7
Ask HN: Why don't tech companies provide housing?
Given most tech companies don't hire locally and people have to move into often quite HCOL areas for them, why don't large tech companies provide company housing? It could be a quite attractive option, especially for young graduates. Factories with large migrant workforces do it and it seems like large tech campuses could fit quite a bit of housing.
I think having your home tied to your continued employment might prove troublesome for both sides.
Even more troublesome than tying healthcare to employment one might note
It is not problematic for the military.
you can't get fired from the military and almost anyone who has the choice, chooses to not live in military housing
Two body problems are real. Maybe if you are just employing kids, but your spouse probably works somewhere else.
China still has company towns for some SOEs (not even for migrant workers, regular well payed Chinese professionals), but these are usually outside of cities and are more like gated communities. The last time I visited one in Hunan near Leiyang, we had a nice meal at the company restaurant (not the only one). Not really for software-based high tech, where talent accumulation demands central city placement. Heck, they still try putting R&D centers out in the far off suburbs (Microsoft's Zizhu campus in Shanghai) and there is a lot of push back (better to work at Microsoft's more centrally located Beijing campus).
You might want to research the history of “company towns”.
Companies do the least they can to employ people. That means paying them just enough and giving them just enough perks. I'm sure they'd provide housing if it was needed to competitively hire.
I've seen big companies like Microsoft offer company housing for new immigrants to ease their move to the US. It's also not uncommon for companies to pay for your cross-country move and temporary housing until you can buy a house.
What would the incentive be? I assume that just paying out the price for an apartment as salary would be easier for the employer and preferred by the employee. Also, apartments in HCOL areas are expensive and the company might not need any additional motivator for employees to join anyway.
Tech companies have almost little issue attracting candidates especially young graduates these days
Barrier 1: If ClickCo provides housing for workers - even just sub-leased apartments - then it takes on both a management burden and considerable legal liability. And every problem, ever, with that housing now has some of ClickCo's name and reputation glued to it.
Barrier 2: That I'm familiar with, tax codes are not friendly to employer-provided housing. ClickCo paying >$X/month to housing Wanda Worker-Bee, when $X/month more pay would let her pick her own as-good housing, is a losing move.
Barrier 3: If you're thinking of ClickCo building housing - talk to an MBA. At scale, housing developments are mammoth capital investments, for something unrelated to ClickCo's business, with (at best) multi-year lead times and very long asset life expectancies.
Barrier 4: If ClickCo wants to scale up, or down, or shift parts of its workforce to or from a location - any housing it has built is immovable, and very slow and difficult to scale.
(In general, "migrant labor housing" implies that the workers are paid very poorly. And willing to live in something more like a refugee camp.)