logo
Why 67% Of Gen Z Would Relocate For Work

Why 67% Of Gen Z Would Relocate For Work

Forbes20-05-2025

As more companies lean into return-to-work mandates, many remote workers are faced with a choice: relocate or quit.
67% of Gen Z are willing to relocate for a good job
Would you relocate for your job?
Moving for work is a big decision, but one that two-thirds of Gen Z workers are willing to make. Whether because they realize the irreplaceable value of on-site mentoring and networking or because they're less constrained by family obligations, today's youngest working cohort is surprisingly willing to pull up their roots for work.
Of course, these young professionals will only relocate for what they define as a 'good job.' And their definition may not always align with traditional markers of rewarding work. Deloitte's 2025 Gen Z and Millennial Survey found that instead of climbing the career ladder toward a senior leadership role, fully 94% of Gen Z workers want something less prestigious, but perhaps more conducive to work-life balance.
This year, moving season may be more active than usual. According to Atlas' 58th annual Corporate Relocation Survey, which is the industry's first and longest-running study analyzing talent mobility trends, work-related relocations are expected to rise in 2025.
Last year, in-person workers doubled from 34% to 68% while remote work declined from 44% to 17%. 'Our study found an increased willingness for workers to relocate for work as relocation volumes and budgets rose in 2024,' says Jack Griffin, CEO and Chairman of Atlas World Group.
Of the companies surveyed, 60% of companies have a full on-site return-to-work plan in their 2024–2025 policies—prompting a cascade of relocation decisions on both sides of the employer-employee relationship.
Atlas' study also found that it's not just workers considering a move. Thirty percent of companies are considering relocating their offices to areas where talent and business friendly environments already exist.
'Two primary factors are driving this trend: companies want access to talent in particular markets and they want to operate in a more business-friendly environment,' says Griffin. 'This aligns with the increase in the number of companies that cited a lack of qualified talent as a factor for relocations in 2024, in addition to the tightening of the labor market.'
If nearly a third of the companies surveyed move their operations, this will likely cause more workers to follow their jobs to a whole new neighborhood.
Of course, many workers faced with the choice to relocate or resign will choose the latter. The survey found family to be the leading reason why employees turn down relocation offers, with 35% of companies citing family ties as a key factor.
Also of note is the fact that 15% of respondents cited support for a spouse's or partner's employment as a major reason for declining a relocation offer. 'These factors underscore the continued challenge many employees, particularly women, face while balancing a career,' says Griffin.
The uncertain housing market may also pose a challenge to talent mobility, as rising mortgage rates make people hesitant to give up their existing lower rates.
All of this combined can create what companies call the 'lock-in effect' where, for a variety of reasons, workers dig in their heels and refuse relocation offers. To combat the lock-in effect, Griffin says companies are moving away from traditional one-size-fits-all relocation packages and adopting tailored benefits that address individual employee levels and specific relocation needs.
'Many have significantly increased financial support for relocations, with a notable decrease in declines due to insufficient funds,' he says. 'This includes expanding offerings like home purchase loans and bonuses for employee-generated home sales, while adjusting other financial incentives to reflect the changing market.'
No matter how sweet the deal, a relocation offer will always be a big ask—and one that could lead to some turnover. 'We found in our survey that 47% of companies reported losing good employees due to relocation policies,' says Griffin. 'Additionally, the potential replacement costs for these workers can be substantial, reaching up to 200% of a leader's salary and up to 80% for technical professionals.'
When I asked Griffin if companies ever roll back their relocation offers to allow remote work instead, he indicated such a move is uncommon. 'However, companies may be motivated to negotiate with their employees to avoid these losses,' he says. 'This is also further evidence that an increasing trend towards customized relocation benefits show a willingness to be flexible, which can help retain talent.'
If your company is requiring you to relocate and you're not enthused about the idea, you may have some options. 'We are seeing more companies shift towards customized relocation benefits rather than a one-size-fits-all policy for employees,' says Griffin.
'This opens up the opportunity for employees to negotiate alternative options that could help the employer retain the talent while the employee can continue to advance their career.'
Instead of a full relocation, you could try to negotiate one or more of the following accommodations:
The choice to relocate for work is a highly personal one that likely affects more people than just yourself. It's important to weigh all the pros and cons before making your decision—whichever way it goes.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Couche-Tard Sees ‘Clear Path' to Seven & i Deal With US Stores Divestment
Couche-Tard Sees ‘Clear Path' to Seven & i Deal With US Stores Divestment

Bloomberg

time32 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Couche-Tard Sees ‘Clear Path' to Seven & i Deal With US Stores Divestment

Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. said several potential buyers have made proposals to acquire convenience stores in the US that overlap with Seven & i Holdings Co., showing progress toward a deal that could help the Canadian retailer win regulatory approval for its proposal to buy its Japanese rival. The two agreed earlier this year to discuss the potential divestment of more than 2,000 stores in the US and seek out interested parties in order to address concerns by Seven & i over a merger being blocked by the US Federal Trade Commission. Couche-Tard also pushed back against any parallels to the failed $24.6 billion merger of grocery chains Kroger Co. and Albertsons Cos.

These L.A. Business Owners Say Protest-Fueled Mayhem Is Hammering Their Sales
These L.A. Business Owners Say Protest-Fueled Mayhem Is Hammering Their Sales

Wall Street Journal

time35 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

These L.A. Business Owners Say Protest-Fueled Mayhem Is Hammering Their Sales

LOS ANGELES—Johnny Wong has been painting over graffiti outside his downtown flower shop every morning since political protests marred by vandalism and violence began late last week. On Wednesday morning, he gave up. 'We just got tired,' said Wong, whose revenue is down 80% in the past few days. He closes each day around noon. Foot traffic has plummeted and many people aren't braving the streets to pick up orders.

Female athletes contest new NCAA ruling, claiming violations of federal anti-discrimination law
Female athletes contest new NCAA ruling, claiming violations of federal anti-discrimination law

Fox News

time37 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Female athletes contest new NCAA ruling, claiming violations of federal anti-discrimination law

Eight women's college soccer, volleyball and track and field athletes have filed an appeal challenging the House v. NCAA antitrust settlement. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved the settlement last week, clearing the way for direct payments from universities to athletes. The eight women argue female athletes won't receive their fair share of $2.7 billion in back pay for athletes barred from making money off their name, image and likeness (NIL). Kacie Breeding of Vanderbilt; Lexi Drumm, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Haas, Savannah Baron and Elizabeth Arnold of the College of Charleston; and Kate Johnson of Virginia lead the appeal. They all previously filed objections to the proposed settlement. Ashlyn Hare, one of the attorneys representing the athletes, said in a statement the settlement violates Title IX, the federal law that bans sex-based discrimination in education. "We support a settlement of the case, but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law. The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion," Hare said. "Paying out the money as proposed would be a massive error that would cause irreparable harm to women's sports." The House settlement figures to financially benefit football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, who are likely to receive a big chunk of the $20.5 million per year that colleges are permitted to share with athletes over the next year. Some athletes in other sports that don't make money for their schools could lose their partial scholarships or see their roster spots cut. "This is a football and basketball damages settlement with no real benefit to female athletes," Hare said. "Congress has expressly rejected efforts to exempt revenue-generating sports like football and basketball from Title IX's antidiscrimination mandate. The NCAA agreed with us. Our argument on appeal is the exact same argument the conferences and NCAA made prior to settling the case." The appeal, filed by the law firm Hutchinson Black and Cook of Boulder, Colorado, was first reported by Front Office Sports. It will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store