As a passive job seeker, I think this is something I've used to filter out companies. Ones that want to hire someone yesterday are more likely to suffer from poor planning and may only care about short term results.
I'd rather have someone who may take 2-3 months to get up to speed, and then spend years with me returning that investment more than a simple mercenary that will be with me a year or two and then move on.
Also, could it be that salaries offered are not worth the risk as well?
For example, I've had recruiters contact me about the same/similar positions in the DC and NYC suburbs, where I'd only make $7k-10k (if I was lucky) more than my current position (in a middle market city). Why would my fiance (who would have to quit her job as well and find new work) and I leave for peanuts? I'd also lose any time base perks at my current employer as well.
If companies/recruiters are expecting people to move for "same job, same pay" then there's your reason for an immobile work force. Add to that what you mention - many would have to take a loss on their home when they wouldn't have too.
As a passive job seeker, I think this is something I've used to filter out companies. Ones that want to hire someone yesterday are more likely to suffer from poor planning and may only care about short term results.
I'd rather have someone who may take 2-3 months to get up to speed, and then spend years with me returning that investment more than a simple mercenary that will be with me a year or two and then move on.