4 ms·

The company here is avoid this to some extent by selling the houses to the employees at a good deal. So they wont be paying rent for the rest of their lives to

The company here is avoid this to some extent by selling the houses to the employees at a good deal. So they wont be paying rent for the rest of their lives to the company, and presumably they can sell the houses later. Basically sounds like they want to boost the housing supply in a small town.

Kaotique 3y ago
Good luck selling that house in a company town to anyone outside the company.
- smeej 3y ago
  How is this an argument, though? This is true of every small town that has one major company in it. The huge majority of people in town work for the company, and people don't really otherwise have much incentive to live there.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    How does this refute the parent's argument? If anything, it just says how similar it is with the already problematic case of "one major company town". And this is even worse, as it's not "one major company town" but "just a major company and nothing else town".
coldtea 3y ago
>So they wont be paying rent for the rest of their lives to the company, and presumably they can sell the houses later To newer incoming employees? Who else would buy it? Not to mention the houses will be near worthless if the company moves from the area. This ties the employee with the company, but not vice versa.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Though those concerns apply if the major employer in a non-diversified area picks up and moves, goes bankrupt, downsizes, etc. whether or not something is a "company town" in some formal way or not. Look around the US Midwest for examples.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Yes. But even more so in a company town.
- soco 3y ago
  First of all, the employees are not _forced_ to buy there, they can still commute like before. Speaking of moving, the company made quite an investment building those houses so it will be less motivated to move easily someplace else. But if it does, what's stopping other businesses stepping into a pool of workers which may - or may not, of course - be readily employable in that area?

Kaotique 3y ago

Good luck selling that house in a company town to anyone outside the company.

smeej 3y ago
How is this an argument, though? This is true of every small town that has one major company in it. The huge majority of people in town work for the company, and people don't really otherwise have much incentive to live there.
- coldtea 3y ago
  How does this refute the parent's argument? If anything, it just says how similar it is with the already problematic case of "one major company town". And this is even worse, as it's not "one major company town" but "just a major company and nothing else town".

coldtea 3y ago

>So they wont be paying rent for the rest of their lives to the company, and presumably they can sell the houses later To newer incoming employees? Who else would buy it? Not to mention the houses will be near worthless if the company moves from the area. This ties the employee with the company, but not vice versa.

ghaff 3y ago
Though those concerns apply if the major employer in a non-diversified area picks up and moves, goes bankrupt, downsizes, etc. whether or not something is a "company town" in some formal way or not. Look around the US Midwest for examples.
- coldtea 3y ago
  Yes. But even more so in a company town.
soco 3y ago
First of all, the employees are not _forced_ to buy there, they can still commute like before. Speaking of moving, the company made quite an investment building those houses so it will be less motivated to move easily someplace else. But if it does, what's stopping other businesses stepping into a pool of workers which may - or may not, of course - be readily employable in that area?