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

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#91

Post by dougmwne » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 5:36 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #18

dougmwne wrote: post #2

This is pretty silly because governments do compete for residents. Having jobs is a major part of attracting new residents unless you are a (sub)tropical paradise. A business that doesn’t employ anyone or consume any inputs from other state businesses is not going to be a particularly interesting business to incentivize.

> Having jobs is a major part of attracting new residents unless you are a (sub)tropical paradise. The theory is that for a whole range of lucrative jobs, “everywhere with Internet” can offer residents those jobs through remote work. So a neighborhood doesn’t need to compete to attract a big office building. Personally I think that remains to be seen… we’re clearly still in the hangover from the pandemic. Society mig…

The thing is that Florida and a few other top destinations seem to have a monopoly on attracting remote workers. No state income tax helps a lot, but that’s not going to make Wisconsin a major destination for remote workers. If the place hasn’t already been attracting retirees for years, it’s probably not going to ever get on the remote worker radar.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#92

Post by legitster » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 5:36 PM UTC

DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #72

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…

To answer your opening question: no, Bloomberg has not been a credible business publication for some time. They’re one of the legacy publications that used their name recognition and reputation as a springboard to essentially a paid op-Ed publication - authors pay them to have their opinion pieces published. See also: Newsweek.

Bloomberg is actually a good publication - especially their print edition. But most people's exposure only comes from the op-eds - people who only read the op-eds are not reading the boring but competent reporting on the pages in between.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#93

Post by nradov » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 5:36 PM UTC

mtoner23 wrote: post #45

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…

Idk, i think borders exist to exclude other groups of peoples. this is why european countries kept splitting up on various racial groups (check and slovaks, all of yugoslavia) Businesses on the other hand would prefer to have access to all peoples. and to have access to cheaper or better labor wherever it is, giving us the success of the european union.

The differences between groups in the former Yugoslavia have little to do with race (as most Americans would understand the term). It's tough to tell the difference between a Croat and a Serb just by looking at them. Conflicts were based more on culture, religion, language, and perhaps something akin to "tribal" identity (not literally tribes but I don't know how else to describe it). Some of these conflicts date back to the 14th century.

The only significant group in the region which some might identify as a distinct "race" are the Roma. That minority lives in all of the countries and they didn't cause countries to split up.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#94

Post by nerdponx » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 5:37 PM UTC

slackdog wrote: post #35

nerdponx wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> easier to find common interests and unite I think the idea is that there are common interests to be found, but borders artificially keep people apart, by segmenting up legal jurisdictions. For example, why Starbucks employees in Jersey City aren't all that different from Starbucks employees in New York City right across the river. > Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization ri…

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 want to be publicly canceled. It's more about petty virtue signaling among managers than coordinated suppression of organized labor.

Furthermore, most DEI initiatives do not look like what you describe, outside of a limited subset of academic institutions that have always been somewhat radical (including few to none of the name-brand universities in the Americas) and smaller companies/startups headed by highly-opinionated idealists.

In general I think we are right to be skeptical of attempts to divide, rather than unite. It's absolutely possible that DEI initiatives are weaponized at some organizations, and we should be wary of that possibility. But it's also not fair or correct to assume that it's always being wielded as such.

It's worth noting that there are legitimate good intentions behind all this no-subconscious-bias microaggression stuff. It's derived from a very earnest radical academic tradition. The kernel of wisdom at the core of it all is that diversity is good and should be not just acknowledged but actively embraced and celebrated. That is, people can be united together, without all being the same.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#95

Post by legitster » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 5:39 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…

Did you actually read the article?

> If Amazon stiffs Northern Virginia, future politicians elsewhere may be less eager to promise tax breaks and infrastructure investments, not to mention spend their reputational capital. Politically speaking, it will be harder for urban and suburban leaders to rise to the top by attracting a new major corporate tenants. “Pro-business” local governments may be less common in the years to come.

If anything, the politicians who blocked Amazon from coming to Queens actually got more bragging rights.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#96

Post by quacked » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

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…

Most of these types of articles take a "consumer" model of civilization: humans exist to consume, and the primary question is what they're going to consume and where they're going to do it. Labor exists as a phenomenon that enables future consumption, and QoL is measured by GDP per capita. "Countries" are an irrelevant social construct that inhibit free trade between interested, cooperative parties. This is a very limiting, privileged point of view of humanity. In reality Civilization is a mysterious art that requires cult-like adhesion to certain practices in order to "work". These economics-heavy libertarian open borders guys have absolutely no idea what to do when the power goes out for more than a week, or if they're personally wronged by a neighbor and the government won't get involved. It's a childish, first-world view of Man and Man's culture to assume that the only thing needed for Prosperity and Peace is economic competition administered and monitored by first-world-style democratic governments.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#97

Post by nhchris » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

welshwelsh wrote: post #84

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 standard…

It is not "coincidence" that Chinese are born in China and Polish in Poland. It is their inheritance, their birthright, the fruit of their ancestors' labors. To tear out all connection to one's history by calling it "coincidence" is, frankly, sickening.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#98

Post by legitster » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 5:43 PM UTC

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…

How is this not just pure, racist nationalism? Where you live is not a family. If you are born unlucky geographically it seems like you should absolutely have the right to improve your lot.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#99

Post by thex10 » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 5:44 PM UTC

dougmwne wrote: post #2

This is pretty silly because governments do compete for residents. Having jobs is a major part of attracting new residents unless you are a (sub)tropical paradise. A business that doesn’t employ anyone or consume any inputs from other state businesses is not going to be a particularly interesting business to incentivize.

> This is pretty silly because governments do compete for residents.

I agree, but I also think many places compete poorly.

I recently moved to a fast-growing (read: developer-friendly) region of the USA that often claims to be a "top place to live". And I might just leave, for many reasons:

* The water tastes terrible. But I bought a filter so whatever...

* The schools are bad. But I can try to lottery into the magnet school, okay..

* The services suck because they are not made to keep up with demand. Worse yet this is "normalized", seen as completely okay by the culture.

* Can't make a DMV appointment yet, next appointments available in three months

* None of the post offices accessible to me have passport appointments available. The only walk in service available is in another county

* I can't drive, transit exists but is too infrequent to be a good option to get to that other county for a very specific appointment

That's just a small slice of government-enabled things which happen to affect me. But what of it? No one in power gives a shit. So f--k me for having high expectations, I guess.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#100

Post by throwawaysleep » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 5:46 PM UTC

somewhereoutth wrote: post #90

With falling birthrates in developed countries, competing for residents will be exactly what they will be doing. Making a success of large scale immigration will be essential to the future prospects of those nations/communities.

Is this really all that challenging? Plenty of Indians who are willing to move anywhere developed.