When a candidate tells me they are open to relocation, I do not hear:
“Yes, I will move.”
I hear:
“I am willing to evaluate whether moving makes sense.”
That distinction matters more today than it did several years ago.
Relocation has always involved disruption. But in the current market, the financial consequences of moving can be substantial enough to completely change the value of a job offer.
A candidate may genuinely like the company, the role and the location. They may be excited about the opportunity.
Then they start doing the math.
And the math may tell a very different story.
Relocation Is No Longer Just About Paying for the Move
When employers think about relocation, the conversation often starts with the physical move:
How much will movers cost?
Will we provide a lump sum?
Will we pay for temporary housing?
Those things matter.
But they are only part of the equation.
According to WHR Global’s internal relocation data, the average U.S. domestic relocation package in 2024 and 2025 cost approximately $21,792 for a renter and $63,685 for a homeowner.
That difference tells us something important.
For a homeowner, the expense is not simply getting furniture from Point A to Point B.
The employee may also be dealing with selling costs, buying costs, a different mortgage rate, housing-price differences, taxes, temporary housing, vehicle transportation and other transition expenses.
And some of those costs are not temporary.
They change the household’s economics for years.
Mortgage Lock-In Is a Real Barrier to Mobility
This may be one of the biggest changes in relocation.
The average conventional 30-year mortgage rate in 2021 was approximately 2.96%.
As of September 10, 2026, Freddie Mac’s average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was 6.76%.
That difference is enormous for someone who bought or refinanced a home several years ago.
FHFA researchers found that for every percentage point the prevailing mortgage rate exceeds a homeowner’s origination rate, the probability that the homeowner sells falls by 18.1%. The researchers specifically identify the lock-in effect as a constraint that can affect decisions such as moving homes or changing jobs.
So when a homeowner tells you they are open to relocation, there may be a significant financial asset attached to their current location:
a mortgage they cannot take with them.
They may willingly give it up.
But the new opportunity has to make enough sense to justify doing so.
A 10% Raise May Not Be a Raise
Suppose a candidate is considering leaving a job paying $200,000 OTE for an opportunity paying $220,000.
On paper:
10% raise.
That sounds attractive.
But compensation is only one side of the equation.
The candidate lives on after-tax income, and that income has to support the cost structure of wherever they live.
For someone relocating, the relevant question is not simply:
Is the new salary higher?
It is:
What will my financial position look like after I move?
That means looking at things such as housing costs, mortgage rates, state taxes, broader cost-of-living differences and the one-time cost of executing the move.
A candidate does not need to come out exactly dollar-for-dollar ahead on every category.
But most people changing companies are looking for the new opportunity to improve something: compensation, career trajectory, scope, quality of life or some combination of them.
It is rare that someone knowingly changes jobs, relocates and takes on all that disruption simply to become financially worse off.
An Atlanta-to-Boston Example
Consider an illustrative manager earning $200,000 OTE in Atlanta who owns a $500,000 home financed in 2021.
The Atlanta metro’s median listing price was approximately $419,900 in August 2026. Boston-Cambridge-Newton’s was approximately $795,000.
If that candidate wanted to maintain approximately the same relative housing position after moving, the comparable Boston home would be closer to $947,000.
That alone substantially changes the calculation.
Their original $400,000 mortgage at roughly 2.96% would have had principal and interest of approximately $1,678 per month.
After several years of payments, selling the Atlanta home, absorbing selling costs and transferring the remaining equity toward the Boston purchase, the replacement mortgage would be substantially larger—and financed at today’s much higher rate.
Seller closing costs alone can run roughly 6%–10% of a home’s sale price, while buyer closing costs typically run approximately 2%–6% of the mortgage amount.
In the illustrative model we built, once we accounted for the housing reset, federal and state taxes and reasonable cost-of-living differences, a $200,000 Atlanta compensation package required roughly $265,000 in Boston to preserve approximately the same ongoing economic position.
That number is not intended to suggest that every $200,000 Atlanta employee needs exactly $265,000 to move to Boston.
Individual circumstances vary significantly.
The point is what happens to the employer’s $220,000 offer.
The employer may see:
$200,000 → $220,000
The candidate may be looking at the economics and conclude:
This promotion would leave me materially worse off.
That is how a candidate who was sincerely open to relocation can reach the offer stage and ultimately say no.
Moving to a Cheaper Market Has Costs Too
Now reverse the move.
Take someone living in the approximately $947,000 Boston home and moving to a comparable $500,000 home in Atlanta.
The ongoing economics improve considerably.
In our illustrative model, the long-term compensation required in Atlanta to generate roughly comparable purchasing power was significantly below $200,000.
But that does not mean a $200,000 Boston candidate will necessarily accept a substantial compensation reduction.
Nor does it mean Year One is inexpensive.
Selling the Boston house at an illustrative 7% transaction cost alone would consume roughly $66,000 of equity.
There are then buyer closing costs on the Atlanta property, the move itself, possible travel, vehicle transportation, storage, temporary housing and other transition expenses.
The destination may be cheaper.
Getting there still costs money.
That distinction matters.
A candidate may eventually benefit financially from moving to a lower-cost market while still taking a substantial financial hit in the first year.
There Are Really Three Numbers in a Relocation Decision
When evaluating a relocation, it helps to separate three different questions.
| The number | The question |
|---|---|
| Steady-state economics | Once the move is complete, what compensation would provide roughly comparable after-tax purchasing power in the new market? |
| Year-One economics | What does it cost to actually execute the move, including housing transactions, moving expenses, taxes and transition costs? |
| Career-change threshold | What does the opportunity need to provide for the candidate to willingly leave their current employer, assume the career risk and relocate? |
Those three numbers can be very different.
The first one tells you whether the candidate can maintain their lifestyle.
The second tells you whether they can afford to get there.
The third tells you whether the opportunity is actually compelling enough to justify doing it.
And employers need to understand all three conceptually.
But This Does Not Mean Asking for Someone’s Personal Financial Records
This is an important distinction.
Understanding whether a relocation is feasible does not require a recruiter or employer to investigate a candidate’s household finances.
It does not require asking what their mortgage payment is.
It does not require asking whether they are married, whether a spouse works, whether they have children or what other personal obligations they have.
And in many jurisdictions, employers also need to be careful about salary-history questions.
For example, New York prohibits employers from asking applicants about current or past salary, compensation or benefits and expressly permits employers to ask about salary expectations instead. Massachusetts similarly generally prohibits employers—and recruiters acting as their agents—from seeking salary history before an offer with compensation has been made, while allowing questions about compensation expectations.
Laws differ by jurisdiction, so employers should make sure their practices comply with the rules that apply to the position and candidate.
But from a recruiting standpoint, there is a simpler principle:
You need enough information to understand whether the opportunity can work. You do not need enough information to audit the candidate’s household.
A Better Relocation Conversation
The employer should start by being clear about what it controls: the compensation range, incentive opportunity, benefits, location expectations and relocation support.
Then the candidate can determine whether that package works for their circumstances.
Appropriate questions can stay focused on the opportunity:
- “The compensation range for the position is $X to $Y, plus this incentive opportunity. Is that a range you could seriously consider given the relocation?”
- “Have you had an opportunity to evaluate the cost differences between your current market and this one?”
- “What would you need from the overall compensation and relocation package for the move to make sense?”
- “Is there anything about the relocation assistance currently offered that would prevent the move from being workable?”
- “If the opportunity continues to make sense professionally and economically, is the anticipated relocation timeframe realistic for you?”
The candidate can choose how much personal context they want to provide.
Someone may say:
“Housing is going to be the challenge.”
Or:
“The package would need more relocation assistance.”
Or simply:
“At that compensation level, I don’t think the move works.”
That may be all the recruiter needs to know.
Relocation Assistance Has Its Own Tax Consequences
There is another complication employers should understand.
Beginning in 2026, federal law permanently eliminated the general exclusion for qualified moving-expense reimbursements from employee income, except for specified military and intelligence-community circumstances.
That means a relocation benefit paid to an ordinary employee is generally taxable income.
So:
$20,000 of relocation assistance does not necessarily equal $20,000 available to spend on relocation.
Employers can choose to address the tax impact through a gross-up or another relocation-program design, but it needs to be considered.
Otherwise, the candidate may discover that the assistance they thought would cover the move does not actually cover the move after taxes.
“Open to Relocation” Should Be the Beginning of the Conversation
An excellent candidate saying they are open to relocation is valuable information.
It means geography does not automatically eliminate the opportunity.
But it is not a commitment.
The next step is making sure the candidate has enough information to evaluate the move realistically.
What does the role pay?
What is the incentive structure?
What relocation support exists?
What is housing like in the destination market?
What are the tax and cost-of-living differences?
What might the first year look like versus subsequent years?
Then let the candidate evaluate those facts against their own circumstances.
That is far better than discovering at offer stage that everyone assumed “open to relocation” meant the same thing.
The Mobility Problem Is Bigger Than Candidate Preference
It is easy to look at today’s market and conclude:
People just don’t want to move anymore.
There may be candidates for whom that is true.
But the economics have also changed materially.
Homeowners may be locked into mortgage rates around 3% while replacement mortgages are closer to 7%.
Housing markets can vary dramatically from one metro to another.
Selling and buying homes consumes real wealth.
Relocation assistance is generally taxable.
And changing jobs itself has risk.
Put all of those together and relocation becomes a much higher hurdle than the moving truck.
The practical recruiting question is therefore not:
“Will this person relocate?”
It is:
“Is there a version of this opportunity that makes relocating worthwhile?”
Sometimes the answer will be yes.
Sometimes the economics simply will not work.
Finding that out thoughtfully—and early—is better for the candidate, the employer and the search.
Because being open to relocation and being able to rationally accept a relocation offer are not the same thing.