Another report out is from Deloitte Consulting, which states flatly, "Washington is not keeping its competitive edge in attracting and retaining the commercial aircraft industry." It cites increasing cost pressures on airlines, that Washington has not been a player in recent site selections for aerospace companies and that wage rates and cost of living here are competitive disadvantages.

Again, a caveat: Deloitte has a long history of work for Boeing, and was instrumental in helping Boeing land a big tax break during Gov. Gary Locke's administration. Gov. Chris Gregoire, creating an aerospace council, cited information from...Deloitte.

Obviously these reports are aimed at pressuring lawmakers. And they make some valid points. But are they objective assessments? I'm a skeptic. Washington has relatively low taxes, and Boeing already has a big break. Some studies cite statistics showing that the state is not all that expensive in terms of costs. Washington's unemployment compensation system is currently the envy of the nation. And "competitor" South Carolina now has the highest unemployment in the nation. The vaunted multiplier effect of Boeing jobs comes precisely because these highly skilled workers are well paid.

As I've written before, the burden of competitiveness can't all fall on the working stiffs. If cheaper labor, less of an unemployment safety net for workers and a Mississippi-style tax base are the only way to compete, Washington and America have bigger problems than losing Boeing. There's also a quiet, growing backlash. I was speaking at an event last week, when an audience member asked, "When are we going to call Boeing's bluff?" This, after all, is a company that ditched us for Chicago, hardly a low-cost, low-wage or low-regulation town. They didn't go to Biloxi.

Today's Econ Haiku:

They're crying Yahoo!
On Microsoft deal rumors
And MS gets what?