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.
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.
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.
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.
I know, and if the choice is to extract or be extracted from (which the evidence indicates it is), then I am going to opt for “to extract”. Indianapolis should do the same as Carmel. That is the problem with the way governments and taxation, coupled with freedom of movement, work in the US.
If you asked me to vote for a federal marginal land value tax on ALL land, I would be down. I would be down to help provide a floor for quality of life for everyone.
If you asked me if I want to make only myself poorer relative to my peers across city/county/state lines, I am going to say no.
> 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.
Just curious: who gave you the right to decide how other people's resources should be allocated?
I mean, that's what's really going on here, right? If we discard all of the melodramatic bs, it's just you trying to tell other people how to allocate their resources?
What's going to happen if they ignore you? Are they going to get passed over in the rapture or something? Is the psychological weight of their own guilt going to make them snap and go psychotic? I'm genuinely curious what the consequences are and when they'll deliver
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.
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).
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)
> 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.
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.
> 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.
>Carmel borrowed money to buy amenities that attract a higher socioeconomic class of people.
Yes, that's what I was saying. I took your previous statement "Expecting a city or state to go bankrupt trying to solve a national problem" as an implication that Carmel's debt was somehow trying to solve a poverty problem. It isn't. As you say, it's about attracting wealthy people (and to a certain extent, expelling poor people).
>I do not think I should sacrifice and possibly sink my community
Utilitarian thinkers may disagree on this.
>At some point, I have to prioritize me and mine.
Kantian thinkers may disagree on this. If you logically extend this, it becomes a prisoner's dilemma and results in worse results for everybody. (which brings us back to the issues I have with applying game theory as your original post stated.)
The real argument is defining that "point" where sacrificing for the group devolves into worse outcomes. If you have succinct ideas on that, I'd be curious to hear them. But too often it becomes a fuzzy, abstract concept that just rationalizes otherwise selfish behavior.
The first thing that needs to happen is ranked choice or approval voting. This first past the post nonsense means I’m always voting against someone, not for someone.
The second thing is making the presidential election a popular vote election. This is almost done if a few Republican led states switch to Democrat led states.
Some local municipalities are moving to ranked choice (I live in one, and I think it's a better system, too).
Despite what many people intuitively think, there is no right to vote for the president guaranteed by the Constituion. There's been something like 1k proposed amendments to change the electoral college and, given that they haven't been adopted, I'm not holding my breath. I'm curious why more individual states don't adopt a different way other than "winner takes all" to their electoral votes. I believe it's in their power to do so, and that seems like a much more likely route to having electoral votes reflect popular voting.
It's interesting that you would want to reduce the power of the Senate because there seems to be a lot of people who think the House is the more dysfunctional arm of Congress. Given the nature of terms and demographics, the House feels like has more members taking more polarizing stances.
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.