Here are the new Michigan laws that will take effect in 2024

Here are the new Michigan laws that will take effect in 2024

Quote:

---

...Making use of the first combined Democratic majority in the state House, Senate and governor’s seat in decades, legislators approved numerous bills from their agenda. Now, laws related to gun safety, minimum wage, LGBTQ+ protections, the “Right to Work” policy, and more will take effect in 2024.

Many of the bills signed into law by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer are scheduled to take effect 91 days after the Legislature adjourned for the 2023 season. Because lawmakers adjourned early on Nov. 14, 2023, many of these new laws will take effect on Feb. 13, 2024, unless otherwise stated....

---

• Gun safety laws
• LGBTQ+ civil rights protections expand
• Repeal of ‘right-to-work’ law takes effect
• Prevailing wage law reinstated
• More abortion barriers removed
• Repeal of third-grade reading law takes effect
• Minimum wage increase, but ...
• Climate action plan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Here are the new Michigan laws that will take effect in 2024

• Gun safety laws
• LGBTQ+ civil rights protections expand
• Repeal of ‘right-to-work’ law takes effect
• Prevailing wage law reinstated
• More abortion barriers removed
• Repeal of third-grade reading law takes effect
• Minimum wage increase, but ...
• Climate action plan

---

Each and every one a waist of time and tax payers dollars!

Or cost taxpayers more when the object is to create a more competitive environment that brings down taxpayer obligations.

The green energy thing hurts the city of Detroit and other cities with aging buildings that have more environmental issues that will be forced to come into compliance makes it more expensive to do projects there where it will be cheaper to demo old buildings and build new.

So it favors newer burbs or building out further,sprawl.

The forcing everybody to join the union- after saying union membership has been declining,does not address why membership has been declining,or doubling down on a problem.

Forcing companies to pay prevailing wage -union wages- For state/city government contracts removes to ability for competitive bidding,because fixed costs are fixed costs for everybody,the only way to be competitive is with the labor.

So it increased the cost to taxpayers.

Understandable that the state is a union state,but it is not the 1950s anymore and the reason union jobs are being lost in the first place,is because the jobs are gone.

So let’s double down on being a union state that has a dwindling employment base.

Let me establish a company in a state that has double the labor costs said no company ever.

What is the point of increasing pay rates while turning right around and implementing tax increases that offset the added wage increase benefit?

50% off grid by 2030? And replace it with what? Exercise equipment in the house that powers a generator?

That is what is strange about those in government in this country,they keep trying to go from one social experiment to another and when they fail it throws millions who can afford it the least under the bus and it dies not matter it takes them generations to even begin to recover.

We tried the whole "gut unions and regulations to attract new businesses" thing after 2010 and it didn't lead to the economic boom Republicans promised. I'm willing to go back to what works.

The concept was to lower wages in order to provide a competitive market and increase job growth.

So the thought pattern is to increase wages and union involvement while forcing employees to bend the knee,is going to make people and companies trip over themselves in order to move to the state and create jobs?

That mindset stopped working in the 50s,where was the union when it came to keeping those jobs in this country,other then supporting the party that shipped them overseas and created that sucking sound and the only way they can get employees is to force them into servitude if they want a job.

It did not work,that’s why they call it the rust belt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

The concept was to lower wages in order to provide a competitive market and increase job growth.

So the thought pattern is to increase wages and union involvement while forcing employees to bend the knee,is going to make people and companies trip over themselves in order to move to the state and create jobs?

That mindset stopped working in the 50s,where was the union when it came to keeping those jobs in this country,other then supporting the party that shipped them overseas and created that sucking sound and the only way they can get employees is to force them into servitude if they want a job.

It did not work,that’s why they call it the rust belt.

---

Workers who are union members have far better wages and working conditions than workers who are not union members. Period. People do not have to "bend the knee" when union membership has huge benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drjeff

Workers who are union members have far better wages and working conditions than workers who are not union members. Period. People do not have to "bend the knee" when union membership has huge benefits.

---

I guess it boils down to who you believe.

In recent decades, states with Right-To-Work [[RTW) laws have experienced higher employment
and population growth than states without such laws. We investigate the extent to which these
patterns, and other related labor market phenomena, are causally explained by these laws and
closely related policies. Using border-pair differences, we find RTW laws are associated with
a 3.2 percentage point increase in the manufacturing share of employment. This increase in
manufacturing does not merely crowd out other economic activity; we find that people who live in
RTW regions have 1.6 percentage points higher employment, 1.4 percentage points higher labor
force participation, and 0.34 percentage points lower disability receipt than residents of similar
non-RTW areas. However, wages and labor compensation do not appear to be lower on average.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ma...ht-to-work.pdf

• “Private sector employment grew by 27 percent in RTW states between 2001 and 2016, compared to 15 percent in non-RTW states.
• “On average, the annual unemployment rate in RTW states was 0.4 percentage points lower than in non-RTW states. In concrete terms, if non-RTW states had had the same unemployment rate as RTW states in 2017, approximately 249,000 more people would have been employed.

https://www.uschamber.com/employment...ce-2018-update

RTW has been studied for a long time in real life so it is not like your are implementing something brand new in order to see if it works or not.

Yes pay me or you do not get a job is akin to vote for me or you do not eat ,so yea,bend the knee.

But it now is what it is,what’s the worst that could happen during the following decades that it would take to recover should it not work.

If it works,great for Michagan and Detroit,you will have figured out how to do something 45 other states could not and will give you the competitive advantage in order to prosper.

I am not pro or anti union,I just base it on the numbers because at the end of the day,that’s what matters.

If you are not encouraging growth while looking to increase wages of the existing workforce all that you have left is squeezing the existing employees.

No different then the city of Detroit,without bringing in more residents,and as the costs increase the only thing you have left is to tax the existing residents at a higher rate, which causes more to seek different options elsewhere.

Personally my only beef with unions or maybe trying to understand, is how an organization that had so much power and influence, did so little to stop the offshoring that took away the very employees that they need to exist.

But you guys voted for this,so you will get what you want and live with the consequences good or bad,hopefully good,but what’s the worst that could happen when things do not?

That’s what it is about,finding that balance between what works or not and weighing the ramifications of each decision.

You're forgetting that Michigan was a RTW state for a decade, and we did not see this supposed population and economic boom. Cite whatever phony data you want, we were all witness to the false promise.

I actually did not create any data,I presented already available data.

What is not available is the data that shows what the city and state would be like if it was not a RTW and the question of if it would be in worse position then it is.

You get to write that data now moving forward and set the example for other states and cities to follow or not.

But you can see here how the state did go from negative job growth to positive job growth after the implementation of RTW and other factors,if you feel it is phony data,you have to bring it up with the state.

https://michigan.reaproject.org/analysis/comparative-indicators/growth_by_decade/total_employment/reports/


If you feel RTW was a false promise,what are you expecting from its removal? More jobs and population boom,Kinda like the south experienced?

When you go shopping and see two loafs of bread and one is $1 and the other is $5,which one are you going to choose.Even the buying public seeks the lower cost options.

RTW is just one piece of bread in the loaf,if it did not work in the past,maybe you were short of a full loaf.

Friday March 8 2013 was when RTW came into effect in Michigan,what you would have to do is show weather loss of jobs increased or decreased in that timeframe and compare it to what it was like before and the rate of losses or increases and if it actually slowed the job losses.

Or take the next 10 years and see if its removal has a net positive or negative impact.

You have to remember you are still a heavy automotive dependent sector,an industry that as it transitions into EVs requires 1/2 the current workforce.

It’s competitive now across the country when it comes to good paying jobs,what are your plans in order to remain competitive in the future when you need to seek employment opportunities when 1/2 your current workforce has the potential to become unemployed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

The concept was to lower wages in order to provide a competitive market and increase job growth.

---

Your honesty is refreshing for a change Richard. After all Low Wages for workers is a cornerstone of Republican ideology.

Make Michigan like Mississippi was the plan no doubt.

Always interesting that the bottom low wage states are deep Red and the top per capita income states are more Blue.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ries_by_income

Mississippi has been one of the poorest states in the country from day one,it was always a majority agriculture,so the constant using that as a dramatic example is cherry picking.

I live in a RTW state that people refer to as low wages,but yet rents are $1200 for a room,starter homes are $350 to $500k you are confusing low wages with COL. One could consider it a red state.

I compare apples to apples,I have a friend in Alabama who works for a auto manufacturer supplier,non union,owns a home,drives new cars,wife stays home to raise the kids and they live comfortably,there is little to no difference in the COL of Michigan verses Alabama.

He has the same benefits as any union worker has without having to kick back for the privilege of having the job.

What one feels about me personally is totally irrelevant,there is plenty of information and studies out there if one wants to compare.

And if one wants to be honest,you Mississippied yourself What exactly did the unions do for you when it all came crashing down ?

They can only protect you and your job,if the job actually exists and if companies preferred to locate in a union friendly state,you had everything already in place in Michigan in order to attract union friendly companies,but they choose to locate in the south.

Automakers have announced around $83 billion in EV investments and 95,000 jobs in five Southern states – Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky and North Carolina – since 2015, according to a recent report by the Environmental Defense Fund, well surpassing planned EV investments and job creation in the Midwest.Georgia attracted three of the top six projects by planned investment and the top two by planned jobs.

The South has picked up 66% of planned EV jobs, while projects in Midwestern states such as Michigan, Indiana, Kansas and Ohio have combined for 26% of planned jobs, according to S&P Global.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/20/busin...uto/index.html
So when you know buggy wheels will no longer be in demand,the best solution is to double down on making buggy wheels.

Red State - Blue State It’s irrelevant,The unions have been bleeding membership for decades and you want to structure your whole economy based on hoping the unions will make some kind of comeback,so you want to protect them.

But if there are no jobs for the workers,what is left to protect? You are more concerned about protecting the union then you are providing the people with the jobs in the first place.

Even at that lots of big businesses that were unionized went bankrupt and those jobs were lost, so how exactly did the union protect the workers?

It’s always about options,in the past when you moved forward with little options and it all crashed,the city is still struggling to recover from it decades later.

Like I posted,if you think that this is what is best for you,which clearly you do because you voted for it,you just have to understand that if it works great,if it does not,the worst that could happen is you are knocked back to square one,it’s a risky move,one that you already have experience with historically,so really no surprises as to the outcome.

Truman initially vetoed the bill when it arrived on his desk, stating that the Act would be "unfair to the working people of this country," understanding that it would serve to weaken union membership and collective bargaining power.4 In the end, Congress overturned Truman's veto.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r...towork-law.asp

It’s not a Democrat or Republican thing,considering it was a Democrat president at the time and it could be argued that he was right,union membership has weakened as has its collective bargaining power,because it’s collective/membership is smaller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheels

Each and every one a waist of time and tax payers dollars!

---

I couldn't disagree more. The Dems are in control and have been busy effectively governing.

Meanwhile the GOP in Michigan has found out that conspiracy theorists don't know how to run a party, let alone a government. Apparently parroting the same disproven election fraud theories might get you support and votes with the Republican base, but it doesn't actually do anything to move anything forward.

It's been a delicious year for progressive policies, women's rights, and for keeping religious people out of our pants. Whitmer has been an effective leader. Her goals aren't to punish her enemies, but to move this state forward.

Here's to more success in the future!

I'm never a fan of lowering academic standards for the sake of "equity" As we've done by eliminating the 3rd grade reading rules. We should keep standards high and have plenty of carrots and sticks to use on parents and educators to make sure they are met across the board.

Government talks about "green energy", solar and wind. What they don't talk about is the largest waste of energy, old buildings. Michigan is full of buildings and houses from the early and mid 20th century with poor insulation and outdated HVAC systems. Money needs to be dumped into grants for modern insulation and HVAC retrofits for everyone who owns one of these aging structures.

Those are my biggest issues with these items.

At my prior job, we burned $600,000/month to heat[[methane) and "clean" the dirty exhaust from 40 test engines. Brilliant!

Green is the new blue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gratiotfaced

You're forgetting that Michigan was a RTW state for a decade, and we did not see this supposed population and economic boom. Cite whatever phony data you want, we were all witness to the false promise.

---

Population was falling until around 2009, then began increasing through the RTW enactment:

https://usafacts.org/data/topics/peo...ate=2000-01-01


GDP increased following a similar trend:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...an-since-1997/

Median household income increased [[about what it was increasing before)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...e-in-michigan/

Total wages increased quite a bit:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MIWTOT

These are all government collected statistics, but you are free to believe whatever you want.

What happened to repealing the retirement tax? That was one of her main objectives when she ran she said. Haven't heard didley about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

What happened to repealing the retirement tax? That was one of her main objectives when she ran she said. Haven't heard didley about that.

---

Here:

Gov. Whitmer Signs Lowering MI Costs Plan into Law, Cutting Taxes by $1 Billion for Working Families and Seniors

Quote:

---

March 07, 2023....

Retirement Tax

House Bill 4001, sponsored by State Representative Angela Witwer {D-Delta Township}, amends the Income Tax Act to phase out the retirement tax over four years and ultimately deliver an average of $1,000 to 500,000 households. The bills also equalizes the exemption on both public and private pensions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scottathew

I couldn't disagree more. The Dems are in control and have been busy effectively governing.

Meanwhile the GOP in Michigan has found out that conspiracy theorists don't know how to run a party, let alone a government. Apparently parroting the same disproven election fraud theories might get you support and votes with the Republican base, but it doesn't actually do anything to move anything forward.

It's been a delicious year for progressive policies, women's rights, and for keeping religious people out of our pants. Whitmer has been an effective leader. Her goals aren't to punish her enemies, but to move this state forward.

Here's to more success in the future!

---

I agree! A great year for Michigan!

As for the comment about keeping the so-called religious folks out of our pants, the hypocrisy of those folks never ceases to amaze me. The most recent example being the now-former chairman of Richard’s Florida GQP and his “Mom’s for Liberty” wife. Apparently you’re not supposed to “say gay” in Florida but Mrs. Ziegler didn’t mind playing gay.

These new Michigan laws are discussed at 1:50.
Detroit is discussed at 7:30:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXYRJJIn_wI
How Michigan explains American politics

Quote:

---

How Republicans won Michigan, how they lost it, and what it all tells us....

---

There's a wealth of information in this video. Very well done. Very educational.

Yea, Michigan!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Here:

Gov. Whitmer Signs Lowering MI Costs Plan into Law, Cutting Taxes by $1 Billion for Working Families and Seniors

---

Thanks, appreciate the link. These changes would never happen with a Republican run Government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

Thanks, appreciate the link.

---

You're most welcome, Cincinnati_Kid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

These changes would never happen with a Republican run Government.

---

Well, not without attempting to exact a price. But we won't go there, here. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

Thanks, appreciate the link. These changes would never happen with a Republican run Government.

---

What changes ?

Michigan has 3,768,321 in the workforce,out of those they are giving 500,000 a tax break,who makes up that shortfall?

Gun safety laws,not sure about the other states but in Florida a locking device is sold with every new gun,has been for a long time.

Safe storage laws,that did not exist in Michigan were implemented years ago in Florida.

Abortion barriers removed? That’s why it was always supposed to be decided on the individual state level so the people can decide at the state level,the federal government had overstepped their bounds on that one, if that’s the path you want to go down then the system worked.

You are now free to make babies at will and throw them in the trash can like a discarded milk jug,but that’s my feelings,you guys are free to decide what yours are and as a collective that’s the choice you made as it was your right to do.

RTW - I guess you will find out,what’s the worst that could happen?

A special Gay rights bill.

last I checked gays are American citizens no different then anybody else so why do you need to create a protected status and single them out,why were you denying them their rights in the first place ?

As a refresher Republicans have always been for small government with less intrusion and more conservative fiscal policies.

So to say none of that would pass in a Republican state is a mixed bag,because a lot of it actually did years ago but at the end of the day the people decide and in the red state I live in 320,000 moved to between 2021-2022.

320,000 From California alone other states,when you start having the massive population shifts as we have seen in the last few years,it was not because people got bored and decided to move.

87% of the growth in the U.S. in people moving was to the South and RTW and polices that you say would never happen if it was Republican.

It’s not a Red thing or Blue thing,people have minds and are capable of deciding for themselves,if the Republican policies or mindset was as bad as you imply then the exact opposite would be happening as people move.

It’s the policies that people support and how they affect their daily lives.

Who wears the suit or dress is totally irrelevant.

You can have a Democrat state or city with good policies,as there are a couple that actually exist,alongside of hens teeth,just as you can have a Republican state or city that has good policies,but at the end of the day the individual people decide and they have a habit of deciding with their feet.

Detroit as a city is currently being run as a good example of a democrat city,in the rule of law with good fiscal policies so it is possible.

Going back to the RTW social experiment ,so what was the intent in its reversal?

To protect the existing jobs versus looking for ways to increase the job base?

To increase the employment base in a manufacturing industry that is a majority of older people that are retiring out and not being re-placed?

It’s going down a path that no other states have gone,but whose to say that it will create more job opportunities in the state or not,sink or swim you guys are going to find out.

But it is a slow moving machine and it will take a few years to really know the impact,but it is in a sense like throwing all of your cards in the pot and hoping for the best ,that’s why nobody else has reversed it.

Because when you do not give people an option,they will have no other choice but to leave.

Ford said you can buy any car in any color that you like,as long as it is black,but interesting enough when other manufacturers started offering different colors and Ford started losing customers to them,they changed the policy.

But how many of those customers returned to Ford after they offered more choices,we do not know but they sure list a lot of market share in the process as more competition came into the scene.

Michigan has a 91.8% high school graduation rate,that’s nothing to sneeze at,so why lower the standards,you are never going to achieve 100%.

Not to thread hijack, but.................

Whenever I read about the Michigan Legislature doing this or doing that or doing nothing, it makes me so happy that I moved to Nevada nearly forty years back when I retired from the DPD. First off, of course, I'm tickled pink to be still alive. But to my original thought..........

Nevada's state legislature only meets for for four months in odd number years. In those four months, it seems they can do but minimal damage to their constituents, contrary to the perpetual mess in Lansing.

FWIW, property taxes are bottom low, and there is no friggin' state income tax.

I should start a web page named NevadaYes, methinks.