As another person put it, the idea is more housing with a job. The goal is that once the payment is taken care of, the people that live in the apartment complex are the ones that manage the apartment, rather than outsource it or keep it under government management

3 primary jobs; maintenance, librarian, and social work

That's what "board" means.

I guess I never knew that, TIL

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).

Yes, the idea is that you're allowed to stay there regardless of employment but the housing comes with a job

This is basically what you get when you enlist in the US Military out of high school. You will get more than 15 buck an hour within a year but not much more and you get all your meals.

The US Military is design to give you just enough to keep you in.

The thing, is for people dumb enough to get a bachelor's of social, psych and psycology, joining the US military as a behavioral science specialst it is the best job, pay and benefit wise, they can get.

How can anyone keep housing without a job?

No.

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

The US military is Socialism all the way…

No.

That six month savings cushion should include whatever you pay for mortgage rent etc.

I owe my soul to the company store.

no. because when I stop working i have no place to live and at $15 / hour you have no ability to save for retirement nor any ability to afford anything fun.

Housing is not contingent on keeping the job

I would support it, but good luck getting it.

Anything to alleviate problems. Good lick getting anything like it. If they allow anything like it, it most likely won't look the way you imagine, by a longshot.

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.

The housing is provided independently of the job, the person just has to pay their share of rent if they quit

In that case, this just sounds needlessly complicated. Much like US health insurance, why is the business involved here at all at this point? Just make it socialized, taxpayer-funded housing to ensure all have basic housing. People can opt out and live somewhere else, but they still owe the tax to keep the program going.

Just make it socialized

That is the idea, but the point is that once the construction cost is paid for, then the apartment gets managed by the people who live there

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.

I was gonna say, this sounds like a company town. I've seen some videos on company towns and they're fairly glamorous tbh, I forget the drawbacks, I'm sure it has its drawbacks.

I have more details in other threads, but it's distinct from a company town in that the job is paid by the government, the housing is provided independently of the job, and the housing is controlled by the people who live there

In old school mining company towns the drawback was that they didn't pay you in real money. They paid you in essentially monopoly money. The currency they gave you was only usable at places owned by the company. The issue becomes, you don't like your job and want to leave? You have no money. You can't leave.

Your scenario sounds like it at least has checks and balances which is the only way this could work without employees getting screwed.

Yes if the job was something I found to be meaningful. Doesn't sound that bad (at least till I decide to move in with someone/start a family and so on).

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.

If that were the case then why would your roommates and neighbors be fellow employees? Also how would the government afford said housing if they're also subsidizing the company you work for to allow them to be competitive for employees while only paying $15/hr?

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.

if its affordable.

yes! as a non-American I never understood what context this was...

room mate clearly means someone you're bunking with ...in the same room

a flat mate is someone living in another room in the same place!

wouldn't this have a different (slightly?) outcome if there were actual workers protection legislation? I'm pointing out how the whole 'fire at will' BS is flat-out inhumane...

I could see this working in NZ where it's challenging to sack people unless they're outright fraudulent or hostile, for example

Also expect it to get enshittified over time

As American who has heard the term flatmate, I'm strongly tempted to use it instead of the more ambiguous roommate...

I'm saying that you think the government cares about homeless people enough to, you know, HOUSE them.

Providing housing is a pretty basic concept, and not in anyway new. We have several types of housing programs, ALL of them desperately underfunded.

You are expecting a housing program that is much more convoluted and complicated and expensive but probably no more effective to be implemented. Why?

You're not making enough to save while there. Even with free housing, $15 an hour is hardly enough to carry the other costs of living. Doctors visits, and activities other than going to the library and staring at walls.

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.

You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.

Invisible People (YouTube) did a great mini doc on how they provide housing for certain homeless people overseas. I think it was one of the nordics. Worth a watch if you're interested in homelessness and systems used to solve it elsewhere.

I think this is it: https://youtu.be/0jt_6PBnCJE

That being said (I haven't watched this one yet): https://youtu.be/GLvK31llklM

Sure, but why have it in the first place? Better if jobs just pay people enough to afford housing. That gives workers more options.

I ran the calculations back to when I just started out on my own after college. $15 = 10.78. If I took my brand new, big-boy job salary and subtracted my apartment cost (that I lived alone in), that is still $17/hr. Over 50% more than the adjusted proposed income. And I still managed to get 3k into credit card debt at that time. So, it wouldn't even work for me if I were young and unmarried.

I'm still not hearing any reason why that is a good thing over the alternative.

I think on some level it just appeals to you, but you're finding it hard to explain why.

Given that there's a real problem with housing tied directly to employment though, I think it would be better not to do this.

I mean that is a higher pay package than what I got as a PhD student ($16-18/hr before tax, nearly no benefits) so there was no way I'd have said no to that... At this point no, but it's only because my total compensation is a lot higher, and I could have afforded such a living arrangement and still have more leftover money

If the compensation is comparable, I probably wouldn't mind either way. But then I don't have a family so...

Fun fact, there are actually a few NYC-based PhD programs which provide heavily subsidized student housing (mostly on Roosevelt Island I believe), conditions are somewhat parallel to what you proposed

Depends what the cost of living is.

Looooooool

Sure pal

Fuck no.

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.

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.