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%.

43 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Housing is unaffordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Housing is unaffordable by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, and it's a good thing the home you are selling is also worth 50% more!

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    2. Re:Housing is unaffordable by marcle · · Score: 2

      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.

      Exactly this. When housing was generally affordable and readily available, it was relatively easy to get established somewhere else. Now, the combination of housing scarcity and expense, coupled with such things as high college debt and low savings, means that it's too much of a hurdle to pull up roots and move for anybody but the most affluent. Especially if you have family/friends in your current location, you'd have to have an extremely attractive job offer, maybe plus moving expenses, before it would make sense to do a geographical.

      Either that, or be so desperate that you're basically bumming around looking for work, not a great situation to be in these days.

    3. Re:Housing is unaffordable by bkmoore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It costs a lot of money to both sell and buy. The break even point is only if the property that you buy costs less than the one you sold minus the transaction costs on both ends of the deal. In that situation you're throwing away x-dollars in equity that you would have had if you stayed put. Real Estate is not a liquid asset that you can simply push "Sell" on and get your money, despite what many Real Estate "professionals" will tell new buyers.

    4. Re:Housing is unaffordable by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      The break even point is only if the property that you buy costs less than the one you sold minus the transaction costs on both ends of the deal.

      That's one of the dumber things I've heard in a long time.

      That assumes that the property you're buying never changes value. But that flies in the face of reality. Yes, real estate isn't a liquid asset, but over time, it's almost always an investment that significantly increases in value. And while you can cherry pick times and places where this is not true, in general, it holds true.

      If your plan is to hold onto real estate for such a short period of time that it doesn't increase in value and the transaction costs are a major component of the transaction, you're just speculating. That's not what 99.9% of people do, because it's risky and stupid.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    5. Re:Housing is unaffordable by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yep absolutely. I moved to the US from Australia a few years ago and holy hell, housing is cheap here compared to much of the world.

      A very typical, average suburban home is pushing $1 million in most Australian cities. Here, outside a few bubble zones (e.g. Bay Area), you can pick up similar houses for a couple of hundred thousand. I've lived in Asia (Singapore, Japan) and Europe (England, France) as well, and the US is cheaper than all of them.

      Mind you, there is a downside ... and that is property taxes. I pay a pretty hefty property tax bill in the US on my place that would not be an ongoing expense back in Australia, so I supposed I have to factor that in. Still it would take many decades of property taxes to add up to the difference in initial cost.

    6. Re:Housing is unaffordable by goose-incarnated · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, and it's a good thing the home you are selling is also worth 50% more!

      Presumably you're moving from a place with fewer jobs to a place with more jobs, hence the house you are selling will have increased in value much less (or even decreased in value) than the corresponding house at your destination.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    7. Re:Housing is unaffordable by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is nothing wrong with the house prices in the vast majority of the US. Housing is generally affordable and readily available. No, not in the coastal cities, but you can't generalize based on those.

      The problem is most of the jobs are in the coastal cities. So cheap prices in middle-of-nowhere Nebraska aren't all that helpful.

      (And before anyone says "work remotely!!" that is frequently not a stable employment situation)

      I don't get why people feel trapped by family, friends, or circumstance to the extent that they are willing to live in places with shitty costs of living, essentially making no money

      I lived in a dying rust-belt city with an incredibly interesting job that paid well and a fairly low cost of living. I moved.

      Why? I had kids. And the thing about cheap places to live is the schools are utterly terrible in a very large portion of them. I'm not going to cripple my children's entire future so that I can gloat about a low cost of living.

    8. Re:Housing is unaffordable by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      on the flip side.. stay with mom and dad while you get your career off the ground. save up your 20% and buy a house. If you need to move, rent it.

      Case in point, kid I work with is 24 lives with his mom and dad still, but is able to save 80/90% of his net income. That seems vastly better financially in the long run than running out on your own immediately.

    9. Re:Housing is unaffordable by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, let's look at the data:

      Here are the median home prices by State for 2018:

      West Virginia $96,800
      Oklahoma $121,500
      Arkansas $123,600
      Mississippi $124,600
      Alabama $129,000
      Ohio $136,700
      Kansas $137,800
      Indiana $139,000
      Iowa $141,500
      Kentucky $142,900
      Louisiana $147,300
      Michigan $148,100
      Missouri $157,100
      Nebraska $161,500
      South Carolina $163,200
      Tennessee $163,200
      Pennsylvania $171,000
      Illinois $178,000
      North Carolina $179,200
      Georgia $182,200
      Wisconsin $183,400
      South Dakota $184,400
      Texas $190,400
      New Mexico $191,200
      Vermont $201,400
      North Dakota $205,400
      Wyoming $222,300
      Florida $228,700
      Maine $229,700
      Montana $229,900
      Minnesota $230,800
      Delaware $232,500
      Connecticut $241,700
      Idaho $246,200
      Arizona $246,800
      Virginia $254,000
      New Hampshire $271,100
      Rhode Island $277,900
      New York $286,200
      Maryland $286,700
      Nevada $287,400
      Alaska $310,400
      New Jersey $323,400
      Utah $325,400
      Oregon $339,000
      Colorado $370,600
      Washington $377,100
      Massachusetts $402,500
      California $546,100
      Washington D.C. $576,100
      Hawaii $620,100

      Texas is roughly in the middle and homes on my street ( 3/2/2 full brick, ~2k sq ft, 1/4 acre ) are appraising at ~$150k, selling around ~$170k. So, assuming my home is paid for ( and it is ) I can choose pretty much the first dozen or so States on this list without having another mortgage.

      Unfortunately, I have no desire to live in any of those States and the ones I would like to live in, fall near the bottom of the list.
      Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Colorado. ( Hawaii would be nice, but that price is ludicrous ) All of which are easily double the cost of my home.

      So, do I move and spend the next 15-30 years ( depending on the loan ) paying off another mortgage, or do I put that money into retirement accounts instead. . .

      Decisions, decisions . . . .

    10. Re:Housing is unaffordable by epine · · Score: 2

      Yes, real estate isn't a liquid asset, but over time, it's almost always an investment that significantly increases in value.

      Historical norms should be taken with a grain of salt. Additionally, certain gambling games always go up, until the black swan comes along and multiplies by zero.

      How many 2008s can the average person soak up in one lifetime?

      Russ Roberts interviews Nassim Nicholas Taleb on rationality, risk, and skin in the game — 5 March 2008

      I find Taleb to be more aggressive than necessary, and I quickly get to the point of "haven't you belaboured this enough, already?" and then I get onto the Internet, and I think "well, maybe not too belaboured in the larger context".

      I tend to regard "almost always" as a dead giveaway that someone is sweeping survival risk under the handy carpet of historical norms.

      There's even a worse theorem here. It's pretty much a law of human nature that if you can convince a large enough group of people to onboard some substantial exposure exclusively because it "almost always" goes well, market insiders will be quick to engineer a shocking reversal on that long-standing historical trend.

      Big Finance can engineer almost any outcome these days, it just needs to be big enough to justify a systemic assault (with enough sheep on the wrong side). This kind of engineering at scale doesn't come cheap, so it tends to be carefully paced (also spacing out due to the undue-regulation minimization sheep-shear spacing theorem).

      Gone are the days where it's safe to make major investments facing backwards in time.

    11. Re:Housing is unaffordable by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MOVE the fuck out, struggle, live poor until you can make it, that's what the rest of us have done for modern history till now.

      This is the single dumbest thing I've read in a while. IF you get along with your parents, AND they are offering/allowing a sweet deal, it makes significant financial sense to live with them until preconditions are violated. You can put a lot of money away like this. A lot of people have done this through history, and in some other countries this is the norm. I think this became common in the US about 80 years ago many more urban jobs were opening while rural jobs were in massive decline. But things have changed, I see kids living with their parents being much more common for a while.

      And no, if you want to succeed and build salary and position, it is NOT going to be with the company you are at. Learn to job shop, keep your interview skills up....and be willing to MOVE to where the jobs are.

      20 years ago, when I graduated from the university, companies would pay for my move. It was just assumed. I happened to work in a local job for a while that, at the time was an amazing deal . A few years later something better came along that offset not only what I was saving on rent, but then some, in a good area. So I moved, and had quite a lot saved up in the interim.

      These days though, getting your future employer to cover your moving expenses is not obvious. Some simply will not, others require VP approval, and a few of the richest and most successful will cover a fraction, maybe enough to justify the cost.

      The thing to remember is, by the time you move, they may no longer need you. I have seen several people caught in the space of 6 weeks, move across country and then find they had no job afterall. It is a risk to be wary of. 3 years ago I'd have said take the risk. Right now the market is tapering off and I think we'll be hitting a recession in 6 months, it's about the last moment to make this move if you can do it quickly.

      I don't understand the sense of moral obligation we are placing on children to leave the nest. They will want to do so for personal reasons, but it isn't necessarily the smartest choice.

    12. Re:Housing is unaffordable by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      You realize that puts them in the top 20 or even 10 percent? There's tons and tons of folks that can't do that, even after 20 years.

      Sorry, but they are today's version of affluent.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    13. Re:Housing is unaffordable by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      You can be affluent and live pay check to pay check. You still have an abundance of property or other material goods. Note the definition - it's not "and". You don't have to be Gates or Buffet to be affluent.

      Now, if you wanted to say financially independent or wealthy and being better than financially independent, I think that's a different word.

      I personally am somewhere live somewhere between the "ok" to "well-off" category. Not affluent, but only because I like to know I'm not living off of SS when I turn 70 because I burned through everything prior to then. I guarantee you both our financial situations put us in the affluent category by many other's definitions based off what I've seen of your postings to date.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  2. Inability to take big risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Inability to take big risks by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 what a shame it is that we have progressed to stable lifestyles. I would feel more whole if I said goodbye to my family for months to go work in a gold mine.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Inability to take big risks by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt a person who moves 30 times has very many belongings that they are attached to.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Inability to take big risks by youngone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have only lived in three different countries. Every time I moved I learned something about myself and the world around me.
      It amazes me how timid and frightened of change many Americans seem to be.

    4. Re:Inability to take big risks by youngone · · Score: 2

      Or not knowing anything about my country, because why would you?
      Ignorance is bliss.

  3. Maybe we're satisfied with where we are? by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, a "better opportunity" may exist, but "good enough" also has its advantages.

  4. Well duh. by rlitman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Two things here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  6. "Americans are lazy, bring in immigrants." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!

  7. "only" by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    , 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?

    1. Re:"only" by unimacs · · Score: 2

      The 10% figure includes people that simply moved into a different home within the same area. The number of people who moved to a different state is less than 2%.

    2. Re:"only" by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Not really. It suggests that people move, on average, once every ten years, which doesn't seem that crazy. Bear in mind that young folks usually rent, and tend to job hop a lot, which means they have the opportunity to move closer to their next job as soon as their previous lease is up.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:"only" by Vermonter · · Score: 2

      I agree it seems a bit high, but when you consider how many people rent and chose not to renew their annual lease and moved to a different apartment across town, the number may not be so high.

  8. Moving costs by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    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.
  9. This. by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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/
  10. Reasons by hackertourist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  11. Cost oif moving by KitFox · · Score: 2

    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

  12. Re: Moving? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Portland and Seattle you ride a bike or walk and you can do it without stepping over trash or the smell of urine everywhere"

    So the constant rain washes the urine away.

  13. Moving is Risky by Notabadguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Moving is Risky by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      These are some of the reasons why I want to bang my head on my desk every time I read about companies complaining about not being about to attract enough staff. It seems they have both been concentrating their operations in places it is expensive to live, yet not offering any real enticing packages that stand out enough, or giving any sense of stable hiring. Well of course no one is going to take a chance on them in that climate. I'm surprised anyone goes into IT any more.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  14. Re: Moving? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not the poop though, you need a power washer for that: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/judges-complain-its-unsafe-unsanitary-outside-county-courthouse-in-seattle/

    Of course, one city councilman deemed such an act racist, evocative of police turning fire hoses on civil rights protestors.

  15. Re:Simple things missed? by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  16. Re:International moving is very difficult by Cimexus · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is true ... but it's also true of the US itself. I've applied for (and been granted) professional work visas for both Canada and the US over the last decade and the process was similar in both, in that you had to prove there was no local person who had the necessary knowledge or background to do the work. You also have to prove you wouldn't be being paid substantially differently than the local for the same work.

    The US is no different in this regard (at least for the L1 type visas typical for professional work). It's always a pain hiring a foreigner in any country because the company takes on the burden of sponsoring them, processing all the immigration paperwork etc.

  17. Re:Moving? by demonlapin · · Score: 2

    40 miles outside of a major metro, as specified by parent, is not going to have bumper-to-bumper traffic. That's not to say that a car-centric lifestyle is for everyone, but it does give you a great deal of flexibility.

  18. I'd rather have stability by ErichTheRed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  19. I don't think we have stable lifestyles by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
  20. Millenials are killing the moving industry by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  21. Re:Moving? by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That is the norm, and it seems to work well for the VAST majority of the country.

    No, it is tolerated by the VAST majority of the country.

  22. Re:Moving? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    I can afford a decent place to live in any number of Eastern/Central European cities, in a part of a city where I can walk everywhere I need to.