Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 393 posts

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#31

Post by vharuck »

vorpalhex wrote: post #13
fnordpiglet wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a migratory species it is literally inhuman to erect a border. Borders should be jurisdictional boundaries but should be permeable like the states in the US. The rest of the tribalism BS is just that.

Humans stopped being migratory about 12,000 years ago. You probably don't want criminals to freely move into your country. You probably want a country that gets funded by taxes (both short term and long term). No country in the world maintains open borders. Everytime there has been mass unorganized migration it has been a humanitarian disaster. Platitudes only work on paper.

I don't think your points hold up against the example of state borders.

Criminals move between states, but it's not a huge problem. The states can share information and allow joint action. It may require more effort to set up between nations, but it's a common thing today.

Taxes work fine. If you're a resident of a state, you pay income tax to that state. So we obviously know how to find out residency.

>Everytime there has been mass unorganized migration it has been a humanitarian disaster.

If borders were to become easily crossable (not necessarily non-existent, but just a checkpoint to count incoming/outgoing and stop smugglers) in a day, then the next day would see mass migration in so many directions. But after that first wave calmed, I wouldn't expect mass migrations except those following humanitarian disasters. Three had migrations we see today are caused by disasters. Even when the emigrants experience terrible conditions in the receiving country, I imagine it's because their previous life was shattered and they had to quickly flee. It's not a fair comparison to people who would migrate if immigration controls were removed.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#32

Post by [deleted] »

vorpalhex wrote: post #13
fnordpiglet wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a migratory species it is literally inhuman to erect a border. Borders should be jurisdictional boundaries but should be permeable like the states in the US. The rest of the tribalism BS is just that.

Humans stopped being migratory about 12,000 years ago. You probably don't want criminals to freely move into your country. You probably want a country that gets funded by taxes (both short term and long term). No country in the world maintains open borders. Everytime there has been mass unorganized migration it has been a humanitarian disaster. Platitudes only work on paper.

[deleted]

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#33

Post by gameman144 »

candiddevmike wrote: post #23
vorpalhex wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans stopped being migratory about 12,000 years ago. You probably don't want criminals to freely move into your country. You probably want a country that gets funded by taxes (both short term and long term). No country in the world maintains open borders. Everytime there has been mass unorganized migration it has been a humanitarian disaster. Platitudes only work on paper.

All of that already happens without open borders, it just costs us more money to maintain.

The rates are vastly different though,no? If I have a leaky faucet, it seems strange to say "This faucet is useless: the water is getting through anyway, and this way I'm having to pay for new gaskets!"

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#34

Post by remarkEon »

cyclecount wrote: post #6

This line of thinking comes up often on HN but it ignores the central reason for governments to enact borders, a rather modern invention. Governments (at the behest of businesses) enforce borders so that labor cannot effectively organise. A border exists often for workers only, but is mostly a legal fiction that corporations can easily navigate. The most common example for the Americans reading this is NAFTA, which m…

> Governments (at the behest of businesses) enforce borders so that labor cannot effectively organise.

I have never heard this explanation. Where is it coming from? It sounds not only wrong but inverted to me. Governments enforce borders to effectively secure their territory and people, and thus its own power. Is the idea that, without the “legal fiction” of borders, we’d have some kind of global autoworkers Union or something?

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#35

Post by slackdog »

nerdponx wrote: post #19
nhchris wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Governments (at the behest of businesses) enforce borders so that labor cannot effectively organise. This is backwards, and I'm having trouble understanding how a more diverse, more transient population would find it easier to find common interests and unite. Suppose a factory unionizes - without borders, the owner will find it easier to import non-union workers. While moving a factory is challenging regardless of…

> easier to find common interests and unite I think the idea is that there are common interests to be found, but borders artificially keep people apart, by segmenting up legal jurisdictions. For example, why Starbucks employees in Jersey City aren't all that different from Starbucks employees in New York City right across the river. > Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization ri…

Corporate DEI initiatives using divisive rhetoric designed to foster paranoia, in order to keep workers on edge around each other. ("You're all racist. Even if you think you aren't racist, asserting you have no subconscious racial biases only proves that you're overtly racist. You're constantly commit racist 'microaggression' offenses against your coworkers without even realizing it.")

Such paranoia between coworkers is a serious impediment to labor organization. The more diverse the workplace, the better this works.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#36

Post by candiddevmike »

gameman144 wrote: post #33
candiddevmike wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of that already happens without open borders, it just costs us more money to maintain.

The rates are vastly different though,no? If I have a leaky faucet, it seems strange to say "This faucet is useless: the water is getting through anyway, and this way I'm having to pay for new gaskets!"

I don't think your example is valid because we're not talking about water, we're talking about humans who are choosing to leave their country for a better place. Pursuit of happiness and all that jazz. I guess my opinion is being born in a place like the US shouldn't be some kind of privilege, and instead we should strive for the US to be a bastion for human dignity.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#37

Post by 908B64B197 »

gameman144 wrote: post #30
fnordpiglet wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a migratory species it is literally inhuman to erect a border. Borders should be jurisdictional boundaries but should be permeable like the states in the US. The rest of the tribalism BS is just that.

I'm interested here, as I'm inclined to disagree pretty strongly. How would you prevent the erosion of rights or culture by a group with a bigger population? For instance, have a few hundred thousand Americans move to Cuba and vote to have Cuba secede to the US? Or a few hundred thousand mainland Chinese citizens move to Taiwan and do the same? While it's definitely nice to keep migration smooth and easy, it seems li…

> For instance, have a few hundred thousand Americans move to Cuba and vote to have Cuba secede to the US?

That would be a great thing for Cuba. Cubans have been fleeing their failed state by the thousands, risking their lives and dying to get a shot at reaching America.

Starvation, medicine shortage, brutal LGBT purges are sadly common place under the Castro regime. Pretty sure these Americans would be welcomed with open arms!

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#38

Post by FpUser »

vorpalhex wrote: post #13
fnordpiglet wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a migratory species it is literally inhuman to erect a border. Borders should be jurisdictional boundaries but should be permeable like the states in the US. The rest of the tribalism BS is just that.

Humans stopped being migratory about 12,000 years ago. You probably don't want criminals to freely move into your country. You probably want a country that gets funded by taxes (both short term and long term). No country in the world maintains open borders. Everytime there has been mass unorganized migration it has been a humanitarian disaster. Platitudes only work on paper.

>"Humans stopped being migratory about 12,000 years ago"

Up until recently ( relatively ) a person could pretty much move to other country without much fuzz.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#39

Post by subsubzero »

cyclecount wrote: post #6

This line of thinking comes up often on HN but it ignores the central reason for governments to enact borders, a rather modern invention. Governments (at the behest of businesses) enforce borders so that labor cannot effectively organise. A border exists often for workers only, but is mostly a legal fiction that corporations can easily navigate. The most common example for the Americans reading this is NAFTA, which m…

This line of thinking trends very recently. Corporations are not everything despite what they and the media have you believe. Countries are defined by territory either hard won from conflict(war) or based on shared cultural leanings. Having citizenship is a privilege for many and in some countries it requires mandatory enlistment in the armed forces(Israel, South Korea).

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#40

Post by nradov »

remarkEon wrote: post #34
cyclecount wrote: post #6

This line of thinking comes up often on HN but it ignores the central reason for governments to enact borders, a rather modern invention. Governments (at the behest of businesses) enforce borders so that labor cannot effectively organise. A border exists often for workers only, but is mostly a legal fiction that corporations can easily navigate. The most common example for the Americans reading this is NAFTA, which m…

> Governments (at the behest of businesses) enforce borders so that labor cannot effectively organise. I have never heard this explanation. Where is it coming from? It sounds not only wrong but inverted to me. Governments enforce borders to effectively secure their territory and people, and thus its own power. Is the idea that, without the “legal fiction” of borders, we’d have some kind of global autoworkers Union or…

Indeed there is nothing stopping workers from organizing across borders, even if individual workers are only legally authorized to work in one country. Many labor unions have local chapters in multiple countries and can coordinate labor actions. For example, see the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers which operates in the USA and Canada.
Post reply on HN