regarding the unemployment numbers, I'd expect much of it has to do with the degree of services those collected taxes are then being redistributed to non-workers in New England vs. in Wyoming.
When a progressive state collects these higher taxes and provides services that improves the quality of life of non-workers; they have doubly incentivized workers to shift to non-work.
I remember reading an analysis on mises.org or from LewRockwell.com that had calculated all the possible benefits a parent of two could qualify for at each income level. The X axis started at $0 earned and moving up to 6 figure salaries. The Y axis graphed their total compensation if they maxed out every gov't program they could qualify for; so it was money earned + gov't aid totaled together.
Starting at about $45,000 the graph had an increasing slope (more total compensation for more earned income), but below $45K the graph was all messed up, with signifant brackets where more work lead to a poorer family.
A person might be earning $19K and qualify for $15K in aid. But hit $20K and they lose out in $5K if gov't dollars thus their standard of living goes down unless they can work enough hours to get their salary up to $25K. There was also a significant advantage for some people making 20-something thousand to stop working b/c they were about even with people not working at all.
So many less skilled laborers are being discouraged from hard work b/c unless they reach that $45K threshold their work would often cause their kids to have a lower standard of living.