It often is argued that the key to grow a state's economy is to increase the population of college graduates.

Yet, over the last decade, this factor has proved to be a poor predictor of economic growth. The states that have a relatively high concentration of college graduates do not expand at rates statistically different from states that do not.

The following chart shows the percentage of each state's adult population with a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2000, and the state's per capita personal income growth from 2000 through 2012 (Michigan is the red dot).

If there were a firm connection between the two, you'd see a clumping of points sloping upward. Clearly, this is not the case.

Still, it's often observed that states with high incomes are those with a high proportion of college grads. But this observation does not tell us anything about how relatively poor states become richer, or, for that matter, how relatively rich states become poorer.

Take Colorado, for example. It was in the top 10 for both per capita personal income and in grads in 2000. It was still in the top 10 for grads in 2012, but had fallen to 16th in per capita personal income.

Michigan's proportion of college graduates didn't change much from 2000 to 2012, but it dropped from 18th highest in per capita personal income down to 36th.

Oregon increased its college population and still dropped nine places in the per capita personal income rankings.

There are states that fit the model that the talent mercantilists (people who assume more college graduates means there is more talent in the economy) are pushing. Vermont continues to have a high level of graduates, and it increased its per capita personal income from 29th to 21st from 2000 to 2012.

(For a look at the relationship between grads and growth using different years and lags, see my 2010 report.)

On an individual level, obtaining a college degree may still, on net, pay dividends for most people (although that may be changing as colleges continue to become more expensive). This, however, does not translate to the state level.

From that perspective, it's better to encourage growth by making it easier for individuals to produce, earn and keep the fruits of their labor — lowering taxes, limiting regulatory burdens and protecting property rights.

A Coopersville kindergarten teacher who resigned from the Michigan Education Association under the state's worker freedom law says she is glad her ordeal is over, but is concerned for her colleagues, according to a story in The Grand Rapids Press.

"I am very thankful that the MEA has finally recognized my right to opt out, but my settlement doesn't bring justice to the thousands of other teachers in my position in West Michigan and across the state of Michigan," Miriam Chanski, who along with Petoskey teacher Ray Arthur is now free from the MEA, told The Press.

"This is not an isolated case," she said. "I've heard from many teachers in the state whose circumstances did not allow them to make a public stand."

The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation last fall filed unfair labor practice complaints against the MEA on behalf of Chanski, Arthur and several other teachers at the Michigan Employment Relations Commission. The teachers believed they were being bullied by the union for attempting to exercise their rights under Michigan's right-to-work law, and were told that if they did not pay their dues they would be turned over to a collections agency.

"My credit is safe and my rights were honored. The threat definitely caused a lot of stress in my life," Chanski told The Press.

During a hearing at MERC regarding complaints filed by another teacher, the MEA admitted that about 8,000 teachers statewide have so far have refused to pay their forced union dues in cash or give the union credit card or bank account information as part of its "e-dues" system. The MEA also said it has created a policy to go after those teachers.

"The MEA does not bully or intimidate its members," MEA Communications Director Nancy Knight told The Press.