[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Sorry, but the statements made are being done with seemingly little knowledge of how many people actually live solely off of royalties without any employment income. I’m glad you now said they “could” be part of the difference instead of continuing to matter of factly state they are - because it’s such a tiny percent of the overall population (even a tiny percent of the 1%) that they surely don’t make much of a dent in employment statistics.

Did you read what I originally posted? It was clearly listing possible reason for the 1% difference between our Labor Force Participation Rate and Massachusetts. That was just one of several I said. Below is what I wrote. Read it again. It’s pretty clear. Wonder why you can’t understand that. Jay

Originally Posted by JayCT

What are you talking about?

According to the data you linked Connecticut’s Labor Force Participation Rate is 66.7% while Massachusetts rate is 67.7%. How does one percent make the difference between “stinks” and “great”? Statistically speaking, the difference is minor and could be attributed to a variety of reasons including the number of people retired, non working spouses and adult children, and self or partially employed. Heck, a stock day trader who makes millions in the stock market would not be counted in that figure. That is why economists almost never use it as a measure of economic health. Jay

[Heel82]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Once again, we have the third highest GDP per capita in the nation. Being that high, we do not need to grow as much as states with low GDP’s. Growth is a function of change. We did not get hit by the recession as bad as other states so we do not need to grow as much to recover from it.

But this isn’t true. Connecticut’s real gdp per capita has been hit harder than any besides Wyoming in the decade since the Great Recession. It hasn’t grown, it has shrunk.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

If they can't sell p[B]rice is too high, poor location, or bad neighbors, etc.[/b] 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.

Everyone already knows why homes don't sell and those old standards apply coast to coast. Here though another important factor is weighing in.... Fewer buyers, especially high end.
Of course there's no empty homes, they can't move out of them

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Once again, we have the third highest GDP per capita in the nation. Being that high, we do not need to grow as much as states with low GDP’s. Growth is a function of change. We did not get hit by the recession as bad as other states so we do not need to grow as much to recover from it. Unlike New York, where the stock market crash had a huge impact on their GDP. Again I would not be concerned. Jay

I am going to have to disagree and very concerned after seeing this map and figures.
https://ssti.org/blog/useful-stats-c...tate-2008-2017

New Hampshire and Massachusetts were always in the top 10 for GDP with CT (if I remember correctly) and they have grown.

NY +11
NH +10
MA +10
VT +7 (even Bernie-land is on the plus side)
ME +3
CT -9

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by CTartist

I am going to have to disagree and very concerned after seeing this map and figures.
https://ssti.org/blog/useful-stats-c...tate-2008-2017

New Hampshire and Massachusetts were always in the top 10 for GDP with CT (if I remember correctly) and they have grown.

NY +11
NH +10
MA +10
VT +7 (even Bernie-land is on the plus side)
ME +3
CT -9

You are confusing growth with actual GDP. Look at this ranking history of Real GDP that was posted here from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. We are rank third in Real GDP and have been climbing for the past couple years. We had dropped a couple of years back but so did other states. It was a national trend that pushed energy producing states higher and more traditional states lower in rankings. This is a blip in the rankings that has since corrected itself. Also look at the US Federal Reserve chart on our GDP. It continues to go up consistently. Again it is not concerning as some here make it out to be. Jay

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

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

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Did you read what I originally posted? It was clearly listing possible reason for the 1% difference between our Labor Force Participation Rate and Massachusetts. That was just one of several I said. Below is what I wrote. Read it again. It’s pretty clear. Wonder why you can’t understand that. Jay

Nowhere did I state the unemployment population in CT is 12%; you misunderstood that. It was noted that the unemployment population doesn’t take into account certain things, which can make it higher. That’s a well known problem with unemployment rates.

What I very much disagree with is your assumption that those living off of investments is such a high number - it’s not.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Nowhere did I state the unemployment population in CT is 12%; you misunderstood that. It was noted that the unemployment population doesn’t take into account certain things, which can make it higher. That’s a well known problem with unemployment rates.

What I very much disagree with is your assumption that those living off of investments is such a high number - it’s not.

Below is your post. You clearly say our unemployment rate is “more like 12%”.

There is a set way that the unemployment rates are determined. All states must report their rates. The US Labor Department checks the state figures and issues their own. Their figures are reported by the US Federal Reserve as part of their regular monthly evaluation of the US economy.

The US Federal Reserve reports our unemployment rate as 3.7% which is the same as the US average. These figures are universally considered accurate. Rates under 4% are considered by economists as full employment. There is no reasonable reason to question our state’s figures or that we are at virtually full employment. Certainly no more than anyone should question any other state’s rates or employment status. Jay

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Statistics can be manipulated to fit any opinion and that’s what’s happening here.

We’ve discussed the income issue, and how it’s factually declining.

We’ve discussed the issue with the unemployment rate, and how it’s factually incorrect, and more like 12%.

Unfortunately, the “denial of facts” here is a pot, meet kettle issue.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Below is your post. You clearly say our unemployment rate is “more like 12%”.

There is a set way that the unemployment rates are determined. All states must report their rates. The US Labor Department checks the state figures and issues their own. Their figures are reported by the US Federal Reserve as part of their regular monthly evaluation of the US economy.

The US Federal Reserve reports our unemployment rate as 3.7% which is the same as the US average. These figures are universally considered accurate. Rates under 4% are considered by economists as full employment. There is no reasonable reason to question our state’s figures or that we are at virtually full employment. Certainly no more than anyone should question any other state’s rates or employment status. Jay

If you back up and share my previous post to that, you’ll see I posted the source that says it’s closer to 12%. That wasn’t an opinion of mine. I happen to think it’s actually somewhere in between, but it all depends on the methodology you decide to use.

And it’s true that it’s questionable for other states, as well, but this is the CT forum and a CT thread. I’m not sure what it has to do with other states.

[beerbeer]

Originally Posted by Heel82

But this isn’t true. Connecticut’s real gdp per capita has been hit harder than any besides Wyoming in the decade since the Great Recession. It hasn’t grown, it has shrunk.

The Courant supports this post. A shrinking work force is not a sign of GDP growth.

https://www.courant.com/business/hc-...wsm-story.html

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

If you back up and share my previous post to that, you’ll see I posted the source that says it’s closer to 12%. That wasn’t an opinion of mine. I happen to think it’s actually somewhere in between, but it all depends on the methodology you decide to use.

And it’s true that it’s questionable for other states, as well, but this is the CT forum and a CT thread. I’m not sure what it has to do with other states.

Below are your three previous posts to that one. They date back to the 24th. There is no link to anything to support what you say. Jay

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

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

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Age discrimination happens everywhere, not just CT. That said, the states that have significant job growth (like TX, FL, CA) have more available jobs so older, unemployed job seekers have more available to them.

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

And it is the refusal to accept the facts that is most concerning.