[Henry10]

Originally Posted by jxzz

Can not understand your logic of removing FFC. FFC is part of CT. What do you think if one can also claim that by removing Bay Area/SF, CA economy is not as great as many folks claim. Or, MA is not as great as many believe if metro Boston is removed

You're missing the point -- the argument Sigequinox made was that NYC / World market policies affect FFC a lot more than let's say Oregon's policies affect San Francisco, or Rhode Island's on Boston.

In other words, it seems that FFC has followed a different trajectory from the rest of CT.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by CTartist

1) I was born and raised in Stamford and I have relatives in the Greenwich/Stamford/New Canaan/Darien area since the late 1800's. The financial services sector has been baked into CT's economic cake for decades. It is not anything new.

If you're talking Insurance, yes, it's many decades. If you're talking securities -- then its fairly recent. IIRC the BIG moves from Wall Street into Stamford started really in 1990s.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

Much like the lower FFC wealth skewing "per capital income", I imagine it doesn't take too many multi-billion dollar hedge funds to skew GDP per capita in state with only 3.5 million people. the situation is dire. Even if the perfect, most brilliant and skilled administration took office tomorrow and all our legislator were replaced by the same, CT is still minimum decade away from achieving Success beyond mere stability. Under current conditions, don't have much hope before 2050. CT new slogan will be "Alabama of the north". Though it will be insulting to Alabama.

Every time someone tells you "highest concentration of millionaires" or "doesn't crash as hard during depressions" your mind should IMMEDIATELY res flag that person and think "propaganda " or "subterfuge" and "attempting to belittle your intelligence"

You raised valid points.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._capita_income

[BPt111]

Originally Posted by Henry10

You're missing the point -- the argument Sigequinox made was that NYC / World market policies affect FFC a lot more than let's say Oregon's policies affect San Francisco, or Rhode Island's on Boston.

In other words, it seems that FFC has followed a different trajectory from the rest of CT.

Oregon state line is nearly 6 hour drive from San Francisco

[Robert137]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

You raised valid points.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._capita_income

Living in FFC , I tend to lump Tolland and Windham counties together in my mind, ie, think they are similar. But the income numbers in this article are very different--Tolland is much more affluent. Is the relative proximity to Hartford the reason?

[hvexpatinct]

Originally Posted by Robert137

Living in FFC , I tend to lump Tolland and Windham counties together in my mind, ie, think they are similar. But the income numbers in this article are very different--Tolland is much more affluent. Is the relative proximity to Hartford the reason?

It is partially that and partially that it contains UConn and still has a 3M plant. I have been hearing that several of the towns in Tolland have become increasingly desirable as a more accessible alternative to Farmington Valley towns. New construction is more widely available there too.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by jxzz

Can not understand your logic of removing FFC. FFC is part of CT. What do you think if one can also claim that by removing Bay Area/SF, CA economy is not as great as many folks claim. Or, MA is not as great as many believe if metro Boston is removed

People literally make that argument about Boston every single day on here....

...by removing its fiscal contribution to the state on CT, one could see just how dramatically asymmetrical both personal wealth and economic GDP is in the state of CT. The point of which, would be to NOT have a false sense of comfort if you live in southington or Wallingford etc. not complicated.

And yes, playing around with those numbers, say SF Bay Area, would indicate the impact that region has on the state. You would see a shift in the economic center of gravity. In CTs case, you would see steaming pile of turd at the bottom of a latrine. The difference with Boston is that it is being sustained on its own merit, not co-dependent on another metro.

In other words, MA GDP wouldn't look fundamentally different if you moved it to South Carolina. CT would be absolutely nothing if the same were true. The ONLY factor keeping CT on life support is another states economic overflow. Not exactly a winning strategy

[cttransplant85]

Something I've noticed about heavily blue states is that they just don't have a large middle class, more specificly squarely middle or lower middle classes. It's all upper middle and above or dirt poor living their entire lives off social services. Where as most red states like Utah or Texas you have this large robust middle class and not as many extremely wealthy or extremely poor people, it's more equatable. I believe in part this has to do with more upward income mobility for the poor. Its a lot easier and a lot cheaper to work for yourself in those places(higher % of business owners) and they have a lot more blue collar type jobs where you don't need a degree to make a middle class wage. If you look at the states with the largest middle classes the top 10 is almost entirely comprised of red/purple states and the bottom 10 is mostally blue states and I don't believe those studies even adjust for COL.

[hvexpatinct]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

People literally make that argument about Boston every single day on here....

...by removing its fiscal contribution to the state on CT, one could see just how dramatically asymmetrical both personal wealth and economic GDP is in the state of CT. The point of which, would be to NOT have a false sense of comfort if you live in southington or Wallingford etc. not complicated.

And yes, playing around with those numbers, say SF Bay Area, would indicate the impact that region has on the state. You would see a shift in the economic center of gravity. In CTs case, you would see steaming pile of turd at the bottom of a latrine. The difference with Boston is that it is being sustained on its own merit, not co-dependent on another metro.

In other words, MA GDP wouldn't look fundamentally different if you moved it to South Carolina. CT would be absolutely nothing if the same were true. The ONLY factor keeping CT on life support is another states economic overflow. Not exactly a winning strategy

Most of the state of NY is an economic disaster, but this logic gives Syracuse, Utica, etc a pass due to being on the same side of a state border with a city that is not remotely within commuting or even weekending distance. Same with the Berkshires vs Boston.

Specific to CT we can basically say that anything west of rt 8 is NYC lite and anything East is Kentucky, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the same state and currently treated as the same at the government level. Which then does raise a
an interesting question re: treating different regions of the state differently from a taxation/regulation perspective to acknowledge the change in spheres of influence. NY currently does this and it is deeply unpopular in some areas, but not on the radar of concern in others.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by hvexpatinct

Most of the state of NY is an economic disaster.

Bingo. As much as I abhor some of the long-term damage WS does, Wall St is a regional powerhouse, which raises Ct and Westchester County, plus Northern NJ median incomes higher, at least for a few decades.

We are lucky to be able to take advantage of that.