Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-21-2017, 01:39 AM
 
1,998 posts, read 1,842,047 times
Reputation: 832

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
CT new slogan will be "Alabama of the north". Though it will be insulting to Alabama. "
It could be worse. It could be Mississippi but ct is deff not that bad off

 
Old 08-21-2017, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Fairfield County CT
4,387 posts, read 3,267,584 times
Reputation: 2711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
Much like the lower FFC wealth skewing "per capital income", I imagine it doesn't take too many multi-billion dollar hedge funds to skew GDP per capita in state with only 3.5 million people. the situation is dire. Even if the perfect, most brilliant and skilled administration took office tomorrow and all our legislator were replaced by the same, CT is still minimum decade away from achieving Success beyond mere stability. Under current conditions, don't have much hope before 2050. CT new slogan will be "Alabama of the north". Though it will be insulting to Alabama.

Every time someone tells you "highest concentration of millionaires" or "doesn't crash as hard during depressions" your mind should IMMEDIATELY res flag that person and think "propaganda " or "subterfuge" and "attempting to belittle your intelligence"
First of all you must be 2 things: a Republican and not from Fairfield County. When I see someone say post the words "propaganda " or "subterfuge" I can tell you post is about politics and not facts.

1) I was born and raised in Stamford and I have relatives in the Greenwich/Stamford/New Canaan/Darien area since the late 1800's. The financial services sector has been baked into CT's economic cake for decades. It is not anything new.

You have jobs in FFC from the people working at the financial companies. You have those people living in Fairfield County. Now those people making good money consume goods and services. The people who are giving goods and services to those people are making good salaries too. Those financial sector jobs spur economic growth here in FFC.

2) How do you know that all of that GDP per capita is mostly from the few hedge fund managers. I need to see facts/statistics on that.

3) Would you rather have GDP per capita based on a large majority of meat packing plants and people working agriculture etc. making very low salaries and even lower service workers jobs servicing them.
 
Old 08-21-2017, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,637 posts, read 56,411,621 times
Reputation: 11151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
Much like the lower FFC wealth skewing "per capital income", I imagine it doesn't take too many multi-billion dollar hedge funds to skew GDP per capita in state with only 3.5 million people. the situation is dire. Even if the perfect, most brilliant and skilled administration took office tomorrow and all our legislator were replaced by the same, CT is still minimum decade away from achieving Success beyond mere stability. Under current conditions, don't have much hope before 2050. CT new slogan will be "Alabama of the north". Though it will be insulting to Alabama.

Every time someone tells you "highest concentration of millionaires" or "doesn't crash as hard during depressions" your mind should IMMEDIATELY res flag that person and think "propaganda " or "subterfuge" and "attempting to belittle your intelligence"
I will also disagree with you on this. Even without the insane wealth of Fairfield County, the rest of Connecticut is pretty affluent. People need to realize that. Look at the money in and around Hartford and New Haven as well as Litchfield and Middlesex Counties. Even New London County is affluent. Jay

Last edited by JayCT; 08-21-2017 at 10:05 AM..
 
Old 08-21-2017, 09:47 AM
 
Location: JC
1,837 posts, read 1,597,914 times
Reputation: 1671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
Much like the lower FFC wealth skewing "per capital income", I imagine it doesn't take too many multi-billion dollar hedge funds to skew GDP per capita in state with only 3.5 million people. the situation is dire. Even if the perfect, most brilliant and skilled administration took office tomorrow and all our legislator were replaced by the same, CT is still minimum decade away from achieving Success beyond mere stability. Under current conditions, don't have much hope before 2050. CT new slogan will be "Alabama of the north". Though it will be insulting to Alabama.

Every time someone tells you "highest concentration of millionaires" or "doesn't crash as hard during depressions" your mind should IMMEDIATELY res flag that person and think "propaganda " or "subterfuge" and "attempting to belittle your intelligence"
By 2050 I'd be more concerned to be a resident of a state dependent on non renewable resources like Alaska, W Virginia, etc.
 
Old 08-21-2017, 11:06 AM
 
Location: CT
2,122 posts, read 2,402,713 times
Reputation: 1675
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTartist View Post
First of all you must be 2 things: a Republican and not from Fairfield County. When I see someone say post the words "propaganda " or "subterfuge" I can tell you post is about politics and not facts.

1) I was born and raised in Stamford and I have relatives in the Greenwich/Stamford/New Canaan/Darien area since the late 1800's. The financial services sector has been baked into CT's economic cake for decades. It is not anything new.

You have jobs in FFC from the people working at the financial companies. You have those people living in Fairfield County. Now those people making good money consume goods and services. The people who are giving goods and services to those people are making good salaries too. Those financial sector jobs spur economic growth here in FFC.

2) How do you know that all of that GDP per capita is mostly from the few hedge fund managers. I need to see facts/statistics on that.

3) Would you rather have GDP per capita based on a large majority of meat packing plants and people working agriculture etc. making very low salaries and even lower service workers jobs servicing them.
They are GRE words that I yearned to use for years, couldn't pass up the opportunity...use whatever vocabulary you wish, but also think critically.

1) what argument is being made here? I'm the one who said FFC has the hedge funds and uber high financial output...are you agreeing?

2) I don't know, which is why I deliberately chose the non-misleading transitive verb "imagine". I also was not talking about any hedge manager or income, I was talking about hedge firms and GDP. if GDP is broken down by county, we don't need to argue.

3) I don't want GDP to be based on anything other than it's own premise, which is to be used as an index or surrogate measure of economic activity of a predefined boundary. So, if it's value can be misused and politicized based on its improper representation of the boundary it serves to measure then yes, I have a problem. If the GDP is going to be used as an instrument to justify policy, as a report card for leaders or political parties, or anything else that effects the lives of CT residents, the I care very much. If GDP follows even the slightest behavior of income per capita, then the lions share of CT GDP is the product of the NY metro, NOT CT economic policy. That needs to be digested and correctly understood if we are ever to climb out of the death pit we are in. As a parting thought experiment, you tell me whether you think CT would have the GDP it reports if it were transported to Oklahoma. Likewise if you wouldn't see rise in Oklahoma GDP by placing it where CT is...right.
 
Old 08-21-2017, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Northeast states
13,969 posts, read 13,737,384 times
Reputation: 5105
"Connecticut is one of just two states still lacking a budget, but it has plenty of company involving two of the key factors that complicate its fiscal challenge: the health of its rainy day fund and income growth."


https://ctmirror.org/2017/08/21/many...income-growth/
 
Old 08-21-2017, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
5,104 posts, read 4,781,559 times
Reputation: 3636
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
I will also disagree with you on this. Even without the insane wealth of Fairfield County, the rest of Connecticut is pretty affluent. People need to realize that. Look at the money in and around Hartford and New Haven as well as Litchfield and Middlesex Counties. Even New London County is affluent. Jay
In addition, the GDP formula includes Govt spending and imports/exports. CT is a big exporter of product (to other countries) and is still a power house with Govt spending on the military. I don't know if the stats exist, but i would guess that military spending in CT exceeds the income that hedge funds generate.
 
Old 08-21-2017, 01:04 PM
 
Location: CT
2,122 posts, read 2,402,713 times
Reputation: 1675
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoHuskies View Post
By 2050 I'd be more concerned to be a resident of a state dependent on non renewable resources like Alaska, W Virginia, etc.
That's a valid concern to have if you have children or are young, no doubt. But CT is hardly the poster boy of modernization. I saw far more electric recharge stations in and around greater Nashville area than I have in CT. And that's Deep South state...

Ultimately energy depends far more on federal policy than state.
 
Old 08-21-2017, 01:07 PM
 
Location: CT
2,122 posts, read 2,402,713 times
Reputation: 1675
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
I will also disagree with you on this. Even without the insane wealth of Fairfield County, the rest of Connecticut is pretty affluent. People need to realize that. Look at the money in and around Hartford and New Haven as well as Litchfield and Middlesex Counties. Even New London County is affluent. Jay
Maybe, but I would bet my house CT experiences a huge drop in rank if removing FFC. Reality is FFC is in CT, which is good. The bad is that these stats are used by very unintelligent people with lots of power and even greater personal objectives and so the point is that it's hardly reflective of the majority of the state
 
Old 08-21-2017, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Shoreline Connecticut
712 posts, read 535,465 times
Reputation: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
Maybe, but I would bet my house CT experiences a huge drop in rank if removing FFC. Reality is FFC is in CT, which is good. The bad is that these stats are used by very unintelligent people with lots of power and even greater personal objectives and so the point is that it's hardly reflective of the majority of the state
Can not understand your logic of removing FFC. FFC is part of CT. What do you think if one can also claim that by removing Bay Area/SF, CA economy is not as great as many folks claim. Or, MA is not as great as many believe if metro Boston is removed
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top