Posted on 01/16/2022 10:19:52 AM PST by blam
This gives an extreme advantage to those few who move first, long before they must. The financial advantage for first movers is equally extreme.
Moving is a difficult decision, so we hesitate. But when the window to do so closes, it's too late. We always think we have all the time in the world to ponder, calculate and explore, and then things change and the options we once had are gone for good.
Moving to a new locale is difficult for those of us who are well-established in the place we call home. Add in a house we love, jobs/work, kids in school, a parent living with us and all the emotional attachments to friends, extended family, colleagues and favorite haunts, and for many (and likely most) people, moving is out of the question.
Many of us have fond memories of moving when we were in our late teens or early 20s--everything we owned fit in the backseat and trunk of a beaten up old car, and off we went.
Once you put down roots in a home, work/enterprise, schools, neighborhood and networks, it's a herculean task to move. Moving to another state or province isn't just a matter of the physical movement of possessions and buying / renting a new dwelling, itself an arduous process; the transfer of medical and auto insurance, finding new dentists and doctors, opening local bank/credit union accounts, obtaining local business licenses and a staggering list of institutions and enterprises that require an address change is complicated and time-consuming.
Knowing this, I don't ask this question lightly: Should You Move While You Can, Or When You Must? The question is consequential because the window in which we still have options can slam shut with little warning.
The origin of the question will be visible to those who have read my blog posts in 2021 on systemic fragility, our dependence on long, brittle supply chains, the vulnerabilities created by these dependencies and my polite (I hope) suggestions to fashion not just a Plan B for temporary disruptions but a Plan C for permanent disruptions.
My new book Global Crisis, National Renewal: A (Revolutionary) Grand Strategy for the United States is a result of realities few are willing to face: the extreme inequality we now have in the U.S. leads to social collapse. That's the lesson of history. So to believe as if collapse is impossible is to ignore the evidence that social collapse is inevitable when inequality reaches extremes. Human and nature dynamics (HANDY): Modeling inequality and use of resources in the collapse or sustainability of societies.
Social collapse has consequences, and so we have to ask: where do we want to be in the vast human herd when social order unravels?
My new book also addresses the transition that's obvious but easily denied: we've transitioned from an era of abundance to an era of scarcity. There are many historical examples of what happens as scarcity diminishes living standards and puts increasing stress on individuals, families, communities and nations.
There are ways to adapt to scarcity (that's the point of my book) but nation-states and the elites who run them are optimized for abundance, not scarcity, so they lack the means to adapt to scarcity. Their default setting to is keep pursuing a return to higher consumption ("growth") by increasingly extreme means--for example, printing trillions of dollars and giving it to wealthy elites and corporations, and printing additional trillions to give away as bread and circuses (stimulus) to the masses.
There is no historical evidence that this vast, endless creation of currency is consequence-free or successful.
This delusional pursuit of endless "growth" that is no longer possible due to resource depletion and soaring costs of extraction, transport, etc. also leads to collapse. This is the modern-day equivalent of squandering the last resources available on ever-more elaborate (and completely unproductive) temples in the hopes of appeasing the gods of "growth."
As I also detail in the book, the status quo is fantastically wasteful and ineffective. It now takes 20-25 years to build a single bridge or tunnel, and each project is billions of dollars over budget, yet we're assured that the entire nation will seamlessly and painlessly transition away from hydrocarbon fuels to alternative energy in 20-25 years.
Never mind that this would require building a new nuclear plant or equivalent every month for the next 20 years; skeptics are just naysayers.
While a successful transition to a degrowth economy and society is certainly physically possible, the current status quo lacks the will, structure, leadership or desire to manage such a transition.
While no one is entirely independent of long supply chains and energy-intensive industrial economies, the lower one's dependency and one's exposure to the risks of social disorder, the better off one will be. Put another way, the greater one's self-reliance and independence from global supply chains, the lower the impact should things break down.
The closer one is to local sources of energy, fresh water, food, etc., the lower the likelihood of losing all access to these essentials.
The wealthiest few hedge their risks by having one or more homes they can escape to if urban life breaks down. When risks rise, the wealthy start buying rural homes sight unseen for double the price locals paid a few months earlier.
Here's the problem: roughly 81% of Americans live in urban zones (270 million people), and around 19% (60 million people) live in rural areas.
About 31% of urban residents live in dense urban cores, about 25% live in suburban counties and the remaining 24% live in urban clusters and metropolitan areas--smaller cities, etc.
Rural regions have plenty of land but relatively few dwellings due to the low population density. Much of the land is owned by government agencies, corporations or large landowners, so a relatively small percentage is available for housing. Many rural economies have stagnated for decades, so the housing stock has not grown by much and older homes have deteriorated due to being abandoned or poorly maintained. Few building contractors survived the stagnation and so finding crews to build a new home is also non-trivial.
So when the wealthiest few rush out to buy second or third homes in desirable rural areas in Idaho, Montana, Utah, Colorado, North Carolina, etc., they find a very restricted supply of homes available. This generates a bidding war for the relatively few homes considered acceptable and prices skyrocket, pricing out locals who soon resent the wealthy newcomers' financial power and fear the inevitable rise of the political and commercial power their wealth can buy. (Cough, billgates, cough.)
At present, few anticipate urban America becoming a dicey place to live and own a home. But inequality and the hollowing out of the economy by globalization and financialization has left cities entirely dependent on diesel fueled trucks to deliver virtually everything.
This is also true of rural communities, of course, but some rural areas still produce energy and food, and given the lower population density, these communities are less dependent on global supply chains and are therefore more self-sufficient. Rural households have more opportunities to raise animals, grow vegetables, etc., and more opportunities to have supportive relationships with neighbors who actually produce something tangible and essential.
Dependence is a matter of scale: if you can get by on 5 gallons of gasoline a month, you're much more likely to put your hands on enough fuel to get by than if you need a minimum of 50 gallons of fuel to survive. The same is true of food, fresh water and other essentials: the less you need, the more you supply yourself, the lower your vulnerability to supply disruptions.
Lower population densities lend themselves to greater self-sufficiency / resilience and to community cohesion. Roving mobs are less likely to form simply because the low density makes such mobs difficult to assemble.
As I explain in my book, social cohesion is a combination of civic virtue, shared purpose, agency (having a stake in the local economy and a say in decisions which affect everyone) and moral legitimacy, i.e. a community that isn't divided into a self-serving elite that owns the vast majority of the wealth, capital and political power and a relatively powerless majority (i.e. debt-serfs and tax donkeys).
In my analysis, social cohesion in most urban zones has already eroded to the point of no return. The tattered remnants will crumble with one swift kick.
The conventional view is the urban populace will continue to grow at the expense of rural regions, a trend that's been in place for hundreds of years. But this trend exactly parallels the rise of hydrocarbon energy. Large cities existed long before hydrocarbon energy, but these cities arose and fell depending on the availability of essential resources within reach.
Imperial Rome, for example, likely had 1 million residents at the apex of its power, residents who were largely dependent on grain grown in North African colonies and shipped across the Mediterranean to Rome's port of Ostia.
Once those wheat-exporting colonies were lost, Rome's population fell precipitously, reaching a nadir of perhaps 10,000 residents living amidst the ruins of a once great metropolis.
More recently, economic and social shifts hollowed out many city cores in the 1970s as residents and jobs moved to the suburbs.
A reversal of this trend in favor of small cities/towns and rural areas may already be gathering momentum under the radar.
All this is abstract until the attractions of city living fade and economic vitality declines to the point of civic and financial bankruptcy. Cities have cycles of expansion, decay and decline just like societies and economies, and it behooves us to monitor the fragility, dependency and risk of the place we inhabit.
At nadirs, homes and buildings that were once worth a fortune are abandoned, or their value drops to a fraction of its former value.
Putting these dynamics together, the problem boils down to a systemic scarcity of housing in attractive, productive rural towns and regions and a massive oversupply of urban residents who may decide to move once urban zones unravel.
Let's assume that a mere 5% of urban residents decamp for rural regions. Given that there are about 130 million households in the U.S. and 81% of that total is 105 million households, 5% is 5.25 million households. Given that the number of rural communities that have all the desirable characteristics is not that large, we can estimate that it might be difficult for even 500,000 urban households to relocate to their first choice, never mind 5 million.
This gives an extreme advantage to those few who move first, long before they must. The financial advantage for first movers is equally extreme, as they can still sell their urban homes for a great deal more money than they will fetch once conditions deteriorate. (The value of homes can drop to zero, as Detroit has shown.)
Those few who decide to join the early movers even though the difficulties are many have all the advantages. Those who wait until conditions slip off a cliff may find their once valuable home has lost most or all of its value and the communities they would have chosen are out of reach financially.
Most people reckon they have plenty of time to act--decades, or at least many years. The problem with systemic fragility was aptly described by Seneca: "Increases are of sluggish growth but the way to ruin is rapid."
My own expectation is a self-reinforcing unraveling that gathers momentum to breaking points by 2024-25, only a few years away. Rather than fix the systemic problems of inequality and scarcity, the status quo's expedient fixes (printing trillions out of thin air and hoping there will be no adverse consequences from distributing free money to financiers and bread and circuses) will only accelerate the unraveling. There may not be as much time as we think.
New readers pondering these dynamics may find value in one of the more widely read of my essays, The Art of Survival, Taoism and the Warring States (June 27, 2008) which discusses the importance of being a helpful and productive member of a tight-knit community and the futility of having an isolated "bug-out" cabin as Plan C.
The vista of solid ground stretching endlessly to the horizon may turn out to be a mirage, and the cliff edge is closer than we imagine.
We left California over 27 years ago. Even then it was obvious where things were headed.
“make your reservation AT LEAST four months in advance”
Good advice for many, I guess, but four days seems adequate around here if not available immediately on demand.
A lot of factors should come into being analyzed before pulling the plug and moving.
a. Do you have family, who loves and cares for you and vice versa near to your current home?
b. How do those families feel about moving or maybe need to move?
c. The future ability of Joe and Josephine Normal being able to fly back and forth to be with families is being killed. In a few years, probably, only the elites with private planes and pilots will be flying in America. Taking plane rides from us will “Save the Planet” as they push their climate B$ 24/7. That ties in with electric cars.
d. When we only have electric cars, any drive over 250 miles in a day will become for most of us a dream of the past. This is what our ruling elites want for us.
e. Can you afford to stay where you now live depends on your current financial situation and what the future holds or doesn’t hold. Last but not least the tax laws of any state where you live.
f. Family compounds are happening all over America. Homes with large lots are being granted permission to build separate small homes for the grannies or even an addition to the bigger/older homes. We have 2 new grannies’ homes in our culdesac and more to come.
g. The number 1, over riding consideration is the safety of your family, re where you now live and what the near future holds re your family’s personal safety.
Besides economic concerns, there is a reason why California and Illinois rented more U Hauls last year than most states.
We have relatives/friends in Illinois, and the DC area in their 70’s to 80’s looking at safer states to live in. That reason is concern re the current lack of safety for their families living in much of California at this time..
Many will move to be near younger relatives. Floriduh at this time is often the planned escape state for many of our relatives and friends of all ages from sea to sea.
The elites will buy into high security/closed/in and lock gated areas the elites live in. They will hire former Spec Ops as they leave our military to be their guards. These elites will hire the best lawyers to represent their guards and will own the local DA’s controlled by SoreA$$ and his relatives.
These super rich elites will control any local/city/county and state elected political buddies.
They will also own the local media to obscure/sanction the removal of any semi human trash from these elite areas.
Author talks about moving to a rural or semi-rural area, where you can get local food, perhaps growing your own. Before you do, watch a few episodes of ‘Homestead Rescue’ where people fled to try to make it in a homestead and were absolutely clueless.
I know I moved to the right place when in line at the local CVS the guy in the pickup in front of me has “F*CK JOE BIDEN” on the left side of his rear window, a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag in the center, and “WE THE PEOPLE...ARE PISSED” on the right side.
TOTALLY DISAGREE IN STRONGEST TERMS.
Pro-tip to save time: how nice is their waiting room? What is the quality of other people there? It's just a rule of thumb, but works great in a pinch. The doctors that earned straight As in school also tend to get As in interior decorating, hiring top support staff, and attracting discriminating clientele.
Similar to Pareto's 80/20 principle, life is about 90% failure, 10% success. You have to visit about 10 restaurants and stores to find one you'd go back to. Only 10% of businesses succeed 10 years. Only about 10% of the people you meet are worth meeting again. Moving to a new location means experiencing the pain of that 90% failure rate all over again.
Because of life's general 90% failure rate, it should be far easier to make money shorting loser stocks than finding winners. It's a mystery why shorting stocks is so difficult.
We're paying Lois Lerner $102,600 every year to do nothing.
Difficult times make for difficult choices.
With the thought of a possible future move always in mind, I never buy any furniture that I cannot either sell quickly, leave behind, or (most importantly) lift by myself.
As said I can move quickly if need be in dire straits. Family has wanted me to move closer for several years ...with two sons they’d assist in the move it comes to that. I prefer the distance we have now...Visits are very meaningful and we all have our own life to live otherwise. I chose to give my family ‘space’ to live theirs and I have never regretted it.
“Based on the run-up in housing prices lately it is almost too late for many. Still doable but much more problematic than 3-5 years ago.”
Oh boy did you hit that nail on the head. Early last year we went down to our property in Florida (10 acres) and were ready to do a deal to build. When our builder quoted us the price for a simple 2,100 sq. ft. house ... on our OWN property ... would be over $410,000 I almost dropped dead. Not more then 12 months earlier the price was $280,000 ... and that price included digging a 1 acre pond. The new price was without the pond, which would be another $30,000+
Needless to say that blew our plans sky high.
We have land we can’t afford to build on ... so depressing.
I love the lakes, mountains, farmland, orchards and in upstate, really good people....
but alas, the govt.....:(
I live in a horribly blue state but I can't really leave....dtr is not too far away, grandkids across the state, our 5aces with our garden and meat shop and nice house....
I can't see leaving....we would be hard pressed to find this setup....
however I would love to find some land in Idaho or Mt and have a small place so we can excape the vaxxinators if we had too.
I read here and there that not too far in the future we will have economic crash with the price of land/housing dropping....I am going to be ready for that...
wise....some people can live right next door to relatives but I don’t think I could...close but not too close.
Yeah - not just home pricing as building materials are sky high. Housing materials inflation that seemed like a covid one-off a year ago is now entrenched due to Biden with his higher fuel costs and no end in sight.
You, however, do have 10 acres of land in Florida. That should come in handy somehow in the future. Well played.
I had the same epithany when I was out with my son in NH, Concord actually, and we saw a big pick up truck with a bumper sticker that said *Drug dealers should be shot.*
good luck moving in Colorado right now: total available houses and condos for sale on the front range between castle rock and fort collins is under 2,000, and over 1,000 homes just literally burned to the ground in the Marshall fire a couple of weeks ago ...
looks to me like the entire residential real estate market is frozen in colorado right now, presumably because there’s essentially nothing to buy after you sell your home ...
thank you, Covid Joe!
I had to let go of ever seeing my family like mine was. Kids just don't see it the same today.
A modern day Malthusian.
Well, time will tell.
Moving is part of our inherent nature as human beings. We are transitory people, we are migrants and nomads.
Staying put is just not in our nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.