12 Jul Why Americans Are Moving Less and Why Workforce Mobility Now Depends on Housing

Americans are relocating less often, and housing is becoming one of the biggest barriers separating workers from better opportunities. The share of people who changed residences fell to 11.8% in 2024, down from 12.1% the previous year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s latest geographic mobility data. Only 2.1% moved to another state.

For employers, the message is important: A competitive salary and an attractive position may no longer be enough to persuade someone to move. High home prices, elevated mortgage rates, limited housing supply, dual-career households and an aging population have made relocation more expensive and complicated.

The positive side is that workers have not necessarily lost interest in career advancement. Research indicates that people still respond strongly to higher wages and better opportunities. The problem is that the financial and personal costs of reaching those opportunities have increased.

Housing is outweighing the pull of a better job

Economists William W. Olney and Owen Thompson examined migration between every U.S. commuting zone from 1991 through 2013 for their study, The Determinants of Declining Internal Migration. They found that people are more likely to move to places offering higher wages, but less likely to move when housing at the destination is more expensive.

A 10% increase in wages at the destination was associated with a 7.8% rise in migration to that area. But a 10% increase in destination home prices reduced migration by 2.6%.

The researchers concluded that housing-related forces were the primary driver of the long-term decline in domestic migration. Housing factors contributed to a 3.3-percentage-point decrease in mobility, while wage-related changes would have increased migration by 2.6 percentage points.

This creates a difficult equation for employers. A company may offer a meaningful raise, but the increase can quickly lose its appeal when the candidate compares rents, home prices, commuting costs and the expense of leaving an existing property.

Americans are not simply chasing affordability

One of the study’s more surprising findings is that households have become less willing to leave expensive areas for lower-cost locations.

Rising home values might be expected to encourage homeowners in California, New York and other costly markets to sell and move somewhere more affordable. Instead, older households, homeowners and people without college degrees have become less responsive to price differences between locations.

There are several possible reasons. A household may have substantial equity in its current property but still be unable to purchase a comparable home elsewhere without taking on a more expensive loan. Families may also be reluctant to leave established schools, relatives, healthcare providers and community networks.

For dual-income households, a move must often produce two successful career transitions rather than one. A strong opportunity for one partner may still leave the family financially worse off if the other partner must give up a job.

Mortgage “golden handcuffs” are reinforcing slowdown

The recent decline in movement has been intensified by the mortgage-rate lock-in effect.

Millions of homeowners financed or refinanced their properties when interest rates were unusually low. Selling now may require replacing that mortgage with a loan carrying a much higher rate. Even someone moving into a smaller home could face a larger monthly payment.

Federal Reserve researchers estimated that mortgage lock-in explained 44% of the decline in mobility among mortgage borrowers from 2021 to 2022. The effect reduced the supply of homes for sale as well as the number of homeowners pursuing moves.

These are sometimes called “golden handcuffs.” Homeowners benefit from favorable mortgages and rising equity, but those advantages can make changing homes, jobs or cities financially unattractive.

Northern California shows how deeply people are staying put

The pattern is especially visible in Northern California. A Redfin analysis found that the typical San Jose homeowner remained in the same home for 18.3 years in 2024, compared with a national median of 11.8 years. Homeowners in the San Francisco metropolitan area had a median tenure of approximately 17 years. This is why California Corporate Housing provides corporate housing, considering that many in the area don’t move as much.

More recent Redfin data based on 2025 records put San Jose homeowner tenure at 18.7 years, compared with 12 years nationally.

Northern California therefore presents two mobility stories at once. Some established homeowners remain because favorable mortgages, accumulated equity and California’s property-tax structure make staying financially appealing. Other residents, particularly renters and aspiring homeowners, may struggle to remain because housing costs are so high.

For employers recruiting into the Bay Area, this means they may encounter resistance from both directions. Candidates elsewhere may be reluctant to enter an expensive housing market, while established local employees may resist transfers because leaving their current homes would be costly.

Lower mobility can weaken economic dynamism

When workers cannot move to where their skills are most valuable, companies may struggle to fill positions and growing regions may face persistent labor shortages.

The consequences also affect individuals. A recent graduate may find an appropriate job in another city but be unable to afford the initial rent, deposit and moving costs. An experienced employee may reject a promotion because selling a home would mean surrendering an affordable mortgage. A family may decline a transfer because the spouse cannot find comparable work.

Over time, this can reduce productivity, delay hiring and make it harder for workers to improve their earnings. The United States historically benefited from people moving toward new industries and expanding regions. A less mobile workforce makes adapting to economic change more difficult.

Employers can make relocation possible again

Workers may be more hesitant to move, but that does not mean they are unreachable. It means the complete relocation proposition must be strong enough.

Employers can respond with more realistic cost-of-living assistance, home-sale support, flexible start dates, spousal career resources and temporary corporate housing. Housing support is particularly valuable because it allows an employee to start a new position without immediately committing to an unfamiliar neighborhood, expensive lease or major home purchase.

Companies should also evaluate the destination as carefully as the candidate. A role that remains difficult to fill may require remote flexibility, a satellite location or a larger relocation package rather than repeated recruiting.

Americans are moving less because the risks and costs of relocation have increased. Employers that recognize those barriers—and help employees manage them—can turn workforce immobility into a recruiting advantage.