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

51–60 of 393 posts

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#51

Post by pyuser583 »

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.

> Every time there has been mass unorganized migration it has been a humanitarian disaster

Are all of these unorganized, mass migrations disasters? Or are they in response to disasters?

Most organized mass migrations have been disasters. Forced relocations aren’t fun.

But unorganized mass migrations, where people say “let’s get out of this place and go somewhere better” tend to mitigate pre-existing disasters.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#52

Post by stronglikedan »

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…

Maybe, but that's not the only reason. Borders are also enforced because you can't have open borders and social welfare programs.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#53

Post by vonnik »

This piece is an op-ed, not straight reporting.

Tyler Cowen, its author, is a noted economist (with libertarian leanings), and he favors competition in many forms. Anyone curious about him and his views should read his blog Marginal Revolution and listen to his podcast. They're both smart:

https://marginalrevolution.com/

https://conversationswithtyler.com/

Tyler has written extensively about stagnation in the American economy. Part of that stagnation is the decreasing mobility of Americans.

I very much agree with him that governments should compete for residents, especially the right kind of residents.

It takes hard work to build a successful city.

If we look at San Francisco, we see a city that has done everything it can to drive away many residents, and in so doing, destroyed its tax base, leading to a budget crisis. A great lesson in what not to do!

Why should there not be a market for talent, where the towns and cities of America compete to make themselves more livable, better centers of serendipity, better providers of public services? That sounds great to me.

In an earlier America, some cities took this mandate very seriously. For anyone curious, Stanley Marcus of Neiman Marcus tells the story of about the leaders of Dallas deliberately made it attractive to early residents in order to build their town. His biographical book is called "Minding the Store."

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#54

Post by r3trohack3r »

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…

> ignores the central reason for governments to enact borders […:] so that labor cannot effectively organise.

You’re going to have to show up with some evidence for this claim. You’re not asserting that the outcome is a byproduct of borders, a happy accident useful to businesses. You’re asserting that the driving reason for the concept of a border is for businesses to disrupt organized labor.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#55

Post by pessimizer »

bell-cot wrote: post #41

Wow. Is Bloomberg actually a credible business publication? Barring a serious housing surplus, or similar major economic problems, there are ~no upsides for political leaders who actually work to attract more residents to an area. (Attracting more & higher bidders, for the limited housing stock, is a different story.) Vs. "attracting new business"? That attracts plenty of favorable press, bragging rights, etc. And fo…

> there are ~no upsides for political leaders who actually work to attract more residents to an area.

The article is about attracting more wealthy residents to an area. It doesn't say it that directly, but it does directly reference the new work-from-home upper-middle-class, and how they can live anywhere now.

I don't think the indirectness is being sneaky, it's more trying to be polite.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#56

Post by abvdasker »

It's worth remembering that New York-based opposition to subsidies for Amazon's construction of "HQ2" in Long Island City was widely vilified and disparaged in mainstream media outlets across the political spectrum. This latest development looks like a pretty strong vindication of those who were outspoken against these tax handouts to Amazon.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#57

Post by fallingknife »

celeritascelery wrote: post #10
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…

> The most common example for the Americans reading this is NAFTA, which makes workers in Detroit compete with workers in Mexico (suppressing wages in both location) I don’t understand how Supply side wage competition would be alleviated by allowing workers to move freely between countries. It seems like it could potentially make it worse for higher wage regions of the world?

It would do exactly that. We run 2 separate immigration systems in the US. One very restrictive system for high paying jobs and one very permissive for low paying jobs. The latter is technically illegal but tolerated. It can't be legal, because then there would be nothing stopping those immigrants from eventually getting the high paying jobs.

This dual system protects the upper class from wage competition while allowing it for the lower classes, ensuring that the upper class benefits both from this protection and also the lowered living expenses provided by cheap labor from the lower classes. All arguments that somehow economic laws don't apply and immigration doesn't lower wages come from members of the upper class who want to preserve this system that benefits them.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#58

Post by JumpCrisscross »

abvdasker wrote: post #56

It's worth remembering that New York-based opposition to subsidies for Amazon's construction of "HQ2" in Long Island City was widely vilified and disparaged in mainstream media outlets across the political spectrum. This latest development looks like a pretty strong vindication of those who were outspoken against these tax handouts to Amazon.

> latest development looks like a pretty strong vindication of those who were outspoken against these tax handouts to Amazon

How so? I was in west Manhattan when that happened. We got the jobs and capital, not Queens.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#59

Post by notch898a »

wishysgb wrote: post #49
vorpalhex wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is literally easier to move a person than an entire company across national borders. The process for both is at it's core the same - identify, verify and pay your taxes. 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…

Legally it is very hard for a Mexican to move to the Midwest. As in almost impossible requiring almost 20years. I am not Mexican but it toke my family 14 years to be able to move to the US from Palestine, although my grandparents and uncles have been here since the 80s. It really isn't hard. A company doesn't need to move everything, they can just literally build a new factory or rent one else where, not only that th…

I'm honestly astonished people even do it the legal way. It's not even a crime to overstay. One could easily set up shop in California, get an AB 60 driver license, live in a sanctuary area and have at it.
Post reply on HN