Unions Again

I responded in the comments, but I thought it might get buried.

Linda Kennedy said...

"...Contrary to business propaganda, unions are good for the economy. A recent study by the nonprofit Economic Roundtable found that union workers in Los Angeles County earn 27 percent more than nonunion workers in the same job. The increased wages for the 800,000 union workers -- 17 percent of the labor force -- adds $7.2 billion a year in pay. As these workers spend their wages on food, clothing, child care, car and home repairs, and other items, their additional buying power creates 64,800 jobs and $11 billion in economic output. Many economists argue that any strategy Obama and Congress use to revitalize the economy should make higher wages -- and stronger unions -- a centerpiece..."
from Why We Need EFCA http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=why_we_need_efca

That's really bad economic analysis, even if true and I have no reason to believe it isn't. It ignores what Larry Summers was talking about, which is the number of people who were not employed because of unionization, and also the increased economic output from that additional employment of people. So, I'm wondering how could two economists make such a fundamental mistake in analysis? Well, Peter Dreier is a politics professor and "Kelly Candaele is a writer, filmmaker and elected official in Los Angeles." Now, I obviously don't think everybody writing about economic issues has to have a PhD in econ, but these two are motivated by politics and justifying unionization and therefore are ignoring a huge economic consequence of unionization, which undermines their claim that unions are good for the economy.