- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 2,854
- Reaction score
- 567
- Location
- Oslo, Norway
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
1. Not if you adjust for costs, then RTW states earns more, which is my point.Forget about you and forget about me. The facts are simple and undeniable:
1- Workers in unionized states earn more money than workers in non union RTW states.
2- Workers in unionized states have better insurance benefit coverage that workers in non RTW union states.
3- Workers in unionized states have better pension coverage levels that workers in non union RTW states.
2 and 3. True, but it doesn't surprise me really. I mean Mississippi would have been broken no matter if they had right to work or not. However, non-RTW sates are mostly historically successful states, such as California, and states in New England.
Except I never denied those facts. If you want to discuss if RTW benefits a state or not, I have no problem with that.Call me all the silly names you feel you need to. It makes no difference to me as none of that grade school nonsense changes those three facts.
But we did not discuss that. We were discussing my point, that RTW states earn more adjusted for costs. Then you posted a study that you were unable to defend, but still demanded me to accept all its findings. When I said no, you need to defend it. Then you got mad, and even start lying about what you did, like in the last post.