4 ms·

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

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...

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...