Latest news with #MercatusCenter
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - The evidence is in: Forcing workers to join unions destroys good-paying jobs
Contrary to what you hear from most D.C. Beltway politicians and national media pundits, we do still make things in America. Veronique de Rugy, an economist and a senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, pointed out in a recent commentary that the inflation-adjusted value of U.S. industrial production — that is, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined — 'is higher than ever.' Real domestic manufacturing alone is up 177 percent — nearly triple — from 1975. And since 1994, the U.S. output of 'computer and electronic products' specifically has grown by 1,200 percent. Motor vehicle output is up 'well over 60 percent.' U.S. Labor Department data show nationwide payroll manufacturing employment was roughly 12.8 million in 2024. That's substantially higher than in 2009 or 2014, and slightly higher than in 2019, the last year before COVID-19 hit. U.S. Commerce and Labor Department data combined show the average annual compensation (including the value of noncash benefits) for an American factory employee is more than $100,000 a year. So there clearly is a future for good-paying factory jobs in our country. But the data also show state labor policy matters a lot in determining where net new job creation happens. From 2014 to 2024, manufacturing payroll employment grew by roughly 530,000, or 10.4 percent, in the 23 states that had right-to-work laws prohibiting the termination of employees who refuse to join or bankroll a union for that entire decade. Meanwhile, in the 23 states that lacked right-to-work protections for the whole period in question, aggregate manufacturing jobs fell by 0.2 percent, or roughly 12,000. (The four states that changed their policies during that period are excluded from this analysis.) The correlation between right-to-work status and superior growth in manufacturing jobs is robust. The seven states with the greatest percentage gains in manufacturing payrolls over the past decade (Nevada, Florida, Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Georgia and South Carolina) are all right-to-work states. Site selection experts whose career success depends on giving corporations good advice about where to make job-creating investments have confirmed again and again that right-to-work states are superior locations for new factories and expansions alike. In a 2023 interview, for example, Boyd Co. owner John Boyd observed that right-to-work laws have always been 'a recruiting tool for companies.' It's no mystery why, without right-to-work protections, employees are more likely to be forced into one-size-fits-all union contracts that foster work stoppages, wasteful work rules, job featherbedding and a union-label 'hate the boss' mentality. Just a few years ago, when they were still Harvard graduate students, economists Matthew Lilley and Benjamin Austin collaborated on research aimed at determining to what extent the diverse economic benefits associated with right-to-work laws are actually caused by Right to Work itself. Lilley and Austin, who today are professors of economics at Duke and Harvard, respectively, focused their attention on 'adjacent pairs of counties' in different states where one county had right-to-work protections for employees and the other did not. The Lilley-Austin analysis showed that right-to-work laws boost overall employment substantially, and that their impact is particularly strong in the manufacturing sector, which has a long history of heavy unionization. As Lilley reported in a 2023 follow-up paper for the Manhattan Institute, among the 373 neighboring counties he and his partner had analyzed, there was an average '3.23 percentage-point increase in the manufacturing share of employment' on the right-to-work side of the border. He then noted: 'This difference is substantial, equivalent to a 28 percent increase in manufacturing employment' in right-to-work counties relative to their forced-unionism neighbors. Practically all elected officials in the U.S. claim to support the creation of new manufacturing jobs and the retention of current ones. But the many Big Labor politicians in Washington, D.C., who support the elimination of state right-to-work laws and the expansion of union bosses' forced-unionism privileges to all 50 states are objectively in favor of the destruction of good-paying manufacturing jobs. Stan Greer is senior research associate for the National Institute for Labor Relations Research. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
03-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
The evidence is in: Forcing workers to join unions destroys good-paying jobs
Contrary to what you hear from most D.C. Beltway politicians and national media pundits, we do still make things in America. Veronique de Rugy, an economist and a senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, pointed out in a recent commentary that the inflation-adjusted value of U.S. industrial production — that is, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined — 'is higher than ever.' Real domestic manufacturing alone is up 177 percent — nearly triple — from 1975. And since 1994, the U.S. output of 'computer and electronic products' specifically has grown by 1,200 percent. Motor vehicle output is up 'well over 60 percent.' U.S. Labor Department data show nationwide payroll manufacturing employment was roughly 12.8 million in 2024. That's substantially higher than in 2009 or 2014, and slightly higher than in 2019, the last year before COVID-19 hit. U.S. Commerce and Labor Department data combined show the average annual compensation (including the value of noncash benefits) for an American factory employee is more than $100,000 a year. So there clearly is a future for good-paying factory jobs in our country. But the data also show state labor policy matters a lot in determining where net new job creation happens. From 2014 to 2024, manufacturing payroll employment grew by roughly 530,000, or 10.4 percent, in the 23 states that had right-to-work laws prohibiting the termination of employees who refuse to join or bankroll a union for that entire decade. Meanwhile, in the 23 states that lacked right-to-work protections for the whole period in question, aggregate manufacturing jobs fell by 0.2 percent, or roughly 12,000. (The four states that changed their policies during that period are excluded from this analysis.) The correlation between right-to-work status and superior growth in manufacturing jobs is robust. The seven states with the greatest percentage gains in manufacturing payrolls over the past decade (Nevada, Florida, Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Georgia and South Carolina) are all right-to-work states. Site selection experts whose career success depends on giving corporations good advice about where to make job-creating investments have confirmed again and again that right-to-work states are superior locations for new factories and expansions alike. In a 2023 interview, for example, Boyd Co. owner John Boyd observed that right-to-work laws have always been 'a recruiting tool for companies.' It's no mystery why, without right-to-work protections, employees are more likely to be forced into one-size-fits-all union contracts that foster work stoppages, wasteful work rules, job featherbedding and a union-label 'hate the boss' mentality. Just a few years ago, when they were still Harvard graduate students, economists Matthew Lilley and Benjamin Austin collaborated on research aimed at determining to what extent the diverse economic benefits associated with right-to-work laws are actually caused by Right to Work itself. Lilley and Austin, who today are professors of economics at Duke and Harvard, respectively, focused their attention on 'adjacent pairs of counties' in different states where one county had right-to-work protections for employees and the other did not. The Lilley-Austin analysis showed that right-to-work laws boost overall employment substantially, and that their impact is particularly strong in the manufacturing sector, which has a long history of heavy unionization. As Lilley reported in a 2023 follow-up pape r for the Manhattan Institute, among the 373 neighboring counties he and his partner had analyzed, there was an average '3.23 percentage-point increase in the manufacturing share of employment' on the right-to-work side of the border. He then noted: 'This difference is substantial, equivalent to a 28 percent increase in manufacturing employment' in right-to-work counties relative to their forced-unionism neighbors. Practically all elected officials in the U.S. claim to support the creation of new manufacturing jobs and the retention of current ones. But the many Big Labor politicians in Washington, D.C., who support the elimination of state right-to-work laws and the expansion of union bosses' forced-unionism privileges to all 50 states are objectively in favor of the destruction of good-paying manufacturing jobs.
Forbes
23-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Trump Fisheries Order May Be A First Step Toward Global Reforms
The American fisheries sector is the beneficiary of an April 17 Trump executive order. The order's implementation could result in reduced regulatory burdens and a procompetitive, economically efficient expansions of U.S. fisheries output. It might also inspire U.S. consideration of additional efforts to improve global fisheries management. The Fisheries Executive Order Overregulation is a serious problem afflicting U.S. fisheries. While federal regulations are designed to promote sustainable fishing and protect marine ecosystems, some badly designed rules impose economic harm on fishermen and communities that rely on fishing. These regulatory design flaws can generate excessive costs and job losses in the American fishing industry. An April 17 presidential Executive Order on 'Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness' seeks to 'promote the productive harvest of our seafood resources; unburden our commercial fishermen from costly and inefficient regulation; combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing; and protect our seafood markets from the unfair trade practices of foreign nations.' In sum, the Fisheries Order seeks to strengthen the U.S. fishing industry and support American fishermen by reducing regulatory burdens, combating unfair foreign trade practices, and enhancing domestic seafood production and exports. In context, the Order is part of the President's broad agenda to promote U.S.-based industries and domestic production. Key Fisheries Order provisions include multiple directives to federal agencies: Additional Fisheries Reforms Implementation of the Fisheries Order would be an excellent first step toward promoting the growth of American fisheries in a more efficient, less regulatory manner. Additional international reforms, led by the U.S., could further enhance the effectiveness of fisheries reforms. The Trump Administration might wish to consider four initiatives: More generally, the Mercatus Center, a non-profit university affiliated research center that advances knowledge about how markets solve problems, co-hosted a symposium of fisheries experts in 2023, focused on possible solutions to global fisheries problems. Research papers generated by that symposium explore a variety of market-oriented solutions to fisheries problems that may merit study by the Administration. In sum, the Fisheries Order may prove to a catalyst not just for strengthening the U.S. fisheries sector, but also for market-oriented changes that improve global fisheries.
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Conservatives Should Encourage Private Investment in Housing, Not Condemn It.
Homeownership is and always has been the centerpiece of the American Dream. Unfortunately, thanks to the failures of the Biden administration, homeownership became unrealistic for more families because of elevated mortgage rates and inflated living costs. Liberal Democrats created this mess, and yet, they continue to push false narratives suggesting that government intervention and housing subsidies are the only solution to fix the affordability crisis. Policymakers should ignore these narratives and consider commonsense reforms to encourage building more homes and making homeownership more attainable. The solution is clear: promote policies encouraging private sector investment in housing rather than wasteful spending and unnecessary regulations. American taxpayers suffered due to Biden's wasteful spending efforts, including when his administration greenlit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to back $1 million mortgage loans. This subsidized even greater demand for homes without increasing the supply. Taxpayers need relief rather than another tax increase that doesn't solve the problem. The root cause of the nation's housing crisis comes down to supply. According to the Mercatus Center, '[T]he only market segment capable of filling the gap of supply at scale is large institutional landlords.' Enabling the private sector to build more offers families many housing options that will lower housing costs for all Americans and provide a bridge to homeownership for young individuals looking to grow their families. Single-family rentals are a critical part of this solution. In Austin, Texas, rent prices have dropped by 22% because the city cut regulations to allow the development of new single-family homes. Austin's reforms have 'focused on boosting the supply of single-family homes by allowing developers to build as many as three units on lots that were previously restricted to one home.' Instead of following Austin's lead, elected officials in states such as California, Georgia, Indiana, and Nevada have introduced bills that apply government-mandated caps on the number of single-family rental homes an institution can own. There is no clear rationale or reasoning behind the number of homes these bills cap and which institutions they target. Some groups define a 'mega investor' as an entity owning 1,000 or more homes in an area. Some groups claim the number to be 500. The subjective nature of this legislation leaves the door open for policymakers to become stricter and stricter on these regulations with no push-back. These bills were proposed because lawmakers were led to believe that large institutions own a significant swath of single-family homes in the U.S. In 2024, the Government Accountability Office found that the five largest investors owned only about 2 percent of all single-family rental homes in the U.S.—not even 2 percent of all single-family homes. This is a minuscule number. Additionally, these bills are based on the misconception that institutional investors crowd out family homebuyers by buying up the housing supply and driving up housing prices. Data shows these assertions are patently false. After Austin implemented its reforms, the median rent declined by $400 in less than three years. In January, the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute (TCCRI) released a report debunking the notion that professionally owned homes are elevating housing prices. They found that the primary drivers of housing costs that bar families from owning homes are mortgage rates, property taxes, insurance, and burdensome local regulations. Republican proponents of these bills, such as Georgia Rep. Chuck Efstration and Fishers, Indiana Mayor Scott Fadness, should think twice before codifying government mandates that will distort the housing market. Instead of restricting providers of housing options, they should condemn big-government mandates and pass legislation encouraging the development of homes that serve as a bridge to permanent homeownership for young and lower-income families. They should also focus on more meaningful solutions to the housing affordability crisis – zoning and permitting reform, property tax relief, opening federal land for more housing, and creating more supply. It is simple economics – as supply rises, prices will fall. Policymakers should not impede private sector efforts that allow families to live in safe neighborhoods and put their kids in good schools. Now is the time to reverse the Biden administration's failed policies and make the American Dream more attainable by creating more housing options for Americans. David Williams is the president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance Foundation.
Bloomberg
13-03-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Odd Lots:Is There an Extremely Simple Fix for Affordable Housing?
Housing affordability remains one of the single greatest sources of economic stress. Even if inflation measures were to come down, the simple cost of shelter is a huge burden on a wide swathe of the population. Hardly anyone disagrees with the idea of increasing supply, but this is easier said than done. There isn't a lot of spare construction capacity and the political fights over liberalizing zoning are tedious and slow. On this episode, we speak with Kevin Erdmann, a senior affiliated scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, who proposes a simple idea. He argues that after the Great Financial Crisis, regulators over-tightened lending standards, and in so doing, took out the entire "starter home" segment of the new housing market. He says that if Fannie and Freddie were to liberalize their lending standards, homebuilders would be incentivized to build more homes that cater to people with lower incomes and lower FICO scores, essentially re-creating a whole slice of the new home market that's disappeared over the last 15 years.
