RIGHT TO WORK STATES AND STATE UNEMPLOYMENT

The other day your friendly Ostrich Killer got curious about so-called 'right to work' states and the rate of unemployment by state.

So I googled that information. First, the Right to Work states (versus forced unionization): you can see this info at http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Next, the state unemployment rates as of October: http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/11/state_unemployment_changes_mixed_in_october.php

Go ahead, click back and forth. See if you come up with the same sorts of observations I do.

Bottom line: it looks to me like there is some sort of correlation between forced unionization states and high unemployment. As I write this, it occurs to me that it might be worth researching states in budget crisis and comparing that info with the above info, too.

No, your Ostrich Killer is NOT an economist. I'm just a curious guy.

In the news the other day I read that Boeing decided to build a second 787 line in South Carolina. According to the info above, it's both a 'right to work' state AND a state with high unemployment - an anomaly, with a large available workforce. It should be no surprise that Boeing, who suffered five major, very expensive strikes in the last twenty years at the hands of the International Association of Machinists union, saw this as an opportunity to limit its vulnerability to future such strikes by building a plant in South Carolina.

Is this part of a trend for businesses around the world who decided to build plants and industries in the United States? According to most info I've seen, few of those overseas firms build their plants in forced unionization states. If so, what does it mean about the future of union jobs? Have unions outlived their original purposes, to become just a tool for blackmail?

Many would agree with you if you think so. Few would blame industries for electing to simply move in order to avoid that expensive blackmail.