Michigan about to be lost to republicans for a generation

[saveliberty]

The US Census Bureau makes no such projections. Poster is misinformed.

again, if you cant comprehend facts, its no ones fault but your own.

What facts? Your graph does not state the Census Bureau did the analysis or came to the conclusions you represent. Now you're just a liar.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

The US Census Bureau makes no such projections. Poster is misinformed.

again, if you cant comprehend facts, its no ones fault but your own.

What facts? Your graph does not state the Census Bureau did the analysis or came to the conclusions you represent. Now you're just a liar.

again, if you cant comprehend facts, its no ones fault but your own.

 

[saveliberty]

again, if you cant comprehend facts, its no ones fault but your own.

What facts? Your graph does not state the Census Bureau did the analysis or came to the conclusions you represent. Now you're just a liar.

again, if you cant comprehend facts, its no ones fault but your own.

Okay Mr. I have exceptional reading comprehension, read the line at the bottom of the chart where it says the analysis came from the author of some book (meaning the analysis isn't from the Census Bureau).



moron

 

[Sarah G]

Nahh more like about 2 years.

 

[saveliberty]

Its okay, I'll wait...

 

[saveliberty]

Nahh more like about 2 years.

Michigan typicallt reelects its governors to a second term. The economy is getting better here under Snyder. Doubtful we will change. The law is already old news here in Michigan.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

What facts? Your graph does not state the Census Bureau did the analysis or came to the conclusions you represent. Now you're just a liar.

again, if you cant comprehend facts, its no ones fault but your own.

Okay Mr. I have exceptional reading comprehension, read the line at the bottom of the chart where it says the analysis came from the author of some book (meaning the analysis isn't from the Census Bureau).



moron

data from the census bureau provides the proof you moron. the census bureau is the source. anyone can make a claim, just like you make stupid unsubstantiated claims all the time. yet with no data to support them, they are just unsubstantiated claims. again, your ability to comprehend these basic principle is sorely lacking.

Importance of Unions in the Spotlight as New Census Data Tracks Middle Class Decline | NEA Today
The rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting poorer, according to new figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau last week. One of the leading causes for the growing gap is the decline of labor unions. By bolstering our unions and the power of collective bargaining, however, we can help reverse the trend, say experts.

It’s no coincidence that unions and the middle class are weakening at the same time, says John Russo, Coordinator of the Labor Studies Program at the Warren P. Williamson College of Business Administration at Youngstown State University in Ohio.

 

[saveliberty]

Sorry I can't draw little pictures for you, but here we go.

The author of a book took raw Census Bureau data and manipulated them to prove the premise of his book. The Census Bureau did not take part in the use of the data. It did not suggest a methodology for the author to use. It has not come out in support of the findings. A guy wrote a book period.

Have you reviewed the statistical methods and computations? Did you even look at the book to see if there is a table of his work?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Sorry I can't draw little pictures for you, but here we go.

The author of a book took raw Census Bureau data and manipulated them to prove the premise of his book. The Census Bureau did not take part in the use of the data. It did not suggest a methodology for the author to use. It has not come out in support of the findings. A guy wrote a book period.

Have you reviewed the statistical methods and computations? Did you even look at the book to see if there is a table of his work?

again, your ability to comprehend is sorely lacking. the census data is the support data for the claim. since your a bit slow ill try to dumb it down for you. anyone can make a claim, like you do all the time. that claim is an unsubstantiated claim until proof is given to support that claim and prove it to be true. in the case the center for american progress and national education association are making the claims. the census bureau data substantiates that claim. the data from the census bureau which is a non partisan reputable source is used to prove the claim. if you can;t understand how an argument is formed and proven then well, i guess your just too dumb to understand it.

 

[saveliberty]

No the census data merely provided the number of people living in each state for the multiplication in column three. It also provided current income figures for each state. Everything else was from the author. Unless you can produce the author's methodology is any different, you remain wrong.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

No the census data merely provided the number of people living in each state for the multiplication in column three. It also provided current income figures for each state. Everything else was from the author. Unless you can produce the author's methodology is any different, you remain wrong.

just keep telling yourself that. your ignorance is glaring.

 

[saveliberty]

No the census data merely provided the number of people living in each state for the multiplication in column three. It also provided current income figures for each state. Everything else was from the author. Unless you can produce the author's methodology is any different, you remain wrong.

just keep telling yourself that. your ignorance is glaring.

Answer this then, who made the chart you posted?

 

[longknife]

Would you care to tell us just how many of these "concerned union members" were bussed in from out of state?

I have a hunch that thousands of those forced to pay union dues who will instantly opt out the moment the bill goes into effect will NOT be among those raging at the GOP!!!

 

[saveliberty]

Interstingly enough, LeftCoast IS posting on the board, just not responding to my question...

Oh, and he just was trashed on whether volunteer fire fighter get paid. lol

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Interstingly enough, LeftCoast IS posting on the board, just not responding to my question...

Oh, and he just was trashed on whether volunteer fire fighter get paid. lol

by definition a volunteer does not get paid. do you need a dictionary?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

No the census data merely provided the number of people living in each state for the multiplication in column three. It also provided current income figures for each state. Everything else was from the author. Unless you can produce the author's methodology is any different, you remain wrong.

just keep telling yourself that. your ignorance is glaring.

Answer this then, who made the chart you posted?

wow, if you cant read, the chart was made by the Economic Policy Institute based an analysis of the US Census Bureau Data

 

[saveliberty]

Gee, at the bottom of your chart it reads, "Source note: Author's analysis described in 'Unions Make the Middle Class'" Doesn't sound like a whole institution did the research now does it. Also, it clearly shows the analysis was NOT done by the Census Bureau.

Oh, and more trouble for you:

Four out of the five states with the highest unionization rates—Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, and Michigan—all had middle classes with above-average strength.

Unionization wasn't the only factor taken into account either:

These figures are based on a regression analysis that looks at how unionization rates affect the share of income going to the middle class, while taking into account other important factors such as education levels, unemployment, the income level of a state, and industry employment mix.

States with Stronger Unions Have Stronger Middle Classes | Center for American Progress Action Fund

The author was David Madland. One of his biography notes lists consulting for unions. No bias here. lol

I love hanging liberals with their own sources.

 

[AmericanFirst]

As the tittle says, this push by a minority to turn Michigan to a right to work state by holding closed doors meeting and other crazy stuff, the best part is its having a major effect, workers are now more united than ever, getting stronger. This will push Michigan into FIRM democrat control, the dems are now primed to take back pretty much every state branch of government. This is one of the best things that has happened in a long time. Oh and looks like Wisconsin is shifting too, hell Paul Ryan couldn't even win his home district in the 2012 election, gov. Walker is weaker than ever now, this is very awesome, it's destroying the republican party this this part of the country for a generation.

Don't like closed door meetings? Tell obamaturd, that is how he forced obamacare down our throats.

 

[saveliberty]

Lets look at the chart a little more closely to shall we?

It says 17.6% of Michigan are union workers. The whole state has 9,883,640 people (according to the 2010 Census Bureau) Michigan QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

The chart says at $1331/year more income and a ten percentage point increase in union workers the state would create $3,013,577,553 income in a year.

That means 27.6% of Michigan workers are now union in the chart x 1,331/year for the chart.

$3,013,577,533 divided by 1,331 = 2,264,145 union workers

2,264,145 union workers divided by the population of Michigan is 22.9%

22.9% is not 27.6%, it also means 22.9% OF THE WHOLE POPULATION IS UNION.

Here's a news flash, not everyone in Michigan works.

The whole chart is a lie.

 

[Oldstyle]

They already have that freedom. Don't want to join a union? Don't look for work at a union shop.

Its that simple.

So if you work at a shop that becomes unionized you should be forced to pay dues...or leave?

when a shop is looking to become a union shop the employees of that shop have a say in whether that happens. if it is in the best interest of the overall workers, it becomes majority rule.

however, as i have already posted Unions produce higher wages on average when compared to non union members. so why would a worker vote against his own interest? if unionizing a shop will lead to more money in their pocket, then whey would they vote against it?

Whether or not it is in the "best interest" of the workers is very much in debate, Leftie. Getting a shop to unionize is definitely in the best interest of union bosses and Democratic politicians who are the beneficiaries of almost all of union dues which are used to elect legislators but bringing in a union that is going to make the company you work for less competitive actually puts workers jobs at risk. I know that's something union's don't want to talk about but it's the reality of the situation. You want to know why companies take jobs out of State and out of the country? Usually it's to get away from unions. So if I'm a worker in a non-union shop in Michigan how does it benefit me if after we unionize the company I work for moves operations to a Right To Work State far from where I live? I used to have a job just down the street...now because of unionization...my job might no longer be there. My job might be in South Carolina...or Florida...or Texas. So tell me again how THAT puts more money in my pocket?