A recent report from the US Census Bureau reveals that the southwest coastline of Connecticut (consisting of cities such as Bridgeport, Stamford, and Norwalk) has the densest concentration of wealth in America. The area is coloquially dubbed 'The Gold Coast' as about 1/5th of the households are considered "high income." 17.9% of the houses in this area earn the amount necessary to put them in the top 5% richest Americans.
It is interesting to note how even amongst the wealthy, wealth is relative. The article cites the example of Gary Felman, who, by his own admission, probably qualifies in the top 1% of Americans but feels like he is in the bottom 30% in earnings of his friends group.
The infrastructure is enviable, with banks such as UBS and the Royal Bank of Scotland having offices in downtown Stamford, while Donald Trump has also constructed the resedential 'Trump Parc' tower. Bridgewater Associates, a prominent hedge fund with about $130 billion in assets, is setting up its headquarters in Stamford as well, bringing in around a 1,000 employees who are rich enough to settle down in the area.
The Gold Coast's success stems in part from its proximity to New York, making it ideal as a commuting suburb for the truly wealthy. Rent and taxes are also lower in this region than in Manhattan and some people, like Matthew Samelson, choose to work from home. Most of the inhabitants are tied to the finance industry and despite the economic recession, growth has continued steadily. Samelson says that the recession has had a bit of an effect with some assets of people under threat of repossession and others simply having to turn over their houses to the banks. But for the large part, these citizens have remained immune.
It might be considered socialist for me to comment that it seems almost unfair that this region have such a high concentration of wealth while the poverty rate in the rest of the country is still so high. However, it does present an interesting debate of whether these people deserve the happiness they got as they worked for it or whether the country is now too capitalist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/15/connecticut-gold-coast-life-afford
It is interesting to note how even amongst the wealthy, wealth is relative. The article cites the example of Gary Felman, who, by his own admission, probably qualifies in the top 1% of Americans but feels like he is in the bottom 30% in earnings of his friends group.
The infrastructure is enviable, with banks such as UBS and the Royal Bank of Scotland having offices in downtown Stamford, while Donald Trump has also constructed the resedential 'Trump Parc' tower. Bridgewater Associates, a prominent hedge fund with about $130 billion in assets, is setting up its headquarters in Stamford as well, bringing in around a 1,000 employees who are rich enough to settle down in the area.
The Gold Coast's success stems in part from its proximity to New York, making it ideal as a commuting suburb for the truly wealthy. Rent and taxes are also lower in this region than in Manhattan and some people, like Matthew Samelson, choose to work from home. Most of the inhabitants are tied to the finance industry and despite the economic recession, growth has continued steadily. Samelson says that the recession has had a bit of an effect with some assets of people under threat of repossession and others simply having to turn over their houses to the banks. But for the large part, these citizens have remained immune.
It might be considered socialist for me to comment that it seems almost unfair that this region have such a high concentration of wealth while the poverty rate in the rest of the country is still so high. However, it does present an interesting debate of whether these people deserve the happiness they got as they worked for it or whether the country is now too capitalist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/15/connecticut-gold-coast-life-afford
2 comments:
Well you can't really blame the people for moving to good neighborhoods if they have the money. I am pretty sure that I would also want to live on the gold-coast, if I had the cash.
The country may be capitalistic but what can be done? start redistribution or turn socialist, just because some rich people like to live together?
I guess I don’t understand what you mean by too capitalistic. Do you mean that the markets are not regulated enough? As mentioned in the article, many of these high net-worth individuals made their living in the financial sector. Dodd-Frank was implemented in 2010 as a result of the financial crisis, which brought on the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression. I certainly don’t think that America is “too capitalistic.” In fact, I would argue that capitalism is what makes America so great. Capitalism is what allows individuals the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility achieved through hard work.
Post a Comment