As the housing crisis has unfolded, economists have mentioned a possible "silver lining" to millions of Americans losing their homes, and millions more being upside down on their mortgages. It's that they can walk away from those homes and seek employment where the jobs can be found. This is, of course, cold comfort and can only be viewed as a silver lining from 35,000 feet up. Once you see the cold hard details on the ground, it looks less pretty. After all, this is exactly what happened to farmers, both landholder and sharecropper in the Depression, and it didn't work out so well for the Joads.
But they do have a point in that home ownership decreases job mobility. It's difficult to sell a home, so if a better job can be found across the country, it has to be one hell of a job to go through the effort. You have to balance this against the benefits of having residents invested in their homes, of course, but for this entry, I'm mainly concerned with how this affects the job market.
Basically, it made me think about employer provided health insurance, and how much of a drag that is. I did a quick search and found this paper, completed by an employee of the US Census Bureau. It found that employer provided health care was a huge drag on job mobility. This is not surprising, given that the inconvenience of selling your home pales in comparison to the inconvenience of dying.
One of the points the paper makes is that this "job lock" is bad for employer and employee. For starters, you'd make a significantly higher wage each month if your employer wasn't covering your health care costs. Second, you're stuck in a job that you would otherwise leave. Unless you're one of the blessed few who found their life's calling in their very first job, you know what a toll being unhappy at work takes on you. It affects your family and destroys your health through stress and depression.
If you're a manager or employer, you also know that an unhappy worker tends to do poorly. They're not invested in the position, they have no desire for advancement, since that just means more stress and responsibility in a job they already hate, and at a certain point, they check out entirely, doing the bare minimum to keep from being fired or disciplined, but never excelling. We've all seen that employee, and if you're honest, you've probably been that employee as well for some part of your working life.
If jobs are plentiful and you have no reason to stay, you'll probably seek a better job, one more suited to you. That's why the 18 year olds at my work stick around for six months, while those of us with a bit more experience scream at them for being fools, since at my job, 18 year olds can participate in the 401(k) plan. I would also assume that's why this study found that health insurance is a much bigger deal to women than to men. When I was 25, I could jump ship and try something new. Now I'm married with a house, and I want to start a family, and I don't plan on going anywhere if I can help it. I'm gay, and starting a family means adopting. If I do any sort of foreign adoption, there's a decent chance they will not be eligible for individual health insurance plans, since the medical records regarding their births will likely be unavailable. Good thing I really like my job, and that I'm good at it, since I would prefer not to pay for all the medical costs of raising children out of pocket.
So, the ability to jump jobs for something better benefits everyone. We already know that universal health care saves money in general. But if we can do it right, it might mean lower costs for all, a pay raise for most of us, and more job mobility, which is good for the economy. Unlike home ownership, there are no benefits to being trapped in a job you don't like. Godspeed, President Obama.