No. Tying my housing security to my employment security only benefits the employer. A worker is allowed to leave whenever they want; a slave isn't.

We tried this before, they were called company towns and they got banned because they're a horrifically abusive practice.

Imagine living around the same people you work with. Imagine a company that won't even let you take a piss break having control over your housing situation. Imagine getting fired and having to move out of your apartment the same day.

No.

We tried that with coal mining. Results were disastrous.

Read history.

The problem with accepting a deal like that is that $15/hr isn't enough to leave you with any real savings at the end of the pay period, so you're essentially trapped working for the people who provide you housing with no way to dig yourself out of that situation and move on to more normal employment.

When they know they have that much power over you, expect working conditions to be brutal, the hours to be long, and the managers to be unfair and cruel.

Sounds lovely, until you and the employer stop being on the same page about the tiniest of things.

Then it starts spiraling into a personal housing security crisis.

And you can forget about thinking of changing jobs any time soon. The moment your 2 weeks end, you're homeless.

The tenant and labour union stuff sounds nice, but they're not a magical fix. They can and often are bought and controled. While better than the alternative, they're not a guarantee of protectedness.

This doesn't mean the model is dead on arrival. It's just not one I'd choose. I'd rather have a seperate boss and landlord, thank you very much.

You have 2 other roommate/coworkers, and you have 6 neighbor/coworkers.

Immediate end of question for me.

I need a good separation of work and private times/places. Coworkers are not automatically friends.

This is what we call a company town. Soon you won't get real money, just monopoly money you can only use at the company store. No thanks.

I know that's not exactly what you're scenario is saying but, feels too slippery of a slope for me personally.

Indentured servitude? Company owned housing? What am I, dumb as fuck? Well, I might be dumb but not as fuck.

But i am convinced the younger gens will be fooled by something like this and sign themselves away into slavery again.

At like 21? Yeah I'd have loved that job. At 30, no thank you to roommates.

Living with strangers? Hell no. Provide me with a studio apartment and then we'll talk.

If I was living on my own in those conditions, I would be fine with it. Although I'd be saving money in case I needed to change jobs/move. If the contract allowed me to pick up the lease after end of employment, that would be especially motivating. I wouldn't want to live with co-workers, though.

Nope, roommate is a big nope. Give me a 1 bedroom to myself and yes I'd accept that deal. $15/hr with a 1b1b covered completely is a fair deal.

No, the only way I'm living in employer provided housing is if it's either an extremely remote job, or I get some sort of exceptional benefits from it. I would consider going to Antarctica for a job, or some remote oilfield worksite to be examples of the first one. In either case, free housing is kind of the bar to entry for employers when they want you to go spend months at a time in an utterly remote location.

On the other hand, if some super rich person wanted to hire me as live in staff so they have someone to fillet fish or break down a leg of lamb for them at any time of day, for the right salary and conditions, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it, provided I got my own little private apartment on premises somewhere.

I have a few friends who got out of working as chefs in fine dining restaurants and were hired on as private chefs for rich families in the area. While they aren't live in positions, they are the level of job I would need to be offered to consider tying my fortunes to my employer to that extent. The one I seeost often, for example, has a pretty decent deal. He is responsible for preparing 3 meals a day for the family he works for, and if they have any functions requiring food, he gets notified well in advance and will do some extra work to cover that. Other than that, his days are his own, to spend as he sees fit.

From knowing him for years, it's proven incredibly stable and pretty low stress for him. Whenever the family goes on vacation, he gets a vacation too (meaning they deal with their own food in another fashion while they are away), and he was also able to just take off several weeks a year to go bang around Portugal and visit his extended family there. If he had a slight sniffle, he would be given the rest of the week off, with pay, lest their child with some type of immune system issues fell ill.

That said, I think my friend's circumstances are pretty exceptional, and that would be the bare minimum for me to consider such an arrangement.

No. You don't want to be in a situation where losing your job means losing your housing.

No way, absolutely not. Even if I subtract my mortgage payments from my salary, $15/hr still less than a third of my remaining income. Plus, I have a wife and kid. We aren't all fitting in a townhouse with two roommates.

Also, I don't think I can go back to apartment living. I don't like neighbors or people.

No.

Housing tied to employment is too close to slavery for me.

Not for me.

That's just a company town with more steps.

Fuck no.

You have 2 other roommate

Absolutely not.

Japan does have some employers who pay for housing. It ends up a nightmare when they are fired or otherwise leave.

Apart from company town concerns, I assumed you're not being paid in scrip. This could be a great opportunity if this is something that sounds interesting to you. Do you know what rent is if you lose your job? How much float time can you save up off of $15/hour?

Rough math (double check me, I am bad at math): take average rent, divide by 160, and add that to your $15/hour to get a better idea of what you're getting out of it via free housing.

I mean, economically speaking, that boils down to if you could earn $15 + the cost of renting those things, with roommate, on your own.

Other variables could effect the answer pretty strongly, but they're not specified in the question. And, I guess, if you just don't care about amenities.

Yes, but I'd immediately suspect I was joining a cult.

In some countries, 15€/hr is very livable (around 2,4k€ a month working 40 hours per week), especially if you don't need to pay rent.

great thing for finally shutting up the people nagging about not moving out of the house/career. as far as long term, like if you live in a HCOL, MCOL as an older person might not be useful. Nimbyism, zoning law, rich/well off people prevent any measurable change towards affordable housing.

sec8 is apparently also abused by its recipients too.

I used to work on cruise ships. I worked over 80 hours a week, and was making $1075/mth.

That's about $13.50/hr.

But, i had room and board paid for (but had a roommate), and actually saved money during that time.

You basically just described the army. Except the pay is probably lower. And labor union lol.

When I first read the title, I assumed the housing wasn’t shared. And even then, I would’ve said no unless utilities and maintenance were covered as well, because $15/hour is still low to actually live comfortably. But with roommates? Even more so no, unfortunately.

Depends what the cost of living is.

I'm sort of in that boat. Boarding school provides accommodation for some staff, and I got lucky. Teacher assistant doesnt need any fancy degrees or certificates. (Passed year 12 and a Working with Children clearance).

Only if it was temporary or I had backup housing, eg. working as a summercamp counselor.

I suppose I would also consider it if the housing was not tied to employment, but was free with employment, that is, it's my residence and they can't kick me out but it's no-cost as long as I work there (which as far as I understand it, is kinda how the US Coast Guard does it).

With roommates? Hell no.