5 ms·

> 1. The houses are being sold, not rented. That's not at all what the article says, here is a direct quote from it (emphasis mine): "So a growing number of e

> 1. The houses are being sold, not rented. That's not at all what the article says, here is a direct quote from it (emphasis mine): "So 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." I would hope it's extremely obvious the major problem there is with linking your housing (through renting) to your employment. It's the 'company town' problem all over where workers can be exploited with the constant threat of homelessness if they're terminated.

kcplate 3y ago
> It's the 'company town' problem all over where workers can be exploited with the constant threat of homelessness if they're terminated. I think people on conflating it with that, but there is some distinction. The company doesn’t appear to have a monopoly on all housing, commerce, entertainment, and employment within the area, but are working to provide some housing options for its employees. It’s kind of hard to draw a direct parallel to “company towns” where the company controls everything.
- smcin 3y ago
  The even more extreme case being "company island": Larry Ellison’s Lanai Isn’t for You–Or the People Who Live There https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31850250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31850250
- qbasic_forever 3y ago
  If people had a choice of affordable housing then these companies wouldn't need to build the housing in the first place...
  - kcplate 3y ago
    Ok. So what exactly does that look like? Also, who should do it and who should pay for it. We already have great examples of the shitshow tenements the government builds. Who you going to trust to do it right?
    - moate 3y ago
      The problem the complainers want to solve: More housing, more affording housing specific, for as many people as possible. The problem the company is solving, specifically when they rent the house and don’t sell it: employee retention. If a company wants to become a real estate developer and sell the housing to its employees, that’s fine. Assuming they’re actually increasing housing stock and not just gentrifying at the expense of locals. But as we all see with the American health care system, linking basic living needs to your employment is a terrible plan, and renting a company house sounds like “company towns” for that reason. Going from employed, housed and insured to the opposite of all 3 because you got sick of your boss demanding you work weekends is pretty dystopian and exactly where this plan would lead. Tl:dr- we don’t need any more fucking rentals, we need more home owners (generally, idgaf about anyone’s personal preference for renting or owning. If you want to hire a parasite to fix your pipes 3 weeks after they break in exchange for paying his mortgage that’s between you and your god).
      - Jdixnxjsj3 3y ago
        They are literally solving the supply issue at below market prices for employees and yet this is not enough for many here.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        kcplate 3y ago
        I suspect the disconnect lies more in the fact that a company is working to solve the problem than the government.
        moate 3y ago
        Who’s “they”? This is the important part from the article you’re not discussion: “So 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.” Renting from the company is bad, like my original post. It’s solving for employee retention, not affordable housing. But go off
  - Zpalmtree 3y ago
    But they don't, so they are?
    - qbasic_forever 3y ago
      Right, which is why I bring it up to directly refute the parent comment that it's not a company town because people have free will to simply live somewhere else. There is nowhere else they can afford, and that's the problem.
      - kcplate 3y ago
        Exactly what did you refute? You downplay a company’s solution to a housing affordability problem by simply complaining that there is a housing affordability problem?
        qbasic_forever 3y ago
        The company refuses to pay employees enough so they can afford what the market will bear for house pricing. Instead of--shocker!--paying employees more, the company is building housing to rent to employees so it can continue paying them peanuts. The entire system is broken and not in favor of the rank and file workers. The free market isn't working.
        kcplate 3y ago
        Ahh, so it’s apparent you didn’t read the story. The company is building new houses near a given plant that they are offering to sell to employees at a below market rate because local older homes are purchased quick by cash buyers. There is other housing in the area, but this company wants to give an option for a lesser commute to the plant for their workers. A quick Zillow search shows quite a lot of affordable rental housing at the same price point of a monthly mortgage of the company offered homes within a 15-20 mile radius from the Plant’s town. This is not an uncommon commute distance for a rural area. If the employee leaves the company, they still own the home. The only caveat (and it’s understandable and reasonable IMO) appears to be that if the homeowner decides to sell the home within 3 years, the company has right of first refusal to buy the home at the same cost they originally sold it for to the employee. You are making assumptions about the company’s motives that are based on your own biases. You seem to feel that the employee is somehow being wage abused for being offered a house to own at a below market rate. How is it that a) this situation describes a “company” town in the historical sense. And b) the employee is somehow abused for choosing to purchase a home below market value? Edit: hit send too soon.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    Yeah, no shit. But they (I assume) don't. It's significantly better option than alternative.
    - qbasic_forever 3y ago
      The alternative is the company pays employees enough to afford to live in the area without having to rent them company housing. The free market system is broken and not working.
      - barry-cotter 3y ago
        No, the system where building housing is basically illegal is broken and not working. The free market system is just fine.
        qbasic_forever 3y ago
        It's not a problem of being unable to build. This article mentions the company is building an _entire neighborhood_ with 14+ homes all brand new. That clearly isn't some lack of space or zoning problem. The problem is the housing market has been inflated to astronomical levels because the housing industry is a critical part of our country GDP. If the price of homes fails to go up then banks will lose money and fail (just like in the aftermath of 2008). It's not profitable to build cheap, affordable housing so it doesn't happen. The market is broken.
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        There is also a lot of money sloshing around in real estate due to previous sustained low interest rates and QE. The problem is that some people can afford the current high prices (and will bid up anything they want), just everyone else can’t. Increasing money supply went into real estate for far too long.
CodeWriter23 3y ago
Did you read the next sentence? > They include big names like Disney and Meta, the meatpacker JBS and local school systems and health care providers That is not what Cook is doing. Cook is only selling.
lucas_membrane 3y ago
Restricting resales for 3 years would be OK if the company would agree to no layoffs, no facilities closing, and no takeovers of the company or the local facilities for three years, etc, etc. Creating neighborhoods according to short-term needs is surely short-sighted. Houses should be built to last at least 50 years, and neighborhoods longer. Whenever things turn bad for the company that has built a neighborhood for its workers, things will likely turn worse for the neighborhood. It would be extraordinary for a firm to create a community in its own image and have that image be long sustained as praiseworthy.
WalterBright 3y ago
I've lived on military bases. You get subsidized housing. You get issued military furniture. You buy from the base PX. You follow the military's rules. This all goes away if you leave the military for whatever reason. I don't recall anyone having a big problem with it, because if you did, you opted to live "on the economy". Your choice.
- comrh 3y ago
  The military isn't at will employment though, it is different when a company can fire you tomorrow.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    They let you retire when you want, and they can boot you out when they want.
    - red-iron-pine 3y ago
      "If you do 20+ years of service they'll let you out when you want" which in the last 2 decades meant getting deployed to Iraq 3+ times. Nothing about that post is good or a solution
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        You don't sign up for 20 years when you join.
- qbasic_forever 3y ago
  When you join the military you sign a friggin contract that gives up your rights. If you desert and run away _you can be killed_ by military tribunal and firing squad as punishment for example. Military housing and matters have absolutely no relevance here, unless you have some bizarre dream that we all live under a dictatorship with your employer at the top.
  - 3y ago

kcplate 3y ago

> It's the 'company town' problem all over where workers can be exploited with the constant threat of homelessness if they're terminated. I think people on conflating it with that, but there is some distinction. The company doesn’t appear to have a monopoly on all housing, commerce, entertainment, and employment within the area, but are working to provide some housing options for its employees. It’s kind of hard to draw a direct parallel to “company towns” where the company controls everything.

smcin 3y ago
The even more extreme case being "company island": Larry Ellison’s Lanai Isn’t for You–Or the People Who Live There https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31850250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31850250
qbasic_forever 3y ago
If people had a choice of affordable housing then these companies wouldn't need to build the housing in the first place...
- kcplate 3y ago
  Ok. So what exactly does that look like? Also, who should do it and who should pay for it. We already have great examples of the shitshow tenements the government builds. Who you going to trust to do it right?
  - moate 3y ago
    The problem the complainers want to solve: More housing, more affording housing specific, for as many people as possible. The problem the company is solving, specifically when they rent the house and don’t sell it: employee retention. If a company wants to become a real estate developer and sell the housing to its employees, that’s fine. Assuming they’re actually increasing housing stock and not just gentrifying at the expense of locals. But as we all see with the American health care system, linking basic living needs to your employment is a terrible plan, and renting a company house sounds like “company towns” for that reason. Going from employed, housed and insured to the opposite of all 3 because you got sick of your boss demanding you work weekends is pretty dystopian and exactly where this plan would lead. Tl:dr- we don’t need any more fucking rentals, we need more home owners (generally, idgaf about anyone’s personal preference for renting or owning. If you want to hire a parasite to fix your pipes 3 weeks after they break in exchange for paying his mortgage that’s between you and your god).
    - Jdixnxjsj3 3y ago
      They are literally solving the supply issue at below market prices for employees and yet this is not enough for many here.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - kcplate 3y ago
        I suspect the disconnect lies more in the fact that a company is working to solve the problem than the government.
      - moate 3y ago
        Who’s “they”? This is the important part from the article you’re not discussion: “So 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.” Renting from the company is bad, like my original post. It’s solving for employee retention, not affordable housing. But go off
- Zpalmtree 3y ago
  But they don't, so they are?
  - qbasic_forever 3y ago
    Right, which is why I bring it up to directly refute the parent comment that it's not a company town because people have free will to simply live somewhere else. There is nowhere else they can afford, and that's the problem.
    - kcplate 3y ago
      Exactly what did you refute? You downplay a company’s solution to a housing affordability problem by simply complaining that there is a housing affordability problem?
      - qbasic_forever 3y ago
        The company refuses to pay employees enough so they can afford what the market will bear for house pricing. Instead of--shocker!--paying employees more, the company is building housing to rent to employees so it can continue paying them peanuts. The entire system is broken and not in favor of the rank and file workers. The free market isn't working.
        kcplate 3y ago
        Ahh, so it’s apparent you didn’t read the story. The company is building new houses near a given plant that they are offering to sell to employees at a below market rate because local older homes are purchased quick by cash buyers. There is other housing in the area, but this company wants to give an option for a lesser commute to the plant for their workers. A quick Zillow search shows quite a lot of affordable rental housing at the same price point of a monthly mortgage of the company offered homes within a 15-20 mile radius from the Plant’s town. This is not an uncommon commute distance for a rural area. If the employee leaves the company, they still own the home. The only caveat (and it’s understandable and reasonable IMO) appears to be that if the homeowner decides to sell the home within 3 years, the company has right of first refusal to buy the home at the same cost they originally sold it for to the employee. You are making assumptions about the company’s motives that are based on your own biases. You seem to feel that the employee is somehow being wage abused for being offered a house to own at a below market rate. How is it that a) this situation describes a “company” town in the historical sense. And b) the employee is somehow abused for choosing to purchase a home below market value? Edit: hit send too soon.
- ilyt 3y ago
  Yeah, no shit. But they (I assume) don't. It's significantly better option than alternative.
  - qbasic_forever 3y ago
    The alternative is the company pays employees enough to afford to live in the area without having to rent them company housing. The free market system is broken and not working.
    - barry-cotter 3y ago
      No, the system where building housing is basically illegal is broken and not working. The free market system is just fine.
      - qbasic_forever 3y ago
        It's not a problem of being unable to build. This article mentions the company is building an _entire neighborhood_ with 14+ homes all brand new. That clearly isn't some lack of space or zoning problem. The problem is the housing market has been inflated to astronomical levels because the housing industry is a critical part of our country GDP. If the price of homes fails to go up then banks will lose money and fail (just like in the aftermath of 2008). It's not profitable to build cheap, affordable housing so it doesn't happen. The market is broken.
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        There is also a lot of money sloshing around in real estate due to previous sustained low interest rates and QE. The problem is that some people can afford the current high prices (and will bid up anything they want), just everyone else can’t. Increasing money supply went into real estate for far too long.

CodeWriter23 3y ago

Did you read the next sentence? > They include big names like Disney and Meta, the meatpacker JBS and local school systems and health care providers That is not what Cook is doing. Cook is only selling.

lucas_membrane 3y ago

Restricting resales for 3 years would be OK if the company would agree to no layoffs, no facilities closing, and no takeovers of the company or the local facilities for three years, etc, etc. Creating neighborhoods according to short-term needs is surely short-sighted. Houses should be built to last at least 50 years, and neighborhoods longer. Whenever things turn bad for the company that has built a neighborhood for its workers, things will likely turn worse for the neighborhood. It would be extraordinary for a firm to create a community in its own image and have that image be long sustained as praiseworthy.

WalterBright 3y ago

I've lived on military bases. You get subsidized housing. You get issued military furniture. You buy from the base PX. You follow the military's rules. This all goes away if you leave the military for whatever reason. I don't recall anyone having a big problem with it, because if you did, you opted to live "on the economy". Your choice.

comrh 3y ago
The military isn't at will employment though, it is different when a company can fire you tomorrow.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  They let you retire when you want, and they can boot you out when they want.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    "If you do 20+ years of service they'll let you out when you want" which in the last 2 decades meant getting deployed to Iraq 3+ times. Nothing about that post is good or a solution
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      You don't sign up for 20 years when you join.
qbasic_forever 3y ago
When you join the military you sign a friggin contract that gives up your rights. If you desert and run away _you can be killed_ by military tribunal and firing squad as punishment for example. Military housing and matters have absolutely no relevance here, unless you have some bizarre dream that we all live under a dictatorship with your employer at the top.
- 3y ago