Dialogues with Meg Hansen: The Vermonter Candy closes

Founded in 1950, The Vermonter Candy produced specialty maple brittles. In February, owner Carolyn Handy announced that the company, which employed several people in southern Vermont, would be closing as a result of the rising costs of doing business in the state. Meg Hansen speaks with Carolyn about the legacy of her company and the growing adversities faced by small business owners in Vermont.

Meg Hansen is the creator and host of “Dialogues with Meg Hansen” on the YCN network.

Image courtesy of The Vermonter Candy Facebook page
Spread the love

7 thoughts on “Dialogues with Meg Hansen: The Vermonter Candy closes

  1. There was a candy manufacturer of various chocolates on Rt 30 just outside Brattleboro (west bound near the Interstate bridge) that closed shop a few years ago (4?). A distillery of Bourbon & Wine is in that location now. They seem to be making out OK.

    Is VT too sweet to eat candies, but needs booze to exist?

    Having to release employees, where do they get work, in VT? Perhaps another exodus.

  2. Hey Montpelier, dancing in the streets??????? Another business closed because of all your stupidity.

  3. So sad but typical of what has been happening in Vermont for at least the last 50 years.

    Before central planners came to our state we were thriving, but near the end of the 1960’s regional planning commissions (central planning) was installed.

    This imposed the desires and policy of outside socialist agendas on us and began changing the structure of power that used to flow from the people to Montpelier to one that now comes from our government to the people.

    Next Act 250, the kiss of death was given to Vermont as central planners began transforming our state through the use of regional planning commissions, the tools that now make it nearly impossible to thrive and grow by robbing the wealth of anyone who dares seek to prosper from the fruits of their labor or the use of their property.

    This law should be repealed instead of revised as it is a law of convenient excuse, seeking to stifle growth with illusion of protection by government, a pay to play that limits competition through exhausting recourses that would otherwise be considered an investment in prosperity.

    Anyone who has lived through this period need only look back and remember what was here before our decline began with the advent of having to plan to fail.

    With each declining year more programs are concocted to revitalize our demise, but they only result in the need for more programs because they only serve to compound the problem as their cost becomes cumulative.

    Such is the story of the minimum wage in Vermont, we raise it to help families support themselves, this raises the livable wage which cancels the raise with higher costs, then the company can no longer compete so it stops producing.

    If you don’t know what happens when we stop producing, please understand a State that is in negative numbers to the tune of – $200,000,000.00 ain’t paying much more welfare!

  4. There are many good part time jobs that will be lost for no good reason. You’re retired, need a little extra income and the company gets by so it keeps you on. Everybody loses when these jobs aren’t available. There is a great need for basic employment, to give people a little extra spending money, if you’re in high school or as working adult.

    This will hurt the unskilled people the most. Ironically we can’t even come close to the rising costs of inflation in Vermont, because we are making things way more expensive, faster than any raise in minimum wage.

  5. It requires no more than a primary school education to understand that when you raise the price of a commodity you reduce the demand for that commodity, be it labor or candy. It is folly to assume when a government policy or program is implemented that will have a negative impact on citizens or businesses that the negative impact is recognized when the program is under consideration and is either desired by the state or is accepted despite that negative impact. A number of states, particularly in the North East, are implementing programs increasing operating costs, regulation and taxes that successfully drive productive industry and business out of those states. Obama was successful in doing this nationally. My studies in economics clearly covered the necessary aspects of regions, states, even nations creating an hospitable business climate to compete for businesses. I don’t see the practical or economic benefits of generating a hostile business climate to drive them out. Is there a ready explanation?

  6. The state has its sights on ” Pot Growers and Microbreweries ” they don’t care if a candy shop
    closes even if it’s been around since 1950

    Maybe open a ” Shootup ” clinic, that seems popular these days, we all know we have plenty of junkies running around !!

    This isn’t the Vermont we grew up in, tainted by Liberal Flatlanders running the state instead
    of the Candy store leaving, we should send the Legislators packing !!

  7. Just like the National Demonrat anti American party our flatlander
    Demonrat state gov is more into party Agenda then doing right
    by Vermonters. Just look at all the Fascist laws to control every
    aspect of your life in the home and in public. What happened to
    independent self sufficient thrifty power detesting Vters ??
    And why didn’t the Green Mt Boys see fit to write in the constitution
    the ability to remove Flatlanders from power when ever they
    over stepped their bounds??

Comments are closed.