By Vanguard Staff
A new report from the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC) reveals that America’s chronic underproduction of housing is not only fueling an affordability crisis—it’s also significantly inhibiting renter mobility, with ripple effects across the broader economy.
The report, The Impact of New Development on Renter Mobility in a Changing Housing Market, shows that the rate at which renters move has fallen by more than half over the last four decades, from 37.2% in 1981 to just 18.3% in 2024. Even after adjusting for demographic shifts such as age, income, and living arrangements, the study finds a persistent and troubling decline.
“Our findings suggest that the underproduction of housing in the U.S., aside from making housing less affordable, may also be inhibiting renter mobility, which has been on the decline for decades,” the authors conclude. “This means that renters may not always be able to move homes for better employment prospects, in search of better or cheaper housing, or to even be able to form a household in the first place.”
The report, authored by NMHC economist Chris Bruen and research analyst Ryan Hecker, underscores how housing development can directly impact both personal opportunity and broader economic outcomes. The ability of households to move—whether across state lines for jobs or within cities in search of better living conditions—is increasingly constrained by a lack of available and affordable rental units.
While factors such as an aging renter population contribute to declining mobility, the report stresses that even younger and lower-income renters are moving less frequently than they did in the past. In 2024, for instance, only 38% of renters aged 18 to 24 moved—down significantly from previous decades.
The decline in movement isn’t limited to job-related relocations. The study finds that intra-state moves—driven by searches for better neighborhoods, cheaper housing, or household formation—have also sharply declined. The biggest drop occurred among renters seeking better housing within the same state.
“This decline in mobility has more far-reaching, negative implications for the labor market and monetary policy,” the report warns. When workers are unable to relocate for better employment, regional disparities in job availability and wages become more entrenched, complicating efforts by the Federal Reserve and policymakers to respond effectively.
Additionally, the report notes that agglomeration effects—economic benefits that arise when firms and workers cluster geographically—are undermined if people can’t move to where the jobs are. And when housing markets are frozen, so too are the chains of mobility that allow households to upgrade, downsize, or establish new living arrangements.
Importantly, the NMHC researchers found a statistically significant link between new housing construction and increased renter mobility. Metropolitan areas with higher rates of new rental construction between 2022 and 2023 saw greater renter movement, even after controlling for differences in renter demographics.
“Regardless of causality,” the authors note, “certain types of moves, such as household formation and in-migration, simply wouldn’t be possible without the addition of new units.”
The report builds on a growing body of research showing that new housing—particularly market-rate housing—creates what economists call “vacancy chains,” where a new unit frees up an existing one, setting off a cascade of moves throughout the market. The result is greater housing availability and more opportunities for households to find homes that meet their needs.
As debates continue over zoning, affordability, and housing equity, the NMHC study offers a clear message: increasing the housing supply isn’t just about prices—it’s about unlocking movement, opportunity, and economic potential.
“Removing chronic barriers to housing supply, in addition to putting downward pressure on housing costs, might prompt households to move as well,” the report concludes, framing new construction as not only a housing solution but also an economic imperative.
Here’s what AI has to say about the source of this article (the NHMC):
“The National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC) is primarily funded by its member companies, who are involved in the multifamily housing industry. These members include apartment owners, managers, developers, and suppliers. Additionally, the NMHC has a political action committee (NMHC PAC) that receives contributions from individuals within member firms. The organization also conducts research, some of which is funded by the NMHC Student Housing Research Fund, which has received contributions from various companies in the student housing sector.”
And below is a link to what “Open Secrets” has to say about its funding and lobbying activities. Not sure how they’re spending almost $9 million in lobbying, while reporting $4 million in contributions. Nor do I know why the Vanguard “reports” on what such organizations have to say, without performing even a cursory investigation regarding who they are.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-multifamily-housing-council/summary?id=D000000755
Needless to say, this type of organization does not have an incentive to solve the fake housing crisis. They would, however, have an incentive to convince people that there’s a housing shortage.
Ron raises a fair concern about the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), a trade group funded by landlords, developers, and real estate interests. Their research reflects those interests and should be viewed with that context in mind.
That said, the Vanguard reports on a wide range of perspectives in the housing debate—including industry groups like NMHC as well as housing justice organizations like Housing is a Human Right and coalitions opposing CEQA reform. Our goal is to present a full and balanced picture of the issues, while trusting readers to weigh the sources critically.
We appreciate being held to a high standard and will continue to provide transparency about who produces the information we cite.
Furthermore, it is important not to simply dismiss findings from sources you considered biased out of hand. In this case, NMHC’s findings about renter mobility and housing underproduction align with conclusions from a range of academic and policy sources, including the Urban Institute, Brookings, and the LAO.
True – your articles range from “housing crisis” all through the spectrum to “super housing crisis”.
And from “NIMBY”, all through the spectrum to “super NIMBY”.
With “YIMBYs” to the rescue.
Your articles are nothing like what you’d find from 48 Hills, for example.
Nor are they anything like this:
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/affordable-housing-crisis
You’re like a guitarist who knows only one chord.
Well, since you only know one as well (to which I’m responding), it seems like we might need at least one more (a third one) to make a song.
But seriously, there is no shortage of buildings. What you’re referring to is a difference in wealth, assets, and differences between markets.
At least, not when International businessmen are buying second or third homes in Manhattan, San Francisco, etc.
Also, there is no way for “normal” people to compete for housing, in places like the Silicon Valley. Not when considering the salary and stock options provided to some of those workers (including those from other countries).
I was priced out of my home town, myself. So were perhaps half the people in Davis and the region.
But unlike you, I accepted it and made the best of it. I don’t need a particular location in order for me to be successful (or unsuccessful). But I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have done that well had I stayed in the Bay Area, and rented a place to this day.
If I wasn’t already established in this area (and with my working career likely over), I probably would have moved to some place else to take advantage of job opportunities, lower cost housing, etc. (As Davis itself used to be – and prior to that – the entire Bay Area.)
I do feel bad for young people in some ways, however (at least, for those who haven’t inherited boomer wealth, yet). Young people were lied to regarding going into debt to earn worthless college degrees. (Not all of them worthless, but you actually need to be born with aptitude in particular areas to benefit from that value.)
We are not “all created equal” – you can see the differences almost from Day 1.
Also, people often choose what they “want” to do (e.g., run a blog in an increasingly-expensive area with no rent control), rather than what they “should” do (e.g., get a real job in an area that hasn’t yet experienced a run-up in price). (Those are the people I have no empathy for.)
In other words, I look to individuals to adapt, rather than making their surroundings adapt to suit their preferences. That’s a primary key to success. The people who are waiting around for cities to adapt (instead of adapting themselves) are in for a long wait – CEQA, or not.
And that goes for entire school districts, as well. (The ones trying to force cities to change rather than right-sizing themselves.)
Ron O
(Edited)
Tim Redmond of 48 Hills is not a credible source. I followed the Bay Guardian 40 years ago when I lived there and he made numerous errors in his analyses. And he was unwilling to concede those errors. It’s not worth considering his views on anything at this point.
Third the article from Common Dreams you cite is simplistic. The reason why housing is unaffordable is because people don’t have access to the economic opportunities that would give them enough income to pay for those houses. This article shows the problem is nationwide, not particular to California. We have housing in the wrong places and impede new housing in the right places. https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/06/zoning-sun-belt-housing-shortage/683352/
Our locked in immobility is exacerbating this problem. We’re not going to move jobs to the housing unless we make a radical turn towards a command and control economy. That approach hasn’t worked out well for those who have tried it. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/03/american-geographic-social-mobility/681439/
Richard, (edited)
But they SHOULD care about this, in regard to the fake housing shortage:
“Population growth will slow over the next three decades. In the next 10 years, the yearly growth rate in the United States will be on average, 0.4% but then it slows down on average to 0.1% between 2036 and 2055, the budget office said.”
“The overall yearly growth rate over the next three decades, 0.2%, is projected to be less than a quarter of what it was from 1975 to 2024.”
“Without immigration, the U.S. population will shrink starting in 2033 in part “because fertility rates are projected to remain too low for a generation to replace itself,” the Congressional Budget Office said.”
“The reduced projections from last year were the results of a decline in projected fertility rates over 30 years from 1.70 births per woman to 1.60 births per woman and less immigration because of an executive order last June that temporarily suspends asylum processing at the border when U.S. officials deem they are overwhelmed, the budget office said. Replacement happens at a rate of 2.1 births per woman.”
https://apnews.com/article/population-projections-congressional-budget-office-946a81a89908c44bb6b7df1ad8b5d57c
“Without immigration, the U.S. population will shrink starting in 2033 in part “because fertility rates are projected to remain too low for a generation to replace itself,” the Congressional Budget Office said.”
You think that the US is just going to permanently stop immigration? Leaving aside the continued misunderstanding about the housing crisis.
I didn’t write the article – the Associated Press did. Take it up with them.
Also, Richard must not have read the Common Cause article, since it actually references a university study that you’re familiar with:
https://news.ku.edu/news/article/study-finds-us-does-not-have-housing-shortage-but-shortage-of-affordable-housing
There is no housing shortage. There was an oversupply built during prior decades:
“In fact, from 2000 to 2020, housing production exceeded the growth of households by 3.3 million units. The surplus from 2000 to 2010 more than offset the shortages from 2010 to 2020.”
I realize that Richard would prefer to share his opinions of others, rather than address facts from a university study.
That’s not a proper response, you posted it. I’m pointing out flaws with what was posted.
You asked me if the U.S. is going to stop immigration, and yet the AP article itself doesn’t even make that claim.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a permanent reduction in the rate (for more than one reason).
You also referenced a “continued misunderstanding” regarding the housing crisis – and I would agree. However, the study I cited shows that it’s folks like you who are misunderstanding it. Or should I say, “mis-defining” it.
Also, I’ve noticed that you consistently ignore a related issue regarding unaffordability in general – having to pay off student loans.
They cited the CBO finding – “Without immigration, the U.S. population will shrink starting in 2033 in part “because fertility rates are projected to remain too low for a generation to replace itself,” the Congressional Budget Office said.”
The implication – which is YOURS because YOU posted it – is that we don’t need housing because we will stop growing without immigration. But that only holds if the US continues to stop immigration which is unlikely. Hence my response. (And ignores that we need housing now and that population growth is hardly the only variable). The AP article btw, had nothing to do with housing – that’s also your opinion injected into the post.
Population growth is ultimately the only thing that increases a need for housing. But it is not a one-for-one relationship, in regard to household formation (or dissolution), of course.
I posted other citations in that article below, which shows that population growth is expected to drastically decrease – even with immigration. So, only someone who didn’t read the citations would jump on it the way you just did.
But it is interesting that “internal needs” (for the entire country) are no longer causing pressure on the housing market in terms of population growth. It’s only “externally-generated” pressure that will do so going forward.
This is part of the reason that I sometimes think of Trump as an “accidental environmentalist” in regard to that issue, at least.
Increasingly, I don’t see a clear line that environmentalism is on the same side as “social justice”. In fact, I’m increasingly seeing the opposite of that (in other examples, as well).
Social justice warriors will throw the environment “under the bus” (while they ensure that EVERYONE gets run over by it).
Ron! Stop! You can’t even acknowledge how much you have read your own views in the AP article.
“But it is interesting that “internal needs” (for the entire country) are no longer causing pressure on the housing market in terms of population growth.”
Where do you come up with this stuff?
If you can’t see where I “come up with it” (in the article itself), I’m not sure I can help you (but I’ll try once more at least).
The native U.S. population is decreasing, not increasing (due to exceedingly-low birth rates). So unless you (somehow) define immigration as an “internally-generated need”, your point of view makes no sense.
Again, it’s population growth itself which is ultimately responsible for increasing the need for housing. Household formation is a byproduct of that.
It’s probably also true that as the country ages, fewer households are formed. (See declining birth rate.)
We’re already seeing the signs of that in regard to school and college enrollments (outside of the UC system, so far). In the CSU and community college systems.
It’s not a good time to try to become a teacher (especially if you have to take out student loans to do so).
I appreciate you trying to clarify your point. But I think we may be talking past each other a bit.
When I refer to an “internally-generated need,” I’m not talking just about population growth as a function of birthrates.
I’m also talking about labor force dynamics, demographic aging, and economic sustainability.
The U.S. population may be decreasing in terms of birthrate among native-born citizens, but that is precisely why immigration becomes an internally-driven necessity: to support an aging population, maintain economic productivity, and fill labor gaps across industries. (And btw, immigration has always accounted for a huge percentage of the US population growth).
So immigration isn’t just about responding to external pressures—it’s about meeting internal shortfalls that would otherwise lead to stagnation or collapse in certain sectors (the irony of Trumpism).
In that sense, it is an internally-generated need, driven by choices we’ve made, from family planning trends to economic expectations.
(Off to get some carrots)
Your comments regarding this are essentially in support of a Ponzi scheme, and that the population can never stop growing (let alone decline) without causing a disaster.
The problem is that your view is in fact the “mainstream” view – but it’s unsustainable. There are examples where leaders are trying to push/entice people to have kids, for that very reason (to support the Ponzi scheme).
The world in general is going to have to come to terms with this (places like Japan, Europe, etc.). I believe it can (and will).
The planet will ultimately do it for us, if we don’t. (Already signs of that.)
I’m all ears as to how you create a viable society if 70 percent of the population is at retirement age. Regardless, immigration is redistribution of population rather than actual global growth.
David says: “I’m all ears as to how you create a viable society if 70 percent of the population is at retirement age.”
I believe the government has already increased the retirement age, and will likely have to continue to do so.
But as the population stabilizes, old people won’t comprise “70%” of the population. (That’s a temporary situation.)
David says: “Regardless, immigration is redistribution of population rather than actual global growth.”
I’m not so sure of that. There’s reasons, for example, that people in “some” countries are having fewer children, but not in “other” countries. Perhaps by taking in immigrants, those “other” countries then make up for those that they “lose” to the U.S. and other countries.
Recent research shows that AI hallucinates 47% of the time, so the results are unreliable.
You definitely have to know enough to ask the right questions and then proofread the output before using AI. It’s helpful but flawed.