Even the phrase "company town" itself does not signify anything evil. In fact I'm wondering if such a place might be better than the usual government administered cities and towns.
In the movie 'Sorry To Bother You' by Boots Riley, they have an Amazon-like entity called 'WorryFree' that does exactly this.
I'm not sure we actually want this (Amazon or other big employers making housing for laborers they employ), especially since these workers are often not labor aristocrats, and therefore will have little bargaining power.
Even in the 19th century, workers had a significant amount of bargaining power, and company towns were in fact an attempt to improve working conditions, in light of workers' sensitivity to high prices.
Without things like company stores and company housing, what was found to happen is that an independent store owner or housing provider would take advantage of their monopoly status, and raise prices, leading to workers quitting. So just like oil rigs have their own company restaurant on-site, isolated 19th century worksites had their own company businesses on-site to ensure their workers had competitively priced goods available to them.
Companies did this at the time because workers in the 19th century were aware of the comparative wages/living-standards on offer, and had enough mobility to leave sites that didn't offer the best available in the market at that time. Compared to the late 19th century, workers today have enormous mobility, and ready internet-based knowledge of market options, so what would happen if company towns emerged today would not be exploitive.
Sure, as long as they can externalize this cost, they won't do this, but in the Bay Area Google determined it costs them less to to fight for housing projects and fund those, than pay the enormous overhead for getting their employees living there.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/04/google-backs-three-ba...
Is there anything positive about company towns? Maybe they're better than towns with no jobs, but I'm not even sure about that..
Does it? I've never heard of companies not paying the workers any money, just because they have their own town.
> being unable to change jobs without having to move
That is true for many job changes. If it is a big deal for someone they can just not join such a company.
> ( with the associated inability to refuse whatever the employer throws at you, however hard/illegal/dangerous)
Huh? Having a company town doesn't grant the company absolute authority. They still have to abide by the laws of the land.
Yes, because it's now illegal, at least in the US where this practice was pervasive.
> That is true for many job changes. If it is a big deal for someone they can just not join such a company.
There's a world of difference between there are few options for jobs without changing your field ( e.g. working as a waiter/waitress when in a financial emergency) and literally having zero jobs outside of a company where you live. One is " we probably have to move if i piss off my boss", the other is "we need to move".
> Huh? Having a company town doesn't grant the company absolute authority. They still have to abide by the laws of the land
That's extremely naive. Everyone in that town works for the company or has immediate family working for it. How many people would dare refuse or blow the whistle on illegal activities when their lives would be uprooted as a consequence? The power dynamic is very heavily tilted towards the employer.