4 ms·

I've often thought about the possibility of designing a company specifically to maximise the wealth of its employees. Choose a location with a low cost of livin

by J-dawg 11y ago

I've often thought about the possibility of designing a company specifically to maximise the wealth of its employees. Choose a location with a low cost of living, give equity to all employees, maybe provide accommodation / food as part of the benefits package. I'm not sure if I'm describing a cooperative, I just know that most normal companies do the exact opposite of this: they force you to live in a high cost area where you spend a large proportion of your salary on housing and other living costs. I know there are plenty of good reasons why humans have decided to live in cities, but I can't help thinking there's a better way.

forgetsusername 11y ago
>I know there are plenty of good reasons why humans have decided to live in cities, but I can't help thinking there's a better way. The fallacy is in believing you can't have both a reasonable cost of living and the benefits of a city. There are plenty of such places, globally. As more and more people realize that it's unnecessary to assemble in specific places I think we'll see a sea change. Programmers are going to be some of those most able to take advantage of it (they already are).
- J-dawg 11y ago
  It would be cool if you could expand on this. Do you live in one of these places? I'm also wondering when there's going to be a sea change. London is full of people in their 20s spending ~50% of their income on rent, and pretty much just breaking even overall. I feel like people are going to get sick of this eventually. Either people will leave the most expensive cities, or new ways of "hacking" housing will emerge.
kcole16 11y ago
That's basically the point of most law and financial firms (at least when they start out). Until it went public (and still to a large degree), the whole point of Goldman Sachs was to make its' employees rich.
- J-dawg 11y ago
  I guess you could say it's also the point of most tech startups, but only for the founders and the first few employees.

by J-dawg 11y ago

forgetsusername 11y ago

>I know there are plenty of good reasons why humans have decided to live in cities, but I can't help thinking there's a better way. The fallacy is in believing you can't have both a reasonable cost of living and the benefits of a city. There are plenty of such places, globally. As more and more people realize that it's unnecessary to assemble in specific places I think we'll see a sea change. Programmers are going to be some of those most able to take advantage of it (they already are).

J-dawg 11y ago
It would be cool if you could expand on this. Do you live in one of these places? I'm also wondering when there's going to be a sea change. London is full of people in their 20s spending ~50% of their income on rent, and pretty much just breaking even overall. I feel like people are going to get sick of this eventually. Either people will leave the most expensive cities, or new ways of "hacking" housing will emerge.

kcole16 11y ago

That's basically the point of most law and financial firms (at least when they start out). Until it went public (and still to a large degree), the whole point of Goldman Sachs was to make its' employees rich.

J-dawg 11y ago
I guess you could say it's also the point of most tech startups, but only for the founders and the first few employees.