[JViello]

Originally Posted by nep321

Of course Lyme is rural in itself. The population density is only like 64 persons per square mile or something. Contrast that with Middletown, which is about 1,180.

"not congested" or "Not as populated" is more how I would put it. Rural, not so much.

This is generally the type of house you find in Lyme with a dock on the CT River inlet.

[nep321]

I would also like to use the measure of per capita income as an end to the Maryland vs. Connecticut wealth debate. According to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey as published by the U.S. Census Bureau, the per capita income of each state is as follows:

Connecticut $36,468 WINNER!
Maryland $34,236

Also note that DC has $40,846, however.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by nep321

One town that I am surprised about is Lyme. Why is the income level in this town so high? The population is only about 2,500. Seriously..who lives there and is that rich? It's a very rural town!

Lyme has about 2,000 residents of which 1,104 are part of the workforce. Most (13%) work in town. 8% work in Groton, 5% in Old Saybrook, 4% in New London, 4% in Middletown, and 3% each in Chester, Essex, Norwich and Waterford. Jay

[nep321]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Lyme has about 2,000 residents of which 1,104 are part of the workforce. Most (13%) work in town. 8% work in Groton, 5% in Old Saybrook, 4% in New London, 4% in Middletown, and 3% each in Chester, Essex, Norwich and Waterford. Jay

What about the other 54% of the workforce? Where do they work? Lol. I'm guessing a number of them work in New Haven or Norwich.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by nep321

Kidyankee764:

No, it depends on what conclusion you are seeking. Average is sometimes the best way to measure something. Sometimes median is the best way. Median income fails to take into account the degree to which the income level truly is.

For example, suppose that Town A has 3 households, one person per household. Two of these households earn $0 per year while the other household earns $1 million per year. Now, suppose that Town B has 3 households, one person per household. Two of these households earn $10K per year and the other household earns $11K per year. Given this scenario, let's see which town holds more wealth.

The median income of Town A would be $0, while the median income of Town B would be $10K. Is it really sensible to conclude that Town B is a wealthier town, even though there is a millionaire residing in Town A and all residents of Town B are lower class?

Now, the per capita income of Town A would be $333,333 and the per capita income of Town B would be $10,333. The conclusion here is that Town A is by far the wealthier town. In practical real-world application, IMO, per capita income measure more accurately reflects the relative wealth of a town, because each earning body in the town has an impact on the overall wealth of the town.

Do they count "zero"? I would assume if they did, towns where people are so wealthy that they don't have to work (Jupiter Island, FL, for example) would have a very low median income. This isn't the case though. I'd be interested to see how they calculate median and per capita income. But again, with per capita, the major flaw is not counting additional sources of income, only the primary incomes. Seeing that a lot of people in working class towns have other sources of income [named a few pages back], it would bring them lower then normal.

While your "town A, town B" comparison is accurate, looking at it in reality, most towns around here don't have populations like this with such a huge disparity in income. That was an extreme example and even though correct, it doesn't represent the vast majority of findings. For communities with a population of 500 and up, I think median is a pretty good determination of where the community stands.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Do they count "zero"? I would assume if they did, towns where people are so wealthy that they don't have to work (Jupiter Island, FL, for example) would have a very low median income. This isn't the case though. I'd be interested to see how they calculate median and per capita income. But again, with per capita, the major flaw is not counting additional sources of income, only the primary incomes. Seeing that a lot of people in working class towns have other sources of income [named a few pages back], it would bring them lower then normal.

While your "town A, town B" comparison is accurate, looking at it in reality, most towns around here don't have populations like this with such a huge disparity in income. That was an extreme example and even though correct, it doesn't represent the vast majority of findings. For communities with a population of 500 and up, I think median is a pretty good determination of where the community stands.

They probably count investment income. People who don't have to work will have lots of that.

[basehead617]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

They probably count investment income. People who don't have to work will have lots of that.

Keep in mind a lot of people have investments where if they aren't active traders, aren't paying capital gains because it's unrealized... they may have big years where they take some out and have a bunch of income, but you could just as easily have almost no income for year on your giant investment accounts.. except for maybe some relatively modest dividends..

Not to mention tax sheltered/overseas money, which is VERY common among the super wealthy in FFC..

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

They probably count investment income. People who don't have to work will have lots of that.

What they don't include is trust money. Many wealthy people live off of a trust fund which finances much of their life style. The trust will maintain their home (including food and drink) and vehicles and any "toys" (boats, motorcycles, sports equipment, etc.) they want. The trust will provide them with a small income for pocket exenses which is what shows up in these numbers. I knew a couple of kids in college and the children of my aunt's former employer that had this set up. Their income is small but who needs an income when all you had to do was stay at one of several family homes maintained by the trust. Jay

[mlassoff]

I think what we're grasping at is the difference between income and wealth.

The "old money" we talk about is wealth... It seems to have no bearing on income, because you can not work at all and still be wealthy-- Likely much wealthier than someone who has a high income and high spending habits.

I think if one were to compare the wealth of Connecticut with other high income areas, Connecticut would be much wealthier. The average incomes that were noted (in the 60k's) are low income for Fairfield County, in part, because of the comparative wealth that's there. There are few (if any) homes to be had in lower Fairfield County that are affordable on a single income of 60K.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

There are few (if any) homes to be had in lower Fairfield County that are affordable on a single income of 60K.

There are few that can be had with TWO 60K incomes! Those $500K 1000sf starter ranches are a b-word.