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

81–90 of 393 posts

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#81

Post by ErikVandeWater »

gtop3 wrote: post #14

What are the best strategies to attract remote workers to a location? * Utilities such as roads, water, high speed internet feel like table stakes now. Fiber internet is quickly spreading in rural areas, and I know people with septic tanks and a fiber line. Ten years ago Google Fiber was a major selling point for Kansas City. * Governments have little control over climate, nearby geographic features, time zone, and a…

> * 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 infrastructure since it is illegal to build work and shopping near where people actually live. In addition, taxing property value disincentivizes developing land, leaving empty lots in even the most valuable places to build: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJqCaklMv6M

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#82

Post by pastage »

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…

Miguel Díaz-Canel is president now.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#84

Post by welshwelsh »

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…

The way I interpreted it is- cities and states should focus more on being great places to live, not great places to move your corporate office.

And although I'm sure this is not a popular sentiment, I think governments are too biased towards people already living in their jurisdiction, even if those people are there by mere coincidence (i.e. they happened to be born there). People shouldn't be held to higher standards simply because they were born somewhere else, which is something they don't control.

An ideal immigration policy would be to allow anyone making above the median income, or otherwise anyone who would be an "above average" resident to become a citizen instantly, and the government should work hard to attract these people. Conversely, they should encourage "below average" residents to relocate to more affordable/lower tier areas, and not give them any special privileges just because they are "legacy residents."

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#85

Post by MithrilTuxedo »

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…

The United States is probably a more common example for Americans. The US Constitution makes the whole country a free trade zone between states. Borders between states are easily navigated by corporations, by design. Workers in Washington compete with workers in South Carolina. Manufacturers can freely move their plants around the US.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#86

Post by kdkwsndne »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #63
remarkEon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Governments (at the behest of businesses) enforce borders so that labor cannot effectively organise. I have never heard this explanation. Where is it coming from? It sounds not only wrong but inverted to me. Governments enforce borders to effectively secure their territory and people, and thus its own power. Is the idea that, without the “legal fiction” of borders, we’d have some kind of global autoworkers Union or…

Lately - it seems people inside countries enforce their boarders to make sure other people from less fortunate countries can't come in and drive down their wages... We live in a democracy. The idea that we vote to screw ourselves over completely is strange. Some people forget that everything isn't a zero sum game. Something can be good for companies and not bad for you. And something can be good for you and not bad f…

[flagged]

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#88

Post by vkou »

boh wrote: post #22
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…

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.

It's a modern (a 'temporary measure' enacted in WW1) invention to enact a passport-controlled system of travel and residency across the entire world.

Border control prior to it was more focused on customs taxes, and in some countries, keeping undesirable races/religions out.

We have decided the latter is wrong, so instead of directly banning, say, Chinese or Jewish immigration, we replaced it with quotas on country of birth/origin.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#89

Post by m0llusk »

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.
Post reply on HN