Hacker News Reader

Comment by dismal2 | Hacker News Reader

Don't worry, it will happen naturally when the current tide recedes. I think a lot of older people underestimate how flexible young people, especially ones who graduated into the financial crisis, are.

View on HN

Interestingly, the opposite is true: young people are actually less willing to relocate for work than previous generations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-go-nowh...

That's really interesting; I wonder why that's the case. My girlfriend and I are split on this particular issue. I have no problem moving around to wherever the best job offers are (even if they're in a different country), whereas she wants to stay in the town she grew up in — or at least within a few hours drive of it.

The difference may come down to how we grew up; my father traveled quite a bit when we were younger, so I lived in France from ages 3-6. I thought those few years added to my life experience and gave me a unique cultural perspective. My girlfriend never moved growing up though, and she believes that moving hurts the friendships that young children develop. To be honest, I'm not sure who's right. I was always kind of introverted, so I didn't have particularly strong attachments, but she is very outgoing and extroverted and still keeps in touch with friends from elementary school.

> That's really interesting; I wonder why that's the case.

Kids are stuck near their parents because they can't get decent jobs.

If they're still living with their parents in their 20's, well, they can't relocate unless whatever job they have can absorb a huge increase in housing cost.

And, even if they did move out, they're so close to the economic edge that having Mom and Dad nearby when the car breaks down, the washing machine dies, etc. is huge.

Sure, unemployment rate may be different in different areas, but why move from one McJob to another McJob?

I suspect the root cause is related to women's rights (and that's mostly a good thing).

50 years ago, if your girlfriend said she didn't want to move but you got a job across the country you would probably both move across the country. In part that's because you would likely be the primary income for the two of you and partly because women's wants were not often considered as equally important as men's wants.

Would that have been true in every case two generations ago? Maybe not. And would it still be true in some cases today? Probably. But the odds have changed over time quite dramatically. My wife earns nearly the same salary that I do (and made waaay more back when I was a student). We can't move somewhere unless we both have job offers lined up.

Also, our culture now has a rather unhealthy (imho) obsession with trying to make life perfect for our children that previous generations were less inclined towards.

There are concrete reasons to choose a place to raise children, unrelated to obsessive parenting. I moved to a rural community. The kids could go out the door with a backpack and sandwiches on a summer day, wander all morning exploring, and still be at home. Harder to do in the city. Not so many frogs, salamanders, redwing blackbirds and creeks to explore there.

What I'm saying is that the ones who could move did, and if stuff gets bad again, they will move back to where their parents live to become part of the "Why Bother" generation (per that article, though I think it should be called the "Who Can Afford This Rent" generation). Just from personal observation, a lot of people I bump into along the major west coast cities are not originally from there.

Don't worry, the best and brightest from all around the world-- especially India and China-- will come to replace them.

Actually there have been articles on how the tech boom in India is directly correlated to the 2008 financial crisis and tightening of H1B visas.

The reverse brain drain might not be long term but if that trend continues I dont think the western world has to worry much about jobs being lost.

If they were so flexible, they would work from a condo overlooking the ocean in a tropical island. There is little need to congregate in an old city for this kind of work.

Because jobs aren't flexible. What I mean is that the people that could move somewhere more "fun" or "interesting" because they could get a relatively high paying job to cover the rent did, and there's no reason for them to stay if those jobs disappear. I could imagine a lot of "reverse gentrification" in insane rent markets like SF or NYC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com