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

351–360 of 393 posts

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#351

Post by nhchris »

nobody9999 wrote: post #290
nhchris wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it's policy, technology, or medicine (I don't quite understand why medicine would reduce the metric we care about, number of surviving children) doesn't matter. There may be a solution a nation could take, but immigration enables it (or rather, its economy) to persist, without addressing the falling birth rates, at the price of slowly giving way to a new, immigrant population.

>at the price of slowly giving way to a new, immigrant population. What's wrong with immigrants? My father was an immigrant. My mother's parents were immigrants. Babies are "immigrants" from someone's womb. I'd note that all humans are immigrants to every place except Africa. Further, I'd ask why you care where the person (or their parents) who installs the side view mirror on your car at the factory comes from? What…

There's nothing wrong with immigrants. What's wrong is the old population will disappear, or be put in the perilous position of being a minority in the only territory they can call their own. Look at Ukraine while it was part of the Soviet union for how dangerous that can be - or the Rohingya, or Uyghurs, or countless other examples.

Not to mention it is in the interest of any organism, any living being, to produce descendants, so any policy that promises long-term sub-replacement fertility is dangerous from that point of view alone. It frankly boggles the mind this is something I have to explain.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#352

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #350
tptacek wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, racially-motivated prejudice in either direction between your parents and your wife's parents is, in fact, also racism, despite the fact that neither group was born in the south or has "overlapping culture". Xenophobia is a form of racism; globally, it's probably the most common form.

Incorrect. It’s totally fine to not get along with other people—and certainly to not want to share a democratic polity with them—based on cultural differences. There’s no reason why people who escaped west to get away from elites should we to to share a polity with foreign elites who think the “common people” need to be carefully managed. Conversely, there’s no reason why folks who believe in rigid social hierarchy a…

No, it's not fine. There isn't a good kind of racism and a bad kind of racism. Much of your argument here is probably best directed to Publius, who disagrees with you directly about, well, all of this.

There's a benign version of the argument you're making here, the one that protects cultural and religious tolerance while establishing some set of core values (pluralism, the rule of law, representative government, separation of church and state) set above all other concerns. But you're making, and re-making, a case for excluding people because their differences of religion (your example) and culture make native-born people unhappy. That's not OK, and I'm pretty sure I've got the founders on my side of this argument.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#353

Post by ikiris »

gretch wrote: post #307
ikiris wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is... they're competing as much as they need to?

This is the dumbest and most unproductive interpretation of what I said. But sure, it’s true I suppose.

Its a summary of your argument's logical conclusion. You might want to reflect on that instead of the vitriol.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#354

Post by CadmiumYellow »

JeremyNT wrote: post #313
nradov wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nashville has been experiencing rapid population growth. How do reconcile that with your claim that the governmental situation is dire?

Let's just say that many of these people do not value the things that I find important and vice versa. Many are here because of the lack of income tax, the country music industry, and the extremely culturally conservative government. They either do not care about the poor public transit/services/infrastructure/schools/etc or they do not care enough to outweigh the benefits. A common refrain I hear when talking to peo…

The fact that you refer to "the country music industry" and not just "the music industry" makes me wonder how much of Nashville you've really experienced. I know tons of people who work in the music industry here and not one of them has anything to do with country music. Music in general has a huge pull here, whether it's for young singer-songwriters, indie bands, audio engineers, people who work in live events, videographers, etc. Most of these people tend to be extremely liberal. Nashville has plenty of problems and is severely lacking in infrastructure compared to my hometown, a large east coast city, but there are a lot of positives here that have nothing to do with cultural conservatism or country music.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#355

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #352
rayiner wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. It’s totally fine to not get along with other people—and certainly to not want to share a democratic polity with them—based on cultural differences. There’s no reason why people who escaped west to get away from elites should we to to share a polity with foreign elites who think the “common people” need to be carefully managed. Conversely, there’s no reason why folks who believe in rigid social hierarchy a…

No, it's not fine. There isn't a good kind of racism and a bad kind of racism. Much of your argument here is probably best directed to Publius, who disagrees with you directly about, well, all of this. There's a benign version of the argument you're making here, the one that protects cultural and religious tolerance while establishing some set of core values (pluralism, the rule of law, representative government, sep…

> No, it's not fine. There isn't a good kind of racism and a bad kind of racism.

It’s not “racism” at all because it has nothing to do with “race,” which is a superficial construct. It’s about substantive differences in people’s worldview, beliefs, values, etc., which are relevant to living with people in communities and sharing a government with people.

> But you're making, and re-making, a case for excluding people because their differences of religion (your example) and culture make native-born people unhappy. That's not OK, and I'm pretty sure I've got the founders on my side of this argument.

Whether the founders envisioned it or not has nothing to do with whether it’s “racism.” There is no moral obligation to allow people with different values into your community and allow them to vote on the government that you live in. To the contrary, that notion violates the human right of self determination.

Besides that, the founders were not multiculturalists. America at the time was a collection of mostly monocultural communities. Massachusetts and several other states still had an established church. The founders created a framework where those disparate groups could cooperate in a limited fashion through a federal government of limited and enumerated powers.

That ship, however, said long ago. If a federal Department of Education exists and says what kids learn in schools and the federal government says that 99.9% Protestant communities in Iowa can’t have prayer in schools you can’t invoke what the framers thought about how pluralism should work.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#356

Post by fnordpiglet »

rajin444 wrote: post #342
fnordpiglet wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don’t believe in racial superiority. I also don’t believe genetics plays a great role in overall outcomes in life, otherwise known as eugenics. I think that in a population genetic attributes are fairly regular with small specific variances that aren’t enough to make one fitter in any dimension. On an individual level genetics can contribute towards specific traits, including to some degree intelligence and anx…

I never claimed one race was superior to the other - just different (and these differences make cultural cohesion difficult). > However the magic of the plasticity of the human brain is that it can, with effort, overcome virtually any impediment That’s quite the claim depending on how you define impediment, but as is this statement is too vague to argue with. > I’d also point out that the more homogeneous the genetic…

I didn’t say you did. I said I didn’t, and it was led to by this:

> I guess it’s safe to assume you think genetics has no impact on life outcomes and/or there aren’t significant genetic differences between geographically (by ancestor) populations?

This idea that genetics impacts life out comes at a population level is racial superiority, assuming you give some outcome as being qualitatively better. I don’t know how you can cut it any differently.

I definitely don’t think that genetics has any influence though on cultural adaptation. That’s entirely environmental. See adopted children from international cultures raised in a foreign culture from birth. They culturally identical while racially different.

On plasticity, I mean even granting some genetic difference that impacts some degree of adaption to some cultural normal, the brains ability to adapt even given such major structural issues like brain damage make small things like cultural adaption simple. In fact I expect given how much migration happened throughout history it’s an evolutionary necessity to be able to adapt culturally.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#357

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #355
tptacek wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not fine. There isn't a good kind of racism and a bad kind of racism. Much of your argument here is probably best directed to Publius, who disagrees with you directly about, well, all of this. There's a benign version of the argument you're making here, the one that protects cultural and religious tolerance while establishing some set of core values (pluralism, the rule of law, representative government, sep…

> No, it's not fine. There isn't a good kind of racism and a bad kind of racism. It’s not “racism” at all because it has nothing to do with “race,” which is a superficial construct. It’s about substantive differences in people’s worldview, beliefs, values, etc., which are relevant to living with people in communities and sharing a government with people. > But you're making, and re-making, a case for excluding people…

Madison, in considering whether the legislature should be limited to native-born citizens, had this to say:

"[T]he door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith."

There may be countries in the world that don't have a moral obligation to allow people from different cultures and religions (I'm avoiding "values" here, since it's a squiggly concept). But we're not one of them.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#358

Post by somsak2 »

bakuninsbart wrote: post #335
maxsilver wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should live where the government aligns with your phase of life and personal goals and be free to choose a new government later. It should be noted that while this is good advice, this is a big luxury to have, and not something that is broadly applicable to most people. If you don't have the money, if your career is tied to a specific industry, if you have children from any past-and-now-divorced marriage, or a…

> Yes, move somewhere new if you can and you feel the grass is greener. But municipal government absolutely owe it to their residents and community to support the people they have, not just the people they wish they had. I'm living in a district subject to heavy gentrification at the moment. (And as I'm transitioning from student to Yuppie, I'm part of it) The conflicts between newly moved in rich people and the entr…

I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that someone should be entitled to live where they want simply on the basis of previously having lived there.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#359

Post by nhchris »

kevviiinn wrote: post #339
rayiner wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe that people and cultures are different (which almost everyone outside America believes) then it follows that a region reflects the people who developed it. Countries are, of course, not just land, but they are built of infrastructure, governments, institutions, culture, customs, rules, norms, and values. If Iowa is polite, flat, and egalitarian it’s because Iowans made it that way. By contrast India or…

You seem to think that people are never influenced by outside sources such as wealthy capital owners spreading propaganda in Iowa in order to make it the way the capital owner wants. I know you'll say "oh people can make choices for themselves" but that's not how behavior works especially when avenues of information are so highly controlled

I don't think it's fair to characterize the belief that the people living in a country have a large influence on how that country turns out, as thinking that outside forces have no effect.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#360

Post by kevviiinn »

nhchris wrote: post #359
kevviiinn wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to think that people are never influenced by outside sources such as wealthy capital owners spreading propaganda in Iowa in order to make it the way the capital owner wants. I know you'll say "oh people can make choices for themselves" but that's not how behavior works especially when avenues of information are so highly controlled

I don't think it's fair to characterize the belief that the people living in a country have a large influence on how that country turns out, as thinking that outside forces have no effect.

Essentially always whenever I see statements like that they ignore larger systemic forces at play so I don't think that it's unreasonable.
Post reply on HN