4 ms·

This article seems to paint an awfully rosy picture of what were, on the whole, pretty awful places. In particular it's nice to talk about all the "ideals" of r

This article seems to paint an awfully rosy picture of what were, on the whole, pretty awful places. In particular it's nice to talk about all the "ideals" of raising people up into the middle class, etc., when the reality was that company towns were explicitly used to impose and perpetuate debt slavery: you'd be paid only in the company's scrip, which was what you had to use to pay rent on your company home and buy things in the company store, and of course the prices were set to ensure you'd never quite be able to live on it, despite being required to live in the company town and shop at the company store. That meant you went into debt to the company and worked more to pay it off, but could never earn enough to clear the debt, and would recruit your children from a young age (remember when we didn't have those awful child-labor laws meddling in the "free market"?) to work for the company, too, carrying it on to the next generation. This is the source of the chorus in the song "Sixteen Tons": You load sixteen tons, and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. St. Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go; I owe my soul to the company store.

jdminhbg 10y ago
Your rebuttal to this extensively-documented Wikipedia article is the chorus to "Sixteen Tons"?
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  You missed the first paragraph.
  - jdminhbg 10y ago
    I went back and checked. The chorus is still the only piece of evidence in there.
    - screature2 10y ago
      See also these references: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip 2. http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/company-towns/ http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/compan... 3. http://clio.lib.olemiss.edu/cdm/ref/collection/aah/id/29047 http://clio.lib.olemiss.edu/cdm/ref/collection/aah/id/29047 (page 7, 'Abusive Practices') 4. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/americas-company-towns-then-and-now-180956382/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/americas-company-towns-... etc. etc. ad nauseum. This is a pretty well documented terrible thing.
      - jdminhbg 10y ago
        Thanks, this is actually informative.
        thingexplainer 10y ago
        Actually, this comment has _less_ information than the first one. :) If someone decides to share some information on HN, it isn't their responsibility to provide a robust argument and complete set of citations. If you'd like them to you're free to ask politely, or to volunteer your own (or even better, provide counterpoints). But a terse summary of the HN rules is, "add meaningfully to the conversation." The individual you're berating added context that they felt was missing from the original article; this certainly qualifies. The burden of accessing the veracity of the information lies on you. If they provide you with citations, then they're generously offering you a shortcut. If you're having a hard time finding support for their claims, then ask them for a pointer in the right direction. But if you haven't looked at all, then you should decide if this question is worth your time to research, and act accordingly, rather than asking other people to do the legwork for you.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      This is a casual internet discussion, not a scientific paper. It is actually acceptable to make a claim without providing citations or other evidence. If you don't believe the claim, either go look it up yourself, ask nicely if they have support, or present your counter-claims. Snidely ignoring the claims because they didn't include cites up front is not cool.
      - jdminhbg 10y ago
        I understand that. I wasn't looking for some long peer review process. But the post I was responding to was literally a catalog of just-so stories supported by the existence of a song, like responding to statistics about mistreatment of slaves with a paragraph about how it would be in a slaveowner's best interest to treat them well and here's a line in "Dixie" about happy slaves.
hueving 10y ago
>meddling in the "free market"? And what exactly kept the families from just packing up and leaving? It would seem that it must have offered a better value proposition that anything else if people chose to stay there. Unless they were slaves, your whole point is moot.
- zepto 10y ago
  Eh? Packing up and leaving with what money? Paying their debt with what?
  - hueving 10y ago
    It costs very little leave comparatively. They don't need to pay the debt. If they have nothing, they just declare bankruptcy. If the ridiculous scenario the GP suggested actually worked, we would see, you know, examples of it.
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      If the ridiculous scenario the GP suggested actually worked, we would see, you know, examples of it. You mean like all the documented examples people posted? (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12178695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12178695 for an example) Company towns enforcing debt slavery are an actual, genuine, true, real, factual part of US history. They existed. They really did work as described. People really did not manage to escape them. In several places it took literal armed revolution to break this system. So if your theory of economics somehow predicts that such things are impossible, the problem is with your theory of economics.
- thasmin 10y ago
  They couldn't leave because they had no money to pay for anything outside the company town.
- dTal 10y ago
  For a detailed explanation of how company towns led to debt slavery and what factors prevented people from just packing up and leaving, see the above comment.
usrusr 10y ago
Company towns would not necessarily have to be exploitative. But it is important to understand that even one that started with the very best intention can all too easily turn bad. The massive power imbalance could remain dormant for decades, until one day some temporary crisis comes along and makes management accidentally discover the potential for abuse. It won't ever be "undiscovered".
- niels_olson 10y ago
  I think the founder of any company would want to provide their employees with the best possible living experience. However, we know that the finance guys and the people who run these things will perceive an incentive to save money. Maybe not all the time, but maybe just in hard times, or under some other conditions. And those people will institute policies that push back on the workers, and they won't lift the policies when the good times come back. The military still very much has company stores, company housing, really the whole company town concept is very much intact. It works, and has worked since WWII, because getting shot at is a strong disincentive to work for the military. Pacifism doesn't help either. But the net effect is that saving money on housing or recouping paychecks through the company store isn't exactly the long pole in the tent for the organization's success. Retaining skilled workers is far and away the long pole in this tent. In general, the military also provides housing mainly for people who can't afford the local economy, or are frankly better off not making all their own financial decisions, and a few senior officers where it's better to keep them on base. The "skilled worker" group is still living on the economy, buying houses. So, I would hypothesize that whenever companies are people-starved for the long term, due to systemic pressures, offering company stores and company housing as a benefit aren't such a bad idea, at least from the company's perspective. But they're still rentals, so really best suited for new grads trying to wait out the market (a strategy I definitely recommend). The company store ... who doesn't have a company store?
- Lagged2Death 10y ago
  Company towns would not necessarily have to be exploitative. Until the labor-based enterprise running them faces some sort of competition, and really has nothing else to squeeze.
bmmayer1 10y ago
This quote from the article seems to say the opposite: "By the 1920s the need for company towns had declined significantly due to increased national affluence. Despite income inequalities and a relatively low standard of living conditions amongst factory labourers, the prosperity of the 1920s saw workers’ material well-being improve significantly." So, company towns were so exploitative, workers wealthed up before long and made them obsolete?
- Kliment 10y ago
  No, but other opportunities emerged, and people moved away from company towns.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  In many places the company systems were broken, finally, by the rise of labor unions. Sometimes relatively peacefully, sometimes not; there was open warfare between workers and company-hired armies (yes, armies) in quite a few locations.

jdminhbg 10y ago

Your rebuttal to this extensively-documented Wikipedia article is the chorus to "Sixteen Tons"?

jsprogrammer 10y ago
You missed the first paragraph.
- jdminhbg 10y ago
  I went back and checked. The chorus is still the only piece of evidence in there.
  - screature2 10y ago
    See also these references: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip 2. http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/company-towns/ http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/compan... 3. http://clio.lib.olemiss.edu/cdm/ref/collection/aah/id/29047 http://clio.lib.olemiss.edu/cdm/ref/collection/aah/id/29047 (page 7, 'Abusive Practices') 4. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/americas-company-towns-then-and-now-180956382/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/americas-company-towns-... etc. etc. ad nauseum. This is a pretty well documented terrible thing.
    - jdminhbg 10y ago
      Thanks, this is actually informative.
      - thingexplainer 10y ago
        Actually, this comment has _less_ information than the first one. :) If someone decides to share some information on HN, it isn't their responsibility to provide a robust argument and complete set of citations. If you'd like them to you're free to ask politely, or to volunteer your own (or even better, provide counterpoints). But a terse summary of the HN rules is, "add meaningfully to the conversation." The individual you're berating added context that they felt was missing from the original article; this certainly qualifies. The burden of accessing the veracity of the information lies on you. If they provide you with citations, then they're generously offering you a shortcut. If you're having a hard time finding support for their claims, then ask them for a pointer in the right direction. But if you haven't looked at all, then you should decide if this question is worth your time to research, and act accordingly, rather than asking other people to do the legwork for you.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    This is a casual internet discussion, not a scientific paper. It is actually acceptable to make a claim without providing citations or other evidence. If you don't believe the claim, either go look it up yourself, ask nicely if they have support, or present your counter-claims. Snidely ignoring the claims because they didn't include cites up front is not cool.
    - jdminhbg 10y ago
      I understand that. I wasn't looking for some long peer review process. But the post I was responding to was literally a catalog of just-so stories supported by the existence of a song, like responding to statistics about mistreatment of slaves with a paragraph about how it would be in a slaveowner's best interest to treat them well and here's a line in "Dixie" about happy slaves.

hueving 10y ago

>meddling in the "free market"? And what exactly kept the families from just packing up and leaving? It would seem that it must have offered a better value proposition that anything else if people chose to stay there. Unless they were slaves, your whole point is moot.

zepto 10y ago
Eh? Packing up and leaving with what money? Paying their debt with what?
- hueving 10y ago
  It costs very little leave comparatively. They don't need to pay the debt. If they have nothing, they just declare bankruptcy. If the ridiculous scenario the GP suggested actually worked, we would see, you know, examples of it.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    If the ridiculous scenario the GP suggested actually worked, we would see, you know, examples of it. You mean like all the documented examples people posted? (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12178695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12178695 for an example) Company towns enforcing debt slavery are an actual, genuine, true, real, factual part of US history. They existed. They really did work as described. People really did not manage to escape them. In several places it took literal armed revolution to break this system. So if your theory of economics somehow predicts that such things are impossible, the problem is with your theory of economics.
thasmin 10y ago
They couldn't leave because they had no money to pay for anything outside the company town.
dTal 10y ago
For a detailed explanation of how company towns led to debt slavery and what factors prevented people from just packing up and leaving, see the above comment.

usrusr 10y ago

Company towns would not necessarily have to be exploitative. But it is important to understand that even one that started with the very best intention can all too easily turn bad. The massive power imbalance could remain dormant for decades, until one day some temporary crisis comes along and makes management accidentally discover the potential for abuse. It won't ever be "undiscovered".

niels_olson 10y ago
I think the founder of any company would want to provide their employees with the best possible living experience. However, we know that the finance guys and the people who run these things will perceive an incentive to save money. Maybe not all the time, but maybe just in hard times, or under some other conditions. And those people will institute policies that push back on the workers, and they won't lift the policies when the good times come back. The military still very much has company stores, company housing, really the whole company town concept is very much intact. It works, and has worked since WWII, because getting shot at is a strong disincentive to work for the military. Pacifism doesn't help either. But the net effect is that saving money on housing or recouping paychecks through the company store isn't exactly the long pole in the tent for the organization's success. Retaining skilled workers is far and away the long pole in this tent. In general, the military also provides housing mainly for people who can't afford the local economy, or are frankly better off not making all their own financial decisions, and a few senior officers where it's better to keep them on base. The "skilled worker" group is still living on the economy, buying houses. So, I would hypothesize that whenever companies are people-starved for the long term, due to systemic pressures, offering company stores and company housing as a benefit aren't such a bad idea, at least from the company's perspective. But they're still rentals, so really best suited for new grads trying to wait out the market (a strategy I definitely recommend). The company store ... who doesn't have a company store?
Lagged2Death 10y ago
Company towns would not necessarily have to be exploitative. Until the labor-based enterprise running them faces some sort of competition, and really has nothing else to squeeze.

bmmayer1 10y ago

This quote from the article seems to say the opposite: "By the 1920s the need for company towns had declined significantly due to increased national affluence. Despite income inequalities and a relatively low standard of living conditions amongst factory labourers, the prosperity of the 1920s saw workers’ material well-being improve significantly." So, company towns were so exploitative, workers wealthed up before long and made them obsolete?

Kliment 10y ago
No, but other opportunities emerged, and people moved away from company towns.
ubernostrum 10y ago
In many places the company systems were broken, finally, by the rise of labor unions. Sometimes relatively peacefully, sometimes not; there was open warfare between workers and company-hired armies (yes, armies) in quite a few locations.