Introduction

‘Job Killers’ Why They Matter  72 Tax Increases, Fees, and Mandates introduced in 2024 If Passed $37.2 billion+ Potential increased taxes, fees, and costs $300 million+ Tax increases $9.5 Billion Smaller Arizona economy if it had grown like Colorado since 2019

Every year in Arizona, legislators introduce hundreds of bills, most of which are never enacted. In 2024, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry (“Arizona Chamber”) identified 72 “Job Killer” bills which would have imposed substantial new taxes, costs, or administrative burdens on Arizona businesses – up from 67 in 2023. Ultimately, none of these bills were enacted, and the story has been similar for years. But this raises the question: what would happen to the state’s economy and business environment had some or even all these bills been passed into law? Continuing research begun last year, CSI Arizona has again partnered with the Arizona Chamber to analyze the expected impact some of these bills could have, had they become law. The Arizona success story of the past decade was growth-driven; we rely on our affordability and business-friendly regulatory environment to support our economy. Poorly considered legislation to micromanage our economy jeopardizes that success. Bills like those studied here are being shopped at state legislatures across the country, and many of them have been introduced annually at the Arizona Legislature. Though they have not moved in the past, the lesson of California, Colorado, and Michigan’s anti-business policy transformations over the past half-decade shows that climates can change quickly. Notably, as large as our estimated impacts are, their true effects are likely understated – only 20 of the bills analyzed were sufficiently clear in their policy implications that we attempted to directly estimate their economic effects. The other 52 would have costs but they’re not precisely estimated in this report.

 

Key Findings

• $37.2 billion+: The estimated economic impact of just 20 of this year’s 72 ‘job killers’ introduced at the Arizona Legislature. We continue to see the same bills introduced year after year, and in state after state – often pushed by large out-of-state interests. For example, a right-to-work-repeal was again introduced in Arizona this year, while Michigan became the first state in decades to enact such a repeal.
• $9.5 billion: The economic growth over just the last five years Arizona would have foregone had it chosen a path more like Colorado. For context, this is nearly 2% of the state’s entire economy. In general, states that pass legislation restricting economic dynamism grow more slowly than those that don’t.

 

A Tale of Two States

Figure 1

Prior to 2019, Arizona and Colorado were on very similar growth trajectories. Besides being regional neighbors, the two states in 1990 were peers in terms of population, economy, and political environment. That close relationship would persist for more than two decades. In 1990, Arizona had 3.7 million residents; Colorado was 10% smaller. By 2015 Arizona’s population had increased 86%; Colorado by a comparable 65%. Between 1990 and 2015 Colorado’s labor market would expand at an average rate of 2.1%/year, versus 2.4%/year in neighboring Arizona.

Figure 2

 

Similarly, Gross Domestic Product in the two states has historically shared similar growth trajectories. In fact, during the 2000’s, Colorado grew faster than Arizona. The combined trials of the Great Recession (which was particularly hard on Arizona) and the American fracking revolution and commodity price surge (particularly valuable to Colorado with its rich supply of oil and gas) shifted Colorado’s growth trajectory relative to Arizona over the first 15 years of the 21^st Century. Between 2000 and 2015, Colorado’s real Gross Domestic Product grew at an average rate of 1.9%/year versus just 0.7%/year in Arizona. After 2015, though, something remarkable happens here and Arizona’s growth outlook shifts dramatically. Average annual output nearly quintuples to 3.2%/year, and since 2019, Arizona’s economy has grown faster than Colorado’s (3.7% and 3.3%, respectively^[i]). Over the past five years, cumulative real economic growth in Arizona has been 20% larger in Arizona than in . This raises two key research questions:

• What happened in Arizona beginning approximately 10 years ago? Why did the state shift to a much higher growth trajectory than it had experienced previously, and what lessons can we draw from a public policy perspective?
• Why wasn’t this change uniform across states? For example, while U.S. manufacturing employment reversed decades of decline after enactment of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act in 2017, California’s manufacturing sector has been effectively flat since, while Arizona’s has grown by 20%.

Figure 3

 

Given our focus, CSI has spent considerable time looking at the specific performance of Arizona and Colorado. More recently, this lens has expanded to include Iowa and Oregon. But it's important to note that this is not an isolated phenomenon. In general, since 2017, growth in the United States has accelerated, but the trend has been uneven. Like the gradual decline of the Rust Belt before, the recent period has been marked by significant disparities, but unlike then, these are less clearly regional but certainly policy related. The five states that have grown the fastest since 2017 – Idaho, Utah, Florida, Texas, and Arizona – all share a common pro-growth local policy agenda: lower taxes; smaller government; and reduced regulatory burden [ii][iii][iv][v][vi]. Seventy percent of all economic growth in the United States since 2017 occurred in just 15 states, and controlling for the size of their economies, only 19 states grew faster than they would have been expected to grow given their positions seven years ago. For example, though it was about 14% of the entire U.S. economy in 2017, California captured just 13.5% of all U.S. economic growth since; Texas was 8.5% of the U.S. economy but captured 12% of all growth.

Figure 4

 

The aggressive pursuit of economic growth and adoption of deliberate pro-business policies in Arizona – something CSI has highlighted extensively in its research, including last year’s inaugural edition of its ‘job killers’ report – has moved it quickly from a relatively poor state to one that is above-average in terms of the size of its economy and the income of its households. This transition hasn’t been painless; rapid growth and development have made the local housing market one of the hottest in the country. Prices in the greater Phoenix area increased faster than anywhere else in the country since 2019. But overall, the results are clear: while federal policy unlocks the opportunity for growth, states must actively capture that growth by making wise policy choices. More recently, Virginia has also chosen a new direction. After lagging the nation and more competitive states for cumulative economic growth for most of the last decade, that state has more recently been aggressive in repositioning itself as business- and growth-friendly. For example, Virginia is attempting to decouple from California’s emissions standards, which would have effectively required all new car sales to be zero-emission (or electric) by 2035.[vii] Though it is too soon to say unequivocally that the state has shifted to a higher-growth trajectory, some early evidence of success is emerging: manufacturing job growth has roughly doubled recently relative to pre-pandemic trends, and new business formation is up 50%. Both are promising indicators.

Figure 5

 

Colorado, on the other hand, continues to move backwards. By our latest count, CSI has identified 16 ‘job killing’ bills that have been enacted in Colorado since 2019, up from 13 last year. Most recently, Colorado enacted its “Railroad Safety Act”, which imposed various new requirements on its railroad transportation sector.[viii] These new requirements have real economic consequences, not just for Colorado but regionally as well. About a third of all commercial cargo in the United States is transported by rail[ix], and for some heavier commodities the shares are even larger (three-fourths of all new cars and trucks are moved by rail, as is 70% of coal)[x]. The decision to impose these new requirements was made despite an over 40% reduction in the railroad accident rate since 2000, according to the American Association of Railroads. The changing fortunes of Colorado’s natural resources sector remain a striking lesson for policymakers elsewhere. Like the manufacturing sector in California, there are natural and structural advantages Colorado enjoys in this space. But too much policy abuse can poison even the most productive well.[xi] Since 2019 and its adoption of strict oil and gas industry regulation, job growth in Colorado’s natural resources sector has slowed by more than 160% compared to the five years prior. As we’ve identified elsewhere, migration trends follow state policy trends. Since 2019, Arizona has attracted more than 6 times as many annual domestic migrants as Colorado on average. Arizona’s overall economic growth and labor market, and particularly its manufacturing sector, has remained strong since 2019, weathering both the pandemic, global economic disruption, and slowing U.S. economic growth since 2022. Had Arizona gone in another policy direction more comparable to that of neighboring peer Colorado, and its growth over the past five years mirrored Colorado’s, CSI estimates that Arizona would be considerably less economically competitive:

What if Arizona had grown more like Colorado since 2019?

114,900 Fewer workers in Arizona today, or 3.5% of the state’s workforce. That works out to $10 billion in foregone annual earnings for impacted workers.

$9.5B Lost real Arizona GDP, or 2.6% of the state’s entire economy. Businesses respond creatively to regulatory burdens to minimize economic impacts, often by moving activity.

 

The 2024 Arizona ‘Job Killers’ List

‘Job Killers’ By the Numbers  72 Tax Increases, Fees, and Mandates Introduced in 2023 $37.2 billion+ New Business Operating Costs 540,000 Jobs Lost $52 billion Annual Decrease in State GDP

In partnership with the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, CSI Arizona identified 72 bills introduced during the 2024 Arizona regular legislative session that were either substantial tax increases, labor cost increases, new legal and administrative burdens, or other new fees and operating restrictions for Arizona businesses. Ultimately none of the bills on this list were enacted. However, the introduction and consideration of this and similar legislation is an annual exercise, and the trend (to consideration and passage from non-consideration) can change quickly. For example, in Colorado and since 2019, at least 16 similar sweeping regulatory bills like those identified this year by the Arizona Chamber have been enacted. Another half dozen or so are under active consideration, and while several more have failed, each year they or similar bills are re-introduced.  To implement these legislative mandates, Colorado’s rulemaking agencies have created more than 11,000 new rules and administrative procedures in just the past half decade.^[xii] An initial econometric analysis using CSI’s REMI simulation software suggests enactment of the 72 bills identified and tracked by the Arizona Chamber would have imposed at least $37.2 billion in new annual costs on Arizona^[1]. These new costs could reduce Arizona employment by 540,000 jobs (-12%); reduce real per-capita personal income by up to $3,800/year (-5%); and reduce real state Gross Domestic Product by $52 billion (-12%). Of course, this analysis assumes sudden and simultaneous enactment of every possible new severe rule and regulation introduced which is arguably implausible. But enacting just a few of the introduced proposals could have dramatic results for the state’s short- and long-run growth prospects. To reiterate: since 2019, Colorado has enacted only a handful of bills directly comparable to those introduced in Arizona and examined by CSI, but the change in its economic trajectory relative to Arizona is worth approximately 3.5% of this state’s workforce (nearly 115,000 jobs) and 2.6% of the state’s entire economy ($9.5 billion in real annual Gross Domestic Product).

 

Tax Increases

There were seven bills introduced during the 2024 legislative session that would have created new or significantly increased existing taxes on individuals and businesses. CSI estimates the total tax increase would have been more than $300 million. Interestingly, the volume of potential tax increases introduced this year was much fewer – both in number and scope – than previously. This may speak to the political rather than substantive policy-related sensitivity of legislation like this, which is often introduced in response to trends of the moment than an underlying need to fix a clear and ongoing policy problem.  Last year, topics like wealth taxes and rolling back the flat income tax were popular in the commentariat; today they’ve faded behind other more current issues, and the success of tax reform is harder to argue with.

Corporate Income Tax $272.3 million

Other Taxes $37.5 million

  Substantive tax increases introduced this year included:

 

Elimination of single sales factor for corporate income

$234.8 million Because corporations generally don’t limit operations to a single state, they are required to use relatively complex formulas to assign income to different states for the purpose of paying tax. Those assignments impact business and investment decisions, especially if they increase liability when a company expands productive operations. To reduce investment disincentives, three-fourths of states with a Corporate Income Tax overweight or single-weight the sales factor. HB2296 would have rolled back Arizona’s single-weight sales factor formula, reducing tax incentives to invest here.

 

$1,000 minimum Corporate Income Tax

$37.5 million Generally, taxpayers only pay a tax when they realize sales or income from a taxable activity – there are few if any poll or head taxes in the modern United States. However, Corporate Income Taxpayers are required to make a $50 minimum payment if their liability would be less (or zero). HB2840 increases that minimum tax to $1,000 – creating substantial tax liability even if the business is not generating any significant income.

 

Prohibition of new taxes or fees based on vehicle miles driven

Indeterminate SCR1002 – which would have prohibited the state from levying new taxes based on vehicle miles driven – is an example of when well-meaning tax cutters can unintentionally harm a state’s competitive position. Increasing fuel efficiency and the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles is impacting the ability of states and the federal government to reliably generate revenue traditionally dedicated to building and maintaining road infrastructure (via motor vehicle fuel taxes). It is also clear that these impacts are disproportionate. In general, owners of fuel efficient and electric vehicles are wealthier than the average driver. The existence of the Voter Protection Act and the general difficulty of changing voter-approved measures after their enactment – combined with the empirical reality above – demand caution as policymakers examine the best way to tax road use and fund its maintenance and improvement. Additional bills with components that increase state taxes and fees are identified in the full table of ‘job killers’ that accompanies this report.  

 

Labor Cost Increases

There were twelve bills introduced during the 2024 legislative session and identified by the Arizona Chamber as imposing new costs or mandates on how employers and employees interact. CSI estimates the total economic cost of these new labor regulations would exceed $26 billion. While many of these bills would have imposed potentially small or indeterminate new costs on employers, four have the potential to be particularly destructive to the Arizona economy, including the return of a particularly dangerous change: repeal of right-to-work, which has been Arizona law since 1947 and protects the rights of both employers and employees when it comes to union relationships. Bills considered and rejected by the Arizona Legislature this year would pre-empt negotiation over broad swaths of the employer-employee relationship, including work schedules, wage and salary negotiations, the relationship between franchisers and franchisees, and more. If enacted, evidence from other neighboring states (California, Colorado, New Mexico, and others) tells us these requirements could dramatically slow employment and productivity growth in Arizona. CSI Colorado has identified over a dozen new employment-related regulatory policy changes created since 2019[xiii]. And this year, Michigan became the first state in six decades to repeal its right-to-work law[xiv], a reminder that, like with the modern return of rent control rules, without constant reminder we risk forgetting the lessons of history and repeating past mistakes. These regulations can be particularly insidious because they privatize the costs of public regulation, often hiding the consequences from the public and policymakers.

 

Repeal of Right-to-Work

$18.6 billion HB2110 would have repealed Arizona’s 70-year-old right-to-work law, which gives workers the freedom to choose whether to join a labor organization at their new employer. In states without such protections, labor unions can require employers to operate “closed shops” where the employer agrees to hire only union members. A 2021 Harvard study notes “states with Right-To-Work (RTW) laws have experienced higher employment and population growth than states without such laws”^[xv].  CSI assumes – based on this and other similar research – that repeal of right-to-work in Arizona would after 10 years reduce the manufacturing share of employment by 3.2%; reduce overall employment by 1.6%; and reduce economic migration by 0.11%. Using the REMI simulation software^[xvi], CSI estimates HB2110 would have reduced Arizona’s employment by 3.9% and real Gross Domestic Product by 4.0% in 2033 (relative to its baseline). By imposing between $15 and $18 billion in new costs on Arizona businesses, the repeal of right-to-work is estimated to have the single largest negative economic impact of any of the approximately 20 proposals specifically quantified by CSI.

 

Minimum Wage Increases

$2.2 billion+ Arizona already has one of the highest minimum wages in the country – at $14.35/hour, it is the seventh highest in the country and nearly double the federal minimum.[xvii] The current minimum wage is voter-protected and has been raised repeatedly at the ballot box over several years. It is also already indexed to the Consumer Price Index and has risen rapidly as a result. There is broad consensus among academic economists that the minimum wage reduces employment and productivity growth, and harms long-run economic growth.[xviii] Though it may benefit minimum-wage earners who remain employed, it results in fewer workers overall, and fewer hours for those that remain.[xix] Arizona’s latest round of proposed hikes – one of which is likely to appear on the ballot in November – could be particularly harmful to a segment of the labor market many young people are particularly dependent on, by eliminating the current exemption for tipped workers.

 

Scheduling, Break, and Overtime Standards

$3.8 billion HB2797 would tighten already-existing federal and state rules that regulate employee schedules and overtime pay. Among other things, it would require employers to provide unpaid meal breaks even though employees may, for example, prefer to work through their mealtimes in exchange for shorter work days or higher compensation. Rigid statutory rules make it harder for employees and employers to negotiate mutually beneficial agreements that rule makers often fail to anticipate. This rigidity and efficiency loss imposes economic costs that should be considered before policies like this are enacted. Additional bills with components that increase labor and hiring costs are identified in the full table of ‘job killers’ that accompanies this report.  

 

Energy and Environmental Cost Increases

Of the 72 bills tracked by the Arizona Chamber, CSI identified 12 as dealing with energy and environmental regulation. CSI estimates the total economic cost of these new environmental regulations would exceed $700 million. Environmental rules are already a significant regulatory burden on American industry. In aggregate, it is estimated that nearly 2% of Gross Domestic Product is spent on compliance with existing state and federal environmental protection regulations.^[xx] A meta-analysis of 12 Colorado statewide energy and environment policies enacted or considered since 2019 identified approximately $1 billion in new annual compliance costs for that state’s businesses, and Colorado has created at least 55 new energy and environmental regulatory policies since 2019.[xxi] And Arizona has recently restricted housing development in parts of Maricopa County as part of well-intentioned regulation of groundwater use.

 

New fees for use of groundwater for Agriculture

Up to $2.7B Agriculture is a historical cornerstone of the state’s economy (three of its so-called “five C’s” are agricultural products). According to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, 72% of the state's water is used by the agricultural sector. But this sector is also vital to the state’s economy: it contributes about $4 billion to State GDP, and approximately 70% of that contribution is enabled by the use of groundwater. Arizona’s climate makes it one of the only places in the world able to grow crops like lettuce during the winter season.[xxii] If not well thought out, new rules and fees like those proposed in SB1106 threaten that industry. Additional bills with components that increase energy and environmental costs are identified in the full table of ‘job killers’ that accompanies this report.

 

Administrative and Legal Cost Increases

CSI and the Arizona Chamber identified 40 of the ‘job k’ bills as imposing new legal and administrative compliance burdens on Arizona businesses. CSI estimates the total economic cost of these new general administrative regulations would exceed $9 billion. A perennial favorite for regulators and policymakers, this year we saw particular interest in imposing new rules and regulations on the state's housing and rental markets. Though well intentioned as a way to address high shelter costs, which have risen faster in the Phoenix area than anywhere else in the country, we know policies that limit the ability of the market to respond to rising housing demand can over time destroy cities.

 

Rent Control

$2.1 billion+ HB2707 would cap annual increases in rent at 70% over the prior year for most residential units in Arizona. Largely disappearing from state and local policymaking after being discredited in the 1970’s, rent control policies have enjoyed a recent resurgence. However, there is broad and well-documented economic consensus that these policies are especially destructive to affected rental markets and tend to reduce both the quality and supply of available housing.^[xxiii] Famously, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw called rent control “the best way to destroy a city, other than bombing”. Our impact analysis applies this existing research to the Arizona rental market to estimate the potential economic losses such a policy might impose on the states housing market.

 

Railroad Train Length

$27 million+ Proof that states tend to be subject to national trends pushed by out-of-state interests, Arizona joined Colorado in considering new restrictions on commercial rail traffic in this state. Unlike in Colorado, the legislation did not move here. However, had it, the new regulations would have increased logistics costs across the supply chain at a time when producers and consumers are already struggling with high prices, and despite the track record of safety for Arizona’s railroads.

 

Mandatory “Cash Pay”

$2.5 billion HB2631 would have required Arizona retailers with at least one “physical location” to accept cash for payment on transactions of less than $100. The introduction of this bill in Arizona follows a national trend of states considering and enacting mandatory cash payment options (including Colorado in 2021[xxiv]). However, these well-intentioned mandates often fail to consider the tradeoffs inherent in a business’s decision to accept or refuse any form of payment, particularly on the margin. Accepting cash is not costless. A business must purchase cash counting and storing equipment; hire staff to transport the staff from the business to its bank for deposit; account for losses due to accidental or deliberate mishandling; and account for the cost of the additional time required to process cash transactions. According to one industry study, administrative costs of accepting cash range from 4.7% to 15.3% per transaction, depending on the size and efficiency of the business’s cash operation. For context, credit card processing fees typically range from 1% to 3%[xxv], and cashless pay options (like Square) typically charge fees in the 3.5% range. Further, recall these are average costs. At the margin, costs can be much higher. A business traditionally set up to handle only cash transactions could have very high marginal costs associated with beginning to accept a small number of relatively low-dollar credit card transactions. Conversely, a business handling only cashless payments newly required to accept cash faces thousands of dollars in startup and ongoing costs to process (potentially) very few net new cash transactions – it must purchase new equipment, devote time to staff training and security and compliance, and develop new account relationships with its financial partners. Policymakers should consider that no business decision is made in a vacuum and no successful business deliberately excludes a potential customer.

 

Family & Medical Leave Coverage

$3.9 billion A now annual exercise in Arizona, state-funded and mandated leave programs have been popular in recent years. Seventeen states, including Colorado, have enacted these kinds of programs.[xxvi] Various studies have linked the programs and the taxes that fund them to increased costs of doing business and reduced economic output. For example, a 2019 study by CSI Colorado estimated the cost of that state's new mandatory family leave program at $1.3 billion annually.[xxvii]

 

Arizona Commerce Authority Repeal

$583 million+ The Arizona Commerce Authority is the state’s central economic development and business recruitment office. It administers various tax and incentive programs designed to promote and grow Arizona businesses. Without considering the function of those programs in its absence, legislation that repeals the Authority is an effective tax increase on up to thousands of Arizona businesses, including many of the approximately 400 taxpayers who use the state's large and economically productive Research & Development tax credit program. Additional bills with components that increase administrative and legal costs are identified in the full table of ‘job killers’ that accompanies this report.

 

The Bottom Line

Policy continues to matter. The lessons from California, Colorado, and more recently Michigan should give lawmakers and voters pause. Well-intentioned legislation often comes with significant costs, and these costs may not always be clear or obvious. On the other hand, good policy that protects and promotes the free-enterprise system and the rights of individuals to enter into mutually beneficial private agreements can lead to rapid and shared economic growth that benefits everyone. Arizona’s transition over the past decade is proof of this. More recently, ongoing changes in Virginia, Utah, Florida, and elsewhere provide further support.  

 

Appendix 1: ‘Job Killers’ Bill List

 

Appendix 2: ‘Job Killers’ Bill Impact Source List

Arizona Department of Revenue, Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Report, https://azdor.gov/sites/default/files/media/REPORTS_ANNUAL_2022_ASSETS_fy22_annual_report.pdf Arizona Department of Revenue, The Revenue Impact of Arizona’s Tax Expenditures Fiscal Year 2022, https://azdor.gov/sites/default/files/media/REPORTS_EXPENDITURES_2022_fy22-preliminary-tax-expenditure-report.pdf Arizona Department of Revenue, https://azdor.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/REPORTS_CREDITS_2023_Arizona-Credit_History_Official-Release.pdf Joint Legislative Budget Committee, https://www.azjlbc.gov/revenues/23taxbk.pdf Joint Legislative Budget Committee, Fiscal Note on SB1164 2011, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/fiscal/sb1164.doc.pdf Manhattan Institute, https://manhattan.institute/article/costs-and-benefits-of-source-of-income-discrimination-laws#notes Journal of Public Economics, http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fichiers/enseig/ecoineg/articl/Susin2002.pdf Route Fifty, https://www.route-fifty.com/finance/2024/05/why-income-discrimination-laws-hurt-poor-renters/396559/ Joint Legislative Budget Committee, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2R/fiscal/HB2274.DOCX.pdf Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes330000.htm American Action Forum, https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/state-level-costs-of-the-protecting-the-right-to-organize-act/ NERA Economic Consulting, https://www.nera.jp/content/nera/en/publications/archive/2018/nera-economists-comment-on-the-economic-evidence-supporting-righ.html Society of Labor Economists, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/719690 Arizona Commerce Authority, https://www.azcommerce.com/programs/ National Mining Association, https://nma.org/attachments/article/2372/11.13.15%20NMA_EPAs%20Clean%20Power%20Plan%20%20An%20Economic%20Impact%20Analysis.pdf Joint Legislative Budget Committee, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2R/fiscal/HB2436.DOCX.pdf Arizona State Senate Research Staff, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2R/summary/S.2471GOV_STRIKERMEMO_ASPASSEDCOMMITTEE.pdf The Journalist’s Resources, https://journalistsresource.org/economics/rent-control-regulation-studies-to-know/ Bureau of Economic Analysis, https://apps.bea.gov/itable/index.html?appid=70&stepnum=40&Major_Area=3&State=0&Area=XX&TableId=600&Statistic=4&Year=2023&YearBegin=-1&Year_End=-1&Unit_Of_Measure=Levels&Rank=1&Drill=1&nRange=5 United States Census, https://www.census.gov/retail/sales.html Plains Capital Bank, https://www.plainscapital.com/blog/the-cost-of-accepting-cash/ International Franchise Association, https://www.franchise.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/2024%20Franchising%20Economic%20Report.pdf Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure, https://www.aii.org/a-longer-view-on-longer-trains-part-2-costs/ Stilt, https://www.stilt.com/careers/how-much-does-uber-pay/ AAA, https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/ U.S. Department of Energy, https://tedb.ornl.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/TEDB_Ed_40.pdf Association of American Railroads, https://www.aar.org/data-center/railroads-states/ United States Department of Agriculture, https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Arizona/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/2021/AZAnnualBulletin2021.pdf Arizona Mining Association, https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Arizona/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/2021/AZAnnualBulletin2021.pdf U.S. Energy Information Administration, https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=AZ Arizona State Senate Staff, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2R/summary/S.1479MAPS_ASPASSEDCOMMITTEE.pdf Joint Legislative Budget Committee, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2R/fiscal/SB1498.DOCX.pdf Arizona Corporation Commission, https://azcc.gov/docs/default-source/utilities-files/electric/annual-reports/arizona-public-service-company/arizona-public-service-(aps).pdf?sfvrsn=80e95bd2_3 City of Scottsdale, https://str.scottsdaleaz.gov/ Arizona Department of Revenue, https://azdor.gov/sites/default/files/document/PROPERTY_2024_AbstractAssessmentRoll.pdf [1] CSI’s analysis was limited to ~20 bills that directly increase taxes or fees in Arizona, repeal right-to-work, increase the minimum wage, or otherwise directly and quantifiably impact the cost of doing business. The fiscal impacts of these specific proposals were either readily identifiable (in the case of direct tax and fee impacts), or generally quantifiable using existing academic research (in the case of minimum wage increases and the repeal of right-to-work). The remaining proposals would impose additional burdens and those burdens would have associated costs but were not readily estimable for this report. The economic impacts cited should be considered conservative.

[i] “GDP by State”, Bureau of Economic Analysis, March 31, 2023.

[ii] “Idaho leads in economic rebound”, Office of the Governor, September 18, 2020.

[iii] Adams, Stuart & Jonathan Williams, “Opinion: How Utah has had the nation’s best economy for 15 straight years”, Deseret News, April 20, 2022.

[iv] Dean, Grace, “Tech jobs, sun, and no income tax”, Business Insider, May 21, 2021.

[v] Holmes, Frank, “Business-Friendly Policies Drive Corporate Relocations to Texas”, Forbes, July 22, 2024.

[vi] “Rich States, Poor States”, American Legislative Exchange Council, accessed on July 23, 2024.

[vii] Moomaw, Graham, “Youngkin says Virginia won’t follow California’s clean car standards anymore”, Virginia Mercury, June 5, 2024.

[viii] “HB 24-1030 Final Fiscal Note”, Legislative Services for Colorado’s Legislature, July 2, 2024.

[ix] “How Much Freight Ships by Rail in the US?”, Union Pacific, June 1, 2021.

[x] “Data Center”, Association of American Railroads, accessed on July 23, 2024.

[xi] Pehling, Dave, “Elon Musk says X, SpaceX headquarters will relocate to Texas from California”, MSN.com, July 16, 2024.

[xii] “State RegData” Mercatus Center, 2020. [xiii] Sias, Lang, “Assessing Colorado’s Economic Competitiveness: Mounting Cost of Labor and Environmental Policy”. Common Sense Institute, April 18, 2023.

[xiv] Nichols, John, “Michigan Just Became the First State in 6 Decades to Scrap an Infamous Anti-Union Law”, The Nation, February 16, 2024.

[xv] Austin, Benjamin & Matthew Lilley, “The Long-Run Effects of Right to Work Laws”, Harvard University, November 16, 2021.

[xvi] “REMI Tax-PI”, REMI, accessed on June 6, 2023 [xvii] Coles, Jason, “Arizona State Minimum Wage”, Foreign USA, February 2, 2024.

[xviii] Neumark, David & Wascher, William, “Minimum Wages”, MIT Press, August 13, 2010.

[xix] Editorial Board, “California’s Minimum Wage Backfire”, The Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2024.

[xx] Pizer, William & Raymond Kopp, “Calculating the Costs of Environmental Regulation”, Resources for the Future, March 2003.

[xxi] “New Energy Laws & Regulations to Comply with HB19-1261 Climate Action Plan to Reduce Pollution Since 2019”, Common Sense Institute, March 6, 2023.

[xxii] Rangel, Alexandra, “Harvest begins in Yuma, the winter lettuce capital of the world”, Arizona’s Family, November 27, 2023.

[xxiii] “Rent Control in the United States”, Wikipedia, Accessed June 6, 2023.

[xxiv] Manuel, Obed, “Your Money Is Good Here: Colorado Retailers Must Soon Accept Your Cash As Payment, Or Face a Penalty”, CPR News, May 12, 2021.

[xxv] Daly, Lyle, “Average Credit Card Processing Fees and Costs”, The Ascent, March 9, 2023.

[xxvi] Davis, Jon, “Paid family leave laws: A state-by-state guide”, onpay, June 26, 2024.

[xxvii] Strunk, Lisa et. al., “Proposition 118: A Statewide Paid Family and Medical Leave Program for Colorado but At What Cost?”, Common Sense Institute Colorado, October 21, 2020.