6 ms·

Thats surprising, I thought moving was less common than now. In either case, is it possible that the single households is the other factor, people choosing more

by klabb3 2y ago

Thats surprising, I thought moving was less common than now. In either case, is it possible that the single households is the other factor, people choosing more instead of interacting with whoever is around?

etrautmann 2y ago
It might be who’s migrating. Possibly the coastal PMC workers sloshing back and forth while blue collar workers have less mobility than the 60s?
kortilla 2y ago
When? In my grandparents generation (born late 1800s to early 1900s) moving to either try to start a farm in the US or to leave a failing farm for a job in town at the local whatever factory was very common. Post WW2 for the boomers was loaded with people flooding to all kinds of industrial boom cities. After that it was hollowing out of the rust belt and moving out of cities to suburbs due to the lead/crime epidemic. Then rich cities boomed back with millennials in a continuous feedback loop where the successful ones became more desirable as money brought attractions/activities/restaurants, draining the failing ones even more. Then 2020 was the brief mega disruption where people thought the internet might catch on and they found out the vast majority of white collar jobs can be done from home so the fanned out to all of the nice and cheap suburbs, mountain towns, etc. Now the Internet fad has worn off so that’s reversing a bit. Moving in the US has been very common until this brief lull where you could change jobs without relocating thanks to remote work. Unfortunately we’re going backwards so it wouldn’t surprise me if constant relocation resumes.
- c4ptnjack 2y ago
  The main factor that you fail to mention is living cost, and not the internet, which made it possible and desirable to frequently move in search of opportunity. It didn't mean there weren't people that lived long-term in communities. However, it did mean that you could find more lucrative opportunities in different places while also affording to move and live there. That began to slowly change in the 60's, beginning with the death of single occupancy residences and a lack of funding/investment in affordable housing for a significant portion of income brackets. The last 30ish years helped cement that for lots of reasons, but the ability to work remotely via the internet isn't particularly new nor causative for that change.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    People moving in search of opportunity back then weren’t doing it because it was easier. It meant giving up your family and friends far more so than now because of the lack of internet. An out of state move meant a handful of letters a year was the level of contact you were in for and that was only for close family. Living cost was a big barrier back then (except maybe the homesteading) too. Any time someone is leaving a poor outlook to a more booming area it usually means cost of living is going up. > but the ability to work remotely via the internet isn't particularly new nor causative for that change It absolutely was the first time any non-trivial percentage of work was remote. More importantly, the spike meant 15% of the population became eligible to leave an expensive city that sucked during the lockdowns. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/dec/trends-work-from-home-us-insights-six-datasets https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/dec/trends-wo... There is most definitely affordable housing all over the US. People are just both picky and lacking opportunity in the cheaper places. Remote work was the fix for the latter part so downplaying that is missing the point. If you have a remote job and just want to live in NYC because of culture, then you have no leg to stand on when complaining about housing. It’s purely a luxury decision at that point. > That began to slowly change in the 60's, beginning with the death of single occupancy residences This is only true in a few select areas. Check out https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/renters-vs-homeowners-statistics https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/renters-vs-homeowne... Specifically the “average annual homeownership rates since 1964”. Right below it has a snapshot of rates by state and the difference tells you everything you need to know. Housing is only broken in the top desired areas and remote work gave you the opportunity to get a good job while leaving those.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > However, it did mean that you could find more lucrative opportunities in different places while also affording to move and live there. Same as now. The data clearly shows more job opportunity in rural areas (not all rural areas) and more affordable living to go along with it. But we haven't (yet) reached the dire situation where the people actually have to make the move like previous generations found themselves in. Most people won't leave family and friends behind unless they feel they are out of options.
energy123 2y ago
Housing crisis deters people from moving to where the jobs are, and it's a new phenomenon.
9rx 2y ago
> I thought moving was less common than now. International migration has increased over time, although still representing a very small segment of the population. Presumably that is mostly people fleeing terrible situations (e.g. war torn areas). When you are in a stable country, it doesn't matter so much where in the country you are.

by klabb3 2y ago

etrautmann 2y ago

It might be who’s migrating. Possibly the coastal PMC workers sloshing back and forth while blue collar workers have less mobility than the 60s?

kortilla 2y ago

When? In my grandparents generation (born late 1800s to early 1900s) moving to either try to start a farm in the US or to leave a failing farm for a job in town at the local whatever factory was very common. Post WW2 for the boomers was loaded with people flooding to all kinds of industrial boom cities. After that it was hollowing out of the rust belt and moving out of cities to suburbs due to the lead/crime epidemic. Then rich cities boomed back with millennials in a continuous feedback loop where the successful ones became more desirable as money brought attractions/activities/restaurants, draining the failing ones even more. Then 2020 was the brief mega disruption where people thought the internet might catch on and they found out the vast majority of white collar jobs can be done from home so the fanned out to all of the nice and cheap suburbs, mountain towns, etc. Now the Internet fad has worn off so that’s reversing a bit. Moving in the US has been very common until this brief lull where you could change jobs without relocating thanks to remote work. Unfortunately we’re going backwards so it wouldn’t surprise me if constant relocation resumes.

c4ptnjack 2y ago
The main factor that you fail to mention is living cost, and not the internet, which made it possible and desirable to frequently move in search of opportunity. It didn't mean there weren't people that lived long-term in communities. However, it did mean that you could find more lucrative opportunities in different places while also affording to move and live there. That began to slowly change in the 60's, beginning with the death of single occupancy residences and a lack of funding/investment in affordable housing for a significant portion of income brackets. The last 30ish years helped cement that for lots of reasons, but the ability to work remotely via the internet isn't particularly new nor causative for that change.
- kortilla 2y ago
  People moving in search of opportunity back then weren’t doing it because it was easier. It meant giving up your family and friends far more so than now because of the lack of internet. An out of state move meant a handful of letters a year was the level of contact you were in for and that was only for close family. Living cost was a big barrier back then (except maybe the homesteading) too. Any time someone is leaving a poor outlook to a more booming area it usually means cost of living is going up. > but the ability to work remotely via the internet isn't particularly new nor causative for that change It absolutely was the first time any non-trivial percentage of work was remote. More importantly, the spike meant 15% of the population became eligible to leave an expensive city that sucked during the lockdowns. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/dec/trends-work-from-home-us-insights-six-datasets https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/dec/trends-wo... There is most definitely affordable housing all over the US. People are just both picky and lacking opportunity in the cheaper places. Remote work was the fix for the latter part so downplaying that is missing the point. If you have a remote job and just want to live in NYC because of culture, then you have no leg to stand on when complaining about housing. It’s purely a luxury decision at that point. > That began to slowly change in the 60's, beginning with the death of single occupancy residences This is only true in a few select areas. Check out https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/renters-vs-homeowners-statistics https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/renters-vs-homeowne... Specifically the “average annual homeownership rates since 1964”. Right below it has a snapshot of rates by state and the difference tells you everything you need to know. Housing is only broken in the top desired areas and remote work gave you the opportunity to get a good job while leaving those.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > However, it did mean that you could find more lucrative opportunities in different places while also affording to move and live there. Same as now. The data clearly shows more job opportunity in rural areas (not all rural areas) and more affordable living to go along with it. But we haven't (yet) reached the dire situation where the people actually have to make the move like previous generations found themselves in. Most people won't leave family and friends behind unless they feel they are out of options.

energy123 2y ago

Housing crisis deters people from moving to where the jobs are, and it's a new phenomenon.

9rx 2y ago

> I thought moving was less common than now. International migration has increased over time, although still representing a very small segment of the population. Presumably that is mostly people fleeing terrible situations (e.g. war torn areas). When you are in a stable country, it doesn't matter so much where in the country you are.