Upward (im)mobility
May 31, 2019 12:20 PM Subscribe
The median person in our sample will forego 30 percent of his or her income in order to stay close to family
...the only people, possibly in the entire world, who are surprised by this statistic are economists.
posted by aramaic at 12:42 PM on May 31, 2019 [174 favorites]
...the only people, possibly in the entire world, who are surprised by this statistic are economists.
posted by aramaic at 12:42 PM on May 31, 2019 [174 favorites]
Their reasons for not moving are more psychological than economic: proximity to family and friends, and their involvement in the local community or church.
Have they seen how much child care and playschool can cost? As someone living in a remote area where salaries are good and jobs not super difficult to get, when young couples are getting ready to have a child they will often move closer to "home". I think this is a pretty good place to raise a kid (I turned out all right), but if you're out here all alone it can be a much different story.
But yeah, connections are worth a lot. All the money in the world won't cure loneliness.
Plus with the way worker protections are going, there's no guarantee you'll stay at that job for long.
posted by ODiV at 12:48 PM on May 31, 2019 [26 favorites]
Have they seen how much child care and playschool can cost? As someone living in a remote area where salaries are good and jobs not super difficult to get, when young couples are getting ready to have a child they will often move closer to "home". I think this is a pretty good place to raise a kid (I turned out all right), but if you're out here all alone it can be a much different story.
But yeah, connections are worth a lot. All the money in the world won't cure loneliness.
Plus with the way worker protections are going, there's no guarantee you'll stay at that job for long.
posted by ODiV at 12:48 PM on May 31, 2019 [26 favorites]
The median person in our sample will forego 30 percent of his or her income in order to stay close to family
...the only people, possibly in the entire world, who are surprised by this statistic are economists.
There are so many obvious answers to the question of why people would stay in a place, I didn't realize it had to be asked. The article felt like reading an alien describing human behavior.
posted by wellifyouinsist at 12:48 PM on May 31, 2019 [46 favorites]
...the only people, possibly in the entire world, who are surprised by this statistic are economists.
There are so many obvious answers to the question of why people would stay in a place, I didn't realize it had to be asked. The article felt like reading an alien describing human behavior.
posted by wellifyouinsist at 12:48 PM on May 31, 2019 [46 favorites]
Now, a new study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York suggests that other, more emotional and psychological factors may be at work.
Is it emotional or economic that the fact that we chose to move back to my and my husband's family's hometown means that we get free emergency childcare from grandparents and don't have to buy plane tickets in order for our kid to see them a couple times a year?
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:49 PM on May 31, 2019 [17 favorites]
Is it emotional or economic that the fact that we chose to move back to my and my husband's family's hometown means that we get free emergency childcare from grandparents and don't have to buy plane tickets in order for our kid to see them a couple times a year?
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:49 PM on May 31, 2019 [17 favorites]
The median person in our sample will forego 30 percent of his or her income in order to stay close to family
...because for the median person, their family isn't going to tell them a year after the expensive and stressful move, "We're shuttering this family unit. We wish you the best of luck finding a new family in this new place where you have barely any contacts and have this clearly failed family on your resume."
posted by Etrigan at 12:52 PM on May 31, 2019 [115 favorites]
...because for the median person, their family isn't going to tell them a year after the expensive and stressful move, "We're shuttering this family unit. We wish you the best of luck finding a new family in this new place where you have barely any contacts and have this clearly failed family on your resume."
posted by Etrigan at 12:52 PM on May 31, 2019 [115 favorites]
Ooh, tag urself, I'm "stuck."
I'd actually love to relocate back to LA. LA feels like home, and I hate the area I'm in now, but I don't want to leave my family, since they're kind of all I have. Leaving would also mean an even more economically precarious future than the one I have here. It's not ideal, but I don't really have a lot of leverage here. Classic Millennial.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 12:59 PM on May 31, 2019 [3 favorites]
I'd actually love to relocate back to LA. LA feels like home, and I hate the area I'm in now, but I don't want to leave my family, since they're kind of all I have. Leaving would also mean an even more economically precarious future than the one I have here. It's not ideal, but I don't really have a lot of leverage here. Classic Millennial.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 12:59 PM on May 31, 2019 [3 favorites]
There's also a difference between theoretical and actual. If one forgoes 30% to stay, then the inverse is a raise of more than 45% may induce one to leave.
But no one's offering me 45% more in actuality. They're definitely not guaranteeing it to me and to my spouse. It may not come out as much more if cost of living is also adjusted.
Yeah, I think if someone offered me a similar life (job, commute, house) but with 45% more salary, I would move. I can definitely put some of that extra money toward trips back home. But I'm not seeking that out, because I just don't think it actually exists.
posted by explosion at 12:59 PM on May 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
But no one's offering me 45% more in actuality. They're definitely not guaranteeing it to me and to my spouse. It may not come out as much more if cost of living is also adjusted.
Yeah, I think if someone offered me a similar life (job, commute, house) but with 45% more salary, I would move. I can definitely put some of that extra money toward trips back home. But I'm not seeking that out, because I just don't think it actually exists.
posted by explosion at 12:59 PM on May 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
And I don't think the article is saying the researchers are all shocked or whatever. Just trying to put people's preferences and tendencies into words.
posted by ODiV at 1:01 PM on May 31, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by ODiV at 1:01 PM on May 31, 2019 [14 favorites]
What's that quip about economists knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing?
posted by clawsoon at 1:04 PM on May 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
Declining mobility contributes to a host of economic and social issues: less economic dynamism, lower rates of innovation, and lower productivity.Looks like they've worked out another price.
posted by clawsoon at 1:04 PM on May 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
other, more emotional and psychological factors may be at work.
there's no amount of money that will make me be okay with living somewhere where you can go for weeks at a time without seeing a single poc and everyone has a flag on their lawn.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:04 PM on May 31, 2019 [66 favorites]
there's no amount of money that will make me be okay with living somewhere where you can go for weeks at a time without seeing a single poc and everyone has a flag on their lawn.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:04 PM on May 31, 2019 [66 favorites]
While this is written with the hilarious tone of complete unawareness that permeates economics texts--when I took economics classes there was an article we read that challenged the orthodox view of humans being completely rational consumers that always make rational choices and this was VERY CONTROVERSIAL--there is something in American culture in particular that pitches "just move!" as all the solutions, even if it's politically. But it's never really that simple.
My partner and I are reasonably well off, but moving somewhere else would require the money to move (which is expensive!), one of us getting a job in that place, and rebuilding our entire lives from the ground up. We both have chronic conditions that are well-managed within the local hospital system, so even if we could find a similar system, the prospect of spending several years building a new Coalition of Doctors That Will Listen and We Like is no small feat.
We both like to keep our families at arm's length, but even then, we have a list of requirements we'd have to consider like reasonable cost of living, reasonable weather (one of us has severe SAD and the other has cold-induced asthma so anywhere it snows is Right Out), reasonable culture (even if this place isn't a match for us politically there's a lot of things to do and a robust cultural scene), reasonable employment prospects, etc. etc.
So, like, it would be nice to up and move to a blue area. And I emphasize "area" because many "blue states" are actually "states with a few blue cities surrounded by a countryside of brilliant red". You think Washington is liberal because of Seattle but Eastern Washington is chock full of hate groups and racists. Likewise Oregon is a "granola state" because everyone thinks of Portland, not those long stretches of state between full of farm fields with libertarian manifestos crudely painted on plywood.
"Just move" is glib advice, which is why I always say "Okay so you're paying for it, right?" when well-meaning friends (and economists, if I met any) say I should move.
I make a reasonable salary for where I live, so if I totted up what moving would cost in security deposits, pet deposits, first and last month's rent, furnishing a new place up to a livable standard, getting out of the old place, and moving us and the cats out there (even if we just loaded the car with us and a couple suitcases) ((but even that means we have to replace anything that doesn't fit in the suitcases)), it probably would take an increase of around 30% to even make sense financially.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 1:04 PM on May 31, 2019 [20 favorites]
My partner and I are reasonably well off, but moving somewhere else would require the money to move (which is expensive!), one of us getting a job in that place, and rebuilding our entire lives from the ground up. We both have chronic conditions that are well-managed within the local hospital system, so even if we could find a similar system, the prospect of spending several years building a new Coalition of Doctors That Will Listen and We Like is no small feat.
We both like to keep our families at arm's length, but even then, we have a list of requirements we'd have to consider like reasonable cost of living, reasonable weather (one of us has severe SAD and the other has cold-induced asthma so anywhere it snows is Right Out), reasonable culture (even if this place isn't a match for us politically there's a lot of things to do and a robust cultural scene), reasonable employment prospects, etc. etc.
So, like, it would be nice to up and move to a blue area. And I emphasize "area" because many "blue states" are actually "states with a few blue cities surrounded by a countryside of brilliant red". You think Washington is liberal because of Seattle but Eastern Washington is chock full of hate groups and racists. Likewise Oregon is a "granola state" because everyone thinks of Portland, not those long stretches of state between full of farm fields with libertarian manifestos crudely painted on plywood.
"Just move" is glib advice, which is why I always say "Okay so you're paying for it, right?" when well-meaning friends (and economists, if I met any) say I should move.
I make a reasonable salary for where I live, so if I totted up what moving would cost in security deposits, pet deposits, first and last month's rent, furnishing a new place up to a livable standard, getting out of the old place, and moving us and the cats out there (even if we just loaded the car with us and a couple suitcases) ((but even that means we have to replace anything that doesn't fit in the suitcases)), it probably would take an increase of around 30% to even make sense financially.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 1:04 PM on May 31, 2019 [20 favorites]
The median person in our sample will forego 30 percent of his or her income in order to stay close to family
...the only people, possibly in the entire world, who are surprised by this statistic are economists.
I find this kind of response frustrating. The whole reason that this statistic was measured in the first place was because the researchers understood that people would forego higher salaries in order to stay close to family, and they wanted to measure precisely how strong that effect was. I do not see how it benefits anyone to say, "Ugh, these economists are so oblivious they don't even know the most obvious things about how humans behave, am I right?" I assure you, they do. Economists are humans, too.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 1:11 PM on May 31, 2019 [55 favorites]
...the only people, possibly in the entire world, who are surprised by this statistic are economists.
I find this kind of response frustrating. The whole reason that this statistic was measured in the first place was because the researchers understood that people would forego higher salaries in order to stay close to family, and they wanted to measure precisely how strong that effect was. I do not see how it benefits anyone to say, "Ugh, these economists are so oblivious they don't even know the most obvious things about how humans behave, am I right?" I assure you, they do. Economists are humans, too.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 1:11 PM on May 31, 2019 [55 favorites]
Is it possible that the rate of jobs moving around has slowed down, too? There were big migrations as agricultural work declined, and as factories took off in one area of the country and then another. Now, with 70% of employees in service sector jobs, maybe those geographical factors don't matter as much? Maybe moving from one city to another doesn't matter as much as it did, because (with a few exceptions) the work being done in most cities is similar to the work being done in most other cities?
posted by clawsoon at 1:12 PM on May 31, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 1:12 PM on May 31, 2019 [4 favorites]
People don't actually enjoy being treated as "resources": Story at 11.
posted by kevinbelt at 1:14 PM on May 31, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 1:14 PM on May 31, 2019 [15 favorites]
I can't even process the idea of moving to a different city. I've been here in Pittsburgh for thirty years now and the idea of having to rebuild in a different city is beyond daunting. Just thinking about the amount of work in trying to sell our house and figuring how to buy another place in an unfamiliar and probably more expensive city and then packing and moving and unpacking makes me twitch. I've had the same dentist, insurance agent and car mechanic for all those years; I'd have to find new ones that I trust. That's all in addition to leaving my friends and my son behind; there's just no way.
posted by octothorpe at 1:18 PM on May 31, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 1:18 PM on May 31, 2019 [3 favorites]
It turns out that the personal costs of moving—and leaving family members, loved ones, and friends behind—are quite high
It turns out? Who hurt you Richard Florida.
posted by Damienmce at 1:18 PM on May 31, 2019 [3 favorites]
It turns out? Who hurt you Richard Florida.
posted by Damienmce at 1:18 PM on May 31, 2019 [3 favorites]
Twenty years ago, I left the community I grew up in for a job a couple of thousand miles away. Classic economic migration. Funny thing is that I still know more about the families I grew up with than my current neighbours. Putting down new roots ain't easy.
posted by clawsoon at 1:22 PM on May 31, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 1:22 PM on May 31, 2019 [9 favorites]
Is it possible that the rate of jobs moving around has slowed down, too?
No more "I.B.M. means I've Been Moved"? How much do the FAANGs move people? They're about the only midlevel job I know of that could offer 45% raises within an industry.
posted by clew at 1:23 PM on May 31, 2019
No more "I.B.M. means I've Been Moved"? How much do the FAANGs move people? They're about the only midlevel job I know of that could offer 45% raises within an industry.
posted by clew at 1:23 PM on May 31, 2019
There are so many obvious answers to the question of why people would stay in a place, I didn't realize it had to be asked.
.....You haven't noticed that every time there's a thread on the blue about the high cost of rents in major cities, that there's always, always, a parade of snide people talking about how much cheaper rent is in their smaller city and how "if all you people complaining weren't so insistent on living in a cool city you could have it easier"?
These "so many obvious answers to the question of why people would stay in a place" seem to go "poof" whenever those threads come along.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:25 PM on May 31, 2019 [46 favorites]
.....You haven't noticed that every time there's a thread on the blue about the high cost of rents in major cities, that there's always, always, a parade of snide people talking about how much cheaper rent is in their smaller city and how "if all you people complaining weren't so insistent on living in a cool city you could have it easier"?
These "so many obvious answers to the question of why people would stay in a place" seem to go "poof" whenever those threads come along.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:25 PM on May 31, 2019 [46 favorites]
Economic factors aside, I think it depends on the personality of the person. My sister has moved a thousand times, and everywhere she goes she makes a dozen best friends who love her. I moved once an hour away, was treated like an alien, and moved back.
posted by Melismata at 1:26 PM on May 31, 2019 [18 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 1:26 PM on May 31, 2019 [18 favorites]
How much do the FAANGs move people?
They mostly move people to their headquarters area (Bay Area and/or Seattle). While it might come with a raise, if you factor in cost of living its unlikely to be one (probably a drop in income).
posted by thefoxgod at 1:26 PM on May 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
They mostly move people to their headquarters area (Bay Area and/or Seattle). While it might come with a raise, if you factor in cost of living its unlikely to be one (probably a drop in income).
posted by thefoxgod at 1:26 PM on May 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
Firmly in the "rooted" camp here. I'm mid-to-late career in software development in the US mid-west. I'm such a privilege-basket that I expect to retire before my next "milestone birthday".
This year, for about 6 hours, I considered taking an east coast job with at least an 80% pay raise. But .. what is it worth to give up 90-99% of the time I have left to spend with my Mom, or other people of that generation? To ask my spouse to give up the business she's building here, or to live apart from her? And that's before you start to figure out how much more it costs to live on a coast than on the great plains, how much more time you'll be spending on a commute, how many more hours a week the culture of the new workplace will squeeze out of you, etc.
Frankly, what surprises me about this article is that 47% of people they surveyed were in the "rooted" camp.
(Also, I have trouble thinking the article does anything to establish the arrow of causality between "declining mobility" and "social issues"; they have to weasel-word that declining mobility "contributes" to these issues)
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 1:39 PM on May 31, 2019 [3 favorites]
This year, for about 6 hours, I considered taking an east coast job with at least an 80% pay raise. But .. what is it worth to give up 90-99% of the time I have left to spend with my Mom, or other people of that generation? To ask my spouse to give up the business she's building here, or to live apart from her? And that's before you start to figure out how much more it costs to live on a coast than on the great plains, how much more time you'll be spending on a commute, how many more hours a week the culture of the new workplace will squeeze out of you, etc.
Frankly, what surprises me about this article is that 47% of people they surveyed were in the "rooted" camp.
(Also, I have trouble thinking the article does anything to establish the arrow of causality between "declining mobility" and "social issues"; they have to weasel-word that declining mobility "contributes" to these issues)
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 1:39 PM on May 31, 2019 [3 favorites]
clew: "Is it possible that the rate of jobs moving around has slowed down, too?
No more "I.B.M. means I've Been Moved"? How much do the FAANGs move people? They're about the only midlevel job I know of that could offer 45% raises within an industry."
When I was a kid growing up in the '70s in suburban New Jersey, so many of my classmates would only be there for two or three years because their dad worked for some giant corporation and got transferred every few years. In those days, it was assumed that you'd stay with the same company and the only way to move up was to work at different sites throughout your career. That whole pattern is gone for a number of reasons.
posted by octothorpe at 1:47 PM on May 31, 2019 [9 favorites]
No more "I.B.M. means I've Been Moved"? How much do the FAANGs move people? They're about the only midlevel job I know of that could offer 45% raises within an industry."
When I was a kid growing up in the '70s in suburban New Jersey, so many of my classmates would only be there for two or three years because their dad worked for some giant corporation and got transferred every few years. In those days, it was assumed that you'd stay with the same company and the only way to move up was to work at different sites throughout your career. That whole pattern is gone for a number of reasons.
posted by octothorpe at 1:47 PM on May 31, 2019 [9 favorites]
I often think about moving to another city. I almost took a job in the Yukon, once, but ultimately turned it down for -- you guessed it -- family reasons.
My wife and I often think about moving. I sometimes feel like I "belong" somewhere else, but we're well established and the thought of starting from scratch somewhere else is frankly overwhelming. My wife did move across the country for work, but now that she's been here for over a decade, we've got a house and a kid (and another on the way), and a good network of friends, and my immediate family...it'd have to be an AMAZING, incredibly lucrative job for us to move, despite semi-regular daydreaming about the possibility of living somewhere else.
posted by asnider at 1:50 PM on May 31, 2019
My wife and I often think about moving. I sometimes feel like I "belong" somewhere else, but we're well established and the thought of starting from scratch somewhere else is frankly overwhelming. My wife did move across the country for work, but now that she's been here for over a decade, we've got a house and a kid (and another on the way), and a good network of friends, and my immediate family...it'd have to be an AMAZING, incredibly lucrative job for us to move, despite semi-regular daydreaming about the possibility of living somewhere else.
posted by asnider at 1:50 PM on May 31, 2019
That article is a classic case of burying the lede. What's interesting is the decline in American residential mobility, halving since 1950.
What's not interesting is Americans moving for a variety of reasons. That's always been the case. There's a solid OECD report from 2011 on "Residential Mobility and Public Policy" stating that 50% of Americans move because for housing reasons, 25% for family reasons, and only 20% for employment.
So why are Americans moving less since the 1950s? Did huge numbers of people just up sticks and go to California for the sunshine and surfing and is that trend mostly over now? How much did the growth in university education post-war lead to young people moving city and state and how much has that dropped off? Where the centres of new job creation much more mobile then and more static now? How much did the mechanisation of agriculture alter the urban/rural balance? How much did the hollowing-out of the middle class cause people to depend more upon their families and thus be more static?
And overall, the USA is one huge country, so let's recognise that it's always had ahistorically-high rates of mobility and the rest of the world really doesn't do it that way.
posted by happyinmotion at 1:53 PM on May 31, 2019 [18 favorites]
What's not interesting is Americans moving for a variety of reasons. That's always been the case. There's a solid OECD report from 2011 on "Residential Mobility and Public Policy" stating that 50% of Americans move because for housing reasons, 25% for family reasons, and only 20% for employment.
So why are Americans moving less since the 1950s? Did huge numbers of people just up sticks and go to California for the sunshine and surfing and is that trend mostly over now? How much did the growth in university education post-war lead to young people moving city and state and how much has that dropped off? Where the centres of new job creation much more mobile then and more static now? How much did the mechanisation of agriculture alter the urban/rural balance? How much did the hollowing-out of the middle class cause people to depend more upon their families and thus be more static?
And overall, the USA is one huge country, so let's recognise that it's always had ahistorically-high rates of mobility and the rest of the world really doesn't do it that way.
posted by happyinmotion at 1:53 PM on May 31, 2019 [18 favorites]
We will not have freedom until people have the same mobility as capital.
...and this is why mobility is increasingly discouraged.
posted by aramaic at 1:53 PM on May 31, 2019 [8 favorites]
...and this is why mobility is increasingly discouraged.
posted by aramaic at 1:53 PM on May 31, 2019 [8 favorites]
It makes sense to me that it would be fairly high. While bowties spouse and I technically live in a different state than we were born, we live in the DC area, where most people cross a state line every day to go to work - I think in metro areas that straddle state lines like this, that data isn't as useful in indicating mobility. We've moved every couple of years for the last decade, but it's been within the same metro area.
But also, it's really hard to get most jobs with a non-local address. So the only way our household would consider a long-distance move would be if my partner got offered a job in that place, and it would have to be a substantial pay increase, because I'd be unemployed for some period of time after we got there. It would take a lot to get us to upset our particular apple-cart, and I imagine that amount would be even greater if we had a kid in school.
Was it easier, in the past, to get work from out of town or to just show up in a place and find work?
posted by bowtiesarecool at 2:03 PM on May 31, 2019 [3 favorites]
But also, it's really hard to get most jobs with a non-local address. So the only way our household would consider a long-distance move would be if my partner got offered a job in that place, and it would have to be a substantial pay increase, because I'd be unemployed for some period of time after we got there. It would take a lot to get us to upset our particular apple-cart, and I imagine that amount would be even greater if we had a kid in school.
Was it easier, in the past, to get work from out of town or to just show up in a place and find work?
posted by bowtiesarecool at 2:03 PM on May 31, 2019 [3 favorites]
thefoxgod: They mostly move people to their headquarters area (Bay Area and/or Seattle). While it might come with a raise, if you factor in cost of living its unlikely to be one (probably a drop in income).
Aye, and they don't move very many people there compared to, say, the automobile industry at its peak. There's no reason for a Great Migration to Silicon Valley, because there's lots of money in Silicon Valley but there aren't lots of jobs. The FAANGs have created more jobs in content moderation than at headquarters, but those jobs have been easy to place in the communities where low-cost labour already lives.
posted by clawsoon at 2:03 PM on May 31, 2019 [1 favorite]
Aye, and they don't move very many people there compared to, say, the automobile industry at its peak. There's no reason for a Great Migration to Silicon Valley, because there's lots of money in Silicon Valley but there aren't lots of jobs. The FAANGs have created more jobs in content moderation than at headquarters, but those jobs have been easy to place in the communities where low-cost labour already lives.
posted by clawsoon at 2:03 PM on May 31, 2019 [1 favorite]
The median person in our sample will forego 30 percent of his or her income in order to stay close to family
...the only people, possibly in the entire world, who are surprised by this statistic are economists.
Not to pile on, but I'd bet cash money that before reading this article you were surprised by this statistic. Not that people in general would prefer to stay close to their family. But how much do they value this? Just like everybody would take a lower income if they could live in a substantially larger house, the question is how much? 90% of their current income? 80%? Less? Take your best guess.
Maybe I'm sensitive because I'm procrastinating from finishing a conference presentation using remarkably similar techniques, but it's frustrating to hear economists dismissed as not being sensible or having a scientific approach when paired with this same sort of pushback when it comes to what is the economics equivalent of basic science; obviously people value living near their friends and people like having higher salaries, but how do they trade them off? This sort of fundamental data is like medical researchers knowing that Ebola is bad for you, but doing the research to figure out why -- that's how you get treatments, cures and vaccines.
... going back to that larger house, earlier I implied people would take 10-20% salary cuts to live in a bigger house, hopefully that didn't seem surprising. But it's not true; people in this study as a whole didn't value house size all that much at all. People would be happy moving to a larger (1000 sq ft) house as long as they made 97% of their base income, ie only a 3% pay cut. But this varies substantially between groups; people with kids would take a bigger house and 93% of their base income, as would people who had moved in the last 5 years, who rented, or who currently lived in a small house. But lots of people wouldn't take any salary cut at all just for a bigger house -- people who lived in rural areas, people who classified themselves as "mobile", people who owned their dwelling. In fact, people over 55 would require a salary increase, about 5%, to live in a bigger house. That might have implications for how much large housing stock should be built in a country where an increasing share of the population is over 55.
None of those conclusions are particularly shocking, but they weren't something that is well established, and not something that's well quantified, and that's the value of economics research.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 2:06 PM on May 31, 2019 [32 favorites]
...the only people, possibly in the entire world, who are surprised by this statistic are economists.
Not to pile on, but I'd bet cash money that before reading this article you were surprised by this statistic. Not that people in general would prefer to stay close to their family. But how much do they value this? Just like everybody would take a lower income if they could live in a substantially larger house, the question is how much? 90% of their current income? 80%? Less? Take your best guess.
Maybe I'm sensitive because I'm procrastinating from finishing a conference presentation using remarkably similar techniques, but it's frustrating to hear economists dismissed as not being sensible or having a scientific approach when paired with this same sort of pushback when it comes to what is the economics equivalent of basic science; obviously people value living near their friends and people like having higher salaries, but how do they trade them off? This sort of fundamental data is like medical researchers knowing that Ebola is bad for you, but doing the research to figure out why -- that's how you get treatments, cures and vaccines.
... going back to that larger house, earlier I implied people would take 10-20% salary cuts to live in a bigger house, hopefully that didn't seem surprising. But it's not true; people in this study as a whole didn't value house size all that much at all. People would be happy moving to a larger (1000 sq ft) house as long as they made 97% of their base income, ie only a 3% pay cut. But this varies substantially between groups; people with kids would take a bigger house and 93% of their base income, as would people who had moved in the last 5 years, who rented, or who currently lived in a small house. But lots of people wouldn't take any salary cut at all just for a bigger house -- people who lived in rural areas, people who classified themselves as "mobile", people who owned their dwelling. In fact, people over 55 would require a salary increase, about 5%, to live in a bigger house. That might have implications for how much large housing stock should be built in a country where an increasing share of the population is over 55.
None of those conclusions are particularly shocking, but they weren't something that is well established, and not something that's well quantified, and that's the value of economics research.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 2:06 PM on May 31, 2019 [32 favorites]
Also, high taxes doesn’t really make millionaires leave - aside from a few extreme wealth hoarders or people with no ties, rich people want to stay where they are for a lot of the same reasons as everyone else.
posted by The Whelk at 3:03 PM on May 31, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 3:03 PM on May 31, 2019 [14 favorites]
For the 45% raise...yeah, I know people who hire at SV companies who regularly increase salaries 30-40% when moving someone from a red state to the Bay Area. It's not a quality-of-life increase (unless you count proximity to the ocean, which actually I do!) because this part of CA is so expensive...probably the best thing is that you have a) potential for better career growth if you do well in your role and b) similar-paying jobs at a different company if you don't.
Any piece on Americans moving around the United States that doesn't have a screaming refrain of CHILDCARE is going to seem incomplete. When my parents moved around a lot, they were a one-income couple. My mom didn't work outside the home until we stopped moving, and...that was when I was old enough to basically look after myself. Not coincidentally, they also settled within 2 hours' drive of family. Wage stagnation has made it increasingly impossible to be a one-income couple, even if that's what a couple wants. Obviously that means families can't rely on stay-at-home or underemployed moms to look after kids all the time...but I suspect there are some knock-on effects in terms of how people make social connections. Do working moms have the time or energy to host dinners to get to know their neighbors or coworkers? Are the dads picking up the slack? (Almost certainly not!) If you move away from your support system you need to find/buy a new one. And if you have no interest in religion, that makes finding a place in your new community even more complicated.
posted by grandiloquiet at 3:04 PM on May 31, 2019 [12 favorites]
Any piece on Americans moving around the United States that doesn't have a screaming refrain of CHILDCARE is going to seem incomplete. When my parents moved around a lot, they were a one-income couple. My mom didn't work outside the home until we stopped moving, and...that was when I was old enough to basically look after myself. Not coincidentally, they also settled within 2 hours' drive of family. Wage stagnation has made it increasingly impossible to be a one-income couple, even if that's what a couple wants. Obviously that means families can't rely on stay-at-home or underemployed moms to look after kids all the time...but I suspect there are some knock-on effects in terms of how people make social connections. Do working moms have the time or energy to host dinners to get to know their neighbors or coworkers? Are the dads picking up the slack? (Almost certainly not!) If you move away from your support system you need to find/buy a new one. And if you have no interest in religion, that makes finding a place in your new community even more complicated.
posted by grandiloquiet at 3:04 PM on May 31, 2019 [12 favorites]
I also believe very strongly in The Right To Stability, the entire narrative of American culture is that you should work to make yourself as exploitable as possible, move st the drop of a hat! Own nothing! Have no ties to yur community! You are a frictionless orb ready to be launched into the pin ball machine of the economy!
And well, we know where this leads.
posted by The Whelk at 3:05 PM on May 31, 2019 [36 favorites]
And well, we know where this leads.
posted by The Whelk at 3:05 PM on May 31, 2019 [36 favorites]
Yeah, social capital is still capital! And the less you have of other sorts of capital, the more important it is how much social capital you've got.
posted by rue72 at 3:37 PM on May 31, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by rue72 at 3:37 PM on May 31, 2019 [8 favorites]
Approximately a year ago, Bloomberg Businessweek ran a piece called "Why Do Americans Stay When Their Town Has No Future?"
The story focuses on Adams County, Ohio. A very significant percentage of residents worked at one of two different coal-fired power plants that were owned and operated by global energy company AES Corp. But AES decided to shut down these two plants, since coal-fired utility plants are getting pressure from two different directions -- business (natural gas is cheaper) and regulatory (hello, government constraints on carbon emissions).
So. The plants close, people with few transferable job skills scramble for work in a place that has almost no job openings that pay what the old gigs used to, and then this:
I get why people don't move. As a younger adult, I loved moving. Even as a younger married person, I loved moving. But now? With kids and a quality of life predicated on rich social connections and a rewarding sense of community involvement? I'd be telling myself that I could make it work on 62% of my old salary too.
posted by sobell at 3:50 PM on May 31, 2019 [5 favorites]
The story focuses on Adams County, Ohio. A very significant percentage of residents worked at one of two different coal-fired power plants that were owned and operated by global energy company AES Corp. But AES decided to shut down these two plants, since coal-fired utility plants are getting pressure from two different directions -- business (natural gas is cheaper) and regulatory (hello, government constraints on carbon emissions).
So. The plants close, people with few transferable job skills scramble for work in a place that has almost no job openings that pay what the old gigs used to, and then this:
Randy Rothwell left with his wife, Tiffany, and their two sons last summer, after landing what seemed like a dream offer: a high-paying federal job with great benefits at the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington state. It wasn’t easy leaving Adams County, where their older son had recently started kindergarten, where Tiffany had belonged to a church for 25 years, where the boys’ cousins were their best friends. The Grand Coulee job was hard to pass up, though. The Rothwells managed to sell their house—thereby overcoming one of the major hurdles in leaving a struggling area such as Adams County—and moved in late July.And while I read that, the objective part of my brain is, "Is that the best long-term play for you?" and the rest of me is thinking, "If I had to move and start over ...?"
They lasted a half-year. The job was fine, but they didn’t realize just how much they’d miss Adams County. The landscape of central Washington state was more desolate than they were prepared for. The nearest Walmart and McDonald’s were almost an hour away. Flights back home were expensive. Tiffany had almost no contact with other adults when Randy was at work.
Late last year, Randy got word of a job at Adams County’s second-largest private employer, an engine-testing facility for GE Aviation. He applied and got an offer. The position was nonunion and paid only $22 per hour, half of what he was making in Washington state and also much less than the $35 per hour he made at Killen Station. He took it anyway.
I get why people don't move. As a younger adult, I loved moving. Even as a younger married person, I loved moving. But now? With kids and a quality of life predicated on rich social connections and a rewarding sense of community involvement? I'd be telling myself that I could make it work on 62% of my old salary too.
posted by sobell at 3:50 PM on May 31, 2019 [5 favorites]
We’re in a stupid spot similar to this, sort of. My wife makes bank at her school based county-job (she’s union, has a pension, excellent benefits etc) and it would set us back financially in terms of retirement benefits resetting for her to move if that was even just across our nearest state line. I however, am in a dead end career (especially dead-endy in Portland). If I were to move to California, NY, or a couple other markets, I could probably make +35% on top of what I make now. But then she’d have to reset entirely, and there’s zero guarantee she’d be able to even get licensure in those places. And fuck it, I grew up here and it is home.
“People moving for jobs” is such bullshit capitalist horseshit I can’t even. There are just SO MANY reasons why that’s not an option for people.
Anyways. Anyone in Portland want to hire a burnout coffee roaster? I have nearly zero other skills to bring to the table except my natural charm and cheer /sarcasm
posted by furnace.heart at 3:56 PM on May 31, 2019 [10 favorites]
“People moving for jobs” is such bullshit capitalist horseshit I can’t even. There are just SO MANY reasons why that’s not an option for people.
Anyways. Anyone in Portland want to hire a burnout coffee roaster? I have nearly zero other skills to bring to the table except my natural charm and cheer /sarcasm
posted by furnace.heart at 3:56 PM on May 31, 2019 [10 favorites]
Was it easier, in the past, to get work from out of town or to just show up in a place and find work?
Yes, at least from my extremely anecdotal experience: I moved around like a shuttlecock in my 20s and 30s, shifting between countries, continents and provinces. I lived out of a suitcase for about 3 years at one point. It was always possible to get a job reasonably quickly, legal or under the table, back in the 80s and early 90s. And I was an artist, so I didn't have any great expectations.
Canada still has more of that 'throw everything in the car and just go' attitude than the US; that's being reduced by the cost of housing everywhere, of course.
And I wonder if the aging of our populations doesn't have something to do with it, too; you have a lot more to lose when you're moving away from elderly parents and selling houses and uprooting kids from schools than you do when you're 20 with very few ties and itchy feet.
posted by jrochest at 3:56 PM on May 31, 2019 [4 favorites]
Yes, at least from my extremely anecdotal experience: I moved around like a shuttlecock in my 20s and 30s, shifting between countries, continents and provinces. I lived out of a suitcase for about 3 years at one point. It was always possible to get a job reasonably quickly, legal or under the table, back in the 80s and early 90s. And I was an artist, so I didn't have any great expectations.
Canada still has more of that 'throw everything in the car and just go' attitude than the US; that's being reduced by the cost of housing everywhere, of course.
And I wonder if the aging of our populations doesn't have something to do with it, too; you have a lot more to lose when you're moving away from elderly parents and selling houses and uprooting kids from schools than you do when you're 20 with very few ties and itchy feet.
posted by jrochest at 3:56 PM on May 31, 2019 [4 favorites]
So why are Americans moving less since the 1950s? Did huge numbers of people just up sticks and go to California for the sunshine and surfing and is that trend mostly over now?
I think the decline of single income families must play a big part, high house prices mean that most mothers now have to work - and how many job offers come with an option of "..and we will also find a new job for your spouse" ?
It does happen but only for the most senior roles at large companies.
posted by Lanark at 3:57 PM on May 31, 2019 [10 favorites]
I think the decline of single income families must play a big part, high house prices mean that most mothers now have to work - and how many job offers come with an option of "..and we will also find a new job for your spouse" ?
It does happen but only for the most senior roles at large companies.
posted by Lanark at 3:57 PM on May 31, 2019 [10 favorites]
There was an FPP a while back about 70s TV sitcoms and somebody commented that LOTS of the show premises were about some recently divorced person moving to a new town. There was this shared dream that it was possible to load up your car and run away for a fresh start. With all of today's centralized, shared personal data - I don’t think anybody has that hope any more.
posted by bonobothegreat at 5:27 PM on May 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by bonobothegreat at 5:27 PM on May 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
I think the fact that moving is a GIGANTIC PAIN IN THE ASS might also have something to do with this puzzling and mysterious phenomenon.
posted by freakazoid at 5:32 PM on May 31, 2019 [17 favorites]
posted by freakazoid at 5:32 PM on May 31, 2019 [17 favorites]
I mean, people do have family responsibilities. I live by my parents and grandmother primarily because I have responsibilities to them. Moving a significant distance away would basically being saying "fuck you" to them and to those responsibilities (or that's how they would see it), and while that's one thing to do that as a 17 year old, it's something else at 27, and something ELSE at 37. It would take A LOT of money for me to think that blowing off my parents and grandmother would be worth it. Like, way more than 50% more salary, which I think isn't really significant enough (that said, my salary isn't that great, so maybe that's why I'm not that tempted). That's not to say that nothing would convince me, but it would have to be something that's worth as much to me (emotionally) as my parents' and grandmother's love and well-being. Which obviously I think is worth a ton.
Of course, not everybody's family and life is the same, but it's weird that this is framed as such a purely individual choice. Most adults are thinking about what's best for the group, not them as an individual, and what's best usually means keeping the family together as much as is feasible -- for practical, and financial, and emotional reasons.
I'm frankly surprised that people are willing to move away from their loved ones for so little, but I guess the nuclear family would stay together in that scenario, and I think a lot of people see that as where their primary and maybe even sole responsibility lies.
posted by rue72 at 5:45 PM on May 31, 2019 [5 favorites]
Of course, not everybody's family and life is the same, but it's weird that this is framed as such a purely individual choice. Most adults are thinking about what's best for the group, not them as an individual, and what's best usually means keeping the family together as much as is feasible -- for practical, and financial, and emotional reasons.
I'm frankly surprised that people are willing to move away from their loved ones for so little, but I guess the nuclear family would stay together in that scenario, and I think a lot of people see that as where their primary and maybe even sole responsibility lies.
posted by rue72 at 5:45 PM on May 31, 2019 [5 favorites]
bonobothegreat: There was an FPP a while back about 70s TV sitcoms and somebody commented that LOTS of the show premises were about some recently divorced person moving to a new town.
Maybe I'll move somewhere...
posted by clawsoon at 5:56 PM on May 31, 2019 [1 favorite]
Maybe I'll move somewhere...
posted by clawsoon at 5:56 PM on May 31, 2019 [1 favorite]
Economists are humans, too
cite please
I kid, 'cause I can relate. But in seriousness, the issue with economics as a field of explanatory power is that it starts with a baseline that really isn't recognizably human and then adds stuff like this study. It's not like Physics where air resistance or some such is the error term. In economics many of their principle axioms are the error term. This is by political design.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 6:15 PM on May 31, 2019 [6 favorites]
cite please
I kid, 'cause I can relate. But in seriousness, the issue with economics as a field of explanatory power is that it starts with a baseline that really isn't recognizably human and then adds stuff like this study. It's not like Physics where air resistance or some such is the error term. In economics many of their principle axioms are the error term. This is by political design.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 6:15 PM on May 31, 2019 [6 favorites]
Well, I took a giant leap at 37, and moved to this rock in the middle of two oceans. It was isolated then, but Amazon makes it feel like I can have everything I need tomorrow, and the weather only sucks for one week every ten years, and I'm not leaving. I had three jobs, then two, and now one that pays more than all of them combined, and I'm not interested in living anywhere else. So.
posted by halfbuckaroo at 6:34 PM on May 31, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by halfbuckaroo at 6:34 PM on May 31, 2019 [3 favorites]
There's also the issue of just liking the way of life in your particular corner of the States.
I love the secular puritanism in New England. I like living where I'm not expected to prove my dignity by purchasing a particular car. I love the way a majority of the teenaged girls in my town have not pierced their ears, because nobody tells them that they should or shouldn't. The US is not that culturally uniform, and if you find yourself where you feel at home, then it's time to turn barnacle.
posted by ocschwar at 6:37 PM on May 31, 2019 [8 favorites]
I love the secular puritanism in New England. I like living where I'm not expected to prove my dignity by purchasing a particular car. I love the way a majority of the teenaged girls in my town have not pierced their ears, because nobody tells them that they should or shouldn't. The US is not that culturally uniform, and if you find yourself where you feel at home, then it's time to turn barnacle.
posted by ocschwar at 6:37 PM on May 31, 2019 [8 favorites]
We will not have freedom until people have the same mobility as capital.
...and this is why mobility is increasingly discouraged.
???
Did you read the same article as the rest of us?
I also believe very strongly in The Right To Stability, the entire narrative of American culture is that you should work to make yourself as exploitable as possible, move st the drop of a hat! Own nothing! Have no ties to yur community! You are a frictionless orb ready to be launched into the pin ball machine of the economy!
And well, we know where this leads.
I'm not sure what you're going on about, but nobody, not here, not in the article, seems to advocate the narrative you're using as an example. Though I guess it makes a great straw man to rail against. Instead, it seems to demonstrate the not terribly surprising revelation that people are pretty well deciding their own mobility as they see fit.
I have a slightly different take on the lack of mobility among Americans. It seems to be framed in more negative terms, details of which may be true, but I think it also points to another, less depressing sign: People are prosperous enough, enough to satisfy their bigger concerns. Even "the stuck" are weighing the pros and cons, and are deciding that staying put is the most practical path to take. In the past, people often had less property, and less to lose, and more (sometimes literal) hunger, so the possibility of greener pastures would be more attractive. Mobility was the result of sheer necessity. If you're staying put because moving is that unattractive, the needs you value most are probably being met.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:33 PM on May 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
...and this is why mobility is increasingly discouraged.
???
Did you read the same article as the rest of us?
I also believe very strongly in The Right To Stability, the entire narrative of American culture is that you should work to make yourself as exploitable as possible, move st the drop of a hat! Own nothing! Have no ties to yur community! You are a frictionless orb ready to be launched into the pin ball machine of the economy!
And well, we know where this leads.
I'm not sure what you're going on about, but nobody, not here, not in the article, seems to advocate the narrative you're using as an example. Though I guess it makes a great straw man to rail against. Instead, it seems to demonstrate the not terribly surprising revelation that people are pretty well deciding their own mobility as they see fit.
I have a slightly different take on the lack of mobility among Americans. It seems to be framed in more negative terms, details of which may be true, but I think it also points to another, less depressing sign: People are prosperous enough, enough to satisfy their bigger concerns. Even "the stuck" are weighing the pros and cons, and are deciding that staying put is the most practical path to take. In the past, people often had less property, and less to lose, and more (sometimes literal) hunger, so the possibility of greener pastures would be more attractive. Mobility was the result of sheer necessity. If you're staying put because moving is that unattractive, the needs you value most are probably being met.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:33 PM on May 31, 2019 [7 favorites]
Their reasons for not moving are more psychological than economic: proximity to family and friends, and their involvement in the local community or church.
If there were wages for housework, or even if economists would recognize the pervasiveness of basic communism across the societies of the world, this decision would not seem merely "psychological."
There are all kinds of calculations that economists have to ignore in order to maintain their political power.
posted by eustatic at 7:36 PM on May 31, 2019 [6 favorites]
If there were wages for housework, or even if economists would recognize the pervasiveness of basic communism across the societies of the world, this decision would not seem merely "psychological."
There are all kinds of calculations that economists have to ignore in order to maintain their political power.
posted by eustatic at 7:36 PM on May 31, 2019 [6 favorites]
I guess it makes a great straw man to rail against
If you want to live, get out of Garbutt (content warning: truly one of the meanest-spirited things I have ever read, but 0% straw)
posted by praemunire at 7:43 PM on May 31, 2019 [4 favorites]
If you want to live, get out of Garbutt (content warning: truly one of the meanest-spirited things I have ever read, but 0% straw)
posted by praemunire at 7:43 PM on May 31, 2019 [4 favorites]
I desperately wish that academia had any sort of flexibility in location. I like where I am. My boyfriend is tied to our current location because of his visa and green card application. My family is closeish. And yet, probably the 5-10 jobs I'll be applying for will be all over the country (last year, I applied unsuccessfully for positions in Gainesville, Miami, Pensacola, Buffalo, South Bend, Boone, Ithaca, Grinnell, West Lafayette, Alberqueque, and San Diego), and I'll be lucky if I win the crapshoot next year and am privileged enough to start my life over in, say, Tulsa.
posted by ChuraChura at 7:48 PM on May 31, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 7:48 PM on May 31, 2019 [4 favorites]
Praemunire, that NR article is so weird. I found myself multiple times thinking "ok, yeah maybe he's going somewhere constructive with this, oh god no, how was that the conclusion you drew from your line of reasoning?" It feels like he's so close to a socialist epiphany, but then the overwhelming and irresistible force of his deeply internalized misogynistic paternalism steps in and says "nooo no no it's the poors' fault that they are poor, and capitalism is a beautiful, gleaming edifice to be worshipped, praise be unto it". I hate read the whole thing in rapt awe, it's truly so bad that it's good.
posted by dudemanlives at 8:29 PM on May 31, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by dudemanlives at 8:29 PM on May 31, 2019 [6 favorites]
How much do the FAANGs move people?
They mostly move people to their headquarters area (Bay Area and/or Seattle).
Not anymore, at least at everyone's favorite fruit company.
I was part of the last big acquisition (Beats Electronics/Beats Music in August 2014) where everyone just had to move to Cupertino as a condition of staying employed. And even then, much of the non-engineering folks just stayed in our brand new Culver office and started turning that into a huge SoCal campus.
These days we are spreading people around, and half the people I work with are in London. I actually moved back down south in late 2015 and I've been remote ever since. Lately I've been living in South Orange County.
posted by sideshow at 8:40 PM on May 31, 2019
They mostly move people to their headquarters area (Bay Area and/or Seattle).
Not anymore, at least at everyone's favorite fruit company.
I was part of the last big acquisition (Beats Electronics/Beats Music in August 2014) where everyone just had to move to Cupertino as a condition of staying employed. And even then, much of the non-engineering folks just stayed in our brand new Culver office and started turning that into a huge SoCal campus.
These days we are spreading people around, and half the people I work with are in London. I actually moved back down south in late 2015 and I've been remote ever since. Lately I've been living in South Orange County.
posted by sideshow at 8:40 PM on May 31, 2019
When I moved here to RuralTown from Melbourne (and before that, South America*), I thought it would be the first step of many. Now that I'm here, I'm really enjoying putting roots down, after wrestling with the concept for a bit, and making peace with it. However, my husband recently told me that he didn't picture living in RuralTown for his whole life, which threw a spanner in! Not sure what the next chunk of time will hold for us but travel is definitely more appealing than selling up and moving- I think we will always come back to RuralTown, it's home, now.
*keeping things vague, as it's a small enough rural town that I could be identified if I was more specific.
posted by freethefeet at 10:43 PM on May 31, 2019 [1 favorite]
*keeping things vague, as it's a small enough rural town that I could be identified if I was more specific.
posted by freethefeet at 10:43 PM on May 31, 2019 [1 favorite]
Looking at the first graph in the article, it appears that the decrease in mobility is mostly driven by a decrease in people moving around within the same county (solid line). Moving within the same county implies "I moved down the street or to a nearby town but my work and home life are pretty much the same." The dotted "different county" line is pretty steady from about 1950 to around 2000 when it slides down sharply and stabilizes around 2010-ish (real estate meltdown). The breakdown of different county/same state and different county/different state are really hard to pick apart, but overall, I don't see this graph as suggestive of a long-term trend in decreased mobility, at least not in the psychological-factors way argued by the article's text.
I'm also really interested in the blip in same-county mobility in the early/mid 1980s. What was happening then, culturally? The first thing that comes to mind is that Boomers were starting families, moving to new neighborhoods for bigger houses/yards and better schools. Certainly that's the narrative for my own parents -- arrived in the US in 1983 as renters, moved yearly within the same county until 1986 when they bought a small house after I was born, moved again in 1989 to a bigger house in the same county after my brother was born, and have lived there ever since.
posted by basalganglia at 6:01 AM on June 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
I'm also really interested in the blip in same-county mobility in the early/mid 1980s. What was happening then, culturally? The first thing that comes to mind is that Boomers were starting families, moving to new neighborhoods for bigger houses/yards and better schools. Certainly that's the narrative for my own parents -- arrived in the US in 1983 as renters, moved yearly within the same county until 1986 when they bought a small house after I was born, moved again in 1989 to a bigger house in the same county after my brother was born, and have lived there ever since.
posted by basalganglia at 6:01 AM on June 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
People not being willing to move because of their spouse’s job is a factor. I might be willing to move, but that would mean my spouse would have to give up their very good job and find a new job in the new location. I don’t even consider jobs in any other location for that reason.
This would probably go some way toward explaining the long term reduction in willingness to move. It’s easier to move if you don’t need both spouses to work.
posted by Anne Neville at 6:17 AM on June 1, 2019 [8 favorites]
This would probably go some way toward explaining the long term reduction in willingness to move. It’s easier to move if you don’t need both spouses to work.
posted by Anne Neville at 6:17 AM on June 1, 2019 [8 favorites]
“Less amenable values” is going to mean something VERY different to someone who’s LGBT or a member of a religious minority than it is to a white cishet Christian. For the latter, it’s probably not going to mean anything much worse than having a little more trouble making friends. The situation is quite different for an LGBT person or, say, a Muslim. Even within Christianity, there are some minority denominations where “less amenable values” might mean not being able to practice your religion. That’s not likely to be the case if you’re Catholic or a member of a major Protestant denomination. That’s going to be true to some degree for atheists as well- some places are a lot less friendly to atheists than others.
posted by Anne Neville at 6:54 AM on June 1, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Anne Neville at 6:54 AM on June 1, 2019 [7 favorites]
Uhm uncertainty is a thing, I wouldn't be surprised if the median amount to entice someone to leave their current job would be a 20% pay rise, never mind their current city...
posted by xdvesper at 7:17 AM on June 1, 2019
posted by xdvesper at 7:17 AM on June 1, 2019
That’s not likely to be the case if you’re Catholic
My husband grew up in a rural area and got a lot of abuse for being Catholic. A lot of fundamentalist denominations still actively preach that the Pope is the Antichrist and the Roman church is Satanic.
posted by soren_lorensen at 7:36 AM on June 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
My husband grew up in a rural area and got a lot of abuse for being Catholic. A lot of fundamentalist denominations still actively preach that the Pope is the Antichrist and the Roman church is Satanic.
posted by soren_lorensen at 7:36 AM on June 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
EATING MORE LAMB COULD CHANGE THE FUTURE OF APPALACHIA
posted by mumimor at 7:43 AM on June 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by mumimor at 7:43 AM on June 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
I'm also really interested in the blip in same-county mobility in the early/mid 1980s. What was happening then, culturally? The first thing that comes to mind is that Boomers were starting families, moving to new neighborhoods for bigger houses/yards and better schools. Certainly that's the narrative for my own parents -- arrived in the US in 1983 as renters, moved yearly within the same county until 1986 when they bought a small house after I was born, moved again in 1989 to a bigger house in the same county after my brother was born, and have lived there ever since.
There was also a real estate bubble/crash during the 80s that might account for the same county weirdness. If it was anything like the lead-up to most recent real estate crash, the cultural factor might have been your coworker evangelizing about how much money he was making by flipping houses.
posted by grandiloquiet at 7:51 AM on June 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
There was also a real estate bubble/crash during the 80s that might account for the same county weirdness. If it was anything like the lead-up to most recent real estate crash, the cultural factor might have been your coworker evangelizing about how much money he was making by flipping houses.
posted by grandiloquiet at 7:51 AM on June 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
My take is that people shouldn’t have to move and that this is really only a problem if you are wanting to escape something or go towards something that’s missing. Big cities are exciting, especially when you’re young and unattached, but people should be able to grow up, live, and die in some random small town. There’s a lot of value in that.
posted by freecellwizard at 8:42 AM on June 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by freecellwizard at 8:42 AM on June 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
I don't see how 'proximity to family and friends, and their involvement in the local community or church' could be seen as an explanation for change over time. Are we to imagine that people are more attached to their family in 2019 than in 1985?
posted by crazy with stars at 9:26 AM on June 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by crazy with stars at 9:26 AM on June 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
The median person in our sample will forego 30 percent of his or her income in order to stay close to family
...the only people, possibly in the entire world, who are surprised by this statistic are economists.
I feel like this sentiment reflects a lot of the cultural divide between me and "the locals" in whatever town I happen to be living in. I personally find the idea of forgoing 30% of one's income just to avoid moving away from family surprising, I would move for far less than that. But then again so would my entire family? My extended family has never lived particularly close to one another and I grew up thinking it was obvious that one was expected to move out after High School and, well, leave to find one's fortune wherever that may be. Moving is not that hard, and honestly in the age of cheap air travel and skype it's not like you're never going to talk to your family again.
If anything it is easier to stay connected with friends and family now than back in the day when everyone was far more mobile. Which sort of brings me full circle to those locals. A fair amount of the Edmonton locals I know are really first generation, their parents moved here in the 70s and 80s, and they are often the most adamant that one must stay put. It's kind of a weird cultural shift.
I mentioned this to my dad and his theory is that it is all down to real estate. Moving, the resultant real estate fees, and differences in housing markets eat away at the investment advantage of home ownership. Homes are far more than it ever used to be (according to him) the sole store of most families net worth, so this is very important.
posted by selenized at 9:52 AM on June 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
...the only people, possibly in the entire world, who are surprised by this statistic are economists.
I feel like this sentiment reflects a lot of the cultural divide between me and "the locals" in whatever town I happen to be living in. I personally find the idea of forgoing 30% of one's income just to avoid moving away from family surprising, I would move for far less than that. But then again so would my entire family? My extended family has never lived particularly close to one another and I grew up thinking it was obvious that one was expected to move out after High School and, well, leave to find one's fortune wherever that may be. Moving is not that hard, and honestly in the age of cheap air travel and skype it's not like you're never going to talk to your family again.
If anything it is easier to stay connected with friends and family now than back in the day when everyone was far more mobile. Which sort of brings me full circle to those locals. A fair amount of the Edmonton locals I know are really first generation, their parents moved here in the 70s and 80s, and they are often the most adamant that one must stay put. It's kind of a weird cultural shift.
I mentioned this to my dad and his theory is that it is all down to real estate. Moving, the resultant real estate fees, and differences in housing markets eat away at the investment advantage of home ownership. Homes are far more than it ever used to be (according to him) the sole store of most families net worth, so this is very important.
posted by selenized at 9:52 AM on June 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
Here are the reasons I’ve moved in the last decade:
1) The homeowner raised rent by $200
2) I was leaving my violent ex
3) My violent ex found me
4) My violent ex found me again and I realized he’d keep doing it and would probably kill me unless I put several states between us
I’d probably still be in that first location if all of that hadn’t happened. Having a community is important. I’ve fought really hard for a community in my new state, and I don’t know if I could do it again.
posted by a hat out of hell at 11:52 AM on June 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
1) The homeowner raised rent by $200
2) I was leaving my violent ex
3) My violent ex found me
4) My violent ex found me again and I realized he’d keep doing it and would probably kill me unless I put several states between us
I’d probably still be in that first location if all of that hadn’t happened. Having a community is important. I’ve fought really hard for a community in my new state, and I don’t know if I could do it again.
posted by a hat out of hell at 11:52 AM on June 1, 2019 [4 favorites]
I'll go on the record that I found this surprising. I knew fewer people were moving in general, but I didn't realize the percentage was half of what it was in 1985. I also wasn't clear on why this trend was occurring. Since it's a change in behavior from the 80's I found it interesting that people no longer move because they feel connected to their immediate area.
Also, for the record, I grew up in an Air Force family. We moved a lot when I was young. My family did finally put down roots when my father retired, but it wasn't particularly near my parents' extended families. When it was time for me to start a career, I moved to an area with better job prospects and didn't even think twice about it. It was just as it always was in my mind.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:32 PM on June 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
Also, for the record, I grew up in an Air Force family. We moved a lot when I was young. My family did finally put down roots when my father retired, but it wasn't particularly near my parents' extended families. When it was time for me to start a career, I moved to an area with better job prospects and didn't even think twice about it. It was just as it always was in my mind.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:32 PM on June 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
Are we to imagine that people are more attached to their family in 2019 than in 1985?
The US maximum divorce rate was 1980, AFAICT. Very possibly people now who are married are more attached, and people who have memories of hard divorces are more attached to their families by either marriage or birth.
It exasperates me enormously that this chart starts after WWII -- a worldwide convulsion and anomaly, and of course people were used to moving, they could during the 1920s and then had to during the Depression and then got moved by the war. (I am specially conscious of this today because I was at a memorial lunch for my grandfather, who was above the age of reason when the Depression hit and whose experience of the Depression and WWII affected his planning his whole life, and affect mine.)
For that matter, there was a lot of relatively cheap land in the US West until after WWII -- the Homestead Acts weren't completely over until 1976! Even if only a few people pioneer or homestead at the margin, the chain effect on everyone else can be pretty high.
posted by clew at 4:17 PM on June 1, 2019 [6 favorites]
The US maximum divorce rate was 1980, AFAICT. Very possibly people now who are married are more attached, and people who have memories of hard divorces are more attached to their families by either marriage or birth.
It exasperates me enormously that this chart starts after WWII -- a worldwide convulsion and anomaly, and of course people were used to moving, they could during the 1920s and then had to during the Depression and then got moved by the war. (I am specially conscious of this today because I was at a memorial lunch for my grandfather, who was above the age of reason when the Depression hit and whose experience of the Depression and WWII affected his planning his whole life, and affect mine.)
For that matter, there was a lot of relatively cheap land in the US West until after WWII -- the Homestead Acts weren't completely over until 1976! Even if only a few people pioneer or homestead at the margin, the chain effect on everyone else can be pretty high.
posted by clew at 4:17 PM on June 1, 2019 [6 favorites]
The median person in our sample will forego 30 percent of his or her income in order to stay close to family
...because for the median person, their family isn't going to tell them a year after the expensive and stressful move, "We're shuttering this family unit. We wish you the best of luck finding a new family in this new place where you have barely any contacts and have this clearly failed family on your resume."
Know what's really sick? The Human Resources department at my work (a wealthy 700-person "nonprofit") prepared talking points for senior leadership about why they weren't offering pay raises for underpaid low- and mid-level employees, even as already high-income executives received sizable raises. So these executives told us "studies say" making more money doesn't make you happy; one statistic they quoted was twisted to say that many people voluntarily make less money to spend more time on things that make them happy, like living closer to family.
[edited for clarity]
posted by duffell at 5:07 PM on June 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
...because for the median person, their family isn't going to tell them a year after the expensive and stressful move, "We're shuttering this family unit. We wish you the best of luck finding a new family in this new place where you have barely any contacts and have this clearly failed family on your resume."
Know what's really sick? The Human Resources department at my work (a wealthy 700-person "nonprofit") prepared talking points for senior leadership about why they weren't offering pay raises for underpaid low- and mid-level employees, even as already high-income executives received sizable raises. So these executives told us "studies say" making more money doesn't make you happy; one statistic they quoted was twisted to say that many people voluntarily make less money to spend more time on things that make them happy, like living closer to family.
[edited for clarity]
posted by duffell at 5:07 PM on June 1, 2019 [9 favorites]
Did anyone ask them why the corp wasn't providing more time off (I assume!)?
posted by clew at 5:10 PM on June 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by clew at 5:10 PM on June 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
I mean, you'd have to be angry enough to accept all the time with your family they would suddenly provide, but.
posted by clew at 5:10 PM on June 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by clew at 5:10 PM on June 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
So is the answer to labor not being able to move like capital is to restrict the movement of capital? It will always be easier to wire money than get people on a plane, and people want to have families, lives, and a certain amount of comfort and stability.
posted by Selena777 at 5:43 PM on June 2, 2019
posted by Selena777 at 5:43 PM on June 2, 2019
"it exasperates me enormously that this chart starts after WWII"
Data is better after 1945.
"There are all kinds of calculations that economists have to ignore in order to maintain their political power."
This is... I don't know.
"the issue with economics as a field of explanatory power is that it starts with a baseline that really isn't recognizably human and then adds stuff like this study"
I mean if you stop reading at Econ 101 you may get that belief but in reality...
Anyway this thread is super disappointing. This is a research article. Its good. It tries to answer an important question. People who shit all over good research by saying things like, "DUHHH HURR I COULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT" make doing good research harder. Its good to have data its good to know things.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:24 AM on June 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
Data is better after 1945.
"There are all kinds of calculations that economists have to ignore in order to maintain their political power."
This is... I don't know.
"the issue with economics as a field of explanatory power is that it starts with a baseline that really isn't recognizably human and then adds stuff like this study"
I mean if you stop reading at Econ 101 you may get that belief but in reality...
Anyway this thread is super disappointing. This is a research article. Its good. It tries to answer an important question. People who shit all over good research by saying things like, "DUHHH HURR I COULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT" make doing good research harder. Its good to have data its good to know things.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:24 AM on June 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
The interesting part is what would influence upward and downward trends in this. Is there any reason for the upward spike in the mid 80s?
posted by RobotHero at 2:04 PM on June 3, 2019
posted by RobotHero at 2:04 PM on June 3, 2019
The amount of money you can save on childcare, eldercare, and housing just by having a few close friends and family members in your neighborhood is huge. As a recent college graduate currently living with family for free, the raise that I need to move to a different city is "rent" just to break even.
posted by bracems at 3:16 PM on June 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by bracems at 3:16 PM on June 3, 2019 [1 favorite]
> Is there any reason for the upward spike in the mid 80s?
The recession of the early 1980s, and people needing to move for new jobs?
posted by The corpse in the library at 5:51 PM on June 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
The recession of the early 1980s, and people needing to move for new jobs?
posted by The corpse in the library at 5:51 PM on June 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
Is there any reason for the upward spike in the mid 80s?
The recession of the early 1980s, and people needing to move for new jobs?
The spike only occurred for moves within the same county, though, and you would expect to see a spike in moves to different counties if people were moving for new jobs. The Census Bureau's report on mobility from 1984 to 1985 suggests that the spike was created by households taking advantage of low mortgage interest rates and moving locally to improve their house or neighborhood.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 1:30 AM on June 6, 2019
The recession of the early 1980s, and people needing to move for new jobs?
The spike only occurred for moves within the same county, though, and you would expect to see a spike in moves to different counties if people were moving for new jobs. The Census Bureau's report on mobility from 1984 to 1985 suggests that the spike was created by households taking advantage of low mortgage interest rates and moving locally to improve their house or neighborhood.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 1:30 AM on June 6, 2019
« Older THE ACCURSED DAYSTAR | The "selfie log." Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by PhineasGage at 12:35 PM on May 31, 2019 [1 favorite]