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

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#191

Post by rootusrootus » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:46 PM UTC

slackdog wrote: post #21

Residents need jobs. Alaska is one of the most beautiful states in the country, but there are relatively few opportunities for work. If there were more jobs, more people would consider moving to Alaska. We got a taste of this effect when remote working became common. A lot of people moved to other states and cities they wouldn't or couldn't live in before when they were expected to live near the office. But of course…

> If there were more jobs, more people would consider moving to Alaska.

I wouldn't bet on a surge of people. Even in Anchorage, the sun comes up mid-morning and sets mid-afternoon in the winter. And about half the year the high temperature struggles to get above freezing. A typical summer temperature tops out in the mid 60s, and summer is short.

Sure, some people will still move there, but it's not just jobs that makes Alaska a tough sell.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#192

Post by teawrecks » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:47 PM UTC

chasd00 wrote: post #144

It's not one or the other, governments ( US state governments ) compete for both. Companies want to be where the workers are at and workers want to be where the jobs are at. A state needs qualified residents to attract businesses and they also need good jobs to attract residents. The articles says WFH is changing that but I don't see WFH ever being on a wide enough scale to have much influence.

I think the sentiment is more that we should optimize for the wellbeing of people; i.e. the wellbeing of companies should only optimized to the degree that it contributes to the wellbeing of people.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#193

Post by abvdasker » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:51 PM UTC

chasd00 wrote: post #157

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.

The city collects $0 if there's no building no matter what the incentive was. It would be as if AMZ went somewhere else to build. People see "handout" and think AMZ was written a check, but that's not how the incentives work. "handout" is a very misleading term.

> The city collects $0 if there's no building no matter what the incentive was.

In reality that's not what happened. Amazon has had a very large unsubsidized office in Manhattan which predates their "HQ2" proposal and has quietly grown even larger in the years since I interviewed there. That they have significantly expanded their corporate offices in Hudson Yards without subsidy suggests that the tax breaks were unnecessary to begin with. Amazon was always going to staff up in NYC regardless of whether they got the tax break or not.

In general, subsidies of that sort for companies operating out of desirable locations like SF and NYC are unnecessary because the employer needs access to the highly educated talent pool in those cities far more than the city needs any individual employer.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#194

Post by AlgorithmicTime » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:52 PM UTC

kilgnad wrote: post #143

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…

The problem with this is that the taglines enforce a theme even when the circumstances change. Your healthy community is experiencing homelessness and a housing affordability problem along with every "themed" community around you. Does it make sense to stick with the original theme? No. It doesn't. The problem here is that by owning property you buy into that theme. Any divergence from that theme is harmful to what y…

[dead]

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#195

Post by nhchris » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:53 PM UTC

mannerheim wrote: post #183

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…

I don't think countries should necessarily compete for the citizens of other countries, either, but they should have to compete for their own at the very least. People aren't the property of their government, and if another city or state or country offers them a more attractive life than their home, they should be free to take that offer. The solution to emigration for a polity shouldn't be keeping their citizenry pr…

> but they should have to compete for their own at the very least.

That I agree with. While it is entirely up to a country's discretion whether they permit immigration, leaving a country must not be prevented.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#196

Post by inglor_cz » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:59 PM UTC

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…

"a rather modern invention"

Congestion charge is a rather modern invention as well, because the amount of cars in some city centers exceeded the tolerance of the locals and the capacity of the roads.

Borders can be soft/open as long as a modest amount of people crosses them. In a world of 8 billion people and relatively cheap travel, open borders would result in massive flows of people into several desirable locations - whose citizens aren't happy about such prospects.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#197

Post by selimthegrim » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:00 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #93

mtoner23 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk, i think borders exist to exclude other groups of peoples. this is why european countries kept splitting up on various racial groups (check and slovaks, all of yugoslavia) Businesses on the other hand would prefer to have access to all peoples. and to have access to cheaper or better labor wherever it is, giving us the success of the european union.

The differences between groups in the former Yugoslavia have little to do with race (as most Americans would understand the term). It's tough to tell the difference between a Croat and a Serb just by looking at them. Conflicts were based more on culture, religion, language, and perhaps something akin to "tribal" identity (not literally tribes but I don't know how else to describe it). Some of these conflicts date bac…

Albanians?

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#198

Post by fnordpiglet » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:01 PM UTC

rajin444 wrote: post #174

fnordpiglet wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way you would with a bigger population for any reason. There’s an added bonus that if rights erode, people can simply leave to somewhere less oppressive. People can’t leave oppressive places due to borders. Less oppressive places may become oppressive but that would drive people elsewhere. I’d use the US as an example. In a real sense the US is a collection of small countries with a federal system and free r…

> Cultural erosion is IMO nativism and bias Are you implying that non natives are inherently better than natives? One of the hallmarks of declining empires is importing people - not to say those people are better or worse, but mixing diverse peoples together is extremely hard. It has to be done slowly and carefully. > Changing populace doesn’t change a culture any more than time does I don’t see how you can look at t…

No, that’s a false dichotomy. You are implying by that false dichotomy that one is greater than the other. Until very recently in human history one would be the same as the other. That is what I am saying. Being born in a location has nothing to do with being better or worse. It’s just a random occurrence. What makes a person better than another is how they live their life, not the circumstances of their birth.

While I don’t disagree mixing of diverse people can be hard, I would simply point to American history as an example of how the empire you seem to laud was built by mixing peoples relentlessly. In fact immigrants tend to be the drivers of American growth, while the native born… not so much.

I find it fascinating you think culture doesn’t change with time, but with the mixing of different people into a culture only. What culture has been unchanged with time? Language itself mutates constantly, how can a culture be static with time? How does it stay static? The people in the culture change with every birth and every death, the memory of the culture is wiped out every 100 years. Written histories are a poor tool of continuity for something as complex as a culture. Human beings themselves change radically over the course of their lives. All things are impermanent, but human culture isn’t just impermanent, it’s an illusion.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#199

Post by inglor_cz » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:01 PM UTC

andrekandre wrote: post #155

stronglikedan wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> you can't have open borders and social welfare programs this may sound simplistic/naive but cant you just tax those additional people to pay for those welfare? i guess the assumption is those people wouldnt be working?

It is more of a "long term experience" than mere "assumption".

At least in Europe, a sizeable amount of illegal migrants has only very rudimentary education, and the # of job openings for unqualified people is very limited. Some literally cannot read even in their own language.

As a result, immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are, on average, significantly overrepresented among welfare collectors and significantly underrepresented among taxpayers.

Of course, as long as the numbers involved are tiny, you can try to educate at least their kids, but once a fairly low threshold is crossed, parallel societies develop in full. Having classrooms where 90 per cent of the kids don't even speak the official language of the country is quite an intractable problem. And that threshold beyond which the schooling system basically gives up has been crossed in many regions of many countries such as Sweden or France.

TL;DR: You cannot maintain a modern welfare state with premodern population.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#200

Post by fnordpiglet » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:02 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #175

fnordpiglet wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way you would with a bigger population for any reason. There’s an added bonus that if rights erode, people can simply leave to somewhere less oppressive. People can’t leave oppressive places due to borders. Less oppressive places may become oppressive but that would drive people elsewhere. I’d use the US as an example. In a real sense the US is a collection of small countries with a federal system and free r…

> In a real sense the US is a collection of small countries with a federal system and free right of migration. Before that comparison works, you have to eliminate the Constitution and all of the protections that come with it.

Why? You made a huge assertion with no explanation.