[Heel82]

The real GDP per capita for Connecticut has dropped about 2% since 2011. In the country as a whole it has gone up about 8%.

Connecticut joins Louisiana, Nevada, Alaska, Wyoming, and Delaware as contracting during this period.

[LateNiteCruisin]

It must be the water...

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

It’s this attempt at justification for a poor economic climate that is most concerning of all.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

While this rings true, it has come to more than just that. I am simply amazed at how many individuals we know or meet in a variety of personnel, not just boomers, that are either committed to leaving but not able to sell their homes, or desire to leave but lack confidence in unloading their homes. It's disturbing and not something to be brushed off no matter how refreshing the kool-aid tastes this summer.

If they can't sell price is too high, poor location, or bad neighbors, etc. Any house that is priced right is selling in CT. There's no areas in CT full of empty houses except for maybe ghetto areas of Hartford, Bridgeport, Waterbury, etc.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

While this rings true, it has come to more than just that. I am simply amazed at how many individuals we know or meet in a variety of personnel, not just boomers, that are either committed to leaving but not able to sell their homes, or desire to leave but lack confidence in unloading their homes. It's disturbing and not something to be brushed off no matter how refreshing the kool-aid tastes this summer.

I know several in my area .

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by LateNiteCruisin

It must be the water...

Perhaps a study should be done.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Heel82

The real GDP per capita for Connecticut has dropped about 2% since 2011. In the country as a whole it has gone up about 8%.

Connecticut joins Louisiana, Nevada, Alaska, Wyoming, and Delaware as contracting during this period.

Not from the data I have seen and posted here. Please post your source for this. Jay

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

No it's not, it's just that we're so far ahead of most of the Country by GDP per-capita, the growth rate doesn't reflect nominal changes which in many cases may be higher.

Let's say State 1 has a GDP per capita of $1000 one year and a $1100 the next the change is roughly 10%.

State 2 has a GDP per capita of $10,000 one year and $10,800 the next the change is roughly 8% despite being $700 (7 fold more) more nominally than State 1.

If the growth rate dips negative for a long while might be cause for concern, but doesn't seem like that's the case.

Exactly. Jay

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Not from the data I have seen and posted here. Please post your source for this. Jay

I’d be curious to see your source that CT’s unemployment rate is so accurate because of the amount of people who live off of “investments and royalties”.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I’d be curious to see your source that CT’s unemployment rate is so accurate because of the amount of people who live off of “investments and royalties”.

https://www.ctpost.com/local/ctpost/...y-14109258.php

This might be one of those people living off investments.

I truly never heard of this before today.

[Heel82]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Not from the data I have seen and posted here. Please post your source for this. Jay

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...GDP_per_capita

The link to the BEA website is there. Incidentally it looks like Connecticut was also 3rd in 2011, but it was the energy-booming Alaska and Wyoming ahead of them. Massachusetts and NY are now the two at the top. You can play around with dates and whatnot, but the gist is Connecticut’s economic past is brighter than its economic future. It need not be so, but you have to realize there is an issue before you can take steps to fix it.