<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>The States and Full Employment</title>
		<description>Comments for The States and Full Employment at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 1 out of 1 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.cepr.net</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 04:16:11 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>nice data, wrong conclusion</title>
			<link>http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-states-and-full-employment#comment-20336</link>
			<description>I like the data set, but it doesn't support your conclusion.  I could read the data as saying that as the national unemployment rose, state policies had a greater effect on unemployment.  So state policies may have had a direct impact on employment stability during a downturn.  If there were groupings of states with similar policy, and you could see that states with similar policy were spreading as much as states with dissimilar policy, that could support your argument, but this does not.  As it is, the only thing that is obvious is that a few &quot;low regulation&quot; states (ND, NE, SD) didn't have as large a rise in unemployment.  Is that due to state policy, or for example a smaller real estate bubble which allowed labor to be more mobil?  Or just because they are also low population states? The idea that 4% vs. 14% unemployment is somehow negligible is pretty poor thinking.   - mnemos</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:25:14 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
