3 ms·

The core question is: why would Google be the best entity to directly provide a nice living situation for its employees? And to the extent that it is able to do

The core question is: why would Google be the best entity to directly provide a nice living situation for its employees? And to the extent that it is able to do so, why should Google employees be the only ones with access to the nice living situation in Googleville?

AStonesThrow 2y ago
Doesn't need to be Google; could be a smaller corp or it could be Canonical, or Cloudflare, or Motorola or Samsung or something; let's not get hung up on Google-hate for the sake of theoretical speculation? A company town should be exclusive to company employees and their families, because it would be economically infeasible for the corp to support unaffiliated families or workers. It would also be the type of urban distraction that a company town can avoid: if all your neighbors are fellow employees loyal to the corp, then your leisure time will also be oriented toward a collective good and you'll be less likely to be exposed to disruption, spying, or discontent fostered by corporate rivals or outsiders. Whichever corp it is, doesn't need to be directly responsible for all the amenities. Clearly they're going to subcontract nearly everything. Already happens: the cafeterias are run by catering professionals and the van transportation is probably also subcontracted by pros. The corp can provide everything within the corp's core compentencies, such as Internet connections and security, but the janitorial and fire safety and pharmacies would be third-parties specifically selected by the corporation and on an exclusive contract to operate there, which contracts could become really lucrative and competitive.
observationist 2y ago
If Google has the money and ostensibly pays for everything, then one of the perks for working for Google would be access to said company town. The problem starts when a person gets fired or quits. Your family gets screwed not only by the loss of a job, but of a house, and corporations will engage in race to the bottom dynamics, so that a leadership generation or two after the wonderful company housing project gets implemented, you have soulless bureaucrats viciously enforcing arbitrary company guidelines and treating humans like so much excrement to be shoveled. Corporations need to be limited, not necessarily in their profits, but in how they're allowed to spend. Spending money to purchase and squash competition, to file egregious lawsuits on dubious IP claims, to acquire and merge and conglomerate ultimately results in the same sorts of non-human creatures ending up with most of the power over almost every aspect of human life. These corporate entities own all the food, all the media, the platforms, the entertainment, the entertainers, the gadgets, the clothing, etc, etc, etc. It's not that capitalism is bad; it's not. It's that the particular set of rules we're playing by, especially in treating corporations like people, create toxic incentives and dissolute responsibility for acute harms. If you just forced all the corporate homeowners to divest all their properties, you'd be dooming tens of millions to poverty and blowing up the economy in general - they likely knew and intended to invest in something that is 100% critical to the functioning of society such that the government absolutely has no choice but to bail them out if they ever need it. Blackrock isn't doing this because houses are so lucrative and profitable. They're doing it because the consumers are a captive audience with no choice. We've created these beasts and now we've got to live with them. Thanks, boomers.
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  Pessimistic aren't we

AStonesThrow 2y ago

Doesn't need to be Google; could be a smaller corp or it could be Canonical, or Cloudflare, or Motorola or Samsung or something; let's not get hung up on Google-hate for the sake of theoretical speculation? A company town should be exclusive to company employees and their families, because it would be economically infeasible for the corp to support unaffiliated families or workers. It would also be the type of urban distraction that a company town can avoid: if all your neighbors are fellow employees loyal to the corp, then your leisure time will also be oriented toward a collective good and you'll be less likely to be exposed to disruption, spying, or discontent fostered by corporate rivals or outsiders. Whichever corp it is, doesn't need to be directly responsible for all the amenities. Clearly they're going to subcontract nearly everything. Already happens: the cafeterias are run by catering professionals and the van transportation is probably also subcontracted by pros. The corp can provide everything within the corp's core compentencies, such as Internet connections and security, but the janitorial and fire safety and pharmacies would be third-parties specifically selected by the corporation and on an exclusive contract to operate there, which contracts could become really lucrative and competitive.

observationist 2y ago

If Google has the money and ostensibly pays for everything, then one of the perks for working for Google would be access to said company town. The problem starts when a person gets fired or quits. Your family gets screwed not only by the loss of a job, but of a house, and corporations will engage in race to the bottom dynamics, so that a leadership generation or two after the wonderful company housing project gets implemented, you have soulless bureaucrats viciously enforcing arbitrary company guidelines and treating humans like so much excrement to be shoveled. Corporations need to be limited, not necessarily in their profits, but in how they're allowed to spend. Spending money to purchase and squash competition, to file egregious lawsuits on dubious IP claims, to acquire and merge and conglomerate ultimately results in the same sorts of non-human creatures ending up with most of the power over almost every aspect of human life. These corporate entities own all the food, all the media, the platforms, the entertainment, the entertainers, the gadgets, the clothing, etc, etc, etc. It's not that capitalism is bad; it's not. It's that the particular set of rules we're playing by, especially in treating corporations like people, create toxic incentives and dissolute responsibility for acute harms. If you just forced all the corporate homeowners to divest all their properties, you'd be dooming tens of millions to poverty and blowing up the economy in general - they likely knew and intended to invest in something that is 100% critical to the functioning of society such that the government absolutely has no choice but to bail them out if they ever need it. Blackrock isn't doing this because houses are so lucrative and profitable. They're doing it because the consumers are a captive audience with no choice. We've created these beasts and now we've got to live with them. Thanks, boomers.

AStonesThrow 2y ago
Pessimistic aren't we