The remaining jobs in the US are salaried position where "8 hour workday" and "weekend" are often meaningless.
Plus we're talking about a wealth tax in California. You can start a company in Nevada and still access the market of California just fine.
Let them leave. We have a government all the more for ourselves. We need not purchase products built with the exploitation of cheap, and even forced, labor.
You overlook the value of regional nexuses, and the positive externalities can dwarf the negatives of the taxes or regulations.
Ask yourself Nevada isn't Silicon Valley.
We're rapidly finding out this year that we don't even need to be in a particular place to continue working together, something that has only become true relatively recently.
It is dangerous to assume that things will remain the same as they always have been, regardless of other things that change.
There's obviously a breaking point at which people will leave. There's a thread here almost every day now about how everyone is moving out San Francisco.
Why isn't Sweden a hellhole? They have higher taxes than many other EU localities, but have a more vibrant startup economy.
The artifact that created Silicon Valley was the University of California system, and the location of military and national labs, a nexus of government and academic R&D, with a ready and waiting STEM labor force. It was not because it was a tax and regulatory haven.
- California doesn't enforce non-competes - which allows people to leave and form new companies. The "traitorous eight" are as much part of the founding mythos of SV as the acadmic/military labs. That is a regulatory decision.
- Founders and early employees get paid largely in stock or stock options, which are taxed less than salary. This provides them with capital to become angel investors in new companies and provide not only funding, but mentorship and connections. That's partly a consequence of the way capital is taxed. If you start taxing capital so that founders aren't left with enough to become investors, you'll break that feedback loop.
As always, if you "tax" something (or otherwise make it more expensive), you will have less of it.
Let's make an example. Suppose a "rational investor" in a globalized market is considering whether to manufacture a commodity in San Francisco or Jaipur.
The cost of living in San Francisco is 200%-2000% higher than the cost of living in Jaipur.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
The rational, by-the-numbers move is to put the factory in Jaipur because exchange rates make it radically cheaper. That's the real driver. Even if the would-be workers in SF made every conscionable concession and slogged for 25 hours a day, it wouldn't overcome the currency differences. Even if the workers in Jaipur had the most generous PTO and the most corrupt union boss, it wouldn't overcome the currency differences.
Of course, if you were pitching a town in South Carolina against a town in Pennsylvania, then maybe you'd consider numerically small differentiators like "how much extra do you have to pay for the 9th hour of work" - because small differentiators are the only differentiators available.
But that's not the issue with globalization. "Globalization" doesn't mean "moved from PA to SC to trim wages by 5% via lax overtime rules". It means they moved to Vietnam or China or Bangladesh to change the basic unit of measure with an aim to slash labor costs by 50% or 80%.
Why on earth do you assume that this is unrelated to workers protections? These protections aren't a bad thing, but to ignore their negative impacts can be shortsighted...
Good point. I'm surprised more places aren't taxing access to their consumers. That catches all players.
Some didn't leave.
There's a reason why Singapore has the highest concentration of millionaires in the world, and it's not because of their school system.
I'm not saying that all will leave, or even that most will, but some will.
Singapore exists at the behest of the United States. Its sovereign wealth fund is heavily invested in the United States and its geopolitical precariousness on the straits of malacca is predicated upon the implicit protection of the United States Navy.
It's a political choice to let millionaires flee there, just as it's a political choice not to tax them at home. A snap of the US's fingers will change Singapore's policy.
Like when Wrigley sent a US Congressman to visit - he snapped his fingers and chewing gum was no longer banned.
That's true of basically 85% of the world. The only really independent countries, as far as I can tell are the US, China and Russia with France, Germany, UK and India on the edge.
I'm not sure what your point is unless you think the US will suddenly reverse its centuries old policy and start colonizing the world.
That's precisely why the argument of "if we tax the rich they'll just take their wealth elsewhere" doesn't stack up. If it happens, when it happens, it happens because we made a conscious decision to enable it.
He must not have snapped very loudly, because the only way to buy chewing gum to this day is as medicine (e.g. nicotine gum) from a doctor or pharmacy.
Singapore is not just dependent on the US. It depends heavily on China too. Defense wise, Singapore has one of the strongest forces in the region.
And most millionaires in Singapore are Singapore citizens.
Singapore's status is not just some offshore tax haven, as seen by many in the west. It has a diversified economy.
No, it's because it's a city-state, and millionaires tend to be urban, so comparison with countries with lower urbanization is misleading. New York City (which has a population not much larger, so it's a community of roughly comparable scale that, like Singapore, is 100% urban) has a notably higher concentration of millionaires than Singapore does. (1 in ~8.4 compared to Singapore's 1 in ~20.)
They treat Florida residency like a flag of convenience[1]. There are some who legitimately retire or move to Florida for a lifestyle change - not exactly a new phenomenon - and a bunch of young professionals who choose to live in Miami because it's Miami, but for most it's just paperwork.
David Tepper is a great example. He "lives" in Florida and moved Appaloosa to Miami, but Charlotte is now the center of his personal life and he spends almost half of his time there.
Saying that some still remain doesn't refute my statement.
Sure, some millionaires have left, but not nearly enough to call it an exodus - "the millionaires" as a class are still there; they never left.
Indeed, according to Forbes, there are more billionaires living in NYC than any other city in the world: https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2020/04/07/world... And according to this cnbc article, the same is true for millionaires: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/new-york-city-has-more-milli...
NYC has the highest concentration of millionaires in the world.
I'm not sure what your point is. Unless you're claiming that cities spontaneously generate millionaires?
From what I can tell, NYC has lots of millionaires primarily because rich people like to live there, so rich and talented people move to NYC from all over the US.
The same thing is true of Singapore, except that - as you so rightly point out - there is no "rest of Singapore" for them to come from. Instead, they come from the rest of the World, by necessity.
I couldn't find any data on this with a quick search, but my instinct is that NYC probably generates more millionaires than it acquires. You can move to the city straight out of college and become a millionaire in relatively short order if you land the right job; it's a much more circuitous path to get rich by starting, like, a construction company in rural Nebraska and then move to NYC.
The same seems (broadly) true of other financial or tech capitals. It's easier to build wealth in cities than outside of them.
I guess it depends on how you count. I see most those people who would have been millionaires anywhere they moved to (e.g. top 10% Harvard law grad).
Will they make better money in NYC than probably anywhere else in the US? Probably. Are there more high paying law and finance jobs in NYC than anywhere in the US (with the possible exception of DC)? Probably.
But as many people are fond of pointing out, that doesn't really consider labor's role in this. NYC has jobs, but it needs talented people. There are plenty of talented people who are born and grow up in NYC, but there aren't nearly enough to fill the high salary jobs that open every year.
This is kind of my point (and, I assume, the OP's): most of those people move to the city to become millionaires, not because they already are millionaires and prefer to live in the city.
In that regard, cities do sort of spontaneously generate millionaires in that most wealth is produced there and not (there's probably a better way to phrase this) imported.
There's nothing “spontaneous” about it; millionaires don't just appear out of the ground, they arise through economic activity that is more concentrated in centers of trade and commerce, aka, cities.
And New Jersey saw a significant exodus towards lower tax states among its richest.
It's not empty threats - it's just that the cost of the taxes has to be higher than the cost of moving. For most people, the cost of relocating is higher than the taxes. For the richest people, this wealth tax might just tip the scales.
Ted Arison and Eduardo Saverin are the most famous examples I'm aware of - it's mostly because laws were changed after they managed to move without being taxed. Do you think there are no more loopholes? Do you think these are the only cases?
We're not debating here the need for taxes, or labor protections. You don't get to justify bad policies by pointing that there are places where government regulation is called for.
Wealth tax is bad policy. Justify it on its own merits.
As an American living in Switzerland, a "good policy" (whatever that means) here has resulted in: 1) no capital gains tax, nor any capital losses and certainly no carryover loss shenanigans but 2) using a wealth tax in lieu of capital gains tax to collect any sort of tax on those who have presumably been using their capital to beget more capital.
Switzerland does not have any flight of capital, still actively is sought after for parking wealth (which is actually an economy-distorting problem as foreign investors seek to buy stable assets in the Swiss market), and definitely still has an ultra-rich class residing here or moving here.
So, if you thought wealth tax alone was bad policy, how does wealth tax plus removing everything-capital-gains (especially the carryover losses which the current US President likes to excessively utilize) sound as effective policy?
Holding on to wealth is an inherently risky prospect. Let's say you are very wealthy but live in an unstable country. You're like a dragon sleeping on its pile of gold. Your wealth is a target. You need to hire considerable amounts of security, stockpile weapons, etc. in order to preserve that wealth.
In a stable country, your wealth is not under that risk and you do not need to pay for that risk mitigation. You accrue the benefits of the wealth without taking on the risk.
In other words, the act of amassing wealth and keeping it is a direct function of the stability and prosperity of the country in which you live.
Because larger amounts of wealth incur larger amounts of risk, it makes sense that a portion of that wealth should be distributed to the country at large: for example, to pay for the less wealthy people who join the military to protect your wealth.
Now: what separates that from the existing notion of income tax, capital gains tax, etc? The idea that your wealth, as it is sitting there (not its growth, not what you are earning), is incurring a cost to society, and that society is taking on risk in order to keep your wealth safe. Risk you are not directly paying for.
Furthermore, in a stable and modern country holding onto wealth is so safe and protected that you can safely invest your wealth in markets and accrue compound interest. That is the polar opposite of what you would do in an unstable country, where you would keep your wealth hidden away underground, in mattresses, etc. So you are gaining a tremendous wealth-growth benefit by being in a stable country. (This doesn't seem to be addressed in pg's post, which I found confusing, because at 1% taxation you'd be below average market gains and would still gain).
I'm not sold on the above argument being a truly compelling and overriding one for wealth tax, it's just some foundational thinking. I do think it explains, in part, why a wealthy person might choose to live in a country with a wealth tax over a country without one, assuming wealth tax became fashionable across most stable countries.
Now what about you can grow your wealth a lot faster if some laws change, would it justify a lobby campaign? Stability is one, but favourable laws for super rich have been passed and are upheld for so long.
The fact that fines are not wealth and/or income dependent is a testimony to the dysfunction of democracy. The absolute fines implemented in most countries enable certain "high net worth individuals" to ignore fine all together.
Eg for people overusing water during a drought, if you can fine them enough to build a water recycling plant that recovers the water they wasted, that essentially undoes the harm they caused. Why fine poor people less if they aren't doing less harm?
If you want more money from the water used, put a tax on the water. This way water use pays for a new treatment plant.
The fact that are still super-rich people doesn't imply that such interventions did not have a negative on the number of people who are super-rich in the US. High taxes have a well-established negative effect on capital formation, and investment in-flows. This isn't some conspiracy theory promoted by the super-rich to manipulate you.
I think you're giving the arguments made against high taxes a very shallow treatment.
That's interesting because in absolute numbers countries with a very high taxation are among the first for number of millionaires.
Japan is 3rd, UK is 4th, Germany is 5th, France is 6th, Italy is 7th
Compared to the population, Switzerland and Honk Kong are 1st and 2nd
In Switzerland taxes are usually low compared to the rest of Europe, but in Geneva they are 45.5%, the highest rate for Switzerland and yet is the city with the highest concentration of millionaires per square kilometer in the World, more than Monaco and SF.
Millionaires in Switzerland are almost two times those of the US compared to the population (9.5k/100k vs 5k/100k)
4th is the Netherlands, 5th is Denmark and 7th is Sweden, three countries famous for their high tax rates but equally high social and economical wealth.
>>Japan is 3rd, UK is 4th, Germany is 5th, France is 6th, Italy is 7th
Nearly the entirety of the developed world has high taxes, and the developed world has the most wealthy individuals.
2. The rest of the world has been gaining ground on the developed world over the last 50 years. A common pattern could be that countries institute sensible economic policies, based on what science (Economics) says works, and then when they get wealthy, become complacent, and adopt all sorts of anti-capitalistic policies that retard economic growth rates, which in turn results in all socioeconomic metrics stagnating.
US has the highest GDP in the World, the highest per capita spending in healthcare in the World and the lowest life expectancy in the entire west
Unfortunately it also has one of the worst children mortality rate among the 36 most developed countries
"Compared with other OECD countries, the U.S. ranks No. 34 out of 36 countries"
https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/infant-mortality-rates.htm
Speaking of socio economic indicators, wanna talk about homicide rates in US, ten times higher than the European average and 1.5 times worse of Nigeria?
It means that every 2 homicides in 100K citizens in Nigeria there are 3 in USA.
It's easier to get shot and killed in USA than in Nigeria.
Doesn't sound very developed nor that the system is working towards a better life for everybody.
If you were right that would not be possible
If fighting for the children to stay alive after being born is anticapitalistic, than BIG THUMBS UP for the anticapitalism
Inequalities lead to very few living very well and the rest just surviving
Which is a recipe for disasters
It's similar to the anti-Medicine bias exhibited by anti-Vaxxers, who frequently cite the many mistakes made by the Medical establishment and orthodoxy, in an attempt to discredit it.
>>Unfortunately it also has one of the worst children mortality rate among the 36 most developed countries
The correlation between per capita GDP and quality of life is not perfect, yet it's there nonetheless.
Pointing out an outlier doesn't invalidate my point that development is generally a measure of per capita productivity.
And while we're on the subject: the US has unique attributes that have nothing to do with its economy, that result in higher infant mortality statistics.
For example, the US has a much higher proportion of its population of sub-Saharan African ancestry, which is a cohort that has higher infant mortality rates in European countries as well.
The US also has the best neonatal facilities in the world, with a much higher proportion of premature infants being counted as live births and subsequently cared for, than the norm in the developed world. Counting the deaths of premature babies as infant deaths, instead stillborn, is the biggest contributor to the US having higher infant mortality rates.
The rest of your comment is you veering even further from the subject matter, to attack the US. This shallow and overly emotional treatment of Economics doesn't do the complexity and importance of the subject justice.
It is not
Not because I am anti economics, but because there is no proof available
> it's similar to the anti-Medicine bias
No, it is not
My parents are doctors
I know the difference
> The correlation between per capita GDP and quality of life is not perfect, yet it's there nonetheless.
That's an understatement!
If the country with the largest GDP cannot even keep babies alive like Estonia can do, it must mean something...
> For example, the US has a much higher proportion of its population of sub-Saharan African ancestry,
I come from a country where hundreds thousands of people come from Africa every year
Have you ever had an emperor that ruled your continent born in Africa?
Because I do!
Your arguments are weak at best
Are you a racist?
Because, you know, people coming to US from central Africa are not that many, unless you count slaves brought there 300 years ago.
If 300 years are not enough to treat them like everybody else, I guess there's a problem...
> has higher infant mortality rates in European countries as well.
It actually does not
We have an universal healthcare system that takes care of everybody regalrdelss of where they come from
> The US also has the best neonatal facilities in the world,
Proof?
> to attack the US.
I do not make the statistics
> This shallow and overly emotional treatment of Economics doesn't do the complexity and importance of the subject justice.
Show me then what makes US better than Nigeria if I don't want to be shot in the streets...
Yes, it is. Scientific proof is not available in economics, but that doesn't make it not a science.
You're disagreeing with academic consensus on what economics is when you claim it is not a science.
>>My parents are doctors
>>I know the difference
That you have these advantages and are exhibiting this clearly ideologically motivated anti-science bias is even worse.
>>Have you ever had an emperor that ruled your continent born in Africa?
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
>>Are you a racist?
Again, what do these despicable attempts at character assassination have to do with anything I argued.
>>It actually does not
People of sub-Saharan African ancestry in Europe DO have higher infant mortality rates..
>>Proof?
Do some research on the causes of higher infant mortality rates in the US. It mostly comes down to more pre-term births being counted as live births, and the deaths of these infants being counted toward infant mortality statistics, instead of being counted as stillbirths.
“Scientific proof” isn't a thing. Empirical falsification of a hypotheses is, and it is absolutely available for the subject matter of economics (as conventionally understood; Austrian-school ‘economics’ overtly is a system of working out the implementation of deontological principles and is thus more a branch of moral philosophy than of social science, but that's an exception.)
It's true that a lot of the work done on economics is or builds on speculation beyond the present practical capacity of reliable testing due to complexity, but that's not uncommon (even if the ratio may usually be lower) in other scientific disciplines.
Lay (and particularly government) people frequently fail to understand the status of various economic ideas and treat speculation on shaky foundations of simplified models taken outside of their area of utility as approximations as truth, but that is also not uncommon in other scientific domains, though the practical consequences of it in economics may be more pronounced.
> but that doesn't make it not a science.
Not being a domain in which hypotheses are subject to empirical falsification (the closest thing there is to “scientific proof” in any domain) would, indeed, make it not a science.
Economic theories are not falsiable, but neither are climatology theories, and no one would claim climatology is not a science.
Soft sciences are distinguished from hard sciences for not being subject to controlled experimentation, which can derive something approaching scientific proof, pedantry notwithstanding.
What's motivating the 'economics is not a science' narrative here is the same thing that motivates attempts by anti-vaxxers to discredit Medicine and Epidiomology: their beliefs are being contradicted by the experts in the field.
Sorry I don't have the time to respond in more detail to your comment. I just wanted to quickly make that point.
It literally does.
> That you have these advantages
A doctor parent in Italy is not advantages, my parents come from poor families, are born during the ww2 and studied a lot to get there, working hard while studying to support their families
They are now retired and worked their whole.life for the public healthcare systems, they weren't high paid surgeons the like you see in US TV shows, they simply wanted to help people, not get rich.
That's why they never made a lot of money.
It is possible in countries where studying doesn't mean taking a loan of hundreds thousands of dollars, but it's almost free for everybody
You know that thing you hate there, called social welfare?
Makes miracles, especially for keeping babies alive.
> What the hell does that have to do with anything?
That most of us in Italy have African ancestry in our DNA
> People of sub-Saharan African ancestry in Europe DO have higher infant mortality rates..
They don't.
Look at France, 8% of the population comes from Africa, their infant mortality rate is 35% lower than the US
Not 1,2 or 3% less as one would expect from the richest country in the World, 35% less
It means US has 1.5 times worse infant mortality rate than France
Every 2 in France in US there are 3
That's a very large difference!
What's the explanation for having a 3.625 times worse infant mortality rate than Estonia whose GDP is so low that it is measured in billions?
> Do some research on the causes of higher infant mortality rates in the US.
Do some research on what make other countries have a better record than US
There are at least 33 of them
BTW what's your excuse for the mass shootings or the homicide rates worse than countries controlled by warlords or having the lowest life expectancy of the west?
Are those traits that actually make US better than, for example, Sweden?
Can you prove in any meaningful way that growth = general wellbeing?
I mean, without blaming black people if you can...
First of all, that has no relevance to the debate. Second, everyone has some trace of DNA from every region. That's not a revelation. Third, it was almost all North African admixture in the Italian population, not sub-Saharan African admixture, and it was people of sub-Saharan African ancestry which I specified as having high infant mortality rates in the US and Europe. So even your Red Herring is incorrect.
>>Look at France, 8% of the population comes from Africa, their infant mortality rate is 35% lower than the US
North African is not "sub-Saharan African". Most people of African ancestry in France are of North African descent.
And I didn't say demographics constituted the entire cause of the US's lower infant mortality statistics. I clearly said it's mostly due to methodology, with the US counting more premature births as live births, and consequently, the deaths of premature babies as infant deaths, while other countries count more deaths of premature babies as stillbirths.
Anyway, you've completely avoided dealing with the original subject matter. It was a broader point about how economies are organized, and all you seem to want to talk about is the US and how its national healthcare program doesn't offer universal coverage.
You seem have a very narrow agenda, focused entirely on confronting whoever you imagine to be opposed to socialized healthcare in the US. Diverting the discussion like this, to push your agenda, is very rude, and harmful to the public discourse.
This is a recurring theme in owners/investors: they always have some story that they will be forced to leave or close shop if some labour-proteaction-laws (like weekends, or 8h days, or banning of child labour), or taxes are implemented. It's a very old story, there's a history to it.
Please note that we have weekends/8h work day/ban on child labour and also still have the super rich. They never left. They did pass law that allow them to shift production overseas. But those laws can be repelled and then we will hear the story again of how this will kill their business,or force them to leave.