Amazon turns Victorian industrialist with $2bn building project to house workers near new headquarters In a striking parallel to model villages created by Victorian industrialists for their workers, Amazon on Wednesday announced it would spend $2bn building affordable housing near its three new headquarters. The e-commerce giant has said it will build more than 20,000 homes “in communities it calls home” – Arlington in Virginia …
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in the article that linked the homes to employment. They are just homes being built in areas where Amazon is opening new offices.
If you have to be an Amazon employee to live in these new homes, then it's problematic. It's bad enough in America that you have to make career decisions based on employer 'supplied' health insurance. I can't imagine having to consider a job search and home search at the same time.
OTOH, if Amazon went in and said 'our analysis of the demographics surrounding our headquarters show a lack of affordable housing, and we can do something about that.' I don't see a problem, even if they earn a profit from rentals, if it's open market housing.
I would point out that for most people the fact is that if you lose your job you lose your home because you can no longer afford to pay rent or mortgage (as per) on it. Arguably, the mechanism is a little different here but the practical effect much the same.
The only difference is that you can change employers without moving whereas with this deal you can't. Although, again, much of the time people relocate for work anyway... so. there's that.
The Cadbury development dramatically improved worker's housing, and is still used as an example of progressive and socially aware architecture.
Given that there is a death spiral of housing costs and worker pay in high-tech communities in America, it seems quite a good idea to take the price of putting a roof over your head out of the equation. Optimistically, we could even see innovation in modern homes and communities.
Ultimately, though the article tries to paint this as an example of Victorian-style oppression, workers have a choice to go there or not. People willingly moved to the new developments like Cadburys (and ultimately formed major cities in the UK) because it was a damn sight better than living in a rural hovel.
The developments in England are still great places to live. Not just Bournville, there's Port Sunlight (soap) and much of North York (more chocolate).
Terry's of York also paid more for their cocoa to help development overseas.
I'm not convinced that Amazon are being benevolent though.
"Free health care pre NHS in fact was one of the thoughts behind it."
According to something I saw a few days ago about Swindon, it was more about appearance than genuine benevolence. Might have been the Swindon episode of The Architecture The Railways Built, not sure:
https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/shows/the-architecture-the-railways-built/
Anyway, the houses closest to the station etc were nicely prettified to impress travellers and potential workers. Away from the through routes, houses were much more routine.
And much of the health facilities were built initially because of the large number of casualties in the railway works.
I think the Quaker-derived places (Bournville, Port Sunlight, York) were a better example of doing the right thing for the right reasons.
The Cadbury development dramatically improved worker's housing, and is still used as an example of progressive and socially aware architecture
I don't think you can compare what Amazon are doing in the US with the Cadburys development of Bournville in Birmingham. The Cadbury family were devout Quakers who had the absolutely crazy idea that they had some moral obligation to look after the workers who created their wealth. I haven't lived in Birmingham for around 20 years, but even in the late 20th century the area and housing around the Cadbury factory, being so relatively spacious and green, was one of the nicest in the whole city.
The only higher power the owner of Amazon worships is Mamon, so I don't think people will be saying the same thing about Amazon housing today, let alone in 100 years time.
I don't think you can compare what Amazon are doing in the US with the Cadburys development of Bournville in Birmingham
Time will tell, but I think you are right. However, the article did seem to compare them, and not in a positive manner and certainly in the case of places like Bournville the anti social housing bias in the article needs to be challenged.
M.
"Given that there is a death spiral of housing costs and worker pay in high-tech communities in America"
And this is an American Capitalist problem? No, it is not.
In the Bay Area/Silicon Valley or in the Seattle area in order to build any kind of housing you have to jump through a myriad of government regulations that jacks up construction costs so high it is nearly impossible to build any reasonable affordable housing. Therefor the existing decades if not century old homes that are basically 2 bedroom bung-aloes sell for close to $1M. Add to this these states fake environmental policies that are designed to trap people inside their cites and the price just rises.
The accommodation in industrial cities was, in many cases, worse than in rural areas. Originally people were generally able to live off the land without having to work for anyone else, but after Enclosure (essentially the landowners appropriating common land with the backing of the authorities) they were forced into cities where the only way to survive was to become a wage slave to an employer.
And so here we are today.
In terms of rural vs industrial areas, a rural area before industrialisation was effectively the wealthy industrial area. After machinery was knocking out huge quantities at low prices rural areas became pretty untenable for traditional industries.
Too be fair enclosure has to be put in full context of the time, which was the Napoleonic war, which made the later ww1 look like a minor border skirmish. Food imports were a bit iffy, and the common lands were not generating anything like as much food as they could have done. Sufficient for the local houses? Sure.
But if you were living in a city at the time needing to be fed from the non existent surpluses off of that land then you'd have been engaging in the widespread food riots of the era which have otherwise neatly been airbrushed out of the history books. Enclosing the land did increase the food output and so was a success from that point of view, but obviously then meant that the locals had to buy the food instead of being able to grow their own and sell the surpluses at a huge profit.
Accommodation has always been a bit difficult; the early cities had an awful lot of slums. On the other hand, the population growth in the 19th century was a little nuts and couldn't reasonably have been expected at the time from historical patterns.
The other thing about Cadburys is that they paid decent wages to their employees and provided other benefits such as sick pay and cheap nourishing meals at lunch time. The company was known as a 'factory in a garden' because they moved from Birmingham city centre to a lush rural area. Being Quakers, the family felt obliged to treat their workers with respect and not to exploit them for as much profit as possible. Strangely, two other chocolate and confectionary makers were also run by Quaker families......Frys and the Rowntrees.
>Forcibly constructed in suburban areas in order to infiltrate the dependent classes into area currently not controlled by the Left.
That isn't a bad policy, scientific evidence on realworld social networking (ie. not Facebook et al) show that such arrangements are mutually beneficial: at the most basic level, the affluent householder gain a local supply of gardeners, cleaners, etc. and those less well off get jobs and opportunities and a level of living not possible from just living on welfare.
As for whether this enhances the control of "the left" is an open question, however, from the UK's playing around with constituency boundaries, it would seem this approach actually reduces the number of area's controlled by "the left"...
All very well, but...
When I read about financially rich companies and their execs giving away zillions or on philanthropic projects like this, it strikes me they either overcharged for their goods/services and/or staff underpaid.
I guess at least they are attempting to do something positive.
Think about that : these are mostly the more senior management type employees, plus the minions that serve them. If more senior staff can't afford housing then the problem has really got out of hand. No doubt the housing will come complete with Amazon autonomous vehicle delivery services and "free" Amazon Prime services, Amazon supermarkets and street corner Alexas.
In the warehouses, it will be easier to build "sleep pods" for the unfortunates that end up having to "live" there. And if you spend more than seven minutes in the toilet in an hour, you won't just lose your job. You'll lose your home.
Yes, those that don't study history are destined to repeat history. This all has played out many times as our civilizations emerged. It sounds really good labeled as affordable housing--but, they really are not targeting affordable housing to those that need it most. If you are on the lowest tier of employees you either live in poverty or work multiple gigs to make ends meet.
Bezos could do something epic from his vantage point--take on some of the social problems that tech followers prominently tout on their facebook/twitter feeds. Walk the talk and solve some problems. You'll still be rich, and probably get richer.
Who needs the "crypto" aspect ?
It was called "scrip money". Beloved of 19th century industrialists: yup, only redeemable in the company store, which used marked-up prices anyway.
Of course any similarity between this and 21st century UK rail refund vouchers, not redeemable online, but only at a staffed ticket office (where a higher set of prices are shown) is purely illusory.........
Inequality waaaa. Then the rich jump through the hoops of building housing to provide for the much poorer and this is bad? I thought wealth transfer was to be a good thing? Or is that only when the government take a pound and give a penny (or a dollar to give a cent)? And yes Amazon could pay its staff more but it would be stupid to do so and no amount will ever be enough.
Looking forward to the rent increase coupled with the pay cut.
Of where current levels of inequality are heading. You surely don't think all that anger is just about the election? Dramatic increase of inequality as a result of the greed of the executive class is approaching levels that have resulted in revolutions. Better wise up or there'll be silicone Valley execs hanging from lampposts.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
