(04-03-2012 01:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yeah but those are foreign owned with virtually all profits flowing overseas, and typically only have a component of manufacturing such as assembly here in America. It's better than nothing but those clearly are not American companies even though they have some slack jaw bolting frames together in a right to work state for $9/hour.

More hypocrisy from the idiot celebrating low wage jobs pushing the unemployment rate down.

(04-03-2012 01:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 12:33 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Oh, it's b/c you're an idiot, and you got played.

Yeah

Nice.

(04-03-2012 01:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Chrysler makes everything here

Sir I'm going to need you to take a step back and put the kool-aid down..

Quote:Jeep hopes to build vehicles in Russia and China and export growing numbers of SUVs from the U.S. to other countries around the world as the iconic American brand plays a lead role in Chrysler’s growth strategy.

Quote:Chrysler employees answered with a chorus of boos when speakers described how the Kenosha engine plant will close but the automaker plans to keep its operations in Mexico running.

Take it from someone who lived in a UAW household. The "American" auto makers are making cars all over the world, and importing cars and parts into America for sale and assembly.

Me personally I'm less interested in where the corporate profits go and where the cars are made..

(04-03-2012 01:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Do you really care that much about ownership when these companies are investing in American jobs and factories? Sure a large portion of profits go overseas, but you do see the economic benefits provided by them don't you?

Exactly! The profit per car is nothing compared with the jobs generated..

(04-03-2012 01:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 01:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yeah but those are foreign owned with virtually all profits flowing overseas, and typically only have a component of manufacturing such as assembly here in America. It's better than nothing but those clearly are not American companies even though they have some slack jaw bolting frames together in a right to work state for $9/hour.

Wow... Have much contempt for companies choosing to operate in right-to-work states? Nice gereralization as well, do you consider all of us living and working in right-to-work states "slackjaws"?
You might want to do a little research on this as well. Non union pay at automakers like Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota that are located in the southern right-to-work states is on par with UAW union workers pay. In fact since 2007 the gap has been closing between pay and many of those working in right-to-work states don't want unions in their plants.

Do you really care that much about ownership when these companies are investing in American jobs and factories? Sure a large portion of profits go overseas, but you do see the economic benefits provided by them don't you?

I do. :)

(04-03-2012 01:39 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 01:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Wow... Have much contempt for companies choosing to operate in right-to-work states? Nice gereralization as well, do you consider all of us living and working in right-to-work states "slackjaws"?
You might want to do a little research on this as well. Non union pay at automakers like Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota that are located in the southern right-to-work states is on par with UAW union workers pay. In fact since 2007 the gap has been closing between pay and many of those working in right-to-work states don't want unions in their plants.

Do you really care that much about ownership when these companies are investing in American jobs and factories? Sure a large portion of profits go overseas, but you do see the economic benefits provided by them don't you?

I do. :)

I won't say what we all think about people like you.

(04-03-2012 12:57 PM)Max Power Wrote:  because I don't waste my time with liars.

And that's the last that MaxPower was ever heard from, doomed to vanish in a vortex of logic in which even time itself ceased to exist...

(04-03-2012 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 10:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Sorry America still has an auto industry, conservatives.

And would still have one in any event. Americans buy X million cars a year. There has to be a car industry to provide those cars and there would have been someone to fill that need in any event.

Typical asinine Owl posting. The demand for cars in America isn't a fixed number. It varies based on numerous factors. So while it is true that someone would have filled the demand, odds are the demand would have been much lower and it wouldn't have been filled by someone other than GM, Ford, or Chrysler since all three would have been crippled and liquidated (and that's not even touching the massive supply chain disruption). You post implies that having demand filled is all that matters, but how large the demand is and who fills it is also of great importance for our domestic economy.

(04-03-2012 01:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 01:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yeah but those are foreign owned with virtually all profits flowing overseas, and typically only have a component of manufacturing such as assembly here in America. It's better than nothing but those clearly are not American companies even though they have some slack jaw bolting frames together in a right to work state for $9/hour.

Wow... Have much contempt for companies choosing to operate in right-to-work states? Nice gereralization as well, do you consider all of us living and working in right-to-work states "slackjaws"?
You might want to do a little research on this as well. Non union pay at automakers like Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota that are located in the southern right-to-work states is on par with UAW union workers pay. In fact since 2007 the gap has been closing between pay and many of those working in right-to-work states don't want unions in their plants.

Do you really care that much about ownership when these companies are investing in American jobs and factories? Sure a large portion of profits go overseas, but you do see the economic benefits provided by them don't you?

You'd better f'king believe I have contempt. I see how they operate. CAT world HQ is a couple blocks from my office, I have friends in there and as I've explained on here they jerked around my area and state to sell our workers down the river despite their record profits and never having an intent to open the plant they just built in Athens GA in Peoria. My fraternity brother was in charge of the relocation project.

You're wrong about wages being on par, and even if they were, less health insurance is offered and workers comp laws in right to work states are very anti-worker. I had an uncle die in Georgia working as an electrician due to the negligence of his employer and my aunt and 2 cousins got a whole $80k for his death. Here in Illinois he would have gotten $500k at least.

Quote:A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found:[11]

Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

The corporations and US Chamber of Commerce work hard to turn workers against their own unions and actually run commercials showing workers complaining about paying union dues, and making it look like the commercials are beign made by disgruntled workers. F'k. Them. Hard. And f'k the right to work politicians in the pocket of big business conspiring to exploit the workers in their own state.

(04-03-2012 04:14 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 01:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 01:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yeah but those are foreign owned with virtually all profits flowing overseas, and typically only have a component of manufacturing such as assembly here in America. It's better than nothing but those clearly are not American companies even though they have some slack jaw bolting frames together in a right to work state for $9/hour.

Wow... Have much contempt for companies choosing to operate in right-to-work states? Nice gereralization as well, do you consider all of us living and working in right-to-work states "slackjaws"?
You might want to do a little research on this as well. Non union pay at automakers like Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota that are located in the southern right-to-work states is on par with UAW union workers pay. In fact since 2007 the gap has been closing between pay and many of those working in right-to-work states don't want unions in their plants.

Do you really care that much about ownership when these companies are investing in American jobs and factories? Sure a large portion of profits go overseas, but you do see the economic benefits provided by them don't you?

You'd better f'king believe I have contempt. I see how they operate. CAT world HQ is a couple blocks from my office, I have friends in there and as I've explained on here they jerked around my area and state to sell our workers down the river despite their record profits and never having an intent to open the plant they just built in Athens GA in Peoria. My fraternity brother was in charge of the relocation project.

You're wrong about wages being on par, and even if they were, less health insurance is offered and workers comp laws in right to work states are very anti-worker. I had an uncle die in Georgia working as an electrician due to the negligence of his employer and my aunt and 2 cousins got a whole $80k for his death. Here in Illinois he would have gotten $500k at least.

Quote:A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found:[11]

Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

The corporations and US Chamber of Commerce work hard to turn workers against their own unions and actually run commercials showing workers complaining about paying union dues, and making it look like the commercials are beign made by disgruntled workers. F'k. Them. Hard. And f'k the right to work politicians in the pocket of big business conspiring to exploit the workers in their own state.

As I have said many times...I support collective bargaining. I also support an owners right not to participate in it.

(04-03-2012 04:14 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 01:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 01:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yeah but those are foreign owned with virtually all profits flowing overseas, and typically only have a component of manufacturing such as assembly here in America. It's better than nothing but those clearly are not American companies even though they have some slack jaw bolting frames together in a right to work state for $9/hour.

Wow... Have much contempt for companies choosing to operate in right-to-work states? Nice gereralization as well, do you consider all of us living and working in right-to-work states "slackjaws"?
You might want to do a little research on this as well. Non union pay at automakers like Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota that are located in the southern right-to-work states is on par with UAW union workers pay. In fact since 2007 the gap has been closing between pay and many of those working in right-to-work states don't want unions in their plants.

Do you really care that much about ownership when these companies are investing in American jobs and factories? Sure a large portion of profits go overseas, but you do see the economic benefits provided by them don't you?

You'd better f'king believe I have contempt. I see how they operate. CAT world HQ is a couple blocks from my office, I have friends in there and as I've explained on here they jerked around my area and state to sell our workers down the river despite their record profits and never having an intent to open the plant they just built in Athens GA in Peoria. My fraternity brother was in charge of the relocation project.

You're wrong about wages being on par, and even if they were, less health insurance is offered and workers comp laws in right to work states are very anti-worker. I had an uncle die in Georgia working as an electrician due to the negligence of his employer and my aunt and 2 cousins got a whole $80k for his death. Here in Illinois he would have gotten $500k at least.

Quote:A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found:[11]

Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

The corporations and US Chamber of Commerce work hard to turn workers against their own unions and actually run commercials showing workers complaining about paying union dues, and making it look like the commercials are beign made by disgruntled workers. F'k. Them. Hard. And f'k the right to work politicians in the pocket of big business conspiring to exploit the workers in their own state.

Impressive statistics. Can you provide the following:

• Rate of employment in RTW states vs Unionized States
• Rate of bankruptcy in RTW states vs Unionized States
• Cost to US Taxpayers for business failures in RTW states vs Unionized States
• Rate of foreign relocation of plants in RTW states vs Unionized States
  

(04-03-2012 04:14 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

Quote:A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found:[11]

Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

Now if you just subtract out union dues and make adjustments for cost of living in RTW/non-RTW states, we're on our way towards a semi-valid comparison.

$22.11/hour number equals right around $46k for a 40 hour work week. You can live quite comfortably on that in places like Vance, AL, or Spartanburg, SC where plants are located. How comfortably could you live on $47.5k in Chicago? Not to mention, it exposes your "slack jaw bolting frames together in a right to work state for $9/hour" as yet another lie/untrue stereotype.

If GM had not shut down their factories and converted them to making tanks and planes during WWII, then you wouldn't have to worry about the principles of the auto bailout.

I wouldn't be surprised if Chrysler is doing the same thing as GM to manipulate its sales numbers: channel stuffing. GM has been forcing dealerships to take more cars than they can sale to puff up GM's "sales." Chrysler may be as well.

It's good that Chrysler is improving under Fiat's leadership though. We need a strong manufacturing base. Many foreign companies are more "American" than our auto companies. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and Volkswagen all build cars here in America.

About Max's point that economic indicators are improving. I'd submit that while some factors are improving in real terms, most are only improving in nominal terms due to the Federal Reserve's devaluation of the currency. For example, the dollar gets weaker and stocks rise in dollar terms. Similarly, the dollar gets weaker and food and gas prices rise. Real assets of all types begin to rise. That doesn't mean the economy is healthy though. The government has merely sown the seeds of a bigger collapse and impoverishing the public.

(04-03-2012 07:54 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I wouldn't be surprised if Chrysler is doing the same thing as GM to manipulate its sales numbers: channel stuffing. GM has been forcing dealerships to take more cars than they can sale to puff up GM's "sales." Chrysler may be as well.

It's good that Chrysler is improving under Fiat's leadership though. We need a strong manufacturing base. Many foreign companies are more "American" than our auto companies. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and Volkswagen all build cars here in America.

About Max's point that economic indicators are improving. I'd submit that while some factors are improving in real terms, most are only improving in nominal terms due to the Federal Reserve's devaluation of the currency. For example, the dollar gets weaker and stocks rise in dollar terms. Similarly, the dollar gets weaker and food and gas prices rise. Real assets of all types begin to rise. That doesn't mean the economy is healthy though. The government has merely sown the seeds of a bigger collapse and impoverishing the public.

Both are not paying taxes either. That always helps the bottom line.

Good to see that Chrysler is doing well. Better to have a strong industry than a collapsed one.

(04-03-2012 03:10 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 10:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Sorry America still has an auto industry, conservatives.

And would still have one in any event. Americans buy X million cars a year. There has to be a car industry to provide those cars and there would have been someone to fill that need in any event.

Typical asinine Owl posting. The demand for cars in America isn't a fixed number. It varies based on numerous factors. So while it is true that someone would have filled the demand, odds are the demand would have been much lower and it wouldn't have been filled by someone other than GM, Ford, or Chrysler since all three would have been crippled and liquidated (and that's not even touching the massive supply chain disruption). You post implies that having demand filled is all that matters, but how large the demand is and who fills it is also of great importance for our domestic economy.

Problem is they don't think Chrysler or GM would have been liquidated.

(04-03-2012 04:39 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 04:14 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

Quote:A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found:[11]

Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

Now if you just subtract out union dues and make adjustments for cost of living in RTW/non-RTW states, we're on our way towards a semi-valid comparison.

$22.11/hour number equals right around $46k for a 40 hour work week. You can live quite comfortably on that in places like Vance, AL, or Spartanburg, SC where plants are located. How comfortably could you live on $47.5k in Chicago? Not to mention, it exposes your "slack jaw bolting frames together in a right to work state for $9/hour" as yet another lie/untrue stereotype.

I'm glad someone else sees this canard. The cost of living(and doing business) is dramatically different in these places. If you put a plant close to me in NC and offered $20 per hour jobs...you would have a stampede of applicants from workers thrilled to take those jobs.

Not only have the unions interfered with the law of supply and demand in regard to labor..they have made the price of these vehicles simply insane. Look for someone to eventually enter the market in one of these RTW states and compete selling a very inexpensive vehicle. There will be a tipping point for this industry.

(04-03-2012 04:14 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 01:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 01:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yeah but those are foreign owned with virtually all profits flowing overseas, and typically only have a component of manufacturing such as assembly here in America. It's better than nothing but those clearly are not American companies even though they have some slack jaw bolting frames together in a right to work state for $9/hour.

Wow... Have much contempt for companies choosing to operate in right-to-work states? Nice gereralization as well, do you consider all of us living and working in right-to-work states "slackjaws"?
You might want to do a little research on this as well. Non union pay at automakers like Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota that are located in the southern right-to-work states is on par with UAW union workers pay. In fact since 2007 the gap has been closing between pay and many of those working in right-to-work states don't want unions in their plants.

Do you really care that much about ownership when these companies are investing in American jobs and factories? Sure a large portion of profits go overseas, but you do see the economic benefits provided by them don't you?

You'd better f'king believe I have contempt. I see how they operate. CAT world HQ is a couple blocks from my office, I have friends in there and as I've explained on here they jerked around my area and state to sell our workers down the river despite their record profits and never having an intent to open the plant they just built in Athens GA in Peoria. My fraternity brother was in charge of the relocation project.

You're wrong about wages being on par, and even if they were, less health insurance is offered and workers comp laws in right to work states are very anti-worker. I had an uncle die in Georgia working as an electrician due to the negligence of his employer and my aunt and 2 cousins got a whole $80k for his death. Here in Illinois he would have gotten $500k at least.

Quote:A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found:[11]

Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

The corporations and US Chamber of Commerce work hard to turn workers against their own unions and actually run commercials showing workers complaining about paying union dues, and making it look like the commercials are beign made by disgruntled workers. F'k. Them. Hard. And f'k the right to work politicians in the pocket of big business conspiring to exploit the workers in their own state.

Wow... big bad CAT didn't want to pay a premium for workers in a union. Terrible them. It's their choice where they locate their plants.

Nice sidestep on the wage comparisons as well. I specifically mentioned three automakers and UAW wages, you site a report that makes no mention of autoworker pay comparisons.

Congratulations of finding your EPI report. I'm sure that a report written by 2 left wing economist that write and report for NPR and New York Times id completely unbiased. It's not like the EPI isn't widely regarded as a Liberal Think-Tank anyway. It's in their core beliefs to support and promote a strong labor movement.

I can play that game too.

Good for Business, Good for Workers

As reported on the Washington Examiner's "Beltway Confidential" blog, Development Counselors International (DCI) recently asked corporate executives and representatives which states they thought were the best to locate for business. As the Examiner notes, America's job providers overwhelmingly favored states with Right to Work laws.

Of course this should come to no surprise. The results of DCI's survey largely mirrors that of CNBC 2010 "Best for Business" list, in which states with Right to Work protections for its workers were ranked seven of the top 10 and 10 of the top 15.


http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/new-study-sh...e-11152010

Percentage Growth in Real Personal Income (1999-2009)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3%
Forced-Unionism States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.7%
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5%

Cost of Living-Adjusted Per Capita Disposable Personal Income (2009)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $35,543
Forced-Unionism States . . . . . . . . . . . . . $33,389
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $34,256

http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/new-fact-she...i-10262011

Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power – 2011 Update

Percentage Growth in Non-Farm Private-Sector Employees (2000-2010)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +0.3%
Forced-Unionism States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . -5.5%
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -3.3%
Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Percentage Real Growth in Private-Sector Employee Compensation (2000-2010)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3%
Forced-Unionism States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7%
(2000-2010) National Average . . . . . . . . . 4.3%
BEA; BLS

Cost of Living-Adjusted Compensation Per Private-Sector Employee (2010)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . $56,575
Forced-Unionism States . . . . . . . . . . . $55,420
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $55,896
Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC);
BEA; Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (BOC)

Your "$9/ hour" generalization makes you look small, simple-minded, and incredibly ignorant.

(04-04-2012 05:50 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 04:39 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-03-2012 04:14 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

Quote:A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found:[11]

Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

Now if you just subtract out union dues and make adjustments for cost of living in RTW/non-RTW states, we're on our way towards a semi-valid comparison.

$22.11/hour number equals right around $46k for a 40 hour work week. You can live quite comfortably on that in places like Vance, AL, or Spartanburg, SC where plants are located. How comfortably could you live on $47.5k in Chicago? Not to mention, it exposes your "slack jaw bolting frames together in a right to work state for $9/hour" as yet another lie/untrue stereotype.

I'm glad someone else sees this canard. The cost of living(and doing business) is dramatically different in these places. If you put a plant close to me in NC and offered $20 per hour jobs...you would have a stampede of applicants from workers thrilled to take those jobs.

Not only have the unions interfered with the law of supply and demand in regard to labor..they have made the price of these vehicles simply insane. Look for someone to eventually enter the market in one of these RTW states and compete selling a very inexpensive vehicle. There will be a tipping point for this industry.

All excellent points. All true. But max leaves out the final point that with the UAW's new 2-tier system, new hires are making that low wage he criticized, all while paying the union dues.

This new system is a complete repudiation of the union model, proving conclusively that it is unsustainable. The debate is over and max, troll, and the rest lost. Their talking points are moot. They are simply mouthpieces for their mentors who used and exploited them.