Jason Bram

Fairfield County, comprising the southwestern corner of Connecticut, is sometimes thought of as an affluent “bedroom community” outside New York City—a place filled with commuters taking home large paychecks. On average, it’s indeed one of the most affluent counties in the United States, with a median household income of $80,000. Yet a fairly small minority of working residents—fewer than one in ten—actually commutes to the Big Apple. Fairfield County has a sizable industry base of its own. In particular, the finance industry, based largely in Stamford and Greenwich, accounts for a disproportionately large 9 percent of the county’s employment and generates 27 percent of aggregate income. These proportions aren’t only well above the respective nationwide averages, but are even slightly higher than they are for New York City. Fairfield is also a major hub for corporate headquarters: The proportion of jobs in management of companies is more than twice the nationwide average and, again, higher than it is for New York City. Manufacturing (largely aircraft) is also somewhat prevalent, though not nearly to the same extent it was a couple of decades ago: It’s fallen by more than half since 1990. An economic and demographic profile of Fairfield County can be found on our District Profile page.


A Tale of Two Cities
While Fairfield County’s average income is among the highest in the nation, so is the degree of income inequality in the county. To illustrate this, let’s consider the two largest cities: Stamford and Bridgeport. Stamford’s median household income, at $76,000, is again half as high as the nation’s. Similarly, its poverty rate is well below the nation’s, and a whopping 43 percent of adults hold college degrees. In contrast, Bridgeport’s median income is $38,000 (half of Stamford’s) and its poverty rate is double that of Stamford’s. Just 15 percent of adult residents hold college degrees—barely more than half the U.S. average and just over a third of Stamford’s rate. Quality-of-life measures show similar differences: The overall crime rate in Bridgeport is roughly three times as high as in Stamford, and its violent crime rate is roughly quadruple Stamford’s.

Marco Cipriani, Antoine Martin, and Bruno Parigi

Since the financial crisis of 2007-09—and, in particular, the run on prime money market funds (MMFs) in September 2008—policymakers have been concerned that the funds’ fragility may render banks themselves more susceptible to risk. For instance, in a recent article and speech arguing in favor of MMF reform, New York Fed President Bill Dudley stated that MMF fragility may contribute to financial market systemic risk. The idea that the susceptibility of MMFs to runs may make the financial system more unstable seems intuitive, but is it correct? In this post, we show that the idea isn’t only intuitively appealing, it’s also sound from an economic theory standpoint: MMF fragility is indeed a concern for the stability of the banking system and a contributing factor to financial market systemic risk.