5 ms·

Even the phrase "company town" itself does not signify anything evil. In fact I'm wondering if such a place might be better than the usual government administer

Even the phrase "company town" itself does not signify anything evil. In fact I'm wondering if such a place might be better than the usual government administered cities and towns.

aga98mtl 5y ago
Honestly, I was hoping Amazon was actually making housing for its workers. I think high density housing within walking distance of your job is the realistic solution for lowering co2 emissions.
- beckman466 5y ago
  > I was hoping Amazon was actually making housing for its workers. In the movie 'Sorry To Bother You' by Boots Riley, they have an Amazon-like entity called 'WorryFree' that does exactly this. I'm not sure we actually want this (Amazon or other big employers making housing for laborers they employ), especially since these workers are often not labor aristocrats, and therefore will have little bargaining power.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>I'm not sure we actually want this (Amazon or others making housing for their workers), especially since these workers are often not labor aristocrats, and therefore will have little bargaining power. Even in the 19th century, workers had a significant amount of bargaining power, and company towns were in fact an attempt to improve working conditions, in light of workers' sensitivity to high prices. Without things like company stores and company housing, what was found to happen is that an independent store owner or housing provider would take advantage of their monopoly status, and raise prices, leading to workers quitting. So just like oil rigs have their own company restaurant on-site, isolated 19th century worksites had their own company businesses on-site to ensure their workers had competitively priced goods available to them. Companies did this at the time because workers in the 19th century were aware of the comparative wages/living-standards on offer, and had enough mobility to leave sites that didn't offer the best available in the market at that time. Compared to the late 19th century, workers today have enormous mobility, and ready internet-based knowledge of market options, so what would happen if company towns emerged today would not be exploitive.
- davidcbc 5y ago
  What happens if you want to switch jobs? Tying basic necessities like housing to your employer is a disaster that traps people in jobs. It's part of the reason healthcare in the US is so screwed up.
  - aga98mtl 5y ago
    The housing could be normal rentals not conditional on keeping the job. I would guess that most Amazon facilities are located in urban areas. It would not be isolated mining town like in 1900s
    - Hydraulix989 5y ago
      If it's normal rentals, then there's no incentive for companies to build said housing in the first place -- unless they want to separately diversify into real estate.
      - pas 5y ago
        The incentive is to get workers at all. Sure, as long as they can externalize this cost, they won't do this, but in the Bay Area Google determined it costs them less to to fight for housing projects and fund those, than pay the enormous overhead for getting their employees living there.
        Hydraulix989 5y ago
        Is this what you are referring to? If so, it sounds like it's not for the workers, it's a social good project, much like what Amazon is doing by housing the homeless. I don't think it will even put any pressure on the market whatsoever. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/04/google-backs-three-bay-area-affordable-housing-projects/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/04/google-backs-three-ba...
  - perryizgr8 5y ago
    Then you can find another accommodation. What's the big deal? Many times people try to find a place closer to their new work. There are many factors that contributed to the healthcare problem, generalizing one factor and using that here does not make sense.
sofixa 5y ago
Doesn't it? It usually signifies abuses like being paid in company "currency" only usable in company owned stores, being unable to change jobs without having to move ( with the associated inability to refuse whatever the employer throws at you, however hard/illegal/dangerous). Is there anything positive about company towns? Maybe they're better than towns with no jobs, but I'm not even sure about that..
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  > It usually signifies abuses like being paid in company "currency" only usable in company owned stores, Does it? I've never heard of companies not paying the workers any money, just because they have their own town. > being unable to change jobs without having to move That is true for many job changes. If it is a big deal for someone they can just not join such a company. > ( with the associated inability to refuse whatever the employer throws at you, however hard/illegal/dangerous) Huh? Having a company town doesn't grant the company absolute authority. They still have to abide by the laws of the land.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > Does it? I've never heard of companies not paying the workers any money, just because they have their own town Yes, because it's now illegal, at least in the US where this practice was pervasive. > That is true for many job changes. If it is a big deal for someone they can just not join such a company. There's a world of difference between there are few options for jobs without changing your field ( e.g. working as a waiter/waitress when in a financial emergency) and literally having zero jobs outside of a company where you live. One is " we probably have to move if i piss off my boss", the other is "we need to move". > Huh? Having a company town doesn't grant the company absolute authority. They still have to abide by the laws of the land That's extremely naive. Everyone in that town works for the company or has immediate family working for it. How many people would dare refuse or blow the whistle on illegal activities when their lives would be uprooted as a consequence? The power dynamic is very heavily tilted towards the employer.

Even the phrase "company town" itself does not signify anything evil. In fact I'm wondering if such a place might be better than the usual government administered cities and towns.

aga98mtl 5y ago

Honestly, I was hoping Amazon was actually making housing for its workers. I think high density housing within walking distance of your job is the realistic solution for lowering co2 emissions.

beckman466 5y ago
> I was hoping Amazon was actually making housing for its workers. In the movie 'Sorry To Bother You' by Boots Riley, they have an Amazon-like entity called 'WorryFree' that does exactly this. I'm not sure we actually want this (Amazon or other big employers making housing for laborers they employ), especially since these workers are often not labor aristocrats, and therefore will have little bargaining power.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>I'm not sure we actually want this (Amazon or others making housing for their workers), especially since these workers are often not labor aristocrats, and therefore will have little bargaining power. Even in the 19th century, workers had a significant amount of bargaining power, and company towns were in fact an attempt to improve working conditions, in light of workers' sensitivity to high prices. Without things like company stores and company housing, what was found to happen is that an independent store owner or housing provider would take advantage of their monopoly status, and raise prices, leading to workers quitting. So just like oil rigs have their own company restaurant on-site, isolated 19th century worksites had their own company businesses on-site to ensure their workers had competitively priced goods available to them. Companies did this at the time because workers in the 19th century were aware of the comparative wages/living-standards on offer, and had enough mobility to leave sites that didn't offer the best available in the market at that time. Compared to the late 19th century, workers today have enormous mobility, and ready internet-based knowledge of market options, so what would happen if company towns emerged today would not be exploitive.
davidcbc 5y ago
What happens if you want to switch jobs? Tying basic necessities like housing to your employer is a disaster that traps people in jobs. It's part of the reason healthcare in the US is so screwed up.
- aga98mtl 5y ago
  The housing could be normal rentals not conditional on keeping the job. I would guess that most Amazon facilities are located in urban areas. It would not be isolated mining town like in 1900s
  - Hydraulix989 5y ago
    If it's normal rentals, then there's no incentive for companies to build said housing in the first place -- unless they want to separately diversify into real estate.
    - pas 5y ago
      The incentive is to get workers at all. Sure, as long as they can externalize this cost, they won't do this, but in the Bay Area Google determined it costs them less to to fight for housing projects and fund those, than pay the enormous overhead for getting their employees living there.
      - Hydraulix989 5y ago
        Is this what you are referring to? If so, it sounds like it's not for the workers, it's a social good project, much like what Amazon is doing by housing the homeless. I don't think it will even put any pressure on the market whatsoever. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/04/google-backs-three-bay-area-affordable-housing-projects/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/04/google-backs-three-ba...
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  Then you can find another accommodation. What's the big deal? Many times people try to find a place closer to their new work. There are many factors that contributed to the healthcare problem, generalizing one factor and using that here does not make sense.

sofixa 5y ago

Doesn't it? It usually signifies abuses like being paid in company "currency" only usable in company owned stores, being unable to change jobs without having to move ( with the associated inability to refuse whatever the employer throws at you, however hard/illegal/dangerous). Is there anything positive about company towns? Maybe they're better than towns with no jobs, but I'm not even sure about that..

perryizgr8 5y ago
> It usually signifies abuses like being paid in company "currency" only usable in company owned stores, Does it? I've never heard of companies not paying the workers any money, just because they have their own town. > being unable to change jobs without having to move That is true for many job changes. If it is a big deal for someone they can just not join such a company. > ( with the associated inability to refuse whatever the employer throws at you, however hard/illegal/dangerous) Huh? Having a company town doesn't grant the company absolute authority. They still have to abide by the laws of the land.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > Does it? I've never heard of companies not paying the workers any money, just because they have their own town Yes, because it's now illegal, at least in the US where this practice was pervasive. > That is true for many job changes. If it is a big deal for someone they can just not join such a company. There's a world of difference between there are few options for jobs without changing your field ( e.g. working as a waiter/waitress when in a financial emergency) and literally having zero jobs outside of a company where you live. One is " we probably have to move if i piss off my boss", the other is "we need to move". > Huh? Having a company town doesn't grant the company absolute authority. They still have to abide by the laws of the land That's extremely naive. Everyone in that town works for the company or has immediate family working for it. How many people would dare refuse or blow the whistle on illegal activities when their lives would be uprooted as a consequence? The power dynamic is very heavily tilted towards the employer.