Why Don’t People Who Can’t Afford Housing Just Move Where It’s Cheaper?

I live in one of the more affordable areas of the United States (Arkansas) and a single parent working as a Phlebotomist is not going to make it here without help, either. Do not want to sound harsh, but before you start having kids you should get schooling to be able to earn enough to feed, house and clothe yourself. There are far too many people in this country who cannot take care of their own expenses having children they cannot afford. The order of adult life is not have a kid, go on assistance then look for a job. The order is get training, get a job, establish credit, save your money, get housing in your own name, get a stable relationship then have a kid. This is not exactly a state secret. One of the big problems of our social welfare system is that it encourages and enables people to be irresponsible. You see working couples having 1 or 2 kids after years of preparation getting taxes to death in part because people who cannot feed themselves decide it is their right to have a child or 5. The taxpayers then get to educate, house, feed, clothe, provide medical and dental care, etc. for these people. I am a Progressive- not a Republican- but I understand where the aggravation comes from. There are way too many people being irresponsible and adding mouths to feed on everyone else's dime. See it every day.

This is an old sad story. Good jobs and affordable housing hardly ever occur in the same neighborhood. I was a teacher in Los Angeles from 1980-1987, but housing prices were going up faster than I could save, so I moved 300 miles north to a small town in Central California, bought a cute house for $70,000 and got hired by a nice little school in a peaceful friendly neighborhood where I lived and worked until my retirement 30 years later. Housing is only affordable in relation to what the local job market pays, so really there is no affordable housing anywhere unless you have college degrees and are in health professions, education or have inherited a dairy farm. Marx was right. Happy 200th birthday, by-the-way, Karl.

And then the old questions: who provides services, teaches schools, picks up garbage, works the utilities and street repair, the restaurants? Are first responders going to drive in for 2 hours, work, then drive home 2 hours? What are these people getting paid? Do the best people want to spend their lives commuting for a barely living wage? Consider everything that goes into a functioning city. It is not just software companies and big banks.

When people say, why don't people "just move"? What they are really saying is "not my problem" and I could not care less. Walking a mile in another person's shoes is a lost art.

Transportation and jobs. it's all economic. Time is money.

I agree with the commenter who was surprised at all the judgmental remarks. It seems that the people who want the poor to move on have no respect for a feeling of community, not to mention family ties. No wonder this woman doesn't want to move on -- she'd give up her family network which is important to her and to many people. Maybe part of our societal problem has to do with people who have no ties. I moved to Arizona because I couldn't take the Seattle weather any longer and I had a great job awaiting me. Most people are not so fortunate. My husband and I found it took longer than we imagined to establish a new set of friends and fit into a new community even though we were middle class. I can't even imagine what it would have been like if we had been living near the poverty level.

Often, low income/poor people make choices that are the most sensible and rational for their circumstances. Having a place to live in her mother's home, extended family to help with child care (which, if you have to pay for it, is expensive and often of poor quality), plus social networks for emotional and career support are all major plusses. Yes, leaving an affordable apt. in San Francisco for a romance seems a poor choice. But when you have very little in life, relationships and love have more importance than when you have a lot going for you in other areas, such as a high-paying, prestigious career. She's also young - and sometimes when we're young and in love, we don't make the best decisions. Anyway, who hasn't made some "poor choices" along the way? It's just that when you're poor, the consequences are greater. And you're judged much more harshly. She's right that she's very lucky to have the safety net of family. I volunteer with a program for homeless women, and most do not have this safety net - either they have no close relatives or their families live far away. Many of us are only a paycheck or two away from homelessness as it is. Spending thousands of dollars to move far away from all your support networks to a new area is a huge risk - and it doesn't always work out. E.g., I know people who moved across the country for promising new jobs - only to be let go a few months later.

My wife came from a family that hadn't moved very far from New England since they fell off the boat at Plymouth Rock. She was the first to get up and get out. My side of the family have moved to where the jobs are since the Civil War. Now we are retired where we chose to be on our lake. We had lived or worked in over 30 states and 3 canadian provinces so we had a lot to chose from. Both sides of the remaining families and our friends for 40 years are living or working in 9 different states and 4 foreign countries. Those that moved are successful, those that stayed put are hanging on. As our own family has done for the past century and half, if you don't move to the job and insist on staying behind or letting your family ties hold you back, you will fall behind or at very best, stay even. In this day and age of communication and travel, you still keep in touch.

I cannot stand when people make the comment to just move somewhere cheaper... as if it's just that simple and easy. People have jobs, lives, family, friends and support networks that are vital to them. I live in Boston on one end of the city (mind you Boston is small) and work on the opposite side of the city. Every single morning it is 1 hour to cross the city. My sanity cannot afford more than 1 hour commute nor can most people's. Never mind if I had a child valuable time would be spent away from them. To abandon everyone and everything you know is not realistic nor desirable for most of us.

All of my grandparents were the children of immigrants. They and my parents all lived with their extended families until they got married. It was unthinkable at the time, even in a mostly blue-collar, Great Lakes rust-belt town, to go out on your own, although an uncle, the first in the family to get a degree, did so when he moved for work to Philadelphia. The economic disparity of today which started with the reversal (in the 80's) of FDR's New Deal trends is taking us back to those times, except runaway global corporatism is having an impact on many more people, including the formerly insulated white collar achievers with degrees. So get used to living with the extended family, folks; we're going to see a lot more of it before all of this implodes.

I'm surprised by all the judgement. To me, the story was illuminating as to the nontangible things that influence our housing/living choices. I enjoyed reading the story of someone who is clearly hardworking, a thoughtful mother, and also someone who knows to count her considerable blessings. We should all be so devoted and lucky.

I live in booming Boise, the fastest-growing city in America, and soon to be the next Northwest dump, behing Seattle and Portland, formerly great cities. There needs to be an end to this real estate price increase. In Seattle, hundreds (if not thousands) of micro apartments have sprouted up in nice neighborhoods. The apartments share kitchens, bathrooms, etc., and consist of one room, and they cost a lot. Yet they rent. It's too bad the rural areas don't provide more opportunities, because cities have become elitist and too expensive. My once-wonderful Northwest is being ruined by over-population ... and expensive housing/rental costs. I, for one, will not applaud the real estate industry or the market on this.

From limited observations, I would also assert that for many older people its about holding onto the perception that the Bay Area is what it used to be 20 or 50 years ago and that they still have a social network here, when, in fact, much of that social network has more adroitly moved on to less expensive pastures. They have social security fixed income, maybe a pension, maybe some 401k money, and they scramble to rent a tiny room in somebody else's house for the same money that they could rent a very large apartment or even a house elsewhere. And can't afford to go out of the house much at all and most of their friends have moved on or dispersed to rent a room themselves on the other side of the city. I imagine I would have loved living in the Bay Area of the 60s or even the 80s, but holding onto that past and struggling along in this high-cost tech mecca of today is, in my opinion, really suppressing the quality of life of seniors and lots of people on disability on fixed incomes that could be a lot happier elsewhere. They likely could find a lot more of what they are holding onto than still exists here. I selfishly didn't love it when my parents left their suburb of NYC for South Jersey long ago, but they were much better off and didn't look back because they didn't have that identity complex of needing to be near NYC.

There is NO shortage of affordable housing everywhere. Take Syracuse NY, a city whose economy I study https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Syracuse-NY/pmf,pf_pt/31680390_zpi... 233 Merriman Ave, Syracuse, NY 13204 5 beds 2 baths 2,558 sqft For Sale $4,000 233 Merriman Ave, Syracuse, NY is a multi family home that contains 2,558 sq ft and was built in 1925. It contains 5 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. This home last sold for $1,500 in May 2016. THAT IS $ 1,500 for a MULTIFAMILY , 2,558 sqft home Syracuse NY is an death spiral of ever increasing taxes, on an ever poorer population. But the Democratic Government of NYS couldn't care less. Tax History of above house Year Property taxes Change Tax assessment Change 2017 $2,541 +171% $26,000 -- Note that the property tax in a SINGLE year are 170 % of what the house last sold for Public money would be spent more effectively providing jobs in Syracuse NY

Yes. Why don't they make way for upwardly mobile, educationally and occupationally enhanced new arrivals who drive up prices, and just abandon the areas where they grew up, where their friends, relatives (living and dead), familiar and well-loved establishments remain? Why indeed? Move over. You. Out of my way. Reminds me of a conversation recently with an old guy who moved to my town a decade ago. An old mill town that had seen better days when I moved here 35 yrs ago. But, never mind, Glenn is offended by the less-well off people who remain, the low income widows and disabled seniors who've down-sized to the couple of subsidized, quite nice, complexes . He came here because it couldn't afford a swanky place in his old town, feels quite importantly up-scale in his little bungalow here. No chance his arrival drove up prices here. There are few jobs. Declining population. It's cheap.

Reading thru the comments, it's interesting (or perhaps a measure of how much humanity Americans have) to read what folks focus on. The issue here is about affordable housing, which affects all of us, just at various degrees. But most of the comments want to frame the manifestation of this issue as if it's the result of personal choice when it's not. I see most of the criticism here of Ms. Mack, just another passive expression of racism and misogyny. I have no kids, work a professional job, have two degrees, but am not paid enough but not enough to keep up with the rents in my city. I live well below my means, and have been lucky enough to find a relatively cheap apartment. But the downside is I have to deal with neighborhood that is hostile toward minorities. I keep to myself and would love to live in another part of the city that mirrors my values and education level but I can not afford the move. People tell me to find a higher paying job and at my age, I am not going to just jump to another job because it allows me to live in a luxury apartment building. The level of quality in a job environment is just as, if not more, important as quality of life.

So the answer to the question from Ms. Mack is "I don't want to". Yes, there are benefits to social networks, but her daughter is 7, and babysitting isn't hard to find after school. People everywhere need blood drawn, and perhaps she could add to her education if she had more freed up money. Sorry. No sale. She's "stuck" by choice, and I have no sympathy nor inclination to help.

People in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and New York, to mention just a few --- be careful what you wish for. If all these people moved to so called cheaper places (wherever they exist) who would be left to provide services that you depend on? Who would keep hospitals, restaurants, schools, grocery stores, transportation, etc. alive and functioning? The wealthy?

It's not just the poorest renters who are priced out in San Francisco, and increasingly in the entire surrounding Bay Area. It's everyone but the richest renters. Those with affordable rents face many landlords scheming to get them out so they can raise rents; those forced out cannot afford another apartment in the area at current, inflated, rents.

We shouldn't even have to be discussing a housing crisis. We know how to solve this problem because it has been solved it before: governments have to invest in affordable housing because private industry never will. After WWII we built projects, we built limited equity co-ops, we built planned communities like Parkchester, Stuyvesant Town, and Rochdale Village. Heck, even communist governments in Eastern Europe built millions of affordable apartment complexes. The only reason some of these places got bad reps is because government dis-invested in their maintenance.

I am a 60-something who has lived in Seattle since 1993. I own a little bungalow that is now worth a small fortune as a tear-down. I suppose that once I retire, I could move somewhere cheaper, but why should I have to? Just because some rich person covets my house and wants to kick me out? Seattle is a city, not a private college campus. There is a real appeal to staying here and owning the little "spite house" on my street, waving my cane and telling the yuppies to get off my lawn!

Being poor means being stuck.

People from Mexico (like my parents) move, they leave their home country for something better. Why do people here in the states whine and complain about moving?

I'd be curious to know how many of those departing from Ca. are aged and retired. As an aged Boomer waiting for my spouse to retire, we are scouting our landing spot outside of Ca. Our house is bought and paid for. With the sale we can afford a small place in many locals around our country with some $ left over. How many are like us, cashing in on our luck/investment and moving outside the hustle and bustle of the worlds 5th largest economy?!

My sister went over to reach in the area of Couer de Alene, Idaho about 42 years ago. Then, 10 years later, lots of very rich people from California starting moving in as they were tired of the crime, crowded conditions in California, and the cheaper cost of living in Idaho. They had sold places that gave them a very good return, so they started buying, and building in Idaho, thus driving up the costs of housing there, and contributing to much more traffic, and pollution, in an already over populated tourist destination. Then, after about 10 years, the novelty wore off, as those who were bored, or had run out of money, wanted jobs, that didn't pay that much, so some left, and then the housing market slumped. Then, the poorer Californians starting moving in. Now, 40 years later the Californians are still moving to northern Idaho, and many to southern Idaho in the Boise area as well. The problem is too many people, as women haven't stopped having children after only two, the last 60 years even though birth control has been widely available, and so we are running out of livable space, that isn't crowded, polluted, or overpopulated.

So what's the solution? The old saying is "buy land they aren't making any more of it". I'm not unsympathetic, but what practical answer is there that involves getting people who can afford to live there to make more space for people who can't. It's unfair, but pushing out the people that can't afford it is probably the least unfair of bad options----- unless you can squeeze out all the kids who can't actually afford to live there but are covered by their parents.

Move to where? I moved from the Bay Area to outside the Seattle area 17 years ago. At that point, I could work a 36 hr a week job and more than afford a two bedroom apartment. However, here it is, 2018, and that two bedroom apartment has tripled in price and I am currently in low income housing. How often do I have to move to be able to afford to live and what happens when there's no place left to move to?

Many towns with low housing prices have fewer higher-paying jobs, or even jobs that pay a living wage. Resort areas are some of the toughest places to live - many houses or condominiums are owned by second (or third, fourth, fifth) homeowners, who now also enhance their income by renting their homes through AirBnb and the like. Here in Lake Tahoe, the majority of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other workers have to commute daily over the mountain passes from Reno and Carson City, while rich (and usually non-local) entrepreneurs are building huge "houses" with 4-5 master suites and 6-car garages to use solely as vacation rentals in the middle of residential neighborhoods. In South Lake Tahoe, they are considering zoning regulations to limit such rentals to commercial areas where motels and hotels are allowed, and/or putting stricter limits on the amount of time and number of people allowed to stay in such rentals. In Truckee, they are tracking these types of rentals because the majority of owners fail to pay any taxes or fees for their vacation home rentals - the few locals that can still afford to live here are expected to cover all the costs for road repair, public safety, etc. My son will soon be leaving for college, and there is no way of telling if he will be able to afford to live in or even near Tahoe after he graduates, even with an engineering degree from a highly ranked university.

Interesting story. I know it is true here in NYC. Many times families, many of them first or second generation immigrants do better than even some single Americans whose generations go back farther. The former can survive with the family support, the latter more difficult. If they lose a job they are in big trouble.

Just over a year ago as a fourth generation Californian I left the Bay Area and headed to Texas. I have regretted the move since day one. I moved because of the economics of home ownership and the lure of a well paying job. Now I constantly look for both jobs and housing on the West Coast. Yes I own a house, but at what cost?

The author pretends to ask why the poor just don't start making rational choices but quickly points to the intangibles that nudge them to stay in the limbo they are currently in. Let me clarify something missing from this article: everyone has to make trade-offs. While she may want to remain in the most expensive area of the nation because she as siblings who can assist with child care as needed, this doesn't mean she deserves to have a certain standard of living. If all that she can afford is an efficiency apartment, so be it. It shouldn't matter whether the daughter likes it or not. We all make choices in life, even the poor make choices.

Why not move where it's cheaper? What about family and connections? Here in Seattle, we have stories in the local paper every week about people who are long-time residents who can no longer afford to live in the city, due to our insanely high property taxes and regressive sales tax system. You lose a lot by moving--your friend network, church community, history in the area--starting over is very difficult. I grew up in the Bay Area, but knew long ago I could never afford to move there.

This a big problem for professionals with a young family in the early to mid stages of their career. Leaving a place like NYC where you have established a strong social network to support you is not easy—so starting over in a less expensive location could be just as difficult or more. The goal has to be to create housing policies that can creat housing stock to ensure these families can stay in cities like New York City.

Her biggest mistake was to give up affordable housing to move in with a boyfriend. Who gives up affordable housing in San Francisco! My family made an ill-advised more to LA from the midwest in the early 1980's. We stayed 3 years so my husband's resume would not look like he was job-hopping, and then we moved back to the midwest where we could afford to buy a house. Yes, moving was expensive, but his schools paid most of the expense and what we saved on the price of a house was tens of thousands less than comparable housing in LA. My grandson is about to go off to college in the fall. He has been regaling me with the average starting salary of graduates with his expected major. I pointed out to him that most of them are working in the Bay Area and that rents are so high there that this big salary doesn't go very far - that he needs to think about cost of living when he looks for that first after-college job. It's why his own parents left NYC and moved to the midwest.

On the other end, senior incomes may require moving to an area with overall lower cost of living, but social networks are important to avoid isolation and contribute to the will to live.