A Tale of Two States: Shareable Graphics for Michigan Future’s Latest Report 4


Michigan Future’s latest report looks at Minnesota, the most prosperous state in the region with the lowest unemployment rate, and the public policies that have helped it achieve that status.

Below we will release shareable graphics that demonstrate some of the staggering data uncovered in the report. Follow the links below to download the graphics to share on your organization’s or personal social media. As you share them, we encourage you to use the hashtag “#StatePoliciesMatter” to help spark conversation around Michigan Future’s latest report.

If you haven’t done so read the full State Policies Matter report here.

State-Policies-Matter-social-graphic-12

INFOGRAPHIC #1: Right-click on the image and select “Save Image As.” 10487176_10152118712941176_8889199760681722676_n INFOGRAPHIC #2: Right-click on the image and select “Save Image As.” State-Policies-Matter-social-graphic-3

INFOGRAPHIC #3: Right-click on the image and select “Save Image As.”

Print Friendly


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 thoughts on “A Tale of Two States: Shareable Graphics for Michigan Future’s Latest Report

  • BlueOak

    How about adding Illinois to the comparison?

    Many of its “State Policies” match Minnesota and yet the conclusions might differ dramatically.

    One basic driver likely explains most of the difference in Michigan: the gutting of the Auto Industry.

    • Lou Glazer
      Lou Glazer

      Our hope is that we can do more case studies going forward of both states and metro areas.

      Don’t really know the Illinois details. But my instinct is that they are not as high a tax and spending state as MN. They have a high per capita income but not great employment rate. More than likely their image on both policy and results don’t match their reality.

      No question the auto industry is driving our results. Have been for a century. But that hasn’t stopped elected officials from arguing that we need tax cuts to grow the economy and claim those cuts, not the auto industry, are the reason for good results when there are any and that we need them to get good results when our economy is bad. that strategy hasn’t worked, MN provides a alternative path that is at least worth considering.

  • Bryan

    Is it supposed to be surprising that a state with a more prosperous economy is able to spend more money on services?

    It’s a pretty solid supposition to say that the causation for that correlation lies in the fact that having a better economy means more tax money to spend. To say that the causation is, instead, the opposite (that state spending is what created the prosperity) would require some fairly substantial evidence. I literally see zero evidence of that presented. Evidence of correlation is not evidence of causation…especially when the opposite causation is the hypothesis that assumes the least.

    And that all is even assuming the correlation holds up further than the statistically insignificantly comparison of one cherry picked state to one other state. If we’re gonna cherry pick I could do an equally statistically insignificant infographic about the fact that Alaska has no income tax OR sales tax and yet has a higher per capita income than Minnesota…

    Sorry…but I see nothing here of any convincing quality.

    • Lou Glazer
      Lou Glazer

      The graphic presents an overview of the two states economies and their tax structures. Not a good place to delve into what caused the better economy. That is what the report is all about. But even the graphic makes the case that higher tax rates–which we are told repeatedly leads to a worse economy–have not made Minnesota poorer. And lowering tax rates in Michigan have not made Michigan more prosperous. What the report details is Minnesota chose to have a higher tax burden and higher tax rates decades ago. Michigan chose the opposite path. Minnesota got more prosperous, Michigan less so. It isn’t a strong economy that leads to higher tax rates, its a decision by policy makers. They were warned whey they made those decisions that the higher rates would ruin their economy. The opposite happened. Why? Almost certainly because the public investments they made provided economic benefits that were greater than the costs of the higher tax rates.