[njtosd]

For what it’s worth – we left San Diego about three years ago after the company my husband worked for closed. He took a great job in PA (just over the border from NJ) and we looked forward to lower home prices, living in something other than a tract home and some of the “sanity” that you are talking about. We both grew up in the midwest (Chicago and Michigan) and thought we knew what we were getting into.

As you can see from my username, we’d love to move back . . . The beautiful fall color is great . . . until they want $5000 (this was the average estimate) for “fall yard clean up,” i.e. leaf removal. The area is beautiful and strewn with boulders, which make great landscape features – on the other hand, the terrain makes running water pipes and sewers difficult, so you are left with well water and septic. Because of the terrain, a large portion of the electrical system is above ground, so during bad weather you frequently lose the electricity necessary for the well pump, which eliminates all use of your plumbing, drinking water, etc.
More importantly, my kids’ elementary school was built before the one that I attended in the 60s – 70s and hasn’t seen too many upgrade – but inexplicably gets very high marks. The per student cost is 50% higher than our old school district (DMUSD) at the elementary level and 100% higher at the high school level – but the results aren’t as good (based on comparisons of state rankings based on standardized tests). The kids aren’t allowed to go outside for recess if the temperature goes below 32 degrees – which means for 4 or 5 months of the school year. The beautiful roads that wind through the forest are the same ones that the children travel on in the school bus on icy winter days. Most of the little towns have volunteer fire departments and EMS – and the volunteer EMS people will be traveling those same icy roads if they (heaven forbid) ever need to take you to the hospital. (The closest hospital is 30 minutes away assuming no weather issues and no traffic.)

The worst part is this: most people who live here haven’t ever lived anywhere else, but swear it’s “the best.” They are convinced that no changes are necessary.

San Diego is expensive. It has a lot more advertisements for plastic surgery, tiny parking spaces, astronomical home prices and a laundry list of other issues. On the other hand, the infrastructure is relatively new, there is an acceptance of new and different ideas and there is a healthy emphasis on education. And you can open your windows most days of the year. Before you move to Minnesota (or wherever) take a look at the total package.

[njtosd]

For what it’s worth – we left San Diego about three years ago after the company my husband worked for closed. He took a great job in PA (just over the border from NJ) and we looked forward to lower home prices, living in something other than a tract home and some of the “sanity” that you are talking about. We both grew up in the midwest (Chicago and Michigan) and thought we knew what we were getting into.

As you can see from my username, we’d love to move back . . . The beautiful fall color is great . . . until they want $5000 (this was the average estimate) for “fall yard clean up,” i.e. leaf removal. The area is beautiful and strewn with boulders, which make great landscape features – on the other hand, the terrain makes running water pipes and sewers difficult, so you are left with well water and septic. Because of the terrain, a large portion of the electrical system is above ground, so during bad weather you frequently lose the electricity necessary for the well pump, which eliminates all use of your plumbing, drinking water, etc.
More importantly, my kids’ elementary school was built before the one that I attended in the 60s – 70s and hasn’t seen too many upgrade – but inexplicably gets very high marks. The per student cost is 50% higher than our old school district (DMUSD) at the elementary level and 100% higher at the high school level – but the results aren’t as good (based on comparisons of state rankings based on standardized tests). The kids aren’t allowed to go outside for recess if the temperature goes below 32 degrees – which means for 4 or 5 months of the school year. The beautiful roads that wind through the forest are the same ones that the children travel on in the school bus on icy winter days. Most of the little towns have volunteer fire departments and EMS – and the volunteer EMS people will be traveling those same icy roads if they (heaven forbid) ever need to take you to the hospital. (The closest hospital is 30 minutes away assuming no weather issues and no traffic.)

The worst part is this: most people who live here haven’t ever lived anywhere else, but swear it’s “the best.” They are convinced that no changes are necessary.

San Diego is expensive. It has a lot more advertisements for plastic surgery, tiny parking spaces, astronomical home prices and a laundry list of other issues. On the other hand, the infrastructure is relatively new, there is an acceptance of new and different ideas and there is a healthy emphasis on education. And you can open your windows most days of the year. Before you move to Minnesota (or wherever) take a look at the total package.

[njtosd]

[quote=SandraL]I have to disagree with SD Realtor on corporations. Small business is what drives jobs in the USA. Corporations are not coming back here to create jobs, even with a favorable tax policy. Labor costs are too high.

. . .
[/quote]

A spot-on article in today’s NYT contradicts this position. According to the authors, the age, not the size of the company is key to job creation:

“Size plays virtually no role,” says John Haltiwanger, an economist and co-author of the study. “It’s all age — start-ups are where the real job-creation action is.”

See “Why Big Companies Matter in Job Creation” http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/why-big-companies-matter-in-job-creation/

Furthermore, large companies are disproportionately responsible for the demand that drives startups, according to the authors:

“You can read that and assume that big, older companies don’t play an important role in the job-creation game. That would be a mistake, economists say. The old-line companies may not create a lot of net new jobs in America, they say, but the big global corporations shape the environment that gives rise to entrepreneurial upstarts.

Josh Lerner, an economist at the Harvard Business School, points to the trends among big companies to farm out tasks not seen as vital to the corporate strategy — so-called right-sizing — and to reach outside the company walls for inventions, called open innovation.”
. . .

To me, this means that job creation depends on policies that favor start ups. And you would think that with the current unemployment rates, companies could still hire new workers offering salaries that took into account employers’ rising health care costs.

With absolutely no data to support it, I believe that the economy suffers from a disproportionate emphasis on investment in companies/industries compared to the creation of companies/industries in which to invest. A former coworker of mine analogized this sort of situation to “a bunch of male dogs sniffing each other.” Earthy, but it illustrates a point.

[njtosd]

[quote=SandraL]I have to disagree with SD Realtor on corporations. Small business is what drives jobs in the USA. Corporations are not coming back here to create jobs, even with a favorable tax policy. Labor costs are too high.

. . .
[/quote]

A spot-on article in today’s NYT contradicts this position. According to the authors, the age, not the size of the company is key to job creation:

“Size plays virtually no role,” says John Haltiwanger, an economist and co-author of the study. “It’s all age — start-ups are where the real job-creation action is.”

See “Why Big Companies Matter in Job Creation” http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/why-big-companies-matter-in-job-creation/

Furthermore, large companies are disproportionately responsible for the demand that drives startups, according to the authors:

“You can read that and assume that big, older companies don’t play an important role in the job-creation game. That would be a mistake, economists say. The old-line companies may not create a lot of net new jobs in America, they say, but the big global corporations shape the environment that gives rise to entrepreneurial upstarts.

Josh Lerner, an economist at the Harvard Business School, points to the trends among big companies to farm out tasks not seen as vital to the corporate strategy — so-called right-sizing — and to reach outside the company walls for inventions, called open innovation.”
. . .

To me, this means that job creation depends on policies that favor start ups. And you would think that with the current unemployment rates, companies could still hire new workers offering salaries that took into account employers’ rising health care costs.

With absolutely no data to support it, I believe that the economy suffers from a disproportionate emphasis on investment in companies/industries compared to the creation of companies/industries in which to invest. A former coworker of mine analogized this sort of situation to “a bunch of male dogs sniffing each other.” Earthy, but it illustrates a point.

[njtosd]

[quote=SandraL]I have to disagree with SD Realtor on corporations. Small business is what drives jobs in the USA. Corporations are not coming back here to create jobs, even with a favorable tax policy. Labor costs are too high.

. . .
[/quote]

A spot-on article in today’s NYT contradicts this position. According to the authors, the age, not the size of the company is key to job creation:

“Size plays virtually no role,” says John Haltiwanger, an economist and co-author of the study. “It’s all age — start-ups are where the real job-creation action is.”

See “Why Big Companies Matter in Job Creation” http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/why-big-companies-matter-in-job-creation/

Furthermore, large companies are disproportionately responsible for the demand that drives startups, according to the authors:

“You can read that and assume that big, older companies don’t play an important role in the job-creation game. That would be a mistake, economists say. The old-line companies may not create a lot of net new jobs in America, they say, but the big global corporations shape the environment that gives rise to entrepreneurial upstarts.

Josh Lerner, an economist at the Harvard Business School, points to the trends among big companies to farm out tasks not seen as vital to the corporate strategy — so-called right-sizing — and to reach outside the company walls for inventions, called open innovation.”
. . .

To me, this means that job creation depends on policies that favor start ups. And you would think that with the current unemployment rates, companies could still hire new workers offering salaries that took into account employers’ rising health care costs.

With absolutely no data to support it, I believe that the economy suffers from a disproportionate emphasis on investment in companies/industries compared to the creation of companies/industries in which to invest. A former coworker of mine analogized this sort of situation to “a bunch of male dogs sniffing each other.” Earthy, but it illustrates a point.

[njtosd]

[quote=SandraL]I have to disagree with SD Realtor on corporations. Small business is what drives jobs in the USA. Corporations are not coming back here to create jobs, even with a favorable tax policy. Labor costs are too high.

. . .
[/quote]

A spot-on article in today’s NYT contradicts this position. According to the authors, the age, not the size of the company is key to job creation:

“Size plays virtually no role,” says John Haltiwanger, an economist and co-author of the study. “It’s all age — start-ups are where the real job-creation action is.”

See “Why Big Companies Matter in Job Creation” http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/why-big-companies-matter-in-job-creation/

Furthermore, large companies are disproportionately responsible for the demand that drives startups, according to the authors:

“You can read that and assume that big, older companies don’t play an important role in the job-creation game. That would be a mistake, economists say. The old-line companies may not create a lot of net new jobs in America, they say, but the big global corporations shape the environment that gives rise to entrepreneurial upstarts.

Josh Lerner, an economist at the Harvard Business School, points to the trends among big companies to farm out tasks not seen as vital to the corporate strategy — so-called right-sizing — and to reach outside the company walls for inventions, called open innovation.”
. . .

To me, this means that job creation depends on policies that favor start ups. And you would think that with the current unemployment rates, companies could still hire new workers offering salaries that took into account employers’ rising health care costs.

With absolutely no data to support it, I believe that the economy suffers from a disproportionate emphasis on investment in companies/industries compared to the creation of companies/industries in which to invest. A former coworker of mine analogized this sort of situation to “a bunch of male dogs sniffing each other.” Earthy, but it illustrates a point.

[njtosd]

[quote=SandraL]I have to disagree with SD Realtor on corporations. Small business is what drives jobs in the USA. Corporations are not coming back here to create jobs, even with a favorable tax policy. Labor costs are too high.

. . .
[/quote]

A spot-on article in today’s NYT contradicts this position. According to the authors, the age, not the size of the company is key to job creation:

“Size plays virtually no role,” says John Haltiwanger, an economist and co-author of the study. “It’s all age — start-ups are where the real job-creation action is.”

See “Why Big Companies Matter in Job Creation” http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/why-big-companies-matter-in-job-creation/

Furthermore, large companies are disproportionately responsible for the demand that drives startups, according to the authors:

“You can read that and assume that big, older companies don’t play an important role in the job-creation game. That would be a mistake, economists say. The old-line companies may not create a lot of net new jobs in America, they say, but the big global corporations shape the environment that gives rise to entrepreneurial upstarts.

Josh Lerner, an economist at the Harvard Business School, points to the trends among big companies to farm out tasks not seen as vital to the corporate strategy — so-called right-sizing — and to reach outside the company walls for inventions, called open innovation.”
. . .

To me, this means that job creation depends on policies that favor start ups. And you would think that with the current unemployment rates, companies could still hire new workers offering salaries that took into account employers’ rising health care costs.

With absolutely no data to support it, I believe that the economy suffers from a disproportionate emphasis on investment in companies/industries compared to the creation of companies/industries in which to invest. A former coworker of mine analogized this sort of situation to “a bunch of male dogs sniffing each other.” Earthy, but it illustrates a point.

[njtosd]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . This blog constantly amazes me with the quality of participants we have, present company excepted of course:)[/quote]

Speaking for myself, I have really enjoyed hearing your perspective. Real estate is an interesting hybrid of sales and law, which is why I think there is a spectrum of opinions on how much assistance the average person needs and how much incentive (%) the agent should be offered. And if sdduuuude was right and I came off a bit overly argumentative in earlier posts, I apologize. I guess that’s what gives rise to all the lawyer jokes :).

[njtosd]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . This blog constantly amazes me with the quality of participants we have, present company excepted of course:)[/quote]

Speaking for myself, I have really enjoyed hearing your perspective. Real estate is an interesting hybrid of sales and law, which is why I think there is a spectrum of opinions on how much assistance the average person needs and how much incentive (%) the agent should be offered. And if sdduuuude was right and I came off a bit overly argumentative in earlier posts, I apologize. I guess that’s what gives rise to all the lawyer jokes :).

[njtosd]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . This blog constantly amazes me with the quality of participants we have, present company excepted of course:)[/quote]

Speaking for myself, I have really enjoyed hearing your perspective. Real estate is an interesting hybrid of sales and law, which is why I think there is a spectrum of opinions on how much assistance the average person needs and how much incentive (%) the agent should be offered. And if sdduuuude was right and I came off a bit overly argumentative in earlier posts, I apologize. I guess that’s what gives rise to all the lawyer jokes :).

[njtosd]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . This blog constantly amazes me with the quality of participants we have, present company excepted of course:)[/quote]

Speaking for myself, I have really enjoyed hearing your perspective. Real estate is an interesting hybrid of sales and law, which is why I think there is a spectrum of opinions on how much assistance the average person needs and how much incentive (%) the agent should be offered. And if sdduuuude was right and I came off a bit overly argumentative in earlier posts, I apologize. I guess that’s what gives rise to all the lawyer jokes :).

[njtosd]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . This blog constantly amazes me with the quality of participants we have, present company excepted of course:)[/quote]

Speaking for myself, I have really enjoyed hearing your perspective. Real estate is an interesting hybrid of sales and law, which is why I think there is a spectrum of opinions on how much assistance the average person needs and how much incentive (%) the agent should be offered. And if sdduuuude was right and I came off a bit overly argumentative in earlier posts, I apologize. I guess that’s what gives rise to all the lawyer jokes :).

[njtosd]

[quote=SD Transplant]Here is more interesting data to share:

1) AP Economic Stress Index by County (let it load)

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/stress_index/

…
[/quote]

Look at that pale stripe down the center of the U.S. No housing boom, no housing bust?

[njtosd]

[quote=SD Transplant]Here is more interesting data to share:

1) AP Economic Stress Index by County (let it load)

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/stress_index/

…
[/quote]

Look at that pale stripe down the center of the U.S. No housing boom, no housing bust?

[njtosd]

[quote=SD Transplant]Here is more interesting data to share:

1) AP Economic Stress Index by County (let it load)

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/stress_index/

…
[/quote]

Look at that pale stripe down the center of the U.S. No housing boom, no housing bust?

[Author]

Posts