Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zpalmtree | Hacker News Reader

But they don't, so they are?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Ahhh you failed to read both the article and my original comment that started this entire thread. As I said there the first paragraphs of the article highlight that _most companies are buying property to rent, not sell_. They talk about a specific example of selling but the bottom line is more companies want to rent homes.

I read it, but I didn’t assume the article was about a single sentence literally found halfway in to the article that mentions the word “rent” (along with “buy” BTW).

At any rate, you want to complain about the problem, and claim that what appears to be a working solution for an employer and it’s employees is somehow spurious, but have offered zero solutions other than outrage.

We get it, you are mad about housing affordability and want to comment about your anger. Post a solution, both here and elsewhere in the conversation you seem to avoid that. So be it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com