The Settling of America.

Did you know that in 1950 nearly one-fifths of Americans moved every year? Considering the housing market of then and the market as it is now, it makes sense. Our men had been off to wars for many years and only recently had they returned to a home of seemingly endless opportunity. But when our boys returned from war, we were missing something fundamental--houses. So our boys either shacked up with the parents or moved in with friends until a house was built.

These lack of constraints provided an opportunity for men and women to go to anywhere in the country. Without responsibilities--or even home--to tie them down, they were very easily able to re-create a new life in a different part of the country.

Right now the nation's mobility rate is the lowest it's been since pre-World War II, indicating that there has been a huge change in how our culture is operating. What will the long-term implications of this new mentality mean upon society? What does this mean from an economic standpoint? Some of the leading sociologists and economics have provided their commentary on such topics, and here is a snippet of their thoughts. The full article is available here.

• Katherine S. Newman, professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University, is author of “The Missing Class.”

One of the virtues of being stuck is that we can continue to rely on the friends and family nearby to help us get through hard times. “Social capital,” the stock of trust and support we draw on in daily life, is especially important when families are under stress. A child care emergency can be patched up if grandma is next door rather than 2,000 miles away. Borrowing $50 to get by is easier if you have someone close to turn to and much harder if you are a newcomer.

Crime tends to be lower in communities where people know each other well enough to intervene when they see something amiss on the street. This may help to explain why, despite very high unemployment and a great deal of social stress, we are seeing record low crime rates. Divorce often declines as well because people just cannot afford to stretch the same income over two separate households. Staying put may mean that we retain the strength of our ties to one another.

Of course if staying put means doubling up -– packing in relatives who have nowhere else to go -– frayed tempers can be combustible. Americans at the bottom of the income structure lack the reserves needed to hold tight, so they have to move in with the (only slightly more) fortunate members of their families.

During the Great Depression, my grandfather was the only person in an extended family of 13 who had a job. They piled in with one another and were fortunate they could lean on him, but nobody remembers that time as a joyous reunion of a big happy family. It was hard on everyone, just as it is hard on poorer Americans now.

• Lawrence F. Katz is a professor of economics at Harvard University. He is the author (with Claudia Goldin) of “The Race between Education and Technology.”
  

Relative to those in other nations Americans have always been highly mobile and their moves in pursuit of new opportunities have enhanced U.S. economic dynamism. High rates of geographic labor mobility have allowed the United States to recover more rapidly from adverse economic shocks and to have smaller regional unemployment differences than European nations with less mobile work forces.

But American geographic mobility has declined over the last two decades and has fallen sharply in the Great Recession since 2007. Part of the decline is a natural consequence of the aging of baby boomers. In addition, geographic moves can be expected to decrease temporarily in a deep recession. Nevertheless, several factors make the decline in mobility in this recession worrisome and may contribute to an extended jobless recovery.

First, large declines in housing prices in many regions generate a lock-in effect, causing homeowners with negative equity to hesitate to sell their houses, thereby reducing mobility from distressed areas.

Second, the subprime crisis has created economic distress in typically fast-growing areas, such as Florida, California, and Nevada, further slowing the labor mobility to expanding regions that ordinarily helps drive U.S. job recoveries. Third, lingering credit market problems, especially for potential new start-ups, hinder job creation in economically vibrant locales slowing labor mobility to these areas.

Finally, greater educational attainment has been the traditional way young Americans acquire the skills demanded by growing occupations and regions. Greater federal aid to higher education may be necessary, given the budgetary problems of most states and many families, to maintain access and allow young Americans to gain the skills to move in pursuit of their American dreams.

• William H. Frey is a demographer and a senior fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.

America has long been one of the most mobile countries on the planet. There is no doubt in my mind we will return to more normal migration levels, though I don’t foresee it anytime soon. The return will be especially delayed for long-distance migration, which has plummeted so low that Florida and Nevada are now attracting fewer in-migrants than those moving out. Long distance migration has sunk to historic lows because it is facing a double whammy — downturns in the job market and a near frozen housing market.

I have always imagined myself as an adventurer hoping to experience life in cities all over the world. But if the economics are not in place for such a lifestyle, what is the alternative like?

I don't particularly think living in one area for your entire life is necessarily bad, I just feel it can be somewhat limiting. The best way to develop yourself is through exposure, and seeing the world through the eyes of someone else is significant for developing your own personal understanding of the world. That is why traveling and city planning are so important to me. I want to see the world through the eyes of the Japanese, the Russians, the Canadians...I want to see the world they see and pose it against the world I see. What are the differences? What do they value that I overlook? What do I value that has little-to-no importance to them?

To me, this is the best way to grow and develop.

Blind Side: The Take Home Theme.

I rarely have time for movies, much less do I have time to review them. But I saw Blind Side on a whim yesterday, and it left me with a strange ambivalence of emotions. While most people walked out of the feel-good movie inspired and hopeful, I walked out thinking about the deeper implication of the movie's message. (*Just so you know, this entire entry will be a spoiler. Don't read it if you plan on seeing the movie and want to be surprised.*)

Blind Side follows a disadvantaged youth known as Michael Oher, or "Big Mike". He is a quiet boy with almost no formal education and seemingly no personality. His story is that he came from a crack Momma who had at least 12 kids and abandoned most of them. He was taken from her and put into foster care, but he would always run away and come home to her. We don't find this out until the middle/end of the movie, but it's important to theme and the overall story.

The movie begins with a black man bringing both his son and Big Mike to a private Christian school. He talks the coach into letting both boys in because Big Mike can play ball and could be an asset to the football team. After some fighting with the educated white folk, they let the boys in. Moments later, the same Black Man is heard fighting with his girl about letting Bike Mike stay with them--and suddenly Big Mike is on the street.

Then comes to the rescue Sandra Bullock, the educated designer whose family is incredibly well-to-do from their 85 different Taco Bells and KFCs they own. She brings Big Mike into their home and eventually gets him to come out of his shell as he becomes part of the family. Everything is as predictable as it could be spoon fed to an audience of Americans--he gets his first bed, his white momma reads him a children's book, he suddenly makes the football team the best in the league, and suddenly colleges want him.

I'll save you the rest of the story. You know what you need to know. In the end, he becomes successful, makes it to the NFL and he has his happy white family to thank for the opportunity. But that's the problem. To me, the take-home message of the movie is given away within the last few seconds of it. They show an article where one of Big Mike's homeboys is shot back in his neighborhood, and they discuss how he, "...was very talented at sports". What is the implication of this? Why did the director do this? In a subtle way, it's almost as if they are saying, "There are a lot of talented black people out there. Let's get rich white people to round them up, give them an education and make them go entertain us with sports!"

I'm aware that that is not the goal or purpose of this movie. And I'm certain that the real Michael Oher (since this was based on a real story) and his family were very genuine in their relationship. But the movie makes it seem like black people are useless to society and will ever be stuck in a rut unless a rich white woman comes along and picks one of them up. I'm sorry to say it like that, but that's how it is.

Further problems with the movie include the juxtaposition of black culture and white culture. When they show white culture, they show a fun and exciting football team supported by cute white cheerleaders rooting for their school. When they show black culture, it's hoodlums on the street carrying guns and making inappropriate passes at women. Where were the black role models? Why was it that every portrait of white culture in this movie was shown in a progressive light, whereas every painting of black culture was as if they are a diseased and filthy kind of people? When did they ever show the camaraderie of black communities, the lively churches, the caring barbershops, the groups of black men and women that lovingly spend time together? In every scene where there was a black person, there was a negative stereotype: a laundromat, the projects, the crime scenes, etc. And that just ain't right.

There are without-a-doubt enormous problems with our society and its view on racism. The other day, one of my co-workers boldly declared, "Today, racism really does not exist anymore." I almost spit out my coffee. This is simply not true--where you are born and what color you are are both incredibly indicative of the life you will have. Our society needs to stop playing as if this is not true. We like to sweep the millions of disadvantaged minorities under the rug and go see a movie like Blind Side to feel good about ourselves. Instead of seeing movies about the mixing of classes, we ourselves need to step up to the other side and start mingling with people who are different from us.

This story is a diamond in the rough, a million in one odds. While truly a great story of how one family believed in a person when he didn't believe in himself, it only highlighted the deep problems we have in this country--we are a country of feel-good people that would rather watch a movie about people doing great things instead of actually doing great things ourselves. And unless we change this mindset, racism will always exist in this country.