Friday, March 16, 2012

That midnight train to Manhattan

Got a note from someone in San Francisco today: laid off, rent about to go up again, moving back to New York.

Don't know if this is a special case or a symptomatic one but it boggles me.

[UPDATE: I tried out the old method of checking U-Haul rates as relative economic indicators. As of this 2003 article, it cost way more to rent a moving truck from a California city to one of the interior tigers of the day -- Phoenix, Las Vegas, Boise -- than it cost to move the other direction. The authors took it to mean more Californians wanted out than in. Now, rental for a minimum "Studio/Apartment" U-Haul moving truck, presuming departure tomorrow, is $2,269 from San Francisco to Brooklyn but $2,843 from Brooklyn to San Francisco. So more people want to move from New York to San Francisco than vice versa. So San Francisco is the boomtown? Huh.

I guess it could just mean truck rental yards in Brooklyn have to charge higher rates to cover higher expenses -- I mean, everything costs more in New York, right?

But, no, via the U-Haul PR site, here's a January 2012 writeup saying four moving companies' statistics agree: more people moving into California than out.

Except, could the statistic be warped by being limited to people who can afford to rent a moving truck when they leave?]

1 comment:

  1. This is hard to believe, California more expensive than NYC? wow

    ReplyDelete