kyounge1956
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 2,171
I have been wondering recently about the possible consequences, both to me and to the local economy, of moving to an economically depressed area after retirement. For a long time I've been planning to relocate to the central Washington coast after I leave my job. I am looking for somewhere that doesn't get hot in the summer, and the low real estate prices are also a factor, since in order to make my finances work out I need to be able to replace my house and have a good chunk of money left over to add to my nest egg.
In the past, the county I'm planning to move to had an economy that was mainly based on logging and fishing, both of which have been in decline for a couple of decades now. I doubt that either industry will ever again be what it was to this county in the past. With greater mechanization, the same amount of wood products can be produced with fewer people than it used to require, and I would guess the same is true of catching fish, even if they are there to be caught. The two biggest towns in the county are both losing population. The population of the county as a whole is still rising slowly, but my best estimate is this is mainly due to two things: people moving into a more resort/retirement oriented community right on the shoreline (gained 31% between 2000 and 2008) and people moving into formerly more rural towns on the east edge of the county, from which they can commute to Olympia (the state capitol—it's about 40 miles each way). Median incomes are significantly lower than for the state as a whole, as are real-estate prices—as already mentioned that is one reason I plan to move there.
What happens to the economy when people with income from outside move into an area like this? I guess some jobs must be created as a result, but I would expect they are lower-paying than working in timber or fisheries was in days gone by. Is it better to create low-paying jobs, or no jobs at all? Then too, people moving in from elsewhere with independent incomes higher than the local levels may cause prices to rise—not a good thing. What, if anything, can a person moving into such an area do to make their arrival economically beneficial, rather than detrimental, to the people who already live there? Maybe I need to look again at that thread from a while back about "financial permaculture". What happens to real-estate values over the long term, when population is declining? If there are enough houses for everyone now, there will be more houses than needed with a smaller population, and less demand with the same supply means prices fall, right? That does not sound so good if I needed to take out a reverse mortgage in my extreme old age to eke out my finances.
In general, what can be expected over time in an area where the economic base has gone away? Do you live in or near a place where this has already happened forty years or so ago—where the mine played out or the mill shut down or whatever? What should I expect in the future there?
In the past, the county I'm planning to move to had an economy that was mainly based on logging and fishing, both of which have been in decline for a couple of decades now. I doubt that either industry will ever again be what it was to this county in the past. With greater mechanization, the same amount of wood products can be produced with fewer people than it used to require, and I would guess the same is true of catching fish, even if they are there to be caught. The two biggest towns in the county are both losing population. The population of the county as a whole is still rising slowly, but my best estimate is this is mainly due to two things: people moving into a more resort/retirement oriented community right on the shoreline (gained 31% between 2000 and 2008) and people moving into formerly more rural towns on the east edge of the county, from which they can commute to Olympia (the state capitol—it's about 40 miles each way). Median incomes are significantly lower than for the state as a whole, as are real-estate prices—as already mentioned that is one reason I plan to move there.
What happens to the economy when people with income from outside move into an area like this? I guess some jobs must be created as a result, but I would expect they are lower-paying than working in timber or fisheries was in days gone by. Is it better to create low-paying jobs, or no jobs at all? Then too, people moving in from elsewhere with independent incomes higher than the local levels may cause prices to rise—not a good thing. What, if anything, can a person moving into such an area do to make their arrival economically beneficial, rather than detrimental, to the people who already live there? Maybe I need to look again at that thread from a while back about "financial permaculture". What happens to real-estate values over the long term, when population is declining? If there are enough houses for everyone now, there will be more houses than needed with a smaller population, and less demand with the same supply means prices fall, right? That does not sound so good if I needed to take out a reverse mortgage in my extreme old age to eke out my finances.
In general, what can be expected over time in an area where the economic base has gone away? Do you live in or near a place where this has already happened forty years or so ago—where the mine played out or the mill shut down or whatever? What should I expect in the future there?