi
re$
6.6
7 Ca
lifor
nia
$
10
.18
New
Jers
ey$
7.5
4 Co
lora
do$
9.0
5 N
ew M
exic
o$
7.2
8 Co
nnec
ticut
$
7
.13
New
Yor
k$
8.3
3 De
law
are
$
5
.65
Nor
th C
arol
ina
$
6
.25
Flor
ida
$
5
.57
Nor
th D
akot
a$
6.3
9 Ge
orgi
a$
11.2
3 O
hio
$
6
.10
Haw
aii
$
9
.05
Okl
ahom
a$
5.5
0 Id
aho
$
11
.54
Ore
gon
$
4
.67
Illin
ois
$
9
.25
Penn
sylv
ania
$
6
.19
Indi
ana
$
5
.58
Rhod
e Is
land
$
5
.85
Iow
a$
8.7
0 So
uth
Caro
lina
$
10
.53
Kans
as$
8.0
7 So
uth
Dako
ta$
8.2
4 Ke
ntuc
ky$
11.5
9 Te
nnes
see
$
5
.22
Loui
siana
$
9
.63
Texa
s$
7.4
0 M
aine
$
6
.17
Uta
h$
8.3
9 M
aryl
and
$
8
.55
Verm
ont
$
5
.92
Mas
sach
uset
ts$
7.0
5 Vi
rgin
ia$
6.6
4 M
ichi
gan
$
8
.23
Was
hing
ton
$
4
.61
Min
neso
ta$
12.1
3 W
est V
irgin
ia$
5.5
7 M
ississ
ippi
$
6
.11
Wisc
onsin
$
6
.68
Miss
ouri
$
6
.57
Wyo
min
g$
4.9
1
Sour
ce: U
.S. E
nerg
y In
form
atio
n Ad
min
istra
tion
(201
0)
$8.2
3
$7.4
2 $7
.41
$7.4
3
$-
$1.
00
$2.
00
$3.
00
$4.
00
$5.
00
$6.
00
$7.
00
$8.
00
$9.
00
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 7
1: In
dust
rial N
atur
al G
as P
rices
(201
0)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
.S. E
nerg
y In
form
atio
n Ad
min
istra
tion
(201
0)
Exhi
bit 7
2:In
sura
nce
Trus
t Exp
endi
ture
s Per
Cap
ita (2
010)
Alab
ama
$
1,4
50.5
2 M
onta
na$
1
,224
.94
Alas
ka$
1
,032
.41
Neb
rask
a$
72
7.14
Ar
izona
$
1,0
31.9
2 N
evad
a$
1
,086
.60
Arka
nsas
$
1,3
30.4
2 N
ew H
amps
hire
$
644.
12
Calif
orni
a$
78
0.73
N
ew Je
rsey
$
698.
46
Colo
rado
$
960.
90
New
Mex
ico
$
675.
70
Conn
ectic
ut$
1
,117
.40
New
Yor
k$
62
0.37
De
law
are
$
685.
99
Nor
th C
arol
ina
$
712.
65
Flor
ida
$
1,0
00.0
9 N
orth
Dak
ota
$
743.
20
Geor
gia
$
736.
09
Ohi
o$
77
9.73
Ha
wai
i$
70
0.70
O
klah
oma
$
754.
44
Idah
o$
1
,322
.58
Ore
gon
$
797.
83
Illin
ois
$
1,0
67.5
1 Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia$
69
8.16
In
dian
a$
1
,042
.66
Rhod
e Isl
and
$
376.
25
Iow
a$
74
3.45
So
uth
Caro
lina
$
1,1
16.3
1 Ka
nsas
$
877.
70
Sout
h Da
kota
$
854.
52
Kent
ucky
$
624.
08
Tenn
esse
e$
59
1.63
Lo
uisia
na$
1
,626
.23
Texa
s$
68
1.38
M
aine
$
906.
97
Uta
h$
80
6.82
M
aryl
and
$
1,1
36.2
6 Ve
rmon
t$
48
3.60
M
assa
chus
etts
$
1,4
66.3
2 Vi
rgin
ia$
47
1.79
M
ichi
gan
$
1,4
40.8
6 W
ashi
ngto
n$
61
1.16
M
inne
sota
$
1,1
55.2
7 W
est V
irgin
ia$
61
4.90
M
ississ
ippi
$
1,4
46.5
4 W
iscon
sin$
54
1.18
M
issou
ri$
68
5.85
W
yom
ing
$
1,1
56.9
4 So
urce
: Uni
ted
Stat
es C
ensu
s Bur
eau
$1,4
40.8
6
$896
.79
$966
.77
$841
.80
$-
$20
0.00
$40
0.00
$60
0.00
$80
0.00
$1,
000.
00
$1,
200.
00
$1,
400.
00
$1,
600.
00
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 7
3: In
sura
nce
Trus
t Exp
endi
ture
Per
Cap
ita (2
010)
Sour
ce: U
nite
d St
ates
Cen
sus B
urea
u (2
010)
Exhi
bit 7
4:Av
erag
e In
sura
nce
Trus
t Exp
endi
ture
s Per
Cap
ita (2
000-
2010
)Al
abam
a$
1
,291
.94
Mon
tana
$
823.
04
Alas
ka$
75
7.27
N
ebra
ska
$
645.
28
Arizo
na$
64
9.50
N
evad
a$
72
9.84
Ar
kans
as$
79
1.11
N
ew H
amps
hire
$
433.
95
Calif
orni
a$
50
2.30
N
ew Je
rsey
$
420.
15
Colo
rado
$
679.
46
New
Mex
ico
$
399.
55
Conn
ectic
ut$
63
1.64
N
ew Y
ork
$
370.
73
Dela
war
e$
33
9.91
N
orth
Car
olin
a$
40
7.13
Fl
orid
a$
62
2.29
N
orth
Dak
ota
$
469.
76
Geor
gia
$
500.
06
Ohi
o$
48
0.71
Ha
wai
i$
46
9.84
O
klah
oma
$
434.
16
Idah
o$
70
7.96
O
rego
n$
59
8.38
Ill
inoi
s$
59
4.43
Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia$
48
5.16
In
dian
a$
69
4.40
Rh
ode
Isla
nd$
21
8.30
Io
wa
$
460.
94
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a$
51
6.85
Ka
nsas
$
593.
50
Sout
h Da
kota
$
484.
22
Kent
ucky
$
340.
87
Tenn
esse
e$
46
9.26
Lo
uisia
na$
97
1.18
Te
xas
$
489.
34
Mai
ne$
58
6.59
U
tah
$
539.
26
Mar
ylan
d$
75
7.42
Ve
rmon
t$
34
9.34
M
assa
chus
etts
$
1,0
27.3
1 Vi
rgin
ia$
27
8.25
M
ichi
gan
$
1,0
18.1
8 W
ashi
ngto
n$
42
4.15
M
inne
sota
$
681.
31
Wes
t Virg
inia
$
398.
47
Miss
issip
pi$
90
7.12
W
iscon
sin$
33
9.05
M
issou
ri$
37
1.56
W
yom
ing
$
754.
36
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Cen
sus B
urea
u (2
010)
$1,0
18.1
8
$578
.14
$623
.33
$542
.62
$-
$20
0.00
$40
0.00
$60
0.00
$80
0.00
$1,
000.
00
$1,
200.
00
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 7
5: A
vera
ge In
sura
nce
Trus
t Exp
endi
ture
Per
Ca
pita
(200
0-20
10)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Cen
sus B
urea
u (2
010)
Exhi
bit 7
6: N
umbe
r of C
ities
in th
e To
p 50
Des
tinat
ions
Alab
ama
0M
onta
na0
Alas
ka0
Neb
rask
a0
Arizo
na2
Nev
ada
2Ar
kans
as0
New
Ham
pshi
re0
Calif
orni
a8
New
Jers
ey0
Colo
rado
1N
ew M
exic
o0
Conn
ectic
ut0
New
Yor
k1
Dela
war
e0
Nor
th C
arol
ina
1Fl
orid
a9
Nor
th D
akot
a0
Geor
gia
1O
hio
1Ha
wai
i1
Okl
ahom
a0
Idah
o0
Ore
gon
1Ill
inoi
s3
Penn
sylv
ania
1In
dian
a1
Rhod
e Is
land
0Io
wa
0So
uth
Caro
lina
0Ka
nsas
0So
uth
Dako
ta0
Kent
ucky
0Te
nnes
see
1Lo
uisia
na1
Texa
s7
Mai
ne0
Uta
h0
Mar
ylan
d1
Verm
ont
0M
assa
chus
etts
1Vi
rgin
ia2
Mic
higa
n0
Was
hing
ton
1M
inne
sota
1W
est V
irgin
ia0
Miss
issip
pi0
Wisc
onsin
0M
issou
ri2
Wyo
min
g0
Sour
ce: C
VEN
T (2
012)
98
7
3
0
23
0510152025
Flor
ida
Calif
orni
aTe
xas
Illin
ois
Mic
higa
nAl
l Oth
ers
Exhi
bit 7
7: N
umbe
r of C
ities
in th
e To
p 50
Des
tinat
ions
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om C
VEN
T (2
012)
Exhi
bit 7
8:Th
e Ka
uffm
an F
ound
atio
n’sN
umbe
r of B
usin
ess S
tart
Ups
(201
1)Al
abam
a26
0M
onta
na33
0Al
aska
410
Neb
rask
a28
0Ar
izona
520
Nev
ada
390
Arka
nsas
340
New
Ham
pshi
re27
0Ca
lifor
nia
440
New
Jers
ey27
0Co
lora
do42
0N
ew M
exic
o25
0Co
nnec
ticut
340
New
Yor
k37
0De
law
are
270
Nor
th C
arol
ina
280
Flor
ida
380
Nor
th D
akot
a28
0Ge
orgi
a35
0O
hio
270
Haw
aii
180
Okl
ahom
a21
0Id
aho
380
Ore
gon
250
Illin
ois
200
Penn
sylv
ania
160
Indi
ana
200
Rhod
e Is
land
220
Iow
a24
0So
uth
Caro
lina
290
Kans
as27
0So
uth
Dako
ta32
0Ke
ntuc
ky37
0Te
nnes
see
290
Loui
siana
340
Texa
s44
0M
aine
360
Uta
h28
0M
aryl
and
290
Verm
ont
390
Mas
sach
uset
ts26
0Vi
rgin
ia20
0M
ichi
gan
220
Was
hing
ton
230
Min
neso
ta23
0W
est V
irgin
ia15
0M
ississ
ippi
260
Wisc
onsin
230
Miss
ouri
400
Wyo
min
g22
0So
urce
: The
Kau
ffman
Fou
ndat
ion’
s Kau
ffman
Inde
x of
Ent
repr
eneu
rial A
ctiv
ity (2
011)
220
296
310
285
050100
150
200
250
300
350
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 7
9: T
he K
auffm
an F
ound
atio
n ’s
Num
ber
of B
usin
ess S
tart
Ups
(201
1)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om T
he K
auffm
an In
dex
of E
ntre
pren
euria
l Act
ivity
(201
1)
Exhi
bit 8
0: B
usin
ess B
irths
per
10,
000
Peop
le (2
007)
Alab
ama
25.8
7M
onta
na45
.69
Alas
ka32
.81
Neb
rask
a28
.26
Arizo
na31
.71
Nev
ada
35.9
2Ar
kans
as26
.13
New
Ham
pshi
re31
.08
Calif
orni
a30
.06
New
Jers
ey31
.13
Colo
rado
41.3
8N
ew M
exic
o27
.07
Conn
ectic
ut25
.91
New
Yor
k29
.39
Dela
war
e33
.11
Nor
th C
arol
ina
29.3
3Fl
orid
a39
.04
Nor
th D
akot
a31
.53
Geor
gia
31.6
1O
hio
23.5
6Ha
wai
i26
.10
Okl
ahom
a27
.88
Idah
o41
.94
Ore
gon
35.8
4Ill
inoi
s27
.28
Penn
sylv
ania
23.3
8In
dian
a25
.02
Rhod
e Is
land
29.1
8Io
wa
25.5
0So
uth
Caro
lina
28.1
6Ka
nsas
28.5
7So
uth
Dako
ta33
.77
Kent
ucky
22.9
5Te
nnes
see
25.4
4Lo
uisia
na29
.65
Texa
s26
.51
Mai
ne33
.71
Uta
h38
.20
Mar
ylan
d27
.27
Verm
ont
35.5
8M
assa
chus
etts
26.8
6Vi
rgin
ia29
.36
Mic
higa
n24
.19
Was
hing
ton
34.8
3M
inne
sota
29.9
8W
est V
irgin
ia22
.14
Miss
issip
pi25
.00
Wisc
onsin
25.1
0M
issou
ri29
.20
Wyo
min
g44
.85
Sour
ce: U
nite
d St
ates
Sm
all B
usin
ess A
dmin
istra
tion
(200
7)
24.1
9
30.2
831
.10
29.6
4
0.00
5.00
10.0
0
15.0
0
20.0
0
25.0
0
30.0
0
35.0
0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 8
1: B
usin
ess B
irths
per
10,
000
Peop
le (2
007)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Sm
all B
usin
ess A
dmin
istra
tion
(200
7)
Exhi
bit 8
2: B
usin
ess D
eath
s per
10,
000
Peop
le (2
007)
Alab
ama
19.8
2M
onta
na32
.89
Alas
ka27
.18
Neb
rask
a24
.15
Arizo
na22
.87
Nev
ada
26.5
2Ar
kans
as21
.48
New
Ham
pshi
re28
.48
Calif
orni
a24
.92
New
Jers
ey28
.89
Colo
rado
32.7
9N
ew M
exic
o20
.88
Conn
ectic
ut23
.81
New
Yor
k26
.18
Dela
war
e29
.38
Nor
th C
arol
ina
22.3
9Fl
orid
a32
.90
Nor
th D
akot
a25
.38
Geor
gia
23.8
1O
hio
21.9
8Ha
wai
i22
.48
Okl
ahom
a22
.16
Idah
o28
.20
Ore
gon
27.2
9Ill
inoi
s23
.16
Penn
sylv
ania
21.5
5In
dian
a21
.39
Rhod
e Is
land
27.7
0Io
wa
22.4
1So
uth
Caro
lina
21.6
2Ka
nsas
24.3
3So
uth
Dako
ta26
.51
Kent
ucky
19.8
1Te
nnes
see
20.3
0Lo
uisia
na19
.48
Texa
s20
.52
Mai
ne28
.68
Uta
h24
.73
Mar
ylan
d23
.77
Verm
ont
31.9
9M
assa
chus
etts
24.3
1Vi
rgin
ia23
.77
Mic
higa
n23
.64
Was
hing
ton
26.8
4M
inne
sota
27.2
7W
est V
irgin
ia20
.10
Miss
issip
pi18
.86
Wisc
onsin
22.7
2M
issou
ri26
.10
Wyo
min
g32
.43
Sour
ce: U
nite
d St
ates
Sm
all B
usin
ess A
dmin
istra
tion
(200
7)
23.6
424
.82
23.8
525
.58
0.00
5.00
10.0
0
15.0
0
20.0
0
25.0
0
30.0
0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 8
3: B
usin
ess D
eath
s per
10,
000
Peop
le (2
007)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Sm
all B
usin
ess A
dmin
istra
tion
(200
7)
Exhi
bit 8
4: G
row
th in
Bus
ines
s Birt
hs (2
002-
2007
)Al
abam
a17
.50%
Mon
tana
32.4
8%Al
aska
8.27
%N
ebra
ska
7.66
%Ar
izona
30.9
2%N
evad
a29
.22%
Arka
nsas
7.19
%N
ew H
amps
hire
10.0
3%Ca
lifor
nia
14.1
9%N
ew Je
rsey
10.2
8%Co
lora
do20
.43%
New
Mex
ico
13.6
4%Co
nnec
ticut
8.00
%N
ew Y
ork
8.48
%De
law
are
6.70
%N
orth
Car
olin
a23
.63%
Flor
ida
26.4
4%N
orth
Dak
ota
20.7
8%Ge
orgi
a21
.66%
Ohi
o8.
50%
Haw
aii
12.8
8%O
klah
oma
12.9
9%Id
aho
41.5
8%O
rego
n22
.94%
Illin
ois
14.3
4%Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia7.
87%
Indi
ana
9.48
%Rh
ode
Isla
nd10
.67%
Iow
a9.
10%
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a20
.09%
Kans
as5.
53%
Sout
h Da
kota
11.2
5%Ke
ntuc
ky8.
28%
Tenn
esse
e15
.96%
Loui
siana
27.5
5%Te
xas
16.5
7%M
aine
10.4
9%U
tah
35.1
6%M
aryl
and
8.84
%Ve
rmon
t17
.03%
Mas
sach
uset
ts1.
98%
Virg
inia
17.9
0%M
ichi
gan
2.31
%W
ashi
ngto
n23
.57%
Min
neso
ta10
.50%
Wes
t Virg
inia
8.37
%M
ississ
ippi
14.6
0%W
iscon
sin8.
57%
Miss
ouri
5.95
%W
yom
ing
17.8
2%So
urce
: Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
Uni
ted
Stat
es S
mal
l Bus
ines
s Adm
inist
ratio
n (2
002
–20
07)
2.31
%
15.1
2%
19.6
0%
11.6
1%
0.00
%
5.00
%
10.0
0%
15.0
0%
20.0
0%
25.0
0%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 8
5: G
row
th in
Bus
ines
s Birt
hs (2
002-
2007
)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Sm
all B
usin
ess A
dmin
istra
tion
(200
2 –
2007
)
Exhi
bit 8
6: G
row
th in
Bus
ines
s Dea
ths (
2002
-200
7)Al
abam
a-6
.87%
Mon
tana
0.46
%Al
aska
-0.2
6%N
ebra
ska
-1.1
2%Ar
izona
7.92
%N
evad
a17
.67%
Arka
nsas
-1.9
7%N
ew H
amps
hire
3.19
%Ca
lifor
nia
3.07
%N
ew Je
rsey
3.88
%Co
lora
do1.
95%
New
Mex
ico
-8.3
1%Co
nnec
ticut
-4.8
5%N
ew Y
ork
-1.1
4%De
law
are
5.55
%N
orth
Car
olin
a-0
.41%
Flor
ida
21.4
7%N
orth
Dak
ota
-0.7
0%Ge
orgi
a1.
11%
Ohi
o-1
.55%
Haw
aii
2.75
%O
klah
oma
-4.1
2%Id
aho
7.19
%O
rego
n-4
.34%
Illin
ois
-4.1
7%Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia0.
41%
Indi
ana
-1.5
9%Rh
ode
Isla
nd8.
68%
Iow
a-5
.84%
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a-1
.56%
Kans
as-7
.91%
Sout
h Da
kota
2.03
%Ke
ntuc
ky-0
.69%
Tenn
esse
e-8
.27%
Loui
siana
-9.2
1%Te
xas
-1.4
6%M
aine
-3.0
1%U
tah
4.44
%M
aryl
and
8.21
%Ve
rmon
t-3
.61%
Mas
sach
uset
ts-2
0.37
%Vi
rgin
ia8.
85%
Mic
higa
n-5
.28%
Was
hing
ton
-3.3
7%M
inne
sota
4.46
%W
est V
irgin
ia-5
.67%
Miss
issip
pi-7
.97%
Wisc
onsin
0.58
%M
issou
ri4.
17%
Wyo
min
g0.
77%
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Sm
all B
usin
ess A
dmin
istra
tion
(200
2 –
2007
)
-5.2
8%
-0.1
4%
0.64
%
-0.7
4%
-6.0
0%
-5.0
0%
-4.0
0%
-3.0
0%
-2.0
0%
-1.0
0%
0.00
%
1.00
%
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 8
7: G
row
th in
Bus
ines
s Dea
ths (
2002
-200
7)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om U
nite
d St
ates
Sm
all B
usin
ess A
dmin
istra
tion
(200
2 –
2007
)
Exhi
bit 8
8:Ha
ppin
ess (
2005
-200
8)Al
abam
a9
Mon
tana
7Al
aska
11N
ebra
ska
33Ar
izona
5N
evad
a39
Arka
nsas
17N
ew H
amps
hire
27Ca
lifor
nia
46N
ew Je
rsey
49Co
lora
do21
New
Mex
ico
24Co
nnec
ticut
50N
ew Y
ork
51De
law
are
22N
orth
Car
olin
a12
Flor
ida
3N
orth
Dak
ota
25Ge
orgi
a19
Ohi
o44
Haw
aii
2O
klah
oma
20Id
aho
14O
rego
n30
Illin
ois
45Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia41
Indi
ana
47Rh
ode
Isla
nd42
Iow
a31
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a8
Kans
as32
Sout
h Da
kota
15Ke
ntuc
ky35
Tenn
esse
e4
Loui
siana
1Te
xas
16M
aine
10U
tah
23M
aryl
and
40Ve
rmon
t18
Mas
sach
uset
ts43
Virg
inia
28M
ichi
gan
48W
ashi
ngto
n36
Min
neso
ta26
Wes
t Virg
inia
34M
ississ
ippi
6W
iscon
sin29
Miss
ouri
38W
yom
ing
13So
urce
: Jou
rnal
of S
cienc
e (1
2-17
-09)
48.0
0
25.7
8
16.9
5
32.7
1
05101520253035404550
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 8
9: H
appi
ness
(200
5 -2
008)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om Jo
urna
l of S
cienc
e (1
2-17
-09)
Exhi
bit9
0: A
LEC-
Laffe
rSta
te E
cono
mic
Per
form
ance
Ran
king
s, 2
000-
2010
Al
abam
a22
Mon
tana
3Al
aska
5N
ebra
ska
20Ar
izona
11N
evad
a18
Arka
nsas
10N
ew H
amps
hire
34Ca
lifor
nia
47N
ew Je
rsey
45Co
lora
do24
New
Mex
ico
6Co
nnec
ticut
44N
ew Y
ork
40De
law
are
35N
orth
Car
olin
a27
Flor
ida
13N
orth
Dak
ota
4Ge
orgi
a33
Ohi
o49
Haw
aii
15O
klah
oma
9Id
aho
17O
rego
n26
Illin
ois
48Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia30
Indi
ana
46Rh
ode
Isla
nd37
Iow
a28
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a29
Kans
as39
Sout
h Da
kota
7Ke
ntuc
ky32
Tenn
esse
e31
Loui
siana
25Te
xas
2M
aine
23U
tah
12M
aryl
and
21Ve
rmon
t19
Mas
sach
uset
ts43
Virg
inia
8M
ichi
gan
50W
ashi
ngto
n14
Min
neso
ta41
Wes
t Virg
inia
16M
ississ
ippi
36W
iscon
sin42
Miss
ouri
38W
yom
ing
1So
urce
: ALE
C’s R
ich S
tate
s, Po
or S
tate
s (20
12)
50.0
0
25.5
0
18.2
7
31.1
8
0.00
5.00
10.0
0
15.0
0
20.0
0
25.0
0
30.0
0
35.0
0
40.0
0
45.0
0
50.0
0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 9
1: A
LEC-
Laffe
rSta
te E
cono
mic
Pe
rfor
man
ce R
anki
ngs,
200
0-20
10
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om A
LEC’
s Rich
Sta
tes,
Poo
r Sta
tes (
2012
)
Exhi
bit 9
2: F
orbe
s Bes
t Sta
tes f
or B
usin
ess R
ank
(201
1)Al
abam
a37
Mon
tana
23Al
aska
41N
ebra
ska
8Ar
izona
20N
evad
a36
Arka
nsas
29N
ew H
amps
hire
27Ca
lifor
nia
39N
ew Je
rsey
44Co
lora
do5
New
Mex
ico
32Co
nnec
ticut
35N
ew Y
ork
22De
law
are
33N
orth
Car
olin
a3
Flor
ida
24N
orth
Dak
ota
4Ge
orgi
a11
Ohi
o38
Haw
aii
49O
klah
oma
13Id
aho
16O
rego
n9
Illin
ois
41Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia26
Indi
ana
34Rh
ode
Isla
nd48
Iow
a10
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a28
Kans
as12
Sout
h Da
kota
17Ke
ntuc
ky25
Tenn
esse
e21
Loui
siana
30Te
xas
6M
aine
50U
tah
1M
aryl
and
19Ve
rmon
t45
Mas
sach
uset
ts18
Virg
inia
2M
ichi
gan
47W
ashi
ngto
n7
Min
neso
ta15
Wes
t Virg
inia
43M
ississ
ippi
46W
iscon
sin40
Miss
ouri
31W
yom
ing
14So
urce
: For
bes (
2011
)
47.0
0
25.4
8
17.6
4
31.6
4
0.00
5.00
10.0
0
15.0
0
20.0
0
25.0
0
30.0
0
35.0
0
40.0
0
45.0
0
50.0
0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 9
3: F
orbe
s' Be
st S
tate
s for
Bus
ines
s Ra
nkin
g (2
011) So
urce
: Com
pute
d w
ith d
ata
from
For
bes (
2011
)
Exhi
bit 9
4: C
NBC
's Am
eric
a's T
op S
tate
s for
Bus
ines
s (20
11)
Alab
ama
41M
onta
na38
Alas
ka49
Neb
rask
a10
Arizo
na24
Nev
ada
45Ar
kans
as32
New
Ham
pshi
re17
Calif
orni
a32
New
Jers
ey30
Colo
rado
5N
ew M
exic
o43
Conn
ectic
ut39
New
Yor
k26
Dela
war
e36
Nor
th C
arol
ina
3Fl
orid
a18
Nor
th D
akot
a13
Geor
gia
4O
hio
23Ha
wai
i48
Okl
ahom
a28
Idah
o31
Ore
gon
27Ill
inoi
s22
Penn
sylv
ania
12In
dian
a15
Rhod
e Is
land
50Io
wa
9So
uth
Caro
lina
37Ka
nsas
11So
uth
Dako
ta13
Kent
ucky
35Te
nnes
see
18Lo
uisia
na42
Texa
s2
Mai
ne40
Uta
h8
Mar
ylan
d29
Verm
ont
44M
assa
chus
etts
6Vi
rgin
ia1
Mic
higa
n34
Was
hing
ton
20M
inne
sota
7W
est V
irgin
ia46
Miss
issip
pi47
Wisc
onsin
25M
issou
ri16
Wyo
min
g21
Sour
ce: C
NBC
(201
1)
34.0
0
25.4
4
20.8
2
29.0
7
0.00
5.00
10.0
0
15.0
0
20.0
0
25.0
0
30.0
0
35.0
0
40.0
0
45.0
0
50.0
0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 9
5: C
NBC
's Am
eric
a's T
op S
tate
s for
Bu
sine
ss (2
011)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om C
NBC
(201
1)
Exhi
bit9
6: B
eaco
n Hi
ll In
stitu
te’s
Com
petit
iven
ess R
anki
ngs (
2011
)Al
abam
a49
Mon
tana
27Al
aska
36N
ebra
ska
6Ar
izona
32N
evad
a37
Arka
nsas
34N
ew H
amps
hire
11Ca
lifor
nia
31N
ew Je
rsey
48Co
lora
do3
New
Mex
ico
41Co
nnec
ticut
26N
ew Y
ork
29De
law
are
24N
orth
Car
olin
a21
Flor
ida
18N
orth
Dak
ota
2Ge
orgi
a30
Ohi
o45
Haw
aii
20O
klah
oma
35Id
aho
16O
rego
n17
Illin
ois
44Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia39
Indi
ana
43Rh
ode
Isla
nd19
Iow
a8
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a47
Kans
as12
Sout
h Da
kota
13Ke
ntuc
ky46
Tenn
esse
e38
Loui
siana
40Te
xas
15M
aine
28U
tah
5M
aryl
and
23Ve
rmon
t14
Mas
sach
uset
ts1
Virg
inia
7M
ichi
gan
25W
ashi
ngto
n9
Min
neso
ta4
Wes
t Virg
inia
42M
ississ
ippi
50W
iscon
sin22
Miss
ouri
33W
yom
ing
10
Sour
ce: T
he B
eaco
n Hi
ll In
stitu
te S
tate
Com
petit
iven
ess I
ndex
(201
1)
25.0
025
.50
23.8
626
.79
0.00
5.00
10.0
0
15.0
0
20.0
0
25.0
0
30.0
0
35.0
0
40.0
0
45.0
0
50.0
0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 9
7: B
eaco
n Hi
ll In
stitu
te’s
Com
petit
iven
ess
Rank
ings
(201
1)
Sour
ce: C
ompu
ted
with
dat
a fr
om T
he B
eaco
n Hi
ll In
stitu
te (2
011)
Exhi
bit 9
8:N
orth
woo
d's S
tate
Com
petit
iven
ess I
ndex
Alab
ama
30M
onta
na18
Alas
ka42
Neb
rask
a2
Arizo
na14
Nev
ada
17Ar
kans
as9
New
Ham
pshi
re27
Calif
orni
a49
New
Jers
ey43
Colo
rado
19N
ew M
exic
o16
Conn
ectic
ut41
New
Yor
k39
Dela
war
e29
Nor
th C
arol
ina
24Fl
orid
a22
Nor
th D
akot
a1
Geor
gia
13O
hio
45Ha
wai
i31
Okl
ahom
a7
Idah
o12
Ore
gon
44Ill
inoi
s46
Penn
sylv
ania
25In
dian
a32
Rhod
e Is
land
50Io
wa
15So
uth
Caro
lina
34Ka
nsas
10So
uth
Dako
ta4
Kent
ucky
38Te
nnes
see
21Lo
uisia
na20
Texa
s3
Mai
ne36
Uta
h4
Mar
ylan
d11
Verm
ont
33M
assa
chus
etts
48Vi
rgin
ia6
Mic
higa
n47
Was
hing
ton
35M
inne
sota
26W
est V
irgin
ia23
Miss
issip
pi37
Wisc
onsin
40M
issou
ri28
Wyo
min
g8
47.0
25.5
14.3
34.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 9
9: N
orth
woo
d's S
tate
Com
petit
iven
ess I
ndex
Exhi
bit 1
00:N
U In
dex
-Wor
kfor
ce C
ompo
sitio
n an
d Co
sts R
ank
(201
2)Al
abam
a24
Mon
tana
33Al
aska
48N
ebra
ska
20Ar
izona
13N
evad
a47
Arka
nsas
6N
ew H
amps
hire
11Ca
lifor
nia
40N
ew Je
rsey
44Co
lora
do14
New
Mex
ico
23Co
nnec
ticut
38N
ew Y
ork
49De
law
are
18N
orth
Car
olin
a1
Flor
ida
3N
orth
Dak
ota
26Ge
orgi
a9
Ohi
o41
Haw
aii
50O
klah
oma
15Id
aho
16O
rego
n37
Illin
ois
42Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia43
Indi
ana
27Rh
ode
Isla
nd32
Iow
a29
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a4
Kans
as12
Sout
h Da
kota
7Ke
ntuc
ky25
Tenn
esse
e2
Loui
siana
8Te
xas
17M
aine
19U
tah
22M
aryl
and
35Ve
rmon
t21
Mas
sach
uset
ts30
Virg
inia
5M
ichi
gan
45W
ashi
ngto
n46
Min
neso
ta36
Wes
t Virg
inia
39M
ississ
ippi
10W
iscon
sin34
Miss
ouri
28W
yom
ing
31
45.0
25.5
14.9
33.9
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 1
01: N
U In
dex
–W
orkf
orce
Com
posi
tion
and
Cost
s Ran
k (2
012)
Exhi
bit 1
02: N
U In
dex
–Re
gula
tory
Env
ironm
entR
ank
(201
2)Al
abam
a45
Mon
tana
38Al
aska
50N
ebra
ska
1Ar
izona
28N
evad
a3
Arka
nsas
32N
ew H
amps
hire
2Ca
lifor
nia
42N
ew Je
rsey
20Co
lora
do8
New
Mex
ico
44Co
nnec
ticut
7N
ew Y
ork
21De
law
are
15N
orth
Car
olin
a35
Flor
ida
39N
orth
Dak
ota
11Ge
orgi
a19
Ohi
o33
Haw
aii
37O
klah
oma
22Id
aho
26O
rego
n36
Illin
ois
25Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia18
Indi
ana
5Rh
ode
Isla
nd47
Iow
a13
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a46
Kans
as9
Sout
h Da
kota
4Ke
ntuc
ky31
Tenn
esse
e34
Loui
siana
48Te
xas
17M
aine
40U
tah
12M
aryl
and
6Ve
rmon
t43
Mas
sach
uset
ts14
Virg
inia
10M
ichi
gan
24W
ashi
ngto
n29
Min
neso
ta23
Wes
t Virg
inia
27M
ississ
ippi
49W
iscon
sin30
Miss
ouri
16W
yom
ing
41
24.0
25.5
24.7
26.1
22.5
23.0
23.5
24.0
24.5
25.0
25.5
26.0
26.5
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 1
03: N
U In
dex
–Re
gula
tory
Env
ironm
ent
Rank
(201
2)
Exhi
bit 1
04: N
UIn
dex
–St
ate
Debt
and
Tax
atio
n Ra
nk (2
012)
Alab
ama
9M
onta
na37
Alas
ka45
Neb
rask
a5
Arizo
na23
Nev
ada
1Ar
kans
as2
New
Ham
pshi
re49
Calif
orni
a33
New
Jers
ey43
Colo
rado
42N
ew M
exic
o30
Conn
ectic
ut47
New
Yor
k38
Dela
war
e46
Nor
th C
arol
ina
26Fl
orid
a32
Nor
th D
akot
a21
Geor
gia
15O
hio
7Ha
wai
i29
Okl
ahom
a20
Idah
o24
Ore
gon
28Ill
inoi
s35
Penn
sylv
ania
17In
dian
a25
Rhod
e Is
land
48Io
wa
12So
uth
Caro
lina
40Ka
nsas
14So
uth
Dako
ta39
Kent
ucky
19Te
nnes
see
6Lo
uisia
na36
Texa
s3
Mai
ne41
Uta
h22
Mar
ylan
d31
Verm
ont
44M
assa
chus
etts
50Vi
rgin
ia34
Mic
higa
n10
Was
hing
ton
18M
inne
sota
13W
est V
irgin
ia8
Miss
issip
pi11
Wisc
onsin
27M
issou
ri16
Wyo
min
g4
10.0
25.5
18.1
31.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 1
05: N
U In
dex
–St
ate
Debt
and
Tax
atio
n Ra
nk (2
012)
Exhi
bit1
06: N
U In
dex
–La
bor a
nd C
apita
l For
mat
ion
Rank
(201
2)Al
abam
a27
Mon
tana
8Al
aska
5N
ebra
ska
33Ar
izona
2N
evad
a1
Arka
nsas
35N
ew H
amps
hire
26Ca
lifor
nia
39N
ew Je
rsey
23Co
lora
do17
New
Mex
ico
15Co
nnec
ticut
29N
ew Y
ork
21De
law
are
28N
orth
Car
olin
a24
Flor
ida
9N
orth
Dak
ota
11Ge
orgi
a13
Ohi
o49
Haw
aii
7O
klah
oma
25Id
aho
10O
rego
n19
Illin
ois
44Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia32
Indi
ana
48Rh
ode
Isla
nd38
Iow
a43
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a14
Kans
as41
Sout
h Da
kota
20Ke
ntuc
ky46
Tenn
esse
e34
Loui
siana
22Te
xas
4M
aine
37U
tah
3M
aryl
and
12Ve
rmon
t31
Mas
sach
uset
ts40
Virg
inia
18M
ichi
gan
45W
ashi
ngto
n16
Min
neso
ta30
Wes
t Virg
inia
36M
ississ
ippi
50W
iscon
sin42
Miss
ouri
47W
yom
ing
6
45.0
25.5
20.2
29.6
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 1
07: N
U In
dex
-Lab
or a
nd C
apita
l Fo
rmat
ion
Rank
(201
2)
Exhi
bit1
08: N
U In
dex
-Gen
eral
Mac
roec
onom
ic E
nviro
nmen
tRan
k(2
012)
Alab
ama
33M
onta
na10
Alas
ka1
Neb
rask
a3
Arizo
na42
Nev
ada
50Ar
kans
as12
New
Ham
pshi
re30
Calif
orni
a43
New
Jers
ey32
Colo
rado
41N
ew M
exic
o5
Conn
ectic
ut26
New
Yor
k21
Dela
war
e23
Nor
th C
arol
ina
45Fl
orid
a46
Nor
th D
akot
a2
Geor
gia
44O
hio
36Ha
wai
i14
Okl
ahom
a13
Idah
o31
Ore
gon
49Ill
inoi
s38
Penn
sylv
ania
19In
dian
a37
Rhod
e Is
land
40Io
wa
9So
uth
Caro
lina
47Ka
nsas
16So
uth
Dako
ta6
Kent
ucky
34Te
nnes
see
39Lo
uisia
na11
Texa
s24
Mai
ne18
Uta
h28
Mar
ylan
d15
Verm
ont
7M
assa
chus
etts
25Vi
rgin
ia20
Mic
higa
n48
Was
hing
ton
35M
inne
sota
22W
est V
irgin
ia8
Miss
issip
pi17
Wisc
onsin
27M
issou
ri29
Wyo
min
g4
48.0
25.5
24.6
26.2
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Mic
higa
nU
nite
d St
ates
RTW
Sta
tes
Non
-RTW
Sta
tes
Exhi
bit 1
09: N
U In
dex
-Gen
eral
Mac
roec
onom
ic
Envi
ronm
ent R
ank
(201
2)
Exhi
bit 1
10: C
obb-
Doug
las P
rodu
ctio
n Fu
nctio
n
In o
rder
to e
xam
ine
the
asso
ciat
ion
betw
een
whe
ther
righ
t to
wor
k en
hanc
es
busin
ess c
ompe
titiv
enes
s, w
e st
arte
d w
ith th
e co
bb-d
ougl
aspr
oduc
tion
func
tion
as fo
llow
s:
Nex
t, ta
ke lo
g as
follo
ws: =∝
+∝+∝
=∝∝∝
Exhi
bit 1
11: C
obb-
Doug
las P
rodu
ctio
n Fu
nctio
n (C
ont.)
This
equa
tion
can
be re
-spe
cifie
d as
follo
ws:
=∝+∝
′ +∝′
We
have
use
d as
pro
xies
for K
'/K a
nd L
'/L g
row
th in
birt
hs a
nd e
mpl
oym
ent a
nd
estim
ated
the
follo
win
g eq
uatio
n w
ith g
row
th in
tech
nolo
gy e
mbe
dded
in th
e er
ror t
erm
:
Mod
el1:
=
++̂
Y ha
t is t
he p
erce
ntag
e ch
ange
in st
ate
gros
s dom
estic
pro
duct
, K is
th
e pe
rcen
tage
cha
nge
in o
rgan
izatio
nal b
irths
(cap
ital f
orm
atio
n) a
nd
L is
the
perc
enta
ge c
hang
e in
em
ploy
men
t (la
bor f
orm
atio
n).
Exhi
bit 1
12: S
tate
-by-
Stat
e Bu
sine
ss C
ompe
titiv
enes
s
We
then
regr
esse
d pr
edic
ted
resid
uals
of th
e ab
ove
equa
tion
agai
nst
whe
ther
a st
ate
is rig
ht to
wor
k as
follo
ws:
Model 2: ̂=
∗+
Exhi
bit 1
13: S
tate
-by-
Stat
e Bu
sine
ss C
ompe
titiv
enes
s (C
ont.)
This
mod
el w
as th
en e
labo
rate
d up
on to
con
sider
stat
e-w
ide
unio
niza
tion
and
over
all t
ax b
urde
n as
follo
ws:
Model 3: ̂=
∗+∗
+∗
+
Exhi
bit 1
14: S
tate
-by-
Stat
e Bu
sine
ss C
ompe
titiv
enes
s (C
ont.)
To e
xam
ine
whe
ther
uni
on-t
ype,
cor
pora
te ta
x po
licy,
and
gove
rnm
ent
spen
ding
mak
es a
diff
eren
ce, t
his m
odel
was
furt
her e
labo
rate
d up
on to
co
nsid
er p
ublic
, priv
ate,
and
priv
ate-
man
ufac
turin
g un
ion
part
icip
atio
n ra
tes,
co
rpor
ate
tax
rate
s, a
nd st
ate-
wid
e go
vern
men
t exp
endi
ture
s per
cap
ita a
s fo
llow
s: Model 4: ̂=
∗+∗
+∗
+∗+∗
+∗ +
∗+∗
+
Exhi
bits
115
: Res
ults
-M
odel
1
Mod
el 1
Empl
oym
entG
row
th1.
096*
**
(0.1
86)
Org
aniza
tiona
lBirt
hs0.
377*
**
(0.1
22)
N50
r20.
918
aic
318.
209
bic
322.
033
Stan
dard
err
ors i
n pa
rent
hese
s
* p<
0.10
**
p<0.
05 *
** p
<0.0
1
Exhi
bit 1
16: R
esul
ts -
Mod
els 2
, 3, a
nd 4
Mod
el 2
Mod
el 3
Mod
el 4
Righ
t-to
-Wor
k20
.863
***
12.7
97**
*14
.232
***
(2.7
40)
(2.8
00)
(2.9
68)
Uni
onM
embe
rshi
p0.
310
1.18
9(0
.340
)(1
.652
)Ta
x Bu
rden
0.00
30.
005
(0.0
02)
(0.0
04)
Mem
bers
hip
Priv
ate
0.03
3(1
.627
)M
embe
rshi
p Pu
blic
-0.1
28(0
.243
)M
embe
rshi
p Pr
ivat
e M
anu
-0.5
54*
(0.3
09)
Corp
orat
eTa
x-0
.274
(0.5
04)
Gove
rnm
ent E
xpen
ditu
res
-0.0
01(0
.002
)N
5050
50r2
0.54
20.
788
0.81
3ai
c39
8.24
936
3.74
236
7.35
5bi
c40
0.16
136
9.47
838
2.65
2St
anda
rd e
rror
s in
pare
nthe
ses
* p<
0.10
**
p<0.
05 *
** p
<0.0
1
Exhibit 117
Michigan HB 4454 (2007)
“A bill to prohibit employers from placing certain conditions on employment; to grant rights to employees; to impose duties and responsibilities on certain state and local officers; to make certain agreements unlawful; and to provide remedies and penalties.”
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "right to work law".
Sec. 3. As used in this act:
(a) "Employer" means a person or entity that pays 1 or more individuals under an express or implied contract of hire.
(b) "Labor organization" means an organization of any kind, an agency or employee representation committee, group, association, or plan in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment.
Sec. 5. Except as provided in section 13, a person shall not require an employee to do any of the following as a condition of employment or continued employment:
(a) Become or remain a member of a labor organization.
(b) Pay dues, fees, assessments, or other similar charges to a labor organization.
(c) Pay to a charity or other third party an amount equivalent to or pro rata portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges required of members of a labor organization.
Sec. 7. Except as provided in section 13, an agreement, understanding, or practice between a labor organization and employer that violates employee rights granted under this act is unlawful and unenforceable.
Sec. 9. A person who suffers an injury or a threatened injury from a violation of this act may bring a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or both. The court may award a prevailing plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees. The civil remedy is independent of, and in addition to, any criminal proceeding or sanction prescribed for a violation of this act.
Sec. 11. A person who violates this act is guilty of a misdemeanor. The prosecuting attorney of the county or the attorney general shall investigate each complaint of a violation of this act and shall prosecute the criminal case if credible evidence of a violation exists.
Sec. 13. This act does not apply to any of the following:
(a) An employer or employee covered by the federal railway labor act, 45 USC 151 to 188.
(b) A federal employer or employee.
(c) An employer or employee at an exclusively federal enclave.
(d) An employment contract entered into before the effective date of this act, except that this act applies to a contract renewal or extension that takes effect after the effective date of this act.
(e) A situation in which it would conflict with, or be preempted by, federal law.
Enacting section 1. This act does not take effect unless Senate Bill No. ______ or House Bill No. 4455(request no. 00764'07 a) of the 94th Legislature is enacted into law.
Exhibit 118
Proposed Language for the 2012 Michigan “Protect Our Jobs Amendment”
(1) The people shall have the rights to organize together to form, join or assist labor organizations, and to bargain collectively with a public or private employer through an exclusive representative of the employees' choosing, to the fullest extent not preempted by the laws of the United States.
(2) As used in subsection (1), to bargain collectively is to perform the mutual obligation of the employer and the exclusive representative of the employees to negotiate in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and to execute and comply with any agreement reached; but this obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or make a concession.
(3) No existing or future law of the State or its political subdivisions shall abridge, impair or limit the foregoing rights; provided that the State may prohibit or restrict strikes by employees of the State and its political subdivisions. The legislature's exercise of its power to enact laws relative to the hours and conditions of employment shall not abridge, impair or limit the right to collectively bargain for wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment that exceed minimum levels established by the legislature.
Exhibit 119
Summary of the Survey of Literature on the Economic Effects of Right to Work Laws
AUTHOR IMPACT OF RTW LAWS
Meyer (1959) Negligible economic effects.
Kuhn (1961) Did not inhibit union growth.
Barkin (1961) Did not inhibit union growth and bargaining power.
Marshall (1963) Negligible economic effects.
Shister (1968) Did not inhibit union growth and bargaining power.
Polomba et. Al. (1971) No significant economic effect.
Moore, Newman and Thomas (1974) No significant economic effect.
Lumbdsen and Peterson (1975) No significant economic effect.
Moore and Newman (1975) No statistically significant impact on the proportions of workers who belonged to unions.
Carroll (1983) Significantly lower rate of union growth in RTW states wage rates in RTW states lower than non-RTW states. Manufacturing sector paid less in RTW states compared to non-RTW states.
.Newman (1983) Significant positive effects on employment, but the effects lose impact over time.
Schumenner (1987) Significant in a state being seriously considered for location, but not significant in the final decision to locate.
Ellwood and Fine (1987) Significant initial effect on the flow into unionism, but that effect was lost over time.
Holmes (1998, 2000) Significantly higher growth in manufacturing employment in RTW states over Non-RTW states between 1947 and 1992.
Mishel (2001) Workers in RTW states earn less than workers in non-RTW states after controlling for different factors in different models.
Wilson (2002) Growth in state GDP, overall employment and manufacturing employment are higher in RTW states compared to non-RTW states.
Kalenkoski and Lancombe (2006) Significant impact on manufacturing share of private sector employment.
Kersey (2007) Same findings as Wilson.
Stevens (2009) Number of self-employed higher and lower bankruptcies lower in RTW states, no significant difference in capital formation, employment rates and per capita personal income between RTW and non-RTW states, wages are lower in RTW states but proprietors’ income was higher.
Garrett and Rhine (2010) States with more economic freedom experienced higher economic growth and RTW increases economic freedom.
Vedder (2010) Higher cumulative economic growth in RTW states over non-RTW states over 30 years.
Northwood University is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association (800-621-7440; higherlearningcommission.org). Northwood University is committed to a policy of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for all persons regardless of race, gender, color, religion, creed, national origin
or ancestry, age, marital status, disability or veteran status. The University also is committed to compliance with all applicable laws regarding nondiscrimination.