3 ms·

This kind of competition is good. It is a luxury for Americans to be able to see competition between massive states that resemble economies of many small nation

This kind of competition is good. It is a luxury for Americans to be able to see competition between massive states that resemble economies of many small nations. Not only wealthy Americans, but Florida has been seeing regular middle class influx as well, out of all, from California. IMO, from what I can tell, Florida has better policies that will be conducive to higher quality of life and ease of business in the future. It is improving at a rapid rate. As someone who lives in California, we have some homework to do across many areas. I'd want California to improve and become more competitive, especially in terms of regulations, crime and QoL. It is such a beautiful state. One can quote current statistics of this or that, but it is the rate of improvement/degeneration that's important. Instead, we spend too much time defending what's not working. More stats here that doesn't just gloss over with undertones of "rich moving to florida": https://www.floridadaily.com/people-from-new-york-california-propelling-floridas-growth-report-finds/ https://www.floridadaily.com/people-from-new-york-california...

giraffe_lady 4y ago
I think it's disorienting, maybe straight harmful, to view this through the lens of consumption and competition. The choice of where to live is not primarily a market-based one for most people during most of their lives, it's setting the priorities wrong. A government should be oriented towards the needs of the people who live under and depend on it. Many people have effectively no choice to make in what state they live in, and their needs and preferences matter more than those of someone who doesn't even live there but might move there. The "competition for citizens" model doesn't really account for that in any way I can respect.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  How the hell is competition between states harmful? Id argue that doing anything but having states compete for betterment of the society is harmful, if not straight out totalitarian. You cannot eliminate incentives from top-down. In a free society where interstate commerce is protected by the constitution, posing limits on incentives would be pretty much the death of this republic.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    What resource are they competing for? Souls? Tax dollars? You don't win points by having a high population, so why do states want one? There's no shareholders here. It's easy to imagine scenarios where the economic desires of high-wealth outsiders who could move to a state are directly opposed to the needs of low-wealth people currently living there. A competition-based model would find it easy to make the wrong choice.
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      > It's easy to imagine scenarios where the economic desires of high-wealth outsiders who could move to a state Can you cite such examples? Melbourne, Switzerland, Singapore, HK and 20th century examples of SF, NYC, London were all attractive hyper capitalistic cities.
      - giraffe_lady 4y ago
        Right and how do the people who have lived in those places the whole time feel about it? A very common complaint in those cities is that local interests are deprioritized to make a more favorable environment for the rich. There's probably some amount of unavoidable tension between these things but viewing gov policy mainly as a means to compete for wealth holders does not seem likely to lead to balanced outcomes.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

I think it's disorienting, maybe straight harmful, to view this through the lens of consumption and competition. The choice of where to live is not primarily a market-based one for most people during most of their lives, it's setting the priorities wrong. A government should be oriented towards the needs of the people who live under and depend on it. Many people have effectively no choice to make in what state they live in, and their needs and preferences matter more than those of someone who doesn't even live there but might move there. The "competition for citizens" model doesn't really account for that in any way I can respect.

systemvoltage 4y ago
How the hell is competition between states harmful? Id argue that doing anything but having states compete for betterment of the society is harmful, if not straight out totalitarian. You cannot eliminate incentives from top-down. In a free society where interstate commerce is protected by the constitution, posing limits on incentives would be pretty much the death of this republic.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  What resource are they competing for? Souls? Tax dollars? You don't win points by having a high population, so why do states want one? There's no shareholders here. It's easy to imagine scenarios where the economic desires of high-wealth outsiders who could move to a state are directly opposed to the needs of low-wealth people currently living there. A competition-based model would find it easy to make the wrong choice.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    > It's easy to imagine scenarios where the economic desires of high-wealth outsiders who could move to a state Can you cite such examples? Melbourne, Switzerland, Singapore, HK and 20th century examples of SF, NYC, London were all attractive hyper capitalistic cities.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      Right and how do the people who have lived in those places the whole time feel about it? A very common complaint in those cities is that local interests are deprioritized to make a more favorable environment for the rich. There's probably some amount of unavoidable tension between these things but viewing gov policy mainly as a means to compete for wealth holders does not seem likely to lead to balanced outcomes.