Many may interpret this as victim blaming but I think it's a valid question: why have we as a country/culture become so much more resistant to moving? I know I've read more comprehensive literature on this before a but a quick google brought up these starting points:
I understand that we develop local support networks of friends and family and it's easy to understand why moving comes with the fear of having to start in a new place with no such network. But it seems that this fear has become limiting - that we are now refusing to relocate to places where greater opportunity exists because we can't stand the thought of leaving our current network behind. We're stuck, effectively. And it exacerbates the conditions in places like SF.
A network of friends and family for such things as childcare and temporary accomodation is worth dollars. If you can leave your son/daughter with their grandmother while at work or can find a couch at a friend's house while between jobs you can put up with lower local wages. To move elsewhere, the new job would have to pay enough for childcare and to allow to build a cushion of savings.
A sympathetic ear and a can of beers is also worth a lot. Often, on this board, we read of burnout and nervous breakdowns.
The decision not to move doesn't seem to come from fear, on the contrary, it's rational, elsewhere life isn't going to be better, and very possibly worse. At the low end of the wage spectrum there is no opportunity left anywhere in the nation.
All this is true, and very understandable. But the question remains, why is it NOW more common to stay put rather than relocate? What is it about the modern environment that makes people so much more reluctant to pick up and move? With all the benefits of modern communication and technology that makes maintaining social connections over distances and receiving financial support from anywhere so easy, you'd think it'd be easier to move than before when leaving really meant "leaving."
Families used to live together, so when you moved to a new city, grandma came with you. What's new is splitting a household into many households, such that "leaving" is actually possible.
I personally seriously don't get it. I mean, the article describes a guy who is out of job, fails to find a job anywhere around after multiple attempts, but it still adamant on remaining in a city where, for example, I - being fully employed and pretty handsomely paid professional - would not live because prices there are freaking insane. Why? I'm not even saying move to Arizona desert or something - but even moving to San Jose - which is not exactly the middle of nowhere either - would be cheaper. And moving further from the epicenter of crazy would make it even better. I mean, I get it if you have to commute to a job, or want to keep close to an active job market. But for that poor person, there's no job market to talk about in SF. Why he insisted on staying in SF and spending all his savings on his landlord, and after getting that wonderful deal and losing all his money - still wanting more of it? Please explain it to me, I can't understand it. I, personally, wouldn't want to live in SF, for a number of reasons, but I get it when some people do. There's a lot of nice things in the city (not like a short BART ride wouldn't get you there... but I digress) but if it just doesn't make sense for you to live there and you can't afford any of the nice things anyway and it brings you only suffering - why?
1- every place here requires first and last months rent as a security deposit at a minimum. Even I a "cheap" place that's a lot of cash when you don't have a job.
2- credit/background checks make it unlikely that he would ever be approved by a landlord.
True, upfront costs is a huge problem. Credits may be less so, I've rented with literally no credit at all - just came to the US - and I've seen landlords not checking credit at all. Not all of them but some. After all, credit score doesn't guarantee I won't lose my job tomorrow and stop paying. For upfront costs, it is a big hurdle. But staying in most expensive place in the area doesn't make it any better.
like where? You might as well ask why tech companies don't set up elsewhere and start their own little versions of Silicon Valley instead of spending $$$ to headquarter in SF.
Most people don't require the startup connections and capital of SV; they just want to survive and do their job, not start a speculative business venture.
Working as a firefighter/waiter/mechanic/nurse is roughly the same in the Bay as it is in (say) Oklahoma, but prices of living are proportionally much more favourable.
I actually do ask that. Pretty regularly. It was pretty shitty that I had to move to another country 2000 miles away just to find employment, when anywhere with internet is more than capable of employing me. And back home I had 250 down/50 up for $75/mo, so clearly that's not the blocker
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/11/declining_ame...
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/generati...
I understand that we develop local support networks of friends and family and it's easy to understand why moving comes with the fear of having to start in a new place with no such network. But it seems that this fear has become limiting - that we are now refusing to relocate to places where greater opportunity exists because we can't stand the thought of leaving our current network behind. We're stuck, effectively. And it exacerbates the conditions in places like SF.