Comment by feelin_googley
7 years ago
"The guy who was showing me around pointed out where they were building "apartments for our people to live".
"So they'll work on campus, they'll eat on campus, they'll socialise on campus and now they'll sleep on campus?" I asked. I wondered whether maybe that was kind of unhealthy. Creepy, even.
My guide looked right at me, and for a moment, his megawatt smile faltered. When he first worked there, it reminded him of the Dave Eggers book, The Circle, he said. Then he started talking about the opportunity to connect the world's people, and I stopped listening."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(Eggers_novel)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(2017_film)
Source:
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/jennifer-o-...
While this may sound creepy for a foreigner, getting a decent apartment in the SF Bay Area is really expensive and the commutes are horrible. So in this context, that could be a good thing.
Why does it sound creepy? What percentage of the population, historically, have been "free" in a sense that they don't belong to an organization that exerts some sort of control over their social world? It seems there are many shades and dimensions here...
Actually I think in some ways the lower classes have more psychological freedom here.
I've worked a bunch of minimum wage retail jobs and all the grunts mock the daily "walmart chant." At high status jobs people apparently really buy the "my employer is who I am" thing.
1 reply →
No, I'm pretty sure this is creepy to non-foreigners as well.
I don’t know. It makes rents higher since companies pay more and it takes units off the market and they can deduct the expense unlike traditional renters.
I think the opposite is more likely to be true. This sounds creepy because it is creepy and the only place it seems reasonable is in the increasingly disconnected culture of Silicon Valley.
Many undergraduate, graduate and postgrads live on campus in housing provided by the university, and get paid by the same university. Soldiers in the military live in barracks, even some who would otherwise have the option to live off base. Even expats working for private energy companies abroad sometimes live in corporate housing campuses.
4 replies →
Isn't this just a 21st century company town? What's old is new again.
A bit like university.
Except at least at university there's a built in time limit, and the focus of all university time is implicitly "planning for what you do when it's over". There's usually even staff whose roles include helping students transition and adjust out of it, into broader society. The company town, however, is an end unto itself.
Everything's sound in the company town. Next thing you know it'll be really convenient to introduce a system, similar to colleges where you have FBucks on your company ID. You need never venture outside, in fact you can fill your fbucks straight from your paycheck!
Eventually, you forget how much the conversation rate between fbucks and usd is, but dismiss any wierdness as a convenience fee, you're well paid right?
Next thing you know, you can't leave because there's no reasonable housing elsewhere in the city. And so on.
Edit: Even if it doesn't become even more dystopic for the worker, who now lives every moment inside the company and is alienated from their fellow humans, including increasingly the ability to think dissent thoughts (no where is safe even home) the company has succeeded in capturing back most of the money they paid to their workforce. It puts the lie to the notion that the presence of profits filters out to the rest of the city and increases inequality.
Well tbh Asian companies have done this to great success.
I guess that depends on your definition of success.
In my 20's I worked at a megacorp, lived in a corporate dorm and ate at the corporate cafeteria. It's a welcome option and you're perfectly allowed to opt out.
I opted out of the corporate dorm eventually, and so did a handful of others, especially the ones who were from the local area. But it definitely made life simpler for me to transition to a new job and living environment.
I disagree that onsite housing at company HQs is always bad depending on how it's used. Tons of companies are already directly renting housing for interns, newly relocated employees, and then also for shorter terms for people interviewing or on short term business trips.
I imagine doing such is in the long term cheaper than the amount currently spent on hotel services for the above population. But yes, long term on campus housing is a bit weird in this day and age (but many rural communities were built by companies needing to house their employees near the factor).
I always hear criticism of the Japanese model where the employer provides assistance and coordination for employees’ personal affairs. I am spending too much time at work and don’t have time to tend to errands, cleaning, life admin, etc. with the demands placed on professionals these days why shouldn’t the employer bear some responsibility for my personal home life rather than leave us to figure it out like in the West?