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

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#131

Post by ashwagary » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:15 PM UTC

908B64B197 wrote: post #37

gameman144 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested here, as I'm inclined to disagree pretty strongly. How would you prevent the erosion of rights or culture by a group with a bigger population? For instance, have a few hundred thousand Americans move to Cuba and vote to have Cuba secede to the US? Or a few hundred thousand mainland Chinese citizens move to Taiwan and do the same? While it's definitely nice to keep migration smooth and easy, it seems li…

> For instance, have a few hundred thousand Americans move to Cuba and vote to have Cuba secede to the US? That would be a great thing for Cuba. Cubans have been fleeing their failed state by the thousands, risking their lives and dying to get a shot at reaching America. Starvation, medicine shortage, brutal LGBT purges are sadly common place under the Castro regime. Pretty sure these Americans would be welcomed with…

Most shortages seem to be due to economic sanctions and trade embargoes. I wonder how much fleeing rates would dwindle if they were lifted.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#132

Post by nhchris » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:15 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #108

nhchris wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"Systems" as in those countries' social and economical systems. I don't know exactly what about those systems kills birthrates, but they are doubtless to blame, as other countries, and even those same countries some time in the past, had higher birthrates. Those systems caused that change.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#133

Post by 464628346 » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:17 PM UTC

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…

This seems like a false dichotomy. Politicians try to attract new businesses because those businesses, if nothing else, attract these things called employees. The advantage of the approach is that you can try to attract more of the kinds of residents you want instead of just "anybody". Most places have plenty of "anybody" already.

What else does better as a medium of attraction for worthwhile people? Walkability? Save that for the Europeans who pretend like boasting Paris and (formerly) London qualifies them to talk about managing large cities. Civil services? I'm salaried and I've got a car, the only reason I'd use most common civil services is either because my ride is in the shop or I was literally stabbed and needed the ER. Otherwise you couldn't /pay/ me to deal with the kinds of people who take the bus. Meanwhile parks and libraries are for the homeless and parents in denial about the times.

So what's left to brag about to attract people?

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#134

Post by vonnik » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:19 PM UTC

m0llusk wrote: post #89

vonnik wrote: post #53

This piece is an op-ed, not straight reporting. Tyler Cowen, its author, is a noted economist (with libertarian leanings), and he favors competition in many forms. Anyone curious about him and his views should read his blog Marginal Revolution and listen to his podcast. They're both smart: https://marginalrevolution.com/ https://conversationswithtyler.com/ Tyler has written extensively about stagnation in the America…

The situation in San Francisco is more complex than that. It is pretty clear that heavy handed taxes drove some away, but the bulk of office workers were not in that elite club. The transition to remote work drained San Francisco of its office workers. Even with that more than half of the existing office space stock is still rented and used.

It's not a whole lot more complex.

In the last few years, the city government could have adopted very different policies toward policing, homelessness, COVID, housing and education, all of which would have made it more competitive than it is.

SF's commercial leases, while underperforming on a national level, are a whole different issue to the one Tyler is addressing, which is about competing for residents, not businesses.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#135

Post by nsxwolf » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:19 PM UTC

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 live in a high property tax county in Illinois, and 70% of my taxes go to the schools. More than half of that 70% pays for teacher's pensions.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#136

Post by necovek » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

pphysch wrote: post #123

iLoveOncall wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

> Thats 27% more money in your bank account for the same work done.

A nitpick, but that's not "for the same work done", but for the same gross salary.

The benefit is in recognition of the extra home-making costs (and work) a highly skilled immigrant would have upon moving there.

A local would usually have local support system (friends, family, inheritance, knowledge of language...).

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#137

Post by ErikVandeWater » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

gtop3 wrote: post #126

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * 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 d…

> Property taxes are a large source of funding for these investments.

The idea isn't to get rid of property taxes and do without that revenue; the idea is to tax things that aren't beneficial that we want more of.

I think our perspectives are different on how much of a handbrake bad policy is on the market's ability to create what people want.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#138

Post by boh » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

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.

It isn't. Free movement of people hasn't been a thing since the invention of civilization. You needed seals/papers to get in/out of city-states, duchies etc. They reference passport-like paperwork in the bible. I know history is boring, but it doesn't hurt to try it sometime.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#139

Post by xxpor » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:27 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…

The problem is when the "healthy community" is close to the central city and has good transit. Metro areas are networks, nothing happens in isolation.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#140

Post by techstrategist » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:28 PM UTC

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.

It actually works out better than 30%, quote is just an accounting game. You pay taxes on 70%, the top 30% is a tax free allowance. With a top marginal rate of ~50% it’s a massive savings.

Politically I think they originally justified it as covering expenses for people living in a new country (without having to declare e.g. trips home), but practically it’s a tool to help employers attract internationals and make it cheaper to offer internationally competitive salaries for professionals.