(11-28-2017 07:33 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 09:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 09:05 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I don't doubt your conclusion, but the halving of the black demographic could also be largely attributed to general population dilution due to the explosion of Hispanics living in California.

One factor to consider when looking at where companies are headquartered has to do with their business model and how they incorporate the young into their workforce. As Peter Zeihan points out, Millennials are the largest generation in American history as a percentage of the population - that means there's a glut of twenty and early thirty-somethings eager to live in big cities with all of the amenities; that also means there's plenty willing to work for companies eager for cheap labor. My employer was based in suburban Chicago but is now in the Loop because they wanted to cut costs and it was impossible to do so unless they dramatically shifted away from Boomers and Gen X'ers, which is very difficult to implement when you force them to commute an hour or live in the burbs. If workers at corporate want to leave as they age and improve their quality of life if they have families, they have to either drive for an hour and/or leave, which opens up more spots for younger workers to come in and feed the management strategy. Local economic policy varies in its potential effect on the company; far left environmental regulations would affect us very little since it's a white collar office, but a city earnings tax (see St. Louis) would a great deal.

Every single office space transaction is unique based on a wide range of factors.
In the really large cities most employees still have a significant commute. I bet in your office many employees still have a serious commute. They all don't live in the Loop or River North.

You guys are not going to beat me on this, I do this for a living LOL.

While the current development cycle for office space has concentrated heavily on Central Business Districts (CBDs) in places like Chicago, Los Angeles and Seattle, Walter Page, research director at commercial real estate data provider CoStar Group, expects that tide to change as Millennials grow older, have families and migrate to the comforts of suburbia. It’s worth noting that the oldest Millennials are already in their mid-30s.

Marshall says some employers are hiring consultants and commissioning studies to help determine what their workforces will look like in the near future. As a result, office tenants are looking at labor forecasts as a consideration in leasing decisions, alongside rental rates and tenant improvement allowances, he notes.

“Tenants are looking to capture an outsized portion of the labor force when it comes to qualified and skilled labor. Conversely, landlords are looking to capture an outsized amount of those tenants,” Marshall says. “So this is a game of strategy with each other.”

In addition to the Millennial factor, CBRE envisions steep rental rates and strained supply in downtown office submarkets will push more tenants toward suburbia, which has experienced continuous gains in the office market

In many CBD's obsolete office buildings have been converted to residential and hotels. If not for Great American Tower in Cincy there would be less office space than 15 years ago in the CBD. Usually CBD office space is more expensive than burbs.
http://www.nreionline.com/office/do-offi...omplicated

Chicago's population is about 2.7 Million, and more than 7 Million outside of the city in Chicagoland.

I don't disagree with you, my anecdote is basically a simple case study to illustrate that there are more factors at play than solely local politics when it comes to corporate relocations (which is basically what you said in the first sentence). Of course there are plenty of company workers who live outside of Chicago city limits and commute in, but it basically means you have to take the Metra (commuter rail, which isn't very convenient unless you live close to a stop that takes you to Millennium Station) or drive (and pay for parking), the latter of which means you either have to leave at 6 AM or sit in two of the top ten gridlocked rush hour interstates in the US. Most people as a result take the L or express bus from the northern neighborhoods since we're close to the red line, but I digress.

Either way, I agree with the premise of the article. Policies have consequences, and a progressive economic agenda in core urban areas over the course of generations have really drained most of them of their vitality except for certain sections of town that are seen as the hip place to be. That places the middle class in a bind where they can't afford to live in the Lincoln Parks of the world and send their kids to private school, nor do they want to live in the 'affordable' parts of town like Englewood and face legitimate threats and low quality of life every day. It's a modern Tale of Two Cities, and I can't blame people who move out for a little bit of land, good schools, and safe neighborhoods for their families.

A company leaving the CBD of Chicago or Manhattan for a very liberal suburb isn't a rejection of 'liberal values'....Lake County Illinois is pretty damn liberal

(11-28-2017 07:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:53 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I care about American citizens, not the parasitic horde coming in from other countries destroying the quality of life of my country while providing little to no benefit.

and not speaking English

Too damn bad if you don't like hearing Spanish.

1) The First Amendment doesn't specify a language
2) There is no official language in this country
3) Some states have official languages. Three of them are officially bilingual.
4) For millions of Americans, they didn't cross any border, but rather the border crossed them when the USA took the SW from Mexico. Their forebears were on the land before your family came across the pond.
5) Puerto Ricans were colonized by the USA. To damn bad that you think you made a mistake 120 years later. They're fully American and they don't speak English. Nor do they need to
6) The history of the USA includes that of white people from a European heritage, but also equally includes those that don't come from that background.

So "Marque 1 para Espanol...Press 2 for English" is here to stay. Disfrutelo!

---

In response to the term 'parasitic horde", that can most accurately describe the Europeans, who most certainly carried diseases that nearly wiped out the original population. A sad statement about our original history was made by Apartheid era South Africans who responded to complaints about their racist treatment of African natives...."At least we didn't kill off our natives"....

Who won, the Europeans or the natives?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(11-28-2017 08:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:53 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I care about American citizens, not the parasitic horde coming in from other countries destroying the quality of life of my country while providing little to no benefit.

and not speaking English

Too damn bad if you don't like hearing Spanish.

1) The First Amendment doesn't specify a language
2) There is no official language in this country
3) Some states have official languages. Three of them are officially bilingual.
4) For millions of Americans, they didn't cross any border, but rather the border crossed them when the USA took the SW from Mexico. Their forebears were on the land before your family came across the pond.
5) Puerto Ricans were colonized by the USA. To damn bad that you think you made a mistake 120 years later. They're fully American and they don't speak English. Nor do they need to
6) The history of the USA includes that of white people from a European heritage, but also equally includes those that don't come from that background.

So "Marque 1 para Espanol...Press 2 for English" is here to stay. Disfrutelo!

---

In response to the term 'parasitic horde", that can most accurately describe the Europeans, who most certainly carried diseases that nearly wiped out the original population. A sad statement about our original history was made by Apartheid era South Africans who responded to complaints about their racist treatment of African natives...."At least we didn't kill off our natives"....

Who won, the Europeans or the natives?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So that's what youre going with? Sounds like someone who marched with the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

(11-28-2017 08:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 08:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:53 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I care about American citizens, not the parasitic horde coming in from other countries destroying the quality of life of my country while providing little to no benefit.

and not speaking English

Too damn bad if you don't like hearing Spanish.

1) The First Amendment doesn't specify a language
2) There is no official language in this country
3) Some states have official languages. Three of them are officially bilingual.
4) For millions of Americans, they didn't cross any border, but rather the border crossed them when the USA took the SW from Mexico. Their forebears were on the land before your family came across the pond.
5) Puerto Ricans were colonized by the USA. To damn bad that you think you made a mistake 120 years later. They're fully American and they don't speak English. Nor do they need to
6) The history of the USA includes that of white people from a European heritage, but also equally includes those that don't come from that background.

So "Marque 1 para Espanol...Press 2 for English" is here to stay. Disfrutelo!

---

In response to the term 'parasitic horde", that can most accurately describe the Europeans, who most certainly carried diseases that nearly wiped out the original population. A sad statement about our original history was made by Apartheid era South Africans who responded to complaints about their racist treatment of African natives...."At least we didn't kill off our natives"....

Who won, the Europeans or the natives?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So that's what youre going with? Sounds like someone who marched with the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

Organized by a far leftist, they chanted jews will not replace us. Do you really want to live under the rule of Native American tribes or the protection of the constitution? You do not prefer the Euro American model.............which is also superior to the former Spanish colonies.

You get to post on a message board because white Euros won, thats all folks.

(11-28-2017 08:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 08:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 08:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:53 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  and not speaking English

Too damn bad if you don't like hearing Spanish.

1) The First Amendment doesn't specify a language
2) There is no official language in this country
3) Some states have official languages. Three of them are officially bilingual.
4) For millions of Americans, they didn't cross any border, but rather the border crossed them when the USA took the SW from Mexico. Their forebears were on the land before your family came across the pond.
5) Puerto Ricans were colonized by the USA. To damn bad that you think you made a mistake 120 years later. They're fully American and they don't speak English. Nor do they need to
6) The history of the USA includes that of white people from a European heritage, but also equally includes those that don't come from that background.

So "Marque 1 para Espanol...Press 2 for English" is here to stay. Disfrutelo!

---

In response to the term 'parasitic horde", that can most accurately describe the Europeans, who most certainly carried diseases that nearly wiped out the original population. A sad statement about our original history was made by Apartheid era South Africans who responded to complaints about their racist treatment of African natives...."At least we didn't kill off our natives"....

Who won, the Europeans or the natives?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So that's what youre going with? Sounds like someone who marched with the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

Organized by a far leftist, they chanted jews will not replace us. Do you really want to live under the rule of Native American tribes or the protection of the constitution? You do not prefer the Euro American model.............which is also superior to the former Spanish colonies.

You get to post on a message board because white Euros won, thats all folks.

I think he'd be happier in a tribal nation like Uganda.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(11-28-2017 08:51 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 08:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 08:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 08:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Too damn bad if you don't like hearing Spanish.

1) The First Amendment doesn't specify a language
2) There is no official language in this country
3) Some states have official languages. Three of them are officially bilingual.
4) For millions of Americans, they didn't cross any border, but rather the border crossed them when the USA took the SW from Mexico. Their forebears were on the land before your family came across the pond.
5) Puerto Ricans were colonized by the USA. To damn bad that you think you made a mistake 120 years later. They're fully American and they don't speak English. Nor do they need to
6) The history of the USA includes that of white people from a European heritage, but also equally includes those that don't come from that background.

So "Marque 1 para Espanol...Press 2 for English" is here to stay. Disfrutelo!

---

In response to the term 'parasitic horde", that can most accurately describe the Europeans, who most certainly carried diseases that nearly wiped out the original population. A sad statement about our original history was made by Apartheid era South Africans who responded to complaints about their racist treatment of African natives...."At least we didn't kill off our natives"....

Who won, the Europeans or the natives?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So that's what youre going with? Sounds like someone who marched with the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

Organized by a far leftist, they chanted jews will not replace us. Do you really want to live under the rule of Native American tribes or the protection of the constitution? You do not prefer the Euro American model.............which is also superior to the former Spanish colonies.

You get to post on a message board because white Euros won, thats all folks.

I think he'd be happier in a tribal nation like Uganda.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

He would know. He was Idi Amin's personal caddy & ball washer

(11-28-2017 08:51 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 08:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 08:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 08:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Too damn bad if you don't like hearing Spanish.

1) The First Amendment doesn't specify a language
2) There is no official language in this country
3) Some states have official languages. Three of them are officially bilingual.
4) For millions of Americans, they didn't cross any border, but rather the border crossed them when the USA took the SW from Mexico. Their forebears were on the land before your family came across the pond.
5) Puerto Ricans were colonized by the USA. To damn bad that you think you made a mistake 120 years later. They're fully American and they don't speak English. Nor do they need to
6) The history of the USA includes that of white people from a European heritage, but also equally includes those that don't come from that background.

So "Marque 1 para Espanol...Press 2 for English" is here to stay. Disfrutelo!

---

In response to the term 'parasitic horde", that can most accurately describe the Europeans, who most certainly carried diseases that nearly wiped out the original population. A sad statement about our original history was made by Apartheid era South Africans who responded to complaints about their racist treatment of African natives...."At least we didn't kill off our natives"....

Who won, the Europeans or the natives?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So that's what youre going with? Sounds like someone who marched with the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

Organized by a far leftist, they chanted jews will not replace us. Do you really want to live under the rule of Native American tribes or the protection of the constitution? You do not prefer the Euro American model.............which is also superior to the former Spanish colonies.

You get to post on a message board because white Euros won, thats all folks.

I think he'd be happier in a tribal nation like Uganda.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

For them it is always "What about" blah blah.

(11-28-2017 07:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:53 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I care about American citizens, not the parasitic horde coming in from other countries destroying the quality of life of my country while providing little to no benefit.

and not speaking English

Too damn bad if you don't like hearing Spanish.

1) The First Amendment doesn't specify a language
2) There is no official language in this country
3) Some states have official languages. Three of them are officially bilingual.
4) For millions of Americans, they didn't cross any border, but rather the border crossed them when the USA took the SW from Mexico. Their forebears were on the land before your family came across the pond.
5) Puerto Ricans were colonized by the USA. To damn bad that you think you made a mistake 120 years later. They're fully American and they don't speak English. Nor do they need to
6) The history of the USA includes that of white people from a European heritage, but also equally includes those that don't come from that background.

So "Marque 1 para Espanol...Press 2 for English" is here to stay. Disfrutelo!

---

In response to the term 'parasitic horde", that can most accurately describe the Europeans, who most certainly carried diseases that nearly wiped out the original population. A sad statement about our original history was made by Apartheid era South Africans who responded to complaints about their racist treatment of African natives...."At least we didn't kill off our natives"....

Actually they did. The Europeans and Bantu both moved into southern South Africa about the same time and pretty much wiped out the Khoisan people who had been there for tens of thousands of years. The Bantu had pushed them out of the northern part a few centuries before.

Also, there weren't many Mexicans in the current US. There were only 5,000 in Texas at the time of the Texas Revolution vs. 35,000 Anglos and 10,000-20,000 Indians. New Mexico had a higher percentage, but there were hardly any Mexicans elsewhere other than in California, which only had about 8,000 non-natives in 1840 (vs. 30-150k Indians).

Mexico controlled the territory lost in the Texas Revolution and Mexican-American War pretty much on paper only.

The high percentage of Hispanics now in the Southwest is a consequence of the illegal immigration flood of the 80s and 90s and 00s along with a flow following the Mexican Revolution of the 1910s. My family was an exception. They moved to Texas from Mexico in the 1850s and 1860s.

(11-28-2017 11:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  Also, there weren't many Mexicans in the current US. There were only 5,000 in Texas at the time of the Texas Revolution vs. 35,000 Anglos and 10,000-20,000 Indians. New Mexico had a higher percentage, but there were hardly any Mexicans elsewhere other than in California, which only had about 8,000 non-natives in 1840 (vs. 30-150k Indians).

Mexico controlled the territory lost in the Texas Revolution and Mexican-American War pretty much on paper only.

The high percentage of Hispanics now in the Southwest is a consequence of the illegal immigration flood of the 80s and 90s and 00s along with a flow following the Mexican Revolution of the 1910s. My family was an exception. They moved to Texas from Mexico in the 1850s and 1860s.

There was no difference between Mexico and the USA then. It was not until the USA made massive infrastructure improvements to the USA SW, then the Mexicans wanted to come to the USA. No different in Israel also. That place was nothing until the Jews went back and made it modern. Hell, a few hundred Jews took a barren scrabble of nothing in the North Coast of the Dominican Rep and built Sosua.