Listmania seems to have finally gotten to Forbes. According to this one, Dallas-Fort Worth is the second best “recession-proof” city to retire in. Atlanta is first, Tampa is third, Houston is fourth, and Austin and St. Louis (St. Louis?) are tied for fifth.
First, I question the use of the term “recession-proof.” Dallas may have been hit less dramatically than some other metro areas, but that hardly means we haven’t been hit at all.
Secondly, and more confoundingly, if I’m retired, why do I care whether my city is suffering a recession? I mean, I’m retired, right? The national recession may affect my stocks, bonds, and real estate assets, but what has that got to do with where I live? If anything, doesn’t it mean there are more people are available to mow my lawn? Wouldn’t it drive labor and other costs down? In other words, wouldn’t a retired person rather live in a city that is experiencing a recession?
3 comments
I guess another way to look at a recession proof city is that the businesses I may like to frequent as a retiree may actually stay in business, making my free time more enjoyable The mom-n-pop coffee shop I go to in the mornings to mingle with other retirees has a better chance of not going out of business in a recession proof city because less people are out of work (the non-retirees) and can afford $4 cups of coffee. This is all a hypothetical for me…I’m 35 and not retired. But when I do retire in 30-35 years I hope to mingle with fellow retirees at a coffee shop. A coffee shop on Mars.
As a former Tampa resident, I can tell you that this latest recession hit the city pretty hard. The housing bubble plus a lack of tourism has hit all of Florida. So how it got on the list at all confounds me.
No, it may not affect financially secure retirees, Wick.
Otherwise, middle class retirees could be concerned about the resulting devaluation property, foreclosures, etc. following a recession.