[BeFlatXIII]

It’s too easy for citizens to move between states. You no longer need to cross the Atlantic in a Conestoga wagon. This freedom of movement punishes states that attempt to increase their quality of life too far above the national average far more than it punishes low-quality states with brain drain.

[sershe]

It would only punish the states who would attempt to increase the quality of life for people who don't contribute to said quality. Why would others be worried? The more people move in, the better.

[techbio]

* Not so if they have a negative quality of life:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28137396

I would assume that fewer people who are already doing well will move states than will people who experiences more problems where they were.

[BeFlatXIII]

> the more people move in, the better

Or much, much worse for the locals if housing construction can’t keep pace with the population influx. Or your state does the right thing and somehow solves its homelessness problem and then homeless from around the nation arrive (or are shipped off by their home states) and overwhelm the system.

[sershe]

Well, if housing construction cannot keep up it would balance out the quality of life, right? People will move as long as negative QOL delta from expensive housing is, in their view, less than positive QOL delta from other sources.

As for the homelessness example, that is my point exactly, and the general problem with welfare state. You have to choose - restrict the access to welfare state specifically, restrict movement generally, or don't have a welfare state. I do not view welfare state as a sustainable QOL improvement (or a QOL improvement at all), so I am in favor of the last option. For me, people moving in to abuse a local welfare option is a positive development. Contrary to GGP(?), the localities that get punished are not punished for "improving quality of life"... they are punished for stupid policies.

[techbio]

This is the flipside of GP. States that increase their quality of life by sending their problems to the states that would attempt to solve them.

Name someone alive who does not contribute to the quality of life.

[sershe]

Is this supposed to be a trick question? For example, if you tax people and build a highway (or a rail line), someone driving on it/riding it but not paying taxes does not contribute to this particular QOL improvement.

Generally, there are plenty of people who do not contribute to society in any major way (e.g. even taxes), or even directly harm it.

[techbio]

Not a trick question. The quality of life I am talking about is apparently different from yours.

[sershe]

Well, apparently you are using a very exotic definition of "quality of life", especially in the original context (of the states increasing the quality of life).

For any specific improvement in quality of life, as it is commonly understood (and whether it's measured for an average person/median person/the most miserable person/...) there's very obviously somebody who doesn't contribute to it. Not literally everyone helps run a homeless shelter, plant a forest, build a highway, or run a non-corrupt judiciary. Similarly, there are quite obviously some people who detract from any particular improvement, either directly (whether it's a corrupt cop decreasing public trust, a burglar decreasing safety, a factory fouling up the air, a hiker littering in the park), or by using up a public resource more than they contribute to it.

There's no reason why somebody's combined contribution cannot be a net negative. So, it's very easy to find such a person.

[techbio]

Since no one is perfect, it is so easy to find such a person, that it is every person.

National-level quality of life as an average of states that can make either choice is like some states littering and some states cleaning up after them, or as a parent poster wrote "punishes states that attempt to increase their quality of life too far above the national average".

You seem to think having a low quality of life and lowering the quality of life are the same, and additionally, that improving the quality of life in a given state is something that a state, almost by definition, cannot do.