Coastal Cities Priced Out Low-Wage Workers. Now College Graduates Are Leaving

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/15/upshot/migrations-college-super-cities.html

by tysone • 3 years ago

82 76 3 years ago

rektide• 3 years ago

The new labor crisis is fairly wild. All the really nice places to live are becoming so expensive that there is no local labor pool. Many of the wonderful mountain towns of Colorado for example are also suffering this fate.

mistrial92• 3 years ago

this is after abusing illegal immigrant labor relentlessly for 25 years, kicking the can down the road; truly reprobate

willcipriano• 3 years ago

I've noticed the fast food places around me are back to hiring teenagers. It has been mostly people from South America in the past decade or so.

prpl• 3 years ago

Recently visited friends near Park City, UT - whose house has seen a double of real estate value and it looks to be headed towards a Jackson Hole situation where people live in trailers or down in Provo, which has had many avalanches this year on the highway. I’ve also seen the same in towns like you’ve mentioned in Colorado - one example I know being Silverton, which I think has doubled or more than doubled since 2019 (also famously the site of the mining tailings pond release)

Lots of people are quick to blame Californians but it actually seems a small percentage overall, but it’s a convenient bogeyman.

j_heffe2• 3 years ago

It's insane that our mountain towns are essentially playgrounds for the rich while European mountain towns still have a fair amount of housing supply.

rjsw• 3 years ago

How many European mountain towns have you visited? All the ones that I know have a shortage of housing for service workers.

jimbob452• 3 years ago

All the really nice places to live are becoming so expensive

Doesn't need to be this way either. We've come up with a number of ways to lower real estate prices on this very board that simply aren't being implemented by local communities. I have to believe that 2024 is going to be a massive turning point for a lot of US cities.

nikanj2• 3 years ago

The people who already own in the community vote against lowering real estate prices. The prospective future residents don't get a vote, so they lose every time.

hotpotamus• 3 years ago

I believe the idea is to automate all that labor away so that rich people won't even have to think about breathing the same air as regulars, let alone ever see them.

cs7022• 3 years ago

The "obvious" solution, raising wages, would add fuel to the engines of inflation.

No one who understands what out-of-control inflation is like wants that.

Central banks, in particular, don't want that.

CogitoCogito• 3 years ago

I'd personally consider overriding local single family zoning and allowing denser building the "obvious" solution. Seems like California is slowly moving in that direction.

cs7022• 3 years ago

Good point. You're right. NIMBYism stands in the way, but I agree it's the more "obvious" solution.

vorpalhex3• 3 years ago

This gets repeated often but it's not as if housing is the only expensive part of living in a big city, and increasing density will only make those other factors MORE expensive, not less, even though it reduces (slightly, temporarily) the price of housing.

California with 10% more houses is not 10% cheaper. It is slightly more expensive.

mistrial92• 3 years ago

these clear solution gets downvotes here -- some people say that local government is more difficult than large government precisely because of indignant individuals plus local power bases. A well-thought out density solution has been seriously investigated for decades, in difference tech contexts for hundreds of years. The American solution of suburbs with cars was founded on inexpensive private automobiles. The world is full of toxins to pay for it, but roughly zero people who benefit from it are ready to change, especially if they can claim someone else is giving orders.

kevinventullo• 3 years ago

By that logic, do you think we should be lowering the minimum wage to help reduce inflation? Or has the minimum wage miraculously remained at the exact right level without adjustment for the last 15 years despite its volatility in real terms?

schnable• 3 years ago

In most places in the US, it's too low to make a difference.

prottog2• 3 years ago

The minimum wage should be lowered or dispensed with due to its deleterious effects on those most marginalized on the fringes of the modern economy, not due to any effect on inflation.

annexrichmond• 3 years ago

1.5% of US workers make minimum wage, who probably have much less to spend. So I don’t think it’s the same token of logic at all

0x445442• 3 years ago

This is fantastic.

Young folks get to take advantage of wage arbitrage. Midwestern towns gutted by 40 years of foreign slave wages get an influx of new blood and a revitalized service sector. Two, seemingly warring, demographics get to cross pollinate and empathize with each other while collectively giving the middle finger to an unholy Government/Big Corp alliance trying to corral everyone in a few big geographical regions.

Plea to young knowledge workers... Don't give in on remote work, take advantage of it.

toomuchtodo2• 3 years ago

Midwestern towns gutted by 40 years of foreign slave wages get an influx of new blood and a revitalized service sector.

I think that is what is most galling about the fight against remote work. It is the way for knowledge workers to have quality of life (versus heading to a coast to save up before you have to leave because the COL is unsustainable into parenthood or retirement) while also providing a sustainable economic base for smaller towns that would otherwise be hallowed out. You don't want to cater to companies (who can play jurisdictions against each other for tax breaks and if they leave, can cause outsized impact to the tax base and local economy), you want to cater to remote workers [1] [2] (who will settle down and anchor themselves to your community, hopefully).

[1] https://www.bobvila.com/slideshow/13-u-s-cities-incentivizin...

[2] https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job#relocatio...

thatfrenchguy3• 3 years ago

It is the way for knowledge workers to have quality of life (versus heading to a coast to save up before you have to leave because the COL is unsustainable into parenthood or retirement)

Meh, what you gain in square footage of your house moving in the Midwest, which is what I think you meant by "quality of life", you loose in career opportunities , weather / outdoor activities, quality of food, and cultural enrichment for your children.

(who will settle down and anchor themselves to your community, hopefully).

Folks with 4-5x the median income coming into a county is more likely to create resentment than anything too, if they end up staying.

inglor_cz2• 3 years ago

"two, seemingly warring, demographics get to cross pollinate and empathize with each other"

Or fight to the death, like the European far left and far right in 1930s Berlin, Madrid etc. Proximity sometimes breeds understanding, sometimes explosion.

woodruffw3• 3 years ago

The article is about the 40-to-64 demographic, not young folks.

(This isn't your fault for misunderstanding that -- the article's phrasing goes to lengths to imply otherwise.)

f1yght• 3 years ago

This assumes that small towns that have shrinking and aging populations are more desirable to live in than cities for the sole purpose that housing is cheaper. Cities have large advantages like proximity to other jobs should it be lost, services, better schools, better restaurants, more people your age you can hang out with.

local_crmdgeon• 3 years ago

I know a powerful, politically connected woman who moved from the DMV to Aimes Iowa. She absolutely loves it, and is shocked by how much more walkable, affordable, and cultured the town is than where she came from.

This is maybe the ... 15th? person I know who's said something like this. I think people literally don't know how nice a lot of America is.

tivert3• 3 years ago

Young folks get to take advantage of wage arbitrage. Midwestern towns gutted by 40 years of foreign slave wages get an influx of new blood and a revitalized service sector. Two, seemingly warring, demographics get to cross pollinate and empathize with each other while collectively giving the middle finger to an unholy Government/Big Corp alliance trying to corral everyone in a few big geographical regions.

That sounds like a fantasy that's misrepresenting the effects that are already happening. You don't get the cross-pollination, you get more and different resentment, because the "new blood" may "revitalize" the physical area, but they don't revitalize the original residents. Those people get driven out through gentrification, and you end up with a little colony full of coastal colonizers.

lapcat2• 3 years ago

Buried the lede:

The overall migration rate in America today is historically low, and mobility has fallen since the 1980s for all kinds of demographic groups.

j_heffe2• 3 years ago

It makes sense. Low-wage workers simply can't afford to move to a lower cost of living city, even if there were better job opportunities and cost of living.

rightbyte• 3 years ago

How does this work? When I was a student and later when I got a job afterwards, moving was way easier. And I had hardly any money.

Or am I thinking wrong here. The hurdle is not the physical move, but like losing close access to friends and family?

monero-xmr• 3 years ago

Once again the market sorts things out itself. And in the areas losing young talent, it will also sort itself out. Nothing needs to be done, just observe what is happening and wait.

inglor_cz2• 3 years ago

True. The question is what sort of disruptions will emerge when the political class resides far away from economic power.

I am now in Italy. Rome is the capital, but the center of Italian economic activity is Milan. Northern Italian businesspeople and politicians hate or at least despise "thieving Rome" and there was/is a significant secessionist movement.

As of now, within the structures of the EU, an actual split of Italy is logistically impossible, but the country seems to owe some part of its dysfunctionality to the physical distance between seats of power and wealth.

rcarr2• 3 years ago

This goes both ways though. In the UK, everyone outside of London and the Home Counties despises London because it gets far more spent on it than elsewhere in the country. Take transport for instance:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spendi...

davidw2• 3 years ago

But 'the market' for housing is completely broken. The completely unattainable housing in wealthy productive places is a policy choice, not some law of nature.

I mean, yeah, they're not going to be the cheapest places ever, but there could be a lot more housing if we allowed it to be built.

ilamont• 3 years ago

Just like in Vancouver.

1980 vs. Now

https://twitter.com/pmcondon2/status/1653438594823094278

adra• 3 years ago

Yep... Canada never got it's teeth kicked in by the 2008 crisis, but we had similar price appreciation so there was never a lul to get the younger generations into the market without significant up front costs. It's also slammed the breaks on most families upsizing their homes. They live with what they got.

I'm looking at homes today and to enter the market for a house is 1.4 million. Our family has a good income so that's actually achievable. The vast majority will never earn enough.

When real estate is perceived as a better investment than equities, society is doomed.

Tiktaalik• 3 years ago

How expensive would Vancouver be if it didn't create new housing?

Condon is a nimby plain and simple, obfuscating with all sorts of horse shit his clear desire keep everyone out and keep his leafy west side home the way it always has been.

chimeracoder3• 3 years ago

Once again the market sorts things out itself.

It's always funny to see "the free market works itself out" used in contexts where markets are anything but free, due to intense regulation, high barriers to entry, and inelastic demand.

After national defense and healthcare, it's hard to think of a market that is less free - by economists' definition of "free" - than housing.

woodruffw3• 3 years ago

Perhaps not intentional on the NYT's part, but I found the phrasing of "college graduates" deeply misleading: to me it implies a departure of younger demographics from cities, when the article is actually about college educated white-collar workers in the 40-to-64 demographic. In other words, the established family households to "empty nester" demographic.

In fact, the only mention of younger college graduates is in a wiggle phrase with no attached statistic:

Younger educated workers were at first a bulwark against that trend, but have increasingly migrated away from these regions, too.

(The same can be said for the article's statistics -- it's misleading, at best, to limit the analysis to 2020 and 2021.)

ghaff3• 3 years ago

Of course, young families with kids migrating out of cities (but often not the broader metro area) is a trend that's been happening pretty much forever. Of my cohort of grad school classmates who moved to NYC upon graduation, I'm guessing only a couple were still actually in the city a decade later.

As you say, the increase in some urban populations relative to a couple decades ago was mostly driven by new college grads, many of whom previously did not live in the city after undergrad, in part, because many of the jobs that weren't in finance were out in the suburbs/exurbs.

woodruffw3• 3 years ago

Of course, young families with kids migrating out of cities (but often not the broader metro area) is a trend that's been happening pretty much forever. Of my cohort of grad school classmates who moved to NYC upon graduation, I'm guessing only a couple were still actually in the city a decade later.

Right -- I didn't highlight it specifically, but that's another part of the article I found misleading: NYC has historically had large outflows because, every summer, hundreds of thousands of undergraduates and graduates complete their studies and leave. And similarly with young families: those who stay for over a decade are likely to remain, but many come to the city while they're young, stay to date and work, and decamp for the suburbs once they've had their fill.

Both of these demographics and their historical trends are conflated with the post-COVID numbers (again, ending at 2020/1) for unstated reasons.

chimeracoder3• 3 years ago

Of course, young families with kids migrating out of cities (but often not the broader metro area) is a trend that's been happening pretty much forever. > As you say, the increase in some urban populations relative to a couple decades ago was mostly driven by new college grads, many of whom previously did not live in the city after undergrad, in part, because many of the jobs that weren't in finance were out in the suburbs/exurbs.

That trend hasn't been happening "forever". It's only a few decades old, and it's a direct function of the broad changes in housing and social policies that were made between the 1960s-1980s.

angarg12• 3 years ago

https://archive.vn/1Dvk3

davidw2• 3 years ago

There are a lot of policy issues where it feels like it's difficult to get anything done. Housing is one where ordinary people can make a real difference - and are. So much of this is at a local or state level where a small, dedicated group can really change the conversation.

It's also an issue where the "ideological sorting hat" hasn't lumped it into a partisan category, yet. Montana just passed a bipartisan housing deal that's really good: https://www.sightline.org/2023/05/09/montanas-big-bipartisan...

Groups like https://yimbyaction.org/2021/ and https://welcomingneighbors.us/ are a great way to get involved.

JustSomeNobody• 3 years ago

The overall migration rate in America today is historically low, and mobility has fallen since the 1980s for all kinds of demographic groups.

Nearly every single economic disadvantage the "not rich" endures always goes back to Reagan.

Coastal Cities Priced Out Low-Wage Workers. Now College Graduates Are Leaving

Related Stories