Holding Onto the Past: Previous Homes, Post-Move Housing Consumption, and the Great Recession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We document that households relocated during the 2007-2009 Great Recession and its aftermath were substantially more likely to hold their previous homes for an extended period of time. We identify two contributing factors to this phenomenon. First, falling house prices pushed many homes into the “negative-equity” and “near-negative-equity” territories, and this made it challenging for owners to sell their homes. Second, we also show that falling home values had a more widespread effect that made all homeowners, regardless of their equity positions, more reluctant to sell. Additionally, we find households without mortgages are more likely to hold previous homes. Overall, we show the relationship between the loan-to-value (LTV) ratio and the likelihood of holding is U-shaped. We further examine the impact of holding previous homes on post-move housing tenure and housing consumption choices. We find that holding previous homes is associated with renting for a longer period. For households that bought new homes after relocation, holding previous homes is associated with the new residences that are less expensive and smaller. Our results suggest that, for households that moved during the housing bust, the Great Recession has a long-lasting effect on their housing consumption choices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".