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).
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2026
70 points (96.1% liked)
Ask Lemmy
41778 readers
1520 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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
Your scenario sounds like it at least has checks and balances which is the only way this could work without employees getting screwed.
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
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
No.
Housing tied to employment is too close to slavery for me.
I owe my soul to the company store.
No.
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
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
Understandable position
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.
At like 21? Yeah I'd have loved that job. At 30, no thank you to roommates.
Being able to live alone is one of the most important things to me. If I want someone in my space, it's my choice.
I just need a small room to myself with the only agreement being to keep things quiet. My last roommate situation was fine. We had a big common area, but he only used it on dates, mostly we just stayed in our rooms.
Language is a bit of problem. "Roommates" can mean literally sharing a room, or it can mean sharing an apartment with separate bedrooms.
No. You don't want to be in a situation where losing your job means losing your housing.
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Really depends what the job is.
3 primary jobs; maintenance, librarian, and social work
That sounds fun! It is below minimum wage where I live, but i had to check that just now. If not for other responsibilities or having a totally different career to build towards, yes I would do that.
You basically just described the army. Except the pay is probably lower. And labor union lol.
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I have done this before. Not at this stage of life but when I was young it worked well for me.
In my mind part of if being free is being paid enough to afford travel. It also includes being able to seek out a better job.
It doesn't seem like either would be true in this arrangement.
If the pay was scaled to today's costs, and the housing guaranteed between jobs, then it would sound much more appealing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›