On 10/28/2012 11:18 AM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

I noticed that the "Right to Work" controversy has come up
again in another thread. As some of you know, one of my
"hobby horses" is econometrics, or the application of
statistics to discussions of this type where objective data
is available. [FWIW -- if objective data is *NOT*
available, it is theology.]

For those of us that may be interested, I downloaded a list
of the states, and dummy/binary coded the "right to work
status" as 1 = "right to work", 0 = no "right to work, and
from other sources downloaded family poverty rates, median
household income and a measure of income distribution
equality called the gini coefficient.

To download a copy of the data set click on
http://mcduffee-associates.us/DROP%20BOX/rtw.ods

Some quick spreadsheet work shows the un-nuanced data, i.e.
"out of the box," not adjusted for anything, i.e. not
population weighted, no logit/probit transformations etc.
indicates the following:

Statement: Right to work states have higher family poverty
rates. For RTW v family poverty rate in percent
R square = 0.1153072619
F-RATIO = 1.42732643240265E-046
F-dist = 1.0000
Conclusion. NO SALE

Statement: Right to Work states have lower family incomes.
For RTW v median family income
R square = 0.1569634784
F-RATIO = 9.39707857939395E-192
F-dist = 1.0000
Conclusion: NO SALE

Statement: Right to Work states have higher disparity in
income distribution as measured by the gini coefficient.
For RTW v state gini coefficient
R square = 1.02125374946014E-005
F-RATIO = 5.96807933525614E-058
F-dist = 1.0000
Conclusion: NO SALE

Cautions: As the calculations were not population weighted,
the larger states such as California may have "swamped" the
results, but this is highly doubtful as the split is c. 40%
of the population lives in RTW states and 60% do not. D.C.,
P.R., the territories, etc. were omitted from the
calculations. Not adjusted for family size. Other
statistical tests such Kruskal–Wallis as may give different
results. [Feel free to download data and "knock yourself
out."]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal...is_of_variance



(you may find my LFTR01 proposal {pdf and odt format} in the
drop box of interest also -- feel free to browse website)
http://mcduffee-associates.us/DROP%20BOX/LFTR01.pdf

File uses the free OpenOffice suite which you can download
at http://www.openoffice.org/download/ {current version
3.4.1}
Many versions of MS Excel will also open the file.

For more info on R-squared to start see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeffic..._determination

For info on the gini coefficient see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

Google on either or both terms for more than you want to
know.

==Now lets move on to something than means more than a p***
hole in the snow before the politicians/banksters bring the
economy down around our ears.== (AGAIN!)





It's always nice to know that what you know is confirmed "by the
numbers". But it has been self evident for a long time now what "right
to work" is all about. In the simplest way I can put it right to work is
nothing more than a means to make workers have to bargain against
corporations as individuals instead of collectively. Corporations want
to eliminate unions so that they don't have to negotiate with unions for
wages and benefits. They want to negotiate directly against individuals.

The reason is that the individual is basically powerless in a
negotiation against a corporation. So the corporation is able to offer
far less to the worker than it would if the worker was represented by a
union. By eliminating unions the corporations save lots of money they
would have paid out to the workers in wages and benefits. So every state
with right to work laws becomes a state where the workers earn less.

As George pointed out with the figures, in all the states where right to
work laws were in effect the evidence shows that the people in those
states are worse off financially. Not a surprise. That's the intention
of right to work. To deprive workers of pay and benefits. As the numbers
show it really does work. You take away the right of the workers to
bargain collectively and the result is the people wind up worse off in
almost every way you want to measure.

The bottom line is we have known why corporations have been out to get
rid of unions for a long time. Union workers have better lives than non
union workers. It's nice to know that the numbers bear that out but the
truth is we've known why corporations want to eliminate unions since
before unions were even legal. They make the companies share the profits
with the workers. There's nothing that makes companies madder than
having to share the profits with workers. They don't think they deserve
good pay and safe working conditions. But then hasn't it always been
that way?

Hawke