Not a fairy tale at all. In the 19th century De Tocqueville commented on how eager Americans were to sell land in pursuit of profit relative to Europeans at the time.

It seems that in the post-war era we settled on this notion that families should largely remain rooted and stable, and that became part of the modern "American Dream". I wonder if all of that is just a long-term backlash against the forced migrations of the Great Depression, made possible by the economic golden age we were going through at the time.

For my part I'm putting off buying a house precisely because it'll decrease my mobility.

IIRC, it was later than post WWII - more like the 70ies.

Or maybe you're right and it's a longer term trend:

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/02/american-mobility-has...

Interesting. So maybe it's a Baby Boomer phenomenon? Wish the data went back further, doesn't look like the Census started monitoring this before 1948. With some Googling it looks like federal home-ownership assistance efforts (either through providing subsidized housing or tax relief) started as far back as the Great Depression. Maybe people just wanted houses and prior to such programs it was unattainable for most?

Looks like a good topic for a book for anyone who has the time. I'm sure it's a confluence of several factors. :)

I wonder how much the hectic pace of logging in the US contributed to that difference.

http://geo.msu.edu/extra/geogmich/rr-logging.html

Land purchased for the timber would be a prime candidate for disposal once it was cleared.

On the other hand, it's much more difficult to build lively, supportive, and necessary communities when everybody be moving all the time. Granted, obviously is the one source of income in a town dries up, you should probably move, but seeking out employment by hoping coast to coast does harm to our communities, especially when you aren't involved.

Unlike you, (and I don't mean this in a negative way, it's a complicated discussion) I actually did the opposite and committed myself to the city I currently reside in, less there are 0 economic opportunities to be had, and I volunteer and participate in my community and get to know people. It's easier to build strong communities when you at least know the other people in your condo building.

Yeah just depends on your goals/place in life. I imagine once kids come along I'll start growing more roots, but for now my focus is on my fiancée's and mine careers. And right now I'm at the best software development job that doesn't require a 1-hour commute. So while I could chase pay-grades for the next 30 years and make a decent run of things (plenty of my coworkers have), I kinda see that as a path to career mediocrity.

I agree that moving around makes developing strong ties tough. Once I get further along I'll reconsider taking my foot off the gas a little. My standard is essentially: "If I was trying to convince my kid to go into engineering, would I use my job as an example to aspire towards?" Right now, while I'm grateful for my job and the work certainly isn't bad, the answer is no.

There was a post on HN on US internal migration patterns a while ago. IIRC migration rates have decreased, but it's a fairly recent phenomenon (as in 1990s not 1950s).

My parents relocated cities 4 times before retirement to pursue job opportunities. Out of my 9 aunts and uncles, only one worked all their life in the same town where they grew up. I've lived in three different counties in my adult life. The loss of social ties was hard when we moved during my childhood; I can understand why families would prefer to stay put. But I think that long-term unemployment or underemployment would be even harder on people.

Evidently, many of these people have decided it isn't harder.

When I grew up in Germany there was this stereotype that Americans move around a lot for jobs. Industry leaders often put this up as an example for Germans who at that time didn't want to move that much.

So I think there is something to this. Moving around probably got much harder due to rising real estate prices.

Moving is harder because property taxes will suddenly reset to much higher values. Long-term owners are partly protected from tax increases.

We also have high transaction costs for homes. Considering both sides of the transaction, something like 10% of the home's value is eaten up by various fees.

So nobody can afford to move. BTW, this is a huge source of our traffic problems, the other being school districts.

It's not a fairy tale. California became a populous state due to the gold rush.

And, more recently (1930s-1940s) got a got a significant (around 5-10%) population boost due to Dust Bowl-driven econonic migration.

...and this is reflected in the state motto, "Eureka" -- I found it, the it being gold.

That doesn't explain the ghost towns around the mines.

It does. People migrated there when there was opportunity and migrated elsewhere when there were better opportunities elsewhere.

Any studies on how effective it would be for the government to subsidize moves?