Slashdot Mirror
Americans Are Moving Less Than Ever, and It's Bad For the Economy (qz.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The best job for someone is not always in the area where they live. Often times, the job that will pay them most, and make the best use of their skills means moving to another city, state or country. Though making the choice to move can be difficult emotionally, it is extremely good for economic growth. Productive people make productive economies. Unfortunately for the US economy, people don't move they like they used to. According to recently released data from the US Census, only 10.1% of adults moved homes from August 2017 to August 2018. This is the lowest rate of moving since the government began collected data in 1948. The census tracks moves within counties, within states, or across states, and no matter how you look at it, moving rates are way down from just 15 years ago. For example, from 2002 to 2003, 2.8% of Americans moved across state lines. From 2017 to 2018, it was just 1.5%.
If you bought a house in 2014, and need to move, you'll be looking at housing that is 50% more expensive than it was then. That's a hard pill to swallow when CPI-adjusted wages have been going down over the same time.
If I left NYC, I'd likely leave the US. Most parts of the US are basically unlivable without having to own a car.
I've moved over 30 times and lived in 9 countries now, but I still remember being 22 living in the middle of nowhere in the US and most people act like moving to another state is like the end of the world.
Considering that America was founded by people who risked their entire future going to an unsettled country, it's a shame we've come to this now.
Yes, a "better opportunity" may exist, but "good enough" also has its advantages.
Unemployment is low, and good local job opportunities are aplenty, so the costs of moving just don't merit the benefits. But this is a lagging, rather than leading indicator of the economy.
Nobody has the cash on hand to quit, move, find another job, and pick up where they left off.
If you don't have a job and a place lined up and solid, you're basically flirting with homelessness just for the chance to live someplace else. Think about that next time you hear someone say "why don't they just move to where the jobs are?"
First, not everything is about the economy. This seems like an actual win for quality of life in that people can stay close to their families and form communities
Second, how has telecommuting been factored into this analysis. It could be that people are now able to mee fuller economic potentials in place
Doesn't matter how much you make. California takes it away from you in Taxes and Housing cost.
Moving long distance costs around $15K for a family. Not many people are in a position where they have a sure enough deal that they can move and make that much more after considering the new house price, with an assurance they won't have to pack up and move again the next year. Sure I could move to Silicon Valley and make more money but then I would have an hour commute and my mortgage would eat up most of my salary. Furthermore, I'll be back at the bottom of the totem pole again (I'm at the top now) and my job will be much less stable than it is now so I may be looking for another one again.
This goes very much to companies not giving employees a big a piece of the pie as they used to. People need a lot of motivation to pick up and move and that's not even considering how it impacts extended family.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
That's basically what happens when any statistic is generated.
Americans aren't moving enough? We need more visa workers!
Americans won't work for low pay? We need more visa workers!
Americans change jobs too frequently? We need more visa workers!
Do you know how much a pain it is when your g-g-grandfather moved to a new state and you don't know where he was born.
Geeze. For the sake of your own grandchildren. Stay put.
This seems like its a related to the observations from the article going around earlier claiming that millennials are killing businesses because they are to poor to be good consumers. Younger folk are more willing to move, but you can only move if you can afford to move.
This is Slashdot, they don't tend to recognize the family unit; or having kids for that matter.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
...and learn how to drive.
Or does that offend your precious feels?
, only 10.1% of adults moved homes from August 2017 to August 2018
Only 10% of adults moved within one year???
Is it only me to whom that sounds too high, not low?
At one time companies would pay moving costs, help you settle in to your new home, etc. These days they have the attitude that people should come to them. They don't really lift a finger to try to attract more people than (whatever they offer) at (wherever they are).
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I moved because I got a huge raise, but it increase my monthly housing costs by well over 50% (small town where I could afford a house to a big city where I couldn't). Now, I more than doubled my pay, so it was economical even with being stuck in an apartment. But I'm no fool, I know I'm not building any wealth, it's just that the jobs in the small town I was in were busy being outsourced and I didn't have a lot of choices.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Moving for a new job is an expensive proposition. Will someone benefit in the long run? Possibly, maybe even probably. But when most Americans can't even afford a $400 emergency they're not going to be able to afford moving to a different part of the country unless the new employer picks up the entire tab.
1. Unaffordability of housing.
2. Both partners working. It's one thing to have one partner start a new job. Moving long-distance means the other partner has to find a new job as well.
3. Most jobs don't come with a long-term contract. It's hard to justify a long-distance move when you may be out of a job after 1 year.
All of these conspire to create a situation where everybody accepts the commute from Hell rather than moving closer to where they work.
Professionals in America - particularly if they are US citizens - are often at a competitive disadvantage in trying to leave the US for a job in another country. Other countries often prioritize for their own citizens, asking their employers to provide documentation on why it is warranted to hire an American. Then on top of that are the costs of actually moving, along with getting the required documents for the move to happen. I have applied to several jobs in Canada - which should be a pretty trivial move - and the employer usually gives up rather than deal with the burden of hiring an American (even though I could drive there, I already have a passport, and I score very high on the immigration tests there).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
People were doing a lot of moving when the economy went sour, but that was just the reaction to being unable to stay gainfully employed at the pay-rate you expected to receive.
I knew people working in construction, for example, who had to move wherever the job opportunities were -- because all of a sudden, they found themselves unable to find steady work doing home repairs or renovations. The fact they lived in a big city, full of homes, suddenly stopped guaranteeing jobs for them. They had to resort to "storm chasing", moving wherever a natural disaster happened, to be sure they were kept busy.
Even in I.T., I had to move our family from the midwest in order to advance my career. My home town just didn't have enough good-paying corporate I.T. jobs in it. Several large businesses shut down or restructured. leaving a lot of I.T. people out of work and creating more competition for the jobs that remained. And the smaller places were struggling to stay profitable, so couldn't give pay raises.
When the economy improved, it put a stop to the need to pack up and move around. IMO, that's a good thing. People shouldn't even be buying homes with 30 year mortgages when they're expecting they'll have to resell them and move within only a few years. A home is meant to be a long-term investment. Why wouldn't everybody rent if there was no expectation of staying put in one place for the long haul?
Work/life balance factors more into big decisions that Americans make than it did a generation or two ago. Pulling up roots for a different job is something they're are less likely to do.
I don't see this as a bad thing. It's probably better that people become more invested in their current communities.
Knowing what the current students have posted online at my alma mater, the social life aspect __seems__ to becoming a more of a concern than before.
Maybe it's a matter of moving being good for the economy because it pumps so much money into moving expenses too?
In a house, there's the costs of bringing everything up to par to sell, the closing costs for a new mortgage (on both sides), the cost of moving services, inspections, fees, and tons of other one-time costs. Additionally, lenders get interest on the appreciated value of both locations rather than on the prior value.
For the massive number of people in apartments and other rentals, there's move out fees (usually cleaning and such regardless of how clean the place is left), move-in fees, deposits, etc. Again the cost of moving services (unless you're doing the Pickup Special).
As another commenter pointed out, moving is really expensive (They quoted $15,000 average for a family). It's also disruptive and stressful and has other costs involved aside from pure monetary costs, such as learning a new area. Fewer people have that much in savings, and fewer people have faith in continuing to have their job in a year or two, making the risk of the move not worth the value.
@Whee
Moving might be good for the economy, but stability is good for people. Pensions are a word of a prior age, employer training and investment in their employees are less, relocation packages are stingier or often non-existent; loyalty is a nebulous word without meaning in corporate culture today...all of those destabilizing factors make moving and taking a new job a risky affair.
That doesn't address homes, values, children, schools, or anything else.
It is well known that millennials make less than their parents and education costs more.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
because it's expensive to move! And it's great for the real estate people who suck up a commission on every transaction if there's a sale of property involved.
I moved from state to state, house to apartment, apartment to house, several times in a period of about 10 years. It was crazy.
I used to make CAD models of furniture and the new house/apartment so I could figure out what goes where before we moved in. I also made lists of box contents and numbered the boxes so I could locate things quickly and easily (assuming I could locate a specific box!). I stopped unpacking boxes just because I didn't want to have to pack them again. I still have boxes of crap that haven't been unpacked from the last move, about 5 years ago. I'd throw it all away but my wife would surely need some specific item that's packed away in a box somewhere as soon as I did.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A home is a high illiquid asset, very difficult to sell quickly. For majority of Americans home equity is the single largest component of their net worth. It is not easy to move looking for a job in a new place with that millstone tied to your neck.
I moved half way across the world seeking better life/job/career. My daughter would not look for a job across the town. I ran the rat race, she would not. She says, "the problem in running the rat race is, even if you win you are still a rat."
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is a symptom of everyone and their mother feeling like they are house flippers or need some rental properties. If it were up to me single family housing would be regulated to being owned by the people living there. No rich folks buying 50 homes in a city and putting them on airbnb or some other service. People from another country shouldn't be allowed to buy properties as an investment and leave them empty.
We told people for the past 50 years that "your home is an investment." This attitude has driven home prices out of the reach of way too many people. People with enough money just bought homes low and sold them high. An 1100 sq/ft home near me would cost about $80k to $100k to build including the lot. That house goes on the market for $200k. Then 5 years later it's for sale at $250k.
The home building/flipping tv shows don't help. They make everyone think they need a $40k+ kitchen even though they are going to eat out nearly every night. Nobody is going to use that kitchen. People are making homes to brag to their friends/family and spending 50% more than they needed on the build.
When purchasing a home is out of reach of so many people who are working full time there is a fundamental problem. Nobody is moving because they can't afford to move. Home prices are insane and the cost of renting a home or an apartment are so high that it's impossible to save enough money to eventually buy a home. If it takes working for 30 years to save up enough for a down payment on a house what's the point? Might as well just keep renting by that point.
It's time to take a look at capitalism and draw up some hard regulations to protect consumers that still allows businesses to profit. Everyone deserves to make money from their hard work. Someone worth $150 million buying a bunch of homes to rent out on airbnb and hiring a management agency to take care of all the properties is not doing any work. They are paying other people to work. It's time to stop letting the ultra rich benefit from the poor.
The mortgage interest deduction incentivizes us to purchase rather than rent. It seemed like a good idea at the time to encourage people to invest in their homes, but we now know that's a very bad idea. Not just because it harms the economy by reducing mobility, but also because it encourages people to oppose new housing in order to protect their investment by restricting supply. They do this by protecting density limits which in turn limits property tax revenue and makes the land tax-inefficient (low tax revenue, high maintenance costs). This not only causes a housing crisis, but we also wonder why our cities keep running out of money!
The mortgage interest deduction benefits only the middle class and the wealthy, not poor people who don't itemize. One simple way to remove the incentive is to raise the standard deduction higher than most incomes. When you no longer need to collect your tax-advantaged receipts for the year, wouldn't tax time be a lot more pleasant?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
depending on how you run the numbers. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say we're not satisfied. We just don't know what to do about it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Millenials get all the press, but there comes a time in people's lives where it actually makes sense to stay in one place for a while. For a lot of people, the lifestyle of moving across the country over and over again just to take another job isn't appealing. Either you're a permanent renter, or you end up spending insane amounts of money in real estate transaction costs. It's not just the house price...it's the mortgage origination fees, the legal fees, real estate commissions, transfer tax, the cost to move, etc.
Moving all over the country made sense back in the good old days of semi-permanent employment. A company would spend a lot of time and effort on you and it was in their best interest to keep you employed. When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, it was still very common for a company to move an employee to wherever a new promotion opportunity was, all expenses paid. Lots of kids I knew had their parents transferred. Today, IMO that makes little sense. The cost is almost always mostly paid by the employee, and there's no guarantee you'll have a job 6 months after you uproot your family and move.
And, I know I'm going to get dinged as being old, but there's something to be said about putting down roots and becoming a part of a local community. You don't get that if you're chasing contract positions across the country and never in one place for more than a year or two. Look at military families as an example of what frequent moving around does to a kid's ability to make and maintain friendships.
like I said in another thread, 60-80% of us live paycheck to paycheck (it's a wide margin because you can run the numbers either as "has money in the bank but not enough for anything major" or "dead broke").
Moving is a sign of upward mobility. Literally. The fact that there is less of it is an indication that upward mobility is slowing down or stopping. There are plenty of other indicators for this too (stagnant wages, an increase in low paying jobs, outsourcing of higher paying jobs, etc, etc). This is one more nail in that coffin.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Never mind that people want to live lives of connectedness in a community where they know their neighbors and surroundings and climate. It's bad for The Economy, so screw community!
People are bad for The Economy. Let's just do away with them and use robots.
The economy should serve people and their wants and needs, not vice versa. Fuck The Economy.
And I'm a stoic minimalist that lives in a 35m^2 apartment. I could move all my stuff in 4 hours or less.
But it takes time and effort to build a social network (a real one) and once I've settled in and found new friends it sucks to move. So the new job better pay, big time and offer interesting perspectives and/or projects. Since it usually doesn't, go screw yourself and quit wasting my time Mr. Recruiter.
My 2 eurocents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
If you read TFA (which you won't do, so I did it for you), they largely put it down to millenials, who are moving significantly less (although still far more than the average over all ages) than young people of previous generations. OTW: This is yet another "Millenials are killing X" headline.
Of course we've seen pretty much every one of those are really down to that generation being far poorer and more unemployed than similar generations were at that same point in their lives. There just aren't the opportunities there used to be for young people. This ain't their fault, and the headlines really should be blaming the people with power and resources in this society, not the victims.
American households are mostly two-income households now. If I pursue and take a job in distant city or state, that means our household could see a 50% drop in income. How many have the ability to weather a cash flow decrease like that?
Seriously... this has been the case with American households since at least the '80s.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
they move to nicer neighborhoods with better schools. Are you old enough to remember the TV show "The Jeffersons"? If not look up the theme song. Also, God I'm old...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"More and more children are living at home because they have a greater struggle than their parents."
What utter bunk! Children who are focused and motivated have no problems in this area. My 25-year-old son recently bought a house. In Seattle, which isn't exactly a low-cost housing market, and it did it entirely without any help from his parents.
In cities with housing shortages like Boston, LA, NY, etc, companies are less likely to consider people from out of state. It's too expensive to move them. Even if they are willing to move themselves, many give up in tight housing markets once they realize a shack is a half million dollars.
It's my house and I'll move when I'm dead.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
When you're young you A) don't have much stuff; B) have friends with pickups/vans; C) are, well, young. As you get older you A) accumulate more stuff; B) Friends with pickups/vans wise up and buy cars, and/or develop back problems (or families); C) stuff hurts. You don't have the endurance. Your friends have stuff that hurts and don't have the endurance.
I remember the days when moving was a 2-3 day job. Pack, move, buy pizza/beer, unpack. Now? Maybe 3 days to pack, hire a mover, waste a day because the mover sucks, file complaints for the dings/lost stuff, unpack, buy pizza/beer you eat drink with your SO or cat, whichever.
Moving companies will have to stop losing peoples' furniture and ripping us off with unannounced extra charges. After all those years of coasting, they will have to work for our business once again.
I'm submitting expense reports for last weeks trip to Tulsa (for example) and I'm making travel arrangements for next week's trip to Fort Wayne even though THIS week I'm in the Minneapolis area. There are many times when I'm at home and it feels strange.
The time home really felt strange was when you called your wife by the wrong name.
They still make less when adjusted for age.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
In California under proposition 13 (and other places with similar laws) you have an additional factor.
Prop 13 and the like were intended to keep rising housing prices from leading to rising taxes that end up evicting the old owners. So they freeze the assessed value (with a slight inflation creep) to keep the taxes from skyrocketing with a real estate bubble.
But sell the house and the new owner gets reassessed, and taxed, at the selling price or current market prices, and current tax rates. Then buy a house, even on the other side of the same town, and it happens to you, too.
Our house has more than tripled in price since we bought it about 20 years ago, and the mortgage will be paid off in less than another year. If we wanted to move to a different one like it, we'd more than triple our taxes - to about where our current mortgage + insurance + tax payments are. And if we sold, then had to come back to work in the same area, even our current payments for a four-room house on an oversized lot wouldn't rent a one-room apartment within commuting distance of the jobs.
So we stay where we are, until I either strike it seriously rich, I retire and we can move clear out of state, or (fat chance) the law is adjusted so I can carry the Prop 13 tax abatement with me to a new place and (if necessary) back.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Children who are focused and motivated have no problems in this area.
Even if autistic?
I legitimately thought from the headline that this was about exercise.
Ezekiel 23:20
When I bought my first house, all I could afford was a 100 y/o house in a questionable area. Even in that area, the house prices have increased, but the prices in the good areas have increased more and faster. Even with a higher income and more savings, it would be difficult to move out of that area.
Plus, my mom lives nearby and she's at the age that she needs my help getting to the store, appointments, etc.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Well it's not just me with these concerns, many people in my local news are asking the same questions. Or you can just ignore the people with concerns and go on your merry way.... ask France how that works out.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Now, I realize that some people - mostly rich, on the right, or both, think moving is a nothingburger... but the majority of folks DO NOT WANT TO MOVE. A lot of them *like* their neighborhood, and have friends and family there, and don't actually *want* to leave them behind.
The lack-of-moving-bad-for-the-economy is true only if you're the scum who think of a house as "investment property", and flip them, rather than someone who buys a *home* to live in.
And those real estate agents and house flippers, and the hedge funds that have been buying rental property (and jacking up the rents massively) in the last 9 years... I hope you all die, with all of your belongings in a shopping cart, under a bridge.
When you have no savings, massive debt, are living with your family or renting a flophouse with friends, and are cobbling together three part-time jobs to survive, how are you going to be able to afford to move? Buying a house is totally out of reach for many people. First & last months' rent + deposit is out of reach for many people. As long as the youngest generation of workers is kept in poverty, there are just going to be more hits on an economy that is predicated on people being able to afford to do things like buy a house or move across the country.