[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by HumpDay

*

Just a curious question, but do you think CT will eventually turn itself around. Will alot of people want to move to CT again? Will it boom once more?

*

Never say never, but it seems unlikely to me.

[Rukh]

Originally Posted by nep321

The FACT of the matter is that blue states account for 66% of America's GDP, as well has 12% higher GDP per capita than all red states combined. 8 of the top 10 states with the best public schools are BLUE states. And 9 of the top 10 poorest states in the country are RED states. Blue states have lower obesity, higher educational attainment rates, higher wages and more worker related safety, protections and anti-discrimination laws in place. And property values and appreciation rates are higher in blue states.

Conclusion? Blue states have a higher quality of life and are more desirable to most Americans and foreigners.

lol? The fact that they're more prosperous has less to do with politics than location. States in the North-East are in a desirable shipping land and it takes A LOT to mess that up (thankfully CT's lawmakers have found a way, though!) which is an advantage that most Red states lack. It should surprise no one -- with the exception of Democratic kool-aid drinkers -- that states with little or no natural industry tend to be poor.

Plus many of those beloved Blue States -- such as NY, CT, etc --- also have the highest levels of inequality, showing that Democratic policies have largely failed (unless they were intended to create a Victorian-esque egalitarian society). And, thanks to one Dannel P Malloy's mismanagement, that gap just continues to grow. These days the only path to success is one that leads straight out of the state... assuming you could afford to leave.

[BobNJ1960]

Most people who move do it with a true complete knowledge of both where they are leaving and where they are going. That makes for the odds of them liking their decision to be extremely high. I moved from Southern Ct in 97, and enjoyed 17.5 years in the Nashville metro area, and I have enjoyed 6 months so far in central NJ. Both were well planned moves with a deep knowledge of the area in both cases.

[basehead617]

Originally Posted by just_because

Compared to a comparable nice Boston suburb like Belmont, Newton or Brookline (and there are many more costly ones), WH is easily half or 1/3 cost for the same house.

Yeah but in Newton, you get to live right outside...... yep.. Boston, rather than Hartford.

Plus the T (even the subway, not commuter rail) goes all the way out there.

And Newton schools are some of the best in the U.S.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Rukh

lol? The fact that they're more prosperous has less to do with politics than location. States in the North-East are in a desirable shipping land and it takes A LOT to mess that up (thankfully CT's lawmakers have found a way, though!) which is an advantage that most Red states lack. It should surprise no one -- with the exception of Democratic kool-aid drinkers -- that states with little or no natural industry tend to be poor.

Plus many of those beloved Blue States -- such as NY, CT, etc --- also have the highest levels of inequality, showing that Democratic policies have largely failed (unless they were intended to create a Victorian-esque egalitarian society). And, thanks to one Dannel P Malloy's mismanagement, that gap just continues to grow. These days the only path to success is one that leads straight out of the state... assuming you could afford to leave.

Income inequality doesn't denote failure of policy as much as national trends that are slowly eliminating the middle class.

Rampant poverty is a much bigger failure of policy. Connecticut has a lower poverty rate than all but 9 states. Seems as the states with dramatically higher poverty rates Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Alabama all are run via conservative policy makers. Texas has a poverty rate that is 60% higher than Connecticut. Louisiana's poverty rate is double Connecticut's. You don't think that's a bigger failure?

Because the wealthy here are wealthier, that's somehow a bigger failure than a 60% higher poverty rate, double teen pregnancy, dramatically lower college graduation rates, etc?

The numbers truly speak for themselves unless you live in some kind of conservative echo chamber.

[nep321]

Well, looks like there's no jobs in Florida for me to apply to, except for like one in Orlando and that's it. Raleigh has like one job posting. CT has many more job openings than either NC or FL, for me. The rest of the South is very conservative and southern cultured.

One place that I really liked, that has LOTS of jobs is Cleveland. Housing is just as affordable there, if not more affordable than the South. And best of all....NO traffic problems! And very Democratic politics! It's just that the roads are absolutely horrible, and weather is even worse than CT. But the people and culture is similar to CT, which a large Italian heritage, no accents, etc.

I actually landed an interview in Wallingford this Friday.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Income inequality doesn't denote failure of policy as much as national trends that are slowly eliminating the middle class.

Rampant poverty is a much bigger failure of policy. Connecticut has a lower poverty rate than all but 9 states. Seems as the states with dramatically higher poverty rates Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Alabama all are run via conservative policy makers. Texas has a poverty rate that is 60% higher than Connecticut. Louisiana's poverty rate is double Connecticut's. You don't think that's a bigger failure?

Because the wealthy here are wealthier, that's somehow a bigger failure than a 60% higher poverty rate, double teen pregnancy, dramatically lower college graduation rates, etc?

The numbers truly speak for themselves unless you live in some kind of conservative echo chamber.

That is SO true. I wish I could rep you again, but it won't let me.

[BobNJ1960]

Actually, mlassoff, I'd love to see poverty rates adjusted for COL differences, but I know of no site or government agency that provides that. It might not affect it tremendously, but one size fits all poverty level definitions are absolute rubbish. I suspect government employees at the BLS would be too lazy to refine it for COL differences.

[Rukh]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Income inequality doesn't denote failure of policy as much as national trends that are slowly eliminating the middle class.

Rampant poverty is a much bigger failure of policy. Connecticut has a lower poverty rate than all but 9 states. Seems as the states with dramatically higher poverty rates Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Alabama all are run via conservative policy makers. Texas has a poverty rate that is 60% higher than Connecticut. Louisiana's poverty rate is double Connecticut's. You don't think that's a bigger failure?

Because the wealthy here are wealthier, that's somehow a bigger failure than a 60% higher poverty rate, double teen pregnancy, dramatically lower college graduation rates, etc?

The numbers truly speak for themselves unless you live in some kind of conservative echo chamber.

lol... CT's COL is far higher than those other states so that's kind of a moot point. Not to mention that a person living in poverty down in Florida is better off than somebody living just above the poverty line in CT since they don't have to worry about freezing to death during winter and have more opportunities.

This would seem obvious if you weren't stuck in a liberal echo chamber which insulates you from the fact that Connecticutters are suffering while you fat cats just get richer.

[nep321]

The conservative policies of states like Texas and Georgia are not sustainable. They do not make investments in education, which is a big deal.