[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Uh not exactly.

You can look at earnings and that's all well and good but you also aren't looking at spending either. If you make less that doesn't mean you spend less depending on savings and investments.

If you look at 2015 US census data, Connecticut median household income declined by 6.7% since the peak year in 1989, inflation-adjusted. That's middle of the pack nationally for decline. Regionally, New Jersey and Rhode Island have seen bigger declines. Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania have seen smaller declines. New Hampshire and Maryland have now overtaken Connecticut as the high median income states because their declines were smaller. I'm ignoring Alaska since it has a natural resource-based economy and really can't be compared.

The Connecticut trend isn't particularly better or worse than everywhere else. Everybody else has a budget crisis, too. With the aging Boomers hitting retirement age with the majority low net worth with no source of income but Social Security, you ain't seen nuthin' yet. The demand for affordable elderly housing, heating assistance, and Medicaid-paid nursing homes is going to crush everybody. All the New England states have a very high median age. Connecticut is 40.2. That's going to keep increasing. Taxes are going to go up to pay for it.

[Mike 75]

Wow, even the Courant editorial page thinks the union concessions need to go further.
Union Deal Still Not Good Enough - Hartford Courant

[WouldLoveTo]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Yes, I would. Although you are stating a wrong premise again. People do community service all the time.

Exactly.

Recipient: Hello, I'm out of work and here to apply for public assistance.

Government: Great! Fill out these forms and pick which job you'd like to work at 10 hours a week.

Second hit on a google search: Public Assistance and Work Requirements - Legal Assistance of Western New York, Inc. ®

If people worked in their community, maybe it would actually give them some pride in their community and then you wouldn't see things continuing to go downhill. Couple of supervisors for a work crew, it's certainly not impossible. And geez, maybe government workers could keep their jobs too because now they have people to supervise. Extremely simplified, I know. But no reason it couldn't work.

[cttransplant85]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

If you look at 2015 US census data, Connecticut median household income declined by 6.7% since the peak year in 1989, inflation-adjusted. That's middle of the pack nationally for decline. Regionally, New Jersey and Rhode Island have seen bigger declines. Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania have seen smaller declines. New Hampshire and Maryland have now overtaken Connecticut as the high median income states because their declines were smaller. I'm ignoring Alaska since it has a natural resource-based economy and really can't be compared.

The Connecticut trend isn't particularly better or worse than everywhere else. Everybody else has a budget crisis, too. With the aging Boomers hitting retirement age with the majority low net worth with no source of income but Social Security, you ain't seen nuthin' yet. The demand for affordable elderly housing, heating assistance, and Medicaid-paid nursing homes is going to crush everybody. All the New England states have a very high median age. Connecticut is 40.2. That's going to keep increasing. Taxes are going to go up to pay for it.

The only reason the median income figures haven't declined more is because the wealthy have gotten wealthier(which tends to be a consequence of big governnent). Eliminate the top 5% and the bottom 5% and the numbers look ugly. Connecticut now has the smallest middle class in the country, largest wealth gap in the country.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

Wow, even the Courant editorial page thinks the union concessions need to go further.
Union Deal Still Not Good Enough - Hartford Courant

excellent editorial

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by cttransplant85

The only reason the median income figures haven't declined more is because the wealthy have gotten wealthier(which tends to be a consequence of big governnent).

Wow, I thought I was the lonely voice pointing out this. Which is very logical and not coincidental.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by Mr.Genius

I don't know much about this union deal, but I have two questions about it:

- Do you think the deal would at least put Connecticut in a better situation than it currently is in?

- Do you think the Republicans will block this deal, and if so, do you think it will result in a better deal for Connecticut?

No, as it extends benefits through 2027 WITH a no layoff guarantee. As we've seen over the past few years, revenue projections have been unreliable at best. This essentially ties the state's hands if revenue falls short and will result in additional taxes and/or cuts to services. So state employees get downside protection - the rest of us get the shaft. That is unacceptable IMO.

I don't think this passes the legislature (will be the first time in a long time that they actually vote on a union contract). Even the Courant has come out against it. It also may not pass the unions. We shall see.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

No, as it extends benefits through 2027 WITH a no layoff guarantee. As we've seen over the past few years, revenue projections have been unreliable at best. This essentially ties the state's hands if revenue falls short and will result in additional taxes and/or cuts to services. So state employees get downside protection - the rest of us get the shaft. That is unacceptable IMO.

I don't think this passes the legislature (will be the first time in a long time that they actually vote on a union contract). Even the Courant has come out against it. It also may not pass the unions. We shall see.

I agree. Ten years is way too long to guarantee no layoffs. I understand the unions wanting some assurances but in this financial situation I think that is WAY too long. Jay

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by cttransplant85

The only reason the median income figures haven't declined more is because the wealthy have gotten wealthier(which tends to be a consequence of big governnent). Eliminate the top 5% and the bottom 5% and the numbers look ugly. Connecticut now has the smallest middle class in the country, largest wealth gap in the country.

You do know what "median" is, right? If you eliminate the top 5% and the bottom 5%, you get the exact same number. $70-ish thousand in Connecticut.

Connecticut does not have the smallest middle class in the country. Have you ever been to Mississippi? Alabama?

Last time I looked, New York had the largest wealth gap in the country if you're using the Gini coefficient looking at income spreads.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I agree. Ten years is way too long to guarantee no layoffs. I understand the unions wanting some assurances but in this financial situation I think that is WAY too long. Jay

Absolutely. It should be 5 years max, and I'd be fine with years 6-10 individually locked in based on contractually agreed upon KPI met such as State Individual Private Sector Taxable Income, State Revenue projection growth without tax increases counting, State Private Sector Job Growth ranking, State Business Climate Ranking, etc. If Not met, from the first year of 6-10 where KPI fail, deal ends.

We are long overdue to ride in the same ship, and public sector compensation and job security must ride with how the Private Sector is doing.