[BicoastalAnn]

I don't doubt most CT Aetna employees will keep their jobs (at least in terms of the relocation). These companies are very remote - my own company has most of its employees in non-HQ states. It's the loss of corp taxes and executive income taxes that I think will be the biggest hit to the local economy there.

[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by BeyondtheHorizon

You mean leave to taxachusetts like GE!? LOL Or uber liberal nyc? You can believe the top execs at these companies aren't feeling the pinch of big government. They are doing just great.

Leaving to those liberal "tax" cities is exactly what companies are doing across the nation when it comes to top talent. The next generation of skilled college grads are gravitating to major cities instead of suburbs.

[htfdcolt]

Unfortunately, the CEO's words are very clear on why Aetna is moving HQ out of CT:

Mark Bertolini: We

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Unfortunately, the CEO's words are very clear on why Aetna is moving HQ out of CT:

Mark Bertolini: We

"A spokesperson for the city of Boston's economic development office declined to comment on Bertolini's statements. New York economic development officials did not reply to inquiries. Bertolini would only say the company has tried to expand its footprint to communities where young talented people want to live."

OK, so if they do pick NYC guess what. When the young talented people get married and have kids we will most likely see them back in Fairfield County CT........And the beat goes on.

I just posted about this same thing (maybe here or in another thread) talking about the ebb and flow of the companies and people moving in and out of FFC. My family who has lived in the Greenwich/Stamford/Darien area for generations has seen this over and over and over again.

This CEO is right though, most of CT cities are bad and need to get their act together. Our cities close to NYC seem to be doing well but the rest seem to be pretty bad by what I read on here and what I witness myself in Bridgeport.

[WILWRadio]

The following article indirectly relates to this issue since AETNA is mentioned and the fact that the CEO of AETNA indicated the primary reason they are moving out of Hartford is to lure more talent from the Millenial generation.

For Millennials, Hartford's Better Than NYC - Hartford Courant

[cttransplant85]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

The following article indirectly relates to this issue since AETNA is mentioned and the fact that the CEO of AETNA indicated the primary reason they are moving out of Hartford is to lure more talent from the Millenial generation.

For Millennials, Hartford's Better Than NYC - Hartford Courant

From a PR standpoint they really can't come out and say well NYC offered us a subsidy package and 10 years tax free etc. But you can bet your ass those things are being worked out and one of the main drivers to their departure.

[Comp625]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

I don't doubt most CT Aetna employees will keep their jobs (at least in terms of the relocation). These companies are very remote - my own company has most of its employees in non-HQ states. It's the loss of corp taxes and executive income taxes that I think will be the biggest hit to the local economy there.

Agreed with BicoastalAnn. Connecticut has already offered to match tax saving packages offered by other states and Aetna's ignoring it. Aetna has also said it's CT workforce won't really be impacted. Source: Hartford Courant

If all's equal, do they want to pay taxes to a state that's beaten them down for years OR pay it to a state that can help them open new opportunities in the future?

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

The following article indirectly relates to this issue since AETNA is mentioned and the fact that the CEO of AETNA indicated the primary reason they are moving out of Hartford is to lure more talent from the Millenial generation.

For Millennials, Hartford's Better Than NYC - Hartford Courant

While cost of living is certainly lower in the Hartford area, I also see it as "you pay for what you get." NYC and Boston offer A LOT amenities than a Millennial's quality of life than Hartford. Not saying Hartford is bad, but I'd argue New Haven offers more to Millennials than Hartford (let alone the neighboring metropolises).

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by Comp625

Agreed with BicoastalAnn. Connecticut has already offered to match tax saving packages offered by other states and Aetna's ignoring it. Aetna has also said it's CT workforce won't really be impacted. Source: Hartford Courant

If all's equal, do they want to pay taxes to a state that's beaten them down for years OR pay it to a state that can help them open new opportunities in the future?

While cost of living is certainly lower in the Hartford area, I also see it as "you pay for what you get." NYC and Boston offer A LOT amenities than a Millennial's quality of life than Hartford. Not saying Hartford is bad, but I'd argue New Haven offers more to Millennials than Hartford (let alone the neighboring metropolises).

"Millennials" is code-word for cheaper labor. Since NYC has so many millennials content with $ 50k while bunking in Astoria, in CT Aetna needs to pay somebody $ 60k or even $ 70k to be worth it.

So CT matching NY's tax savings is no good. CT has to do a lot more than that.

[Comp625]

Originally Posted by Henry10

"Millennials" is code-word for cheaper labor. Since NYC has so many millennials content with $ 50k while bunking in Astoria, in CT Aetna needs to pay somebody $ 60k or even $ 70k to be worth it.

So CT matching NY's tax savings is no good. CT has to do a lot more than that.

Yes, but Aetna already has the ability today to hire younger, cheaper labor regardless of the State that it calls home. In that CNBC video a few posts up, the CEO even said that they have a tech center (with presumably a younger-minded population) in Boston.

My original point is that while they're saying the HQ move is to attract younger talent, it's just PR spin to ease the reality around paying taxes to a State willing to be better partners (rather than being victim to Stockholm Syndrome).

[jxzz]

Originally Posted by Comp625

Yes, but Aetna already has the ability today to hire younger, cheaper labor regardless of the State that it calls home. In that CNBC video a few posts up, the CEO even said that they have a tech center (with presumably a younger-minded population) in Boston.

My original point is that while they're saying the HQ move is to attract younger talent, it's just PR spin to ease the reality around paying taxes to a State willing to be better partners (rather than being victim to Stockholm Syndrome).

Here is link on Aetna:

Aetna in talks to move its headquarters out of Connecticut - Business Insider

In this article, Aena CEO said that Aetna wants to be Amazon of insurance in the long run. Now Amazon, Google they not only have tech centers, but their HQ are in Silicon Valley, NYC or Boston. To be Amazon like, Hartford will not make it. Moving HQ out is rationally decision.

This is not PR. There is real meat in it.