5 ms·

It would only punish the states who would attempt to increase the quality of life for people who don't contribute to said quality. Why would others be worried?

by sershe 5y ago

It would only punish the states who would attempt to increase the quality of life for people who don't contribute to said quality. Why would others be worried? The more people move in, the better.

techbio 5y ago
This is the flipside of GP. States that increase their quality of life by sending their problems to the states that would attempt to solve them. Name someone alive who does not contribute to the quality of life.
- sershe 5y ago
  Is this supposed to be a trick question? For example, if you tax people and build a highway (or a rail line), someone driving on it/riding it but not paying taxes does not contribute to this particular QOL improvement. Generally, there are plenty of people who do not contribute to society in any major way (e.g. even taxes), or even directly harm it.
  - techbio 5y ago
    Not a trick question. The quality of life I am talking about is apparently different from yours.
    - sershe 5y ago
      Well, apparently you are using a very exotic definition of "quality of life", especially in the original context (of the states increasing the quality of life). For any specific improvement in quality of life, as it is commonly understood (and whether it's measured for an average person/median person/the most miserable person/...) there's very obviously somebody who doesn't contribute to it. Not literally everyone helps run a homeless shelter, plant a forest, build a highway, or run a non-corrupt judiciary. Similarly, there are quite obviously some people who detract from any particular improvement, either directly (whether it's a corrupt cop decreasing public trust, a burglar decreasing safety, a factory fouling up the air, a hiker littering in the park), or by using up a public resource more than they contribute to it. There's no reason why somebody's combined contribution cannot be a net negative. So, it's very easy to find such a person.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - techbio 5y ago
        Since no one is perfect, it is so easy to find such a person, that it is every person. National-level quality of life as an average of states that can make either choice is like some states littering and some states cleaning up after them, or as a parent poster wrote "punishes states that attempt to increase their quality of life too far above the national average". You seem to think having a low quality of life and lowering the quality of life are the same, and additionally, that improving the quality of life in a given state is something that a state, almost by definition, cannot do.
        sershe 5y ago
        > Since no one is perfect, it is so easy to find such a person, that it is every person. Nope, that is a vacuous statement. Some people contribute more, some people contribute less - again, trivial to demonstrate, let's say I contribute X to others' QoL, positive or negative. If I go out now and throw my trash away in the park, I now contribute less than X, whatever X was. > You seem to think having a low quality of life and lowering the quality of life are the same, and additionally, that improving the quality of life in a given state is something that a state, almost by definition, cannot do. Where did you derive that from? To be fair I don't even understand anymore what you mean by quality of life :) Wikipedia: "Quality of life (QOL), according to Britannica, is the degree to which an individual is healthy, comfortable, and able to participate in or enjoy life events". QoL for the state is thus a metric (an average/median/...) of individual QoLs in that state. Within the state, individuals and groups (including the govt i.e. the state) can improve various aspects on QoL, usually via specific amenities (physical or "cultural" like safety/trust/...). They can also detract from it. Everything I said above follows from that.
        techbio 5y ago
        I believe I have illustrated a mismatch between QoL for an individual and for a state in aggregate. Your examples only illustrate simple behaviors, and do not show that there are negative and positive contributors, only isolated incidents any person can choose between, and whether or not this sums to a positive or negative person in relation to eg. their tax contributions. At the state level aggregate, which is more relevant when talking about population flows with regard to differing state policies, each of your examples can fall under Simpson's Paradox and form a misleading picture. You have, I believe, neglected to address the points made with respect to reversion toward the national mean for progressive state policies. Edit: Say for example, two states A and B have identical QoL by whatever measures you choose. Then in an effort to improve QoL in their state, A offers free comprehensive healthcare, but state B does not. Some of the sick people in state B, having lower QoL for reasons of health and acting in their own interests, move to state A for treatment. Now state B, with fewer sick people registers a median increase in QoL. Perhaps state A registers a smaller increase than they had hoped for, and now bear an additional tax burden. State B benefits by doing nothing. State A improves actual QoL for sick people. What am I missing?
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
> the more people move in, the better Or much, much worse for the locals if housing construction can’t keep pace with the population influx. Or your state does the right thing and somehow solves its homelessness problem and then homeless from around the nation arrive (or are shipped off by their home states) and overwhelm the system.
- sershe 5y ago
  Well, if housing construction cannot keep up it would balance out the quality of life, right? People will move as long as negative QOL delta from expensive housing is, in their view, less than positive QOL delta from other sources. As for the homelessness example, that is my point exactly, and the general problem with welfare state. You have to choose - restrict the access to welfare state specifically, restrict movement generally, or don't have a welfare state. I do not view welfare state as a sustainable QOL improvement (or a QOL improvement at all), so I am in favor of the last option. For me, people moving in to abuse a local welfare option is a positive development. Contrary to GGP(?), the localities that get punished are not punished for "improving quality of life"... they are punished for stupid policies.
techbio 5y ago
* Not so if they have a negative quality of life: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28137396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28137396 I would assume that fewer people who are already doing well will move states than will people who experiences more problems where they were.

by sershe 5y ago

It would only punish the states who would attempt to increase the quality of life for people who don't contribute to said quality. Why would others be worried? The more people move in, the better.

techbio 5y ago

This is the flipside of GP. States that increase their quality of life by sending their problems to the states that would attempt to solve them. Name someone alive who does not contribute to the quality of life.

sershe 5y ago
Is this supposed to be a trick question? For example, if you tax people and build a highway (or a rail line), someone driving on it/riding it but not paying taxes does not contribute to this particular QOL improvement. Generally, there are plenty of people who do not contribute to society in any major way (e.g. even taxes), or even directly harm it.
- techbio 5y ago
  Not a trick question. The quality of life I am talking about is apparently different from yours.
  - sershe 5y ago
    Well, apparently you are using a very exotic definition of "quality of life", especially in the original context (of the states increasing the quality of life). For any specific improvement in quality of life, as it is commonly understood (and whether it's measured for an average person/median person/the most miserable person/...) there's very obviously somebody who doesn't contribute to it. Not literally everyone helps run a homeless shelter, plant a forest, build a highway, or run a non-corrupt judiciary. Similarly, there are quite obviously some people who detract from any particular improvement, either directly (whether it's a corrupt cop decreasing public trust, a burglar decreasing safety, a factory fouling up the air, a hiker littering in the park), or by using up a public resource more than they contribute to it. There's no reason why somebody's combined contribution cannot be a net negative. So, it's very easy to find such a person.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - techbio 5y ago
      Since no one is perfect, it is so easy to find such a person, that it is every person. National-level quality of life as an average of states that can make either choice is like some states littering and some states cleaning up after them, or as a parent poster wrote "punishes states that attempt to increase their quality of life too far above the national average". You seem to think having a low quality of life and lowering the quality of life are the same, and additionally, that improving the quality of life in a given state is something that a state, almost by definition, cannot do.
      - sershe 5y ago
        > Since no one is perfect, it is so easy to find such a person, that it is every person. Nope, that is a vacuous statement. Some people contribute more, some people contribute less - again, trivial to demonstrate, let's say I contribute X to others' QoL, positive or negative. If I go out now and throw my trash away in the park, I now contribute less than X, whatever X was. > You seem to think having a low quality of life and lowering the quality of life are the same, and additionally, that improving the quality of life in a given state is something that a state, almost by definition, cannot do. Where did you derive that from? To be fair I don't even understand anymore what you mean by quality of life :) Wikipedia: "Quality of life (QOL), according to Britannica, is the degree to which an individual is healthy, comfortable, and able to participate in or enjoy life events". QoL for the state is thus a metric (an average/median/...) of individual QoLs in that state. Within the state, individuals and groups (including the govt i.e. the state) can improve various aspects on QoL, usually via specific amenities (physical or "cultural" like safety/trust/...). They can also detract from it. Everything I said above follows from that.
        techbio 5y ago
        I believe I have illustrated a mismatch between QoL for an individual and for a state in aggregate. Your examples only illustrate simple behaviors, and do not show that there are negative and positive contributors, only isolated incidents any person can choose between, and whether or not this sums to a positive or negative person in relation to eg. their tax contributions. At the state level aggregate, which is more relevant when talking about population flows with regard to differing state policies, each of your examples can fall under Simpson's Paradox and form a misleading picture. You have, I believe, neglected to address the points made with respect to reversion toward the national mean for progressive state policies. Edit: Say for example, two states A and B have identical QoL by whatever measures you choose. Then in an effort to improve QoL in their state, A offers free comprehensive healthcare, but state B does not. Some of the sick people in state B, having lower QoL for reasons of health and acting in their own interests, move to state A for treatment. Now state B, with fewer sick people registers a median increase in QoL. Perhaps state A registers a smaller increase than they had hoped for, and now bear an additional tax burden. State B benefits by doing nothing. State A improves actual QoL for sick people. What am I missing?

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

> the more people move in, the better Or much, much worse for the locals if housing construction can’t keep pace with the population influx. Or your state does the right thing and somehow solves its homelessness problem and then homeless from around the nation arrive (or are shipped off by their home states) and overwhelm the system.

sershe 5y ago
Well, if housing construction cannot keep up it would balance out the quality of life, right? People will move as long as negative QOL delta from expensive housing is, in their view, less than positive QOL delta from other sources. As for the homelessness example, that is my point exactly, and the general problem with welfare state. You have to choose - restrict the access to welfare state specifically, restrict movement generally, or don't have a welfare state. I do not view welfare state as a sustainable QOL improvement (or a QOL improvement at all), so I am in favor of the last option. For me, people moving in to abuse a local welfare option is a positive development. Contrary to GGP(?), the localities that get punished are not punished for "improving quality of life"... they are punished for stupid policies.

techbio 5y ago

* Not so if they have a negative quality of life: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28137396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28137396 I would assume that fewer people who are already doing well will move states than will people who experiences more problems where they were.