Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I’d be curious to see a source providing a percentage of people living off investment income and “royalty” income. It will surely be a very, very tiny number.
Seeing that CT has very slow, almost stagnant job creation, there are likely more chronically unemployed there than the majority.
So let’s stop touting “full employment” when we know thats hardly the case.
There are numerous openings for good-paying jobs. However, for skilled people over 50, like me, getting past a recruiter screening applications is the challenge. CT wants young workers and needs them but they often keep the positions open and unfilled rather than hiring an older worker. This problem is not unique to CT but is more pronounced and felt here because we have a higher population of older residents than other places. Many older workers have given up on searching for full-time employment. It's a mindset. Companies need to be more amenable to hiring older workers. A worker 50 or older could be a valuable employee to a company for a good 10 to 15 years or more.
There are numerous openings for good-paying jobs. However, for skilled people over 50, like me, getting past a recruiter screening applications is the challenge. CT wants young workers and needs them but they often keep the positions open and unfilled rather than hiring an older worker. This problem is not unique to CT but is more pronounced and felt here because we have a higher population of older residents than other places. Many older workers have given up on searching for full-time employment. It's a mindset. Companies need to be more amenable to hiring older workers. A worker 50 or older could be a valuable employee to a company for a good 10 to 15 years or more.
I very much agree. A family member of mine who is in his 50s was laid off from ESPN and now cannot find a job - even with decades of experience. He has given up and is now looking for jobs out of state. He does not factor into Jay’s “full employment” because he’s part of the population that is no longer searching.
I very much agree. A family member of mine who is in his 50s was laid off from ESPN and now cannot find a job - even with decades of experience. He has given up and is now looking for jobs out of state. He does not factor into Jay’s “full employment” because he’s part of the population that is no longer searching.
I wish him luck. However, a lot of this is not the state's issue, it's the employer's preferences. Unless someone has a unique skill that will add to growth and profitability the company is likely to go with a younger worker. This is especially true for large employers. As mentioned above, some places like NH, have such low unemployment that they will hire regardless of age because they need the people to keep the business operating. For employees over 50 their best opportunities are in small or medium-sized companies. This often means a considerable reduction in salary which many find a nonstarter at least in the beginning of their job search. Skill set is also an issue. A well-paid staff worker in a large corporation rarely has skills that demand that salary elsewhere. I don't know what skill set your family member has but companies like ESPN always have an abundance of younger workers looking to break into production, communications, or entertainment and can be quite ruthless always looking to keep staffing costs low looking for ways to replace older workers with younger, less costly ones.
I'm in a search myself. I've applied for numerous positions for which I had actual experience, all the required qualifications as well as the preferred ones. I haven't gotten past the initial screening of the recruiters despite having had personal recommendations by current employees. I don't see this as Connecticut's fault but the philosophy of companies and a prevalent corporate cultural one. I'll keep plugging. I could have a better opportunity of finding employment in NH but my spouse has a good job here and it wouldn't make any sense to move.
I wish him luck. However, a lot of this is not the state's issue, it's the employer's preferences. Unless someone has a unique skill that will add to growth and profitability the company is likely to go with a younger worker. This is especially true for large employers. As mentioned above, some places like NH, have such low unemployment that they will hire regardless of age because they need the people to keep the business operating. For employees over 50 their best opportunities are in small or medium-sized companies. This often means a considerable reduction in salary which many find a nonstarter at least in the beginning of their job search. Skill set is also an issue. A well-paid staff worker in a large corporation rarely has skills that demand that salary elsewhere. I don't know what skill set your family member has but companies like ESPN always have an abundance of younger workers looking to break into production, communications, or entertainment and can be quite ruthless always looking to keep staffing costs low looking for ways to replace older workers with younger, less costly ones.
I'm in a search myself. I've applied for numerous positions for which I had actual experience, all the required qualifications as well as the preferred ones. I haven't gotten past the initial screening of the recruiters despite having had personal recommendations by current employees. I don't see this as Connecticut's fault but the philosophy of companies and a prevalent corporate cultural one. I'll keep plugging. I could have a better opportunity of finding employment in NH but my spouse has a good job here and it wouldn't make any sense to move.
While it’s not the state’s fault, directly, the stagnant job growth certainly doesn’t help. He had a phone interview with a company in TX, and told me yesterday it looks good. A second company, in Knoxville TN, responded to his inquiry favorably. I don’t think it’s coincidence as both of those states have insane job growth.
I’d be curious to see a source providing a percentage of people living off investment income and “royalty” income. It will surely be a very, very tiny number.
Seeing that CT has very slow, almost stagnant job creation, there are likely more chronically unemployed there than the majority.
So let’s stop touting “full employment” when we know thats hardly the case.
How about we stop touting all the “world is ending” talk and look at the real facts instead? Full employment has always been defined as 4%. We are below that. How much lower must we go to satisfy the naysayers who never seem to be satisfied? I suspect never.
If you go back and look at my response to NJBob1960’s posts it shows that Connecticut’s Labor Force Participation Rate is 66.7% while Massachusetts rate is 67.7%. That is just a 1% difference. Statistically that is insignificantly. By all accounts Massachusetts’ economy is considered to be booming. With just a 1% difference, why is Connecticut considered by some to bad? Again how much more do you want?
Every state has chronically unemployed and problems with older workers finding work, even those with lower unemployment rates. It is not just a Connecticut issue. Whose to say the same problem does not exist just over the state border.
I do not have any statistics on people living off investments or royalties. They may be small but because of our affluence, they certainly are a lot higher than most other states. Could they turn that 66.7% LFPR to 67%? Maybe. Jay
While it’s not the state’s fault, directly, the stagnant job growth certainly doesn’t help. He had a phone interview with a company in TX, and told me yesterday it looks good. A second company, in Knoxville TN, responded to his inquiry favorably. I don’t think it’s coincidence as both of those states have insane job growth.
What’s your field, if you don’t mind my asking?
I have a background in finance and international business as well as education. I worked in aerospace and education. I realize that my time in education has impacted my marketability in the private sector but my personal experience is not all that different from many of my friends and relatives currently experiencing the same type of problems. Certainly in places with severe labor shortages older workers have a better opportunity. However, Connecticut does have many job openings that remain unfilled. Companies need to have a balanced workforce but they also need to get beyond the mindset that younger is the only answer. It's ironic because some of the same employers lament over what they have to offer younger workers to attract and retain them. Despite offering much more flexibility with work hours, PTO, and other perks they still seem to see a lot of churn. For many companies turnover and loss of experienced knowledge is extremely costly and hiring older workers might actually save them money.
I personally do not believe that Connecticut's economy is the problem here. It's a constant negative perception of the state related to our fiscal problems and the high cost of supporting the legacy costs.
I have a background in finance and international business as well as education. I worked in aerospace and education. I realize that my time in education has impacted my marketability in the private sector but my personal experience is not all that different from many of my friends and relatives currently experiencing the same type of problems. Certainly in places with severe labor shortages older workers have a better opportunity. However, Connecticut does have many job openings that remain unfilled. Companies need to have a balanced workforce but they also need to get beyond the mindset that younger is the only answer. It's ironic because some of the same employers lament over what they have to offer younger workers to attract and retain them. Despite offering much more flexibility with work hours, PTO, and other perks they still seem to see a lot of churn. For many companies turnover and loss of experienced knowledge is extremely costly and hiring older workers might actually save them money.
I personally do not believe that Connecticut's economy is the problem here. It's a constant negative perception of the state related to our fiscal problems and the high cost of supporting the legacy costs.
It’s hard to argue that the CT economy is not, at least, part of the problem. Take my anecdotal experience with my older [second] cousin and apply the statistics to them:
As of June ‘19, CT lost 1,400 CES and 2,626 CPS jobs. TX, where it looks like he may get a job offer, gained 45,000 CES and 16,000 CPS jobs. FL, where he wants to ultimately end up, added 16,000 and 11,300, respectively.
When you look at the numbers, it’s eye-popping and really connects the dots.
I don’t want to turn this into another “nep” like thread, but have you looked out of state? It seems that once my family member did that, the interviews started rolling in.
It’s hard to argue that the CT economy is not, at least, part of the problem. Take my anecdotal experience with my older [second] cousin and apply the statistics to them:
As of June ‘19, CT lost 1,400 CES and 2,626 CPS jobs. TX, where it looks like he may get a job offer, gained 45,000 CES and 16,000 CPS jobs. FL, where he wants to ultimately end up, added 16,000 and 11,300, respectively.
When you look at the numbers, it’s eye-popping and really connects the dots.
I don’t want to turn this into another “nep” like thread, but have you looked out of state? It seems that once my family member did that, the interviews started rolling in.
I agree that some states, like Florida and Texas, have comparative advantages. New England has been long established and many of our costs were due to structures implemented over 100 years ago when many southern states did not have much industry and infrastructure. Additionally, it costs more to build here due to climate-related challenges and scarcity of unimproved land. The past 25 years have been easy for southern states to poach workers/businesses from the north.
I like Florida in the winter and find it attractive to live there in winter months to escape the dead of winter cold. However, they have a number of serious environmental challenges to deal with, some due to rapid growth and development, some due to lax environmental regulatory enforcement and others due to climatic changes impacting the area. One thing that is certain is the true costs of living there have not been factored into their economy. The insured nationwide as well as the federal government are subsidizing the high cost of payouts for the numerous weather-related costs. Rivers, estuaries and the ocean are feeling the impact of growth and the cost to clean up and mitigate the damages have largely gone unaddressed. Connecticut has strict environmental regulations and our state has become cleaner and healthier as we move forward as a result. When I was working in international business there were some countries that took their toxic waste and dumped it into the river used for drinking water. Domestically that thankfully was not an option. It was no surprise that the domestic companies couldn't compete purely on cost with that international ones.
Some of the problems we are facing are due to federal policies that favor one state at the expense of another. A state's longterm success cannot be sustained independent of national fiscal and economic policy.
I agree that some states, like Florida and Texas, have comparative advantages. New England has been long established and many of our costs were due to structures implemented over 100 years ago when many southern states did not have much industry and infrastructure. Additionally, it costs more to build here due to climate-related challenges and scarcity of unimproved land. The past 25 years have been easy for southern states to poach workers/businesses from the north.
I like Florida in the winter and find it attractive to live there in winter months to escape the dead of winter cold. However, they have a number of serious environmental challenges to deal with, some due to rapid growth and development, some due to lax environmental regulatory enforcement and others due to climatic changes impacting the area. One thing that is certain is the true costs of living there have not been factored into their economy. The insured nationwide as well as the federal government are subsidizing the high cost of payouts for the numerous weather-related costs. Rivers, estuaries and the ocean are feeling the impact of growth and the cost to clean up and mitigate the damages have largely gone unaddressed. Connecticut has strict environmental regulations and our state has become cleaner and healthier as we move forward as a result. When I was working in international business there were some countries that took their toxic waste and dumped it into the river used for drinking water. Domestically that thankfully was not an option. It was no surprise that the domestic companies couldn't compete purely on cost with that international ones.
Some of the problems we are facing are due to federal policies that favor one state at the expense of another. A state's longterm success cannot be sustained independent of national fiscal and economic policy.
I agree that the state faces problems due to politics, but regardless, the problems are there. Unfortunately, some here fail to recognize it.
FL does have major issues, re environmental and growth. It is essentially learning quickly what LA learned in the 90s and early 00s, that uncontrolled growth is not always a good thing. The traffic in south FL lately makes Fairfield County look easy. Home prices there have soared, unfortunately at the expense of CT/NJ. The same can be said for southern CA. But financially, FL is booming - again, at the expense of northern states.
Please stop the off topic discussion and return to the topic of the OP. JayCT, Moderator
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
