Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
beerbeer

The States People Are Fleeing In 2014

20 posts in this topic


useless data.

 

as we continue to subsidize the growing states on a national level, the states footing the bill will be the ones paying the price.

 

also, because of the average age due to decades of these polocies where we pave the swamps and eserts... people do indeed like to retire far away in the low cost south.

 

i did however notice thought that the people moving to CT are high earners, highly educated and in fact coming from " cool and hip " places...

 

sothat crap data can take a hike.  I see economic activity improving... everywhere I look. 

 

I will keep my lifestyle, my high income, my low crime, my intelligent friends, my .... damnit CT is an awesome place and I am glad I moved here attitide thank you very much :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

useless data.

 

as we continue to subsidize the growing states on a national level, the states footing the bill will be the ones paying the price.

 

also, because of the average age due to decades of these polocies where we pave the swamps and eserts... people do indeed like to retire far away in the low cost south.

 

i did however notice thought that the people moving to CT are high earners, highly educated and in fact coming from " cool and hip " places...

 

sothat crap data can take a hike.  I see economic activity improving... everywhere I look. 

 

I will keep my lifestyle, my high income, my low crime, my intelligent friends, my .... damnit CT is an awesome place and I am glad I moved here attitide thank you very much :)

 

The data is the data whether you like it or not. Connecticut is in competition with other states. And Connecticut has been last in economic growth in the country for the last two years, the only state to have zero growth. It may grow this year but it lags the rest of the country and has for a very long time.

 

I agree the life style in Connecticut is among the best in the country. It also has a richness of history and cultural advantages shared by few other places in the country. But it is being squandered. The first step to solving the problem is admitting there is a problem.

Edited by beerbeer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not have any problems with ct.

 

see, I chose to move here and I love it.

 

Had I been born here I may feel differently.  Every transplant I know feels the same as me, so I know I am experiencing a common emotion.  People who grew up here have more experience with let downs or whatever.  classis grass is greener thing.

 

 

also, just so ya know this is data from one moving company.  these numbers contain almost no value.

 

First off Id need to see a map of united van lines locations.... hmmmm lets locate our movinng company in the weathliest most densely populated regions...

 

useless data my man

 

here look at their local locationshttp://moving.unitedvanlines.com/#search_41.703701_-72.662804

 

 

i worked for a sompany that sold to a national moving company.  what this meant was that the national firm instantly became gthe dominant mover in the area, and by comparison I bet their stats would indicate an incrfease in move outs near Southampton NY...

the year prior I guarantee that town and area was a net gainer...

 

looking at that map above i see that united is stacked in CT.

 

the best data is census data that does show net out migration etc.. but the sky is not falling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ If you owned your own business you would without question think differently. There is a reason that CT claims ownership to three of the poorest cities in the country. And a reason why people flee CT and start businesses elsewhere. CT is also considered one of the most business unfriendly states in the country. Its all connected and is hardly useless data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the real reason CT has 3 of the poorest cities is mostly explained by the tight geographic constraints of those cities. People move to and from different states for different reasons. For the most part, older retirement age types move to warm, low-cost, rapidly growing places like FL, AZ, SC, etc. Young, new college grad and college student types are much more attracted to areas with a dynamic, diverse urban core. Places like NYC, Boston, LA, Chicago, Miami, etc. Many of these places are also considered high-tax, non-business-friendly, type places. The difference between those places and CT is primarlly the level of activity and vibrancy in the urban cores.

 

I'd like to see CT be more business friendly, without slashing the quality of life to the pretty dismal statewide levels they have in the south. Crime, access to health care, public education, these are things that are very important to me and many others and the south simply has terrible metrics in these areas. What CT really needs to do is keep up, and increase the investment into our urban areas and mass transit system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the real reason CT has 3 of the poorest cities is mostly explained by the tight geographic constraints of those cities. People move to and from different states for different reasons. For the most part, older retirement age types move to warm, low-cost, rapidly growing places like FL, AZ, SC, etc. Young, new college grad and college student types are much more attracted to areas with a dynamic, diverse urban core. Places like NYC, Boston, LA, Chicago, Miami, etc. Many of these places are also considered high-tax, non-business-friendly, type places. The difference between those places and CT is primarlly the level of activity and vibrancy in the urban cores.

 

I'd like to see CT be more business friendly, without slashing the quality of life to the pretty dismal statewide levels they have in the south. Crime, access to health care, public education, these are things that are very important to me and many others and the south simply has terrible metrics in these areas. What CT really needs to do is keep up, and increase the investment into our urban areas and mass transit system.

 

I have lived in the south and the standard of living there isn't much different from where I grew up in Connecticut. The real difference is the cultural and historic treasures that Connecticut has. A place like Georgia is a cultural void.

 

But I don't understand why people are willfully blind to the economic hardships that a terrible state government has put on businesses and citizens.  These problems will never be solved (and the state will become less and less competitive) unless the residents admit there is a problem. That problem is high taxes, high energy costs and an anti-business environment. 

 

Making the state more economically competitive won't hurt the standard of living, it will raise it. It will also provide the funds needed to invest in things like mass transit. If Connecticut stays on the trend line it is following, the state will be on the road to Detroit. That sounds dire and there is plenty of time to turn the trend around, but it's getting near time to change direction.

Edited by beerbeer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have lived in the south and the standard of living there isn't much different from where I grew up in Connecticut. The real difference is the cultural and historic treasures that Connecticut has. A place like Georgia is a cultural void.

 

But I don't understand why people are willfully blind to the economic hardships that a terrible state government has put on businesses and citizens.  These problems will never be solved (and the state will become less and less competitive) unless the residents admit there is a problem. That problem is high taxes, high energy costs and an anti-business environment. 

 

Making the state more economically competitive won't hurt the standard of living, it will raise it. It will also provide the funds needed to invest in things like mass transit. If Connecticut stays on the trend line it is following, the state will be on the road to Detroit. That sounds dire and there is plenty of time to turn the trend around, but it's getting near time to change direction.

 

Have you looked up the numbers for public education, healthcare access, and crime in the south? It seems you are not aware. As middle class/upper class people, it may not be all that different. However, the lower middle class and poor people definitely have it better here and in most of the North. Personally, I'm inclined to want to keep that the way it is. Look at the situation in WV. Is that what business friendly looks like? No regulation and when they poison the water there is no recourse to hold the corporations accountable?

 

Also, I think highly of the south culturally. I went to college in Atlanta and it is a world-class city with tons of history and a thriving, and historic arts scene. Doesn't change the fact that the poor there are far worse off than the poor in Hartford.

 

One place where I think we can probably agree is on state workers' retirement benefits though. As someone who has worked in corporate America for a decade since graduating from college, I certainly think that public employees retirement benefits need to be brought more into line with what exists in the corporate world. I'm sure there are other savings to be had as well. However, I don't favor a draconian regime of slashing services and entitlements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


West Virginia is like a third world country. You really want to pretend Connecticut's economy is fine because it compares favorably with rural states like West Virginia or Mississippi?

 

Try South Carolina or Virginia or Georgia or Florida. And much Connecticut's advantage you cite is legacy. Those places are headed up. Connecticut with its 200 year head start is trending in the wrong direction.  In the year 1900, Hartford was the richest city in the entire country. Where is it now? How did that happen?

 

Like I said, I am a huge fan of my home state. I graduated from UConn. But a little realist shouldn't get anyone upset. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole topic is largely irrelevent to this forum and especially when based on a BS article with BS numbers.

 

it seems a topic is started every month or two that cites some terribly researched article and occasionally generates responses.

 

can we make a CT naysayers superthread that you agree to just post new articles in?

 

the conversation is more intelligent than thearticle EVERY TIME.

 

i like the conversations and comments but the articles are just crap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole topic is largely irrelevent to this forum and especially when based on a BS article with BS numbers.

 

it seems a topic is started every month or two that cites some terribly researched article and occasionally generates responses.

 

can we make a CT naysayers superthread that you agree to just post new articles in?

 

the conversation is more intelligent than thearticle EVERY TIME.

 

i like the conversations and comments but the articles are just crap!

 

There is only one state in the country that had zero economic growth the last two years, Connecticut. That is not a made up number. That is not useless data. It is a fact.  And the citizens of Connecticut ignore it at their peril.

 

I moved form Atlanta in 1987.  The amazing growth of that city since I lived there has enriched every citizen of the state. Do they have problems? Yes, of course. But they are solving their problems -many which stretch back to the previous century- with growing economic opportunity. If you compare where Atlanta was in 1950 and look where it is now, the evidence is obvious. Do the same for Hartford.  The comparison shows the trend lines. Extend those lines 50 years into the future and it isn't pretty.

 

This is not to suggests that the quality of life in Connecticut isn't very, very good. It is. It is a conversation about the way forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has been working the past five or so years are progressive cities within southern states with low or no state income tax. Austin Tx and Nashville Tn are blue dots in a sea of red that are Tech heavy and fun as hell for the well educated college grads. Also, have very low crime rates and warm days 10 months out of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely true.

 

It helps that the federal government re-allocates tax monies from the North East, ESPECIALLY Connecticut and uses it to subsidize those low cost states.

 

As jobs are encouraged to far flung areas of the US, certain cities rise to the challenge and attract a disporportionate number of those migrating northeasterners who are typically well educated and high earners,the creative class if you will.

 

California once dominated in the collection of these people, but equilibrium has been met, and the re-allocation has settled further south and central.

 

Additionally, communication hubs tend to dominate in this group of cities.  the onces I can think of quickly are all airline hubs or regional hubs...

 

Memphis, Minneapolis, Miami, Charlotte, and the afore mentioned Atlanta.

 

Re: Austin

it is the most successful Non-hub city I can think of. 

Obviously the Cool factor helped there and U Texas and the tech cluster created by Dell and others...

Austin is the biggest winner in the last decade on many levels.  I think a good deal of this could be due to it being the Capitol of Texas, one of the largest states.  Thinking about how much Hartford is feed by state jobs, Austin has grown with the population of Texas.

 

 

1980 14,229,191   27.1% 1990 16,986,510   19.4% 2000 20,851,820   22.8% 2010 25,145,562   20.6%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has been working the past five or so years are progressive cities within southern states with low or no state income tax. Austin Tx and Nashville Tn are blue dots in a sea of red that are Tech heavy and fun as hell for the well educated college grads. Also, have very low crime rates and warm days 10 months out of the year.

 

Nashville is progressive? Ever been there? It is conservative republican down to its boots.  Austin is a college town but it is not more successful than Dallas or Houston or any of Texas's more conservative cities.  The idea that progressives in these awful backwaters are saving the day has no basis in fact.

 

No income tax helps, but the keys are low taxes, low energy prices, right-to-work and pro-business legislatures. The reason these places are tech heavy is that right-to-work states are creating entrepreneurs and jobs. Hence newer industries like tech thrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Wow beerbeer, Austin and Nashville are awful backwater towns. Bless your heart I hope you never have to visit for any reason you would be just miserable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow beerbeer, Austin and Nashville are awful backwater towns. Bless your heart I hope you never have to visit for any reason you would be just miserable.

 

Read my post again, I said nothing of the sort.  You insinuated that (progressive) Nashville and Austin were the only reasons Texas and Tennessee were economic hot spots. Besides being demonstrably untrue, it infers the rest of the those states contribute nothing.  Read your own post and then read mine. Tell me where I missed your implications.

 

The truth is that those states are prospering because they are not run by progressives (i.e. liberals).

Edited by beerbeer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda thought you two were on the same team here now apparently I see I was wrong.

 

also, Beer Beer, progressive is not necessarily an indication of red or blue

 

I would say that some places are quite progressive because of their lifestyle yet might vote Republican due to other reasons.

 

 

 

also as a random comment to Mr. Nash.... Memphis has relatively low crime?

then why the heck do I always see that city on that show first 48?

I think the low crime moniker is falsly used in America due to jusisdictional lines that mean relatively little.

 

New Haven and Hartford both rank very high for crime on a national level but this is mostly due to the extremely small municipal size.  I would suspect that on a Metro area basis, both are relatively low on a per capita basis.

 

this is what happens when you draw funny lines between tiny communities.

 

 

just looked it up... Memphis is 324 Square mines to Hartfords 18 yet the two have nearly identical Metro populations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda thought you two were on the same team here now apparently I see I was wrong.

 

also, Beer Beer, progressive is not necessarily an indication of red or blue

 

I would say that some places are quite progressive because of their lifestyle yet might vote Republican due to other reasons.

 

 

 

also as a random comment to Mr. Nash.... Memphis has relatively low crime?

then why the heck do I always see that city on that show first 48?

I think the low crime moniker is falsly used in America due to jusisdictional lines that mean relatively little.

 

New Haven and Hartford both rank very high for crime on a national level but this is mostly due to the extremely small municipal size.  I would suspect that on a Metro area basis, both are relatively low on a per capita basis.

 

this is what happens when you draw funny lines between tiny communities.

 

 

just looked it up... Memphis is 324 Square mines to Hartfords 18 yet the two have nearly identical Metro populations

 

City size is actually a huge determinant in how people view a metro. If Hartford was the same size as Charlotte, it would have about the same population 600,000+.  It would also be wealthier than Charlotte. A Charlotte sized Hartford would probably benefit everyone in the metro area. However, I'm not holding my breadth that the Hartford's suburbs will incorporate into the city anytime soon.

Edited by beerbeer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering how many HeHa stickers I see on cars at my office parkinglot, I tend to agree.

 

Such a shame too because even if Hartford were to include some of its less wealthy neighbors it would improve the total demographics...

 

Think of East Hartford as an example.

a town/City with barely an identity at all.

 

the schools there are likely almost as bad as Hartfords yet it does not get the same considerations as the capitol due to its smaller size and such.

Combining them would improve the demogrphics of both towns while increasing total budget numbers and tax base to work on the same challening issues.  A good deal of overhead could be eliminated and more importantly efficiencies could be created in procurement on both sides of the river.

total land area and population would not be significant yet, but the conjunction would allow the two towns to work together better when it comes to mass transit, and transit planning in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.