Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses United States

Americans Are Moving Less Than Ever, and It's Bad For the Economy (qz.com) 346

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%.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Americans Are Moving Less Than Ever, and It's Bad For the Economy

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @03:30PM (#57754794)

    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.

    • by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @03:36PM (#57754856) Journal

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

      • by bkmoore ( 1910118 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @04:03PM (#57755066)
        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.
        • 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

          • by epine ( 68316 )

            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 [econtalk.org] — 5 March 2008

            I find Taleb to be more aggressive than necessary, and

      • by goose-incarnated ( 1145029 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @04:55PM (#57755404) Journal

        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.

    • by marcle ( 1575627 )

      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 ma

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by apoc.famine ( 621563 )

        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.

        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. We live in a giant country with tons of interesting little cities and countless interesting jobs to do. You can live a very h

        • by Cimexus ( 1355033 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @04:34PM (#57755300)

          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.

        • by TWX ( 665546 )

          Sure, because 40% of the population living in coastal cities is something that should be readily ignored when it comes to talking about numbers.

        • by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @05:52PM (#57755716)

          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.

    • This. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @03:54PM (#57754990)
      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.
      • Even if you were paying the same percentage of your salary for everything, you'd also be saving double as well. It's great if you have positive savings, and horrible if you have negative savings.

  • If I left NYC, I'd likely leave the US. Most parts of the US are basically unlivable without having to own a car.
    • It's nice not to need a car (I was in that position a decade ago). But why are you so opposed to owning one? To the point where you'd leave the country to avoid owning one? Much of the USA is a pretty awesome place (the parts I visited anyway), so get a car and move.

      If you come to Europe, you will probably find that unless you live in the center of one of the larger cities - where most people couldn't afford a decent place to live - you still need a car. You will also find that car ownership is 2-3 t
      • 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @03:31PM (#57754800)

    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.

    • by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @03:38PM (#57754878)

      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.

      • You would feel whole or not, the mine owners would feel whole. Especially if they can pay you in company scrip good only at the company store..
      • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @05:00PM (#57755430)
        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.
    • by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

      I've never left the country, but I have also moved 30+ times. I'm tired.

      Also, it just gets harder the older you get. Not just age, but more stuff, and after kids ... jeez, it's a lot.

    • The key here is "unsettled". I can't just drive to Seattle and grab a lot of unused land for free.

    • by youngone ( 975102 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @04:22PM (#57755220)
      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.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by geek ( 5680 )

        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.

        Timid and frightened of change because we don't want to move to another country? I've lived in 5 different states for various reasons. Never once have I considered the downgrade of moving to another country, and yes it is very much a downgrade to move virtually anywhere else in the world. That's not not timid or frightened, it's me not giving a flying fuck about your country because you have nothing I want.

    • I think that the big problem is that is now costs a small fortune to move in the US if you have to buy and sell a home. Once the realtors, lawyers, state and local governments, mortgage company, and moving company all get their cut, you can easily be out of pocket over $20,000 if you're moving out of state.

      That wouldn't be bad if companies still offered moving bonuses or relocation assistance, but most do not.

  • by WoodstockJeff ( 568111 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @03:31PM (#57754802) Homepage

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

  • Well duh. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rlitman ( 911048 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @03:31PM (#57754804)
    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.
  • Two things here (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @03:34PM (#57754834)

    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

    • Second, how has telecommuting been factored into this analysis.

      tbh these kinds of jobs are hard to find.

  • 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
    • No kidding. My wife is originally from California, but moved to Michigan to marry me. She's been wanting to move back for a long time now (she has an aging mother she wants to be near) but the cost of moving across country is insane, even if we get rid of everything but the essentials. Not to mention having to have a job already lined up (I'm in IT, but over 40), find affordable housing somewhere (even outside of SV it's insane), and leave something in savings in case everything goes tits up. As much we
      • No kidding. My wife is originally from California, but moved to Michigan to marry me. She's been wanting to move back for a long time now (she has an aging mother she wants to be near) but the cost of moving across country is insane, even if we get rid of everything but the essentials. Not to mention having to have a job already lined up (I'm in IT, but over 40), find affordable housing somewhere (even outside of SV it's insane), and leave something in savings in case everything goes tits up. As much we'd like to move to where we want to be, we just can't.

        You're doing it wrong - it's easier to move the mother to you than to move to the mother. The mother is retired, won't move with kids in tow, probably already got rid of all additional crap that they don't want anymore (many retired people do this) and won't need to look for a job at the destination.

        An added bonus might be that the mother will be spending her retirement nest-egg at a lower CoL place and so will have money for a much longer time than in California.

        My golden rule in life is that under no cir

        • You're assuming there are no siblings that are also in California and living with the mother. Should they move too? What if they have jobs of their own and spouses with jobs?
    • The only people I know who have moved any significant distance in the last 5 years did it to take a new job and their new employer paid for the cost of the move.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @03:36PM (#57754854)

    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.

  • "only" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @03:47PM (#57754944) Journal

    , 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?

    • by unimacs ( 597299 )
      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%.
    • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      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.

    • 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.

    • by T.E.D. ( 34228 )
      That means the average adult can expect to move once every 10 years (which is a bad way to look at it because the odds drop as you age), or perhaps more like the average adult can now expect to move about 5 times in their adult lifetime. That doesn't seem all that high to me, but I guess YYMV.
  • by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @03:54PM (#57754986)
    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).
  • 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.
  • Reasons (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hackertourist ( 2202674 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @04:00PM (#57755032)

    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 mo
    • by Cimexus ( 1355033 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @04:40PM (#57755326)

      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.

  • 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 "st

  • 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.
  • by KitFox ( 712780 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @04:05PM (#57755080)

    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.

    • $15K to move your stuff...don't forget 3-6% of the purchase price of the house, the cost to get a new mortgage, the lawyers' fees, any real estate transfer tax you may need to pay.

      Even if you own your house free and clear, the transaction costs are in the thousands. Most people roll it into their mortgage and pretend they're not paying it, but they are. Doing this over and over again gets REALLY expensive over a lifetime.

  • Moving is Risky (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Notabadguy ( 961343 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @04:07PM (#57755100)

    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.

    • 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.
    • All good points. To make matters worse, corporate culture is very homogenized. Within an industry there is less an less to differentiate one company from the next. Most mid-tier companies offer very, very similar salaries (they benchmark against each other based on job titles, rather than pay based on employee value), very similar benefits, very similar vacation, and so forth. Beige boxes were the fashion, now everyone has moved to cheaper and crappier open office BS.

      Basically jobs are a meal ticket and

  • 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 easi

  • USA has one of the highest home ownership rates in the world.

    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 r

  • 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 r

  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @04:58PM (#57755420)

    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.

  • 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.

  • by T.E.D. ( 34228 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2018 @05:21PM (#57755550)

    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.

    • All the millenials I know have moved quite far. My roommate moved to SF from Seattle where she works in Network Security, my colleagues moved from Seattle to NYC, W Virginia, and South Korea after their postdocs.

      All millenials. All moved.

  • 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.

  • It's my house and I'll move when I'm dead.

  • 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

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Working...