The GOP doesn't want you to know: Walker's job numbers are worse than Illinois'

[Mr. Illini]

The GOP practically worships the narrative these days: Scott Walker saved Wisconsin from the economic free-fall being seen in states like Illinois and Minnesota, which are run by Democrats.

Too bad for them, the facts show differently, and more people should know about it.

http://www.jsonline.com/business/wisconsin-gained-28054-private-sector-jobs-over-last-12-months-b99290756z1-263818541.html

[eric82oslo]

Wisconsin has had one of the most miserable recoveries of any US state.

[Indy Texas]

I don't think Republicans understand that when you lay off legions of public-sector workers, you then create the obligation of creating jobs for them on top of whatever other jobs you promised to create (despite the fact that you don't think government can create jobs).

Do Tea Partiers really think that the news that the firing of 25% of the staff at the department of fish and wildlife is going to incite some businessman somewhere to build a new factory? Where does the logic for that follow from?

[Deus Naturae]

Did you even read the article you linked to? It explained why Wisconsin's sluggish growth rates (which, as the article notes, were apparent well before Walker took office) have little to do with the party in power, and much more to do with the composition of the State's economy.

[Mr. Illini]

Did you even read the article you linked to? It explained why Wisconsin's sluggish growth rates (which, as the article notes, were apparent well before Walker took office) have little to do with the party in power, and much more to do with the composition of the State's economy.

They didn't explain anything. You're referencing one quote from a UWM professor. They said that slow growth has to do with the industries in the state AND also mentioned that the reason Wisconsin is grouped in with the states that also have their data represented in the article is because the states share common industries and structure.

Wisconsin trails those states, something that the article mentions is a trend beginning with the Walker administration and not seen under Governor Doyle, and as you said, industries can't just change that rapidly in states. The only thing that changed was the administration.

Not to mention that the "job numbers can't be blamed on the governor" standard isn't one the right uses with Illinois or any other blue state. The hypocrisy is stunning. "Oh Illinois sucks what a bad states everyone else does better than them because Democrats. Oh but nevermind Wisconsin because industries are to blame there." That's beyond the point, though.

[Deus Naturae]

They didn't explain anything. You're referencing one quote from a UWM professor. They said that slow growth has to do with the industries in the state AND also mentioned that the reason Wisconsin is grouped in with the states that also have their data represented in the article is because the states share common industries and structure.

The article also linked to this study showing the "non-political roots" of Wisconsin's problems. As the article notes, Wisconsin has experienced slow growth rates due to its reliance on aging industries like manufacturing plants, paper mills, and metal foundries.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you had bothered to read the article, you would know that WI's slow growth rates are nothing new:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's just politics. Republicans blame bad job numbers on Democratic administrations. Democrats blame bad job numbers on Republican administrations. Neither side really cares about consistency or accuracy.

It's worth noting that, contrary to your claim, Wisconsin under Walker has faired better than Illinois under Quinn in terms of job growth. The chart cited by the article you link shows job growth from December 2010 to December 2013, but there is more recent data for us to look at. Since Walker took office in January 2011, Wisconsin's unemployment rate has declined by 1.9%, from 7.7% to 5.8%. Since Quinn took office in February 2009, Illinois' unemployment rate has declined by only 0.6%, from 8.5% to 7.9%. There are more factors at play here, obviously, but it is simply erroneous to claim that Quinn has a better jobs record than Walker.

[Mr. Illini]

They didn't explain anything. You're referencing one quote from a UWM professor. They said that slow growth has to do with the industries in the state AND also mentioned that the reason Wisconsin is grouped in with the states that also have their data represented in the article is because the states share common industries and structure.

The article also linked to this study showing the "non-political roots" of Wisconsin's problems. As the article notes, Wisconsin has experienced slow growth rates due to its reliance on aging industries like manufacturing plants, paper mills, and metal foundries.

And the surrounding states don't rely on similar industries? They do, and that's the point of the comparison.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you had bothered to read the article, you would know that WI's slow growth rates are nothing new:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As my signature demonstrates, their job creation relative to the national average has gotten significantly worse under Scottie.

[AggregateDemand]

In the short term, there is an inverse relationship between employment and debt/deficits. Wisconsin is one of the first states to deal with its problems. Eventually, Illinois and other states with bad debt-GSP ratios will have to make similar moves.

Brown is dealing with some of these difficult decisions in California.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

In the short term, there is an inverse relationship between employment and debt/deficits.

Yes, more people working means more tax revenue, which means lower deficits. It's a much bigger stretch to say that lowering deficits puts more people to work, especially when the GOP plan to reduce those deficits is generally to take money out of the hands of the poor and lay off large numbers of state and federal workers.

[All Along The Watchtower]

In the short term, there is an inverse relationship between employment and debt/deficits.

Yes, more people working means more tax revenue, which means lower deficits. It's a much bigger stretch to say that lowering deficits puts more people to work, especially when the GOP plan to reduce those deficits is generally to take money out of the hands of the poor and lay off large numbers of state and federal workers.

You don't understand-the poor are poor because they are lazy. They are losers. And besides, those greedy public employee unions have no right to mooch off the taxpayers (which don't include the poor, obviously).


obvious sarcasm is obvious

[AggregateDemand]

Yes, more people working means more tax revenue, which means lower deficits. It's a much bigger stretch to say that lowering deficits puts more people to work, especially when the GOP plan to reduce those deficits is generally to take money out of the hands of the poor and lay off large numbers of state and federal workers.

I was referring to monetary expansion. Running deficits by increasing spending-GSP ratio and accumulating public debt. Obviously, running unstable deficits (debt-GSP ratio increasing) is not sustainable in the long run. If you're not spending deficits to build an economy that can sustain monetary tightening, you're throwing away jobs and economic growth.

Republicans have been trying to explain this basic tenet of Keynesian economics for decades. Unfortunately, with each new Congress, our deficits are driven increasingly by deadweight social spending, which only secures the present.

You can accuse Walker of shutting off the taps before the Wisconsin economy could sustain fiscal tightening, but sustainable fiscal policy does lead to long-term job growth, compared to the effects of unsustainable deficits.

[Deus Naturae]

And the surrounding states don't rely on similar industries? They do, and that's the point of the comparison.

It's a comparison that doesn't confirm your claim. If you look at the relative decrease in unemployment in Illinois under Quinn and compare it to the same measure in Wisconsin under Walker, you'll see that Illinois has done worse, as I explained in my last post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The part of the article I quoted referenced the fact that Wisconsin has done poorly for the past decade. Your sig contains a chart that arbitrarily cuts off in the middle of 2009. If you want to refute what the article said, you need a chart with more info.