5 ms·

My father was a chemical engineer. Back in the 60s & 70s, the company would pay to relocate our family to wherever they needed him (this included purchasing the

My father was a chemical engineer. Back in the 60s & 70s, the company would pay to relocate our family to wherever they needed him (this included purchasing the house if we didn't sell it before the moving trucks showed up). That included several foreign countries. In my family's experience, that included England, Iran, Ireland & Saudi Arabia. During the 80s, his industry stopped relocating engineers. This corresponded to the end of "the Social Contract" where as long as you were loyal to your company, they had a job for you - for life. When you watch that "Greed is Good" speech from Gordon Gecko [0], notice that table of old farts at the front of the room: that's where they promote the loyal employees (into "executive vice presidencies") when there isn't enough room at the top of the pyramid (and also they're too incompetent to promote in actual line management [1]). By the 90s, companies stopped paying for relocation of anyone below managerial levels. And instead depended on workers being able to afford to relocate on their own $. This brings us to today's economy. Large companies, instead of laying older workers off, simply relocate their position to a new office. IBM (who used to be called "I've Been Moved") has a reputation for doing this to their US-based workforce especially when over age 40. If you can't afford to relocate? Great, that's now a "voluntary quit". If companies want employees to "move where the jobs are", they need to step up to the plate and start paying for relocation. And that includes buying upside-down homes. 0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF_iorX_MAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF_iorX_MAw 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ibejoeb 4y ago
If companies start buying upside-down homes, they're probably going to start holding them until they can at least wash out. I'd hate to see a trend of employers becoming landlords.
- tracker1 4y ago
  I'm not sure that would be worse than the capital driven land-lord situation. I mean, in terms of renting out a house from a former employee until real estate improves enough to sell. Odds are it would be done via the same rental mgt companies that everyone else uses anyway. At least as long as the company isn't pushing to keep said properties longer than necessary.
  - ibejoeb 4y ago
    It's "fine" as long as the employee isn't paying rent to the employer. There's just way to much risk of things going straight to hell.
    - tracker1 4y ago
      Yeah, that is generally bad. While it may be legal, I think it's entirely unethical to have conflicting interests at play in a business. Part of why I hate that Sony, for example, controls both the tech (Bluray, hardware, etc) and media investments. Or insurance providers owning stakes in pharma.
- lastofthemojito 4y ago
  I wonder if the company actually took ownership of the house or just managed a purchase for the employee. I knew someone who worked for the federal government and relocated for a job and took advantage of this kind of benefit. But I don't believe the federal government actually took ownership of the house - I think it was more like, they found the best quick cash offer, and then paid out the amount between that and the appraised value. So the employee gets rid of their house for the appraised value, the employer gets the employee where they're needed and some house flipping company gets some inventory.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    In our case, we put the house on the market through a realtor of our choosing. Once we had a finalized offer, the company (probably a third party of some sort) took ownership of the house and paid us the offer price. At that point, had the buyer pulled out it would have been the companies problem. This was a like three housing market cycles ago and the market was in an upturn, so there really wasn't much risk to the company. Another buyer would have been along right behind the first.
- JustSomeNobody 4y ago
  But you know that's where we're headed. Little fiefdoms. Starbucks will start buying apartment complexes. "If you don't join that union, we'll pay for your housing!" Then fill them up 4 to an apartment. Then you'll see deductions on your paycheck for electric and internet. Soon you'll barely be making enough to feed yourself, but at least you'll be dry.
  - ibejoeb 4y ago
    Also where we came from. Company towns.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  Realtor: "I see your interested in this area. Over here we have Amazon lane, if you buy one of those houses you'll get prime delivery for free. The next street over is Azure Fields if you buy a home there you'll get 50% off a 10 year office 365 subscription. And down there is Ikea homes. You pay a premium but can customize it however you want. You'll also have to put it together yourself.
  - ibejoeb 4y ago
    I'll take the nvidia glen 1-bedroom with the dedicated A100.
- returningfory2 4y ago
  In general, I think people need to think more critically about this "1 job for life" culture of the past. A lot of the supposed benefits of this former corporate culture (like a company-linked pension, or a system where your employer buys you home) just mean that companies exercise even more power over our lives and the economy.
  - RedCondor 4y ago
    This is a bit like saying that women in a patriarchy should prefer prostitution over marriage, because having many interchangeable abusive masters is better than having just one.
- kvonhorn 4y ago
  Elon Musk reportedly wants to be his employees' landlord: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/elon-musk-reportedly-wants-to-be-his-employees-landlord/ar-AA18tAgY https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/elon-musk-reported...
mgkimsal 4y ago
We had someone buy our home for basically top dollar at the time about 20 years ago. They worked for Ford and Ford was relocating him to the area, and he bought the house. I was told there was some relocation expenses they paid, but I don't think Ford bought the house. Well, I know they didn't directly, because we sold to him - that's what the paperwork said. I think he got moving expense reimbursement, but that may have been it. But I know they sold it a couple years later as the market tanked, and must have taken a loss. I wonder if Ford covered some of the loss for him? (Bought at $295k, sold for $205k 2 years later).
tedivm 4y ago
>Great, that's now a "voluntary quit" That's actually a constructive dismissal, which counts as an involuntary resignation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
- pmarreck 4y ago
  reading that... > An employer showing favoritism to another employee without reason or explanation Sometimes "you just like people" or "you just don't like people"; and it turns out that liking the people you work with makes you more productive, so where's the room for that irrational dynamic, where there may not BE a "rational" reason to dismiss one over another?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
dnissley 4y ago
FWIW, big tech companies do pay for relocation for rank and file engineers. Meta paid for packing/moving + roughly $20k incidentals when I joined last year.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ibejoeb 4y ago

If companies start buying upside-down homes, they're probably going to start holding them until they can at least wash out. I'd hate to see a trend of employers becoming landlords.

tracker1 4y ago
I'm not sure that would be worse than the capital driven land-lord situation. I mean, in terms of renting out a house from a former employee until real estate improves enough to sell. Odds are it would be done via the same rental mgt companies that everyone else uses anyway. At least as long as the company isn't pushing to keep said properties longer than necessary.
- ibejoeb 4y ago
  It's "fine" as long as the employee isn't paying rent to the employer. There's just way to much risk of things going straight to hell.
  - tracker1 4y ago
    Yeah, that is generally bad. While it may be legal, I think it's entirely unethical to have conflicting interests at play in a business. Part of why I hate that Sony, for example, controls both the tech (Bluray, hardware, etc) and media investments. Or insurance providers owning stakes in pharma.
lastofthemojito 4y ago
I wonder if the company actually took ownership of the house or just managed a purchase for the employee. I knew someone who worked for the federal government and relocated for a job and took advantage of this kind of benefit. But I don't believe the federal government actually took ownership of the house - I think it was more like, they found the best quick cash offer, and then paid out the amount between that and the appraised value. So the employee gets rid of their house for the appraised value, the employer gets the employee where they're needed and some house flipping company gets some inventory.
- brewdad 4y ago
  In our case, we put the house on the market through a realtor of our choosing. Once we had a finalized offer, the company (probably a third party of some sort) took ownership of the house and paid us the offer price. At that point, had the buyer pulled out it would have been the companies problem. This was a like three housing market cycles ago and the market was in an upturn, so there really wasn't much risk to the company. Another buyer would have been along right behind the first.
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
But you know that's where we're headed. Little fiefdoms. Starbucks will start buying apartment complexes. "If you don't join that union, we'll pay for your housing!" Then fill them up 4 to an apartment. Then you'll see deductions on your paycheck for electric and internet. Soon you'll barely be making enough to feed yourself, but at least you'll be dry.
- ibejoeb 4y ago
  Also where we came from. Company towns.
kneebonian 4y ago
Realtor: "I see your interested in this area. Over here we have Amazon lane, if you buy one of those houses you'll get prime delivery for free. The next street over is Azure Fields if you buy a home there you'll get 50% off a 10 year office 365 subscription. And down there is Ikea homes. You pay a premium but can customize it however you want. You'll also have to put it together yourself.
- ibejoeb 4y ago
  I'll take the nvidia glen 1-bedroom with the dedicated A100.
returningfory2 4y ago
In general, I think people need to think more critically about this "1 job for life" culture of the past. A lot of the supposed benefits of this former corporate culture (like a company-linked pension, or a system where your employer buys you home) just mean that companies exercise even more power over our lives and the economy.
- RedCondor 4y ago
  This is a bit like saying that women in a patriarchy should prefer prostitution over marriage, because having many interchangeable abusive masters is better than having just one.
kvonhorn 4y ago
Elon Musk reportedly wants to be his employees' landlord: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/elon-musk-reportedly-wants-to-be-his-employees-landlord/ar-AA18tAgY https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/elon-musk-reported...

mgkimsal 4y ago

We had someone buy our home for basically top dollar at the time about 20 years ago. They worked for Ford and Ford was relocating him to the area, and he bought the house. I was told there was some relocation expenses they paid, but I don't think Ford bought the house. Well, I know they didn't directly, because we sold to him - that's what the paperwork said. I think he got moving expense reimbursement, but that may have been it. But I know they sold it a couple years later as the market tanked, and must have taken a loss. I wonder if Ford covered some of the loss for him? (Bought at $295k, sold for $205k 2 years later).

tedivm 4y ago

>Great, that's now a "voluntary quit" That's actually a constructive dismissal, which counts as an involuntary resignation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

pmarreck 4y ago
reading that... > An employer showing favoritism to another employee without reason or explanation Sometimes "you just like people" or "you just don't like people"; and it turns out that liking the people you work with makes you more productive, so where's the room for that irrational dynamic, where there may not BE a "rational" reason to dismiss one over another?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

dnissley 4y ago

FWIW, big tech companies do pay for relocation for rank and file engineers. Meta paid for packing/moving + roughly $20k incidentals when I joined last year.