I attended an alumni family outing for Yale graduates the other day. As is generally the case with these types of gatherings, it is a time to catch up on the new jobs and/or career moves of fellow alumni. For several of those job changers, new jobs or careers meant relocating to a different area in the Tri-State area (NY/NJ/CT). It surprised me to learn that none of the job changers – all of whom had young children – intended to buy a house in the new area, rather they intended to rent. Since the jobs that they had been lured to were all high-end, well-paying jobs within professions that appeared to offer relative job security, I wondered why these young parents (with two-income households) possessing first-hand experience with the value of good schools would not want to BUY homes in the new area; i.e., to settle down in good communities with good school systems. My reasoning was that they would want to give their children firm roots in solid communities. I expressed this view and -- to a person-- the job changers told me that at most one should expect to remain at the same job for a period of 3-5 years and given the volatile housing market, that it would be foolish to invest in a home for this short period. In other words, one might have to sell in a weak housing market and that weighed heavier as a decision-making factor than the fact that one can find some real bargains on homes in upscale neighborhoods at the present time. Will this phenomenon of “portable” families have a negative impact on the children that are raised in this environment of “Have Talent, Will Travel”? Isn’t there something inherently wrong with letting economics be the overriding consideration in what values one will impart to one’s children and whether these children will have a sense of stability while growing up?
Hi Gwendolyn. This is not my area of expertise, but it is something I think about a lot and am relatively passionate about. I study the opposite of what you are explaining, I study sense of place and how place attachment can benefit both individuals, communities, and the place itself. From what I've seen on the opposite end I would agree with what I think you believe, and say that yes very high mobility is not a good thing for the individual, the community, or the place itself. Place attachment has been shown to correlate to many positive social factors, including civic engagement, environmentalism, and others. I can only assume then that the opposite, mobility or portable families, would correlate then to lower civic engagement, etc.
There are certainly potentially good things that I'm sure many people will raise. For instance the economic stimulus or the high range of experiences that are afforded by the mobility. But overall I think there are huge tradeoffs made when living this lifestyle...tradeoffs that even the people who live them are maybe vaguely aware of but don't want to admit to themselves. But ultimately it is a value-laden decision, and who is one person to tell another that there way of life is better or worse than another way of life?
I feel lucky to be very rooted in my place, culturally, physically, and socially. I've often had discussions with many of my more mobile colleagues and friends about their lives and how they like it. I say that it is impossible to develop deep friendships or attachment to people and places when being so mobile. But they say that they have many more friendships and have known more places, even if superficially. So we both end up thinking that our way of life, mine place-based and relatively sedentary and theirs mobile, is the better one. And who is to say who is right.
There is a lot of literature out there on the subject if you want to explore it more. The topic you mention is generally discussed under "mobility," and the opposite generally discussed under "sense of place" or "place attachment." I think understanding both sides of the issue might help to shed some light on the subject.
Noa, thank you so much for your thoughtful and in-depth answer. As soon as I read the second sentence of your response, I literally tapped my forehead and said “Duh”. That is when I realized that something I had studied a long time ago (when I was a student at the Yale Divinity School) is relevant to this polemic; namely, the “battle of the bowling alleys” back in the 1990s between Robert Putnam (“Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital”) and Nancy Ammerman (“Bowling Together: Congregations and the American Civic Order”). Thanks for steering me to a more probative focus for my ruminations on this dialectic. Gwen
No problem. It is a very interesting topic and one that doesn't get enough attention in my opinion. One of the biggest concerns I have is the "burnt bridges" phenomenon (my own term I think), in that people who are highly mobile have no need to maintain relationships, and can simply burn their bridges in one area and move on to the next. Reputation, standards, and the older term of honor are essentially obsolete in a highly mobile society (although technology and the "sedentary" aspect of our online persona do compensate for that some).
I am also a Yale alum by the way. c/o 2003
North Americans have a relatively high degree of residential mobility compared to most other areas of the world. This has been increasingly the case (post WWII) for middle class and corporate class citizens of the United States and Canada. There recently has been an increase in working class residential mobility for Mexicans looking for jobs in that require moves to urban areas or to the United States.
Long distance residential mobility does have a disruptive affect on family, but more so on marital stability than a direct effect on child rearing. The consequences for children (at least those beyond the initial adjustment to a new place with new people) are more often indirect through the dissolution of a marriage. Extended family support systems may be more difficult to access with increased geographical distance.
Moving is stressful, but moving within the same urban area is much less so than long distance mobility. So, the answer to your initial question about keeping one's residential options open in anticipation of future job opportunities would depend on whether one anticipates short distance or long distance residential mobility.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Social Psychology