Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

Yes people can and do move from Mexico to the Midwest all the time.

Why do you think Mexican laborers should get paid less for building your car then someone in Detroit? Part of the goal of NAFTA is to help stabilize the economy of Mexico and help longterm reduce the severe violence in parts of the country.

* Utilities such as roads, water, high speed internet feel like table stakes now. Fiber internet is quickly spreading in rural areas, and I know people with septic tanks and a fiber line. Ten years ago Google Fiber was a major selling point for Kansas City.

* Governments have little control over climate, nearby geographic features, time zone, and a million other details. They can highlight their strengths in marketing campaigns.

* Cost of living only works for so long. We've seen areas in the last decades that have an influx of population and they usually see a corresponding increase in COL. There are approaches governments can take to slow down the growth of COL, but it seems inevitable.

* Taxes and local regulations might help attract some workers. Cannabis consumers might be more inclined to move somewhere they can gain access legally. High income workers might be attracted to places without state income tax. Women might migrate to a state that aligns with their abortion politics. Motorcyclists might prefer places with lane splitting.

* Large projects such as professional sports teams, well connected airports, large hospitals or ski lodges might play a role. Governments can attract these types of projects.

One called itself "A developer-friendly community" and the other "A healthy community"

The cities were organized around their taglines. One was 300 years old and focused on parks, trails, conservancy, and community centers. The other a younger city focused on growth and sprawl, tax abatements, and new businesses.

You should live where the government aligns with your phase of life and personal goals and be free to choose a new government later. Also, democracies can shift over time but generally it is easier to move somewhere new than to feel entitled to change a municpal culture simply because you got older.

The theory is that for a whole range of lucrative jobs, “everywhere with Internet” can offer residents those jobs through remote work. So a neighborhood doesn’t need to compete to attract a big office building.

Personally I think that remains to be seen… we’re clearly still in the hangover from the pandemic. Society might look very different 10 years from now, and 10 years is a reasonable horizon for major civic planning. Most of the things that attracted Amazon to Crystal City were put in years or decades prior to their little competition.

> A business that doesn’t employ anyone or consume any inputs from other state businesses is not going to be a particularly interesting business to incentivize.

Exactly, that’s the whole point of the piece. If all the most lucrative jobs for your residents are remote, then maybe your civic planning will need to revolve around attracting people rather than incentivizing businesses.

Again, remains to be seen IMO. One big downside, from the perspective of local governments, is that taxes on individuals will have to go up. Quite a lot of local tax revenue passes through businesses, hidden in prices. You can’t hide on a W2 or property tax bill though.

This IMO is the big issue though. Governments need to be aware of long-term population trends as stay ahead of them when it comes to planning. I consistently feel like local governments find themselves surprised at demographic changes that have been obvious for several years.