High levels of engagement are easier when family and/or community are nearby and accessible. Physical proximity to family and community are a particularly important. While there are a variety of ways to communicate and interact over distances, age often brings less mobility and less face-to-face interaction. That alone can impede active social engagement.

In the “independence” examples above, the first two options entail close geographic proximity to a core social network, and easier social engagement. In contrast, as families disperse and communities turn over and change, the latter options result in less proximity, more adjustments, and potentially more isolation.

Again, the dynamics of social engagement cut across all financial segments, and there is no shortage of different situations—all with financial implications. Each move has liquidity implications, transaction costs and indirect costs of adapting to different social networks.

Examples of different (mostly intentional) situations where geography affects social networks include people who:

  • Downsize, and almost by definition move. They face new patterns of social interaction. Even if it’s nearby, social networks are all in motion, and not necessarily accessible.

  • Want to winter in one place and summer in another. Maintaining multiple households and family and/or community networks has expenses, and benefits.

  • Want to be close to their grandchildren, and may need to move to do that.

  • Want to pursue an avocation, and may need to finance their effort, particularly if it is through a non-profit entity.

  • Learn they need more help than expected, and must move abruptly into a new community. Researching, selecting, entering and adapting to a new community can be complex, disruptive—both socially and financially.

  • Need or want to move after the death of a spouse, and will have more difficulty adapting without their partner’s support.