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.
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.
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 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.
however, they're typically enormously unfavorable to live in.
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.