Smasharoo wrote:
Surely there isn't a single cause for each of these states failing to grow their respective economies, but do you think there a contributing cause shared among the three (and/or other poor performers).
No, and this is a borderline useless metric in any case. "States" are such asymmetrical geographic and demographic groups as to make most comparisons meaningless. You can drive any narrative you like with isolated statistics.
No, and this is a borderline useless metric in any case. "States" are such asymmetrical geographic and demographic groups as to make most comparisons meaningless. You can drive any narrative you like with isolated statistics.
It's a list that shows how many jobs each state created last year. There were three states that didn't create jobs at all, but lost jobs. That fact holds value. Unemployment rates go up and down as much from the work force shrinking and contracting as much as job creation. But job numbers rarely go negative - particularly when the country as a whole is growing out of a recession
The article suggests that job numbers grew because their perspective state governments either stimulated the economy or cut corporate tax rates. Would that lead one to hypothesize that those states that didn't add jobs perhaps suffered under a government that did neither and therefore job loss or gain would be more dependent on federal legislation or simply stalled??
Sure, there are lots of underlying factors. Despite Maine's decrease in jobs unemployment dropped during the same time period. So obviously the work force shrunk.