[bobtn]

They sold to other Ct residents, 2 of whom rented in the same town, and neither could resist the prices. Had they cut the price any more, Wal Mart would have sold them.

No migration in from the 3 sales, all migration out by the buyers.

In my present town, over 1/3 of the residents came from the New England or New York City.

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

Originally Posted by bobtn

In my present town, over 1/3 of the residents came from the New England or New York City.

Is NYC in Connecticut?

[bobtn]

Do you know what the word "or" means?

By the way, Census bureau backs up the sad, sad city data summary of Ct population trends. Each census brings a reconfigueration of Congressmen based on state population share. 90s migration cost Ct its 6th Congressman. No doubt, Malloy will cost them #5.

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Do you know what the word "or" means?

Yes. What's your point?

Originally Posted by bobtn

90s migration cost Ct its 6th Congressman. No doubt, Malloy will cost them #5.

Gee, i always thought Congressional rep appropriations were factored by looking at the whole population of our country. I.E.: Those states that experience a population boom(Nevada, for example) will be compensated with additional reps. I guess i was wrong about this.........

[bobtn]

Population loss, or stagnation, matters. Losing Congressmen matter, as that means have a smaller voice in DC, and future government contracts and appropriations are at stake. BTW, several Ct governors have brought up the importance of the issue at various times.

Your posts regarding people moving back was entered without any factual support, as census data, and city data stats both actually support the reverse situation. The great 90s migration out, which exceeded the 250k mentioned, was never reversed.

[bobtn]

Stratford Ct resident"Gee, i always thought Congressional rep appropriations were factored by looking at the whole population of our country. I.E.: Those states that experience a population boom(Nevada, for example) will be compensated with additional reps. I guess i was wrong about this........."

Boom states add reps, BUT what you (conveniently, no doubt) ignore is its a ZERO sum game. States lagging US growth trends LOSE reps. Ct is one of the laggards, as the 6th seat loss demonstrated. If the US last census percentage change repeats, and Cts performance repeats, it would lose #5 at the next census.

[kidyankee764]

It's pretty comical that when people move out of Connecticut, they seemingly have to justify their migration by warning us that the Northeast is wittling away to nothing.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by bobtn

250,000 fled in the 90s, several dozen in my family. 0 came back. Of remaining under 12 family in Ct, 4 more are leaving by July 15th. 3 homes sold, 2 going south, 2 going west..to join prior families who left. That 250k is why Ct LOST Congressman #6, and next Census #5 goes bye-bye.

The current census shows that Connecticut had a 5% gain in population. That is pretty good for a state that discourages sprawl development.

I have many family and friends who left for what they thought were greener pastures and then came back. The few that did not come back wish they could come back but can't or are planning ot return.

Your family that lost money selling their homes must have bought during the recent boom period because if they had bought 10 years ago they would have made money on their sale. Unless of course they paid a lot more than thye should have when they bought.

As for your constant contention that Connecticut has lost good paying jobs for poorly paying ones, I would like to to look at our per capita income which is the highest in the country and has been for years and shows no sign of dropping significantly.

And StratfordCt is right that the Congressional seats are based on the percentage of the overall US population, not on the fact that we lost people.

[bobtn]

2 of 3 owned the homes for approximately 15 years.

BTW, I agree, the per capita income has held up, the gap b/w it and median income has widened in Ct, and that's not good. For those unfamilar, per capita is a mean avg, not a median. So if one has a CEO at $500k, plus 8 employees at 75k, 70,65,60,55,50, 45. and 40k, the per capita adds all 9 and divides by 9, an average of 107k. The median is 60k, as 4 are above him, 4 are below him.

The mean average (per capita) is the widely reported one, as those w/o knowledge of statistical methods are unfamiliar with the way both measures are computed.

[Beeker2211]

Bob,

Median can also hide problems, modal is a much better measure. Even still, modally and by median standards CT income grew as it didn't in many states. Another measure is Purchasing Power Parity, guess which state has a very high modal PPP across almost all income brackets?

~Cheers