Non-Key Tweets

[pj]

Colorado is two small.
But Alabama, Kansas,Washington,Oregon,Iowa ,Miss,Kentucky,Oklahoma, South Carolina ,are big enough to support two P5 teams ,and Indiana three.

Yeah, a lot of teams lucked into top conferences based on history, that wouldn't get invites today if they were starting from the AAC or MWC.

Indiana is a good comparable for us though ... 6.6 million people among two state schools is not as good as 3.6 million among one ... and Notre Dame is a "Chicago" metro area school + national brand ... UConn is arguably a NYC/Boston school + national basketball brand ... so we're probably worth more to the B1G than Purdue (#2 state school in Indiana) and rival Indiana in value.

 

[Kolumbo]

Colorado is two small.
But Alabama, Kansas,Washington,Oregon,Iowa ,Miss,Kentucky,Oklahoma, South Carolina ,are big enough to support two P5 teams ,and Indiana three.

And NC 4. In one conference.

 

[Seaa Blue]

When an ACC team gets to play in the Rose Bowl and a Big Ten team doesn't, that should have been enough of a clue right there. (Over the past decade or so, Miami, Texas and TCU have all won the Rose Bowl.)

I don't believe other teams playing in the Rose Bowl tells the whole story. If BIG and Pac wanted to keep the traditional game at all costs (and potentially sacrifice an agreement to participate in the bowl rotation and playoff process) I believe the Rose Bowl people would be beholden in some way to oblige. If not legally, then by agreement. BIG and Pac did pretty much that with the former Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition; the Rose Bowl was more important than a guaranteed #1 vs #2. Now the playoff is just too much money to pass up.

I know when the Slive complained that Delany wasn't being flexible enough with the Rose Bowl, Delany, as he phrased it, told him to "go get his own bowl game". And so they did -- the SEC vs Big 12 game.

So, some how, some way, Delany and Scott are free to speak on behalf of the Rose Bowl to a large extent. How that is, I'm not sure.

 

[UConnMike04]

I don't believe other teams playing in the Rose Bowl tells the whole story. If BIG and Pac wanted to keep the traditional game at all costs (and potentially sacrifice an agreement to participate in the bowl rotation and playoff process) I believe the Rose Bowl people would be beholden in some way to oblige. If not legally, then by agreement. BIG and Pac did pretty much that with the former Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition; the Rose Bowl was more important than a guaranteed #1 vs #2. Now the playoff is just too much money to pass up. I know when the Slive complained that Delany wasn't being flexible enough with the Rose Bowl, Delany, as he phrased it, told him to "go get his own bowl game". And so they did -- the SEC vs Big 12 game. So, some how, some way, Delany and Scott are free to speak on behalf of the Rose Bowl to a large extent. How that is, I'm not sure.

Had a 90s rap flashback in the beginning of this when I read BIG and Pac.

 

[SAMCRO]

Had a 90s rap flashback in the beginning of this when I read BIG and Pac.

Add UConn to the B1G and we can genuinely make this an east coast-west coast thing..... Who Shot Ya!

 

[Kolumbo]

GE, Aetna, and Travelers upset with the current budget status. This state should be on DEFCON 1 and pulling every string possible to keep UCONN Athletics in the show.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/worse-than-illinois-1432939572

"On May 13 Nutmeggers became the last U.S. residents to reach Tax Freedom Day, when they finish paying the government each year and begin working for themselves. No wonder so many want to leave."

 

[upstater]

GE, Aetna, and Travelers upset with the current budget status. This state should be on DEFCON 1 and pulling every string possible to keep UCONN Athletics in the show.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/worse-than-illinois-1432939572

"On May 13 Nutmeggers became the last U.S. residents to reach Tax Freedom Day, when they finish paying the government each year and begin working for themselves. No wonder so many want to leave."

Theya re free to leave anytime they want. For some reason, all these crazy high revenue companies keep opening businesses in the state. LEAVE. So Connecticut can go back to being a bucolic paradise. Like Wisconsin or Iowa.

 

[Kolumbo]

Theya re free to leave anytime they want. For some reason, all these crazy high revenue companies keep opening businesses in the state. LEAVE. So Connecticut can go back to being a bucolic paradise. Like Wisconsin or Iowa.

I don't think many high revenue companies are moving to CT. Not for a while. It's cheaper than NYC but otherwise there is no reason to move here.

 

[upstater]

I don't think many high revenue companies are moving to CT. Not for a while. It's cheaper than NYC but otherwise there is no reason to move here.

There's a reason why Fairfield Cty doesn't look anything like it used to look a mere decade ago. Companies are coming into the place even if other companies are leaving other parts of the state. Look at the increase in per capita income in the last 10 years. It is skyrocketing even as it's falling all over the country.

Just look at UBS and RBS banks and the thousands of employees they have in Stamford (4,000 and 2,000) respectively. They have been there for a little over a decade.

Now, they may be downsizing and moving some operations out of state, but that has more to do with the state of the banking sector globally (i.e. UBS has gotten rid of their trading floor to focus on cash management).

Conn. tax rates are not driving these huge businesses out of state.

The dynamic seems to be huge tax breaks for wealthy companies moving into the state, and then the need for services are provided by high taxes elsewhere in the state.

 

[Kolumbo]

There's a reason why Fairfield Cty doesn't look anything like it used to look a mere decade ago. Companies are coming into the place even if other companies are leaving other parts of the state. Look at the increase in per capita income in the last 10 years. It is skyrocketing even as it's falling all over the country.

Just look at UBS and RBS banks and the thousands of employees they have in Stamford (4,000 and 2,000) respectively. They have been there for a little over a decade.

Now, they may be downsizing and moving some operations out of state, but that has more to do with the state of the banking sector globally (i.e. UBS has gotten rid of their trading floor to focus on cash management).

Conn. tax rates are not driving these huge businesses out of state.

The dynamic seems to be huge tax breaks for wealthy companies moving into the state, and then the need for services are provided by high taxes elsewhere in the state.

Fairfield County is unique because it is so close to NYC and cheaper than NYC. I am no expert, but UBS opened Stamford almost 20 years ago. I am not sure about RBS. Both have downsized and I'd wager much of that has to do with cutting costs in CT. Whatever the reason, nothing you wrote supports your original assertion that high revenue companies are currently flocking to CT.

 

[SubbaBub]

There's a reason why Fairfield Cty doesn't look anything like it used to look a mere decade ago. Companies are coming into the place even if other companies are leaving other parts of the state. Look at the increase in per capita income in the last 10 years. It is skyrocketing even as it's falling all over the country.

Just look at UBS and RBS banks and the thousands of employees they have in Stamford (4,000 and 2,000) respectively. They have been there for a little over a decade.

Now, they may be downsizing and moving some operations out of state, but that has more to do with the state of the banking sector globally (i.e. UBS has gotten rid of their trading floor to focus on cash management).

Conn. tax rates are not driving these huge businesses out of state.

The dynamic seems to be huge tax breaks for wealthy companies moving into the state, and then the need for services are provided by high taxes elsewhere in the state.

Not exactly. It's still proximity to NYC plus a lower tax rate and better quality of life than Manhattan.

To all our friends in the hinterlands, we are not in most cases competing with FL and TX. So long as proximity to NY and a dense population of high value workers, CT will be fine.

The prattle about taxes will always come from those who can't hack it here or just want better weather.

 

[UConnJim]

There's a reason why Fairfield Cty doesn't look anything like it used to look a mere decade ago. Companies are coming into the place even if other companies are leaving other parts of the state. Look at the increase in per capita income in the last 10 years. It is skyrocketing even as it's falling all over the country.

Just look at UBS and RBS banks and the thousands of employees they have in Stamford (4,000 and 2,000) respectively. They have been there for a little over a decade.

Now, they may be downsizing and moving some operations out of state, but that has more to do with the state of the banking sector globally (i.e. UBS has gotten rid of their trading floor to focus on cash management).

Conn. tax rates are not driving these huge businesses out of state.

The dynamic seems to be huge tax breaks for wealthy companies moving into the state, and then the need for services are provided by high taxes elsewhere in the state.

I think people have forgotten what put Connecticut on the map for corporations in the late 1960s/1970s. Up until 1991, Connecticut did not have an income tax which put Connecticut at a competitive advantage to neighboring states of NY, NJ, and Massachusetts for corporate headquarters and companies moved to (or stayed in) Connecticut. Since the income tax was implemented in CT in 1991, there has been no net job growth and the state has lost residents.

Sure, Fairfield County has done really well as the hedge fund managers have moved in. But, the cost advantage of being in CT is being whittled away and financial types who go to conferences in NYC now have to pay NY state income taxes if they are in NY more than ~ 10 days (I forget the exact number) in a given year. Since the high earners in CT pay most of the income taxes, CT has to be careful to keep them. I think the top 1% pay 40% of Connecticut's income taxes.

End of the day, people are moving to and jobs are being created in low tax states. If you want a state to grow, you need to lower taxes and not increase them.

 

[upstater]

I think people have forgotten what put Connecticut on the map for corporations in the late 1960s/1970s. Up until 1991, Connecticut did not have an income tax which put Connecticut at a competitive advantage to neighboring states of NY, NJ, and Massachusetts for corporate headquarters and companies moved to (or stayed in) Connecticut. Since the income tax was implemented in CT in 1991, there has been no net job growth and the state has lost residents.

Sure, Fairfield County has done really well as the hedge fund managers have moved in. But, the cost advantage of being in CT is being whittled away and financial types who go to conferences in NYC now have to pay NY state income taxes if they are in NY more than ~ 10 days (I forget the exact number) in a given year. Since the high earners in CT pay most of the income taxes, CT has to be careful to keep them. I think the top 1% pay 40% of Connecticut's income taxes.

End of the day, people are moving to and jobs are being created in low tax states. If you want a state to grow, you need to lower taxes and not increase them.

Supply and demand. It works the same way with business as it does in states. If the per capita is going down, and thus the need for services is going down, you are going to need to attract businesses and more people. Connecticut doesn't seem to be in this situation.

Despite a century of massive federal tax transfers to low income very low tax states without much in the way of services, there doesn't seem to be much improvement at all in terms of per capita income relative to the high tax, surplus states that pay for those huge transfers.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think people have forgotten what put Connecticut on the map for corporations in the late 1960s/1970s. Up until 1991, Connecticut did not have an income tax which put Connecticut at a competitive advantage to neighboring states of NY, NJ, and Massachusetts for corporate headquarters and companies moved to (or stayed in) Connecticut. Since the income tax was implemented in CT in 1991, there has been no net job growth and the state has lost residents.

Sure, Fairfield County has done really well as the hedge fund managers have moved in. But, the cost advantage of being in CT is being whittled away and financial types who go to conferences in NYC now have to pay NY state income taxes if they are in NY more than ~ 10 days (I forget the exact number) in a given year. Since the high earners in CT pay most of the income taxes, CT has to be careful to keep them. I think the top 1% pay 40% of Connecticut's income taxes.

End of the day, people are moving to and jobs are being created in low tax states. If you want a state to grow, you need to lower taxes and not increase them.

Keep this stuff to the Cesspool.

 

[upstater]

Fairfield County is unique because it is so close to NYC and cheaper than NYC. I am no expert, but UBS opened Stamford almost 20 years ago. I am not sure about RBS. Both have downsized and I'd wager much of that has to do with cutting costs in CT. Whatever the reason, nothing you wrote supports your original assertion that high revenue companies are currently flocking to CT.

10 years ago. Not 20.

AND, the trading floors that were part of the bigger UBS/Stamford move 10 years ago were indeed shut down. But they have not reopened anywhere. In other words, the downsizing had little to do with Conn. taxes. It had everything to do with banking since 2008.

 

[Kolumbo]

10 years ago. Not 20.

AND, the trading floors that were part of the bigger UBS/Stamford move 10 years ago were indeed shut down. But they have not reopened anywhere. In other words, the downsizing had little to do with Conn. taxes. It had everything to do with banking since 2008.

Look up the year. Hint: 1997. The decision was made 21 years ago.
"UBS, then known as Swiss Bank, touched off cross-border recriminations and municipal hand-wringing in 1994, when it announced plans to move from its two Manhattan locations, one in Midtown and the other in the financial district, to Stamford. "
headline from October 2014: UBS property listed for lease, signaling plans to leave Stamford
The UBS building is officially on the market, further signaling the Swiss banking giant is preparing to pack its bags and leave Stamford in the near future.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/bus...sted-for-lease-signaling-plans-to-5840825.php

 

[upstater]

Look up the year. Hint: 1997. The decision was made 21 years ago.
"UBS, then known as Swiss Bank, touched off cross-border recriminations and municipal hand-wringing in 1994, when it announced plans to move from its two Manhattan locations, one in Midtown and the other in the financial district, to Stamford. "
headline from October 2014: UBS property listed for lease, signaling plans to leave Stamford
The UBS building is officially on the market, further signaling the Swiss banking giant is preparing to pack its bags and leave Stamford in the near future.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/bus...sted-for-lease-signaling-plans-to-5840825.php

Did not make the move until after 2000.

And, UBS just reupped in 2015. Your info is old. They may move more in 2017 when the lease is up. But they signed a new lease in RBS space.

RBS by the way moved there in 2009-2010.

Again, has nothing to do with Conn. taxes. The latest lease they signed with the state in 2015 came with huge tax exemptions in the many millions.

AND, you may have noticed (or not), but UBS just paid over $5 billion in penalties to the US gov't for the LIBOR scandal. They are shuttering their many of their trading businesses because of bad practices, and losses. This has absolutely nothing to do with Connecticut.

 

[UConnJim]

Keep this stuff to the Cesspool.

Conference realignment is about universities and markets. UConn was late to upgrade both academics and athletics, but it has made substantial progress in both over the past 20 years. Still, more is needed. As for markets, Since 1991, Connecticut's population has barely grown, so the market size is stagnant at about 3.6 mill. If Connecticut had grown like South Carolina since 1991, Connecticut would have almost 5 million residents. I think that would have been a much more attractive market for conference expansion.

 

[upstater]

Conference realignment is about universities and markets. UConn was late to upgrade both academics and athletics, but it has made substantial progress in both over the past 20 years. Still, more is needed. As for markets, Since 1991, Connecticut's population has barely grown, so the market size is stagnant at about 3.6 mill. If Connecticut had grown like South Carolina since 1991, Connecticut would have almost 5 million residents. I think that would have been a much more attractive market for conference expansion.

Too much emphasis on population, not enough on money.

A market is only as good as disposable income.

Connecticut is the #1 state in the country for per capita income (5 year average 2008-2013).
South Carolina is in the bottom 10.

Connecticut 69k household income.
South Carolina 44k household income.

A huge difference.

 

[UConnJim]

Too much emphasis on population, not enough on money.

A market is only as good as disposable income.

Connecticut is the #1 state in the country for per capita income (5 year average 2008-2013).
South Carolina is in the bottom 10.

Connecticut 69k household income.
South Carolina 44k household income.

A huge difference.

Of course disposable income is important. My point was that if UConn had started upgrading the university and athletics 10 years earlier and Connecticut had 5 million residents it would have already been grabbed by a P5 conference.

 

[Kolumbo]

Did not make the move until after 2000.

And, UBS just reupped in 2015. Your info is old. They may move more in 2017 when the lease is up. But they signed a new lease in RBS space.

RBS by the way moved there in 2009-2010.

Again, has nothing to do with Conn. taxes. The latest lease they signed with the state in 2015 came with huge tax exemptions in the many millions.

AND, you may have noticed (or not), but UBS just paid over $5 billion in penalties to the US gov't for the LIBOR scandal. They are shuttering their many of their trading businesses because of bad practices, and losses. This has absolutely nothing to do with Connecticut.

They still made the decision well before 2000 which is much longer than 10 years ago. They signed a lease extension, probably because it was obligated to. Is that what you are hanging your hat on? So who are these other companies burning a path into CT?
Rest assured, there are many many many more folks interested in leaving CT than coming here. Taxes, weather, cost of living, what have you. One reason many folks stay is because they can't dump their houses.

 

[Kolumbo]

Too much emphasis on population, not enough on money.

A market is only as good as disposable income.

Connecticut is the #1 state in the country for per capita income (5 year average 2008-2013).
South Carolina is in the bottom 10.

Connecticut 69k household income.
South Carolina 44k household income.

A huge difference.

How does disposable income compare? People are leaving because their higher salaries don't seem to translate into higher disposable income. People are tired of having to support Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven.

 

[upstater]

How does disposable income compare? People are leaving because their higher salaries don't seem to translate into higher disposable income. People are tired of having to support Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven.

if high income people were leaving, then per capita would be dropping and not rising.

So what's happening is that lower income people are leaving because they can't afford it.

And that's what I mean by supply and demand.

This is no different than gentrification in any city. As richer people move in, rents rise, and poorer people move out.

 

[upstater]

They still made the decision well before 2000 which is much longer than 10 years ago. They signed a lease extension, probably because it was obligated to. Is that what you are hanging your hat on? So who are these other companies burning a path into CT?
Rest assured, there are many many many more folks interested in leaving CT than coming here. Taxes, weather, cost of living, what have you. One reason many folks stay is because they can't dump their houses.

You can't be serious about this. What about RBS in 2010? There are a lot of companies that moved in.

 

[Kolumbo]

Well, obviously people who lose their jobs, gets downsized, outsourced, or just fed up will move out. That much is clear. Income level is relative so someone making a decent salary could move out and still result in an increase in the average wage in CT. You harp on UBS and RBS, which of course are in CT because it's cheaper than Manhattan, yet just yesterday Aetna, Travelers, and GE mentioned the disappointing state of CT. Those companies have been in CT forever and probably would have moved years ago had it not been for their long-term commitments. Companies have been sending jobs out of state for years. Poll after poll shows that CT is flailing along well behind other states. But if you think everything is very rosie in CT, I will accept your opinion.
And I don't think its just low income people moving out. CT is very liberal with the cities and with low income people. These cities vote about 105% democrat for a reason.

 

[upstater]

Well, obviously people who lose their jobs, gets downsized, outsourced, or just fed up will move out. That much is clear. Income level is relative so someone making a decent salary could move out and still result in an increase in the average wage in CT. You harp on UBS and RBS, which of course are in CT because it's cheaper than Manhattan, yet just yesterday Aetna, Travelers, and GE mentioned the disappointing state of CT. Those companies have been in CT forever and probably would have moved years ago had it not been for their long-term commitments. Companies have been sending jobs out of state for years. Poll after poll shows that CT is flailing along well behind other states. But if you think everything is very rosie in CT, I will accept your opinion.
And I don't think its just low income people moving out. CT is very liberal with the cities and with low income people. These cities vote about 105% democrat for a reason.

Im basing my assumptions on math.

Why is Conn the highest per capita state in the USA?

It can't be because rich people are fleeing.

 

[Kolumbo]

Im basing my assumptions on math.

Why is Conn the highest per capita state in the USA?

It can't be because rich people are fleeing.

NYC.
If three people average $100k and one leaves, does that change the per capita income? I don't get your point. I think your original statement was something to the effect that high revenue companies are moving to CT. Yet the population shows no growth. Maybe the math doesn't include people who are no longer looking for jobs. Why does every town north of fairfield county have empty buildings lining main street? Maybe everyone staying in CT is becoming a cop or a teacher, I have no idea. How about try removing Fairfield county from your math and see what happens.

 

[CallMeBruce]

NYC.
If three people average $100k and one leaves, does that change the per capita income? I don't get your point. I think your original statement was something to the effect that high revenue companies are moving to CT. Yet the population shows no growth. Maybe the math doesn't include people who are no longer looking for jobs. Why does every town north of fairfield county have empty buildings lining main street? Maybe everyone staying in CT is becoming a cop or a teacher, I have no idea. How about try removing Fairfield county from your math and see what happens.

So you think that everyone in CT makes the same amount of money?

 

[upstater]

NYC.
If three people average $100k and one leaves, does that change the per capita income? I don't get your point. I think your original statement was something to the effect that high revenue companies are moving to CT. Yet the population shows no growth. Maybe the math doesn't include people who are no longer looking for jobs. Why does every town north of fairfield county have empty buildings lining main street? Maybe everyone staying in CT is becoming a cop or a teacher, I have no idea. How about try removing Fairfield county from your math and see what happens.

I thought my math was self-evident. It's the highest per capita in the country. If rich people leave, the per capita drops.

Pretty simple.

If Fairfield became its own state, then Conn. becomes a much poorer state with a different tax base.

Is Fairfield leaving soon?

 

[Jerry27]

I wonder what the Dude or Flug have to say on this?