True, but my point is that the unethical company town model, and our modern system of HOAs that are typically outsourced to management companies, is an increasingly fine line.
If you are a tech worker in America who is in the progress of immigrating from India, is in America on a work visa, and can only afford rent in San Francisco from your tech salary; the only difference is formality.
But if there was a formal recognition that the housing is employer-provided, there might be a greater incentive to uphold standards than letting the employee live under a bridge.
Problem really isn't during the employment. It comes after it ends. If you tie your housing to being employed, it can mean that you will get kicked out if you quit. And this could happen in multitude of ways.
People in USA already worry about losing their health care, but what about also losing your home?
Not a greater concern than the possibility of losing your rented apartment from eviction; or losing your home over unpaid HOA assessments.
As long as the mindset is right that this is free rent, it might not be worse than many apartments in the area that can only be afforded through that job anyway.
HOAs outsource local government. People once frustrated with their local city council now turn their attention to their HOA reps, who are now responsible for maintaining their roads and sidewalks.
