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

251–260 of 393 posts

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#251

Post by tracker1 »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #7
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…

For a migratory species it is literally inhuman to erect a border. Borders should be jurisdictional boundaries but should be permeable like the states in the US. The rest of the tribalism BS is just that.

You can only influence the rights/freedoms/liberties of those jurisdictional boundaries.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#252

Post by 988747 »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #198
rajin444 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[dead]

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#253

Post by lotsofpulp »

tracker1 wrote: post #240
lotsofpulp wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not read it all as you did. “Coincidence” in welshwelsh’s comment was used to indicate who is deserving of the benefits of living in place X rather than place Y, where it can be reasonably concluded that X is overall better to live in than Y. I disagree with nhchris’s response of > It is their inheritance, their birthright, the fruit of their ancestors' labors. Because there is no natural law that something is…

I would say that if ownership of land and property are indeed a right... then being able to give that property to your descendants (or anyone else) is also a right.

Assuming the power structures governing the land allow that. See this example for how nebulous “rights” can be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce%27s_Beach

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#254

Post by rhuru »

I think the real problem is some cities have grown far too large. Larger the city harder for businesses and people to move out of it. Let the city residents through their elected council chose the path they want to pursue, with enough diversity people can prefer to move in and out of a city with very little impact on their day to day life. I have moved in and out of Sunnyvale/Mountain View/San Jose few times.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#255

Post by tracker1 »

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.

How is it different than the EU? I mean the alliance is stronger, and the EU is closer to the original Articles of Confederation the US was bound under. But aren't Germany and France separate nations... that we call different US states, and EU nations it's a very similar alliance.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#256

Post by tracker1 »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #154
vorpalhex wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans stopped being migratory about 12,000 years ago. You probably don't want criminals to freely move into your country. You probably want a country that gets funded by taxes (both short term and long term). No country in the world maintains open borders. Everytime there has been mass unorganized migration it has been a humanitarian disaster. Platitudes only work on paper.

Countries are equivalent to prisons in your example? I agree, they act that way now. But what about states in the United States? They were explicitly formed as a set of states - nations - that cooperate under a federation. Free migration wasn’t always the case in the original states but was required in the constitution. What about the EU? People can move about freely today when in the past they weren’t able to. Or ar…

It's possible for any adjacent nation/country/region to join the US or EU... so it's perfectly possible for free travel, if you agree to the rules of the higher federation. You can only impact jurisdictions you have jurisdictional control over.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#257

Post by ghaff »

slg wrote: post #232
gretch wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People often live here _despite_ the government, not because of it. Great weather. 4 hours away from skiing. 1 hour away from the beach. These things aren't attributable to the quality of the govt (except I will say that govt does do a decent job of preserving natural ecosystems)

>Great weather. 4 hours away from skiing. 1 hour away from the beach. Why not move to Los Angeles, better weather, closer to skiing, and closer to the beach? Seems to me that there is still something the government is doing to keep you in the Bay Area.

I probably disagree on the weather but I don't really like heat. There are also a lot of local natural areas for hiking and so forth.

But, really, they're different. Take money out of the picture and tell me I needed to live in either SoCal or NoCal and I'd definitely pick the latter.

(And there's better skiing than both.)

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#258

Post by nerdponx »

slackdog wrote: post #186
nerdponx wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Chomsky's model of propaganda is a useful model, but it's not an iron law.

Amazon is a great example of a company where I absolutely would not put it past them to use DEI initiatives to try to defeat labor organizing. But in many other cases these initiatives are actually demanded and sought after by employees.

I think in this case the actions of well-meaning people were only appropriated as an oppression tactic after they've caught on in popularity.

History and my own anecdotal experience are not consistent with your implied theory that CRT-driven DEI became popular specifically as an anti-labor capitalist conspiracy.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#259

Post by kube-system »

theyre-the-same-picture.jpg

The #1 reason people move is for employment opportunities. Although, promising some companies tax breaks doesn't guarantee you're going to meaningfully create jobs. But the same goes the other way around, giving residents low taxes or other incentives also doesn't guarantee they'll move there, if they can't get a job.

Post reply on HN