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

121–130 of 393 posts

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#121

Post by shkkmo »

boh wrote: post #22
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…

It's really bizarre that state sovereignty is just considered a business practice. No it's not a "modern invention" to "enact" borders. Nor does labor organizing have anything to do with its enforcement. Corporate-centric culture doesn't do well in explaining the world. I'd suggest a less narrow viewpoint.

While borders have a long history, checking passports at borders is indeed a "modern invention" and controlling emigration was explicitly part of the motivation for its adoption and why "being issued a passport" isn't considered a human right.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#122

Post by beebmam »

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…

"Corporations are people" - Mitt Romney

Competing for residents IS competing for businesses, with maybe a few exceptions for resource extraction.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#123

Post by pphysch »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #114
londons_explore wrote: post #107

There are a few countries who compete for residents. For example, The Netherlands has a 30% tax advantage for all immigrants, for 5 years. Thats huuuuuge . [1]: https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/live-work-study/living/officia...

> From a tax perspective, the salary agreed upon between you and your employer will be reduced by 30%. In return, you receive a 30% allowance as reimbursement for expenses. This is not at all a 30% tax advantage lol.

Isn't it saying that if you earn 100K, you will only be taxed as someone who earns 70K? That 30K is then an untaxed "allowance".

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#124

Post by mbustamanter »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #90

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.

Middle income countries are also facing demographic busts (although years later compared to rich countries). Competing for highly-skilled human capital, not massive third world immigration is essential, the main reason beaing that advanced economies with generous welfare are most affected by falling birth rates, and migrants to rich countries take as little as a single generation to adopt similar reproductive patterns relative to native populations (i.e. sub-replacement TFR: asian and east-asian to north america are the greatest example of this, but also hispanics and muslims to a lesser extent have collapsing birth rates). Even more dangerous to a stable economy is, that with a generous welfare system an invereted population pyramid will not be enough to sustain it, aging immigrant populations will exacerbate the problem: again, sub-replacement TFR in at most 2 gens. At most it will delay the demographic problem, however I personally think that focus on industrial automation will be more important.

See also my comment from a previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34909400

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#125

Post by notch898a »

vharuck wrote: post #31
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.

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 the…

Consider something like 1/3 of Americans have a criminal history. Maybe 1 of 30 of those are incapable of living in society. Keeping out fugitives makes sense but I totally disagree with keeping out criminals, particularly when in much of the world criminal often just means you did something the government didn't like.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#126

Post by gtop3 »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #81
gtop3 wrote: post #14

What are the best strategies to attract remote workers to a location? * 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…

> * 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. COL increases because it is difficult or impossible to build new housing, and because single-use zoning requires creating massive amounts of infrastructu…

While I agree this is a major component, I think it's an oversimplification. As construction increases in an area construction labor costs increase. Water prices might increase, as more residents draw from a finite supply. More schools, DMVs, grocery stores and strip malls need to built and new construction is more expensive. Liquor licenses might be a static amount and grow more slowly than the population.

I would describe COL increases as local resources and infrastructure being put under more demand and investments into importing resources or building infrastructure is more expensive than using existing infrastructure. Property taxes are a large source of funding for these investments. Dense housing might reduce the additional load on infrastructure but it doesn't remove it.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#127

Post by notch898a »

shkkmo wrote: post #121
boh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really bizarre that state sovereignty is just considered a business practice. No it's not a "modern invention" to "enact" borders. Nor does labor organizing have anything to do with its enforcement. Corporate-centric culture doesn't do well in explaining the world. I'd suggest a less narrow viewpoint.

While borders have a long history, checking passports at borders is indeed a "modern invention" and controlling emigration was explicitly part of the motivation for its adoption and why "being issued a passport" isn't considered a human right.

I've crossed into Mexico many times and not once have they asked for an identity document. You find out what a piece of cattle you are when you enter the US, though.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#128

Post by necovek »

welshwelsh wrote: post #84
nhchris wrote: post #15

The article is valid in speaking specifically about US states competing, but otherwise I find the idea of treating governments, and countries, as mere economic platforms, that compete like a business would, disturbing. They are representatives of their nations, and their duty is to their people, to whom they are guardians, of said people and their homelands. They should not be 'competing' for more residents just as f…

The way I interpreted it is- cities and states should focus more on being great places to live, not great places to move your corporate office. And although I'm sure this is not a popular sentiment, I think governments are too biased towards people already living in their jurisdiction, even if those people are there by mere coincidence (i.e. they happened to be born there). People shouldn't be held to higher standard…

> ...governments are too biased towards people already living in their jurisdiction...

That's a direct result of democratic government: people choose those who promise to work in their best interest.

If you dislike this, who would you vote for? Someone who'd look to "expel" you from your local community?

> ...making above the median income...

Ok, so instead of having diversity, you believe it's best if there is no intermingling of classes?

But then, why stop at above/below median? Why would the top 1% want you in their area? Or the top 5% in theirs? Or...

And why have the buck stop at income? I am sure an area would be proud to be home to an adult population that's 95% PhDs. And then they can split up between tenured professors or not.

Not to mention disallowing people from having a long term home as their circumstances bearably change.

This is so fundamentally not thought through.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#129

Post by btilly »

RetpolineDrama wrote: post #111
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…

> and every dollar worth of residential housing is a money pit. This can't possibly be true in any of the municipalities I've ever lived in. Property taxes are insane, like fancy private school tuition insane and it's definitely not going into the roads. Actually lets break it down: Power, water, and sewer are paid for by their consumption. My local utilities actually have the problem that they _make_ too much money.…

I have no idea whether it is true where you are, but it certainly IS true where I am.

First, commercial property taxes in California are generally higher than residential. Which is an incentive to attract business, not residents. https://www.hechtgroup.com/the-different-taxes-imposed-on-co...

Second, you're seriously underestimating the cost of roads. As https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193... pointed out, the bit of road your car is parked on usually costs more than the car. Now walk around your neighborhood and look at how much road there is. ALL of it costs that much. Most of us don't think about it, but it has to be paid for somehow. And it really isn't cheap.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#130

Post by necovek »

necovek wrote: post #128
welshwelsh wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I interpreted it is- cities and states should focus more on being great places to live, not great places to move your corporate office. And although I'm sure this is not a popular sentiment, I think governments are too biased towards people already living in their jurisdiction, even if those people are there by mere coincidence (i.e. they happened to be born there). People shouldn't be held to higher standard…

> ...governments are too biased towards people already living in their jurisdiction... That's a direct result of democratic government: people choose those who promise to work in their best interest. If you dislike this, who would you vote for? Someone who'd look to "expel" you from your local community? > ...making above the median income... Ok, so instead of having diversity, you believe it's best if there is no in…

Not to mention that people are already being pushed out from their "legacy" communities due to raising prices.
Post reply on HN