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.
I doubt one can import shampoo which retails at $1.
I don't know. Remember the plan to export chicken to China for processing, then send it back here for us to eat? I can't see how shipping food across an ocean twice would be profitable, but it must be for them to consider it.
I doubt one can import shampoo which retails at $1. The source, if Asian, would need to settle for perhaps, at most, a quarter. The tooling would all need to be bought again.
I know some at similar US corps. Most source in North America. Use highly automated facilities. I doubt many of the actual manufacturers will change much. The tooling is most often owned by the corps such as High Ridge, whether bought up front or per unit purchased, with enforceable contracts to pay tooling in full.
This will mainly impact the High Ridge staff IMO.
I doubt that a $1 retail item is made in Asia as well. But it could be made in Mexico.
I was noting that High Ridge doesn't make anything themselves and CT is only comprised of HQ jobs. If the company is bought by another H&B company, it may affect those CT jobs.
I doubt that a $1 retail item is made in Asia as well. But it could be made in Mexico.
I was noting that High Ridge doesn't make anything themselves and CT is only comprised of HQ jobs. If the company is bought by another H&B company, it may affect those CT jobs.
My hunch is 90% + of the North American hq and regional staff will be gone, if sold. Most likely buyer would be a corp who thinks they can do what office staff did w/o adding more than a tiny % of the present HQ headcount. Papers said North America headcount was around 140 people, with Stamford I believe at 53 now.
There is no logical reason for company buying them to retain all except a few to cover a transition period of perhaps 1-2 years.
Connecticut was one of 10 states to shrink in population in the past year, losing 6,223 people over that span, according to annual estimates released Monday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The decline, the sixth year in a row Connecticut has lost population, was driven by people moving to other parts of the country, the figures show. The state lost 22,059 people as a result of state-to-state moves within the U.S. and gained only 12,323 residents from international migration over the July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019 period. Births outpaced deaths in Connecticut over the one-year span, but it wasn’t enough to make up the difference.
All the other New England states fared better than Connecticut over the period examined by the Census, with Massachusetts (9,868), New Hampshire (6,246), Maine (5,155) and Rhode Island (1,074) posting population increases. Vermont, where deaths outpaced births, saw its population shrink by 369. Neighboring New York saw a huge decline (-76,790) that like Connecticut’s was due to people moving to other states.
Besides Connecticut, Vermont and New York, the other states to decrease in population were Illinois (-51,250), West Virginia (-12,144), Louisiana (-10,896), Mississippi (-4,871), Hawaii (-4,721), New Jersey (-3,835) and Alaska (-3,594).
The states with the largest population increases were Texas (367,215), Florida (233,420), Arizona (120,693), North Carolina (106,469) and Georgia (106,292).
The overall U.S. population increased by about 1.5 million people, or about one-half of 1%, to 328 million. It was the slowest growth rate in the U.S. since 1917 to 1918, attributable to declining births, increasing deaths and the slowdown of international migration.
Connecticut’s population as of July 1, 2019 was estimated at 3,565,287.
The estimates released Monday also show how the populations of individual states and the U.S. as a whole have fared over the past decade. From April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019, Connecticut’s population declined by 8,860. Over that span, the state’s population shrunk by 200,291 due to state-to-state moves, with international migration (136,392) and natural population increase (when births exceed deaths) helping to soften the blow.
Connecticut’s percentage population growth over the decade (-0.2%) ranks 48th among the 50 states and District of Columbia with only Vermont, Illinois and West Virginia faring worse.
Connecticut was one of 10 states to shrink in population in the past year, losing 6,223 people over that span, according to annual estimates released Monday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The decline, the sixth year in a row Connecticut has lost population, was driven by people moving to other parts of the country, the figures show. The state lost 22,059 people as a result of state-to-state moves within the U.S. and gained only 12,323 residents from international migration over the July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019 period. Births outpaced deaths in Connecticut over the one-year span, but it wasn’t enough to make up the difference.
All the other New England states fared better than Connecticut over the period examined by the Census, with Massachusetts (9,868), New Hampshire (6,246), Maine (5,155) and Rhode Island (1,074) posting population increases. Vermont, where deaths outpaced births, saw its population shrink by 369. Neighboring New York saw a huge decline (-76,790) that like Connecticut’s was due to people moving to other states.
Besides Connecticut, Vermont and New York, the other states to decrease in population were Illinois (-51,250), West Virginia (-12,144), Louisiana (-10,896), Mississippi (-4,871), Hawaii (-4,721), New Jersey (-3,835) and Alaska (-3,594).
The states with the largest population increases were Texas (367,215), Florida (233,420), Arizona (120,693), North Carolina (106,469) and Georgia (106,292).
The overall U.S. population increased by about 1.5 million people, or about one-half of 1%, to 328 million. It was the slowest growth rate in the U.S. since 1917 to 1918, attributable to declining births, increasing deaths and the slowdown of international migration.
Connecticut’s population as of July 1, 2019 was estimated at 3,565,287.
The estimates released Monday also show how the populations of individual states and the U.S. as a whole have fared over the past decade. From April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019, Connecticut’s population declined by 8,860. Over that span, the state’s population shrunk by 200,291 due to state-to-state moves, with international migration (136,392) and natural population increase (when births exceed deaths) helping to soften the blow.
Connecticut’s percentage population growth over the decade (-0.2%) ranks 48th among the 50 states and District of Columbia with only Vermont, Illinois and West Virginia faring worse.
hanks. I did not get a shot to check Courant out today. I wish our other newspapers covered issues like population loss or employment data in such detail. I also wish the Courant were easier to get in hard copy form on the coast.
hanks. I did not get a shot to check Courant out today. I wish our other newspapers covered issues like population loss or employment data in such detail. I also wish the Courant were easier to get in hard copy form on the coast.
Agreed, I'm with you Bob. The Courant does a superb job of reminding us how great this nation is.
This outstanding piece is a true testament to the freedom we have here and sometimes take for granted, and to the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect that freedom.
I can sleep well at night knowing that if I ever decide to leave this great state of CT, I won't be shot at the border.
Connecticut was one of 10 states to shrink in population in the past year, losing 6,223 people over that span, according to annual estimates released Monday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The decline, the sixth year in a row Connecticut has lost population, was driven by people moving to other parts of the country, the figures show. The state lost 22,059 people as a result of state-to-state moves within the U.S. and gained only 12,323 residents from international migration over the July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019 period. Births outpaced deaths in Connecticut over the one-year span, but it wasn’t enough to make up the difference.
All the other New England states fared better than Connecticut over the period examined by the Census, with Massachusetts (9,868), New Hampshire (6,246), Maine (5,155) and Rhode Island (1,074) posting population increases. Vermont, where deaths outpaced births, saw its population shrink by 369. Neighboring New York saw a huge decline (-76,790) that like Connecticut’s was due to people moving to other states.
Besides Connecticut, Vermont and New York, the other states to decrease in population were Illinois (-51,250), West Virginia (-12,144), Louisiana (-10,896), Mississippi (-4,871), Hawaii (-4,721), New Jersey (-3,835) and Alaska (-3,594).
The states with the largest population increases were Texas (367,215), Florida (233,420), Arizona (120,693), North Carolina (106,469) and Georgia (106,292).
The overall U.S. population increased by about 1.5 million people, or about one-half of 1%, to 328 million. It was the slowest growth rate in the U.S. since 1917 to 1918, attributable to declining births, increasing deaths and the slowdown of international migration.
Connecticut’s population as of July 1, 2019 was estimated at 3,565,287.
The estimates released Monday also show how the populations of individual states and the U.S. as a whole have fared over the past decade. From April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019, Connecticut’s population declined by 8,860. Over that span, the state’s population shrunk by 200,291 due to state-to-state moves, with international migration (136,392) and natural population increase (when births exceed deaths) helping to soften the blow.
Connecticut’s percentage population growth over the decade (-0.2%) ranks 48th among the 50 states and District of Columbia with only Vermont, Illinois and West Virginia faring worse.
Connecticut was one of 10 states to shrink in population in the past year, losing 6,223 people over that span, according to annual estimates released Monday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The decline, the sixth year in a row Connecticut has lost population, was driven by people moving to other parts of the country, the figures show. The state lost 22,059 people as a result of state-to-state moves within the U.S. and gained only 12,323 residents from international migration over the July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019 period. Births outpaced deaths in Connecticut over the one-year span, but it wasn’t enough to make up the difference.
All the other New England states fared better than Connecticut over the period examined by the Census, with Massachusetts (9,868), New Hampshire (6,246), Maine (5,155) and Rhode Island (1,074) posting population increases. Vermont, where deaths outpaced births, saw its population shrink by 369. Neighboring New York saw a huge decline (-76,790) that like Connecticut’s was due to people moving to other states.
Besides Connecticut, Vermont and New York, the other states to decrease in population were Illinois (-51,250), West Virginia (-12,144), Louisiana (-10,896), Mississippi (-4,871), Hawaii (-4,721), New Jersey (-3,835) and Alaska (-3,594).
The states with the largest population increases were Texas (367,215), Florida (233,420), Arizona (120,693), North Carolina (106,469) and Georgia (106,292).
The overall U.S. population increased by about 1.5 million people, or about one-half of 1%, to 328 million. It was the slowest growth rate in the U.S. since 1917 to 1918, attributable to declining births, increasing deaths and the slowdown of international migration.
Connecticut’s population as of July 1, 2019 was estimated at 3,565,287.
The estimates released Monday also show how the populations of individual states and the U.S. as a whole have fared over the past decade. From April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019, Connecticut’s population declined by 8,860. Over that span, the state’s population shrunk by 200,291 due to state-to-state moves, with international migration (136,392) and natural population increase (when births exceed deaths) helping to soften the blow.
Connecticut’s percentage population growth over the decade (-0.2%) ranks 48th among the 50 states and District of Columbia with only Vermont, Illinois and West Virginia faring worse.
If you look beyond the media hype and clickbait headlines, you will the state only lost 8,810 residents out of over 3.5 million. Statistically that is nothing. It’s well within the margin of error for an estimate so as I noted in other posts, it’s questionable at best. Jay
You are confusing the fiscal health of a state’s government with the health of a state’s economy. They are two different things. New York State’s unemployment rate is 4.0% which is considered full employment. It also has the second highest Real Gross Domestic Product per capita in the country. I’d say that’s pretty impressive by any measure. Connecticut’s economy is similar with a 3.6% unemployment rate and being No. 3 in Real GDP per capita.
- No I am not. If you go back to the paragraph I wrote and read it carefully you will see that I was talking about the drop in real value of the money/buying power, ability of a NY to retire in their own niche which went down significantly and in absolute terms, having basic life necessities as a referent point. NYers are not amazed and ecstatic by NY's economy at all. Ability of NYers to retire in their own niche in comparison a period of true economic prosperity, for instance 1998-2001 had stumbled down. NYers not only feel it, but the proportion of the working and middle class actively contemplating about moving out state, while still in their 40s, because they will not be able to live in NY on their pension is larger then ever. NY is loosing population as well as CT regardless of the fact that NYC is advertised through mass media/movies shows as the most desirable city in the world to live in, where it all is etc - not only in the US but in Europe as well. That as little to NYers packing up because they have to unless they opt to live with roommates in their retirement, which some do. Unemployment rate that you bring up is irrelevant as one can be employed and unable to live on their salary. That is why many NYers work two or even three jobs, not out of enthusiasm and I am not event talking about PT Real Estate jobs many in CT do. I am talking about you start your second job at 6PM. I would opt to move out as well if that was me. Being no 3 GDP per capita also does not help people living in NYC forget that their buying power is going down and that the increase of the real value of salaries (buying power) has not manage to keep up with the increase of COL. I Missouri is doing even worse, that does not help NY's.[/u][/u]
You also seem to be confusing being socially conservative with fiscally conservative. They are also different. You can be socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Unfortunately today, the meaning of conservative is being defined by Teabaggers which is actually libertarian. That means little or no government control or oversight and no social programs. As I said it’s very different.
For example Connecticut Republicans are proposing to bond billions in transportation projects but does not fully consider how that debt will be paid. They may be socially conservative but they certainly are not being fiscally conservative in what they propose. Jay
- Again it seems that you did not take time to digest the paragraph you are referring to. Surely I know what socially and fiscally conservative terms refer to, more over if you re-read my paragraph you are barely referring to, you will see that I went to define ontology of the liberalism/conservatism for the purpose of my argument as the conventional understanding of these terms in contemporary discourse is often alienated from the original gist and faint labels as fiscally or socially conservative are only chewed derivatives. Ontology can help one understand in essence what had caused one to exhibit or be perceived as a conservative or liberal in relative terms which relates to the topic we were discussing and the question a participant had raised as: what can local/state governments do facilitate economic health in the area? I pointed out that investing the taxpayers money into supporting inefficient "Non-Government Organizations" (this oxymoron is a red flag in itself) and government programs does raise tax base and does not help. Thus some people prefer a frugal more controllable investment of their tax money. I'll let you re-read my post. If I have not explained something well enough I will find time to.
.
Last edited by MeaningIntheMeanwhile; 01-06-2020 at 09:22 AM..
Reason: format
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.
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.
Eco climate in CT
