> As a worker, I would not want the company to decide where I must
> live. It costs money to build the buildings, why don't you just give me
> the money

In the past, regions with specialised and concentrated industries built
towns for the workers. The potteries, steel and cotton mills, coalmines
and shipyards in Northern England for example. That's why there is
so much terraced housing oop north. That sort of housing, built on that
scale, is cheap, and convenient for both the worker and the employer.
You could rent-to-buy, like state housing, if you wanted to

You're free to live anywhere you choose, and commute, but for 100
years after the Industrial Revolution, when the Great got put in Britain,
you more than likely had to walk to work. Yes, there was some
ghetto-isation, but you had community spirit too. Like the neighbour-
hoods of New York or any big city

The down-side of course is that if the company failed, so did the town.
In the North of England, and around what were once industrial centres
like Detroit and Pennsylvania, there are vast poverty-stricken tracts of
empty and unsellable housing

Is it too obvious to say that symbiosis is the name of the game ? Workers
and companies need each other. In times when I think people appreciated
having a job more than they do now, to be housed by the company, even
if it was a bit basic, was a real bonus

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist