Nissan Moves to Nashville - It's Official

[Flybrian]

My example of narrow-minded (as judged from my own experience)  is that they are overtly racist, homophobic and give more weight to religious dogma than science.

[post="42943"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Thing is, there are people like that everywhere - Tennessee, California, everywhere.

[Croc]

Fly, it really isn't that way in California. Are there SOME people? Well yes, those little neo-Nazi pop princesses are from Bakersfield. But in Tennessee there are a LOT of homophobes, a LOT of racists, and a LOT of religious fanatics. I know you're just trying to make peace, but it's obvious you've never been to either place.

[Satty]

Thing is, there are people like that everywhere - Tennessee, California, everywhere.

[post="42984"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

There is a higher concentration of narrow-minded folk in the lower midwest/mid-south/bible belt/whatever the hell you call TN, MO, AR, KY, OK. A couple of weeks ago at work the Orkin guy came in to clean our roach traps, and somehow ended up going off on a very racist diatribe. This was in a very public place (our dining room, which was empty at the time) with a bunch of people he didn't know standing around. The only times I have ever seen displays like that in a public setting have been in this area of the country. Racist/homophobic people are everywhere, I guess the ones here just arent' smart enough to keep their ideas to themselves.

[haypops]

I think that the cities in the "South" are much more like the cities in the rest of the country than they are like the rural area of their own state. Hey! any one want to talk about cars?

[sciguy_0504]

Fly, it really isn't that way in California.  Are there SOME people?  Well yes, those little neo-Nazi pop princesses are from Bakersfield.  But in Tennessee there are a LOT of homophobes, a LOT of racists, and a LOT of religious fanatics.

I know you're just trying to make peace, but it's obvious you've never been to either place.

[post="43008"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Liberals love all kinds of diversity except the idealogical-type. Who's being narrow minded now?

[Croc]

Liberals love all kinds of diversity except the idealogical-type.  Who's being narrow minded now?

[post="43070"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I wouldn't even say that...liberals like all kinds of diversity except bigots. The only people I just flat out do not like are those that come across as bigots.

Now I guess you could twist that around to say that I am essentially self-loathing since I am bigoted toward bigots, but c'mon, let's not go there.

It isn't about the ideology, it is about the intolerance. You can think whatever the hell you want to think as long as you have the decency to a) keep it out of my business and B) not express it when it would deeply offend/hurt a great number of people.

Before anyone jumps on the "freedom of speech" bandwagon, there is a little something called tact. You might not like the CEO of a company, but you (should) have the decency not to say so loudly enough for him to hear it when you are two meters away from each other. At least I hope so...

[SoCalCTS]

Liberals love all kinds of diversity except the idealogical-type.  Who's being narrow minded now?

[post="43070"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Last time I checked, we had conservatives and liberals alike in California. Contrast Orange County to San Francisco county and you can see the huge political diversity here. I would hope that conservatives also agree that hatred such as racism and homophobia is not "ideological" diversity but just plain old hatred.

[sciguy_0504]

Last time I checked, we had conservatives and liberals alike in California. Contrast Orange County to San Francisco county and you can see the huge political diversity here. I would hope that conservatives also agree that hatred such as racism and homophobia is not "ideological" diversity but just plain old hatred.

[post="43073"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You have to admit, liberals vastly outnumber conservatives in Cali. Political diversity in CA (or Mass.) is like political diversity on college campuses: barely. I would rather say PA or OH (or any other battleground state) has more political diversity than CA.

Not trying to start any war here but there are reasons other than "plain old hatred" why people are not totally color blind or supportive of gays. Listen to any Jesse Jackson speech or visit any gay pride parade to try to understand where I'm coming from.

Croc, liberals call anyone who is against gay marriage or affirmative action a "bigot," no matter what they're reasons or opinions. They call people who don't mind having religion (or more specifically Christianity) in public life "religious nuts." Liberals called people who voted for Bush "dumb hillbillies." Name calling/railing against people really isn't the way to advance your cause, just like bombing abortion clinics doesn't, either.

Edit: spelling Edited November 14, 2005 by sciguy_0504

[SoCalCTS]

Croc, liberals call anyone who is against gay marriage or affirmative action a "bigot," no matter what they're reasons or opinions.  They call people who don't mind having religion (or more specifically Christianity) in public life "religious nuts."  Liberals called people who voted for Bush "dumb hillbillies."  Name calling/railing against people really isn't the way to advance your cause, just like bombing abortion clinics doesn't, either.

Edit: spelling

[post="43077"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I don't recall liberals running against "dumb hillbillies" in any previous election. I do however remember conservatives running on an anti-gay marriage platform.

I find it interesting that the Pilgrims came to the U.S. because they were trying to escape the control of the Anglican Church. You remember that the church and government were mixed at this time in history. Now, we have the opposite happening here. The conservative churches are trying to get control of the government. These churches disapprove of any other christian churches (such as Unitarians) that support gay rights. These conservative churches would force their beliefs on everyone.

I am not against Christian churches. There are a few Evangelical churches that espouse hatred instead of tolerance and that makes me really sad. There are many great churches of all faiths in this county but there are also many that are more focused on politics than on love and ministering to the poor. Edited November 14, 2005 by SoCalCTS

[Croc]

Wow...I don't know why you started putting hot-button issues into my mouth! I never spoke of such things. If you think that about California, you have no idea what you are talkng about. There is a lot of political diversity in Cali, only someone blind to reality would attempt to argue otherwise.

The first red flag that you do not have any idea whatsoever about which you are talking is that you talk about California as if it is all homogenous. Now ANYONE who has been to Cali knows that the state has virtually NO homogeny, ESPECIALLY political homogeny. This is a very politically charged state.

Now, you want to start putting words into my mouth, let me make it clear to the board that you are an idiot for doing so:

I am against affirmative action. It does nothing but hold Asians back, has little effect on Caucasions, and boosts Blacks and Hispanics. That said, especially in college admissions, Blacks and Hispanics are put at a huge disadvantage because while they might get into certain prestigious colleges based on race, oftentimes the skills they have from HS (the ones that otherwise would NOT have gotten them into this prestigious college) are not adequate for these colleges and they end up on academic probation. This is called the Mismatch Effect and is fairly widely publicized.

As for gay marriage, well show me a cogent argument AGAINST gay marriage that is not rooted in a bigotry against homosexuals. I have tried to understand those who disagree with gay marriage, and all I hear is fearmongering and hatred regarding homosexuality, not a cogent, logic-driven argument with some actual reason not to allow it. Because of this, I do tend to classify those against gay marriage as bigots, but maybe I just haven't heard that one, logical argument out there that is devoid of some inherent bigotry. For the record, I am not homosexual, and therefore really do not have any emotional attachment to the issue. So argue away.

There is a BIG difference between having religion and being a fanatic. I am a Christian but I do not try to impose my views on everyone I come into contact with. I have my views, and you have your views, and everything is copasetic as long as you don't try to interfere with my beliefs. It's called tolerance and mutual respect. I won't try to convince you of my beliefs and I expect the same courtesy unless one of us inquires the other in a "what would you do and why" kind of situation.

As for "public" Christians...I do not know what you mean. If you are referring to political Christians, yes, I believe in the separation of church and state as did our forefathers did (and yes, many were Christians but numerous quotes exist from them reaffirming the need for a separation of EVERY church and the state). Hence, nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because she is an Evangelical Christian is NOT something that could be supported by me.

People who voted for Bush are not dumb hillbillies. I personally think many were uninformed, and recent poll data seems to support this. The Bush campaign used scare tactics, and that got many swing voters suckered in. Also, many people knew what Bush stood for, while Kerry was a complete unknown. I think many people voted for what they knew than chance it on a wildcard. Frankly, I think it is damn impressive that Kerry got 47% of the vote despite only giving a glimmer of his platform during the entire campaign! He received 47% of the vote just by saying, essentially, that he was NOT BUSH. That speaks volumes to me. Volumes.

[Croc]

What SoCalCTS said...that's pretty much how I feel about those kinds of churches. Well said, man!

[regfootball]

[b]

Wow.

[post="43092"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Jesus, I thought the structural engineer I was working with would be the only person ever I knew to throw out the word COPASETIC...... Edited November 14, 2005 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Kerry was a complete rube. bush, not an improvement.

[Croc]

It's a good word to know.

[Flybrian]

I know you're just trying to make peace, but it's obvious you've never been to either place.

[post="43008"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Speaking of tact...

[razoredge]

Just announced in the news......Nissan is moving their N.A. headquarters from Gardena (L.A.) to the Nashville area where they have an assembly plant (Smyrna, TN.)  1,300 jobs will be transferred from Southern California to the Nashville area.

Personally, I think this is a MAJOR mistake for Nissan.  Why?

1)  The car culture in Southern California is second-to-none in this country.

2)  Trend-setting is also second-to-none (maybe along with New York) in this country.

3)  Southern California is an automotive dynamo with numerous different manufacturers having their N.A. headquarters here and most also have design studios here (GM even has one in North Hollywood.)  That's not to mention aftermarket guys such as Saleen, Brabus, etc., that are all headquartered here.

4)  Southern California is much closer to Asia for Asian import manufacturers.  It's one of the reasons that german manufacturers such as BMW (New Jersey) Porsche (Atlanta) and VW (Detroit) are all on the east cost time zone.

5)  A good majority of the Nissan employees here have indicated they do not want to move to Nashville and many will search for new jobs and quit Nissan instead of accept a transfer.  Why?  1)  Many love living here and 2) IF they move, they will most likely never be able to afford to return because this area's real estate market appreciation is forecasted to remain very strong....far outpacing the market in other areas such as Nashville.

6)  Nashville's not a bad town at all.....but if you've lived in Southern California for awhile, and can afford it here, why would you want to leave the beaches, the palm trees, the mountains, the lack of humidity and bugs, the great weather, the excitement of L.A. and Hollywood, the great restaurants, and the great nightlife, etc.?

This predicament has been all over the news here lately and apparently Toyota received SO many resumes as of late, they called Nissan and asked them to please ask their employees to stop forwarding them over there.

Sure there will be some people that will HAVE to move because of their longevity and their retirement interests....and some will move that have struggled here with the high cost-of-living.

BUT....what will be the overall effect of morale on Nissan's employees?  Those that quit because they don't want to move....but more importantly, what about the morale of those that DO move but don't really want to?

[post="41420"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

OMG this is so funny :lol:

Its simple OC the world is changing you need to change with it or die. Why should Nissan continue to pay their employees at a level necessary to live in California when there is plenty of cheaper labor in the South ?

Its only 1300 jobs, so what if 1300 people have their lives disrupted, cant see it from my house. They can get new jobs in the service industry or not, hell 1300 people out of work wont even change the unemployment rate in California 1/100 of a % :P

If Nissan had half a brain they would move all those jobs to India, surely anything they can do in California or Tennesee could be done cheaper and more efficiently in India. It is after all a new global world.
:metal:

[razoredge]

Thing is, there are people like that everywhere - Tennessee, California, everywhere.

[post="42984"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

:lol: Na, the California set dont have a chip on their shoulder, at least not one that has showed up here :lol:

[razoredge]

:lol: Wow this is so funny, look at all I missed. Page three really rocks, I love it :lol:

Ill give Sciguy, an other wise adversary, a thumbs up for making good points and good posts. I did not read them as putting words in a mouth or off base, I just read the point he was making about different views and why they exist and where they exist.

According to California or citidiot attitude, I am a "redneck" "Hillbilly" "liberal" "communist" "socialist" "bigot" "homophobic" "voted for Bush" waste of oxygen :lol:

When in reality Im a radical hillbilly that voted against Bush and believe in protecting my own kind and the way of life I love, and conserving the awsome resource of clean oxygen Im still able to breath in the not yet too overly populated hick town in which I live.

Im against gay marraige because its gay !
Im against immigration because its over populating the last piece of decent real estate in the world.
Im against baby factorys because they are over populating the last piece of decent real estate in the world
Im against global economics because its destroying the American way of life in the last decent piece of real estate in the world

It should also be know Im against marraige period - it means nothing to me - I have been with the same girl for 17 years
Im non religious- perhaps the anti christ himself and if they did exist and givin the chance Id go to bat against both biblical god and satan and demand answers from both as to just what the hell their problem really was and what the hell they were thinking about.
Religious freaks, freak me out just as much as two gay men
Feminazis should be locked up in a large facility with men pigs and a pay per view free for all should be had with the revenue going toward building manufactureing jobs in our inner cities so we could employ inner city people in ways other than the drug and entertainment industries.

So while you all worry about whether gays can get married or who what when and where the bible is read and the poor impoverished people from countries that never tried to lift a finger to get things straightened out in their own countries and dont know enough to "pull it out" and all other petty little things Ill spend my energy pulling for my fellow Americans in the not so pretty areas of the country where the real problems exist.

The root of all real problems is poverty

not race
not sexual preference
not creed
not gender

[turbo200]

I agree with what Croc said, Cali is a very politically homogeneous state. As an aside, glad to see politics on C&G, mods don't kill it! I'll have more to say on this subject when I have the time to read it thoroughly. Until you've been to California, you can't begin to understand the extremes that exist here. As a whole I would say the liberals are just loudest about thier opinions here, but then so is everyone else, and no state proves that adage of "if you complain enough, things will begin to go your way," than Cali does. The recent election proved it yet again.

[ehaase]

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20051114/index.php

California is ungovernable.

[SoCalCTS]

The United States is ungovernable as much as California may be. But anyways, anyone who follows Nissan to Tennessee will be losing out. Losing out on great colleges, the most manufacturing jobs, great weather etc. There are a few places in the states that are better places to live than Southern California but none of them are anywhere near Nashville. Edited November 15, 2005 by SoCalCTS

[Croc]

Your link went nowhere, ehaase.

[haypops]

Goshen said most of the top people were making the move. My experience is that they will make the move but will be back. Of course some/many may be new hires from other parts of the country any way. Goshen says its all been studied.

[The O.C.]

Wow...I don't know why you started putting hot-button issues into my mouth!  I never spoke of such things.  If you think that about California, you have no idea what you are talkng about.  There is a lot of political diversity in Cali, only someone blind to reality would attempt to argue otherwise.

The first red flag that you do not have any idea whatsoever about which you are talking is that you talk about California as if it is all homogenous.  Now ANYONE who has been to Cali knows that the state has virtually NO homogeny, ESPECIALLY political homogeny.  This is a very politically charged state.

Now, you want to start putting words into my mouth, let me make it clear to the board that you are an idiot for doing so:

I am against affirmative action.  It does nothing but hold Asians back, has little effect on Caucasions, and boosts Blacks and Hispanics.  That said, especially in college admissions, Blacks and Hispanics are put at a huge disadvantage because while they might get into certain prestigious colleges based on race, oftentimes the skills they have from HS (the ones that otherwise would NOT have gotten them into this prestigious college) are not adequate for these colleges and they end up on academic probation.  This is called the Mismatch Effect and is fairly widely publicized.

As for gay marriage, well show me a cogent argument AGAINST gay marriage that is not rooted in a bigotry against homosexuals.  I have tried to understand those who disagree with gay marriage, and all I hear is fearmongering and hatred regarding homosexuality, not a cogent, logic-driven argument with some actual reason not to allow it.  Because of this, I do tend to classify those against gay marriage as bigots, but maybe I just haven't heard that one, logical argument out there that is devoid of some inherent bigotry.  For the record, I am not homosexual, and therefore really do not have any emotional attachment to the issue.  So argue away.

There is a BIG difference between having religion and being a fanatic.  I am a Christian but I do not try to impose my views on everyone I come into contact with.  I have my views, and you have your views, and everything is copasetic as long as you don't try to interfere with my beliefs.  It's called tolerance and mutual respect.  I won't try to convince you of my beliefs and I expect the same courtesy unless one of us inquires the other in a "what would you do and why" kind of situation.

As for "public" Christians...I do not know what you mean.  If you are referring to political Christians, yes, I believe in the separation of church and state as did our forefathers did (and yes, many were Christians but numerous quotes exist from them reaffirming the need for a separation of EVERY church and the state).  Hence, nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because she is an Evangelical Christian is NOT something that could be supported by me.

People who voted for Bush are not dumb hillbillies.  I personally think many were uninformed, and recent poll data seems to support this.  The Bush campaign used scare tactics, and that got many swing voters suckered in.  Also, many people knew what Bush stood for, while Kerry was a complete unknown.  I think many people voted for what they knew than chance it on a wildcard.  Frankly, I think it is damn impressive that Kerry got 47% of the vote despite only giving a glimmer of his platform during the entire campaign!  He received 47% of the vote just by saying, essentially, that he was NOT BUSH.  That speaks volumes to me.  Volumes.

[post="43092"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

:P

Croc, I luv ya man! (and not in a "gay" way....hehehehe)

I think your post was right spot on....EVERY paragraph....!

Thanks for sticking up for us in the gay-marriage thing..... :rolleyes: It's nice to hear a heterosexual that has a logical viewpoint on the whole issue. People, of all races, genders, and beliefs, need to realize that the idea of marriage is a personal belief and you simply cannot force YOUR personal beliefs onto other people...gay OR straight.

It's interesting how Bush has been trying to make an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage in hopes of "protecting the sanctity of marriage" yet he was recently MORE than willing and happy to host Prince Charles and Camille, who had a widely-publicized affair (for how MANY years?) while he was married to Lady Di....

Back to L.A. versus Nashville.....I too have found that in all my travels, outside of maybe NYC, southern California (even mostly-republican O.C.) offers some of the most tolerant sensabilities of anywhere I've been in this country. I was born in Oklahoma and raised in Texas, so I know how bad it can get. For the MOST part...it doesn't matter where you came from, what color your skin is, or what sexual orientation you have. For anyone of a "minority" (for lack of a better word) that is a MAJOR consideration in deciding to make such a move from California to the South.

[The O.C.]

Goshen said most of the top people were making the move.  My experience is that they will make the move but will be back.  Of course some/many may be new hires from other parts of the country any way. Goshen says its all been studied.

[post="43287"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Some would say the executives really had no choice....they are too high up, etc., NOT to move.

What about the mid-managers that have to face the fact that IF they leave for Nashville, they would NEVER be able to afford to move back if they wanted to...

Hell, I'm not even sure the executives would be able to afford to move back after a few years....and have the same lifestyle in California that they had BEFORE they made the move to Nashville....

[Croc]

Actually the shouldn't have to downgrade if they decide to move back to SoCal. Do you really think Nissan would be dumb enough to ask them to move AND take a pay cut? Any pay cuts would likely be for new hires.

[The O.C.]

Actually the shouldn't have to downgrade if they decide to move back to SoCal.  Do you really think Nissan would be dumb enough to ask them to move AND take a pay cut?  Any pay cuts would likely be for new hires.

[post="43305"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm talking about real estate prices......

Let's say they are in Nashville for two years....in two years' time, the house they sold in L.A. is going to have appreciated at a MUCH higher rate than any house they would be buying in Nashville.

SO....the house they sold for, let's say $750K, is now worth $1M or more two or three years later. While the $750K mansion they buy in Tennessee is worth "only" $825K two years later....????? So the level of house they had before in L.A. is now effectively out of their price range.

As you know Croc, that kind of appreciation out here is not unheard of....it's more than common.

[razoredge]

Some would say the executives really had no choice....they are too high up, etc., NOT to move.

What about the mid-managers that have to face the fact that IF they leave for Nashville, they would NEVER be able to afford to move back if they wanted to...

Hell, I'm not even sure the executives would be able to afford to move back after a few years....and have the same lifestyle in California that they had BEFORE they made the move to Nashville....

[post="43300"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Id say that Nissan is banking on them quiting so they can hire on new execs at half the pay. There will be a long line of applicants more than willing to work for much less, and be more productive with less attitude.

Tennesee is pretty nice from what Ive seen but thats mostly limited to Knoxville, which is a very clean town, no garbage strewn from one end to the other, well maintained. Its humid however and a bit warm for my northern blood. My experience with the mid southern people is that they are very friendly and respectable and it seems to be the concensus from anybody I know that has gone south.

[Croc]

The housing bubble in CA is about to burst. In two or three years time, they may not have lost out too much at all. These booms don't last forever...

[razoredge]

I'm talking about real estate prices......

Let's say they are in Nashville for two years....in two years' time, the house they sold in L.A. is going to have appreciated at a MUCH higher rate than any house they would be buying in Nashville.

SO....the house they sold for, let's say $750K, is now worth $1M or more two or three years later.  While the $750K mansion they buy in Tennessee is worth "only" $825K two years later....?????  So the level of house they had before in L.A. is now effectively out of their price range.

As you know Croc, that kind of appreciation out here is not unheard of....it's more than common.

[post="43311"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ah, poor babys

[The O.C.]

The housing bubble in CA is about to burst.  In two or three years time, they may not have lost out too much at all.

These booms don't last forever...

[post="43320"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

EVERYTHING I've read here locally shows there is no "bubble." If there's any activity, it will be a softening of the market, but no major dipping of the market.

Of course you have to remember that in L.A. and Orange counties, there is less and less area to build. The L.A. area is surrounded by mountain ranges on three sides and the ocean on the fourth. Unless you go past those mountain ranges into the desert or the Inland Empire, there are fewer and fewer places to build new housing. That's something not really found in too many other areas.

Okay I admit I don't have the numbers exact, but it's something like this......speaking of O.C., forecasts call for the need of something like 50K new homes in the next 5 years.....and that something like 10K are planned or able to be built. SIMPLE supply and demand.

More specifically, if you want to be within 30 minutes of the coast (and many people do....as shown by the relative home prices are you move towards the ocean) then you'll have to pay the money because there is NO (relatively-speaking) new construction to help offset demand for existing housing.

If you've lived here for a while, you'll know that it really IS a unique real estate market.....and doesn't live or react to housing trends like any other area of the U.S.....partly because of the geography and population here....

My 2-bedroom townhouse went up in value $200K over three years....and that's just a condo....from $300K to $500K when I sold it.

NOW...if I had left for a year or two and moved back, I would have found "my" house had appreciated too much for me to afford to buy again....

[Croc]

I know CA has the unique market...but still the bubble is about to burst. Recently some sellers have had to lower their asking prices. Also, if I were moving on a job-related thing but planning on moving back in a few years...I'd rent the house I currently had so I'd still own it.

[regfootball]

OMG this is so funny  :lol:

Its simple OC the world is changing you need to change with it or die. Why should Nissan continue to pay their employees at a level necessary to live in California when there is plenty of cheaper labor in the South ?

Its only 1300 jobs, so what if 1300 people have their lives disrupted, cant see it from my house. They can get new jobs in the service industry or not, hell 1300 people out of work wont even change the unemployment rate in California 1/100 of a %  :P

If Nissan had half a brain they would move all those jobs to India, surely anything they can do in California or Tennesee could be done cheaper and more efficiently in India. It is after all a new global world.
:metal:

[post="43123"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

LOL.......

[razoredge]

Id be more worried about the people of Tennesee that have their housing market drivin sky high because big spenders from higher inflated areas come around and dont bat an eye paying above area market value for houses. Thereby driving housing in that area superfically high. We have that going on around here with migration comming from NYC, LI, and NJ. Housing has increased 100% in less than 10 years. I could not afford a house today and I did not have to relocate or change jobs. Its funny to hear them cry after they realize they paid above market value and discover that the country is really the country not some park that is spic and span and maintianed solely for their viewing pleasure. "OMG theres snow on the road and my tires spin going up the mountain and Im so scared" Edited November 15, 2005 by razoredge

[regfootball]

Id say that Nissan is banking on them quiting so they can hire on new execs at half the pay. There will be a long line of applicants more than willing to work for much less, and be more productive with less attitude.

Tennesee is pretty nice from what Ive seen but thats mostly limited to Knoxville, which is a very clean town, no garbage strewn from one end to the other, well maintained. Its humid however and a bit warm for my northern blood. My experience with the mid southern people is that they are very friendly and respectable and it seems to be the concensus from anybody I know that has gone south.

[post="43316"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

you're right about ghosn trying for folks quitting. he'll be able to rehire all the GM employees when they lose their jobs due to bankruptcy and cost cutting.......

[razoredge]

you're right about ghosn trying for folks quitting.  he'll be able to rehire all the GM employees when they lose their jobs due to bankruptcy and cost cutting.......

[post="43371"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Hey, my sister has been riding me to move to Tenne. Im sure I could do anything they do with less than one weeks training :P

[turbo200]

I know CA has the unique market...but still the bubble is about to burst.  Recently some sellers have had to lower their asking prices.

Also, if I were moving on a job-related thing but planning on moving back in a few years...I'd rent the house I currently had so I'd still own it.

[post="43337"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

There's also the issue of the inevitable earthquake that will drive prices down yet again. They keep referring to it as the "big one". I'm not scared of it, more expecting it, the Southern California area is built on land that basically requires for earthquakes to happen. It'll certainly drive prices down as people move out, but I'm sure pricing will go back to normal shortly after.

[Croc]

That too. We are due for the "big one" any day now until it happens. Likely it will be closer to 2017, though it could be as far away as 2130. The geological window has been open, and one day it will happen. Hopefully not a 8.0+ earthquake either...

[ehaase]

I guess that the bottom line is that Southern California (and this is probably true for the Bay Area as well) is a wonderful place if you are already there. It's very difficult for a middle class person moving to California from a low cost area. I plan to visit there next year and know that I will be impressed.

[sciguy_0504]

[quote name='Croc' date='Nov 14 2005, 06:44 PM']Wow...I don't know why you started putting hot-button issues into my mouth!  I never spoke of such things.  If you think that about California, you have no idea what you are talkng about.  There is a lot of political diversity in Cali, only someone blind to reality would attempt to argue otherwise.

The first red flag that you do not have any idea whatsoever about which you are talking is that you talk about California as if it is all homogenous.  Now ANYONE who has been to Cali knows that the state has virtually NO homogeny, ESPECIALLY political homogeny.  This is a very politically charged state.[/quote]

I apologize for my misunderstanding California's political homogeny.

[quote name='Croc' date='Nov 14 2005, 06:44 PM']Now, you want to start putting words into my mouth, let me make it clear to the board that you are an idiot for doing so:[/quote]

I did not put words in your mouth. I said the majority of liberals in this country are quick to throw out the word "bigot," "racist," and "discriminatory" whenever someone comes out with opposing views on certain topics. I did not say you specifically do this, I said liberals as a group.

[quote name='Croc' date='Nov 14 2005, 06:44 PM']I am against affirmative action.  It does nothing but hold Asians back, has little effect on Caucasions, and boosts Blacks and Hispanics.  That said, especially in college admissions, Blacks and Hispanics are put at a huge disadvantage because while they might get into certain prestigious colleges based on race, oftentimes the skills they have from HS (the ones that otherwise would NOT have gotten them into this prestigious college) are not adequate for these colleges and they end up on academic probation.  This is called the Mismatch Effect and is fairly widely publicized.[/quote]

I agree 100% with all but the last sentence. It is not fairly publicized because anyone who comes out against affirmative action, no matter what their reasoning, is harrassed and has their name trashed. They're "racist." We cannot have discussions about race in this country because of the same reason.

[quote name='Croc' date='Nov 14 2005, 06:44 PM']As for gay marriage, well show me a cogent argument AGAINST gay marriage that is not rooted in a bigotry against homosexuals.  I have tried to understand those who disagree with gay marriage, and all I hear is fearmongering and hatred regarding homosexuality, not a cogent, logic-driven argument with some actual reason not to allow it.  Because of this, I do tend to classify those against gay marriage as bigots, but maybe I just haven't heard that one, logical argument out there that is devoid of some inherent bigotry.  For the record, I am not homosexual, and therefore really do not have any emotional attachment to the issue.  So argue away.[/quote]

Are you ready to allow all types of marriage? Man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, man-child, woman-animal, man-man-woman-man-woman? I don't see marriage as a right, I see it as a privilege between one man and one woman. I'm not religious so the Bible has nothing to do with my opinion. If marriage is a right, however, you need to extend that right to all parts of society. You cannot pick and choose what groups have that right and which ones do not because then you would be discriminating and we all know how wrong that is!

[quote name='Croc' date='Nov 14 2005, 06:44 PM']There is a BIG difference between having religion and being a fanatic.  I am a Christian but I do not try to impose my views on everyone I come into contact with.  I have my views, and you have your views, and everything is copasetic as long as you don't try to interfere with my beliefs.  It's called tolerance and mutual respect.  I won't try to convince you of my beliefs and I expect the same courtesy unless one of us inquires the other in a "what would you do and why" kind of situation.[/quote]

What about organizations like the ACLU and people like Michael Newdow (spelling?) who go around suing people, schools and other organizations who show even the slightest hint of Christianity in public? This is also what I meant by "public" Christians, sorry for the misunderstanding. People wonder why Christians vote the way they do and this is surely one good reason for it.

[quote name='Croc' date='Nov 14 2005, 06:44 PM']As for "public" Christians...I do not know what you mean.  If you are referring to political Christians, yes, I believe in the separation of church and state as did our forefathers did (and yes, many were Christians but numerous quotes exist from them reaffirming the need for a separation of EVERY church and the state).  Hence, nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because she is an Evangelical Christian is NOT something that could be supported by me.[/quote]

Would you support a Jew on the Supreme Court? How about a Muslim? An atheist? Hispanic? Italian? Asian? The list can go on and on but you're guilty of the same thing you are calling others out on and it's very hypocritical. Being an Evangelical Christian should have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you supported Miers. I did not support her because she was highly unqualified.

[quote name='Croc' date='Nov 14 2005, 06:44 PM']People who voted for Bush are not dumb hillbillies.  I personally think many were uninformed, and recent poll data seems to support this.  The Bush campaign used scare tactics, and that got many swing voters suckered in.  Also, many people knew what Bush stood for, while Kerry was a complete unknown.  I think many people voted for what they knew than chance it on a wildcard.  Frankly, I think it is damn impressive that Kerry got 47% of the vote despite only giving a glimmer of his platform during the entire campaign!  He received 47% of the vote just by saying, essentially, that he was NOT BUSH.  That speaks volumes to me.  Volumes.[/quote]

That's the fact that scares me. Many people would have voted for anyone other than Bush just because they weren't Bush. Very scary, indeed.

Like you mentioned, we'll agree to disagree and leave each other at our own opinions. Thanks for being civil.

[sciguy_0504]

There's also the issue of the inevitable earthquake that will drive prices down yet again. They keep referring to it as the "big one". I'm not scared of it, more expecting it, the Southern California area is built on land that basically requires for earthquakes to happen. It'll certainly drive prices down as people move out, but I'm sure pricing will go back to normal shortly after.

[post="43388"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Be safe, turbie!!! B)

[SoCalCTS]

What about organizations like the ACLU and people like Michael Newdow (spelling?) who go around suing people, schools and other organizations who show even the slightest hint of Christianity in public? This is also what I meant by "public" Christians, sorry for the misunderstanding. People wonder why Christians vote the way they do and this is surely one good reason for it.

What about the ACLJ and people like Jay Sekulow who go around suing people because they don't want Evangelical Christianity forced on thme by the government. There are plenty of Christians (... and Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus) that don't want christian beliefs taught in the schools, ten commandments in courthouses, or giant crosses on public property.

Would you support a Jew on the Supreme Court? How about a Muslim? An atheist? Hispanic? Italian? Asian? The list can go on and on but you're guilty of the same thing you are calling others out on and it's very hypocritical. Being an Evangelical Christian should have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you supported Miers. I did not support her because she was highly unqualified.

The difference is that Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, Jews, etc. are not saying that they want to attack the constitution so that their minority group would be calling the shots. The Evangelical Christians would be activist judges and make law from the bench and force their religion down everyone elses throat. I am so glad that at least George Bush has been careful not to appoint these people. He has given us two Catholics instead. At least Catholics know the dangers of mixing church and state.

[The O.C.]

I know CA has the unique market...but still the bubble is about to burst.  Recently some sellers have had to lower their asking prices.

Also, if I were moving on a job-related thing but planning on moving back in a few years...I'd rent the house I currently had so I'd still own it.

[post="43337"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You could rent your house out.....UNLESS you needed the equity out of the California house to put down on the Nashville house....

Course if you REALLY thought you'd come back, you'd rent out your CA house and just rent an apartment in TN for a couple of years.

We bought in May....and in August, one with the same floorplan as ours sold for $30K more...and it didn't have a driveway (unlike ours) and didn't have anywhere near the upgrades ours has. There's no bubble that's gonna burst. At least not here close to the coast. In Aliso Viejo, there is one remaining housing development that's going to be built....and THEN, the city is 100% built-out. That remaining housing developement will start in the $1Ms too....so I don't think it will stiffle activity in our local market.

[Croc]

Are you ready to allow all types of marriage?  Man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, man-child, woman-animal, man-man-woman-man-woman?  I don one man and one woman.  I'm not religious so the Bible has nothing to do with my opinion.  If marriage is a right, however, you need to extend that right to all parts of society.  You cannot pick and choose what groups have that right and which ones do not because then you would be discriminating and we all know how wrong that is!

I do not understand why you and many, many other conservatives lump gay marriage in with pedophilia and bestiality. Heterosexual marriage is (except in one or two states) strictly limited to being between two consenting adults. I, and almost every other person in the country is fine with that for the obvious reason that marriage is an adult decision and should be made by adults. Gay marriage would also be strictly limited to being between two consenting adults. Animals cannot consent, and no matter how much think Fido wants it, no court of law will allow it. Animals cannot consent. Children also cannot consent. There are already age of consent laws in this country that are not in danger of being overturned any time soon. In most states, the age of consent laws say that children between 16 and 18 can have a sexual relationship with someone under 21, but not older than 21, because when kids date, stuff happens. Once that child turns 18, though...well we know what happens then. There won't be any more marriage of minors than there currently is today if gay marriage becomes a reality. One has no outcome on the other; they are two very separate issues, and child sex has a lot of psychological data for barring it. NO ONE who is not a pedophile would be "for" child sex and therefore child marriage. As for polygamy? There is less of a cogent argument against it, though one can argue that outlawing it has to do with the cutting down the spread of genetic diseases. Many Arab countries have genetic "epidemics" due to multiple wives and inbreeding.

What about organizations like the ACLU and people like Michael Newdow (spelling?) who go around suing people, schools and other organizations who show even the slightest hint of Christianity in public?  This is also what I meant by "public" Christians, sorry for the misunderstanding.  People wonder why Christians vote the way they do and this is surely one good reason for it.

It all has to do with the separation of church and state. It isn't so much that it is Christianity being shown in public, it is if it is on government property or at a government sponsored event. Government cannot be endorsing one religion over another. When the government does this, people can, will, and in my opinion, should sue. It is all about equal opportunities for others. I am a Christian, but I know how awkward it would be walking around in an Islamic nation and having it thrown into my face constantly. I agree with Sandra-Day O'Connor on this one...government displays including religious iconography are only permisable if they are surrounded by other secular icons as well as other icons from different faiths and that a concerted effort to include every religious belief is made.

Would you support a Jew on the Supreme Court?  How about a Muslim?  An atheist?  Hispanic?  Italian?  Asian?  The list can go on and on but you're guilty of the same thing you are calling others out on and it's very hypocritical.  Being an Evangelical Christian should have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you supported Miers.  I did not support her because she was highly unqualified.

Of course I would support all of those! What a silly question. I agree that it SHOULD have little to do with her support, but in Bush's eyes it had everything to do with it. Conservatives balked at her lack of experience and he tried to assuage them by explaining, "but she's an evangelical Christian!" That is what I find appalling. That the President thinks that her religion would and should be a factor in her decision-making, NOT her jurisprudence, is what scares me. As I said in my previous post, nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because she is an evangelical Christian is NOT something supported by me. However, I would have few qualms with her being nominated for her vast experience and legal expertise without regard to religion...but sadly that was not the case.

That's the fact that scares me.  Many people would have voted for anyone other than Bush just because they weren't Bush.  Very scary, indeed.

I don't think that that is scary...it just means that our President is not doing a very good job representing the will of the American people. His presidency has swung American politics too far to the right, and in 2008 there will be a paradigm shift. Politics will hopefully go to the center, but may overcorrect and go slightly left. I hope it stays in the center; I don't like extremes, especially since most Americans are somewhere in the middle than either extreme.

Like you mentioned, we'll agree to disagree and leave each other at our own opinions.  Thanks for being civil.

[post="43459"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No problem.

[evok]

There's no bubble that's gonna burst.  At least not here close to the coast. 

[post="43465"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Never say never. It is already starting in other high priced areas. And soon as the principal on all those people that purchased on the interest only loans kick in, the down ward potential is great.

[The O.C.]

I guess that the bottom line is that Southern California (and this is probably true for the Bay Area as well) is a wonderful place if you are already there.  It's very difficult for a middle class person moving to California from a low cost area.  I plan to visit there next year and know that I will be impressed.

[post="43411"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Exactly my point in ALL this. You are right. If I was JUST moving to southern California, there's no way I could afford the house I live in right now.

But once you ARE here and settled, it's a WONDERFUL place to live....like living in paradise as far as I'm concerned.

The only negatives are traffic and congestion. If you can deal with that, it's great.

However, you have to live in the right place. If you are forced to live an hour inland because you can't afford the coastal areas, then you most likely won't be as happy.....way more traffic, smog, hotter temps, etc.

When you come visit, make sure you don't spend too much time in the "touristy" areas like Disneyland and Hollywood. Get outside of those areas and spend some quality time in some of the beautiful and characterful beach cities like Laguna Beach, Manhattan Beach, etc.

[Croc]

Hollywood is trashy. You will see a prostitute every 30 seconds. If not more frequently. Good people watching, but very trashy people watching.

[turbo200]

Be safe, turbie!!!  B)

[post="43460"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

:) thanks

I'm not sure where you're getting your estimates from Croc on the timing issue, but most experts beleive it's going to be within the next few years. It will be a tough one too, I just pray it won't be that devastating. The last earthquake in Northridge hit around 4 am before most people were on the freeways for work. It caused a lot of damage, but that simple fact saved LOTS of life.

[turbo200]

Hollywood is trashy.  You will see a prostitute every 30 seconds.  If not more frequently.  Good people watching, but very trashy people watching.

[post="43533"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Hollywood is a great city for nightlife. It's also quite beautiful to drive through, in some areas. It is not much more than that. There are tons of fancy boutiques for shopping. Other than that, it is pretty rundown. I don't know totally what the draw of this city is? Chicago is fun, there's lots to do, everything is easily accessible, and people are walking everywhere so you get to experience the bustle. Plus, it's a spectacular city. Of course, Hollywood Blvd. and Sunset are fun to walk through, but that can get tedious. Definitely, Los Angeles is about the beaches and surrounding communities. Culver City is pretty nice, Santa Monica is beautiful and swanky, Manhattan Beach has lots of character, Laguna is like paradise, areas of the OC are like paradise, heck Malibu is paradise. Hollywood Hills and Beverly Hills are also quite beatiful to drive through. Wilshire Blvd, leading to LA and Santa Monica could be considered the center for business of the city, IDK...So if you're looking for hot weather, beautiful cars, and a lot of bustle, just no real center for that bustle, come to LA!

[Croc]

:) thanks

I'm not sure where you're getting your estimates from Croc on the timing issue, but most experts beleive it's going to be within the next few years. It will be a tough one too, I just pray it won't be that devastating. The last earthquake in Northridge hit around 4 am before most people were on the freeways for work. It caused a lot of damage, but that simple fact saved LOTS of life.

[post="43553"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm getting my estimates from the fact that the San Andreas fault is "stuck" right now and that its big events are spaced on average 152 years apart, though it never happens on the average. The shortest interval on record was 57 years and the longest 250 years. The window for the next big one has been open for a while.

All of this is from a geology class I've been in. This weekend we went on a little camping field trip and visited Palmdale and the fault among a lot of other places.