Nope! The dems are just lucky!! When trickle down economics finally kicks in, repubs will be having the last laugh! You just wait and wait, and wait, and wait, and see!!
/s
So the presented theories so far about why MN is doing better outside of its liberal policies (fracking, exports to China, agriculture vs. WI) have been shown to be incorrect.
So it may be the policies?
Moving on, even if the policies had some good effects, they may still cause some bad ones such as causing small businesses to close up? That prediction of the future could be a concern, however thus far everywhere you go around here today - the restaurants, grocery stores, haircut places, Jiffy Lube, everyone has a Help Wanted sign in front of it. A recent article showed up in the paper about it.
So it may be the policies?
BS.
I've watched this country raise its min. wage many times and there has never been a collapse of business nor businesses closing en masse, as you imply.
Instead, while there may be some initial unemployment, it usually is reversed within a year or so by the increased demand for goods from essentially all businesses. People have more money to spend, demand for goods/services increases, esp. for buying that's more discretionary in nature.
The businesses that cannot withstand the increase were marginal if unable to deal with a .75/hr increase in min. wage ($30/wk for someone working full time at current min. wage.)
Except increased consumer demand can mean that these small businesses have more customers too. It's not an easy thing to untangle, which is why this has been studied to death, with the consensus being that raising the minimum wage has minimal effect - good or bad - on unemployment. It doesn't matter what sounds logical or comfortable for you or me, the reality is that raising the minimum wage (by reasonable amounts, not $100000/hr like the dumb rebuttal that always comes on these forums) just doesn't kill many jobs. In the interim, it makes life a lot more livable for a lot of people.
It's always going to be a balancing act, of course, but there are so many people who think that mental "logic" (according to their own ideology) can substitute for empirical reality.
So the presented theories so far about why MN is doing better outside of its liberal policies (fracking, exports to China, agriculture vs. WI) have been shown to be incorrect.
So it may be the policies?
Moving on, even if the policies had some good effects, they may still cause some bad ones such as causing small businesses to close up? That prediction of the future could be a concern, however thus far everywhere you go around here today - the restaurants, grocery stores, haircut places, Jiffy Lube, everyone has a Help Wanted sign in front of it. A recent article showed up in the paper about it.
So it may be the policies?
Isn't that region's economy being carried by oil money from fracking?
I mean... I support the minimum wage hike, and will entertain motions for tax plans... but maybe you're leaving out important information and an economy doesn't just come down to two policy decisions.
So the presented theories so far about why MN is doing better outside of its liberal policies (fracking, exports to China, agriculture vs. WI) have been shown to be incorrect.
No they haven't. Agriculture in Minnesota has been on fire. Its been good in Wisconsin too but Wisconsin traditionally relied more on manufacturing of things like paper (and we've been going paperless). They have a bigger problem with old economic sectors, legacy costs etc. Its not hard to look these things up. If Minnie's governor policies were so hot they would be working in other states but they haven't.
A little perspective here. Minnesota has a population of just 5.4 Million people. That's just a little over half of NY city.
Which states have similar policies but that aren't doing well?
A little perspective here. Minnesota has a population of just 5.4 Million people. That's just a little over half of NY city.
Lol! Quick! Discredit the results!! Hurry!
I guess what Matt is trying to say is that the policies of Minnesota doesn't scale to larger states. Of course he will provide evidence of this claim...
And it's bigger than about 30 other states. And about equal in size to WI which it's being most compared to right now. And...
Nevermind, I forgot, did you have a point that had anything to do with anything?
And if not, he still wont' admit that it seems to be working for at least one state.
I don't do AT P&N much but even I've caught on to a few things.
If high taxes and high min wage was the key to economic growth, NY wouldn't be ranked 46th.
Compared to the rest of the country, Minnesota's not very diverse...
Congrats on your economy doing well though....
Uno
Lots of illegals in KS and WI?Low amount of illegals= win for the economy.
If high taxes and high min wage was the key to economic growth, NY wouldn't be ranked 46th.
I suggest you get some new data
http://www.businessinsider.com/state-economic-growth-rankings-2014-8#23-new-york-28
Guess where liberal California ranked?
Probably true. But since you've picked just two of many, perhaps hundreds of liberal policies to draw your conclusion, and compared states you already said weren't comparable in terms of residents and which I'm SURE you know don't have a whole lot in similar to begin with, I'm not real sure why you're trying to make a point with it.
Still looks like MN's liberal policies might be helping it have a good economy.
Your link ranks growth from 2012 to 2013. My link factors growth from 2010 to 2013 and places NY at 46th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_economic_growth_rate
Even by your own link: "New York's GDP grew by only 0.7% in 2013, the fifth-slowest rate in the nation"
The 2 highest states for taxes (California and NY) ranks 20th and 46th in growth. Correlation between high taxes and economic success not found especially since NY and California account for nearly 20% of the US population.
You didn't provide a link moron! Nor did you define "success", nor did you specify time frame. All you did, was cherry pick your data with zero reference to your claim. GDP growth, while important is not the only factor to economic success either. So at best you have shown (using one metric) that liberal policies haven't grown the economy as fast as some other states (ignoring all other and sometimes obvious variables) and at the least you have inadvertently proven that liberal policies don't hurt the economy (at the state level) at all!
Good job!
What a colossal idiot you are. Your link only considered exports for one year as a determining factor for economic growth. I don't even know how to measure the amount of fail you have here.
For our ranking of the economies of all 50 states, we wanted to capture recent economic movement in a number of areas, like employment, consumption, housing, and overall growth. To do that, we chose eight indicators, ranked each state on those indicators from best to worst, and then averaged each state's rankings to get a final composite index.
Here are the metrics we used:
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), growth in 2013: This represents the sum total output of all of the industries and government agencies in a state. The GDP growth rate is considered one of the most important economic figures for a state or country, and the figures are published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. GDP growth rates ranged from -2.5% in Alaska to 9.7% in North Dakota.
Working Age Population, percent change from 2012 to 2013: This is how quickly the population of 18- to 64-year-olds was growing or shrinking in each state, and estimates are published annually by the Census Bureau. Population changes ranged from -0.7% in West Virginia to 3.2% in North Dakota.
Unemployment Rate, change from June 2013 to June 2014: This is the year-over-year difference in the official unemployment rates, published at the state level by the Bureau of Labor Statistics each month a few weeks after the national rate. Unemployment rate changes ranged from a drop of 2.5% in South Carolina to a rise of 0.3% in Alabama.
Non-Farm Payroll Jobs, percent change from June 2013 to June 2014: This is usually cited as the main jobs number when it's released monthly at the national level. The Bureau of Labor Statistics gives state NFPs in the same monthly report as the state unemployment rates. The NFP changes ranged from -0.7 in Alaska to 4.8% in North Dakota.
International Exports, percent change from 2012 to 2013: The Census Bureau keeps track of the total value of exports from each state, and of the most valuable exports from each state. Export changes ranged from -25.4% in West Virginia to 18.2% in New Hampshire.
Average Annual Wages, percent change from 2012 to 2013: We used the Bureau of Labor Analysis' Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages to get average wage data for each state. Wage changes ranged from -2.5% in North Dakota to 1.4% in Maryland.
Housing Prices, percent change from Q1 2013 to Q1 2014: The Federal Housing Finance Agency publishes a quarterly House Price Index for each state, used to track changes in house prices. Changes in house prices ranged from -2.7% in Vermont to 19.7% in Nevada.
Auto Sales, percent change from 2012 to 2013: The National Automobile Dealers Association annually publishes reports on the state of the auto dealer industry. One of their metrics shows per-dealer sales volume, and we used increases and decreases in this measure as our final indicator. These changes ranged from -3.3% in Virginia to 18.8% in Arizona.
No you fucking idiot, it based their rankings on multiple factors:
I'll quote it since your dumb ass never reads an article that doesn't come from some right wing website.
Each one of those statistics is still only growth for one year. My "right wing website" Wikipedia uses statistics for 2010-2013. But hey, by all means, lets use yours. That still puts the high taxed and high min wage state of NY at 23. High taxes and high min wage = economic success still not found.
So slow growth of a prior year + plus a newer year with rapid growth = no success?
Something tells me you aren't being honest with yourself...again.