3 ms·
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, s
by 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 agoThey 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 agoI suspect the disconnect lies more in the fact that a company is working to solve the problem than the government.
- moate 3y agoWho’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
- kcplate 3y ago> Renting from the company is bad, like my original post. It’s solving for employee retention, not affordable housing. If the rent is below market rate, it’s solving for both, at least temporarily during the employment period. Which may be ok or desired by the employee. If the employee wants to stay within that area even after their employment ends, they can use the time that they are in the cheaper employer provided accommodations to find other housing. I think describing an employer provided housing for rent may really only be generally bad if the employer forces you to stay there and pay a captured rate as a condition of your employment.