4 ms·

There is a reason that the people with the most aggressive social policies tend to also be the least in favor of federalism/local politics, because of this exac

There is a reason that the people with the most aggressive social policies tend to also be the least in favor of federalism/local politics, because of this exact problem: people will just leave. If your system makes life worse for a certain group of people, you either need to prevent that group from leaving altogether, or ensure that there is no place that they can go to. If you iterate this to the logical conclusion, you end up with something like "globalism." In this particular case, this is mostly to do with not wanting to live in places with strict lockdown policies, high rates of homelessness and criminality, while simultaneously paying much more in taxes and living expenses, and seeing few of the benefits of being in an urban hub while doing it. But my point stands: don't forget how quickly people will be willing to upend their lives at the very moment their existence is sufficiently worse than it would be elsewhere. And when you target the wealthy, you target the people most capable of moving anywhere else.

tqi 6y ago
> There is a reason that the people with the most aggressive social policies tend to also be the least in favor of federalism/local politics, because of this exact problem: people will just leave. I don't think that has anything to do with it. Whether people are in favor of or against local politics is mostly based on whether or not they share the same opinions as their local politicians. For example, look at the fight over California Emission standards. People just want to have things their way - everything else is just hot air and posturing.
gltchkrft 6y ago
What ever happened to making the place attractive so people actually choose to live there ? You are talking about forcing people into situations that they are unhappy with, like it's normal or ethical. The people who pay for the infrastructure and services are free to leave to more attractive places when they feel like they are being exploited. It's the city's responsibility to manage itself in a way that keeps residents satisfied. If the residents feel like they are getting the short end of the stick, they are right to leave and many will do so. Then you are left with those who had no choice and good luck getting them to fund your bloated, inefficient and needless projects. The policy makers are in charge of just that, making policy. The residents have little control over that, but they do control where they live.

tqi 6y ago

> There is a reason that the people with the most aggressive social policies tend to also be the least in favor of federalism/local politics, because of this exact problem: people will just leave. I don't think that has anything to do with it. Whether people are in favor of or against local politics is mostly based on whether or not they share the same opinions as their local politicians. For example, look at the fight over California Emission standards. People just want to have things their way - everything else is just hot air and posturing.

gltchkrft 6y ago

What ever happened to making the place attractive so people actually choose to live there ? You are talking about forcing people into situations that they are unhappy with, like it's normal or ethical. The people who pay for the infrastructure and services are free to leave to more attractive places when they feel like they are being exploited. It's the city's responsibility to manage itself in a way that keeps residents satisfied. If the residents feel like they are getting the short end of the stick, they are right to leave and many will do so. Then you are left with those who had no choice and good luck getting them to fund your bloated, inefficient and needless projects. The policy makers are in charge of just that, making policy. The residents have little control over that, but they do control where they live.