
When All Your Best Employees are Going Broke - jlhamilton
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2008/08/when-all-your-best-employees-are-going.html
======
swombat
Well, I was going to write a comment about this being a dangerous proposition
for employees, but an anonymous commenter on the site itself already made the
point as eloquently as possible:

 _Beware the company town._

 _The workers who rent from the corporation, buy from the corporation, and
depend on the corporation for all the niceties of life are at the mercy of the
corporation._

~~~
MicahWedemeyer
My first thought on skimming the article: _16 tons, and whadda ya get? Another
day older and deeper in debt..._

~~~
d0mine
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBkrAESUbyI>

------
gscott
I don't believe large employers really care. The top management get enough
benefits and pay to stay. They feel anything lower then the top management
level is more like expendable cogs, replacable any time, so why bother going
an extra mile to keep employees regardless of there worth.

------
michaelneale
OK, well that would not work in this country (Australia): 3 words: "Fringe
Benefits Tax" - most likely would end up behind tax wise (definately will not
be better off), and most definitely with a much greater compliance burden.

~~~
gscott
There is the same tax here in the United States. There was this one Subway
Franchise that gave a free sandwich to each employee per shift. IRS was going
to charge tax for that to each employee but the franchise owner decided to pay
the taxes for all of the employees for that benefit, then he had to charge
them .25c (next to free) for the sandwiches in the future so the employees
could avoid the tax on the so called "benefit".

~~~
michaelneale
Here in .au its structured so that 99.9% of the time its just the same from a
revenue perspective to the government as if they had paid the tax and used
after tax (income) dollars.

So in that case, a sandwich of .25 would be seen as a fringe benefit as its
well below the retail price (I think some discounting is allowed, but its only
like 10% without attracting FBT).

------
mynameishere
_Many families are struggling with rising food costs._

Not really. It seems like he thought...ah, I need a good reason for this
besides the _only_ reason, which is the tax dodge. But the tax dodge makes
sense, and is the reason why companies like google give expensive lunches as
partial compensation.

It's sort of amusing that the author seems to think that the idea of paying
people "in kind" is somehow innovative on his part. No, it's definitely been
done before. For instance, I owe my soul to the company store.

~~~
aswanson
_Many families are struggling with rising food costs. Not really._

Are you sure?

[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=families+struggling...](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=families+struggling+with+rising+food+costs&aq=f&oq=)

~~~
mynameishere
_Are you sure?_

Quite.

<http://www.nextag.com/bulk-flour/search-html>

A day of working minimum wage will buy enough calories for a month. No, it
isn't great, but we can't all have gold leaf ice cream after every meal.

~~~
inklesspen
Caloric content isn't the only part of nutrition. Try looking at a variety of
foods, instead of bulk, processed flour.

~~~
mynameishere
That's just an example. The weird paradox of American food is that the
healthier stuff is sometimes cheaper.

[https://www.usaemergencysupply.com/food_storage/bulk_beans_l...](https://www.usaemergencysupply.com/food_storage/bulk_beans_legumes.htm)

You can get excellent quality beef for 4 dollars a pound, chicken for 98 cents
a pound, bananas at 50 cents a pound, milk at 3 dollars/gallon. And, if you
have 1/8th of an acre and time to spare, you can grow whatever you need.

Flour is an ingrediant in almost all home-cooked foods, and it's practically
free. People don't like to cook for themselves though...

ED: Better link:

[https://www.usaemergencysupply.com/food_storage/year_supply_...](https://www.usaemergencysupply.com/food_storage/year_supply_of_food_deluxe.htm)

A full year of food (very diverse) for a laughable 1335 dollars.

------
danielrhodes
I feel like this has been done before in the early to mid 1900s with the
industrial revolution. It seems like there are a lot of benefits to this, but
also a lot of problems.

For example, the company may be 'generous' in housing its employees, but the
employees are de facto owned by the company when their housing, food, etc. are
derived from their workplace.

Furthermore, what happens if the employee is fired or the company goes out of
business?

------
gills
Central Planning fails. Sorry to break the bad news.

