One step in the right direction
Michigan is the 24th state to pass a right-to-work law, keeping workers from having to join a labor union or pay union dues in order to work in unionized businesses. This is a step in the direction of economic freedom, a competitive labor market and a pro-growth policy agenda.
The rationale for right-to-work laws is not grounded in ideological opposition to unions; nothing in right-to-work laws prevents workers from joining unions or keeps unions from bargaining collectively. These laws merely reflect the reality that states with right-to-work laws have more robust personal income growth, lower unemployment and greater opportunities for younger workers.
It's perfectly sensible that states that want to see their economies grow should enact right-to-work laws. But the privilege of unions to extract money from workers' paychecks is far from the only special preference granted by state policy.
Our economy is chock full of similar legal preferences that benefit particular entrenched interests, from unions to politically-connected operators. Too frequently, state-level policy does more to reward political connection and support special interests than encourage a real culture of competition.
Take the corporate welfare that too many states hand out under the guise of being “pro-business.”
According to a recent analysis by The New York Times, states provide more than $80 billion a year in so-called “business incentives.” The great majority of these are simply giveaways to political allies or favored economic sectors.
At the federal level, almost $100 billion is given away annually in corporate welfare, according to a study by Cato Institute analyst Tad DeHaven — and that doesn't include many Obama administration policies, such as the auto bailout. This represents an egregious affront to competitive, free markets.
Consider two other widespread instances of government policies that benefit small groups at the expense of consumers, workers and taxpayers: occupational licensing laws and anti-competitive education policies.
A recent study by the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, finds that in the 1950s, one in 20 U.S. workers was subject to occupational licensing requirements, a figure that today stands at almost one in three.
Likewise, our education system has for too long been protected against meaningful competition.
As my American Enterprise Institute colleague Rick Hess has written about extensively, our school systems can be actively hostile to the educational entrepreneurship that develops and executes new forms of school organization and teaching. Far too much state education policy erects barriers to educational innovation, particularly with respect to the for-profit sector, rather than encouraging and embracing it.
In the economy and elsewhere, lawmakers should think about how to remove barriers to competition rather than try to pick winners to subsidize. They should simplify tax codes and regulation rather than creating special exemptions and loopholes. They should make it easier, not harder, for entrepreneurs to start and expand businesses and create jobs.
Right-to-work laws are an important step to bringing competition to labor markets and creating more growth and economic opportunity. But they are only part of the answer.
Arthur C. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute (aei.org) and author of “The Road To Freedom” (Basic Books).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- CDC’s misinformation spreads faster than Ebola virus
- Syrian border town emerges as pivot point in Islamic State fight
- Pirates must weigh risk, reward in attempt to sign Martin
- Starkey: Chryst missed his only shot
- Harlan: Central Catholic’s Petrishen won’t rush decision
- Pittsburgh Mills mall stability questioned
- Penguins’ Crosby OK with Neal comments about trade
- Tech companies lay claim to ‘Silicon Beach’
- Penn State succumbs to No. 13 Ohio State in double overtime
- Real estate notes: Hotel going up in Chippewa; CSX honored
- Steelers notebook: Ex-Steeler Sanders living up to his word