Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

StepVanity t1_j5pj04q wrote

Just like GE. I don't know why Sturm Ruger keeps its HQ in Southport, being that CT hates guns (Winchester, Marlin and others have left).

1

igetmoneyyuhuurd t1_j5pnema wrote

Where do the young workers at Lego even live in enfield? Don’t the NIMBYs of enfield fight against any positive housing project for decades? It was bound to happen and sadly all across Connecticut companies will leave to Boston/NYC

12

Unfair_Isopod534 t1_j5po1v5 wrote

Hopefully these employees make 150k++ otherwise they will have hard time in Boston.

29

Logical-Cat8319 t1_j5pvkyk wrote

Tax subsidies running out. Time to jump ship and have another fool pay the bills.

19

lizardRD t1_j5pyafm wrote

This is a smart move by Lego. Yes it sucks for CT but it only makes sense. Boston is a college city. They have a huge pool of highly educated graduates willing to deal with the expenses of city life. They are able to make connections with schools and create internships within there company. All the large business do it in Boston and given the nostalgia component of the company this will be huge for them. Lego is looking for fresh talent and this only makes sense. It’s going to suck for current employees because they will have to move over an hour or 2 outside the city to find anything less than million dollars. But overall this is a smart move by Lego for there company as a whole.

10

ExoticShock t1_j5pzkql wrote

First Blue Sky Studios gets shut down and now Lego's leaving? At least we still have WWE here.

2

kweee t1_j5q87at wrote

At least they can build a new place easily with all those bricks.

34

BronzedAppleFritter t1_j5qje5k wrote

A rare move where, considering you're starting in Enfield, you'd end up in a place with even more Dunkin Donuts per capita. Fewer Whole Donuts, though, to be fair.

5

johnsonutah t1_j5renxf wrote

Replying to Logical-Cat8319 (#1,471,871)

No subsidies from Boston or MA (they don’t need to give out subsidies to attract companies).

They’re leaving for the better talent pool that Boston attracts. CT desperately needs to invest in New Haven (Hartford is a lost cause barring federal money for big infra projects)

6

learner77 t1_j5rggnt wrote

That move doesn’t seem to have helped GE (at least judging by their stock price).

5

intrsurfer6 t1_j5ro6zg wrote

Now that Connecticut's fiscal house is in better shape, Lamont should invest in some serious public transit and infrastructure projects for the cities (especially the one near NYC). If the cities had more to do, young talent would stay in CT.

7

blueturtle00 t1_j5s17xe wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,479,410)

Gotcha. Must make over 500k a year to get hit with 40k taxes to move out. I only pay around 4k so not so bad for me. Looking into what other states pay I was surprised to see CT isn’t even in the top 10 highest taxes for income tax.

3

blueturtle00 t1_j5s20so wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,479,522)

Yeah I was just looking at income, Cars like 300 and property tax is 6500 in a non Fairfield county town (was almost 9k in ffld county) federal government takes way more and I get even less in return from those schmucks.

1

usernamedunbeentaken t1_j5ti7ql wrote

Replying to intrsurfer6 (#1,478,244)

If Lamont is going to use our recent windfall preserve business, he should lower taxes and make the state more business friendly. Not piss it away on pie in the sky hyperexpensive public transit that will never help any place like Enfield.

2

usernamedunbeentaken t1_j5tvc3y wrote

Replying to grottycrumpet (#1,484,997)

??? Is that a real question?

All else equal, where would you rather have your business? In a place where you get to keep more of your businesses earnings or less of your businesses earnings.

Lower taxes make places more attractive to businesses. In this particular case, Boston has something that appeals to a business (although this seems to be more of a consolidation move than anything else). To compete with places that have other attractions that CT doesn't, we need other ways to make our state appealing. One of the easiest and best ways to make a state appealing to business is to lower the tax burden on those businesses.

2

grottycrumpet t1_j5txutj wrote

Replying to usernamedunbeentaken (#1,485,470)

If I’m a knowledge based company competing for skilled workers, it’s not really a choice. Go where the talent is or get out-innovated and die.

If I’m a low skill company that can operate anywhere, yeah cost of living is more important. And I’ll go to a low cost of living state.

GE, Lego, Aetna (before being purchased by CVS), MassMutual & Empower all left because kids do not stay in this sad, boring ass state after college. I know HR folks and managers in several of these big companies, hell if you read the article you’d see Lego said it too. It’s and uphill battle getting kids to move here for their internships/first jobs out of college.

CT is competing for skilled workers. That’s what this article is talking about. We’ll never be able to compete with low density/low education/low skill states for low skilled workers/companies. We need to keep young talent. We’re failing at it because we don’t have what young people want—which is walkability, culture, places to hang out with to other young people and drink without worrying about driving. We need better cities.

2

usernamedunbeentaken t1_j5tzf0p wrote

Replying to grottycrumpet (#1,485,778)

We will never have better cities, at least enough to compete with NY and Boston. There is no scenario where Hartford becomes as attractive as NY or Boston to young people.

Sure, we can improve Hartford and New Haven, but the cost involved would be better spent on tax cuts, at least as far as attracting businesses and jobs and high income individuals (who pay taxes).

In the last century, Fairfield county became a hub for financial services such as hedge funds because of the low tax rate, not because Greenwich and Stamford were cooler for young people than Manhattan. We still have a legacy benefit of that, but have since squandered that advantage to a great extent by implementing and raising the income tax.

If we want to attract businesses and workers in an increasingly remote work environment, the best value for the buck is lower taxes.

/although that said, paying down our fiscal obligations is the best thing to do with any temporary windfall, which is what Lamont is prudently doing.

1

grottycrumpet t1_j5u2dkg wrote

Replying to usernamedunbeentaken (#1,485,947)

Agreed that fiscal crisis was probably the biggest thing spooking big employers, so it’s great we’re finally paying that down. It’s sad to see Lego go but I remember hearing this kind of news more often in the 2010s/during the Malloy austerity years, I feel like I hear more good news now than back then at least.

I’m hoping we eventually get some federal attention for our crappy infrastructure, which’ll help some of our cities’ problems long term. CT always pays much more FIT per person than we ever get back. I don’t think CT cities will turn around in my lifetime/next 50 years or so, but something ambitious like this would really set things in motion for future generations. https://hartford400.org/

Honestly I think a series of smallish improvements can really help. Like, we can speed up/flatten out the crappy Metro North tracks for faster commutes into NYC. I just took the Hartford line to New Haven, the train went 110 in some spots, it was great. Got to New Haven in no time. Then around Bridgeport you slow down to an unnacceptable 10 mph, who would bother taking the train if it’s that slow? Fixing that can’t be that expensive. It’s just adding fixing the ballast under the tracks?

We can take better advantage of transit we already have. Build some apartments on some of the parking lots in downtowns/near transit.

Honestly I don’t think improving our cities is as expensive or difficult as people think. Stuff gets proposed by private developers all the time. Just have to get past the NIMBYs

3

johnsonutah t1_j63rf9d wrote

Replying to DartMurphy (#1,512,712)

It speaks volumes IMO that Lego would rather move to Boston than to Hartford or New Haven. Frankly I don’t think Hartford is an option for any employer - virtually no employees regardless of age would like to work out of that city.

It’s sad that New Haven isn’t attractive enough to attract the young talent pool Lego is clearly going for

1

DartMurphy t1_j63rxrq wrote

Replying to johnsonutah (#1,528,326)

Makes sense when you put it like that. I live next door to new haven and imo the city itself is fine (infrastructure, transport options, things to do). It's the historically high crime rate, insane housing, and horror stories of what happens there that drive people away from new haven. Certainly doesn't help that it's been one of the highest crime cities in the country for most of my life

2

Notupinhere1028 t1_j64524r wrote

Replying to realbusabusa (#1,479,439)

My gf works for lego and she was told they have to work 3 days at the office. Everyone is really pissed about the move. It's dumb to make someone drive to a office when they can do the exact same where ever they want. As long as the work gets done who cares. Well boomers do. That's for sure. I work remotely and go into the office when needed. I've never been happier. Capitalism is about greed and control. They want to ring every minute of work out of you as they can. And if you aren't in the office they can't do that

2