
Americans Are Moving at the Lowest Rate on Record - SREinSF
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/us/american-workers-moving-states-.html
======
drewmate
I'm kind of surprised the article didn't mention the role of dual-income
households. For generations, a single income was the norm and generally able
to provide a better quality of life (by standards like home size,
discretionary spending, etc...) than your parents' generation.

Over time, two incomes went from providing far more than a family needed to
being a practical necessity in many markets. I can't imagine buying the type
of home I'd like to live in on even my relatively high (by national standards)
Bay Area salary alone, and yet many families still choose to live here.

Once a family relies on two incomes just to pay the rent, it becomes harder to
pick up and move to a different part of the country unless both partners can
do it at the same time. Even intra-county moves are more difficult when two
partners are working full-time and don't want to deal with the stresses of
moving on top of their regular jobs.

Maybe the pendulum will swing back as a result of changing expectations (about
where to live, how much home to buy, what kind of job you need to have), or
maybe remote work will save us all and let us move out of the expensive areas
where our jobs are. But for now, I think the rise of the dual-income household
is among the biggest factors keeping us in place.

~~~
bko
> I'm kind of surprised the article didn't mention the role of dual-income
> households

The number of single/no earner households has actually increased since 1980.

If you look at Table H-12. Household by Number of Earners by Median and Mean
Income [0], you'll see in 1980 the percentage of households that have 2+
earners was ~44%, and now its ~40% and has steadily decreased over that time.

I made it into a google sheet:

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vm8d-XTuGu_ilbK0xn_r...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vm8d-XTuGu_ilbK0xn_rlyCN151cMmv9YKzp9dHK8s8/edit?usp=sharing)

[0] [https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-
series/demo/income-p...](https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-
series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html)

~~~
drewmate
This is an interesting point and worth looking in to more. Thanks for making
it a Google sheet (I don't have Excel.)

I'm no demographer, but my intuition is that the shift from 44% to 40% is not
likely due to an increase in single-income households that are also buying
homes. I think over the last 30 years that number would get squeezed a bit on
both ends:

* Boomers are retiring causing some dual-income households to become 0-income households. Indeed, the proportion of 0-income households has gone up about 4% over the same period.

* Millenials are marrying later, causing them to be reported as "single income households" far later in life than in previous generations. For instance, I'm still single at an age when my father owned a home and had 3 kids (on a single income). As mentioned previously, I'm in no position to buy a home right now.

While I constitute a "household" under the census designation, my original
comment was more referring to a traditional marriage or domestic partnership
that would be in the market to buy a home. If we could normalize the data to
such couples (say working-age partners in a relationship) I think we'd see the
trend of dual-income households that matches my anecdotal observations.

------
pontifier
Real estate is so overpriced now, and so difficult to purchase that it's no
wonder that people want to stay where they are once they find a place that
they can actually afford. It almost feels like the choices are stay or be
homeless.

I recently decided to move to a new state on the other side of the country,
purely because of the low cost of real estate there. It feels like the tipping
point was recently reached, and having zero opportunity to have the place I
wanted in Utah or California, pushed me to look elsewhere. Elsewhere being
Arkansas.

~~~
skohan
Everyone is talking about healthcare, but I think affordable housing needs to
be the next big public issue to tackle. It seems like this is acting as a
lever in wealth inequality, since less and less young people are even able to
imagine owning a home in their lifetime, and many in the position to buy treat
it as an investment instrument, and thus have the incentive to drive the price
up rapidly, putting it farther out of reach of everyone else.

I'm not against profit, but with something like housing which is a fundamental
need, it seems like some effort must be made to build a system which makes it
attainable for average people.

~~~
nemo44x
The country is made up mainly of affordable housing. It’s certain areas that
are so expensive because you’re competing with many high earning
professionals. In many cases a pair of them.

Not everyone can live in NYC or SF.

Saying that, people need to consider the low interest world we live in. When
their parents bought their home years ago, the interest rate was very likely
10% or higher. Today it’s 3.5% and even lower. This drives prices up. The
biggest issue is getting a down payment.

I believe a combination of lower standard down payments and new mortgage terms
of 40-50 years would make housing more attainable for a lot of people. I also
agree, more development is needed.

~~~
pharke
> not everyone can live in NYC or SF

Reads more like "naturally the poor should be displaced from wherever the rich
choose to live" considering that both cities have been heavily gentrified.
There's a lot more than just higher income couples putting pressure on the
market, there is a lot of distortion coming from developers seeking to squeeze
every penny of margin from the jump in prices

~~~
skohan
Exactly. Vienna, for example, has tons of public housing which is affordable
and is also a nice place to live. You can achieve that, even in a capital, if
you have the political will to make it a reality.

------
xfour
In California you have Prop 13 causing people to stay put. If you bought a
house anywhere close to the coast more than 6 years ago you’ve likely seen
50-100% in value increase. Therefore if you move you’d pay that same increase
proportionally in property tax.

In addition you have 6% Realtors fees to sell plus staging and being out of
the house for open houses etc. the math just doesn’t add up.

~~~
MuffinFlavored
> 6% realtors fee

I have a feeling that will get automated away in the next 5-10 years something
fierce. More than it already is being by Redfin, etc.

Realtors don’t deserve more than $25-40/hr in most cases, let alone 6% of my
home value.

~~~
JamesBarney
On avg they make $24.18/hr, so $25-40 would actually be a pay bump.

[https://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/real-estate-brokers-and-
sales-...](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/real-estate-brokers-and-sales-
agents.htm)

~~~
aquadrop
That's because most of those hours are inefficient A lot of time spent
coordinating meetings and walking with people showing the things they could
see/read themselves. In most cases you only really need realtor at the very
end, after you spend lots of hours seeing or showing homes, and now it's time
to make the deal. It's not 1980s anymore, you can use internet to search for
places yourself or to advertise your property yourself. If you remove those
inefficient hours, there should be 5x less realtors but they might earn more
and do better job.

~~~
pixl97
And those 5x less realtors will pay far higher taxes to pay for UBI.

------
combatentropy
Someone once said, "A one-way trip to Mars would actually be okay if it had
smoking-hot Wi-Fi." Do you think that the Internet has made people feel more
content, wherever they are?

~~~
Broken_Hippo
I think that is a mixed bag. I think it is really easy to feel objectively
worse about your surroundings because if you are poor, you more easily see how
much your are missing. You are continually surrounded by images of folks who
have enough space, who are lucky enough to own a place, whose place looks
clean when they clean (you can't always clean the cockroaches away nor paint
away the dingy walls).

But on the other hand, you are more likely to be able to keep in touch with
people. You are more likely to have some entertainment without leaving the
house. You are more likely to be able to fix the loose table leg with the
basic, cheap tools that you have or mend your clothes if you need really need
to. When I was poorer, I would eat cheaper food to be able to afford internet
just because it could distract me from my life. If you are lucky enough to
have some weed as well, it makes for a much more comfortable life, even if
imperfect. (Weed/hash makes me more OK with what I have and I can generally
afford it before I could afford a monthly, steady rise in general household
bills).

In other words: Only if you have a certain life satisfaction in the beginning.

I think the quote about mars is more indicative of the entertainment and
communication that the internet brings and its innate ability to help time
pass more quickly.

~~~
sysbin
I’m not sure about that. A lot of friends from poor families that couldn’t get
out are turning to suicide or the drugs that will lead them to it eventually.
This era is likely the worse one for the poor.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
I did mention weed/hash, and explained the effects it has on life. Alcoholism
is an option, but harder drugs generally are more expensive. A lot of poor
folks don't do drugs simply because they can't afford them.

IIRC, poor folks do drugs at the same rate as better off folks, though.
Sometimes you are more likely to get caught because of the situations you use
them in... plus the businessman has more to lose so tends to be more secluded
unless you are trusted.

As far as worse, I don't know, man. The depression was pretty bad. The 1800's
were pretty bad. The US is worse than Norway, just because of the lack of
safety net, and both of these places are better than anywhere facing near-
famine or actual active war. And so on. It is really hard to say, "worse".

~~~
throwaway0x69AF
> Alcoholism is an option, but harder drugs generally are more expensive.

Are you sure? In my experience, a tab of acid costs $5-10, and the effects
last about 5 hours. That's way cheaper than alcohol. [1] shows a breakdown of
cost per hour for a bunch of drugs I've never touched, and most of them look
to be pretty cheap under this metric. Compared to movies, sitting around in
coffee shops, etc., they're remarkably cheaper than a lot of legal forms of
entertainment.

[1] [https://www.addictionresource.net/blog/cost-of-illegal-
drugs...](https://www.addictionresource.net/blog/cost-of-illegal-drugs/)

~~~
Broken_Hippo
For occasional use, drugs give a lot of bang for the buck. I've met lots of
folks doing them recreationally from time to time, but 1) it isn't just low-
income folks and 2) Some personalities just pass completely, and lots of folks
'grow out' of some of them. I certainly have done more drugs, both illicit and
legal, when I've had spending money compared to when I didn't. And then, it
was generally a bottle of $5 wine. I can have a glass or two after work but
certainly not drop acid after work and expect to go to work in the morning.
You can quote that 5 hours, sure, but you probably need to have 8 hours free.
(I have _lots_ of experience with acid: I have completely lost track at how
many hits I've done over the years).

There is also difference between that sort of recreational use and addiction,
though. Even if you do acid as much as possible for it to really be effective,
you aren't doing it that much. Heroin? Sure. Alcohol? Definitely.

And it depends on, say, the type of alcohol you buy. When I lived in the
states, I worked at a pharmacy for years. We regularly sold a half gallon of
vodka (and whiskey, gin, etc) for $10 or less. now, I don't know about you,
but I could get me and a few friends pretty drunk from that one bottle. Heck,
we could get fairly drunk on less than that - a 750ml bottle would do pretty
well with 2-4 of us. Plus, alcohol is readily available. Not everyone knows
where to get illicit substances, nor is everyone willing to risk losing their
children over it. Acid carries a fairly tough penalty and your price is per
person. Per experience. Isn't always available, even to those that use lots,
unless you are in the right part of the world in a large enough city. There is
a liquor store in most towns.

------
PascLeRasc
I want to move, so badly. It's been my singular goal for over a year now and
I've cut back my spending nearly entirely except for rent+groceries to try to
save up enough to do so, and I've sold most of my belongings to save more and
make the eventual move easier. Moving is what I think about when I wake up and
before I go to sleep.

I have severe seasonal affective disorder and pretty bad driving anxiety. I've
seen mental health professionals for both of these and everyone's just said I
should move. I have cognitive techniques for both of these that help a little,
and been recommended medications to help, but really the solution is to move
and be car-free. On days where I don't have to drive and it's above 65F
outside, I genuinely feel like a totally different person.

The only place in the US where you can be a first-class citizen without a car
and feel the sun every day is San Francisco. It's a nice bonus that SF is a
fantastic place to be a hardware engineer too. I've been on a plan of sending
out 10-15 applications every week for about a year and have at least 1 phone
interview each week. I've been in the interview pipeline with around 60
companies over the past year, and so far received zero offers. Usually it's
"we're looking for someone already local".

If it ever happens, getting a job in SF and moving there will have been the
hardest thing I've ever done. My bank account is at $13k now, so once it hits
$20k I'm just going to risk it and move without a job.

~~~
rubidium
If you want sun and warmth you should do San Diego, not San Fran.

~~~
nwvg_7257
Agreed. I am also carless, but I wouldn't want to move to San Fran. as it's
much too expensive.

You should for sure consider other places in Cali. like San Diego, which has
perfectly good public transit, but I would also consider the DC area, Austin,
Chapel Hill (free and frequent bus service), etc.

~~~
PascLeRasc
Thanks. I've thought about San Diego a lot, but I heard from a friend that
it's incredibly car-centric there. Good to hear another perspective.

~~~
diehunde
Same in Austin. Don't go there if you are looking for a walkable place. I
can't even take my dog for a walk to a nice place.

~~~
bretthoerner
There are very walkable parts of Austin.

------
freddie_mercury
Moving isn't always a good thing. Maybe in the past it simply represented high
search costs. The only way an Okie could find out if California was the right
home for them was to pack up and actually move there. You get to Sacramento
and decide that's not right for you, so a year later you move to Fresno.

Nowadays you go online and can research local economies, local hiring, local
real estate, local churches, etc. You're more likely to move fewer times.

------
VLM
Consider mergers, aside from the very small number of people working in
coastal tech jobs, its not like an insurance guy working in Des Moines at an
insurance company HQ can consider moving to, perhaps, Milwaukee Wisconsin,
because due to endless mergers there is less competition meaning fewer jobs
meaning fewer jobs to move to.

On the opposite side, if you've got a contractor / gig job, other than the
weather during the commute, it doesn't really matter if you move to a new
city. You might have to move inside a city for demographic socioeconomic
change reasons. Outside very few fields temporarily, the job market is
efficient and being a car salesman in kentucky isn't any better than being a
car salesman in rhode island, other than very general stuff like weather and
quality of life and affordability is somewhat better away from the coasts and
similar things probably not worth moving for.

~~~
paulcole
>being a car salesman in kentucky isn't any better than being a car salesman
in rhode island

Have you worked as a car salesman in either of those places?

------
someguydave
The US is an aging nation. Old people don't move. For millennial, they have a
tough starting position and a long time to wait until the corporate
hierarchies above them clear out from the surplus of boomer management. It
makes sense that they must "wait their turn" for a longer time than in the
past.

~~~
rchaud
The boomer management you refer to were likely the elite of their time, as
they could afford to get an advanced degree when it wasn't common. These days
you need a Bachelor's for just about any entry-level office job.

There aren't enough jobs for all the degree-holders out there. That's why
higher education gets hit with the "scam" allegations. They're selling a
vision of higher lifetime incomes that was true 25 years ago.

------
trowawayfornow
Oh man, I'm going through a real mental tug-of-war with myself right now about
a potential move. In my late 30s, married, newborn. I have an incredible job
right now in almost every way. But we live in an area that neither of us love,
right at the time we are finally thinking about actually putting down roots
(I've moved a lot in the last 15 years).

I have an opportunity to move "back home" where my family and my lifelong
friends are. The job would be good enough, though certainly not as great as my
current one. Wife works remotely so it doesn't matter for her. That's a major
bonus as I make this consideration.

This is a tough one, moving for personal/family desires vs. a better work
environment. I'd actually be downgrading my work life. And we're not unhappy
where we live, just not thriving and it isn't long term for us.

------
nonford150
If you sell your house you have to move farther out from the city to afford
something nice.

------
dzhiurgis
Surely remote working has had at least some impact?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Probably not as much as needing to stay close to family for childcare.
Childcare is hella expensive.

~~~
leethargo
Or insufficient / unsatisfying. In Berlin, the day care is paid by the city
for all children older than 1 year. But I still plan to move away (to the
countryside) to be closer to family, regardless of financial benefits.

~~~
PunchTornado
that may work for some people. I prefer to not pay for other people's
childcare costs.

------
technick
As a remote worker, I would move to the cheapest area while still collecting
big city money. Sadly I'm sitting on a future gold mine that I won't sell
until it triples in value, which it's half way there in under 3 years of
ownership.

~~~
blaser-waffle
As a remote worker, I've done this. Mixed bag.

Rural Alberta is far cheaper than, say, Vancouver, but it also means I'm
married to the remote gig. Freelancing is an option, but that's very hard
remotely -- in-person networking is effective, as is word of mouth, and that's
hard to get a timezone away -- and it leaves me beholden to my current job.

