Americans have long been known for pulling up stakes and moving for economic opportunity. Yet internal migration in the U.S. has declined substantially in recent decades. The trend toward staying put probably reflects rational economic calculation and the high cost of housing.

Marketplace’s senior economics contributor Chris Farrell has been digging into the data. He spoke with “Marketplace Morning Report” host David Brancaccio and the following is an edited transcript of their conversation.

David Brancaccio: We Americans have a reputation of moving to where the work is. I mean, not everybody, but it’s part of this long tradition.

Chris Farrell: Yeah — think rural Oklahomans, like the Joads in Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath,” migrating to California during the Dust Bowl years. The Great Migration of Black people out of the Jim Crow South. And the movement of families after the Second World War. Leaving behind a struggling or inhospitable part of the country for one that is thriving is called moving to opportunity. Yet recent rates, David, they’re nowhere near the levels of the late 1940s through 1960s when some 20% of Americans moved annually. The annual internal migration rate in 2022 was 8.7%.

Brancaccio: I mean, so not a blip. This is a long-term thing that Census is tracking. But what’s the problem? I mean, states worry about brain drain. But if we don’t move out of our hometowns, we’re risk-averse stick-in-the-muds?

Farrell: Yes, there’s a sense of, have Americans lost their mojo? But I think what the evidence is, people are making a very rational economic calculation. At least that’s my takeaway from this recent study by two economists, “The Determinants of Declining Internal Migration.” And they find — look, higher wages still attract workers, but people are reluctant to move because of high housing costs. So let’s look at it this way: Jobs are going begging in many cities — where you are, New York; where I am, Minneapolis, St. Paul; Austin, Texas. But the cost of housing in these areas of economic opportunity and economic vitality are also high, assuming you can even find a home to buy or rent.

Brancaccio: So a place attracts companies, therefore jobs. But if a place does that, it puts upward pressure on house and apartment price, and people can’t move there for the jobs.

Farrell: That’s it. But there’s also an intriguing twist to their analysis. They highlight a major factor behind the decline is older homeowners in expensive urban states. They wonder why Americans are increasingly willing to tolerate higher housing prices in their current location, while in the past, they often responded by moving to more affordable areas.

Brancaccio: And they don’t really offer a theory as to why, but you, Chris, have written on the economy and older adults. What’s the Chris Farrell theory about this?

Farrell: OK, so, the U.S. doesn’t have a good — let alone adequate — long-term care system. So in the U.S., family, close friends — that’s critical to providing long-term care. And surveys repeatedly show older Americans want to “age in place.” That’s the jargon term for stay in their current home. Sure, they could cash in their equity and move somewhere cheaper. But then they’d be leaving behind, David, their most valuable asset: their network of family and friends. Networks, they help you find work as you become older. Networks can help care for you with age. Leaving your network behind in the chance you’ll earn a higher wage, in many cases, is a bad economic and quality-of-life choice.