[nep321]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Yes, that was the affluent prominent family I mentioned in my last post. They are great people, as are the folks they surround themselves with (also from Glastonbury). All nice people. Like I said, all of Glastonbury isn't like how people are describing above, but I think Glastonbury has more people than your average town who act like it. I also think other middle class towns are similar - Glastonbury is just more well-known so people rag on it.



How do you figure? Sure their populations are smaller, but all in all, when you compare the percentage of each population, Hebron and Marlborough have higher incomes. Whether it's because of a smaller population or what, it is what it is.



Median household income is far from meaningless. It counts ALL income of residents over 18 - it includes unemployment insurance, disability, child support, investments and other routinely received income. The inhabitants also don't have to be directly related to the head of household, so everyone is counted (contrary to what I originally thought).

Per capita, on the other hand, does not include any of the services listed above. Since Connecticut has a huge disparity between the rich and poor, the income of the very wealthy often increases per capita income far above what the population actually makes. Because of this, median income is the preferred way of measuring actual income.

That being said, I think median household is far more accurate than per capita.

But, it's silly to measure income on a household by household basis. Why not on a person by person basis? Per capita income better achieves this. What about housing arrangements in which there are multiple low income roomates, causing the household income to be high? This is quite common, especially in middle class or low income cities/towns. What if there is a town with a population of 3 households, two earning only $30K and one earning $1 billion? The median income of the town would be only $30K! Per capita income solves the problems of median household income. It accounts for the degree to which income is earned by the residents, rather than simply taking the middle income in the household population. And, it also counts those income earners as young as 15 years old.

[basehead617]

Average household income more accurately includes the BIG earners in the picture, whereas median most definitely does not.

And I agree with an earlier post that the inheritance/old money of places like Greenwich cannot be overstated. Who needs reportable income when you have hundreds of millions of dollars in offshore bank accounts and investments?

[ctcoldplay11]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

How do you figure? Sure their populations are smaller, but all in all, when you compare the percentage of each population, Hebron and Marlborough have higher incomes. Whether it's because of a smaller population or what, it is what it is.

Kid, so with that logic, you're saying that a town like Ledyard or North Stonington is 'wealthier' than a town like West Hartford or Farmington?

Doubtful. These numbers are just skewed. I'm not saying they're wrong, but they do not accurately represent the wealth of individual towns. For West Hartford and Farmington (towns that everyone compliments for their general affluence) hardly did well with these numbers.

[TENN24]

Originally Posted by ctcoldplay11

Kid, so with that logic, you're saying that a town like Ledyard or North Stonington is 'wealthier' than a town like West Hartford or Farmington?

Doubtful. These numbers are just skewed. I'm not saying they're wrong, but they do not accurately represent the wealth of individual towns. For West Hartford and Farmington (towns that everyone compliments for their general affluence) hardly did well with these numbers.

Completely agree with this statement!! Finally some logic!
Technically there could be a town with 5 families that could have a higher
median income than Greenwich etc however that is not comparable. It's simply not fair to compare towns with 5,000 people to towns in excess of 30,000.

[ctcoldplay11]

Originally Posted by TENN24

Completely agree with this statement!! Finally some logic!
Technically there could be a town with 5 families that could have a higher
median income than Greenwich etc however that is not comparable. It's simply not fair to compare towns with 5,000 people to towns in excess of 30,000.

Exactly!

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by TENN24

By the way, Trumball, Newtown and Brookfield are not as 'wealthy' as these Hartford 'burbs.'

I do not know that I agree with this. Trumbull and Newtown have some pretty wealthy people. In fact much of Trumbull reminds me of Glastonbury. There is a lot of middle management type housing in both of these towns. Jay

[seymourct]

Who's wallet is bigger, who has more stuff paid for or on credit, real wealth, balance sheet wealth, boring ...... Who's wife has a gold ring with a 1 ct flawless, who has platinum with 1/2 ct.... Geesh and men say women gossip.....

I still say which towns have better educated labor... Which towns have improved that number is just as important.... Folks can't earn new money, or be smart enough to keep & handle old money without an education

[JViello]

Originally Posted by factcheckerdude

JViello,

What is with the name calling? How old are you? This is a debate you do not gain any points by name calling it shows a fundamental lack of intelligence and an ability to create a strong rational argument.

1337 data dude.

Originally Posted by Tetto

Well, excuuuuse me! Everybody knows the real elite reside in Balmoral! Must be management and professional types, real progressives...

Go here (http://www.avillalouisa.com/Company/index.html - broken link) for the early bird special, an "old timer" hangout...

LOL Teacher and IT manager for a large town in the Hartford area.

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I've never used the ignore feature on this forum, but I think now is a good time to start.

Back on topic ... anyone know what's up in Hebron? Where do most of the residents work - Hartford? I'm going over the census results and the outer ring Hartford burbs, northern Fairfield County and the western suburbs of New Haven (Orange, Oxford) did pretty well.

I didn't know we had one of those...I'll check it out.

Hebron is an interesting town in that it stretches down to Colchester in the South, Glastonbury to the West, Bolton to the North with several arteries feeding it. You can have access to RT66, RT2 or RT85 or I384 depending on where you want to go or where you live. We looked at two houses on opposite ends. One was near Gay City state park and would basically be an extention of living in Manchester and you would get home via I384 the other was only a mile or two from RT2 and Colchester center/stop and shop so you really lived "down there".

Originally Posted by JayCT

I am not "condescendingly" describing anyone. You were the one that said you were an old timer and that the new people were ruining the town. I am merely pointing out the dynamics of a town in change. Most of the names you mention are old time farming faamilies. I do not think that they are the only reasons the town is desirable. Good schools, access to highways and careful development play a big role in that.

Your comments do not hit a nerve,but your generalizations do. People read this forum for a reason and to find information about different towns. To generalize an entire town by what is really a few is wrong. Jay

Jay I agree with you about generalizations. However, you do have to admit that there is that "new" segment of folks in Gbury. In fact, if I remember correctly you yourself commented on how kids from some areas of town tend to look down on kids from the "other" section of town.

I know there seems to be a different attitude in the folks on the East Hartford/Manchester border and those who live off Colton Road area or Crystal Ridge.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by nep321

But, it's silly to measure income on a household by household basis. Why not on a person by person basis? Per capita income better achieves this. What about housing arrangements in which there are multiple low income roomates, causing the household income to be high? This is quite common, especially in middle class or low income cities/towns. What if there is a town with a population of 3 households, two earning only $30K and one earning $1 billion? The median income of the town would be only $30K! Per capita income solves the problems of median household income. It accounts for the degree to which income is earned by the residents, rather than simply taking the middle income in the household population. And, it also counts those income earners as young as 15 years old.

Any statistical measure is inexact, but I would argue that household income is more meaningful than per capita income, since living costs do not go up proportionately with every additional member because the house itself is the biggest expense.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

Any statistical measure is inexact, but I would argue that household income is more meaningful than per capita income, since living costs do not go up proportionately with every additional member because the house itself is the biggest expense.

Well it also depends on what conclusion you are trying to draw from the data. I look to income statistics to get a judgment as to the average person in a city/town. Is the town ghetto? Blue collar? Upscale? White collar? Etc. I think per capita income better achieves this. Median household income might be a better statistic if you are seeking to answer a different question or come to a different type of conclusion. At the end of the day, however, there really isn't that much difference in the conclusions from using either measure, to be honest.