Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Proximity to employment can influence a range of economic and social outcomes, from local fiscal health to the employment prospects of residents, particularly low-income and minority workers. An analysis of private-sector employment and demographic data at the census tract level reveals that:
Between 2000 and 2012, the number of jobs within the typical commute distance for residents in a major metro area fell by 7 percent.
As employment suburbanized, the number of jobs near both the typical city and suburban resident fell.
As poor and minority residents shifted toward suburbs in the 2000s, their proximity to jobs fell more than for non-poor and white residents.
Residents of high-poverty and majority-minority neighborhoods experienced particularly pronounced declines in job proximity.
First, doesn't this belong on the Work and Employment forum? Many reasons for it.
1. The economic collapse destroyed millions of jobs. We have just about recovered the number, but (as the media notes) the quality of the new jobs doesn't always measure up, ergo workers can't afford to live close.
2. The fading of the corporate campus, located far from center city, but at least within decent driving range of exurban homes built during the boom. And since the market for them is so poor residents can't easily sell.
First, doesn't this belong on the Work and Employment forum? Many reasons for it.
1. The economic collapse destroyed millions of jobs. We have just about recovered the number, but (as the media notes) the quality of the new jobs doesn't always measure up, ergo workers can't afford to live close.
2. The fading of the corporate campus, located far from center city, but at least within decent driving range of exurban homes built during the boom. And since the market for them is so poor residents can't easily sell.
Economics and urban planning are, in this case, deeply intertwined. This is as much a statement of lack of good jobs (work and econ forums) as it is a statement of affordable housing (urban planning) near to jobs.
Industry will always move to area which has the work force they want. Many like it has they can cut taxes and other cost such as land cost. Others in retail will always move with consumers.
First, doesn't this belong on the Work and Employment forum? Many reasons for it.
1. The economic collapse destroyed millions of jobs. We have just about recovered the number, but (as the media notes) the quality of the new jobs doesn't always measure up, ergo workers can't afford to live close.
2. The fading of the corporate campus, located far from center city, but at least within decent driving range of exurban homes built during the boom. And since the market for them is so poor residents can't easily sell.
The corporate campus trend is very strong. Look at Exxon's massive project in Houston.
The economic collapse also caused people to take jobs farther from their homes, just to have a job. Even if a move is company-paid, and many aren't, it still costs money to move house and home, only to possibly lose the new job after a short time.
The economic collapse also caused people to take jobs farther from their homes, just to have a job. Even if a move is company-paid, and many aren't, it still costs money to move house and home, only to possibly lose the new job after a short time.
That was definitely one of the lessons of the collapse, that illiquid real estate markets can slow down a recovery by restraining individual's ability to adequately adapt to the employment market. Basically, a lot of people were tied by mortgage to houses they couldn't (or wouldn't sell that cheaply) sell, limiting their ability to move for better employment opportunities.
That was definitely one of the lessons of the collapse, that illiquid real estate markets can slow down a recovery by restraining individual's ability to adequately adapt to the employment market. Basically, a lot of people were tied by mortgage to houses they couldn't (or wouldn't sell that cheaply) sell, limiting their ability to move for better employment opportunities.
There is that, but that's not what I was thinking about. I know people in their 50s who just don't want to move one more time, especially when the new job might not last that long. I do know someone who moved, only to have that happen in short order.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
