[JayCT]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Extrapolate out 30 or 40 years and it’s rust belt.

Sorry but that is kind of ludicrous to make that assumption if you know how economics work. The economy grows and then contracts. What’s important is how it contracts. Connecticut has always been pretty much low growth a lot but it also doesn’t contract a lot. Look at many of the high growth states, they have boom and bust economies. That’s not good. It doesn’t place them in a good position for the long haul. Jay

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Sorry but that is kind of ludicrous to make that assumption if you know how economics work. The economy grows and then contracts. What’s important is how it contracts. Connecticut has always been pretty much low growth a lot but it also doesn’t contract a lot. Look at many of the high growth states, they have boom and bust economies. That’s not good. It doesn’t place them in a good position for the long haul. Jay

That’s not even remotely accurate. Connecticut had sustained GDP growth that aligned with national rates until about 2005 and it has been flat since.

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

That’s not even remotely accurate. Connecticut had sustained GDP growth that aligned with national rates until about 2005 and it has been flat since.

You are incorrect. CT is such a small state that you need to measure the economy in GDP per capita. I found a very cool graph that has motion. From 1998 to 2018 CT has always been in the top 5 for GDP per capita EXCEPT for a few years between 2014 and 2016 when we went down to #7 (still not that bad really).

Scroll down and click on the "replay" button in the graph like the picture below.
https://ssti.org/blog/useful-stats-c...duct-1998-2018



I keep saying this all the time on here. Do we want the CT economy to grow 1) fast in low wage jobs or 2) a little more slowly in high wage jobs?

As the baby boomers retire down south, yes our GDP will not grow by leaps and bounds and might even retract a little as long as we stay up in the top 5 for GDP per capita. That's common sense.

Note: NY is #1 for GDP per capita.......Wall Street is king again! That means good things for CT.

Fun facts.....Texas went lower. Florida went lower. Like I said to we want a race to the bottom or to the top in GDP Per Capita?

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

That’s not even remotely accurate. Connecticut had sustained GDP growth that aligned with national rates until about 2005 and it has been flat since.

Correct. It is a troubling last 16 years.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

That’s not even remotely accurate. Connecticut had sustained GDP growth that aligned with national rates until about 2005 and it has been flat since.

What exactly is inaccurate? Are you saying we aren’t in the top five for GDP per capita and haven’t been there for years. As CTartist’s post clearly shows, that’s true. Are you saying we have a boom and bust economy? The fact is that during the Great Recession Connecticut’s unemployment rate never hit double digits kind of proves that’s not true either. The amount of economic growth means little if you are already at the top, as long as you stay there. And we are staying there. Jay

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by CTartist

You are incorrect. CT is such a small state that you need to measure the economy in GDP per capita. I found a very cool graph that has motion. From 1998 to 2018 CT has always been in the top 5 for GDP per capita EXCEPT for a few years between 2014 and 2016 when we went down to #7 (still not that bad really).

Scroll down and click on the "replay" button in the graph like the picture below.
https://ssti.org/blog/useful-stats-c...duct-1998-2018

Attachment 228955

I keep saying this all the time on here. Do we want the CT economy to grow 1) fast in low wage jobs or 2) a little more slowly in high wage jobs?

As the baby boomers retire down south, yes our GDP will not grow by leaps and bounds and might even retract a little as long as we stay up in the top 5 for GDP per capita. That's common sense.

Note: NY is #1 for GDP per capita.......Wall Street is king again! That means good things for CT.

Fun facts.....Texas went lower. Florida went lower. Like I said to we want a race to the bottom or to the top in GDP Per Capita?

I found something else in this chart that I have been pointing out on here for years. I have always called it the "Creative Class" but in this chart is is called "Knowledge Economy". It is really the same meaning. It is better (more money) to design the widget and own the rights to the widget then to build the widget. And that all takes education.

"Beyond North Dakota*, which led all states with a 29.6 percent increase in per capita GDP from 2008 to 2018, the other states with the largest increases during that time were boosted by growth in the knowledge economy, such as New York (20.2 percent increase), California, (17.4 percent increase), Washington (15.4 percent increase) and Massachusetts (13.9 percent)."
https://ssti.org/blog/useful-stats-c...duct-1998-2018

*That is coming from oil. My husband is reading that the American Car companies will be all electric cars by 2035. What will happen to all the oil producing states like the ND and Texas then?

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Correct. It is a troubling last 16 years.

What’s troubling? I’ve been hearing this kind of panic for the last 14 years on this website. The facts are Connecticut’s economy is in the Top 5 for Gross Domestic Product per capita just as it’s been for years now. We are No. 1 for personal income and disposable income. We are among the top for median and household income as well. I see NOTHING troubling about that. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

What’s troubling?

Our path since 2005 is troubling. We had several good decades leading to it and we are still riding the lead we built up during those, but we are slipping the last 15 years. Our recent experience stinks economically.

[Stepfordct]

Originally Posted by CTartist

I found something else in this chart that I have been pointing out on here for years. I have always called it the "Creative Class" but in this chart is is called "Knowledge Economy". It is really the same meaning. It is better (more money) to design the widget and own the rights to the widget then to build the widget. And that all takes education.

"Beyond North Dakota*, which led all states with a 29.6 percent increase in per capita GDP from 2008 to 2018, the other states with the largest increases during that time were boosted by growth in the knowledge economy, such as New York (20.2 percent increase), California, (17.4 percent increase), Washington (15.4 percent increase) and Massachusetts (13.9 percent)."
https://ssti.org/blog/useful-stats-c...duct-1998-2018

*That is coming from oil. My husband is reading that the American Car companies will be all electric cars by 2035. What will happen to all the oil producing states like the ND and Texas then?

Think this is more virtue signaling to see how woke they are.
The reality is the electrical grid can't support anywhere near that kind of growth.
We also don't generate enough power. Try building a new power plant. NIMBY is in charge.
People will fight every one.
Next, there's not enough of the rare earth materials to make enough batteries.
Range anxiety. My family loves my electric car but only because we have other ICE cars at our disposal to make long trips.

Realize in the winter your range can drop 40% from advertised, just due to the cold weather. Oh you want heat on now you lost 50-55% of the range.

We use oil for plastic, road construction, clothing, plus many wells produce natural gas. etc..... without oil your smartphone can't be made.

[synchem]

Originally Posted by Stepfordct

Think this is more virtue signaling to see how woke they are.
The reality is the electrical grid can't support anywhere near that kind of growth.
We also don't generate enough power. Try building a new power plant. NIMBY is in charge.
People will fight every one.
Next, there's not enough of the rare earth materials to make enough batteries.
Range anxiety. My family loves my electric car but only because we have other ICE cars at our disposal to make long trips.

Realize in the winter your range can drop 40% from advertised, just due to the cold weather. Oh you want heat on now you lost 50-55% of the range.

We use oil for plastic, road construction, clothing, plus many wells produce natural gas. etc..... without oil your smartphone can't be made.

All sorts of FUD in this post. The grid doesn't need to support that growth because cars do not draw continuous power. Batteries use cobalt and lithium which aren't rare earth metals. Technology grows at an exponential rate and people do not think well exponentially (as a thought experiment guess the width of a piece of paper if you were to fold it in half 50 times). In 15 years the technology will more than be able to handle what is needed as well as the efficiency of the vehicles and range of them will be dramatically better.

The earth gets hit with 170k terawatts of energy hit the earth continuously. It doesn't necessarily need to come from power plants.