[subverter]

In your example of Maryland and Virginia and universal healthcare, Maryland will continually need to ensure they're collecting enough money (i.e., through taxes of some sort) to pay for universal healthcare. If an influx of unhealthy people enter the state, they'll have to increase taxes to pay for the higher healthcare bills, which will in turn make them less competitive with other states, and cause people to leave. There's no way Maryland adds universal healthcare and remains equal in all other categories.

In your example of child labor, it's arguably better for everyone if Virginia can produce cheaper goods. (Please don't think I'm in any way arguing for child labor.) Maryland benefits from the cheaper goods as well, and is able to free resources for other pursuits that are economically advantageous for them. We already see this to a degree in places that have an abundance of a natural resource – it's cheaper and more efficient for them to export the resource than it is for other places that don't have the resource.

[maxerickson]

In your example of child labor, it's arguably better for everyone if Virginia can produce cheaper goods. (Please don't think I'm in any way arguing for child labor.)

So is it arguably better for everyone or should there be protections for the children (who are presumably part of "everyone")?

I think if you immediately include a disclaimer about the children you probably don't believe there is much of an argument to be made.

[subverter]

Child labor is complex subject that we should avoid getting into here. The reason I added my disclaimer is because my argument is about cheaper goods, not any particular way they happen to be produced.

[maxerickson]

The banality of saying that cheaper goods are good is impressive and doesn't have much to do with the argument rayiner was making.

[subverter]

Then perhaps I misunderstood his/her argument.

If I look at it strictly in terms of child labor, there's nothing stopping those opposed to child labor from leaving Virginia and/or discriminating against products made there. Just as we can today with products produced by brands that we know use child labor.

[harryh]

Universal healthcare works in various countries because everyone is forced to participate. Everyone pays into the system, everyone gets care when they get sick or are injured.

A US state can't do this on it's own because they can't force everyone to participate and they can't reject entrants from outside. In the Virginia/Maryland example Maryland would face an exodus of healthy and productive people who want lower taxes and an influx of sick people who want the free health care. It's not about "remaining equal in all other categories." It's that it wouldn't really work at all.

That's why you can't really have a system with massively different social services at the state level: the unbridled state to state migration.

[subverter]

They can't? How do they force everyone to pay state/local taxes? I doubt states would find it difficult to enforce participation.

On "unbridled state to state migration", I already covered that. Maryland would have to face the real cost of providing universal healthcare, and residents would have to decide whether it's still worth it to live there. Many sick people would decide that it's not, and choose to stay put in Virginia.

And if it truly wouldn't work, then it begs the question: Does it really work on the federal level? Why are costs skyrocketing and providers leaving exchanges?

[harryh]

Maryland would have to face the real cost of providing universal healthcare

The point is that they would have to face much more than the real costs of providing universal health care because they would have to provide care to a lot of people that never paid into the system due to migration.

[subverter]

There's a good suggestion for dealing with this above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14556688

[harryh]

The unconstitutional suggestion? Neat.