Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThinkBeat | Hacker News Reader

Outside of the fact that moving itself, the physical process, Is incredeibly stressful for most peopled, uprooting kids from schools and friendships, leaving a community that you know and (love??) in some form, I am not willing to accept that "Americans not moving all the time" is a bad thing.

I think you can also mention that with both parts of a marriage need to have jobs to pay the bills, moving is not just one getting a good deal in a different city, then the other part has to find something as well and wants something better or at least not worse. so two good offers is needed.

I also wonder what the timescale is.

I would presume this started as a factor of the industrial revolution. when people had farms and worked farms, I think moving about was less common as well.

When the man was

View on HN

> with both parts of a marriage need to have jobs

I have a pet theory that this is a significant factor in why people are moving to cities: Families with two earners need a single shared location that has enough variety/density of jobs that both can work.

In contrast, a single breadwinner makes it easier to stay in a specialized company-town or to move.

It’s responsible got the deterioration of community in America overall. On the face of it a household has to spend twice as much time with adults at work so there is less time to socialize and connect. But it also means that mothers are less likely to have community and to have their children play together. Children aren’t as safe outside because homes are empty all day. Having a child cuts you off from many friends (ask any new parent) because the social net is not as strong. Even if you have friends with children, the mother is back at work after 6-12 months, so she can’t help you she is busy working to pay for her own child care.

It’s a common pattern in the US that we find a way to monetize normal human interaction. No hitchhiking, no free community gathering, no neighbors, no autonomy to children, no intergenrational housing.

It’s like we cannot fathom having a responsibility that doesn’t involve getting paid. This is good for the GDP though!

I think it's also a matter of skill and employer density, so to speak? There are some exceptions, but by and large - if you're in a typical metro area and want an IT job, you probably don't need to move. If you want a hospital job, you don't need to move. If you want a construction job, you don't need to move. You can, for some incremental gains, but it's usually not a necessity.

In the early to middle 20th century, you probably didn't have that. Most people lived in rural areas and you needed to move to get that job at Acme Steel Co.

> you probably don't need to move.

When I was a kid in the late 60s through the 70s, we moved every 2 or 3 years. And this was generally not because we needed to move. It was because my parents decided they wanted to move somewhere different. From Seattle to the gulf coast of TX when I was 1 because my dad wanted to live somewhere sunny & warm. From TX to the Oregon Coast when I was 12 because my parents missed the PNW. Of the several moves in between I can only think of maybe 3 that were for jobs - but even then, it was generally by choice more than necessity.

Poor people will always want to move to richer neighborhoods. The advantage to their kids from this is much higher than the stress and bad effects especially as early in kids life as possible.

So, a lot of people will be looking to move as soon as they can afford it.

I presume this average includes 20-something’s that are far more mobile on all fronts except for housing costs at a higher opportunity destination. If they are not moving to seek better opportunities, it does signify a bit of a deep rot in the system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com