My Facebook feed sometimes includes assertions about how Minnesota, run by liberals, is doing much better economically than Wisconsin is. These assertions are, not surprisingly, posted by haters of Gov. Scott Walker.

(Before we move on, I am required to point out that half my lineage is from Minnesota, including people who were part of the Democratic–Farmer–Labor group, along with people who were big fans of U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy and probably voted for Democrats less often than I have. The statements about “much better” never seem to apply to Wisconsin vs. Minnesota or the Packers vs. the Vikings in football, for some inexplicable reason.)

UW–Madison Prof. Noah Williams begs to differ with the assertion within the first sentence of this blog:

Before Governor Scott Walker took office in January of 2011, Wisconsin was seeing high unemployment, stagnating incomes and a high tax burden. Fast-forward four years: The state enjoys strong growth in employment and improvements in living standards through higher after-tax incomes. Thanks to a fiscal policy of reducing tax and regulatory burdens while balancing the budget, Wisconsin now outperforms many of its neighbors.

(Disclosure: Mr. Williams has been serving as an informal adviser to Gov. Walker’s presidential campaign.)

But this economic performance has not always been recognized. For example, on his recent trip to the state President Barack Obama contrasted Wisconsin with Minnesota, which has seen increases in taxes, government spending and the minimum wage. The president, echoing earlier press reports, cited Minnesota’s lower unemployment rate and higher median income as signs that these “middle class economics” policies were working. But to see the effect of policies, we need to look at changes since they were implemented.

Minnesota had a lower unemployment rate and higher income than Wisconsin at the start of 2011. But since then, the unemployment rate has fallen more in Wisconsin and per capita output growth in Wisconsin has outpaced Minnesota each year. Since 2012 real per capita disposable personal income—a broad measure of average after-tax income—has fallen in Minnesota. In Wisconsin, due to reductions in state taxes, real after-tax incomes have increased twice as fast as the nation as a whole.

The labor market in Wisconsin tightened substantially under Gov. Walker, with the unemployment rate falling from 8.1% in December 2010 to 4.6% in May 2015. In addition, labor force participation has been roughly stable over the past few years around 68%. By contrast, participation nationwide has fallen to under 63%, levels not seen since the late 1970s. Some of this decline has been demographic, but an important component has been discouraged unemployed workers leaving the labor force.

A useful statistic including these workers is the employment–population ratio, measuring the fraction of the population that is working. In May, it stood at 59.4% nationally and 64.8% in Wisconsin, the 10th highest in any state.

While Wisconsin has seen strong employment growth, some press reports focus on a different measure: job growth on nonfarm business payrolls. By that metric Wisconsin lags the national average—but not without explanation. The recession was not as severe in the state, so slower job growth should be expected in the recovery. In addition, shifts out of farm and self-employment nationally have increased nonfarm job growth but not net employment. But most importantly, (working age) population growth in Wisconsin has been half that of the nation as a whole.

With slower growth in labor supply, it is difficult to create jobs at a faster rate. For these reasons, measures of household employment give a more accurate picture of the state of the labor market. Similarly, per capita measures of income and output, capturing improvements in living standards for an average worker, are better indicators than aggregate measures of overall size.

Under Gov. Walker, per capita output and income in Wisconsin have grown more rapidly than in the nation as a whole, bringing improvement in household living standards. Households in Wisconsin are also keeping more of their income due to reductions in state taxes. In the 2013-14 and 2014-15 fiscal years, state income taxes were cut by a total of $747 million, and property taxes by an additional $536 million, with smaller reductions in other taxes.

While many states have struggled with deficits and credit downgrades, the tax reductions in Wisconsin have been more than matched with spending reductions, bringing the budget into balance. In response to this sound fiscal management, Moody’s revised up its outlook for Wisconsin to positive, and increased its bond rating last November. Moody’s cited the improvement in the state’s budget, an improved liquidity position, well-funded pensions and limited liabilities for other retirement benefits.

The recently passed budget continues this strategy: limiting spending while further reducing property taxes.

Nationwide, the recovery has been marked by slow economic growth. Productivity growth has remained low, even turning negative in the first quarter of this year. One of the main factors has been a slowdown in business investment.

At the same time, there has been a vast expansion in federal regulation, with new business regulation under Obamacare, financial regulation under Dodd–Frank and recent expansions of environmental and labor regulation. All of this has increased business costs and created a climate of uncertainty, further hampering investment.

By contrast, Wisconsin has seen the adoption of a number of pro-growth policies, which have improved the business climate. Most well-known are the labor market reforms to collective bargaining and the recent right-to-work legislation. But there has also been a substantial streamlining of regulation, and in addition to the cuts in personal taxes, there have been reductions in business taxes and investment incentives.

While the reforms are recent and ongoing, they are having an effect. There have been marked improvements in the state’s business rankings by Chief Executive Magazine, Area Development Magazine and the Manpower Group. In addition, the annual rate of new business filings in the state was 21% higher in 2014 than 2010 and Ernst and Young ranked Wisconsin 10th for 2014 in announced jobs for mobile capital investments.

I am not an uncritical fan of the Walker administration. Tax cuts have been insufficient (more on that momentarily) to erase Wisconsin’s well-earned reputation as a tax hell. Walker hasn’t done very much to actually cut government, as opposed to reducing the growth in government. (If growth in state and local government spending had been held to inflation plus population growth since the late 1970s, state and local government would be half the size it is today.) But Wisconsin’s unemployment rate was worse than the national average under Gov. James Doyle. And, under governors going all the way back to Martin Schreiber, Wisconsin has trailed the national average in per-capita personal income growth. So to see Wisconsin below-average on unemployment and finally above-national-average in personal income growth is overdue progress.

One area where Minnesota has historically exceeded Wisconsin is in various forms of entrepreneurial activity — business start-ups, incorporations and large corporations. The two states have similar ethnic backgrounds and political cultures among their original settlers, but it’s as if those who wanted to control their own lives by owning a business went west of the Mississippi River, and those content to work for someone else went east of the Mississippi. (Apparently Minnesota hasn’t been anti-business to the extent Wisconsin has been.) The fact remains that the only way for someone to really make money is to own a business, though owning a business is no guarantee that you will make money on your business.

Note as well that …

… Wisconsin still has higher state and local taxes than Minnesota, or did in the 2011 fiscal year.

One other difference between Wisconsin and Minnesota is the Twin Cities vs. the rest of Minnesota. The Twin Cities totals 60 percent of Minnesota’s population. In contrast, the most broad definition of “Milwaukee” comprises only one-third of Wisconsin’s population. To match that you would have to put metro Milwaukee, metro Madison, Green Bay and the Fox Cities together in one geographic area. For that matter, the parts of metropolitan New York within the state of New York comprises less than half of New York state’s population, and Chicago comprises only one-sixth of Illinois’ population. Rural areas generally have lower incomes than urban areas; the downside of the urban area, of course, is the urban ills that infest Milwaukee.

As always, there is a solution for those who believe Minnesota’s government and politics are superior to Wisconsin’s (which means you think you’re smarter than those who have voted for Walker and Republicans three times since 2010). You can take Interstate 90, Interstate 94, U.S. 2, U.S. 8, U.S. 10, U.S. 12 or U.S. 14 west, or U.S. 53 or U.S. 61 north, and don’t stop until you encounter crappy football.