5 ms·

Since this article is just a list of thoughts, a few other ideas: - Dual incomes. It was easier to move when only the father worked. - In the 1960s (which thi

Since this article is just a list of thoughts, a few other ideas: - Dual incomes. It was easier to move when only the father worked. - In the 1960s (which this article uses as a baseline) 70% of households had cars and this number was growing. It is 90% now and is stable. Everyone getting a car made previously unlivable spots livable (and cheap), but there haven't been as many innovations since. - Laws like prop 13 in California gave people incentive to stay in their abode or face rising tax rates. In California that was passed in 1978, but other states have similar laws. - Measurement error. The stat of Americans "living at home" includes students who live in dorms 6 months a year. 50 years ago these young people maybe moved to a city and waited tables. I'd argue that going to college could at least sorta count as moving. At the very least, more people going to college skews the results.

bombcar 2y ago
Another big thing was "industry towns" - if you wanted to build cars, you moved to Detroit. If you wanted to do "that computer thing" you moved to silly valley, etc. There's still some of that, but everything is much more mixed - you can get a quite decent "tech job" in almost any city now, and that's not even counting remote work.
- sys_64738 2y ago
  > If you wanted to do "that computer thing" you moved to silly valley, etc. No, you moved to Boston.
bsder 2y ago
> Dual incomes. It was easier to move when only the father worked. This is the biggest one. IBM, for example, used to be a moniker for "I've Been Moved". What the wife did simply wasn't considered. > In the 1960s (which this article uses as a baseline) 70% of households had cars and this number was growing 70% of households had a single car. People have forgotten what a pain coordinating around that was. > Laws like prop 13 in California gave people incentive to stay in their abode or face rising tax rates. Not really. A person only lives so long. In addition, houses were turning over at a decent rate in California as people tended to use the previous house to afford the next house. The real problem with Prop 13 is on commercial real estate because ownership can outlast human lifespan. When I was in the Bay Area, commercial real estate would have something like 15+ layers of subleases in order to get around Prop 13.
- fasthands9 2y ago
  Home prices have almost quadrupled in California since 2000. If you bought a house in California in 2000 for $250,000 you are only paying taxes on it as if it is worth $360,000, due to prop 13, even though it may be worth closer 1M. If you want to move to a different equivalent house that is the same market value, your monthly tax payment would triple so you probably just dont move. If you want to downsize your tax rate would still likely go up. Even if you bought a house five or ten years ago the same general pattern disincentivizes moving quite a bit. This lock in effect was not present in California in the 1960s. Source:https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CASTHPI https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CASTHPI
  - ec109685 2y ago
    Taxes on a 1m house is 11k a year versus 3.5k a year if you don’t move. Not saying that isn’t significant but there is likely other more costly considerations.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
> In California that was passed in 1978, but other states have similar laws. California is pretty unique with prop 13. No other state will as drastically limit property tax increases except maybe in very niche cases (eg elderly who are not rich).

bombcar 2y ago

Another big thing was "industry towns" - if you wanted to build cars, you moved to Detroit. If you wanted to do "that computer thing" you moved to silly valley, etc. There's still some of that, but everything is much more mixed - you can get a quite decent "tech job" in almost any city now, and that's not even counting remote work.

sys_64738 2y ago
> If you wanted to do "that computer thing" you moved to silly valley, etc. No, you moved to Boston.

bsder 2y ago

> Dual incomes. It was easier to move when only the father worked. This is the biggest one. IBM, for example, used to be a moniker for "I've Been Moved". What the wife did simply wasn't considered. > In the 1960s (which this article uses as a baseline) 70% of households had cars and this number was growing 70% of households had a single car. People have forgotten what a pain coordinating around that was. > Laws like prop 13 in California gave people incentive to stay in their abode or face rising tax rates. Not really. A person only lives so long. In addition, houses were turning over at a decent rate in California as people tended to use the previous house to afford the next house. The real problem with Prop 13 is on commercial real estate because ownership can outlast human lifespan. When I was in the Bay Area, commercial real estate would have something like 15+ layers of subleases in order to get around Prop 13.

fasthands9 2y ago
Home prices have almost quadrupled in California since 2000. If you bought a house in California in 2000 for $250,000 you are only paying taxes on it as if it is worth $360,000, due to prop 13, even though it may be worth closer 1M. If you want to move to a different equivalent house that is the same market value, your monthly tax payment would triple so you probably just dont move. If you want to downsize your tax rate would still likely go up. Even if you bought a house five or ten years ago the same general pattern disincentivizes moving quite a bit. This lock in effect was not present in California in the 1960s. Source:https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CASTHPI https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CASTHPI
- ec109685 2y ago
  Taxes on a 1m house is 11k a year versus 3.5k a year if you don’t move. Not saying that isn’t significant but there is likely other more costly considerations.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

> In California that was passed in 1978, but other states have similar laws. California is pretty unique with prop 13. No other state will as drastically limit property tax increases except maybe in very niche cases (eg elderly who are not rich).