Governments should compete for residents, not businesses • Hacker News Board

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#161

Post by playingalong » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:58 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #147

nhchris wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not "coincidence" that Chinese are born in China and Polish in Poland. It is their inheritance, their birthright, the fruit of their ancestors' labors. To tear out all connection to one's history by calling it "coincidence" is, frankly, sickening.

I wonder if someone born in a war torn region with few resources and no organized society would have the same opinion. It is just a statement of fact that the geographic location a person is born is coincidence.

We have history to help us answer your question.

The answer is: yes, people returned to many places after they were totally demolished, suffered from systematic resource drainage and were background of inhumane genocides. TLDR: massive scale war is nothing new.

Sadly

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#162

Post by lolinder » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:59 PM UTC

nhchris wrote: post #77

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether something is disturbing or not doesn't say much about whether it's a good idea, just that it is different from the conventional. Around the world, governments act like abusive parents. If people could migrate freely (creating a competition for residents), much more people would live without the abuse of authoritarian governments.

Governments don't come from the geography, but the people. Living in a small country myself, a place such as China, India, Indonesia, or Nigeria could send (and they would gladly come) enough people to outvote us on any issue 3x over, without even noticing they're missing anyone. We would simply cease to exist first as a sovereign people, and soon after as a distinct people at all, without any territory to call our o…

This is a perspective that's really hard for someone in the US to understand. When people here make the exact same arguments that you're making, it sounds xenophobic and dangerous. It's the stuff of Trumpism and MAGA. However, in the context of a true nation state, the exact same words can mean something very different.

When we in the United States try to claim that immigration would hurt our sovereignty as a people, we're referring to an almost fictional nation that's supposedly being overrun—we have always been an eclectic group of immigrants from many places, and the people who have deep ancestral ties to the land are generally marginalized already.

But when people in a true nation state express the same concerns, we in the US should understand that the context is very different. This isn't the case of third generation Americans trying to claim that this land is theirs and no one else should be able to come here—instead we're talking about people whose families have been there literally since time immemorial.

I'm not writing this to take a stand on immigration in Europe or anywhere else, but it's important for us in the US to not project our own sensibilities into a completely different context.

A good article on this topic: https://acoup.blog/2021/07/02/collections-my-country-isnt-a-...

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#163

Post by stale2002 » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:03 PM UTC

lesuorac wrote: post #101

remarkEon wrote: post #34

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…

> 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

> Only if by "secure" you mean prevent your population from leaving

Did you think about this statement for even 1 second?

It should be clearly and immediately obvious that it is easier to leave places like the US than it is to enter it.

This is obviously the case.

You cannot with a straight face claim that actually it is easier to enter the US than leave.

Clearly, leaving is easier.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#164

Post by vkou » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:03 PM UTC

sgjohnson wrote: post #112

vkou wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a modern (a 'temporary measure' enacted in WW1) invention to enact a passport-controlled system of travel and residency across the entire world. Border control prior to it was more focused on customs taxes, and in some countries, keeping undesirable races/religions out. We have decided the latter is wrong, so instead of directly banning, say, Chinese or Jewish immigration, we replaced it with quotas on country o…

We can go one step further and also say that the entire system of social welfare is a post-WW2 invention. Before WW2 the state only helped those who couldn’t help themselves. Now the state just fucks everyone.

> Before WW2 the state only helped those who couldn’t help themselves.

Through much of human history, the state largely 'helped' the aristocracy maintain a monopoly on wealth and power, through frequent applications of violence against their political enemies. In fact, in ~all non-democratic, and in many democratic societies, the state and the aristocracy - and thus, their interests, are often indistinguishable.

But either way, what does any of that have to do with passport controls?

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#165

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:04 PM UTC

hermannj314 wrote: post #16

I've owned houses in two cities in my life. 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 o…

[deleted]

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#166

Post by andrekandre » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:06 PM UTC

notch898a wrote: post #125

vharuck wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

  > Consider something like 1/3 of Americans have a criminal history.

really? not as in traffic tickets, but actual conviction of a crime?

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#167

Post by nikanj » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:08 PM UTC

hermannj314 wrote: post #16

I've owned houses in two cities in my life. 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 o…

Would I be correct in guessing homes in the former were much more expensive than the latter?

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#168

Post by rootusrootus » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:08 PM UTC

notch898a wrote: post #127

shkkmo wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Try that with Canada.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#169

Post by JumpCrisscross » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:11 PM UTC

abvdasker wrote: post #69

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Amazon very publicly decided not to build "HQ2" in Long Island City as a result of the local opposition. Amazon's significant Manhattan presence predates any of this discussion and is largely unsubsidized. It's also a little goofy to assume that the people working for Amazon in Manhattan don't live in Queens but otherwise would if the office was physically located there (especially given their proximity to the 7 trai…

> Amazon's significant Manhattan presence predates any of this discussion and is largely unsubsidized

It’s unsubsidised. But there was a hiring boom originally planned for Queens—I know people who were planning on living in Queens who had to about turn to Chelsea.

You’re correct that Queens lost because of opposition, not subsidies per se, but a lot of that opposition was churned by anti-subsidy politics.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#170

Post by 1_1xdev1 » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:13 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #110

hellotomyrars wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

That's where their focus lies, not necessarily where their interests do.

It's in everyone's interest to get a good deal for their money. For example, we should all be for an efficient government, and efficient markets. However folks vote against those all the time without thinking about it, because their focus is elsewhere.