• Grayox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Because it is paid for with labor value that was stolen from the working class.

    • JoBo@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Because they have to spend a fortune on rent and/or commuting to earn a living where all the jobs are.

      Not forgetting that is is bosses who make the location decisions and they can afford to buy in those hugely expensive cities while the forced influx of workers pushes the price of housing up.

      Companies should be taxed based on the in-work benefits required to make their location viable, regardless of their own wage structure.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      it raises the productivity requirements of the business to exist without actually returning any of the same money to the pockets of workers. Its similar to your boss owning your apartment and billing you for rent.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          yes the business has to sell more product to rent a place than buy it, generally. This is why venture capital often does exactly this when they buy a corporation - they seperate all the real estate to a shell company and raise rents, which lowers profits for the original company forcing managers to try to extract more from workers to maintain profits and prevent closures.

          I want to say this is exactly what happened to albertsons and the cut that gets made is a reduction in wage increases.