Best they could do temporarily. When you need hundreds of employees and the nearest place they could be housed would be a daily four hour commute, you have a problem. And you can’t locate experimental rocket launch facilities near large population centers.
The employees are not forced to live in the trailers. They can do what they want. But SpaceX made them available to make it easier on employees in the short term. In the long term, housing needs to be built. That’s all that’s going on here.
I don’t think anyone lives in the trailers. I’ve been told they are there for commuters from other SpaceX sites, no one is forced to stay in one but if you prefer that to driving 45 minutes from the nearest hotel, they are available.
Company towns inherently have the potential to be exploitive, because it’s difficult to leave once you’re in. You can no longer just switch jobs; you have to move too, so employers have less incentive to maintain a good working environment. You want a raise? Sorry, you have to move to get a bump in pay. You don’t want to work this weekend? Well, it would suck if you get a poor performance review and have to move.
Not every employer will take advantage of their employees when given the chance. But Musk has shown willingness to take advantage of them whenever he can.
^^^ not a Musk fanboy
Agile monopolism!
…why would you build you factory in a place that requires hundreds of employees to do a daily four hour commute?
:: checks local map ::
That’s like me driving to and from Palmerston North (from Wellington) every single day. Why not use a closer factory?
…sorry, got Starbase confused with Tesla for a moment. A remote location makes sense, in context.
Company towns aren’t bad. Except for all the times they’ve been bad (which is probably almost every. single. time), which caused them to be regulated away. But this time, this time Musk, who has absolutely been kind and generous to his employees [citation needed], never loses his temper and seeks revenge on his current and former employees [citation needed], has an ego completely in check [citation needed], will not fall victim to the paternalism and other issues that plagued company towns.
He’s not a Musk fanboy. He just sees (almost) everything Musk does as positive (because Musk is rich and therefore above us mere mortals), and views Musk in the most positive light possible. I mean, come on.
So the argument here is that historically abusive power structures are only bad in the abstract because, hypothetically, the folks who create those power structures don’t HAVE to be abusive?
Cool.
People are saying Musk isn’t that bad guy.
Well, the good news is that if Musk fires you because you tweeted something he didn’t like, then he’ll change his mind, and talk to you personally to get you to stay.**
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
** Offer only valid if you have a contract clause that pays you 100 million dollars in the event Musk fires you
This pre-recorded tape conflicts with your other pre-recorded tape that says “The Left hates Musk because he’s a billionaire.” (Because, by your lights, the Left should have hated him well before he did his little run to the right).
The reality, of course, is that most of us thought very little about Musk the man. He seemed to be doing good things with electric power, so he got a pass. Rockets are fun, so he got a pass.
Then he dipped into a business that many of us actually know something about, and revealed himself to be an idiot in that particular field (tarnishing the assumption that he’s a genius in other fields), and moreover he also revealed himself to be a far-right fascist-aligned troll.
In other words, when the evidence is updated, then I update my opinion. What do you do?
This is the same guy who “recommended” that his high ranking employees start sleeping at their Twitter office. He fires people for not kissing his ass.
What in the world have you seen that suggests this guy actually cares about his employees, and would ever do anything for their benefit?
It’s bad enough that you think company towns can be a positive thing if run by a decent CEO. (If they were, why would you be referring to them in the past tense? If they became cities, that means staying a company town was bad.) But how in the world do you think Musk is one of those people?
I don’t give you too much gruff for calling Musk a genius. At least that’s an image he has actually cultivated. But caring employer who would not exploit his workers? That’s completely at odds with who he is.
He doesn’t even care how bad it makes him look or how much it damages his brand.
Because of the Liberal Left and their cultural Marxist woke agenda.
Sure there is: namely, the fact that they’re putting all the eggs of community and municipal life in the single basket of one employer. That may sometimes be unavoidable in practical terms when a new high-manpower enterprise is launched in a remote and/or sparsely populated location, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t anything wrong with it. It’s a structural liability built right in.
Early 20th century rubber barons, OTOH – those gentlemen created nice neighborhoods next to an established city.
Can I point out that it was here that Musk’s ‘Starbase’ was categorized as a company town? A company town is generally defined as one where everything is owned by the company, including the stores. We have no odea if that’s what Musk intends. Maybe he’s just trying to push along a completely conventional new city.
But company towns are not always bad. And they still exist.
Here’s a more balanced article about it:
Like hell we don’t. From the CNN article linked above:
[A]n LLC registered to a Boring Co. executive … owns a number of parcels of nearby property comprising commercial and residential building plots and pasture and farming land…
You should know very well that it’s unfair to expect Sam to read something.
I don’t understand.