The rush to move to the Sun Belt seems to be slowing: [Thanks L!]
WASHINGTON – Strapped by the nation’s economic crisis, fewer Americans are migrating to Sun Belt hot spots in Nevada, Arizona and Florida, instead staying put for now in traditional big cities.
Census data released Thursday highlight a U.S. population somewhat locked in place by the severe housing downturn and economic recession, even before the impact of rippling job layoffs after last September’s financial meltdown.
The population figures as of July 2008 show growth slowdowns in once-booming metropolitan areas such as Atlanta, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tampa, due mostly to a rapid clip of mortgage foreclosures as well as frozen lines of credit that made it harder for out-of-staters to move in.
As a result, rust-belt metro areas such as Buffalo, N.Y., Pittsburgh and Cleveland stanched some population losses, and Boston, Los Angeles and New York saw gains. Well-to-do exurbs around Washington D.C. saw growth slowdowns as people weary of costly commutes moved closer to federal jobs in the nation’s capital.
"It’s the bursting of a ‘migration bubble,’" said William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution think tank who analyzed the numbers. "Places that popped up in migration growth in the superheated housing markets earlier in the decade are now just as quickly losing their steam."
The next migrational move has got to be to where the jobs are- just as soon as someone figures out where that is.
UK House Bubble
Northern Virginia Housing Bubble Fallout
Bubble Meter
Mish's Global Economic Analysis
Ohio Fraudclosure
Breaking News Relevant Articles© Copyright 2012 Housing Doom | Copyright© 2011, AuthentiCraft, Inc.
when you push home ownership, you are essentially chaining more people to their home. if you’re jobless and renting, you can pick up and go. if you’re jobless and own, you’re stuck. one of my best friends is a recruiter and the biggest problem he and his clients have are the relocation issues. he’s found many jobs for unemployed individuals that fell through because the person simply can’t move. if they’re renting…no problem. in the past, sometimes, the hiring company would help with getting the home sold, or EVEN BUY it themselves and turn around and sell it. now, there’s nothing they can do. if you’re underwater, unless you walk away, you are stuck….job or no job.
Azsaluki – I’ve been wondering about that for a couple of years now. In my dad’s time, you had a job for life.. layoffs were rare, companies tended to be loyal to their employees. Now you’ll get laid off whenever your CEO wants the funds for a new car. In a way, you’re better off renting now.. you’re easily mobile. Combine that sentiment with an already large surplus of homes, and what happens?
i was actually shocked when i recently saw some stats (don’t recall where) that showed that 50 years ago families moved more often then today. i was sure that it was the other way around. the only thing i could figure was that 50 years ago ownership rates were slightly less. this allowed people to be more moblie i guess. i just always assumed (form what i’ve seen in my own life….grandparents, relatives, etc) that we moved around much more toady. that stats don’t support that though.
and yes igor….i am always “sorry” when i make assumptions…lol
AZ -
At that time the interstate highway system was being completed and there was quite a building boom. We moved to a bigger house in ’54 as the family went from 4 to 5, and that was pretty typical. Banks operated like the military, posting their managers every few years, and I think a lot of other industries did too. Universities and community colleges expanded explosively starting when the Baby Boom hit them about 1964.