18
Getting a new job may mean moving
Commentator Will Wilkinson
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Scott Jagow: We're only in the middle of the week, and already a stack of layoffs has piled up -- Caterpillar, Home Depot, Corning, Texas Instruments. Big companies shedding thousands of jobs. That's a lot of people looking for new work, and there aren't a lot of jobs to be had. Commentator Will Wilkinson says people need to be flexible about where they're willing to work.
Will Wilkinson: Recent psychological research confirms what you probably already know: unemployment is toxic to happiness. Some studies show that the depressing effects of job loss are even worse than divorce. The blow is not so much about money as a loss of purpose and community.
For many, losing a job means much more than losing a paycheck: it means demoralization and loneliness. Worse still, one recent study shows that a bout of unemployment can depress life satisfaction long after landing a new job. Unemployment can leave a painful scar.
Staying busy and socially active is crucial. But nothing compares to quickly getting back to work. Of course, that's easier said than done in this economy. And the best advice for many may be the hardest to swallow: pull up roots and move to where the jobs are.
If you're near a city with lots of opportunity, it can make sense to stay put and search locally for something new. But when the one big employer in your small town shuts down, it's easy to fall into the trap of waiting for something to come around the bend -- of hoping your congressman will wrangle stimulus money for your hometown's shovel-ready salvation. But the longer you wait for a job to come to you, the worse the sting of unemployment can get.
Demographers say Americans are more rooted, less mobile than ever -- despite conventional wisdom. But the economy will recover faster if workers are willing to seek out and seize distant opportunities. And despite the pain of relocation, many of the unemployed will recover lost happiness quicker if they recover a little of that lost spirit of American mobility. Jobward, ho!
Jagow: Will Wilkinson is a research fellow at the Cato Institute.
Pages
I agree about the stated "obvious", but there is another complication - employers from other states aren't that interested in job seekers from out-of-state. Unless you are a highly sought after commodity, which almost no one is in this market, they just want to see a local address on your resume. I don't see a remedy to this problem, without employers being willing to at least bend a little our way. I've had many interested employers from out of state, simply deny even a preliminary phone interview because I'm out-of-state - any comments? Thanks, love the show.
LOL, when did Marketplace become a comedy program, thanks for the chuckles this morning.
My job went to Brazil, and while some of my co-workers wanted to follow the work, that was not an option for them. Yes, we do need purpose and community, they are vitally important, and they can be found in numerous other places besides the workplace. Family ties, community ties, children in school, spouse's job, and an upside down mortgage are what's keeping me from moving, besides the work I do can be done from anywhere, hence, the move of my job to Brazil. Besides, imagine the carbon footprint of everyone picking up and moving their stuff all over the country.
Also, unemployment is not a huge blow for everyone, although I am very sorry to those for whom it is a huge blow. We have 6 months emergency savings and though it will drive my husband crazy to spend it, I am actually looking forward to the opportunity to reflect on my life and take stock of what I have to offer the world, and move forward while staying put.
I recently moved because the lease for my apartment was up and the landlord did not want to extend it. Luckily, I still have a job and did find a new place fairly quickly. But moving is definitely not cheap. We did a lot of moving ourselves and hired a company to transport the large pieces of furniture that don't fit in my car.
I'm not saying the moving company charged to much, but that is a big expense that someone who just lost a job most likely cannot afford. Especially in economical tough times like now companies are also less inclined to offer relocation assistance.
So the question might as well be, which are companies not more mobile or allow for a more distributed workforce? Sure, not all positions are suitable for that, but most desk jobs can be done in one place or the other.
Naturally, my first thought was similar to other posters. My lack of mobility is due to owning a house. However the suggestion to keep busy and socially active is spot on. I'm attempting to get some new training at my community college right now. I want to use this time of no work as constructively as possible.
Like so many of the posts before mine, I was angered by the over simplification of options to the unemployed, and the commentator’s obliviousness to unemployed people's housing dilemma. If "the one big employer in town" shuts down, it results in a slew of undervalued homes on the market-- sometimes in an effort to relocate, but often just because the mortgage is no longer affordable. Even selling at a loss and shouldering moving expenses, how does the family afford housing in their new, less economically depressed location? The story implied that we were a country of potatoes stuck on our couches unwilling to take charge of our own future. It's insult to injury.
Yet another smug commentary from your friends at the Cato Institute. Your listeners are ill-served by your continuing broadcasts of this irrelevant drivel. Will you soon be airing commentary from an aging hard-line Leninist, praising the joys and benefits of the collective? No? Why not? The near-collapse of the banking system shows that the deregulated, wildly free markets that the Cato Institute loves are just as impractical as the old Soviet-style central planning.
Please find some commentators with fresh ideas, or at least relevant observations, and consign these Cato troglodytes to the dust-bin of history.
Mr. Jagow please wake up, America is in a mortgage crisis and with the devaluation of homes not only is there a credit crisis but mortgage gridlock...a lot of people are stuck in there homes and can't move. The US economy thrives on mobility but we don't currently have it and the ONLY way I see it is for banks to drop ALL mortgages down to 3% so people can survive until prices come back up!!!!
Mr Wilkinson seems unaware of contemporary history. People have moved to the jobs as long as there were jobs to be had. Detroit had a lot of people from the South moving North when there were a lot of factory jobs there. People have been moving out of Michigan as long as there were jobs to move to. This has been going on for a long time. He apparently doesn't understand that many in places like Michigan it is nearly imposssible sell there houses at a high enough price to cover the mortgages or perhaps only at a fire sale price. Maybe he can afford such a loss but for many even a new job at greatly lower wages/salaries cannot justify the loss. Just walking away from an upside down mortgage, or any other kind, represents a major hit on one's credit rating. This has a major impact on finding another mortgage or even rental housing. It can make it practically impossible to find new housing of any kind. Employers sometimes won't hire someone who has just stiffed a bank or lender. Insurance costs go up because of credit rating too.
What wonderful ideas does Mr Wilkinson have to cover these problems? His opinion piece is pretty simple-minded.
Pages
