U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 07-07-2010, 09:30 AM
 
112 posts, read 207,495 times
Reputation: 59

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowerdeck View Post
I recently had applied for a job in Danbury. During my interview, it was pretty much said I needed 14 dollars an hour at 40 hours a week just to scrape by and survive.

Which well... when minimum wage is only 8 an hour - a lot of places aren't going to be paying more than 14 to a college grad in the mid 20s, when there's plenty of more experienced workers available on the market that are even willing to take under 14 an hour.


The only true affordable place in Connecticut is up by Putnam and Danielson. But you pay for what you get, far to any major city and severe lack of jobs - especially white collar.

No wonder half of my friends and acquaintances are unemployed or underemployed. The rest moved to FL, NC, CA, and Vegas.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2010, 11:55 AM
 
262 posts, read 519,230 times
Reputation: 127
Tryingtomakeit,
Thank you for the link. But as noted above, the methodology in the study is deeply flawed. As pointed out, if you changed addresses (ie. moved within state) you are a "migrant". Even though you didn't leave the state you are lumped in with the "migrant" group as if you had left. Here's the relevant quote from the methodology section "To qualify for inclusion in the SSMD, the IRS compares address information supplied on the taxpayer’s tax form between two years. If the address is different in Year 2 from Year 1, then the taxpayer is classified as a “migrant;” otherwise, the taxpayer is classified as a “non-migrant.” SSMD is an acronym for State to State Migration Data.

Secondly they admit that a "major weakness of the SSMD is that it excludes certain segments of the population. First, it excludes low-income groups such as students, welfare-recipients and the elderly because the standard deduction and exemptions are greater than their income. Second, it under-represents the very wealthy because they are more likely to request a filing extension and miss the late September cut-off for inclusion in the data-set. Finally, it may miss taxpayers who have changed filing status—especially from “married filing joint” to “married filing separately.”
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 02:00 PM
 
112 posts, read 207,495 times
Reputation: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appias View Post
Tryingtomakeit,
Thank you for the link. But as noted above, the methodology in the study is deeply flawed. As pointed out, if you changed addresses (ie. moved within state) you are a "migrant". Even though you didn't leave the state you are lumped in with the "migrant" group as if you had left. Here's the relevant quote from the methodology section "To qualify for inclusion in the SSMD, the IRS compares address information supplied on the taxpayer’s tax form between two years. If the address is different in Year 2 from Year 1, then the taxpayer is classified as a “migrant;” otherwise, the taxpayer is classified as a “non-migrant.” SSMD is an acronym for State to State Migration Data.

Secondly they admit that a "major weakness of the SSMD is that it excludes certain segments of the population. First, it excludes low-income groups such as students, welfare-recipients and the elderly because the standard deduction and exemptions are greater than their income. Second, it under-represents the very wealthy because they are more likely to request a filing extension and miss the late September cut-off for inclusion in the data-set. Finally, it may miss taxpayers who have changed filing status—especially from “married filing joint” to “married filing separately.”

I will agree with you that the dollar amounts may be skewed due to the methodology. However, the majority of the information listed is "Net CT Migration to Other States". It gives the amount of residents who left CT and went to another state...not another town or county within CT. Also, it gives the name of the states where the migration occured. So, to say that you would be lumped into the "migrant" classification would not be correct as you were still in CT. The info from the IRS Migration Data User's Guide states:
Migration status is determined when the year-1 state and county geographic codes are compared to the year-2 geographic codes. A non-mover is, by definition a non-migrant, however a mover is not necessarily a migrant. If a taxpayer moved but stayed within the same state and county then the mover is a "non-migrant." If these geographic codes differ the mover is a "migrant."

Here is the link to check it out yourself if you wish:
SOI Tax Stats - Migration Data Users Guide (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=213802,00.html - broken link)

SOI Tax Stats - State-to-State Migration Database Files (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=212702,00.html - broken link)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 03:01 PM
 
Location: New England
8,155 posts, read 18,211,767 times
Reputation: 3279
Quote:
Originally Posted by tryingtomakeitinCT View Post
I will agree with you that the dollar amounts may be skewed due to the methodology. However, the majority of the information listed is "Net CT Migration to Other States". It gives the amount of residents who left CT and went to another state...not another town or county within CT. Also, it gives the name of the states where the migration occured. So, to say that you would be lumped into the "migrant" classification would not be correct as you were still in CT. The info from the IRS Migration Data User's Guide states:
Migration status is determined when the year-1 state and county geographic codes are compared to the year-2 geographic codes. A non-mover is, by definition a non-migrant, however a mover is not necessarily a migrant. If a taxpayer moved but stayed within the same state and county then the mover is a "non-migrant." If these geographic codes differ the mover is a "migrant."

Here is the link to check it out yourself if you wish:
SOI Tax Stats - Migration Data Users Guide (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=213802,00.html - broken link)

SOI Tax Stats - State-to-State Migration Database Files (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=212702,00.html - broken link)
You are using information outside of the article you posted to try and prove a point? Why not use the data and methodology IN the report you posted.

Appias gave you sound reasons, but I guess that's not good enough?

From the link and article:
Analogous to this is the data fidelity within the SSMD. For example, if only a single taxpayer moved from state A to state B, it would be relatively simple (for those with the know-how) to identify that taxpayer. Therefore, the IRS lumps all such taxpayers into a residual category in order to prevent identification. As a result, the exact movement of all taxpayers is unknown.

On the other hand, the major weakness of the SSMD is that it excludes certain segments of the population. First, it excludes low-income groups such as students, welfare-recipients and the elderly because the standard deduction and exemptions are greater than their income. Second, it under-represents the very wealthy because they are more likely to request a filing extension and miss the late September cut-off for inclusion in the data-set. Finally, it may misstaxpayers who have changed filing status—especially from “married filing joint” to “married filing separately.”


Sounds like loose information to me. Sorry. But feel free to argue with yourself.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 03:42 PM
 
112 posts, read 207,495 times
Reputation: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello View Post
You are using information outside of the article you posted to try and prove a point? Why not use the data and methodology IN the report you posted.
The methodology in the article comes from the previous link to the IRS that I provided. If you read the article you will see something called "source".

But feel free to pick it apart...I didnt write it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 04:28 PM
 
1,183 posts, read 1,287,621 times
Reputation: 558
Appias' scenario sounds much more like the scenario that my friends from all over have been complaining about: just no good jobs to start out with just abot anywhere. I have a few looking in Boston with no luck, some with extreme luck but the same goes for NC, NY, NJ, SC, and just about anywhere else right now. The generation before us got spoilt with some of the cushiest positions right out of uni while we're facing one of the hardest.

JayCT, I know your post was a while back but HOMEConnecticut advocates denser construction/rehabs in established communities, and tightening up zoning regs in less dense areas to prevent sprawl. From their publications it doesn't seem like a CO or AZ kind of development is what they are prescribing. They attack more the urban propietary parking space zoning regs as a detrimental factor of affordable housing and the lack of a mix of housing in many communities.

I personally agree with them: the towns that are hurting the most from the "age drain" or whatever you want to call it are suffering from their 20 year adversion to more small-scaled residences out of fear of more kids (although smaller house/apartment dwellers tend to have fewer kids). Although I can't find the article now (no Adobe Reader on this Computer) the magazine "Connecticut Economy" had a spread around last year (it's a quarterly pub) showing where the young are leaving and staying. The coast and the cities with their innerring suburbs did pretty well... not so much the more conventional and rural suburbs. Although part of the problem is just being in one of the most dynamic and rich areas of the country economically is enough to make problems more accute.

~Cheers
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 07:50 PM
 
Location: The brown house on the cul de sac
2,081 posts, read 4,125,358 times
Reputation: 9305
Every place in every state, town, city has people that are living "out of reach". Even the poorest states have people complaining about how expensive it is.

So it's out of reach for you...move on then...find another job in a place you can live....this thread is redundant and tiring...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 08:04 PM
 
262 posts, read 519,230 times
Reputation: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by renovating View Post
So it's out of reach for you...move on then...find another job in a place you can live....this thread is redundant and tiring...

Couldn't agree more.

Last edited by Appias; 07-07-2010 at 08:05 PM.. Reason: clarity
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2010, 07:14 AM
 
Location: New England
8,155 posts, read 18,211,767 times
Reputation: 3279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appias View Post
Couldn't agree more.
Ditto.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top