Are workers still moving like they used to? Despite declining migration rates, new research shows Americans remain highly responsive to job opportunities.
Employment conditions have long shaped migration patterns in the U.S., with booms like the California Gold Rush and busts like Detroit’s manufacturing decline prompting people to relocate in search of work. Over time, the gross rate of migration between U.S. states has gradually declined, as shown in Exhibit 1, which tracks cross-state migration rates from 1976 to 2021. This drop in mobility has contributed to a common perception that the labor market has weakened or become more stagnant. However, the Brookings article, “Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Response of Labor Migration to Economic Shocks“, challenges that view, showing that workers today are just as responsive to employment opportunities as they were in previous decades. The authors suggest that the perception of reduced mobility is less about workers’ willingness to move and more about the shrinking time window during which regions experience sustained employment growth or decline. In other words, the duration of job booms has shortened.
MORE NEWS: The Most Influential Women in Arizona for 2025
DEEPER DIVE: The Most Influential Women in Commercial Real Estate for 2025
Exhibit 1: Gross Cross-State Migration Rate, 1976-2021
The authors construct their analysis by breaking down regional employment changes into shifts in unemployment, labor force participation, and population, treating population changes as a proxy for net migration. Their analysis spans multiple geographic levels, including states, counties, and commuting zones. Across all levels, they consistently find that employment shocks initially reduce local unemployment, with around 80 percent of new jobs filled by existing residents. However, over time, this dynamic shifts. Within five years, net in-migration becomes the primary driver of employment growth, accounting for about 60 percent of the adjustment. These migration effects are especially pronounced among individuals aged 20 to 35, indicating that younger workers remain the most responsive to changing economic conditions.
In addition to highlighting the central role of migration, the authors find that changes in labor force participation contribute very little to long-run employment adjustments. Most of the regional responses to labor demand shocks occur through existing workers finding jobs or immigration, and not through previously inactive individuals entering the labor force. This result suggests that migration remains the primary adjustment mechanism, particularly in regions experiencing persistent job growth. Furthermore, the study shows that employment-driven migration is predominantly an in-migration phenomenon. That is, population growth following a labor demand shock is driven more by new arrivals than by a decline in out-migration from existing residents.
In conclusion, while the overall rate of interstate migration in the U.S. has declined in recent decades, the study offers compelling evidence that the underlying responsiveness of migration to labor demand shocks has remained remarkably stable. These findings challenge the idea that the U.S. labor market has become less dynamic in its ability to adjust geographically. From a policy perspective, recognizing the continued fluidity of labor migration is crucial; if workers still respond strongly to economic opportunities, then efforts to stimulate job growth can remain effective without relying solely on location-based interventions.
