4 ms·

The solution in the past was for people to move to a different city. Migration is way down compared to generations past and continues to fall: https://www.pew

by treis 4y ago

The solution in the past was for people to move to a different city. Migration is way down compared to generations past and continues to fall: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/12/16/in-2020-fewer-americans-moved-exodus-from-cities-slowed/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/12/16/in-2020-few... The change in city living is also a big difference. Cities used to have parts of the city with the lowest cost of living in the metro area. Things like boarding houses and single room apartments w/ shared bathrooms & kitchens. That's no longer the case in a lot of cities. Places like Seattle and SF are comprised of pretty much all expensive places to live. That squeezes poor people more since they often have to rely on public transportation and can't take advantage of cheaper suburban living.

aeternum 4y ago
It is strange that it is easier than ever to move and stay connected yet most people don't.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  It is not strange: moving is more expensive than it used to be, and the odds of being able to move somewhere that's cheaper to live without taking a proportional or greater hit to your income are low. Staying connected with other people is hardly the only determining factor. Lots of people traditionally moved because they didn't want to stay connected with a place, and figured thre would be better opportunities elsewhere.
NineStarPoint 4y ago
It’s worth noting that these stats don’t show a difference in moving between cities, but between residences. And if you do look at stats showing moves between counties, those have been fairly flat going back to at least 2005 (I couldn’t find data going back farther). Which is to say that it seems people find less reason to move from one house to another where they already live than they used to. I expect this is because the difference between your current house and a better house has become substantially more expensive than it used to be, making it harder for people to improve their standard of living over time.
- treis 4y ago
  I haven't been able to find great statistics, but you can look at state populations to get an idea. California, as an example, went from ~5 million to ~30 million in a few decades post WWII.
  - NineStarPoint 4y ago
    California is a pretty substantial outlier there, not exactly representative of the country as a whole, and even then doesn’t actually need a super high inter-state immigration rate to get those numbers. It’s worth noting that the entire country grew 2X larger during those 5 decades. So we’re looking at a 3X increase compared to the average. Which is a lot! But even ignoring the effect of people moving there in the early decades themselves having children that speed up the process…to get a 3X growth over 50 years requires an annual immigration rate of 2.2%. Which would be in 1980, .29% of the US’s population moving to California. (And as a side note, the above numbers are ignoring immigration. In 1980 California was 15% foreign born people, about 2.5X times the national average. And people who immigrated in 1940s-1960s would themselves have children that lowered the needed inter-state moves even more) Point is, 5 decades is a long time, only takes a small percent a year to compound. California, by far the most popular state to move to in the country historically, still doesn’t need that high a percent change to get from 5 to 30 million.
    - treis 4y ago
      >2X larger during those 5 decades If the natural growth was 2x in those 5 decades then 5 to 30 is a surplus of 20 million people. A bit less than 10% of the US population in 1990.
      - NineStarPoint 4y ago
        Sure, but the point of the rest of those words was to show that to get a 20 million surplus over 5 decades requires, at absolute maximum, .3% of the US to move to California per year in that time frame. (Or more accurately .3% more of the population moving to than moving away from California)
hindsightbias 4y ago
SF dropped from ~75K SROs 50 years ago to maybe 20K now. Even if you were an addict or going to jail occasionally, there was enough turnover to get back in. All those big cities are probably similar.

by treis 4y ago

aeternum 4y ago

It is strange that it is easier than ever to move and stay connected yet most people don't.

anigbrowl 4y ago
It is not strange: moving is more expensive than it used to be, and the odds of being able to move somewhere that's cheaper to live without taking a proportional or greater hit to your income are low. Staying connected with other people is hardly the only determining factor. Lots of people traditionally moved because they didn't want to stay connected with a place, and figured thre would be better opportunities elsewhere.

NineStarPoint 4y ago

It’s worth noting that these stats don’t show a difference in moving between cities, but between residences. And if you do look at stats showing moves between counties, those have been fairly flat going back to at least 2005 (I couldn’t find data going back farther). Which is to say that it seems people find less reason to move from one house to another where they already live than they used to. I expect this is because the difference between your current house and a better house has become substantially more expensive than it used to be, making it harder for people to improve their standard of living over time.

treis 4y ago
I haven't been able to find great statistics, but you can look at state populations to get an idea. California, as an example, went from ~5 million to ~30 million in a few decades post WWII.
- NineStarPoint 4y ago
  California is a pretty substantial outlier there, not exactly representative of the country as a whole, and even then doesn’t actually need a super high inter-state immigration rate to get those numbers. It’s worth noting that the entire country grew 2X larger during those 5 decades. So we’re looking at a 3X increase compared to the average. Which is a lot! But even ignoring the effect of people moving there in the early decades themselves having children that speed up the process…to get a 3X growth over 50 years requires an annual immigration rate of 2.2%. Which would be in 1980, .29% of the US’s population moving to California. (And as a side note, the above numbers are ignoring immigration. In 1980 California was 15% foreign born people, about 2.5X times the national average. And people who immigrated in 1940s-1960s would themselves have children that lowered the needed inter-state moves even more) Point is, 5 decades is a long time, only takes a small percent a year to compound. California, by far the most popular state to move to in the country historically, still doesn’t need that high a percent change to get from 5 to 30 million.
  - treis 4y ago
    >2X larger during those 5 decades If the natural growth was 2x in those 5 decades then 5 to 30 is a surplus of 20 million people. A bit less than 10% of the US population in 1990.
    - NineStarPoint 4y ago
      Sure, but the point of the rest of those words was to show that to get a 20 million surplus over 5 decades requires, at absolute maximum, .3% of the US to move to California per year in that time frame. (Or more accurately .3% more of the population moving to than moving away from California)

hindsightbias 4y ago

SF dropped from ~75K SROs 50 years ago to maybe 20K now. Even if you were an addict or going to jail occasionally, there was enough turnover to get back in. All those big cities are probably similar.