Live data from Hacker News

Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

bloomberg.com

101–110 of 393 posts

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#101

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…

> Governments enforce borders to effectively secure their territory and people

Only if by "secure" you mean prevent your population from leaving [1]. The whole origin of border control was to prevent people from leaving. The easy way to think about it is you can't leave a country without a passport but you can enter a country without a visa (exceptions apply).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport#History

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Lately - it seems people inside countries enforce their boarders to make sure other people from less fortunate countries can't come in and drive down their wages... We live in a democracy. The idea that we vote to screw ourselves over completely is strange. Some people forget that everything isn't a zero sum game. Something can be good for companies and not bad for you. And something can be good for you and not bad f…

[deleted]

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#103

With falling birthrates in developed countries, competing for residents will be exactly what they will be doing. Making a success of large scale immigration will be essential to the future prospects of those nations/communities.

Successful mass immigration will allow them to persist in the systems that are causing those falling birthrates, ensuring their people dwindle towards nothing. Stopping immigration would force them to change to something sustainable.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#104
> Overall, there may be less competition to attract corporations. At the same time, political competition for residents may become more intense, because more people will be able to choose where to live regardless of where they work. This competition could lead to improvements in schools and parks.

I am as capitalist as they come, but I don't disagree with this assessment at all. I find it bizarre how some cities almost became hostile to their own citizens and got away with it because of a monopoly on the good jobs.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Lately - it seems people inside countries enforce their boarders to make sure other people from less fortunate countries can't come in and drive down their wages... We live in a democracy. The idea that we vote to screw ourselves over completely is strange. Some people forget that everything isn't a zero sum game. Something can be good for companies and not bad for you. And something can be good for you and not bad f…

[flagged]

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#106

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…

Even in the era of remote work, businesses are attracted to places with strong (as in a well developed & highly skilled workforce) labor markets. Workers who have high career capital are mobile and can generally choose where they want to live. Nothing about this is unserious just because it doesn’t fit your worldview.

That depends. Factory work is often attracted to a dieing town in the middle of nowhere they can scoup up cheap labor that is just skilled enough. You can only get your factory so large doing this though, but there are towns of 5-10k people that fit the bill just fine for manufacturing cheap in the US.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#108

With falling birthrates in developed countries, competing for residents will be exactly what they will be doing. Making a success of large scale immigration will be essential to the future prospects of those nations/communities.

Successful mass immigration will allow them to persist in the systems that are causing those falling birthrates, ensuring their people dwindle towards nothing. Stopping immigration would force them to change to something sustainable.

> persist in the systems that are causing those falling birthrates

Care to specify which systems are causing the falling birthrates?

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#109

With falling birthrates in developed countries, competing for residents will be exactly what they will be doing. Making a success of large scale immigration will be essential to the future prospects of those nations/communities.

Successful mass immigration will allow them to persist in the systems that are causing those falling birthrates, ensuring their people dwindle towards nothing. Stopping immigration would force them to change to something sustainable.

[deleted]

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lately - it seems people inside countries enforce their boarders to make sure other people from less fortunate countries can't come in and drive down their wages... We live in a democracy. The idea that we vote to screw ourselves over completely is strange. Some people forget that everything isn't a zero sum game. Something can be good for companies and not bad for you. And something can be good for you and not bad f…

[flagged]

> because they are a single issue voter.

If they're a single-issue voter then - by definition - they are not voting against their interests. They just have different interests than you.

Maybe you care about a million things, mostly revolving around taxes.

Maybe all they care about is whether or not someone else can get an abortion.

That's THEIR interest.

Post reply on HN