I generally go with the guy with first hand knowledge over someone merely reading about it from afar.
"Surveys of actual manufacturers confirm that RTW is not a significant draw; last year, small manufacturers ranked it sixteenth among factors affecting location decisions. For higher-tech, higher-wage employers, nine of the ten most favored states are non-RTW, led by arch-liberal Massachusetts." First hand knowledge of what, Luc, the route to the nearest grocery store? It's a logical fallacy.
By your own statement, it's not a significant draw... but a draw nonetheless. The old cliche, business creates business holds true. Proximity to needed resources trumps as seen by your above stats, business locates to where business is already at..... but they don't go there because they are non-RTW, other factors decide that. Oklahoma's decision for RTW was only one of the steps we needed to make ourselves more attractive to outside business. And along with others it's finally paying off.
Irrelevant. All other factors being equal (all states have their challenges, some more, some less, some different), states without it are doing better.
OK is improving for two main causes, 1) the general migration of Americans from north to south, 2) $100 oil (the same cause that's, according the righties around here, the main reason that the socialistic countries of N. Europe work).
North to South? Guess they gotta go where they can find some jobs. All them heavy unionized states are dying on the vine From the US Census: Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2009 Oklahoma 7.4% USA Average 0.04% Indiana -7.6% Illinois -6.9 NY -0.03 NJ -3.0 Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 Oklahoma 8.7 USA 9.7 Indiana 6.6% Illinois 3.3 NY 2.1 NJ 4.5 Must be doing something right, no wonder Indiana wants to adopt RTW