Although out-of-state moves associated with job opportunities remained steady from 2007 to 2009, the housing slump is certainly changing the relocation process. With few companies offering straightforward benefits like guaranteed buy-outs and most offering bonuses for fast selling and extended financial aid for temporary selling, the decision to move for a job is not quite as easy to make as it used to be. However, says Abigail Wozniak, assistant economics professor at Notre Dame, “the difference between being unemployed and employed is enormous…[and] it’s probably a move they’re [homeowners] going to make”[1].
But the process is no longer as straightforward. Since many employees are underwater on their homes, companies are offering to pay a portion of the loss on the home rather than buying the home and reselling it themselves. And in some cases, real estate commitments can play a significant role in whether or not a potential employee is offered a job. With the cost of relocating renters hovering around $17,900 compared to $66,600 for relocating a homeowner, renters may have a serious advantage in the job market in many cases.
Do you think that the status of your home should be a factor in whether or not you are hired?
Thank you for reading the Bryan Ellis Real Estate Letter!
Your comments and questions are welcomed below.
[1] http://www.indystar.com/article/20110725/BUSINESS/107250331/Relocation-costs-job-perk-past
One wouldn’t normally think that our housing status would constitute any significant factor in whether or not we’re offered a job, but these are not normal days in which we live. An employer, in their own self-interest will surely want to be aware of a job candidate’s prompt relocatability potential, and the cost implications relative to their existing housing situation.