[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by nep321

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.

True, the measure you use will depend upon the question you are trying to answer.

This thread is getting pretty humorous, BTW. What's being said about Glastonbury could probably be said about most affluent towns in Connecticut, including the town where I live.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

True, the measure you use will depend upon the question you are trying to answer.

This thread is getting pretty humorous, BTW. What's being said about Glastonbury could probably be said about most affluent towns in Connecticut, including the town where I live.

I haven't been following this thread in detail but what is there to argue about Glastonbury? Anyone who evaluates a town by means of qualitative or quantitative analysis would conclude that it's an affluent town.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by nep321

I haven't been following this thread in detail but what is there to argue about Glastonbury? Anyone who evaluates a town by means of qualitative or quantitative analysis would conclude that it's an affluent town.

I was talking more about people calling some of the people there snooty.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

I was talking more about people calling some of the people there snooty.

Well, I have encountered several snooty people from G'bury, yes. Not gonna lie.

[MetsNY]

Originally Posted by TENN24

When did this become a Maryland vs. CT forum?? Who cares about Maryland?
So much for that.
The towns with the most money in the Hartford area are Avon, Glastonbury, Simsbury and Farmington BAR NONE!!! West Hartford has a fair amount of money too. These towns absolutely blow Hebron or any other rural town out of the water financially. There may be people averaging $110,000 in Hebron. In Glastonbury and Simsbury you will get some people making around 90,000-100,000 a year and then half the town making a TON more. You better believe there are many millionaires in town with many people making $500,000+.

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

Brookfield, yeah you're right, its not.

But Newtown? Newtown is as afluent as Simsbury, Farmington and Glastonbury easy. Avon might be a little bit better off, but Newtown will catch them sometime. Dont' be fooled, the amount of money in Newtown will blow you away...

[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!

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by TENN24

When did this become a Maryland vs. CT forum?? Who cares about Maryland?
So much for that.
The towns with the most money in the Hartford area are Avon, Glastonbury, Simsbury and Farmington BAR NONE!!! West Hartford has a fair amount of money too. These towns absolutely blow Hebron or any other rural town out of the water financially. There may be people averaging $110,000 in Hebron. In Glastonbury and Simsbury you will get some people making around 90,000-100,000 a year and then half the town making a TON more. You better believe there are many millionaires in town with many people making $500,000+.

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

Going by the new census 2010 figures, only 16% of the households (not individuals) in Glastonbury and Simsbury make $200k or more. That percentage probably slims way down when you're looking at $500k and more. So, no, there are not "many" millionaires in these towns.

Regarding the wealth of Trumbull, Newtown and Brookfield, Newtown has more folks making over $200k than Glastonbury and Simsbury. Brookfield and Trumbull are about on par with Glastonbury in that category. The reason why Brookfield and Newtown have a high household income is because they lack the working class families that exist in Trumbull and Glastonbury. It's all about housing stock, as Jay noted earlier in the thread.

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.

You're correct, but if Nepville had only 6 people (2 per household), the per capita income would be greater than $166 million. So it can go both ways. That said, per capita doesn't include any of the additional sources of income that household includes. I'm not saying per capita is a bad way to measure, but it's different. Generally, both ways of looking at it would likely yield the same results - meaning, if we were to make a list of towns from highest to lowest in per capita, the order would be similar.

Maybe we can all agree that "average" is the worst way to measure something?

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.

What you're forgetting is that a lot of these rural towns don't have the working class populations that West Hartford and Glastonbury have, as noted above. Sure, they may have a higher percentage of people making over $200k (though not by much), but they also have a sizeable population at the other end of the spectrum. I don't mean impoverished - I mean working class. So, no, the numbers are not skewed - they are very accurate when going by what each household earns.

[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.

[JViello]

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!

It's not rural. 15 minutes or so to Middletown, less than 45 to DT Hartford.

Lots of old money there. Have you ever been to Lyme? It's a beautiful small town on the mouth of the CT River.

For towns less than 6500, the lower CT River Valley cleaned house in CT Magazine's rating based on crime, voter turnout, housing cost, economy, education, property taxes etc.

In fact Chester, Essex, Deep River, Lyme, Old Lyme all came in the top 3 for the state in their respective size category.

It's the "other" location we are looking besides Hebron/Bolton/Marlborough. Deep River, Chester and Essex are pretty strong in our radar and from there it's literally 15 minutes to Middletown, 15-20 minutes to New London, 35 to Hartford and a touch more to New Haven.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by JViello

It's not rural. 15 minutes or so to Middletown, less than 45 to DT Hartford.

Lots of old money there. Have you ever been to Lyme? It's a beautiful small town on the mouth of the CT River.

For towns less than 6500, the lower CT River Valley cleaned house in CT Magazine's rating based on crime, voter turnout, housing cost, economy, education, property taxes etc.

In fact Chester, Essex, Deep River, Lyme, Old Lyme all came in the top 3 for the state in their respective size category.

It's the "other" location we are looking besides Hebron/Bolton/Marlborough. Deep River, Chester and Essex are pretty strong in our radar and from there it's literally 15 minutes to Middletown, 15 minutes to New London, 35 to Hartford and a touch more to New Haven.

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.