[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I am sorry but clearly that while our economy may not be growing as fast as others, it does not really need to. If you look at the facts, our economy is doing well by any measure. Not sure why you don’t see that. Jay

Lamont indicated upon taking office rebuilding our economy was needed (subtle jab, well deserved, at Malloy).

[BobNJ1960]

I would also remind folks Ct's drop in labor force is largely responsible for a decent unemployment rate. Folks giving up reduces the rate.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I am sorry but clearly that while our economy may not be growing as fast as others, it does not really need to.

Accept bad results?

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

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

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

I would also remind folks Ct's drop in labor force is largely responsible for a decent unemployment rate. Folks giving up reduces the rate.

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Accept bad results?

What is concerning to me is the continued denial of facts presented.

I am not concerned with the drop in the labor force. The changes have been minor and we do not have a growing population. And the fact that Connecticut’s Labor Force Participation Rate is similar to Massachusetts (66.7% verses 67.7%) shows that folks “giving up” is not an issue either.

The reason I do not accept bad results is because there are none to accept. The figures on their own are extremely good by all measures. Why is that not good enough? Jay

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

What is concerning to me is the continued denial of facts presented.

I am not concerned with the drop in the labor force. The changes have been minor and we do not have a growing population. And the fact that Connecticut’s Labor Force Participation Rate is similar to Massachusetts (66.7% verses 67.7%) shows that folks “giving up” is not an issue either.

The reason I do not accept bad results is because there are none to accept. The figures on their own are extremely good by all measures. Why is that not good enough? Jay

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.

[JayCT]

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.

It has also been shown that the number of people earning $100,000 or more is increasing. We also have two more billionaires on the Forbes 400 list than we did last year. A lot of income reported in our state comes from the sale of investments. Because the stock market is doing so well investors are not selling. The lower income issue could be a temporary blip caused by this. That was what was shown in past years.

What proof do you have that the unemployment rate is incorrect? There is none. It is compiled and confirmed by the Federal Government. Why would they lie? Connecticut’s rate is no more incorrect than any other states. Are you saying they are all wrong. Again please provide proof. So exactly who is the one denying the facts here? Jay

[LMPA]

https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

The U-5 rate includes all people who are marginally attached to the labor force, and U-6 adds those who are involuntary part-time workers. Therefore, the larger the difference between U-5 and U-6, the higher the incidence of this form of "underemployment." For the four quarters ending in June 2019, all states and the District of Columbia had differences between their U-5 and U-6 rates. Connecticut had the largest gap, +4.0 percentage points. North Dakota had the smallest gap, +1.7 percentage points, indicating a comparatively low degree of underemployment. At the national level, the difference between U-5 and U-6 was +2.7 percentage points.

[Heel82]

Connecticut’s population and GDP growth are in the bottom 15% and have been. Whatever else, that is a long term problem.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

It has also been shown that the number of people earning $100,000 or more is increasing. We also have two more billionaires on the Forbes 400 list than we did last year. A lot of income reported in our state comes from the sale of investments. Because the stock market is doing so well investors are not selling. The lower income issue could be a temporary blip caused by this. That was what was shown in past years.

What proof do you have that the unemployment rate is incorrect? There is none. It is compiled and confirmed by the Federal Government. Why would they lie? Connecticut’s rate is no more incorrect than any other states. Are you saying they are all wrong. Again please provide proof. So exactly who is the one denying the facts here? Jay

...while the people making 200,000 or more is decreasing. Overall, the new residents of CT make 26% less than the ones leaving. This is something that has been discussed over and over, with sources provided.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by LMPA

https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

The U-5 rate includes all people who are marginally attached to the labor force, and U-6 adds those who are involuntary part-time workers. Therefore, the larger the difference between U-5 and U-6, the higher the incidence of this form of "underemployment." For the four quarters ending in June 2019, all states and the District of Columbia had differences between their U-5 and U-6 rates. Connecticut had the largest gap, +4.0 percentage points. North Dakota had the smallest gap, +1.7 percentage points, indicating a comparatively low degree of underemployment. At the national level, the difference between U-5 and U-6 was +2.7 percentage points.

As I have previously noted, the reason that the U-6 numbers are virtually meaningless and not reported by economists is that they include people that do not work at regular jobs to make their living. That would include people who live off their investments or who have income from royalties or other sources. Since Connecticut has a lot of financial people and has one of the highest patient rates per capita, it would impact the results. Again you never see it talked about when Economists summarize any state's economy. Jay