[WouldLoveTo]

Originally Posted by CTartist

I think I came on this site a little after this thread was started. So for the past 5 or 6 years I have been seeing the same dire warnings and I can intellectually understand them. But year after year of people saying how bad things are in CT we still have the following........

2018 GDP Per Capita
1 Massachusetts.......65,545
2 New York..............64,579
3 Connecticut...........64,511
4 Alaska..................63,971
5 Delaware..............63,664

Look at those figures. NY and CT are so close you might as well say we are tied for second. If Wall Street does well so does CT and right now Wall Street is on the top of the heap. A large portion of CT is tied to the NYC economy. We are part of the greater NYC Statistical Metropolitan area. Well I think I remember that is the name anyway. Here are the counties in the NYC area.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...lustration.PNG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...litan_Area.jpg
Here is another one.
New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Areas (CSA)

How do we explain the high GDP Per Capita year after year even though many people say CT has the worst (or near worst) economy in the nation the ENTIRE TIME I HAVE BEEN ON THIS SITE? This above is not a happy thought......this is actual math.

The high salaries are coming from somewhere year after year.

Maybe some companies move out but others move in. I can tell you as someone who was born and raised in Stamford I watched the same thing happen year after year after year........ companies left and others moved in.

CT is sooooo skewed by the the southwest corner..........

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

It would not. We have just a 66.2% Labor Force Participation Rate amongst adults, with just 16% of pop senior citizens. That leaves 18% not in the workforce, many no doubt, discouraged who may reenter if we had job growth.



https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LBSNSA09

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/rpt/pdf/2017-R-0257.pdf

This means nothing. If it did economists would be all over it as a statistic.

Connecticut is a VERY affluent state. Unlike other states, it does not need to have a high labor participation rate. I know a number of people that don't work both. They live off their investment income or on one spouse's income.

Also note that Massachusetts' rate is not much higher than ours. It is currently 67.8%. Hardly a big difference. I think we can all agree that their economy is doing well. Jay

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LBSSA25

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Few have moved in, outside of Stamford. Most that did were low-paying. Biggest one we got last 5 years a Amazon DC, just as dozens of states have. Biggest Bridgeport got-Bass Pro Shops.

Stamford did the best the last few years, adding Henkel.

However, on just 2019 WARN reports, 907 jobs lost halfway through the year, and this excludes small corps who need not file.

Forum Plastics who said they are moving, plus Star Arms will add 250 more here at some point.

Far too many in a terrific economy, where WARN reports are far lighter nationally than in many years.

https://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/progsu...s/warn2019.htm

The WARN list is not long at all. It has a total of 907 jobs this year out of almost 1.7 million jobs in the state. 159 of those jobs are school bus companies that lost contracts so those will be offset by the companies that got the contract. Also some of them are just changes in the type of employment, not full layoffs.

You mention Henkel but forget to add Infosys's 1,000 new jobs in Hartford or Idealomics 300+ jobs in West Hartford. Also what about the fact that Pratt & Whitney and Electric Boat, as well as many of their subcontractors, are adding thousands.

And don't dismiss the 1.800 jobs being added by Amazon in North Haven. They are good lower paying jobs we could use. Would you rather they had built it in another state? Jay

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Significant job growth would not mean significant population increase. There are a ton of places with excellent job growth but not a booming population. And even so, is a booming population such a bad thing? Wouldn’t you say growing pains are better than population loss, which the state is experiencing?

Re: the loss of income - you don’t think other states deal with older people leaving and younger people moving in? They don’t have a loss of income like CT. I’d also like to see a citation that this is the reason for loss of income.

Double digit unemployment is almost rock bottom. Just because CT doesn’t have that doesn’t mean the economy there is good.

Significant job growth does not mean population growth??? We are already at virtually full employment. How do you add jobs when just about everyone is already working? Of course it means population growth if you want to fill those jobs.

Yes, a booming population growth is a bad thing when you are a small state that is one of the most densely populated states in the country. We need to ask if we really want even more people here.

Other states see the same income loss (older high income people being replaced with younger lower paid workers) as Connecticut but as I said, it has been happening for decades. Other high income states see the same thing. Please post sources that prove otherwise.

You also mention double digit unemployment. Connecticut has not had that in decades. Even during the great recession we did not get above 9.3%. Most of those high job growth states can't say that.

I would also like to point out that our unemployment rate (3.8%) is not that much higher than many of the high job growth states. Tennessee's rate is currently 3.3% but during the great recession it peaked at 10.8%. Florida is currently at 3.4% but peaked at 11.2%. North Carolina's unemployment rate is currently higher than ours at 4% and it peaked at 12% during the recession. Jay

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CTUR

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TNUR

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NCURN

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FLUR

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Ditto.

Those on us in or near FFC seem to often forget the rest of Ct hardly suffers from too much population density.

I disagree. This is your opinion. What makes our state so great is the charming small town character that has been preserved throughout the state. Do you want to see dense high rise development in towns like Madison, Guilford or Old Saybrook? What about Litchfield? Even modest changes in density outside of southwestern Connecticut would have a significant change on our state. One that we cannot afford to lose. Jay

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by WouldLoveTo

CT is sooooo skewed by the the southwest corner..........

This is NOT true. As has been posted here many times before, all of Connecticut counties have median household incomes significantly above the national average. Couple that with the fact that we are among the highest in disposable income and you will see that overall we are a very affluent state, even in our poorest counties. Jay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._capita_income

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

This is NOT true. As has been posted here many times before, all of Connecticut counties have median household incomes significantly above the national average. Couple that with the fact that we are among the highest in disposable income and you will see that overall we are a very affluent state, even in our poorest counties. Jay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._capita_income

It is fairly true. The top 5 communities in the state by HHI are between 175k and 220k, and are all in Fairfield County. The highest in Hartford County is Avon, which is over 50k less than New Canaan. That’s a big difference.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

It is fairly true. The top 5 communities in the state by HHI are between 175k and 220k, and are all in Fairfield County. The highest in Hartford County is Avon, which is over 50k less than New Canaan. That’s a big difference.

But the cost of living, particularly housing, is a lot lower in Avon than it is in New Canaan. The median home price in Avon is $356,400 verses over $1.2 million in New Canaan. Check out the link below for a comparison. Jay

Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

But the cost of living, particularly housing, is a lot lower in Avon than it is in New Canaan. The median home price in Avon is $356,400 verses over $1.2 million in New Canaan. Check out the link below for a comparison. Jay

Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site

Valid point. That doesn’t mean good things for New Canaan’s income to cost of living ratio then.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Significant job growth does not mean population growth??? We are already at virtually full employment. How do you add jobs when just about everyone is already working? Of course it means population growth if you want to fill those jobs.

Yes, a booming population growth is a bad thing when you are a small state that is one of the most densely populated states in the country. We need to ask if we really want even more people here.

My thoughts are fairly close to that, but I'll say that CT can handle a lot more people... just can't handle cars.

I will say that in our urban cores (city and inner-rings) there's still a lot of excess infrastructure capacity (due to way over-engineering for almost 200 years haha) that could increase population, the economy, and not to forget political power with a lot less of the strip building of bland suburbs like in the Southeast and Southwest. We can protect the nature of both quaint towns and bustling cities with simple and smart development, but we cannot with "growth at any cost" development which some people are all for but I personally think is ugly and ultimately unimpressive.