4 ms·

I'm taking a side here this is vile.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
Regardless of whether or not it is vile, it is basic game theory. You have to play the game with the rules that exist, not the ones you wish existed. The rule is freedom of movement across the USA, so it is obviously a losing policy for any government other than the federal government to tackle national problems and implement wealth redistribution.
- bumby 2y ago
  This assumes people don’t care about the larger scale of poverty or that those regional/national poverty rates won’t have second order effects that will later impact these well-off communities. One of the difficulties in game theory is mitigating all kinds of human biases that lead to suboptimal solutions. In this case, governments can be myopic in both time and space. There are examples in game theory where the rational choice in one context leads to worst conditions for everyone, overall.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Neighborhoods being separated by socioeconomic status is a phenomenon seen all over the world, probably for much of human history, so it seems like this is the most likely solution, absent a national wealth redistribution program (which would theoretically work due to immigration controls).
    - bumby 2y ago
      I think we can agree that separation of socioeconomic status is prevalent (and maybe useful) while still disagreeing on what degree of that produces a vibrant and stable society. So the question is what degree do we find acceptable? I personally don't want beautiful gated communities contrasted with slums to be the norm, for a variety of reasons. As to the "rules" of game theory in this context, they are arbitrarily set by society. They are not natural laws, so we probably shouldn’t treat them as immutable. (As an aside, I don't think that "most likely" should be conflated with "optimal". There's lots of analogies that come to mind to describe that point, but I'd rather hold off so as not to come across as debating in bad faith)
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        > They are not natural laws, so we probably shouldn’t treat them as immutable. Which is why I wrote that the federal government needs to take action. Expecting a city or state to go bankrupt trying to solve a national problem is not helpful.
        bumby 2y ago
        Except I don't think we can consider the city's debt load to be related to trying to solve the poverty problem at all. It seems quite the opposite based on the discussion in this thread. I haven't read anything about any of that money going to any poverty-related social programs other than making poor people's lives harder. I'm more inclined to think poverty, like most complex problems, requires actions at practically all levels, ranging from familial, local, state, and national actions. One of the downsides to federalism is it creates a way for people to absolve themselves of any responsibility. As long as I pay my taxes, it's "not my problem" to solve. Ironically, most people acknowledge it's the people closest to the problem who are in the best position to solve it. It's also hard to expect these problems to be solved nationally when roughly half the population wants to see the federal government reduced.
        lotsofpulp 2y ago
        > Except I don't think we can consider the city's debt load to be related to trying to solve the poverty problem at all. It seems quite the opposite based on the discussion in this thread. I haven't read anything about any of that money going to any poverty-related social programs other than making poor people's lives harder. I don’t understand the relevance or logic of this paragraph. Carmel borrowed money to buy amenities that attract a higher socioeconomic class of people. That they did not spend it on courting lower socioeconomic classes is the claim that indymike made for why Carmel is the way it is. > One of the downsides to federalism is it creates a way for people to absolve themselves of any responsibility. I vote for the leaders I think will help raise the floor of quality of life, but I do not think I should sacrifice and possibly sink my community because other parts of the federation are not ready to play ball. At some point, I have to prioritize me and mine.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Whenever there is an abhorrent state of affairs people try to justify it as natural or inevitable. They've been wrong enough times that I simply don't accept it as an excuse. In this case what we're seeing is simply setting inequality as a goal its own right rather than as a tool to accomplish another purpose. There's nothing to admire or emulate here. Reading through the comments it's clear that this aligns with the values of a lot of the community, and they are being honest about that. If this is the case for you too then take responsibility for your vision here.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    > Whenever there is an abhorrent state of affairs people try to justify it as natural or inevitable. Cheems Mindset is strong on HN. I don't know any other community who are so sure about "What's Impossible To Change."
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      Please show how you would stop net benefit recipients from moving in and net taxpayers in from moving out. This is a very practical concern of implementing broad population wide benefits. City / state A says they will subsidize people who need help, and politician in city / state B says they will keep taxes low by sending people who need help to city / state A.
      - giraffe_lady 2y ago
        But that's exactly what is happening here. Talking about carmel, it is a suburb of indianapolis. It depends on indy for its residents' income that fuels its taxes. It depends on the relative poverty of the surrounding metro area for low wage workers where it wants them, and it saves money by not spending on services they need, forcing them into the nearby communities instead. This is the extractive relationship you're worried about. It's the same deal with singapore! It is critically dependent on the labor of impoverished disenfranchised malaysians it keeps as close as possible but avoids spending any of its resources on. As always it is simply the poor subsidizing the rich.

Regardless of whether or not it is vile, it is basic game theory. You have to play the game with the rules that exist, not the ones you wish existed. The rule is freedom of movement across the USA, so it is obviously a losing policy for any government other than the federal government to tackle national problems and implement wealth redistribution.

bumby 2y ago
This assumes people don’t care about the larger scale of poverty or that those regional/national poverty rates won’t have second order effects that will later impact these well-off communities. One of the difficulties in game theory is mitigating all kinds of human biases that lead to suboptimal solutions. In this case, governments can be myopic in both time and space. There are examples in game theory where the rational choice in one context leads to worst conditions for everyone, overall.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Neighborhoods being separated by socioeconomic status is a phenomenon seen all over the world, probably for much of human history, so it seems like this is the most likely solution, absent a national wealth redistribution program (which would theoretically work due to immigration controls).
  - bumby 2y ago
    I think we can agree that separation of socioeconomic status is prevalent (and maybe useful) while still disagreeing on what degree of that produces a vibrant and stable society. So the question is what degree do we find acceptable? I personally don't want beautiful gated communities contrasted with slums to be the norm, for a variety of reasons. As to the "rules" of game theory in this context, they are arbitrarily set by society. They are not natural laws, so we probably shouldn’t treat them as immutable. (As an aside, I don't think that "most likely" should be conflated with "optimal". There's lots of analogies that come to mind to describe that point, but I'd rather hold off so as not to come across as debating in bad faith)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      > They are not natural laws, so we probably shouldn’t treat them as immutable. Which is why I wrote that the federal government needs to take action. Expecting a city or state to go bankrupt trying to solve a national problem is not helpful.
      - bumby 2y ago
        Except I don't think we can consider the city's debt load to be related to trying to solve the poverty problem at all. It seems quite the opposite based on the discussion in this thread. I haven't read anything about any of that money going to any poverty-related social programs other than making poor people's lives harder. I'm more inclined to think poverty, like most complex problems, requires actions at practically all levels, ranging from familial, local, state, and national actions. One of the downsides to federalism is it creates a way for people to absolve themselves of any responsibility. As long as I pay my taxes, it's "not my problem" to solve. Ironically, most people acknowledge it's the people closest to the problem who are in the best position to solve it. It's also hard to expect these problems to be solved nationally when roughly half the population wants to see the federal government reduced.
        lotsofpulp 2y ago
        > Except I don't think we can consider the city's debt load to be related to trying to solve the poverty problem at all. It seems quite the opposite based on the discussion in this thread. I haven't read anything about any of that money going to any poverty-related social programs other than making poor people's lives harder. I don’t understand the relevance or logic of this paragraph. Carmel borrowed money to buy amenities that attract a higher socioeconomic class of people. That they did not spend it on courting lower socioeconomic classes is the claim that indymike made for why Carmel is the way it is. > One of the downsides to federalism is it creates a way for people to absolve themselves of any responsibility. I vote for the leaders I think will help raise the floor of quality of life, but I do not think I should sacrifice and possibly sink my community because other parts of the federation are not ready to play ball. At some point, I have to prioritize me and mine.
giraffe_lady 2y ago
Whenever there is an abhorrent state of affairs people try to justify it as natural or inevitable. They've been wrong enough times that I simply don't accept it as an excuse. In this case what we're seeing is simply setting inequality as a goal its own right rather than as a tool to accomplish another purpose. There's nothing to admire or emulate here. Reading through the comments it's clear that this aligns with the values of a lot of the community, and they are being honest about that. If this is the case for you too then take responsibility for your vision here.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  > Whenever there is an abhorrent state of affairs people try to justify it as natural or inevitable. Cheems Mindset is strong on HN. I don't know any other community who are so sure about "What's Impossible To Change."
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Please show how you would stop net benefit recipients from moving in and net taxpayers in from moving out. This is a very practical concern of implementing broad population wide benefits. City / state A says they will subsidize people who need help, and politician in city / state B says they will keep taxes low by sending people who need help to city / state A.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      But that's exactly what is happening here. Talking about carmel, it is a suburb of indianapolis. It depends on indy for its residents' income that fuels its taxes. It depends on the relative poverty of the surrounding metro area for low wage workers where it wants them, and it saves money by not spending on services they need, forcing them into the nearby communities instead. This is the extractive relationship you're worried about. It's the same deal with singapore! It is critically dependent on the labor of impoverished disenfranchised malaysians it keeps as close as possible but avoids spending any of its resources on. As always it is simply the poor subsidizing the rich.