People Aren’t Moving For Better Opportunities—But Maybe They Should

Many cities have terrible crime problems, most having rising home prices, and a few still have limited job opportunities. So why aren’t people moving to better locales? The United States has many metropolitan areas with below-average housing costs, and some of them also have below-average unemployment rates and low crime rates.

Some people are moving, but not as many as in the past. The United States has seen a long-term trend of fewer people moving within the country over the past seven decades.

Recently the South has grown significantly from internal migrations within the United States, but California—long the best example of growth through migration—lost population in the last two years. In earlier era people flocked to the Pacific Northwest for logging jobs, and before that into the Midwest.

Some communities lost their economic reason for existence, as when gold or silver mines played out and the community turned into a ghost town. More surprising, though, are the places where the economic viability dwindled—such as Oregon logging towns—but the people stayed on. Some of them found work in government agencies, others in recreation, and many retired or went jobless.

Consider places with below-average housing costs. The National Association of Realtors median home price report shows a national figure of $368,200. Someone wanting to knock a hundred grand off that could go to Abilene, Akron or Albany—and that’s just at the top of the alphabet.

Some of the areas with cheap housing are economically troubled, such as Yuma with 14% unemployment, Rockford with 8%, McAllen with almost 9%.

But there are inexpensive areas with low unemployment rates. Waterloo, Iowa homes sell for a median of $148,000, which sounds like a bargain. Unemployment is just 2.3% there. I’ve been to Waterloo and it seemed like a nice place with good people. Iowa does have chilly winters. For those who would prefer a bit of warmth, consider Decatur, Alabama, with median home price of $237,400 and an unemployment rate of just 2.0%. Those with skills in good demand could loosen the unemployment rate criteria and find good housing prices in a variety of warm locales, such as Ocala, Florida; Gulfport, Mississippi; Greensboro, North Carolina; or Amarillo, Texas.

With plenty of good options for low home prices, low unemployment rates and a variety of climates, why don’t people move more often? The obvious reason is that they don’t want to leave family and friends. They feel comfortable enough with their financial situation that they can prioritize non-monetary issues. This is good, and a sign of a healthy economy. Economists heartily support the non-financial part of life despite rumors to the contrary.

However, we should keep in mind the options available to people in difficult straits. In many cases, a move could be the solution. In those moribund logging communities, the remaining residents remember the days of good blue-collar pay checks. They forget, however, that grandpa moved there from someplace else, because at that time the place offered better economic conditions. Living poorly is, for some people, a choice between economic well-being and social well-being. However, people throughout history have moved to better their lives, have made new friends, and started families in new places. And most of that history was without cheap long distance telephone service, video calls, and inexpensive air transportation.

Businesses should ponder this when making location decisions. There are many locations in this country with higher unemployment rates, where people want jobs but don’t want to leave for greener pastures. It’s time, in this tight labor market, to move some of the jobs to where the people are.