I‘m a big fan of data-driven website like fivethirtyeight.com. But sometimes the data doesn’t seem to back up the analysis.
Example: a blog post by Ben Casselman headlined “Americans don’t miss manufacturing — they miss unions.” “There are substantial variations” in average manufacturing wages, Casselman writes. The proof? “The average manufacturing production worker in Michigan earns $20.80 an hour, vs. $18.86 in South Carolina, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”
Does that sound like a “substantial variation”? Yes, the Michigan figure is 10 percent above that of South Carolina, but that difference is sure to shrink (or even vanish?) if you account for the lower cost of living in lower in South Carolina. Also, are union dues deducted from hourly wages? If so, the difference would be at least a little lower, since as Casselman points out 23 percent of manufacturing production workers in Michigan were union members, compared to 2 percent in South Carolina.
If you go back in history, I think you will find much, much greater regional differences in wages between North and South. You can make the argument that unions are a terrific benefit for workers, but you also have to grapple with the fact that almost no one is creating more unionized jobs, and there’s probably a reason for that. None of the foreign-based auto manufacturers has built a major plant in relatively highly unionized Michigan, for example, with the exception of a single joint venture with Ford.
