Looking over that guy's data, he has a point, but badly underestimates the effect of the energy sector.

First, even if only 10% or so of the jobs are directly in the oil sector, for every well-paid petroleum geologist there will be a number of other jobs supported in housing, services, retail, etc. Just as the loss of auto jobs in Michigan hits Home Depot and Applebees employees too. I also doubt that oil/gas related equipment manufacture falls into his "mining and natural resources" category -- and export of oil/gas equipment is probably a big part of the TX export boom.

Looking over his list of which states have done well and which not, the top states are almost all states with strong energy sectors, like TX, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Montana. North Dakota too, probably. Several red states with low unionization and low taxes but without major energy resources fall into his worst performers (e.g., Idaho and Arizona) and other states known for being business friendly red-states but w/o energy resources (e.g., most of the South other than TX/LA) don't show up in his "best" list.

The hangover from the housing boom is also a major factor and the difference between bubble and non-bubble states isn't so easily attributeable to "blue state liberal policies" as the blogger claims.

Having seen how political corruption, excess regulation, high taxes, and ossified unions can hurt growth in RI and MA there is certainly an argument to be made, but the energy boom is a HUGE factor behind those numbers