CT News Junkie | ‘Government Attitude’ Cited Most By Manufacturers As Reason To Leave CT

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

‘Government Attitude’ Cited Most By Manufacturers As Reason To Leave CT

by | Jun 10, 2013 4:30pm
() Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Jobs

Courtesy of the Manufacturers Alliance of Connecticut The Manufacturing Alliance of Connecticut released the results of a survey last week that showed Connecticut manufacturers predict a bleak outlook for the state’s economy and the health of their industries.

Manufacturing has quickly become the focus of economists and politicians throughout the country, citing the industry as a crucial component of making a successful comeback from the recession.

When the New England Economic Partnership released an economic forecast three weeks ago, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association said that NEEP had good reason for focusing on manufacturing.

“When you have a service-based economy, you’re not really generation anything new. It’s just money trading hands,” said Joseph Brennan, Executive Vice President of Policy for the CBIA, adding that this is why a healthy manufacturing industry, where thing are created rather than traded, is an essential component of overall economic health.

In March, Manufacturing Alliance of Connecticut President Frank Johnson set about conducting a survey of Connecticut’s manufacturers to “learn more about how [they] are faring and what challenges they face.”

Johnson said what he found surprised him.

Of the 204 respondents, about 86 percent said economic conditions are “fair” or “poor,” and 69 percent said they thought conditions would either stay the same or get worse.

What was even more surprising to Johnson was the number of manufacturers who said they’ve been tempted to expand or relocate to other states, and most cited “government attitude” as the reason.

“A lot of people who watch what the General Assembly does and what they consider see that [during] every legislative session they bring up issues like rolling back workers’ compensation, raising health care costs, raising the minimum wage,” Johnson said. “It’s a continuing practice of the General Assembly to increase costs on businesses.”

According to the survey, a majority of Connecticut manufacturers report having been recruited to relocate or expand to other states, and half say they have considered doing so. The top five states recruiting Connecticut manufacturers are: North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Georgia.

South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Virginia are some of the states manufacturers have considered for relocation or expansion. Twenty-five percent cited government attitude as their main reason to flee, followed by 24 percent who cited operating costs and 16 percent who cited tax structure.

NEEP reported last month that about 2,600 jobs were lost in the state’s manufacturing industry last year. MAC’s survey indicated downsizing has occurred as a result of overhead costs, particularly increased healthcare costs for employees.

Gordon Rubber, a small company in Derby, Conn., employs 25 people and its president, Jay Mazur, said he has seen health insurance costs skyrocket.

“I’m a small business with a limited amount of money to take on the risk [of health costs],” Mazur said. “I’ve seen increases in general insurance, real estate insurance, property taxes . . . but the health insurance is ratcheting up at a much faster rate than the others.”

Mazur said energy costs also have been an issue. Although he said he is happy to have his electricity provided by natural gas, which can undercut the price of oil-produced electricity by as much as half, he still has seen rate increases. And, because Connecticut has to import most of its natural gas supply, Mazur said he loses some of that economic advantage.

But Mazur said he believes Connecticut’s biggest problem is its fiscal state.

“[Connecticut] has to get its fiscal house in order if it wants to create an environment here where people invest in the state, and, despite some minor steps [by the government] here and there, I just don’t see it.”

The products that Gordon Rubber manufactures are often sold to other manufacturing companies to be used as components in machines. And as companies have relocated out of Connecticut, Mazur said more and more of his business goes out of state as well.

“There used to be a company right down the road we did business with,” Mazur said, but they recently relocated. “Now I’m dealing with purchasing agents in California rather than in Watertown. Distance is never an advantage.”

But Mazur did not say government or inter-state competition was the reason for a recent downsizing at Gordon Rubber. Rather, Mazur said he couldn’t find enough new hires that were willing to put in the time to be trained or who would be reliable employees.

It’s a common problem in the industry. Employees working for a manufacturers do need certain trained skills, but the problem is multifaceted, Johnson said. Either the company isn’t willing to do the training themselves and has a hard time finding pre-qualified applicants from the few community colleges in the state that offer the training they’re looking for, or the company is willing to train but has trouble finding reliable employees.

“Part of it is lack of skills. Part of it is that they can’t find people with the right work ethic,” Johnson said. “There’s a drop-off between the people who apply and people who pass pre-employment drug tests.”

This speaks to the survey’s finding that 78 percent of Connecticut manufacturers have had difficulty finding qualified employees. At the same time, 58 percent said they hadn’t taken advantage of state hiring programs, which help pay employees to train for at least the first six months.

Companies are not necessarily looking for employees with a college degree, but want employees with problem-solving skills and a science and technology background, who will show up to work every day, Johnson said.

Last week when U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy announced his plans to launch a compact to guide Connecticut’s congressional delegation on policies to bolster the state’s manufacturing industry, John Harrity of the Connecticut State Council of Machinists said part of the problem is that manufacturing isn’t marketed as a viable job opportunity to those who are qualified.

“These are good jobs that pay better than average and kids can make a career out of these jobs,” Harrity said.

The state’s manufacturing industry received criticism for being “stagnant,” when the modern world is constantly driven by new technological developments. But Johnson said this argument doesn’t hold any water.

“We still have a lot of companies that are technical and innovative,” Johnson said. “They’re constantly reinventing themselves, constantly looking for new and better technologies and ways to increase productivity. I don’t think we’ve become stale, opportunities are just harder to find.”

Johnson added that plans like Malloy’s Next Generation Connecticut, which passed the General Assembly last week and authorizes the investment $1.5 billion in state bonds for the University of Connecticut. The funds will be geared toward providing more science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) opportunities.

Johnson said students who will be educated under UConn’s new STEM programs will hopefully fill the need for mechanical and design engineers in manufacturing that can be involved in the research that keeps the state’s manufacturing industry moving forward.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |


(39) Archived Comments

posted by: Joebigjoe | June 10, 2013  5:01pm

We don’t need no stinking dirty manufacturing. Bring in the mice.Bring in those high paying min wage jobs.

None of this will matter come fall anyways. My tin foil hat is telling me that we have a stock market that will crash, a federal and state government that doesnt care what the productive people in society want leading to a tipping point, a healthcare takeover that will finally get people to notice what they were really sold,and the you know what is going to hit the fan.

posted by: Joebigjoe | June 10, 2013  5:11pm

I totally forgot to point out the fact in the title uses by Jacqueline. The government attitude! I for one, and I know I am joined by millions across this country, am sick and tired of the government attitude. These people think they can trample on our rights, and lie to us like we are the scum of the earth. How dare they and how dare they think they are safe when doing it.

Look at the last three days. Obama gave a speech and said every member of Congress was aware of the NSA’s activities. That has turned out to be either a lie by him, or someone told him that and lied to him but you dont hear of anyone lose their jobs. Congressman Elijah Cummings said that the IRS scandal is done and it was a few people in Cincinnati. Wrong and what a liar! What about Lois Lerner, what about the people in Cinci coming out and saying that they were directed by people in DC. There are rumors of an older male atty Democrat operative in DC that is a key player in this violation of peoples rights. Why do I know this and the Congressman doesnt. Its because he does and is a liar and is part of this govt attitude issue.

posted by: Not that Michael Brown | June 10, 2013  5:15pm

I’ve read the paper.  I’m awaiting the “survey” of companies that have been recruited to relocate TO Connecticut, as well as the ones who have already relocated to Connecticut.  This article is one sided and terrible.

posted by: Doug Hardy | June 10, 2013  5:41pm

By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY, 5/11/2006:
NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls

posted by: Lawrence | June 10, 2013  9:09pm

First of all, a 16.6% response rate?? 211 responses out of 1,265 questionnaires?? Sounds like those who wanted to complain did, and those who are too busy filling orders tossed the survey in the trash.

Second of all, the state has allocated over $1 billion in manufacturing assistance in the past two years, plus manufacturing tax credits for hiring vets and the unemployed in large cities, plus invested hundreds of millions in community college manufacturing tech centers to train—AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE—the manufacturing workforce of tomorrow.

And a few still managed to complain?

They’re like Wall Street—cry poor mouth all the way to the bank. What have they got to lose? Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

posted by: Noteworthy | June 11, 2013  6:48am


What good is manufacturing tax credits to hire vets and the unemployed in urban areas if they don’t pass drug tests, don’t come to work, and don’t have the skills for the job? You didn’t mention the taxes - the rising and double taxation on gas; utility taxes; businesses taxes and the 20% surcharge on business profits to name but a few. Add in Malloy’s denigration of gun manufacturers, dissing oil furnances for gas and the chronic and deep problems with our budget - it’s a problem.

posted by: JamesBronsdon | June 11, 2013  7:56am

Lawrence, the other 83+% were too busy hiring and making expansion plans in Connecticut and thanking their legislators for all the blessings they’ve rained down on them.

posted by: DirtyJobsGUy | June 11, 2013  8:29am

We have totally made the transition to urban machine politics.  The democrats have seen that they need not appeal to anyone outside of the cities.  No matter how bad the economy is they will get the urban vote and they can personally and organizationally thrive.

posted by: dano860 | June 11, 2013  8:30am

Getting a 16.6% response is equivalent to voter turn out for an election. I wouldn’t put the voters that do vote in the category of whiners or complainers. Replying to a survey of any length takes time and research, these answers don’t sit at the tips of anyone’s fingers.
Mr. Johnson was correct, “When you have a service-based economy, you’re not really generation (generating) anything new. It’s just money trading hands,” said Joseph Brennan, Executive Vice President of Policy for the CBIA. This could be equated to a Ponzi scheme at its extreme. Manufacturing does produce a product, durable goods, that continues to produce profit for others along its sales and use route. A big box store is a link in that chain of durable goods, a majority of State employees are a pure service jobs, paper shufflers that cause some of the grief and frustration that was reflected in the survey. They definitely add to the fiscal problems of the State.
I noticed that the northeast corner was absent in the survey. I personally know of business’s in Putnam and the surrounding towns that are growing. The community college, Quinebaug Valley Comm. College, QVCC, has added STEM to their programs and has an on site high school that is integrated with the college. The results of the survey would have changed had only two of them responded.
Companies did respond that they took advantage of State programs. That would be the socialized part that had to be dangled since the uncertainty of what the State or the Feds are going to mandate next is ever present. It isn’t a profit thing, it’s will I have operating money to get through the next piece of surprise legislation the clueless people in Hartford pass. Will there be more taxes? Higher minimum wage? More environment regulations? More permits and licenses? Sure I’ll take the States money, my taxes, and operate with it.
None of the responders took Fed money or help.
You use the hire a vet program in hopes of getting a person that understands you need to earn your money. This is a “entitled society” we are fostering today.
$ 1.5 BILLION for STEM at UCONN at the college level? It’s to bad they had to bypass the Technical Schools the State has. It’s a shame they had to be pipelined through high school and into college before finding a career. QVCC is a model that should be more wide spread.

posted by: Noteworthy | June 11, 2013  8:48am

More likely the other 83% were meeting with their wives and accountants to figure out how they can cut costs to pay the higher taxes and extraordinary utility bills, and what assets they’ll have to sell to keep afloat while they hope for a better day. They’re also spending time developing a Plan B for filing bankruptcy and figuring out how to pay for that too.

posted by: robn | June 11, 2013  9:32am

If the survey was intended to be a neutral barometer, its severely flawed. For one thing, I agree with LAWRENCE’s comment about the low response rate which may indicate that respondents were motivated by negativity. Also the survey seems to focus entirely on partitioning negative responses rather than weighing factors positive-vs-negative. Lastly, this survey is subjective; a better focus would have been a study tracking the actual numerical growth or decline of manufacturing in different kinds of metrics (employment numbers, employee compensation, individual company profit, industry profit, volume, ratios of those metrics to state population, etc etc.)

posted by: JamesBronsdon | June 11, 2013  11:12am

robn, CT is the ONLY state in the nation to have experienced negative economic growth in the past year. Noodling around with studies and surveys gets you what exactly? Adverse policies introduced by the legislature and governor have created a negative business climate. That’s pretty obvious. Businesses are fleeing the state or retrenching. They don’t want the stuff Lawrence and his democrat buddies are pitching. They want to be left alone.

posted by: robn | June 11, 2013  1:57pm


The information presented in this article is what it is and that’s opinion from 16% of those asked.

I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it…what I’m saying that if we are to cure our economic malaise (I assume you’re referring to this… http://tinyurl.com/k8bjnzt ...-0.1% growth vs a national average of 2.5%) we need to diagnose the problem with something more exacting than opinion.

posted by: Joebigjoe | June 11, 2013  3:23pm

When Pratt moves most mfg to PA and Florida and colt goes to Florida then maybe those of you that think CT is great for manufacturers will finally get it. When the supporting machine shops get hit because of these moves then maybe you will get it. the overall cost of doing business in this state is just too darn high.

posted by: Fisherman | June 11, 2013  5:14pm

... Last one out, please shut the lights off.


posted by: JamesBronsdon | June 11, 2013  5:40pm

robn, we could look at each tree and try to determine why it’s on fire, or we could look at the forest on fire and try to put out the fire. I opt for the latter.

posted by: GuilfordResident | June 11, 2013  8:23pm

I read a report that CT is the only state in the nation in which the economy contracted. Whichever of you people are voting these job killers into office, please stop. Just sit out the next election. Or, just raise your hand and ask for help.

posted by: Lawrence | June 11, 2013  8:41pm

So, for the sake of discussion, let’s look at OTHER answers to some MAC questions.

Perhaps a different news story would have focused on these replies, and then we’d be having a very different debate:

79% of respondents think CT’s economy will remain the same or improve over the next 6-12 months.

Bare majorities (56% and 53%) said 2012 sales exceeded 2011 sales, and projected higher sales in 2013.

97% cited competition as the biggest threat to sales; 82% cited the recession, 72% raw materials cost, 72% availability of skilled labor. “State regulations” was in 5th place at 64%.

52% expect to hire more employees in 2013.

73% have the same or more employees than in 2012.

So, sales are up, employment is up, raw materials costs and competition are tough, skilled labor is in short supply, and the effects of the recession (unemployment, disposable income) continue to hurt sales.

Sounds like a run-of-the-mill business survey to me. Only when a business group complains about a state government that is already showering them with cash does it become ‘news worthy.’

Oh, did I say ‘showering them with cash?”


58% of respondents said they don’t take advantage of any state grant programs, and 97% said they don’t take advantage of any federal programs. 

Now, I wonder what that 84% of manufacturers who did NOT respond to this survey are doing??

posted by: ALD | June 11, 2013  10:54pm


I agree with you. As someone who spent his entire life in manufacturing I was not impressed by this survey. But still, the facts are the facts, if CT truly were a place that was open for business then why would we need to spend hundreds of millions to bribe companies to come here, or even worse stay here?

You say we need more than just opinion to diagnose the problem….... Ok, so if your a manufacturer and you had your choice of 50 states ( as well as the rest of the world )  as to where to locate your business and it’s associated jobs, why would you chose to come to, or stay in, CT?? 

This is the same question any business owner must ask him or herself everyday as they struggle to survive in a world economy.  As you say it’s really not a matter of opinion, but it is a matter of business, or in many cases, even survival.
Sadly those who we here in CT send to Hartford, and Washington do not have an understanding of this basic fact.

posted by: dano860 | June 12, 2013  7:59am

Lawrence, the report didn’t say that employment was up. Of those reporting 39% had higher numbers of employment in 2013, 34% reported no change, 37% reported fewer employees in 2013. It was also noted in the story that 2600 manufacturing jobs have left the State. They never come back either! What we are doing at this point is playing catch up, we think the UCONN investment is going to create a ‘technology triangle’ similar to the Raleigh, SC one.
The answer, I got from two of my acquaintances that own manufacturing business’s in this area, “Why do you stay in Connecticut?”  FAMILY!
It’s that simple, family, they also employe between 50 and 150 people and they respect their families too.
The State hasn’t ‘showered’ them with cash. Just the opposite when it comes to more regulation. They have both added employees over the past 12 months. They both hired out of the veteran program, with varied results. They both want to expand. One may go to a neighboring state because of those regulations and the available workforce. The other is holding out for another year to get a better gauge on the States fiscal status and how they will be impacted.
A far as ‘showering’ business’s it only happened to Dannel’s favorite five, now seven or eight, that will pack their bags when they run out the time contract. I like the clause about hiring minimums, they count any job they feel they added or created, the garbage collector, the contracted window washer, the guy that plows the driveway….quite a scam they have going.

posted by: robn | June 12, 2013  8:53am


You see neither a tree on fire nor a forest fire because you’re eyes are closed; you just think that maybe you smell smoke.
See what I’m sayin?

posted by: DirtyJobsGUy | June 12, 2013  8:56am

In all the states I deal with (as foreign corp/taxes) in my small firm,  Texas is the easiest to work with.  Others range from confusing but calm, to outright aggressive (CT and CA).  Attitude really does count as you develop a feeling that you are not really wanted or are considered guilty of violation until proven temporarily not guilty.  As for the state grant stuff, it is fairy tale help. Usually the restrictions are so tight, benefits are so small and paperwork so involved that they are never worth it for the majority of businesses.  Having a good business climate needs to mimic the Hippocratic oath ‘first do no harm’.

posted by: Greg | June 12, 2013  9:54am

CT is last in the nation for ecomonic growth; this is hard data, not some sort of biased opinion. 

For Lawrence and robn, why is this?  Everyone else says we have a horrible business climate,  high taxes/cost of living, etc etc etc, but what’s your reason for why CT lags the other 49 states in the nation? Robn, you called for diagnosing the problem…so what’s the problem if not business climate, high taxes/cost of living, etc?

posted by: JamesBronsdon | June 12, 2013  10:28am

robn, is that you? I can’t tell, my eyes are closed. But I definitely smell something amiss from Hartford. It’s the tide going out. Smell something fresh coming in from Tolland, however. I think more’s coming.

posted by: robn | June 12, 2013  10:47am


This article is about a survey recording sentiment from a very small sampling and I see it as weak and unconvincing. If you’ve got a source for hard data describing the circumstances of CT’s economic growth (or shrinkage), then by all means, please share it with us.

posted by: dano860 | June 12, 2013  1:35pm

Robyn, these may not be facts but they are indicators.
The following paragraphs are excerpted from my daily newsletter / email.  I receive it from the Society of Manufacturing Engineering (SME).

Boeing Raises Twenty-Year Commercial Jet Forecast.
Bloomberg News (6/12, Black, Johnsson) reports Boeing “raised its 20-year forecast for commercial jet demand by 3.8 percent as air traffic outstrips global economic growth and airlines refresh their fleets with $4.8 trillion in new planes.” Randy Tinseth, marketing vice president for commercial airplanes at Boeing, said he did not see a “bubble” in the market even as the company considers raising production rates. However, Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, warned inexpensive financing and oil prices could change these numbers. Meanwhile, Howard Rubel, an analyst with Jefferies LLC, predicted that Boeing and Airbus would continue to dominate the market as new entrants are just starting to come to the market.


Ford Motor To Hire 800 More Salaried Workers During The Next Six Months.
The Detroit News (6/11, Henkel) reports Ford Motor announced it will add 800 white-collar workers in the US in the next six months. “The new jobs — primarily in engineering, information technology, product development and manufacturing — will be in addition to the 2,200 new salaried jobs Ford announced earlier in the year.” The “automaker will also hire workers in purchasing, finance and other areas.” The News reports, “With demand for new cars and trucks poised to top 15 million light vehicles in the United States this year, domestic auto and parts factories are running at nearly maximum capacity for the number of workers on hand.”
      The Detroit Free Press (6/12, Priddle) reports, “The Dearborn-based automaker struggled to keep up last year when sales rebounded to 14.5 million, according to Autodata.” The company “added 400,000 units of capacity in the second half of 2012 and is adding 200,000 more this year as well as reducing the summer shutdown at many of its plants.”

In the past news of this magnitude meant work and jobs for Connecticut business’s. Pratt and Whitney would be first to realize the impact. All of the small shops would get bid requests, not today. News like this gets our engineers eyes and gets them to send out resumes. People look at this and leave…they used to head here for the good jobs.

posted by: Lawrence | June 12, 2013  9:31pm

dano860, some good information there, good post.

posted by: ocoandasoc | June 13, 2013  1:11am

A lot of business owners will no longer respond to surveys, roundtable invitations, polls, etc. For years they have told pollsters, CBIA focus groups, and their legislators about what they need and want, but everything in CT continues to go in the opposite direction. They don’t want to waste more time. I’m surprised they got as many to respond as they did.
I don’t understand why we have so many folks here who deny that the State is in trouble. The numbers don’t lie. CT was the ONLY State in the Union to have negative economic growth last year. The State just adopted a budget that will drive the per capita debt in this State to over $10,000, a budget that will only come close to balancing if we get a level of economic growth and increased tax revenue that not a single economist feels can possibly be achieved. The State is selling pension assets to pay current retirees – pensions for State workers will soon be less than 60% funded so an increasing number of dollars will have to be allocated every year to supplement the pension fund so payments can be kept current. By the Governor’s own recent admission, CT has the highest energy costs in the nation – and they’ll be going even higher. The State also has a higher minimum wage, higher workmen’s comp, higher business fees, more regulatory red tape, and higher taxes across the board than the states that are attempting to lure CT businesses away. 
Here’s the bottom line: Problems can be solved…. But not if you don’t admit they exist.

posted by: robn | June 13, 2013  9:00am


According to this study, the 2013 per capita debt of CT residents is more like $50K.


posted by: robn | June 13, 2013  9:03am


If you take the time to read the study I posted, you’ll find the hard data I’ve been asking about. Educate yourself and your complaints will be more convincing.

posted by: Greg | June 13, 2013  11:42am

Robn- I asked YOU why CT’s economy is in the crapper and you deflected it back at me asking for “hard data”. I want to know why you think CT’s economy is in the crapper.  What’s your diagnosis?

Again, you are challenging everyone here on the “CT is awful for business” theme but not putting forward your own theories on the root of CT’s underperformance against THE OTHER 49 STATES in the country, the accusing people of having their “eyes closed”. We do have hard data reported yearly in many manner of state ranking showing CT’s high tax burden, high cost of living, high energy costs, high regulatory burden, etc etc etc.  If that’s not enough “hard data” for you to put two-and-two together and come up with some stance on why CT’s economy is in the crapper than i don’t know what “hard data” will.

I presume, however, you know very well that there is almost never “hard data” that explains absolute causation in any manner of economic function; hence terms such as “economic theory” and the resulting debate that takes place.  Calling for “hard data” and “evidence” again and again merely redirects the debate to some morass that never has any merit.  Take what you know, make some logical assumptions, and form a theory and thus the debate is meaningful.  I presume you already know this though.

posted by: robn | June 13, 2013  12:13pm


I’ve neither agreed not disagreed with anyone on this thread; I’ve simply asked for sources other than opinion. So far I’m the only person in this thread that’s pointed everyone to a hard data study (which I found after getting sick of waiting for complainers to back up their suppositions).

posted by: JamesBronsdon | June 13, 2013  2:48pm

robn, your position strikes me as much like Lawrence’s and his Democrat masters who insist the Republicans can’t say anything about the Democrat budget unless they present their own budget. It’s simply a tactic to suppress legitimate criticism. We “complainers” are taxpayers who foot the bills for the Democrat’s insatiable appetite for tax revenue, including revenue that’s passed thru to the supposed job-creators favored by the Democrat regime. It’s as plain as the noses on our collective faces that the state government - legislature and governor, Democrat and to a lesser extent go-along Republicans - have created a toxic environment for business in this state. I have more than earned my right to complain, and I don’t need any more studies to justify the obvious.

posted by: Joebigjoe | June 13, 2013  3:41pm

A relative of mine is a sr exec at a well known Chicago area company. They are looking at other options for their HQ and there is quite a bidding war by a number of states. Their evaluation of CT made them the first one eliminated. How is that for hard data?

posted by: ALD | June 13, 2013  11:45pm


I am an engineer with two engineering degrees, and an MBA, all earned in CT schools many years ago.  I worked for 30 years for a multi billion dollar international company that was once located here in CT.  I retired from that company as it’s International SVP of Manufacturing. I dare suggest to you that I know what I’m talking about. I dare suggest to you that I am in fact very educated in this matter.

During my many years with that company by far the most challenging place to manufacture our products at a competitive cost was here in CT.  Sadly over the span of about 8 years I had the sad task as part of my job to relocate many ( hundreds) of those jobs to states where the costs to manufacture and the relationship between government and business was far more attractive than here in CT.  Never once did even one of those jobs ever come back to CT.

Clearly the problem of doing business here in CT did not start with the Malloy administration. It’s just has continued under that administration.

You don’t just pick up and move jobs on a whim.  There are not just huge costs involved, there are also huge risks.  At some point however the costs and risk of doing nothing, is even greater. But if you take the chance, and manage the risks properly, the pay off at least financially, is huge.

It was never once lost on me that when I moved a job from CT to anywhere else, someone here in CT who needed that job, lost it. But I also understood that if we didn’t do the things needed to protect our business all our jobs were at risk.

I don’t know what sort of proof or additional data beyond the already huge amount we know about you want to convince you that the problem we are discussing is very real.

Perhaps you know something the rest of us don’t.  I for one would love to see your data. Especially since I am unaware of a single metric I can point to that as a manufacturer would lead me to consider CT as a place for my jobs, that cannot be easily be more than matched in many other places.

Do not get me wrong. I would love nothing better than to see good paying manufacturing jobs once again return to this state.

Every summer while in college those summer jobs helped pay for my college education. They even gave me some useful manufacturing experience. But this is 2013 not 1970, and the world is a far more competitive place than it once was, and most of those jobs are long gone.

Just my 2 cents…... Sorry if it does not resonate well with you…....... You wouldn’t be the first, but if you follow the money, you’ll come to the inescapable truth.

posted by: robn | June 14, 2013  10:38am

Obviously you guys aren’t really reading my posts because I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m encouraging you to present statistical evidence to strengthen your argument. Sentiment surveys and personal anecdotes can’t be the basis of our decision making. Read the report link I posted. It should arm you with enough facts to argue convincingly.

posted by: Greg | June 14, 2013  11:18am

Robn- You did post that report, and i’m glad that you did so thank you for that.  The intersting part is that you don’t even need to get past the executive summary page to realize the problem is what pretty much every commenter on this article has been saying: high cost of living/high taxes/high energy costs/high regulatory burden/adverse business environment. We’re not in the dark on these facts: we read them in the newspaper, we read reports of the legislature crafting anti-business policy, we live this whole high cost phenomenon day in and day out.  We don’t need a report to tell us CT is awful for business. 

You challeneged everyone to post “hard data” to back up our assertions of why CT is in the crapper, but what you posted says exactly what we were saying…so why the combative tone here? You’re going out of your way to challenge everyone’s opinions when the facts are on our side.  The problem is diagnosed and in front of our faces here in this state…it’s a matter of making policymakers actually care, which they clearly don’t.

posted by: Joebigjoe | June 14, 2013  1:53pm

Robyn I think we can all agree that statistics frequently lie. Look at the indexes that the Feds come out with that make no sense and are manipulated.

Let me ask you this question. Can you name three manufacturers in Ct showing robust growth that are thrilled to be in CT and are encouraging other mfgs to come here?

posted by: eastrivertype | June 14, 2013  6:31pm

Why do people think that we have to bribe companies to come here or stay here?  It is because the cost of doing business here is so high.  If the cost were lower that would be enough for companies to grow here and come here on their own.