Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quote posted earlier in thread:
"Everything we buy, we have to buy at retail. Everything we sell, we have to sell at wholesale. And we have to pay the freight on all of it both ways."
Using 2005 Bureau of Economic Analysis income by sector data for LaPlata County I would classify about 10% at most of the county's income as "sold at wholesale", that being income coming from agriculture, mining & utilities, manufacturing and wholesale trade. Some of this was probably sold at "retail" but I am after a fair upper limit estimate and an overall perspective, not an exact figure. The 90% of total county income from construction, transporting and warehousing, retail trade, finance, insurance and real estate, services and government I would classify as nearly all sold at retail.
A few more numbers, if interested:
The 2000 Census showed that about two-thirds of Durango residents (above age 5) had lived there at least 5 years. A bit over 10% came from elsewhere in the state. Almost 1/4th lived out of state 5 years before and that rate was modestly higher than the state average of about 16% and far above the national average of about 8%. In the US in general (in 2000, all ages) almost 30% were born in a different state (or nation) than where they currently live. In Colorado overall it was a bit over 50%. In Durango it was over 60%. State to state movement is considerably heightened in Colorado's case but it is fairly common generally as well. Different people can see different levels of positives and negatives from that population inflow. The percent of outsiders may be a bit higher now but recent data was not yet been released to my knowledge.
A cost of living comparison between places is fairly important for most folks and the ratio between income and cost of living is probably worth some level of repeated recognition for some places to raise awareness and to try to help reduce the pain of lack of awareness of this reality. Durango is not only above the national average on cost of living it is almost 20% above the average for Colorado and income is at least 10% less per capita than the sate as a whole and about 20% less per household. That is fairly substantial.
Outside housing and local taxes the range in average cost of living for all other items between places is usually not that great. In Durango food costs a bit more than average while utilities are cheaper. Looking at housing costs and its share of total consumer spending it appears that most of Durango's higher average overall cost of living is due to housing. How you answer the housing question (from fancy home to shared or crowded apartment) will go a long ways toward determining your overall cost of living. The many individual preferences & choices regarding the rest of spending will also do a lot to affect the total cost. There are many different personal scenarios & budgets and degrees of satisfaction with your financial and personal circumstances. Different people have different tradeoff rates between counted income & expenses and overall "quality of life". But it is good to be as clear as possible about what you can / will get in one place or another.
Well, that is a good post. A few notes: the 2005 analysis points out quite clearly how much of the funny-money economy of the area at that point was tied to the F.I.R.E. economy--which since about 2008-2009 has had a hole blown in its chest that you could throw a bowling ball through. When the contraction in government (coming soon) hits Durango, that should put another big hole about 4 feet below the water line in the Good Ship Lollipop. I should note also that those "sold at wholesale" industries noted in the post above also are PRIMARY industries--that is, those that bring in new outside dollars to the community, not just recycled dollars circulating around town. Hmmm.
As to the population stats, they are pretty accurate--for 2000. What they don't show is the massive influx of "newbies" into Durango since then. I suspect the 2010 stats would look considerably different.
Time will tell who was right or wrong in their analyses and conclusions, but my prediction is that there are going to be a lot of people who thought they were going to spend lots of happy years in Durango-utopia who wind up leaving with their tails between their legs--if they can afford to leave at all. That town has a long history of doing that to people--especially when the national economy turns real sour. I'm sure as hell glad I don't have any money sunk in real estate in that town.
As for me, I could actually afford to live in Durango fairly handily. But I don't choose to waste my money that way. There are numerous places that are friendlier communities, with lower living costs, with a less "bogus" social scene, and scenery nearly as nice as Durango's--and not all crapped up with yuppie rural suburbia development. Durango was pretty much wrecked years ago when the torrent of transplants hit the place and were savagely--if unknowingly--determined to turn it into exactly what they said that they wanted to escape. Too bad it all changed.
You just can't help yourself, can you? I live here. You do not. I'm almost amazed at the friendliness of the citzenry, the community vibe and the overall feel of the place. And you're telling me it's "crapped up" and "wrecked". Astounding. You may be good at your job (whtever that is, exactly), but your credibility is approaching zero as far as i'm concerned.
For the nation as a whole the income coming from agriculture, mining & utilities, manufacturing and wholesale trade is about 26% compared to LaPlata County's approximately 10%. Of course health care, construction and various services can be exports too so that grouping is not a full representation of primary industries pulling in outside dollars. But clearly Durango is not a carbon copy of the average economy. Many places vary from the average in some ways.
According to the US BEA about 36% of La Plata County's total personal income comes from transfer payments (from government) and income producing assets. That is more than for Colorado as a whole (30%) but it turns out to be right at national average (also 36%). (Interesting that the state as a whole apparently is more about working and earned income than the national average or Durango. Some states get more from transfer payments and / or interest income.)
The change from growth in income from income producing assets to decline on average during the last few years hurt and could hurt some more; but recent total income growth from transfer payments in La Plata apparently grew fast enough to offset most of the recent losses from earned and interest income.
While one can debate the positive and negative impacts of the newcomers including a good number of retirees by age and / or wealth on the region, they have played a substantial role in the economy, injecting the new dollars and allowing them to recycle and multiply. La Plata's income as a percent of the average national personal income had been on a fairly steady rise over time, recently exceeding the national income per capita before slipping a bit. You get some bad and some good along with the population and dollar inflow. Folks compare the stuff they think is important and have information on to the alternatives they will consider or think they can make work and then make a choice. And then sometimes another one because it didn't work out or because something now looks better to them for any of a number of reasons.
What would La Plata county look like without the inflow of people, including a number with wealth and good incomes? Maybe more like it was but not necessarily all the same as other things besides in-migration caused it to change from what it was. One could take a look at some of other counties in the state and around the west that were of similar size a few decades ago but without as desired scenery and ambiance or at least the same level of the media visibility and get a sense of the range of answers or the typical fate of such communities. Many have faired worse. Is Durango better or worse off overall being what it is with the newcomers or without them? With or without the inflow can make for a useful and / or heated debate but the bottomline is that is has become what it is. What is will become may not be totally settled (especially if one looks beyond the next 10 years) but I'd guess the general community direction or attempted direction is fairly likely to be pretty much the same direction as the last few decades. It might be become less a leisure economy town and more new economy or even traditional economy but that is hard to predict accurately (affected by many things including gas prices and whether long term arterial road enhancements come or not). but I'd guess that any shift in community character probably won't be too dramatic anytime soon. But depending on the overall economy it may get harder or significantly harder to be a successful or relatively successful leisure led economy.
You just can't help yourself, can you? I live here. You do not. I'm almost amazed at the friendliness of the citzenry, the community vibe and the overall feel of the place. And you're telling me it's "crapped up" and "wrecked". Astounding. :
That is because you don't know what Durango was like back when it really WAS a neat town. That is your unfortunate loss. And a large number of friends of mine who are Durango natives who have relocated elsewhere wholeheartedly agree with my sentiments.
Well, they apparently have not done their homework as thoroughly as you think, Mike.
Here's a little comparison for you--from a competing relocation site that you and your minions don't want named on C-D. This particular site measures cost of living by index, with 100 being the national average. Here is what it says about Durango and Kentucky (I don't know where the OP is from in Kentucky, so I picked Lexington just for yucks and giggles). Overall, the Durango index was a whopping 124% of the national average, scoring a higher living cost than Lexington for everything except utilities, transportation, and miscellaneous costs. Lexington's overall number was 95% of the national average. In housing, the comparison was stark, Lexington at 86% of the national average and Durango at a whopping 174% of the national average--in other words, just about double Lexington's cost. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. And I really don't care if people are sick of hearing the truth--IT'S STILL THE TRUTH. If all C-D is going to be is "everything is wonderful, just do it" site--which seems to be what you want for this forum--then it's useless for anyone to rely upon to make a reasoned decision about relocation. If people choose to make a relocation decision with all of the facts in hand, good and bad, that's their privilege and they have to live with the consequences, good or bad. But they should be entitled to hear a contrarian point of view on this site, especially when it is grounded in some long-time and well-researched knowledge. Unfortunately, we have become a society that does not want to hear anything unpleasant.
So you READ something that says the cost of living is double but I'm LIVING through it and I'm the one who needs to "put it in my pipe and smoke it"? I'm.....speechless. Do you understand how your macabre and childish desire to be right at all costs makes you look to others, Jazz? You are so incredibly petty but even worse, you're just wrong, horribly, horribly, wrong.
A lesser person might conclude that you're calling me a liar but I know you wouldn't do that, you're just insecure, but I'll play along. What's my motivation for leaving an area where my dollar goes twice as far, then come to this website and attempt to convince others the two areas are on par? I have an idea why you would spin the opposite but I'll hang up and listen, awaiting with bated breath your enlightened response.
[quote=jazzlover;20525938] What I've found is that people who rely solely on statistics without understanding the underlying data usually draw wrong conclusions. I don't do that.
OMG, you're just pulling our collective leg now, aren't you? Even you can't say that with a straight face. This is the very definition of what you do, you have no real world experience outside of Colorado but you try to convince us otherwise. Hoooooooooooooooow? Through the use of statistics you've found on the internet. You are becoming a caricature of yourself before our very eyes.
That is because you don't know what Durango was like back when it really WAS a neat town. That is your unfortunate loss. And a large number of friends of mine who are Durango natives who have relocated elsewhere wholeheartedly agree with my sentiments.
This is absolutely true. My history with Durango goes back to 1987. I still like the town and what it has to offer but it is a shadow of its former self. I think you really had to experience it back then to really appreciate the point Jazz is trying to make here.
[quote=jazzlover;20523414]Well, they apparently have not done their homework as thoroughly as you think, Mike. Overall, the Durango index was a whopping 124% of the national average, scoring a higher living cost than Lexington for everything except utilities, transportation, and miscellaneous costs. Lexington's overall number was 95% of the national average. In housing, the comparison was stark, Lexington at 86% of the national average and Durango at a whopping 174% of the national average--in other words, just about double Lexington's cost.
I'm not going to let you twist the numbers to fit your agenda, Jazz, I'm a national expert in this field (yes, that's me mocking you). Your attempt to discredit me is, for me, like shooting ducks on a pond. Where shall we begin?
I found the site you referenced so would you care to share with us where the disparity comes from? Don't bother, I'll do it for you. To use your inflammatory word, a WHOPPING 30% of that index is weighted to housing cost. As I said earlier, our RENT is appx. $200 more here than in a comparable place in KY which renders your numbers moot. Take that 30% number out and Kentucky is, wait for it, on par with Durango, less the extra $200 in rent, according to the very statistics you cited. Granted, if we were to buy a place it would cost waaaaaaaaaaay more here than there, but we don't, we rent. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? I have agreed with you that a housing correction is likely in Durango but you won't concede that all of us know more about our previous home costs than you. Why? What rational person would try to convince someone that their previous 47 years of memories have been a mirage? You can stick your fingers in your ears and la-la-la all you want but you're still horribly, horribly wrong: I know more than you.
Speaking of which, who are you to talk about my home, Durango? You don't live here, I do, as does JChasse. We know far more than you about Durango and we've only been here two years, collectively. Stick that in YOUR pipe and smoke it.
And I really don't care if people are sick of hearing the truth--IT'S STILL THE TRUTH.
I can handle the truth, it's your flawed agenda that makes me sick.
This is absolutely true. My history with Durango goes back to 1987. I still like the town and what it has to offer but it is a shadow of its former self. I think you really had to experience it back then to really appreciate the point Jazz is trying to make here.
Thanks for responding, Lugnuts. I do get it, I get that he doesn't want anyone sullying "his" Durango as I'm sure generations of yore would be appalled at what he's done to "their" Durango. I have no doubt that the pace in Durango was slower in days gone by but that doesn't equate to worse, unless that is how you choose to view it. One persons "shadow of it's former self" is another's "dump": it's all in the eye of the beholder.
I know there are several themes & conversations going on here but I wanted to pursue some of the elements I touched on earlier a bit further before I probably hit the sideline. I could comment on other aspects of the thread and support some of both sides but I think I'll do this instead, at least for right now. For what it might be worth to any others agreeable to reading a bit from a broader angle with a historical context and more use of the stats (to see what they are and what they might reveal).
30 years ago Durango was pretty similar in size to Canon City and Sterling. Durango had the highest income, Canon City's was lower by 20%, Sterling's back 30%. 30 years ago appears to have been a sort of heyday for Durango relatively (probably one of several). Today Durango and Canon City are still about the same size as each other in town and as metros. Canon City is a bit closer on income on though, down only by 15%. Sterling didn't grow hardly at all in population but the income gap narrowed to just about 20% per household. Durango grew as much as any of the 3 and still has the highest income but it lost a bit of ground relative to the others on income. That might surprise some, not others. Might seem noteworthy or concerning to some more than others. Different demographic profiles among the cities and different changes to them thru time are part of the explanation for the average income differences so folks of similar age and family circumstance in the different towns might have more similar incomes than it appears but some of the difference probably also comes down to the economy of the towns directly and perhaps management of them.
Other towns in neighboring states that were similar sized to Durango in 1980 include Las Vegas and Grants New Mexico and Rawlins, Gilette and Sheridan Wyoming. The New Mexico towns were 30 and 50% poorer in 1980, while the Wyoming towns had incomes equal to Durango and 5% and almost 20% higher back then. Las Vegas didn't grow in town but grew to about 60% of the size of Durango metro. Grants lost in-town population but grew to about 60% of the size of Durango metro. Both are now 50% poorer metro than Durango. Grants in town is better off than Las Vegas in town. Rawlins lost population but with probably a higher proportion of the population having energy jobs it maintains a 10% income lead on Durango. Gillette has grown more as a city but less a metro. But it now has about a 40% lead on household income (also due to the higher proportion of energy industry employees). Sheridan is similar sized in town but the metro is only 60% of what Durango has become. Its household income is higher in town than Durango but lower in the metro but in each case by less than a 10% difference.
Durango's average cost of living index of 124 is more than 30 to almost 50 points higher than all the other towns listed above. Sheridan is in 2nd place at 92. Rawlins cheapest at 77. Mainly because of average housing costs. But, as stated above in the thread several times, not everyone is right at average in what they buy or want or have experienced elsewhere. The most important thing is whether it works for you now.
Can't have the 1980 Durango today but one could consider today's versions of these or other towns if you don't like Durango best or find it "workable" or as workable. Based on any combination of size & amount of sprawl, style & amount of the past style preserved, income, cost of living, the ratio between the two, scenery & recreation and other things deemed important to overall and net quality of life. Some past Durango residents have taken alternatives while probably more have stayed. Certainly a lot more have arrived in Durango and more in most of these other places too though usually to a lesser degree. Folks try to make the best choice for their situation and preferences. More information from various perspectives could help. At least it is an option to use or agree with or partly or not.
Last edited by NW Crow; 08-19-2011 at 08:37 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
