(Dan here…unemployment rates were about the same at 3.1 per cent (M) and 3.0 per cent (W). Taking a look at other measures of the success of an economy for the average person is well displayed here) Via
Dan Crawford considers the following as important: politics, Taxes/regulation, US/Global Economics
This could be interesting, too:
Barkley Rosser writes Weirdly Non-Monotonic Yield Curves
run75441 writes Its Time for Democrats to Come To Negotiate
Sandwichman writes Not Accurate
Dan Crawford writes Rare Yglesias Google Fail
(Dan here…unemployment rates were about the same at 3.1 per cent (M) and 3.0 per cent (W). Taking a look at other measures of the success of an economy for the average person is well displayed here)
Via Eeconomic Policy Institute comes this study:
Since 2010, Minnesota’s economy has performed far better for working families than Wisconsin’s…
At the time of the November 2010 elections, most states were still reeling from the economic devastation caused by the Great Recession. Although the recession had officially ended in 2009, the low point of the labor market was in 2010—the country continued losing jobs until March of that year. Thus, when newly elected Governors Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Mark Dayton of Minnesota took office in January 2011, the economic policy agendas that each pursued would largely define their respective states’ recoveries.
Wisconsin and Minnesota offer a particularly useful case study for assessing the merits of two very different governing philosophies. As Markusen (2015), Caldwell (2015), Aleem (2015), and others have pointed out, the two states’ geographic proximity—as well as their similarities in population, demographics, culture, and industry composition—make comparing outcomes in Wisconsin versus Minnesota a useful natural experiment for assessing how state policy is affecting economic outcomes and residents’ welfare. Though one must be careful not to attribute too much of a state’s economic performance to the policy choices of state lawmakers, there are areas where governors and state legislatures can significantly influence outcomes and set the direction for medium-to-longer-term trends.