They need to look at another number - mean time job lasted after move.
The cost, both financial and non-financial, of a move is considerable. Moving for a job with questionable job security is high risk. The decline in length of employment affects willingness to move.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has job tenure data back to 2014.[1] Down 16% over that period. I wonder if there's data going further back.
Because the benefits of relocating is grossly unjustified today. Why would you sell your family house to move to an even more expensive city where you can’t afford to buy anything?
Why do you assume that the destination city is "even more expensive"? That should only be true half the time (for all pairs of cities, if one is more expensive, then the other must be less expensive).
I think it's more like this: Housing is super overinflated. Either I own or I rent.
If I rent, it may have taken me several local moves to find a situation that is a tolerable combination of price and quality. If I move to a different city, I lose that situation, and I lose all applicable knowledge of how to find another decent one. I have to start over at "low quality and overpriced", and improve my way from there, with several moves along the way. That's a hard psychological pill to swallow.
If I own, moving means paying 6% real estate commission. If housing is extremely expensive, that becomes a big number - though I don't know if that's the critical dynamic in peoples' minds. It may be the same as the renter issue - quality plus a decent price are hard to find.
Telework. A whole class of jobs people don't have to move for, which was enabled by be technologies around the beginning of the study period.
How is it not even mentioned in the article?
By the way, studying geography in undergrad one of my favorite papers in this topic was "Sticky Places in Slippery Space" mostly because of the great title.
Markusen, A. (1996). Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology of Industrial Districts. Economic Geography, 72(3), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.2307/144402
I bought my house in 2018 for $40k and it's paid off. I used to move frequently (every 5 years or so), but now I'm kind of trapped because housing has gotten so bonkers since then. Instead I'm throwing all my extra money into retirement so I can be done @ 55.
Even if it did, upgrading proportionally went up, too. Let's say that $40K house went to $100K. But the $100K house that OP originally wanted to upgrade to is now $225K. The difference between what they have and what they want doubled, and so did the mortgage payment.
Source: the many times my spouse and I have done this exercise.
Yes, but not having a mortgage is huge. And it's a giant leap from the 90k my house is currently valued at to the $299-350k that a comparable home in a metro area would fetch (I live in the middle of nowhere).
Possessions are overrated. Moving sales are a thing. Keep your family teaspoons, and your favorite coffee mug. Sell your Target-made table and your Ikea-made bookshelf. Buy identical (maybe used) on the opposite coast, or anywhere.
After half-dozen moves, my entire social network, literally all my old, long-time friends, are now remote. Thanks to the internet, we keep in touch constantly, and my friends are as helpful as ever as a support network. They're awesome, no matter what distance separates us.
This can also happen in the reverse. I didn't move, but my entire social support network did. There is no incentive in sacrificing your own career prospects to stay close to people who wouldn't be willing to do the same.
Geographic mobility sucks. Why change your social network every 15 minutes for a job. If there are opportunities in your locale, why move? The grass probably isn't greener.
My grandfather did this -- chasing the dream at IBM and my father attended 6 different school districts growing up. They lived in mansions in downtown San Francisco and now he doesn't have a long term friend, because friendships and people are transient and you never know when you have to leave town for the next shiny nickle.
On the one hand, we say we want more mobility for economic prosperity. On the other hand, we lament the decline in social fabric and support systems that prevent loneliness and enable young people to have kids by said mobility. We eventually must come to terms with the fact that we can't have it both ways.
So like every Bay area tech worker jumping on a bus at 8:00am until leaving the office after 6pm. And those few of us who don't want that are pressured by managers happy unleash a PIP.
You're making my point. People, including my grandfather, are moving because they put their career above people, family, friends, and relationships. And when they get there, they're still themselves and the grass isn't greener, but they get a Lexus rather than a Camry -- woop-de-doo.
Readit News
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has job tenure data back to 2014.[1] Down 16% over that period. I wonder if there's data going further back.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.t06.htm
There is: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/median-tenure-with-current....
Job tenure now is higher than it was during the 1980's and 1990's.
I think it's more like this: Housing is super overinflated. Either I own or I rent.
If I rent, it may have taken me several local moves to find a situation that is a tolerable combination of price and quality. If I move to a different city, I lose that situation, and I lose all applicable knowledge of how to find another decent one. I have to start over at "low quality and overpriced", and improve my way from there, with several moves along the way. That's a hard psychological pill to swallow.
If I own, moving means paying 6% real estate commission. If housing is extremely expensive, that becomes a big number - though I don't know if that's the critical dynamic in peoples' minds. It may be the same as the renter issue - quality plus a decent price are hard to find.
It's more expensive because that's where the jobs are.
How is it not even mentioned in the article?
By the way, studying geography in undergrad one of my favorite papers in this topic was "Sticky Places in Slippery Space" mostly because of the great title.
Markusen, A. (1996). Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology of Industrial Districts. Economic Geography, 72(3), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.2307/144402
Abundance Starts with Mobility
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43983297
Source: the many times my spouse and I have done this exercise.
(The amount of stuff remains large nevertheless.)
My grandfather did this -- chasing the dream at IBM and my father attended 6 different school districts growing up. They lived in mansions in downtown San Francisco and now he doesn't have a long term friend, because friendships and people are transient and you never know when you have to leave town for the next shiny nickle.
Fuck that.