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

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#221

Post by notch898a » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:26 PM UTC

Hermitian909 wrote: post #201

notch898a wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like this could be improved by mandating no more than 2x disparity between spending on kids in the same grade level. Disruptors can be kicked into the gladiator camps or emancipated if they think they're so independent on what they can do.

Actual measurement for most disruptions is really hard because it usually manifests in things like "Timmy was really distracting in class during the Math lesson". Quantifying that is difficult. Capping spending ratios would also be horrific for the US specifically because we implement many of our social welfare programs for kids through the schools: school lunches, speech therapy, etc. (incidentally, this overinflate…

My thought process is the rich kids are already going to private school, where by your own admission various factors present advantages to them.

The poorer left competing at the public schools all have their various challenges and struggles. IMO the best we can do for them is afford them equality of OPPORTUNITY for use of numerical amount of public funds. Johnny gets 10k Billy gets 10k, maybe 20k at most. There's no guarantee you'll get equality of outcome, but at least you got equal shot at the public funds and one poor kid doesn't lose out a huge amount so the other kid gets 5x the money. At some point sure more money is almost always better than less, but we have to remember that comes at the cost of other poor kids.

As for lunches... I don't know why those aren't just given to all kids in public school by default. That would make it equal and satisfy the criteria.

>Quantifying that is difficult

This sounds accurate but I have to point out you've expressed the private schools are finding effective ways to identify disruptors.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#222

Post by mikem170 » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:29 PM UTC

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #202

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…

>This line of thinking comes up often on HN but it ignores the central reason for governments to enact borders, a rather modern invention . Would you be kind and provide some scholarly proof for the rather modern invention ? It might not have been called "border" and have the gate with digital IDs to pass by but well defined (for their time) territories existed for thousands of years as evidenced by territory dispute…

Not the parent you replied to, but the modern passport as we know it goes back only about 100 years.

> Migration was generally speaking, unhindered and each emigrant could decide on the time of his departure, his arrival or his return, to suit his own convenience. But World War I brought harsh restrictions on freedom of movement. [0]

> The concept of a worldwide passport standard is relatively new, created in the aftermath of the First World War. ...the United States at the turn of the last century emerges: a near constant rush of immigrants, most destined to pass through Ellis Island. There they were given a cursory disease check, questioned, and in most cases, allowed to proceed on their journeys inward. This was easy enough to do without a global standard for identifying documents. [1]

> On the outbreak of the First World War, countries imposed border controls to block the entry of subversives and the exit of men with skills useful to the war effort. Passports were issued to allow travellers access through these restrictions. When peace came in 1918 most countries retained both border controls and passports. [2]

There used to be more restrictions on commerce than on people. Now it is the opposite. Money can move freely across international borders, and labor has become something to arbitrage.

[0] https://fee.org/articles/passports-were-a-temporary-war-meas...

[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/a-history-...

[2] https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/when-passports-...

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#223

Post by gnopgnip » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:30 PM UTC

hintymad wrote: post #189

How does Bay Area fit in the narrative? From my personal point of view, Bay Area, where I live, offers very little to its residents: public schools have super low standards and low teaching qualities. Many of the schools use seemingly run-down portables while public schools in other states, such as WA, have amazing buildings and facilities. More than 1/3 of the families in the Bay Area choose private schools, the hig…

>California also has the higher tax for income and business than most of the other states.

Is this a bad thing? It is true that California has high marginal rates, but for most people that isn't what matters. The progressive rates are more favorable, and from a policy perspective this creates more economic opportunity. For instance a married couple making $125k a year(bay area median) would have $4300 less in take home pay in Oregon.

>public schools have super low standards and low teaching qualities

Six of the top ten school districts in the state are in the bay area. https://backgroundchecks.org/top-school-districts-in-califor...

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#224

Post by onlyrealcuzzo » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:35 PM UTC

1_1xdev1 wrote: post #170

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No it isn't!

If you don't care about money, and only care about telling other people what to do - money isn't your interest. Telling other people what they can and can't do is your interest.

You seem to be incapable of grasping that other people care about other things than money.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#225

Post by lolinder » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:38 PM UTC

indigochill wrote: post #216

lolinder wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

There are a couple interesting assumptions here: 1. There's such a thing as a true nation 2. That how long a person's family has lived in a region should entitle them to keep others out The first one is bound to wander into circuitous philosophical debate, but I'm curious what the rationale is for the second.

I'm not making the second assumption at all, I explicitly disclaimed any opinion on the merits of particular stances on immigration in countries that are not my own:

> 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.

As for the first assumption, I'll grant you I was making that. Whether or not the concept of a nation exists in reality, it undeniably exists in people's heads, and it's less obviously artificial in Europe and elsewhere than it is in the United States.

EDIT: Although, note that I didn't actually use the phrase "true nation", I said "true nation state", and I think the existence of a nation state is less up for debate than the existence of a nation.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#226

Post by JeremyNT » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:40 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…

> You should live where the government aligns with your phase of life and personal goals and be free to choose a new government later. Also, democracies can shift over time but generally it is easier to move somewhere new than to feel entitled to change a municpal culture simply because you got older.

I feel like people need to understand this.

I'm currently living in Nashville, TN, which you may as well have been referring to in the second half of your comment (not mentioned: the focus exclusively on tourism while ignoring needs of actual residents). I did not appreciate how different values could lead to such wildly different outcomes in quality of life.

The situation with the government at both the state and city levels is absolutely dire here (for different reasons) and there's really no hope in changing anything.

"Vote with your feet" is the smart approach.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#227

Post by francisofascii » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:40 PM UTC

hintymad wrote: post #189

How does Bay Area fit in the narrative? From my personal point of view, Bay Area, where I live, offers very little to its residents: public schools have super low standards and low teaching qualities. Many of the schools use seemingly run-down portables while public schools in other states, such as WA, have amazing buildings and facilities. More than 1/3 of the families in the Bay Area choose private schools, the hig…

It all began when the US Navy starting using the bay area for research and technology, followed by Stanford getting into innovation and starting companies, then more tech companies started, hired people, attracted more people and more companies, and here we are.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#228

Post by CalRobert » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:41 PM UTC

hintymad wrote: post #189

How does Bay Area fit in the narrative? From my personal point of view, Bay Area, where I live, offers very little to its residents: public schools have super low standards and low teaching qualities. Many of the schools use seemingly run-down portables while public schools in other states, such as WA, have amazing buildings and facilities. More than 1/3 of the families in the Bay Area choose private schools, the hig…

If you're in one of the older areas (SF, Berkeley, Oakland) it's one of the few places on the west coast you can live an urban lifestyle in a walkable city.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#229

Post by psacawa » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:42 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #98

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…

How is this not just pure, racist nationalism? Where you live is not a family. If you are born unlucky geographically it seems like you should absolutely have the right to improve your lot.

What can I say, man? History is absolutely chock full of examples that show that other identity groups can represent existential threats, including very recent ones: Chinese genocide of Uyhgurs, Burmese genocide of Rohinya, Russian agression in Ukraine.

Let me pick at specifically Russia/Ukraine. A short time ago, these countries economic ties were vast. There were many Ukrainians whose personal wealth stemmed from e.g. the country's ties to Russian petrochemical industry.

Others, seeing that, said "You are accruing personal wealth by strengthening a foreign power's hold on our nation." To which the response was occasionally "Are you racist? Are you nationalist?" We see now how this turned out.

The dirty secret is that history vindicates all forms of identity group tribalism, in principal. That includes racism. There is no shortage in history of examples like the above, nor of examples of destroyed nations.

If anything, I feel the problem is that contemporary countries do not represent the nations the purport to.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#230

Post by bumby » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 8:43 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #98

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…

How is this not just pure, racist nationalism? Where you live is not a family. If you are born unlucky geographically it seems like you should absolutely have the right to improve your lot.

Why is family any different, but identity viewed through a evolutionary/genetic rather than geographic lens? Both are pure chance that you have no control over.