The wealth gap keeps on getting wider

As we approach the traditional season of charity, it’s worth pondering the modern state of the havealots and the havenotenoughs.

A new study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York offers another reminder that Connecticut does not rank lowest among states at everything. Fairfield County is deemed “the most unequal metropolitan area in the country.”

Yes, we have the No. 1 wealth gap in the nation. Our struggling state harbors the contradiction of bearing incredible wealth.

This is not a new status. Fairfield County had the same dubious distinction in 2015 it had in 1980.

The gap has only widened. Back in the year Ronald Reagan moved into the White House, the top wageearners in Fairfield County earned six times as much as counterparts on the other side of the seesaw. By 2015 the difference was a factor of nine.

Is this where we want to be in another 35 years, in 2054?

Connecticut is not alone. Since the Census Bureau started tracking such data around the time of the first moon landing, the wealth gap has reached its widest point. The new study echoes similar ones that point to the rise in technology spurring a need for a work force with specialized skills. In other words, the rise of computers has resulted in hefty paydays for techsavvy members of the workforce, while eliminating jobs at the other end of the spectrum.

As the national statistics are commonly shorthanded as thriving San Francisco vs. depressed Detroit, it’s easy to see parallels in the likes of Stamford and Bridgeport.

Connecticut is different from the boilerplate model because of its role as an epicenter of the financial services industry. As a result, Pete Gioia, economic adviser to the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, sees little hope of narrowing the gap in Fairfield County.

Some of our wealthiest residents offer suggestions. Ray Dalio, the founder of Bridgewater Associates, and Paul Tudor Jones of Tudor Investment Corp., who both hail from Greenwich, pitched concepts to reform capitalism at a recent economic forum in the town.

Another wealthy businessman from Greenwich, Gov. Ned Lamont, spiked a pitch from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to introduce a 2 percent capital gains surcharge on residents with incomes above $500,000.

Lamont also responded to nonprofits seeking a $100 million slice of the state’s reserve by suggesting they look instead to raising money from the wealthy.

The problem with seeking money from the rich via a plea (fundraising) instead of a mandate (more taxes) is that it’s easier to sell some causes than others. Education or the arts are surely worthy, but have a substantial advantage in luring donations than peers focused on social issues such as mental illness.

As Connecticut’s fortunes have dipped, conservative pundits have reliably bemoaned the potential departure of the state’s wealthiest if taxes are raised. We’re not convinced. State leaders should be more concerned about losing the working class.

Back in the year Ronald Reagan moved into the White House, the top wageearners earned six times as much as counterparts on the other side of the seesaw. By 2015 the difference was a factor of nine.