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

181–190 of 393 posts

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#181

Post by rootusrootus »

andrekandre wrote: post #166
notch898a wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No. Not sure sure exactly where it started, but it gets attributed to Andrew Cuomo often enough, citing the 1 in 3 number. That comes from FBI statistics, which define a criminal record to include arrests.

Here is a discussion: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/aug/18/andrew-cuo...

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#182

Post by lotsofpulp »

playingalong wrote: post #161
lotsofpulp wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But you also have people that do not? My entire parents’ generation immigrated thousands of miles away to various places around the world and never went back (other than as tourists), and it was not even war torn or lacking in resources. They just happened to bet that they could provide a better life for themselves and their children elsewhere.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#183

Post by mannerheim »

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 prisoner or forcing others to treat their residents more poorly because of some imagined 'race to the bottom', but to instead make their own land more attractive to stay and live in.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#184

Post by 908B64B197 »

ashwagary wrote: post #131
908B64B197 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Most shortages seem to be due to economic sanctions and trade embargoes.

Not really. Cuba is free to trade with any country that's not the USA (and is even free to trade with the USA except for certain entities or commodities).

Decades of corruption, incompetence, brain drain and failed government made the local economy unable to compete.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#185

Post by rootusrootus »

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.

That includes arrest records, not just convictions. About 3% of the population has served any time in prison, and about 8% of the population have been convicted of a felony.

https://news.uga.edu/total-us-population-with-felony-convict...

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#186

Post by slackdog »

nerdponx wrote: post #94
slackdog wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate DEI initiatives using divisive rhetoric designed to foster paranoia, in order to keep workers on edge around each other. ( "You're all racist. Even if you think you aren't racist, asserting you have no subconscious racial biases only proves that you're overtly racist. You're constantly commit racist 'microaggression' offenses against your coworkers without even realizing it." ) Such paranoia between coworke…

My experience has led me to believe that most individuals in favor of corporate DEI initiatives are earnestly and in good faith attempting to put into practice the recommendations of critical race theory and related frameworks. The same experience has led me to believe that most managers and employers are not so crafty, and are going along with it because it seems to be trendy and in-demand and because they don't wan…

> My experience has led me to believe that most individuals in favor of corporate DEI initiatives are earnestly and in good faith attempting to put into practice the recommendations of critical race theory and related frameworks.

Yes, of course they are. As explained by Chomsky's model of propaganda, corporations hire true believers for these roles because they are the most effective and reliable.

> most managers and employers are not so crafty

Amazon being so crafty is a documented fact; it's naive to think they're the only ones.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#187

Post by kodah »

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 would rather that the incentive system be geared towards balancing quality of life with affordability. Clustering businesses together is how we go to paying for "Cost of Labor" which systemically advantages already very rich people becoming richer while marginalizing geographies that don't exist to cater to businesses with dense, high income people. My hypothesis is the more average the experience is across a nation the more peaceful and enjoyable life becomes.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#188

Post by 908B64B197 »

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…

> Governments don't come from the geography, but the people.

I think that's something the left is increasingly uncomfortable with; the idea that some countries aren't as developed as others because of its people and that simply transplanting people across countries won't change anything to it.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#189

Post by hintymad »

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 highest ratio in the US. The housing price has been through the roof. The average commute time is north of an hour. California also has higher taxes for income and business than most of the other states. Yet, people have been flocking to California (except last year) and tech companies still choose the Bay Area for their headquarters.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#190

Post by vanjajaja1 »

kodah wrote: post #187
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 would rather that the incentive system be geared towards balancing quality of life with affordability. Clustering businesses together is how we go to paying for "Cost of Labor" which systemically advantages already very rich people becoming richer while marginalizing geographies that don't exist to cater to businesses with dense, high income people. My hypothesis is the more average the experience is across a natio…

For some people, yes, for others, no. There's plenty of countries in the world that prioritise creating an average and peaceful experience. As far as I can tell the US was never one of those countries.
Post reply on HN