3 ms·

I think selling the houses is fine. Renting them out, brings up issues of company towns. But as long as they are sold, I don’t see much of an issue. If the co

I think selling the houses is fine. Renting them out, brings up issues of company towns. But as long as they are sold, I don’t see much of an issue. If the company is large, it is likely that a significant number of people in any new housing development close to the company would be employees of that company. In addition, with the ebbs and flows of employment, it is likely that the housing would end up getting sold later at market prices to people who did not work for the company. In addition, having company built housing, ends up relieving the price pressures on housing in the area. I think this overall is a good thing, as long as the houses are being sold, not owned and rented out by the company.

dagw 4y ago
On the flip side, by buying the house you are taking on a lot of extra risk. If the company shuts down or moves its factory you will be left both unemployed and left with a virtually worthless house, since no one will want to buy a house in a place where the by far single biggest employer just left. If you're renting you'll just be unemployed and can easier move to where you can find a new job.
- smeej 4y ago
  That risk exists for any home purchase in a small town/area with one major employer, not just homes the company helped build. If you work for the company and live in the town, you take on that risk, regardless of whether the company helped build the house.
  - dagw 4y ago
    Indeed, that was my argument for renting your company housing instead of buying it.
discardedrefuse 4y ago
Even though the article is about a home buyer, the article says at the very beginning, "a growing number of employers around the country have decided to build their own housing for workers, mostly for them to rent but sometimes to buy." As if employer provided health insurance wasn't enslaving enough; now they want to bring back fiefdoms.

dagw 4y ago

On the flip side, by buying the house you are taking on a lot of extra risk. If the company shuts down or moves its factory you will be left both unemployed and left with a virtually worthless house, since no one will want to buy a house in a place where the by far single biggest employer just left. If you're renting you'll just be unemployed and can easier move to where you can find a new job.

smeej 4y ago
That risk exists for any home purchase in a small town/area with one major employer, not just homes the company helped build. If you work for the company and live in the town, you take on that risk, regardless of whether the company helped build the house.
- dagw 4y ago
  Indeed, that was my argument for renting your company housing instead of buying it.

discardedrefuse 4y ago

Even though the article is about a home buyer, the article says at the very beginning, "a growing number of employers around the country have decided to build their own housing for workers, mostly for them to rent but sometimes to buy." As if employer provided health insurance wasn't enslaving enough; now they want to bring back fiefdoms.