Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
njtosd
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd][quote=sdrealtor]Most coveted by whom?[/quote]I have to agree with sdr. The basic rules of supply and demand would suggest that the most coveted residences would be the ones with the highest price per square foot. La Jolla, RSF and Del Mar all have higher prices per square foot than 92106, La Jolla and RSF being about 20% more (according to Trulia). There might be others – but I think BG has mixed up what she covets with what most people covet.[/quote]
Actually, I believe SFR’s in 92106 far outnumber the SFR’s in 92014 and 92067 (not sure about 92037). Therefore, there are likely many more listings and sales in 92106 than the other areas.
In addition, there are Section 8 units (likely NOT complexes) in 92037 and 92014 but not in 92067.[/quote]
BG – I don’t see any response to my argument. The number of units in a locality doesn’t influence its desirability . . Price per square foot is as close as you can come to an apples to apples comparison.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=bearishgurl]Oh, and I forgot to mention that the majority of rental complexes in 92107 (also adjacent to 92106) accept Section 8. In fact, this zip code may be one of the zip codes in the county sporting the MOST “Section 8” tenants :-}
IMO, the most coveted residences in this county lie within 92106 . . . by far. And it’s wedged between TWO Section 8/govm’t housing locales.
You can’t get away from Section 8, unless you live within a Covenant. So my advice is to “get over it” and be happy :=)[/quote]
Most coveted by whom?[/quote]
I have to agree with sdr. The basic rules of supply and demand would suggest that the most coveted residences would be the ones with the highest price per square foot. La Jolla, RSF and Del Mar all have higher prices per square foot than 92106, La Jolla and RSF being about 20% more (according to Trulia). There might be others – but I think BG has mixed up what she covets with what most people covet.Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=bearishgurl]Oh, and I forgot to mention that the majority of rental complexes in 92107 (also adjacent to 92106) accept Section 8. In fact, this zip code may be one of the zip codes in the county sporting the MOST “Section 8” tenants :-}
IMO, the most coveted residences in this county lie within 92106 . . . by far. And it’s wedged between TWO Section 8/govm’t housing locales.
You can’t get away from Section 8, unless you live within a Covenant. So my advice is to “get over it” and be happy :=)[/quote]
Most coveted by whom?[/quote]
I have to agree with sdr. The basic rules of supply and demand would suggest that the most coveted residences would be the ones with the highest price per square foot. La Jolla, RSF and Del Mar all have higher prices per square foot than 92106, La Jolla and RSF being about 20% more (according to Trulia). There might be others – but I think BG has mixed up what she covets with what most people covet.Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=bearishgurl]Oh, and I forgot to mention that the majority of rental complexes in 92107 (also adjacent to 92106) accept Section 8. In fact, this zip code may be one of the zip codes in the county sporting the MOST “Section 8” tenants :-}
IMO, the most coveted residences in this county lie within 92106 . . . by far. And it’s wedged between TWO Section 8/govm’t housing locales.
You can’t get away from Section 8, unless you live within a Covenant. So my advice is to “get over it” and be happy :=)[/quote]
Most coveted by whom?[/quote]
I have to agree with sdr. The basic rules of supply and demand would suggest that the most coveted residences would be the ones with the highest price per square foot. La Jolla, RSF and Del Mar all have higher prices per square foot than 92106, La Jolla and RSF being about 20% more (according to Trulia). There might be others – but I think BG has mixed up what she covets with what most people covet.Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=bearishgurl]Oh, and I forgot to mention that the majority of rental complexes in 92107 (also adjacent to 92106) accept Section 8. In fact, this zip code may be one of the zip codes in the county sporting the MOST “Section 8” tenants :-}
IMO, the most coveted residences in this county lie within 92106 . . . by far. And it’s wedged between TWO Section 8/govm’t housing locales.
You can’t get away from Section 8, unless you live within a Covenant. So my advice is to “get over it” and be happy :=)[/quote]
Most coveted by whom?[/quote]
I have to agree with sdr. The basic rules of supply and demand would suggest that the most coveted residences would be the ones with the highest price per square foot. La Jolla, RSF and Del Mar all have higher prices per square foot than 92106, La Jolla and RSF being about 20% more (according to Trulia). There might be others – but I think BG has mixed up what she covets with what most people covet.Participant[quote=sdrealtor][quote=bearishgurl]Oh, and I forgot to mention that the majority of rental complexes in 92107 (also adjacent to 92106) accept Section 8. In fact, this zip code may be one of the zip codes in the county sporting the MOST “Section 8” tenants :-}
IMO, the most coveted residences in this county lie within 92106 . . . by far. And it’s wedged between TWO Section 8/govm’t housing locales.
You can’t get away from Section 8, unless you live within a Covenant. So my advice is to “get over it” and be happy :=)[/quote]
Most coveted by whom?[/quote]
I have to agree with sdr. The basic rules of supply and demand would suggest that the most coveted residences would be the ones with the highest price per square foot. La Jolla, RSF and Del Mar all have higher prices per square foot than 92106, La Jolla and RSF being about 20% more (according to Trulia). There might be others – but I think BG has mixed up what she covets with what most people covet.Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]
The UAW/union workers don’t scapegoat the foreign workers; they blame the executives and those who (again) make decisions that only seek to maximize profits, without any consideration for the long-term effects of their actions, or how their actions will affect this country in the future.[/quote]Um. I don’t think you have spent much time in Detroit. I grew up there and the UAW members that I was aware of weren’t really picky about who they blamed for their troubles. At that time (I left in 1990) you didn’t want to park your foreign car downtown very often, unless you liked getting it keyed. Convertible tops on foreign cars were routinely slashed. The UAW workers wanted jobs, and if they could have excluded every foreign car from the U.S., they would have, regardless of their ability/inability to supply a product of equal quality. And don’t get me started on the “job banks.” Ridiculous.[/quote]
But were they angry at the *workers* in those foreign countries, or were they angry about the fact that they saw their jobs being threatened by those *companies*? I make a distinction between workers and the companies they work for.
[/quote]
Judging by the colorful phrases used in describing people from other auto supplying countries, I’d say they didn’t make any distinction.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]
The UAW/union workers don’t scapegoat the foreign workers; they blame the executives and those who (again) make decisions that only seek to maximize profits, without any consideration for the long-term effects of their actions, or how their actions will affect this country in the future.[/quote]Um. I don’t think you have spent much time in Detroit. I grew up there and the UAW members that I was aware of weren’t really picky about who they blamed for their troubles. At that time (I left in 1990) you didn’t want to park your foreign car downtown very often, unless you liked getting it keyed. Convertible tops on foreign cars were routinely slashed. The UAW workers wanted jobs, and if they could have excluded every foreign car from the U.S., they would have, regardless of their ability/inability to supply a product of equal quality. And don’t get me started on the “job banks.” Ridiculous.[/quote]
But were they angry at the *workers* in those foreign countries, or were they angry about the fact that they saw their jobs being threatened by those *companies*? I make a distinction between workers and the companies they work for.
[/quote]
Judging by the colorful phrases used in describing people from other auto supplying countries, I’d say they didn’t make any distinction.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]
The UAW/union workers don’t scapegoat the foreign workers; they blame the executives and those who (again) make decisions that only seek to maximize profits, without any consideration for the long-term effects of their actions, or how their actions will affect this country in the future.[/quote]Um. I don’t think you have spent much time in Detroit. I grew up there and the UAW members that I was aware of weren’t really picky about who they blamed for their troubles. At that time (I left in 1990) you didn’t want to park your foreign car downtown very often, unless you liked getting it keyed. Convertible tops on foreign cars were routinely slashed. The UAW workers wanted jobs, and if they could have excluded every foreign car from the U.S., they would have, regardless of their ability/inability to supply a product of equal quality. And don’t get me started on the “job banks.” Ridiculous.[/quote]
But were they angry at the *workers* in those foreign countries, or were they angry about the fact that they saw their jobs being threatened by those *companies*? I make a distinction between workers and the companies they work for.
[/quote]
Judging by the colorful phrases used in describing people from other auto supplying countries, I’d say they didn’t make any distinction.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]
The UAW/union workers don’t scapegoat the foreign workers; they blame the executives and those who (again) make decisions that only seek to maximize profits, without any consideration for the long-term effects of their actions, or how their actions will affect this country in the future.[/quote]Um. I don’t think you have spent much time in Detroit. I grew up there and the UAW members that I was aware of weren’t really picky about who they blamed for their troubles. At that time (I left in 1990) you didn’t want to park your foreign car downtown very often, unless you liked getting it keyed. Convertible tops on foreign cars were routinely slashed. The UAW workers wanted jobs, and if they could have excluded every foreign car from the U.S., they would have, regardless of their ability/inability to supply a product of equal quality. And don’t get me started on the “job banks.” Ridiculous.[/quote]
But were they angry at the *workers* in those foreign countries, or were they angry about the fact that they saw their jobs being threatened by those *companies*? I make a distinction between workers and the companies they work for.
[/quote]
Judging by the colorful phrases used in describing people from other auto supplying countries, I’d say they didn’t make any distinction.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]
The UAW/union workers don’t scapegoat the foreign workers; they blame the executives and those who (again) make decisions that only seek to maximize profits, without any consideration for the long-term effects of their actions, or how their actions will affect this country in the future.[/quote]Um. I don’t think you have spent much time in Detroit. I grew up there and the UAW members that I was aware of weren’t really picky about who they blamed for their troubles. At that time (I left in 1990) you didn’t want to park your foreign car downtown very often, unless you liked getting it keyed. Convertible tops on foreign cars were routinely slashed. The UAW workers wanted jobs, and if they could have excluded every foreign car from the U.S., they would have, regardless of their ability/inability to supply a product of equal quality. And don’t get me started on the “job banks.” Ridiculous.[/quote]
But were they angry at the *workers* in those foreign countries, or were they angry about the fact that they saw their jobs being threatened by those *companies*? I make a distinction between workers and the companies they work for.
[/quote]
Judging by the colorful phrases used in describing people from other auto supplying countries, I’d say they didn’t make any distinction.
ParticipantI don’t think you read the posting. It said the following:
“Virtually all health insurance plans could soon be required to offer female patients free coverage of prescription birth control”
It has nothing to do with the insurance industry making a decision to be, in your words “smart enough to know what’s good for them.” Nothing in this world is free; legislators simply decide who is going to pay for things. And most people prefer that someone else pay. And frankly, if it’s such a good idea why is it only prescription birth control for women? Why not all birth control used by women or men? Where’s the logic there?
And you know what? If we eliminated all babies, we wouldn’t even need birth control! What a savings.
ParticipantI don’t think you read the posting. It said the following:
“Virtually all health insurance plans could soon be required to offer female patients free coverage of prescription birth control”
It has nothing to do with the insurance industry making a decision to be, in your words “smart enough to know what’s good for them.” Nothing in this world is free; legislators simply decide who is going to pay for things. And most people prefer that someone else pay. And frankly, if it’s such a good idea why is it only prescription birth control for women? Why not all birth control used by women or men? Where’s the logic there?
And you know what? If we eliminated all babies, we wouldn’t even need birth control! What a savings.
ParticipantI don’t think you read the posting. It said the following:
“Virtually all health insurance plans could soon be required to offer female patients free coverage of prescription birth control”
It has nothing to do with the insurance industry making a decision to be, in your words “smart enough to know what’s good for them.” Nothing in this world is free; legislators simply decide who is going to pay for things. And most people prefer that someone else pay. And frankly, if it’s such a good idea why is it only prescription birth control for women? Why not all birth control used by women or men? Where’s the logic there?
And you know what? If we eliminated all babies, we wouldn’t even need birth control! What a savings.
-
AuthorPosts
