Why Are Americans Staying Put?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Why Are Americans Staying Put?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/why-are-so-many-americans-staying-put.html?pagewanted=all
49 comments
I remember reading that exact article a couple of months ago. So the publishing date of December 10 seems strange to me.
Hrm, there have been so many articles about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/adam-davidson-mob...
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2011/11/17-mig...
http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/web-exclusive/why-are-america...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november_december_...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/adam-davidson-mob...
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2011/11/17-mig...
http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/web-exclusive/why-are-america...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november_december_...
My browser marks the washington monthly article as visited — maybe that's the one that op saw?
I was thinking the same thing. And I'm pretty sure it was also in the NYT.
"Economists admire Americans for many traits: our profound respect for property rights, our tendency to forgo vacation days"
What "economists" are they referring to?
What "economists" are they referring to?
s/admire/are bewildered by/g
The NYT never fails to deliver quality 'shudder' moments.
One factor not mentioned in the article is the two-body problem: In a society where most families have two incomes, moving is only possible after finding two jobs in the same area.
What's blocking the move? If I lifted you up and put you down in Austin, are you saying you'd be completely unable to find work? If one single person can move first and find a job second, why can't one married person do the same (on the assumption that the other one has already found a job)?
I don't know why you're being downvoted, these seem like reasonable questions to me.
If I lifted you up and put you down in Austin, are you saying you'd be completely unable to find work?
No, but I'd certainly prefer to find work before moving.
If one single person can move first and find a job second, why can't one married person do the same (on the assumption that the other one has already found a job)?
There are a lot of dual-income couples who would be severely stressed by losing one of their incomes.
If I lifted you up and put you down in Austin, are you saying you'd be completely unable to find work?
No, but I'd certainly prefer to find work before moving.
If one single person can move first and find a job second, why can't one married person do the same (on the assumption that the other one has already found a job)?
There are a lot of dual-income couples who would be severely stressed by losing one of their incomes.
The last point is key. A lot of two income couples upgrade their lifestyle, taking on a much riskier financial profile in order to consume more.
Relocating when only one person has a job would result in a large decrease in consumption - from a house/car/groceries to a smaller house, cheaper car and trader joe instead of whole foods.
Relocating when only one person has a job would result in a large decrease in consumption - from a house/car/groceries to a smaller house, cheaper car and trader joe instead of whole foods.
off-topic: Trader Joe's is cheaper than Whole Foods? I guess I am to poor to notice that! I can't afford to shop at either one and just go there for occasionally luxury items like wine or cheese.
I guess I am lucky to have an Aldi in the neighborhood
No alcohol, but it's the same ownership as Trader Joe's I think (and cheaper, also with lots of good cheese)
I live a three minute walk from Wegmans but I would rather drive to Aldi's; you don't escape Wegmans with three bags of groceries for $40-60.
No alcohol, but it's the same ownership as Trader Joe's I think (and cheaper, also with lots of good cheese)
I live a three minute walk from Wegmans but I would rather drive to Aldi's; you don't escape Wegmans with three bags of groceries for $40-60.
Well, there's "completely unable to find work" and there's "unable to find good enough work to make the move worthwhile" - especially if your salary (or lifelong dreams) depend on you using your unusual specialist skills.
Let's say I'm an expert in discovering new drugs, and my partner is a dancer for a professional ballet company.
For me to take a job that ended her professional career (or vice-versa) the payoff would have to be huge.
Let's say I'm an expert in discovering new drugs, and my partner is a dancer for a professional ballet company.
For me to take a job that ended her professional career (or vice-versa) the payoff would have to be huge.
Yes, if you both want to keep your meaningful work it generally ends up being the more scarce opportunity determining where you move. That's assuming there is a location where jobs X and Y both exist.
For example, my friend is a civil engineer. There's lots of civil engineering jobs in the US, but his wife works as a chemical engineer. Chemical engineering jobs are largely where either oil/gas deposits are, or large amounts of water (water for processing and/or waterways/railroad for shipping). So I imagine for them it will be where ever she needs to move he'll need to follow, versus the other way around, lest they end up in some place where she can't use the degree she spent 4 years getting.
For example, my friend is a civil engineer. There's lots of civil engineering jobs in the US, but his wife works as a chemical engineer. Chemical engineering jobs are largely where either oil/gas deposits are, or large amounts of water (water for processing and/or waterways/railroad for shipping). So I imagine for them it will be where ever she needs to move he'll need to follow, versus the other way around, lest they end up in some place where she can't use the degree she spent 4 years getting.
Some might suspect that the proliferation of two-earner couples is an explanation. Surely having a spouse who works can make it more difficult to pursue job opportunities in distant places. Yet the percentage of married households with two earners has hardly changed over the last thirty years. Instead, the relevant change is that today’s two-paycheck married households are about 46 percent less likely to move across state lines than were their counterparts in the 1980s.
From a previous article on the subject: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november_december_...
From a previous article on the subject: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november_december_...
the percentage of married households with two earners has hardly changed over the last thirty years
Interesting, but not necessarily enough to rule out a connection -- I would expect a spouse who works part-time in a low-wage would provide less friction than a spouse who works full-time in a professional capacity. Women (let's be honest, that's mostly who we're talking about here) may not have increased their penetration of the job market over the past few decades, but they have certainly moved upwards -- and into jobs which are harder to drop on short notice.
Interesting, but not necessarily enough to rule out a connection -- I would expect a spouse who works part-time in a low-wage would provide less friction than a spouse who works full-time in a professional capacity. Women (let's be honest, that's mostly who we're talking about here) may not have increased their penetration of the job market over the past few decades, but they have certainly moved upwards -- and into jobs which are harder to drop on short notice.
> the percentage of married households with two earners has hardly changed over the last thirty years.
I think the statement just barely covers what 2 incomes mean in the 80s verses now. It's far easier to move if one skilled and one unskilled partner find a new job. A scientist and a secretary for example. It's much more complicated when 2 partners have career and salary parity.
I think the statement just barely covers what 2 incomes mean in the 80s verses now. It's far easier to move if one skilled and one unskilled partner find a new job. A scientist and a secretary for example. It's much more complicated when 2 partners have career and salary parity.
Strangely, two people who each earn a high income may find it harder to move within the US, yet they may also find it easier to move outside the US, relative to two-income couples with a larger wage gap. This is because many countries offer work visas for "high skilled" or "in demand" jobs and require each person to qualify independently. So while a programmer and a cook may find it relatively easy to move between cities or states, the lower-earning partner would be denied the right to work in some other countries.
Whether that makes economic sense for those other countries I am not sure. It does make some political sense: the high-earning locals can find work anywhere, but low-earning ones are more likely going to stay in their own country, where they would prefer not to compete with foreigners.
Not every country works this way; the UK for example grants many spouses and partners the right to work (but read about their new "12 month cooling off period" before you apply!).
Whether that makes economic sense for those other countries I am not sure. It does make some political sense: the high-earning locals can find work anywhere, but low-earning ones are more likely going to stay in their own country, where they would prefer not to compete with foreigners.
Not every country works this way; the UK for example grants many spouses and partners the right to work (but read about their new "12 month cooling off period" before you apply!).
Another difference (in addition to the other responses) is that thirty years ago, DINKYs bought houses at prices that a single-income family could afford, then sold them on (or let them out) at prices only DINKYs could afford.
A middle-class two-income late-20s couple 30 years ago could still comfortably afford the mortgage or rent on a family home if the lower earner stopped working (as was almost always the case when a baby arrived).
A middle-class two-income late-20s couple 30 years ago could still comfortably afford the mortgage or rent on a family home if the lower earner stopped working (as was almost always the case when a baby arrived).
Because moving is fucking expensive, the housing market still sucks and there are very few good jobs worth moving for.
I thought this article's title sounded stupid at first, so I began reading, and this gem just popped out at me:
"Imagine how much worse off the country might be if the 49ers had decided against making the trek to California or the sharecroppers chose to stay in the South."
I'm assuming by '49ers' he means the gold rush of 1849, many of whom took a chance on coming out to the west to try and find gold. But sharecroppers?
Sharecroppers didn't "choose" to move away from the south. They were basically poor uneducated people without any other form of work available to them. A good portion of them were the direct descendents of slaves who used to work the same land in the same way. They lost their indentured servitude when they became obsoleted by the mechanization of farming. There were no other jobs in the area, but as luck would have it, a big push for more industrial workers was happening in the north and west.
That's not some kind of "admirable trait". They had no choice but to go find work elsewhere, and were lucky to find it. You don't have to be an economist to figure out that today, people aren't going to be spending lots of money they don't have to move around the country for jobs that don't exist.
We live in a global marketplace now, and almost all of our exports are things machines assemble for us. Unskilled labor is shrinking fast. Our economy is weak. Our government is hobbled. Our education sucks. Our healthcare gets exponentially more expensive. The only incentive I can think of to move is for educated people to move toward centers of white-collar business for the remaining and new jobs, and maybe gentrification away from expensive metropolises people can no longer afford.
So yeah, NYT, we're not going anywhere.
"Imagine how much worse off the country might be if the 49ers had decided against making the trek to California or the sharecroppers chose to stay in the South."
I'm assuming by '49ers' he means the gold rush of 1849, many of whom took a chance on coming out to the west to try and find gold. But sharecroppers?
Sharecroppers didn't "choose" to move away from the south. They were basically poor uneducated people without any other form of work available to them. A good portion of them were the direct descendents of slaves who used to work the same land in the same way. They lost their indentured servitude when they became obsoleted by the mechanization of farming. There were no other jobs in the area, but as luck would have it, a big push for more industrial workers was happening in the north and west.
That's not some kind of "admirable trait". They had no choice but to go find work elsewhere, and were lucky to find it. You don't have to be an economist to figure out that today, people aren't going to be spending lots of money they don't have to move around the country for jobs that don't exist.
We live in a global marketplace now, and almost all of our exports are things machines assemble for us. Unskilled labor is shrinking fast. Our economy is weak. Our government is hobbled. Our education sucks. Our healthcare gets exponentially more expensive. The only incentive I can think of to move is for educated people to move toward centers of white-collar business for the remaining and new jobs, and maybe gentrification away from expensive metropolises people can no longer afford.
So yeah, NYT, we're not going anywhere.
North Dakota has 2.7% unemployment. Nevada has 9.3%. On a per-county level the disparities become even bigger.
Jobs exist elsewhere, people have just stopped moving to them. The article isn't stupid, they clearly looked at the stats.
Jobs exist elsewhere, people have just stopped moving to them. The article isn't stupid, they clearly looked at the stats.
Why let stats get in the way of a feel-good rant?
Yes, different places have different unemployment rates. And different states have different industries, some of which were hit worse than others, and some of which are slowly recovering as there's renewed interest in certain exports.
But I have no idea how the unemployment stats of two states applies to available jobs and moving to them. The entire subject is based on finding specific available work in remote places and being able to afford the transition. I don't see how unemployment figures give any insight to such a correlation.
But I have no idea how the unemployment stats of two states applies to available jobs and moving to them. The entire subject is based on finding specific available work in remote places and being able to afford the transition. I don't see how unemployment figures give any insight to such a correlation.
In the case of North Dakota, the jobs are unskilled jobs in the oil industry. They are paying tons of money because no one is moving to ND.
Australia has similar issues and allows Americans to move there for mining and hospitality jobs.
The stats aren't perfect, but they are certainly indicative.
Australia has similar issues and allows Americans to move there for mining and hospitality jobs.
The stats aren't perfect, but they are certainly indicative.
You're right that the association between unemployment rates and available jobs can be problematic. A 55 year old unemployed office worker from Nevada will not be able to fix fracking equipment in the Bakken Shale.
But if the unemployment rate falls to extremely low levels as it has in North Dakota it means that job availability has trickled down from one specific booming industry to basically everything. So there will be a job opening for that 55 year old office worker.
Still, it's possible that rents there are sky high and it might not make economic sense to move just to take a job at a burger joint.
But if the unemployment rate falls to extremely low levels as it has in North Dakota it means that job availability has trickled down from one specific booming industry to basically everything. So there will be a job opening for that 55 year old office worker.
Still, it's possible that rents there are sky high and it might not make economic sense to move just to take a job at a burger joint.
in these places, even when the rent is sky-high, the burger joints pay a pretty penny, too.
however, they're typically enormously unfavorable to live in.
however, they're typically enormously unfavorable to live in.
Yes, but given that the number of job openings is about a third the size of the number of unemployed, the sanity of moving hoping to find a job when you get there is not high.
It's not even a choice for a lot of people.
Posters on HN, it seems are generally in IT, middle class, in demand and in many cases even get moving costs paid by a new employer. A large percentage of lower class workers literally can't afford to move themselves and a a few suitcases, and those a little higher on the scale can't afford to travel for interviews, or are unwilling to sell most of their possessions to reduce the cost of moving, as the replacement cost would take a long time to be outbalanced by a better job.
There is also the fear of not finding a new job, even in an area with a better market, if they can't (afford to) line up one in advance.
The NYT article is basically the capitalist class whining that the workers' stubborn attachement to their own meagre interests is interfering with corporations having a ready supply of cheap labor wherever they want to set up.
Posters on HN, it seems are generally in IT, middle class, in demand and in many cases even get moving costs paid by a new employer. A large percentage of lower class workers literally can't afford to move themselves and a a few suitcases, and those a little higher on the scale can't afford to travel for interviews, or are unwilling to sell most of their possessions to reduce the cost of moving, as the replacement cost would take a long time to be outbalanced by a better job.
There is also the fear of not finding a new job, even in an area with a better market, if they can't (afford to) line up one in advance.
The NYT article is basically the capitalist class whining that the workers' stubborn attachement to their own meagre interests is interfering with corporations having a ready supply of cheap labor wherever they want to set up.
Pedantic, but I think far more HN people are developers working in R&D rather than administrators working in IT. I wouldn't be surprised to see there are more people working in product marketing than IT too for that matter.
Why move when you can stay put and the government keeps extending benefits?
North Dakota has less than a quarter the population of Nevada. The real numbers of jobs available there aren't going to employ a significant percentage of Nevadans.
I love these "economists" waffling on about reasons why young people aren't spending money on X like their parents used to, that have nothing to do with oh I don't know "stagnant wages", "crippling student debt", or "30% unemployment".
"It's All About The Material Conditions, Stupid" -- Karl R.R. Marx, A Song of Capital and Ice
"It's All About The Material Conditions, Stupid" -- Karl R.R. Marx, A Song of Capital and Ice
>"It's All About The Material Conditions, Stupid" -- Karl R.R. Marx, A Song of Capital and Ice
That's brilliant. Can I steal it?
That's brilliant. Can I steal it?
To move volitionally usually implies the belief that something will get better because of it. That delusion has pretty much been erased.
It seems like a growing portion of 20 somethings are living with their parents. Could this be related?
The bit about heavy industry clumping together while service industries spread out seems a bit strange when you consider knowledge industries that the creative class works in. These also tend to clump together. As a computer programmer, the Bay Area holds far and away the best opportunities for me; the runners up (Boston, NYC, Austin, Seattle) barely compare. As a petroleum geologist, my sister has basically 3 options for cities to live in: Houston (ConocoPhillips, BP, Chevron), New Jersey (Exxon), and San Francisco (Chevron). If you want to make movies, you move to LA. If you want to work in finance or advertising, you move to NYC.
I think you are greatly exaggerating how clustered programming jobs are. There are excellent opportunities for programmers in almost any major metropolitan area.
> Why Are Americans Staying Put?
I was expecting an article on why Americans don't riot, given the circumstances and the trend.
I was expecting an article on why Americans don't riot, given the circumstances and the trend.
I thought it might be about getting the fuck out of the US while the getting is good, but then I saw the domain.. :p
So hard to organize a riot when Blue Bottle just got a new single origin!
Why would we riot? Encroachments on our perceived inalienable right to privacy and fair taxation are subtle things that do not affect our ability to eat or live.
Lately I have to think a lot about what context switching does to me. It is known that a lot of context switching is turning you in a kind of 'stoned' state. These days the world is bloated with stimuli and I think that's one of the reasons it's hard to keep a fresh mind.
Without a fresh mind it's hard to make choices. Choices to move for example.
Maybe people are also staying put because they just can't think clearly about the choices they have.
Without a fresh mind it's hard to make choices. Choices to move for example.
Maybe people are also staying put because they just can't think clearly about the choices they have.
"A worker moving to a new town 30 years ago took a huge leap of faith about her new home and workplace. By making information more accessible, the Internet has improved the quality of any given move. As a result, Americans’ moves are stickier these days"
The implications of this are even more encouraging than they seem. Assuming that this explanation is true- that the Internet makes any given move less uncertain/higher expected quality for me - then I'm now more likely to move for marginal gains. I don't need as big a payoff to compensate for the chance it doesnt work out, because there's a smaller chance it doesn't work out. So we could have not only the same economic gain with fewer total moves (due to less bouncing around with failed moves) but also more people moving who wouldn't have before, i.e. net gain at a lower rate of moves.
The implications of this are even more encouraging than they seem. Assuming that this explanation is true- that the Internet makes any given move less uncertain/higher expected quality for me - then I'm now more likely to move for marginal gains. I don't need as big a payoff to compensate for the chance it doesnt work out, because there's a smaller chance it doesn't work out. So we could have not only the same economic gain with fewer total moves (due to less bouncing around with failed moves) but also more people moving who wouldn't have before, i.e. net gain at a lower rate of moves.
It's interesting that Canadians are moving as much as ever. But then Alberta looms considerably larger for Canada than North Dakota does for the US.
Not just Alberta. Vancouver and Toronto are attracting a steady stream of people who want to work in tech startups or successful tech companies that were in startup more 10 years ago or so. There is also some movement to the Northwest Territories with diamond mining and other mineral exploration. Halifax and North Vancouver are attracting welders due to the 10 years of shipbuilding contracts for the federal government. And there is that small Cisco project in Ontario.
Canada has always had a certain wave of regional development followed by a slump while another region is peaking. And there is less difference between most cities in Canada. You don't have those big language differences that you get in the USA, not to mention cultural differences. Makes it easier to uproot and move.
Canada has always had a certain wave of regional development followed by a slump while another region is peaking. And there is less difference between most cities in Canada. You don't have those big language differences that you get in the USA, not to mention cultural differences. Makes it easier to uproot and move.
Another factor was health care. Without a job that provides healthcare for you, you have a hard time moving to another state. You couldn't take a leap of faith and move to a new state based on your savings alone. If you had a preexisiting condition, you couldn't get healthcare so you were less likely to move.
It seems to me that people are not moving because they have already moved to the most desirable places and are mostly content with their situation. Even with the recession, things are nowhere near as bad as they were pre-1940's.