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.
One cannot possibly imply that Vermont has a stronger economy than Connecticut despite having a 2.1% unemployment rate. Yes, the ski areas and other tourist attractions are having a more difficult time finding workers to fill their $8 an hour positions. This is especially true with fewer teens willing or able to work in these positions. Many of the ski areas got bought out by larger corporations which do not allow teens to fill positions that were typically filled by workers as young as 14. Connecticut has significant manufacturing, finance, healthcare, and technology companies that are key components of our economy. Tourism is the key component of Vermont's economy and Connecticut residents, along with Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey, significantly contribute to Vermont's success by owning second homes and spending a significant amount of their disposable income there.
While I don't disagree with some things in this article, it is lazy reporting on a few counts.
First, it strongly infers that the 125k/day NHL Metro North headcount is driven by commuting into NYC. This is woefully inaccurate and is the same sort of lazy thinking that keeps Hartford-area pols from embracing Fairfield County writ large as the major international and regional centre it is. The town with the highest commuters out of state is Greenwich... at around 36%. The rest are intra-state commuters. Only about 8-10% of CT residents commute out of state. Plus, the thought that loss of commuters hurts the state is crazy because most high-earners that work in NYC don't pay the full boat of CT income taxes they would if they worked and lived in CT (is there reciprocity on this for NY dwellers working in CT, does anyone know?).
Two, the obsession with access to NYC's job market is incredibly short sighted. It may be a perk but it'd be better to re-work our property tax and zoning laws to increase major office space along the urban spine. Unless MN starts to terminate in Penn (as well as GCT) most CT'ers are going to miss out on the job growth in Manhattan which is centred along the new developments on the East Side and sorely needed diversification of the Financial District/Downtown. Right now the only "easy" commute from CT is to Midtown and adjoining areas, but those are mostly built-up legacy institutions there.
Now that's out of the way:
"According to a 2015 DataHaven report, the percentage of Connecticut residents who live in neighborhoods of concentrated wealth or poverty has grown by 30 percent since 1980. Meanwhile, the percentage of Connecticut residents living in middle-income neighborhoods has shrunk by seven percent."
There are a couple of factors here. First CT for the last 100 years has had one of the most dynamic economic mobility. Some of that has expanded wealth outward of the cities into formerly solidly middle-class areas that have grown in wealth naturally (think Shelton). Add on the disinvestment the State had in the most disadvantaged cities over the same period (a holdover from when the cities were rich and powerful which made the first real suburban pols in that generation want to "stick it" to the cities) and that concentration was inevitable, and while CT's is probably worse than most it is hardly unique in that.
While I don't disagree with some things in this article, it is lazy reporting on a few counts.
First, it strongly infers that the 125k/day NHL Metro North headcount is driven by commuting into NYC. This is woefully inaccurate and is the same sort of lazy thinking that keeps Hartford-area pols from embracing Fairfield County writ large as the major international and regional centre it is. The town with the highest commuters out of state is Greenwich... at around 36%. The rest are intra-state commuters. Only about 8-10% of CT residents commute out of state. Plus, the thought that loss of commuters hurts the state is crazy because most high-earners that work in NYC don't pay the full boat of CT income taxes they would if they worked and lived in CT (is there reciprocity on this for NY dwellers working in CT, does anyone know?).
Two, the obsession with access to NYC's job market is incredibly short sighted. It may be a perk but it'd be better to re-work our property tax and zoning laws to increase major office space along the urban spine. Unless MN starts to terminate in Penn (as well as GCT) most CT'ers are going to miss out on the job growth in Manhattan which is centred along the new developments on the East Side and sorely needed diversification of the Financial District/Downtown. Right now the only "easy" commute from CT is to Midtown and adjoining areas, but those are mostly built-up legacy institutions there.
Now that's out of the way:
"According to a 2015 DataHaven report, the percentage of Connecticut residents who live in neighborhoods of concentrated wealth or poverty has grown by 30 percent since 1980. Meanwhile, the percentage of Connecticut residents living in middle-income neighborhoods has shrunk by seven percent."
There are a couple of factors here. First CT for the last 100 years has had one of the most dynamic economic mobility. Some of that has expanded wealth outward of the cities into formerly solidly middle-class areas that have grown in wealth naturally (think Shelton). Add on the disinvestment the State had in the most disadvantaged cities over the same period (a holdover from when the cities were rich and powerful which made the first real suburban pols in that generation want to "stick it" to the cities) and that concentration was inevitable, and while CT's is probably worse than most it is hardly unique in that.
Some good points. But to your last sentence, it’s definitely worse. As of 2018, Bridgeport/Stamford metro had the biggest wealth gap in the nation. That means among the richest in the country, and among the poorest. Seeing that statistically, on average, new residents have a 26% lower income than the ones who left, I expect that gap to close slightly going forward.
One cannot possibly imply that Vermont has a stronger economy than Connecticut despite having a 2.1% unemployment rate. Yes, the ski areas and other tourist attractions are having a more difficult time finding workers to fill their $8 an hour positions. This is especially true with fewer teens willing or able to work in these positions. Many of the ski areas got bought out by larger corporations which do not allow teens to fill positions that were typically filled by workers as young as 14. Connecticut has significant manufacturing, finance, healthcare, and technology companies that are key components of our economy. Tourism is the key component of Vermont's economy and Connecticut residents, along with Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey, significantly contribute to Vermont's success by owning second homes and spending a significant amount of their disposable income there.
This is an economic version of discussing the deck chairs on the Titanic. The entire northeast is bad. And Connecticut seems to be the worst of the bunch. Who cares if we have a metric or two superior to Vermont? Connecticut has a huge problem period.
Very few Connecticut businesses are investing in Connecticut. Almost every economic measure is trending down. The system needs to flushed.
One cannot possibly imply that Vermont has a stronger economy than Connecticut despite having a 2.1% unemployment rate. Yes, the ski areas and other tourist attractions are having a more difficult time finding workers to fill their $8 an hour positions. This is especially true with fewer teens willing or able to work in these positions. Many of the ski areas got bought out by larger corporations which do not allow teens to fill positions that were typically filled by workers as young as 14. Connecticut has significant manufacturing, finance, healthcare, and technology companies that are key components of our economy. Tourism is the key component of Vermont's economy and Connecticut residents, along with Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey, significantly contribute to Vermont's success by owning second homes and spending a significant amount of their disposable income there.
Much like Disney, Six Flags, and resorts in Palm Beach, FL, the ski resorts rely heavily on J-1 visa workers to staff their seasonal positions. $10.78 an hour, bed and meals, and a ski pass is enough for those workers.
This is an economic version of discussing the deck chairs on the Titanic. The entire northeast is bad. And Connecticut seems to be the worst of the bunch. Who cares if we have a metric or two superior to Vermont? Connecticut has a huge problem period.
Very few Connecticut businesses are investing in Connecticut. Almost every economic measure is trending down. The system needs to flushed.
And yet the northeast has lower unemployment rates and higher Real GDP than other parts of the country. Connecticut may have the highest unemployment rate in New England BUT it is still under the national average; it is less than high growth states like Washington, Maryland, North Carolina and Nevada; is the same as Georgia; and not that much higher than Texas, Florida and Tennessee.
As for the talk about income gap, every state has poor people. The difference here in Connecticut is that we have a LOT of very rich people too. Other states do not have as many so of course our gap is larger. We are not going to be eliminate the poor so would people rather we get rid of the very rich? You can't have it both ways. Jay
Some good points. But to your last sentence, it’s definitely worse. As of 2018, Bridgeport/Stamford metro had the biggest wealth gap in the nation. That means among the richest in the country, and among the poorest. Seeing that statistically, on average, new residents have a 26% lower income than the ones who left, I expect that gap to close slightly going forward.
Absolutely, this has been a massive problem for going on 20 years. Unfortunately the state kind of shrugs and assumes we all have infinite money to throw at the issue.
Very few Connecticut businesses are investing in Connecticut. Almost every economic measure is trending down. The system needs to flushed.
Ignoring the massive investments some of the biggest employers have put in during the last 5 years, why would we want to encourage overinvestment for investment sake? That's a recipe for utter disaster. Once the global economy starts chugging again the firms will very likely put in needed capital expenditures.
Right now bond markets are practically throwing money into infrastructure bonds... and yet the state weary of even cheap debt is leaving it on the table despite our insane need for massive public works.
And yet the northeast has lower unemployment rates and higher Real GDP than other parts of the country. Connecticut may have the highest unemployment rate in New England BUT it is still under the national average; it is less than high growth states like Washington, Maryland, North Carolina and Nevada; is the same as Georgia; and not that much higher than Texas, Florida and Tennessee.
As for the talk about income gap, every state has poor people. The difference here in Connecticut is that we have a LOT of very rich people too. Other states do not have as many so of course our gap is larger. We are not going to be eliminate the poor so would people rather we get rid of the very rich? You can't have it both ways. Jay
As I have said many times you are pointing to the legacy of Connecticut's past. Connecticut is a former economic powerhouse. Hartford was the richest city in the country in the early 20th century. That is beyond meaningless now.
CT is losing jobs, losing population, Georgia is kicking our butt. It's a dynamo compared to Connecticut. They have a stable, low tax, government that doesn't lurch into financial crisis after financial crisis where companies have to bail the state every couple of years.
4,000 jobs lost just this year. 4,000. And Connecticut is losing GDP as well. It has gone down from 2007, 2008.
Historical Real GDP (2009 Chained Dollars) data for Connecticut
[quote=kidyankee764;55972632]Some good points. But to your last sentence, it’s definitely worse. As of 2018, Bridgeport/Stamford metro had the biggest wealth gap in the nation. That means among the richest in the country, and among the poorest. Seeing that statistically, on average, new residents have a 26% lower income than the ones who left, I expect that gap to close slightly going forward./QUOTE]
You know what......there is a wealth gap but when I go into Bridgeport a lot of the people have nicer cars than me. We think of Bridgeport as poor but it really isn't that poor.
I kind of think like Bloomberg on this topic. I don't think having a lot of people with wealth is a negative. But I am an Independent (like him). Go down south and see poverty there and then tell me Bridgeport it is so terrible. Especially now that the minimum wage will go up to $15 in CT. The poor people in CT will probably be some of the richest poor people in the country.
New York's billionaire mayor said Friday it would be "a godsend" if the world's other billionaires all moved to the city because it would increase the tax base. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...224592951.html
The immigrants* from other countries LOVE Bridgeport. If two people in the house are working they can buy their own house/condo. I can't think of any immigrant I have met who lives in Bridgeport who doesn't sing it's praises and that of CT. It is all a matter of perspective. They work hard and could care less about an income gap. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...t,US/SEX255218
Bridgeport Stats:
Median House Value: $170,300
Median Household Income: $44,841
Per Capita Income: $22,806
US Average (from Google)
Median House Value: $193,500
Median Household Income: $57,652
Per Capita Income: $31,177
Poverty Threshold in the US
Family of Four: $24,858
Bridgeport doesn't look so poor now does it?
*They don't either don't know, don't care and don't obsess about a wealth gap like Americans.
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.
You can't have it both ways. Jay
