Yet another fast food worker strike

[realibrad]

No.

Hence why I think internet job boards have led to a false sense of mobility and ability to relocate. You can apply for a job 2,500 miles away but just like before, most people barely move out of the 50 mile circle where they were born. With the housing crash and gas prices and such its actually the exact opposite trend. Its more expensive than ever to relocate and less companies offer it as a perk.

http://time.com/money/3393300/move-relocate-trade-up/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trulia/2013/09/27/americans-arent-yet-back-on-the-move/

So you're exactly the type of person I'm talking about.

I think there is a part you are missing though. So, lets assume the jobs the the exact same, and the only thing different is the ability to nationally job search. Its a question of allocation of labor resources.

A company is limited by the applicants it can reach pre internet. This meant it had an incentive to either be where the local job market fit its needs, or spend more on marketing their positions and even possibly moving expenses. Moving a small firm is going to be easier than a large firm. If a large firm finds the local talent is holding back profits, they will run a cost/benefit to see what their options are. But, even if it turned out to be worth advertising, tech limits would still be a factor. So early 1900's it was damn near impossible. TV, radio, ect helped reduce frictions. Assuming reduction in friction would not allow for more efficient allocation of resources and increased jobs, you simply have the same number of workers and the same number of jobs. The difference is now, a worker who was limited with their skill set to make X amount in their local market, can now possibly make more in another national market. The worker may not take it, if the cost of moving is higher than the expected return, but options are almost always a good thing.

As in just about every competitive market, there are winners are losers. Some who were making a higher wage because of an uncompetitive local market could command higher wages. Some who were in a very competitive local market may have had downward pressure on their wages can get higher wages on a national market.

Having said that, its pretty much assumed that increasing efficient allocation of resources has a net benefit on the economy. Those who may have invested locally by buying a house or other assets that are expensive to move will no doubt find it harder to move. Those who are just entering the labor marketplace will have a much easier time. So while there may be an initial lag, the net outcome will be better.

I should also add this in as a personal example. I moved from CA to FL when I was 19. I packed everything I owned into an 86 VW Jetta and moved. The upfront cost was about $600 with food and gas. Moving was very easy for me, and I would bet pretty easy for say college grads.