Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
Thanks, that's a good start. Unfortunately probably not statistically significant. For a project, I plan to compare median household income, disposable income and other fun stuff. Holding education and other factors constant and such as as well. I don't find any of the proponents or opponents really fighting fair when it comes to statistical arguments.
JTapp, new economics lesson for you.When there is a limited data set, like only 50 states (51 when DC is included) that's all the data you have to go on. Thus, yes, it may not mathematically be statistically significant, but it's the only data you have to go on. You can say, with 100% confidence that right to work states grow faster than non-right to work states. May not be the cause, but there is no denying that fact.Also, you'll probably want to consider what percentage of each state's economy is service based, versus manufacturing as unions are more heavily represented in manufacturing.
True, it may not be the cause. How do you factor in when the law was passed in those states? It could be that a state is on the high-growth side before it passes the law. The law doesn't actually change their growth, but it's portrayed to look like it's growing faster because it's an RTW state. These are all things economists get paid to sort out ($10,000+ apparently in Kentucky's study, according to the liberal media which made sure everyone knew exactly how much of their tax dollars went to pay for the "divisive" study)
Post a Comment