I would not mind it at all if my employer moved out of a big city (DC in this case) and moved to a suburban location. That would be great. Less traffic, lower cost of living.
 
Of course I'm not sure I'd want to move quite *that* far, but it means lower cost of living for employees as well.

Some may think that Nashville is the far end of the earth, but I don't think it's a terrible place for a national headquarters. The guys who really have it bad are the ones relegated to underpopulated locations at the OEM or tire manufacturer test facilities. Try luring intelligent engineers to the middle of the Mojave Desert or a desolate part of Texas. Suddenly Tennessee sounds a lot more appealing.

Jobs or not, California's population is still growing quite quickly around urban centers. House prices are insanely high because people keep paying them to move here. (I really wish they wouldn't.)
 
But so long as people keep streaming in - and they can't all be rabble if they can afford those houses - there'll be more and more presumably educated workers here. For some types of businesses, that'll be worth the costs.

Karl
 I know I'm supposed to keep this relevant but I'm wondering if you could comment on the Audi S4 vs BMW M3.?It's really getting hot and heavy over at that forum and I for one would love to hear your comments

I still haven't driven the current-generation S4, though your question reminds of how much I need to!
 
I can say this: Almost without fail the competing models from BMW and Audi break down as such:
BMW -- better steering feel, less body roll, more thrilling drivetrain and overall a more rewarding pure driving experience. HOWEVER, all of these advantages are very slight (with the possible exception of body roll, which is usually noticeably greater in the Audi).
Audi -- better interior materials and design, better sound system, higher value and generally a more pleasing riding experience. And, just as with the BMW advantages, these Audi advantages are slight (with the possible exception of interior materials, which are usually noticeably better in Audi).
 
So I'm sure with these vehicles you have two great cars with very slight advantages, each, in a couple different areas. The fact that the discussion between the two camps is so heated suggests I'm right. If you owned either model it would be easy to think "your" car is better -- but in reality they are both very, very good.

No urban place is "business friendly" if companies expect to not pay taxes. But you get what you give aqnd in this case, being in California gives you access to a talent pool that is incredibly huge. Try getting a company to relocate to Florida or Alabama? It cant be done, sure they offer no state taxes(right now) but they also dont have an educated workforce that will put the company at the competitive edge. No matter where you are it is alays the same. Be it, Los Angeles, Detroit, Philadelphia, NYC, the tax structure makes businesses leave but when they leave they are also leaving a highly educated and proficient workforce behind. And when they fail(ie. JC Penney, et alumni) its usually because the workforce wasnt diverse enough to anticipate errors of flaws in the contemporary business structure.

Perhaps the recent anti-auto industry movement amongst the political leaders in the state of California has been the "straw that broke the camels back." If you are a car company and the state where you are headquartered continually wants to make it more difficult for you to make a profit then there is more incentive to go than to stay.
 
You can't tell me Nissan won't be able to draw high-quality tallent in another city - just because it is California doesn't mean that's the best and only place to be successful. With it's huge automotive presence, the same argument could be made about Detroit but it still wouldn't necessarily be true. The auto industry has increasingly become more global in recent years. Assuming one particular state is better than all the rest is rather short sighted IMO.