At Ed-Exec, we are seeing a growing obstacle in executive recruitment: qualified candidates who are interested in the position but unwilling to relocate.
In many cases, the problem is not the job, the institution or even the salary. It is the financial reality of selling a home with a low mortgage rate and purchasing another at today’s prices and borrowing costs.
For decades, employers could recruit nationally with a familiar pitch: a better position, a higher salary and an attractive relocation package. That equation has fundamentally changed.
Today, asking a candidate to relocate frequently means asking that person to surrender a historically low mortgage rate, purchase a more expensive home at a substantially higher rate and accept a significant increase in monthly expenses. Even when the new position offers a meaningful salary increase, the candidate may still come out financially behind.
This has become one of the most significant—and underestimated—obstacles in executive recruitment.
Candidates Are Not Simply Reluctant to Move. They Are Financially Trapped.
Millions of homeowners purchased or refinanced their homes when mortgage rates were near historic lows.
According to Freddie Mac, more than 60% of outstanding mortgages carry an interest rate below 4%. Mortgage rates averaged approximately 3.2% in 2020 and 3.1% in 2021. By July 2026, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate had climbed to approximately 6.5%.
Freddie Mac estimates that homeowners with fixed-rate mortgages have accumulated an average of approximately $66,000 in financial value from their below-market rates. Selling their homes means walking away from that benefit.
Consider a straightforward comparison involving a $400,000 home with a 20% down payment:
| Mortgage amount | Interest rate | Approximate monthly principal and interest |
|---|---|---|
| $320,000 | 3.0% | $1,349 |
| $320,000 | 6.5% | $2,023 |
That represents an increase of approximately $674 per month—or more than $8,000 per year—to finance the exact same amount of money.
The comparison does not include higher home prices, property taxes, homeowners insurance, moving expenses or the cost of preparing an existing home for sale. If the candidate needs to purchase a more expensive home in the new market, the financial penalty can easily exceed $1,000 per month.
For many candidates, accepting a new job no longer means moving up. It means paying significantly more to maintain the same standard of living.
Home Prices Have Compounded the Problem
Mortgage rates are only half of the equation.
According to the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, the national median single-family home price reached approximately five times the median household income in 2024. That compares with 4.1 times household income in 2019 and approximately 3.2 times income during the 1990s.
Candidates are therefore confronting two affordability problems simultaneously:
- The home they would purchase is likely to be considerably more expensive than it was before the pandemic.
- The financing cost could be more than double the rate on their existing mortgage.
Homeowners may have substantial equity on paper, but that does not necessarily solve the problem. They still need somewhere to live after selling, and the replacement property comes with today’s home price and today’s mortgage rate.
The effect on employment decisions is becoming measurable. Challenger, Gray & Christmas reported that only 1.5% of job seekers relocated for a new position during the fourth quarter of 2023—the lowest percentage recorded in its tracking. The rate improved to 2.4% during the first quarter of 2024 but remained among the lowest levels since the firm began its quarterly analysis in 2018.
Among recent college graduates, more than 84% identified cost of living as the most important factor affecting their willingness to relocate for employment, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers.
This is not merely a preference for remote work. It is a financial calculation.
Florida Is No Longer an Easy Relocation Sell
Florida once represented one of the easiest destinations to sell to a prospective candidate.
The recruiting message practically wrote itself:
- No state individual income tax
- Comparatively affordable housing
- Warm weather and year-round recreation
- A rapidly growing economy
- A lower overall cost of living than many Northeastern markets
The weather and lack of a state individual income tax remain. Much of the affordability advantage does not.
Florida’s statewide median price for a single-family home was approximately $265,000 in 2019. In recent years, statewide median prices have generally remained around or above $400,000—an increase of more than 50% in roughly six years.
The increase has been considerably greater in parts of South Florida and along the Gulf Coast. Housing costs in markets such as Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Naples, Sarasota and Tampa can now produce sticker shock—even for candidates relocating from traditionally expensive states.
The transformation has been particularly dramatic in South Florida. Since 2019, consumer prices in the Miami area have increased sharply, while home prices have risen by approximately 79%. Housing expenses in the Miami–Fort Lauderdale–West Palm Beach region have reached levels comparable to, and by some measures higher than, the New York metropolitan area.
Florida may still provide a substantial income-tax advantage for highly compensated executives. For many working professionals and midlevel leaders, however, that benefit can be swallowed by housing, insurance and transportation costs.
Florida should no longer automatically be described as a low-cost destination. In many markets, it is now a high-cost state with a favorable income-tax structure.
Those are not the same thing.
The Homeowners Insurance Problem
Homeowners insurance has become one of the most expensive and unpredictable parts of the Florida relocation equation.
Studies use different coverage levels and assumptions, but they generally reach the same conclusion: Florida homeowners pay the highest—or among the highest—property insurance premiums in the country.
One 2026 analysis estimated an average Florida homeowners insurance premium of approximately $7,136 per year for a policy with $300,000 in dwelling coverage. The comparable national average was approximately $2,543. That places Florida approximately 181% above the national average.
Another analysis estimated that Florida’s average annual premium reached $8,292 in 2025 following an 18% increase in a single year.
Actual premiums vary enormously based on location, construction type, elevation, roof age, wind-mitigation features and proximity to the coast. A newer inland property may remain reasonably insurable. An older or coastal home can cost substantially more and may have fewer available insurance carriers.
Candidates also need to consider:
- Flood insurance, which is generally separate from homeowners insurance
- Windstorm and hurricane deductibles
- Roof-age and replacement requirements
- Condominium association fees and special assessments
- High automobile insurance premiums
- Property-tax reassessment after purchasing a home
Florida’s Homestead Exemption and Save Our Homes protections can benefit established residents. However, an incoming candidate purchases at the current market value and does not inherit the seller’s capped property-tax assessment.
As a result, the property-tax amount shown on a real estate listing may significantly understate what the new owner will pay.
The Tax Savings May Not Offset the Increase
Suppose a candidate earns $175,000 and currently lives in a state with a 5% individual income-tax rate. Moving to Florida could theoretically eliminate approximately $8,750 in annual state income taxes, depending on the person’s deductions and specific tax situation.
That sounds compelling until the candidate calculates:
- More than $8,000 in additional annual mortgage payments
- An additional $4,000 to $6,000—or more—in homeowners insurance
- Potential flood insurance
- Higher automobile insurance
- A larger required down payment
- Higher property taxes following reassessment
The absence of a state individual income tax remains meaningful, particularly for senior executives and other high earners. But the tax savings alone may not make relocation financially worthwhile.
What Employers Need to Do Differently
Employers filling leadership positions can no longer treat relocation assistance as a token signing benefit.
A $5,000 allowance may help pay for movers, but it does nothing to address the candidate’s long-term increase in housing costs – and with todays moving costs you might not be able to move more than the bedroom for $5K.
Organizations requiring relocation should consider:
- Meaningful relocation packages based on the candidate’s actual financial circumstances
- Temporary housing for three to six months
- Home-sale assistance
- Mortgage-rate buydowns
- Larger signing bonuses
- Compensation adjustments based on local housing costs
- Hybrid arrangements that allow the candidate to delay a permanent move
- Assistance with insurance, taxes and local housing-market research
- Broader geographic flexibility when a full-time physical presence is not truly necessary
Employers also need to discuss relocation early in the recruitment process. Waiting until the offer stage to discover that a candidate has a 2.75% mortgage, two children in school and no financially reasonable way to purchase a comparable home in Florida wastes everyone’s time.
The Bottom Line
Candidates have not suddenly become less ambitious or less committed. The economics of relocation have changed.
A compelling title and a higher salary may no longer compensate for losing a 3% mortgage, purchasing a more expensive home at more than 6% and assuming thousands of dollars in additional annual insurance costs.
Florida remains desirable. It still offers warm weather, no state individual income tax, a growing economy and an appealing lifestyle. But employers and recruiters need to stop presenting it as an automatically affordable relocation destination.
For colleges, universities and other employers recruiting nationally, relocation has become a compensation issue—not simply a candidate preference.
The strongest candidates are running the numbers. Employers must do the same.
Vincent Scaramuzzo is President of Ed-Exec, Inc., an executive-search firm specializing in higher education and career-education leadership.