Why Factories Built Worker Housing Before the Wars: The Era of "Embedded Costs"

Why Factories Built Worker Housing Before the Wars: The Era of "Embedded Costs"

Before the major global conflicts, roughly from the late 19th century up to the 1940s, the construction of company towns and worker housing was seen by many industrialists as an embedded, albeit significant, cost of doing business. The reasons were often tied to the prevailing economic and labor conditions:

1. Directly Enabling Operations in Undeveloped Areas: Many primary industries (mining, textiles, steel, lumber) were tied to specific geographical resources. These locations were often remote and lacked existing infrastructure or housing. Building homes, roads, and utilities wasn't a choice; it was a necessary capital expenditure to even begin operations and house the workforce. Without it, the factory simply couldn't exist.
2. Securing and Stabilizing Labor: In eras of rapid industrial expansion, labor was a critical and often volatile resource.
   • Recruitment Incentive: Offering housing was a powerful draw, particularly for migrants (both internal and international) seeking stable employment. It provided an immediate solution to the worker's most fundamental need beyond wages.
   • Reduced Turnover: High labor turnover was costly due to recruitment and training expenses. Stable housing fostered loyalty and reduced workers' propensity to leave, effectively lowering long-term labor acquisition costs and ensuring a consistent, experienced workforce.
   • Control and Discipline (Paternalism): While seemingly benevolent, company housing also provided a means of social and moral control. By managing all aspects of a worker's life (housing, shopping via company stores, social activities), employers could exert influence, discourage unionization, and ensure a "disciplined" workforce, which was perceived to improve productivity and reduce disruptions. This was a form of vertical integration of the worker's entire life into the corporate sphere.
3. Lack of Alternative Public or Private Infrastructure: Local governments often lacked the resources or political will to provide large-scale housing or municipal services in newly developing industrial hubs. The private housing market in these nascent industrial areas was often insufficient or non-existent, leaving a void that companies had to fill.

From an early industrialist's perspective, these were not merely "nice-to-haves" but often strategic necessities to ensure a reliable and controllable supply of labor, particularly in an era before widespread public infrastructure and highly mobile workforces. The cost was considered a necessary part of the total cost of production.

Why This Practice Largely Disappeared After the Wars: The Rise of Financial Prudence and Shareholder Value

The post-World War II period, particularly from the 1950s onwards, saw a fundamental shift in corporate strategy, driven significantly by evolving financial doctrines and the professionalization of management, deeply influenced by business schools:

1. The Ascent of Shareholder Value Maximization:

   • MBA Influence: The post-war era witnessed the explosive growth and influence of business schools, especially MBA programs. These programs heavily emphasized finance, accounting, and quantitative analysis. The core tenet became the maximization of shareholder value – generating the highest possible returns for investors.
   • Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) Focus: Managers, increasingly trained in these disciplines, began to scrutinize every asset and activity through the lens of its Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) or similar profitability metrics. Housing, being a significant capital investment, often yielded a very low direct financial return compared to investing in new machinery, research and development, or marketing.
   • Divestment of Non-Core Assets: From a purely financial perspective, owning and managing housing was a diversion from the core business of manufacturing. It tied up capital that could be deployed more efficiently elsewhere for higher profit margins. The new managerial wisdom dictated divesting from non-core assets to focus resources and capital on what the company did best – producing goods.

2. Escalating Costs and Management Complexity:

   • Maintenance Burden: As housing aged, maintenance costs soared. Factories found themselves operating as landlords, dealing with repairs, tenant disputes, and increasingly complex regulatory environments (e.g., housing codes, environmental standards) – none of which were their primary expertise.
   • Labor Relations Headaches: While initially a tool for control, company housing increasingly became a source of labor friction after the war. Workers, empowered by stronger unions and a growing sense of autonomy, resented the perceived paternalism and control over their private lives. Housing issues often became grievances in collective bargaining, adding to operational complexities and potential strike risks. Companies realized that controlling housing could actually exacerbate labor problems, rather than alleviate them.
   • Uncertainty and Risk: Economic downturns or technological shifts could quickly render a company town obsolete, leaving the company holding a vast portfolio of depreciating, unsaleable assets. The risk of stranded assets became a significant financial concern.

3. Maturing External Markets and Infrastructure:

   • Improved Public Infrastructure: Post-war governments invested heavily in public housing, transportation (highways), and municipal services. Workers could now live in independent communities and commute to work, reducing the company's burden.
   • Developed Housing Markets: Private real estate markets matured, offering diverse housing options. Companies no longer needed to be landlords; workers could simply find their own accommodations.
   • Increased Worker Mobility: With greater car ownership and public transport, workers were no longer geographically tethered to the factory gate. They could commute from farther afield and switch jobs more easily, eroding the "stability" benefit of company housing.

In summation, the demise of company-provided housing was a complex historical outcome. While the social and political changes after the wars certainly contributed by making company towns less necessary and less desirable for workers, the overriding factors were rooted in financial pragmatism. The rise of a management philosophy centered on efficiency, return on investment, and shareholder value, heavily promoted by business schools, drove companies to shed non-core, capital-intensive, and administratively burdensome assets like worker housing. It was a strategic decision to optimize capital allocation and focus on core manufacturing competencies in a new economic landscape.

Scarcity and Choices in Economics

 

Scarcity and Choices in Economics: A Journey Through Time

scarcity (not having enough of everything we want) and trade-offs (having to choose one thing and give up another) are the very heart of economics. The whole field grew from trying to understand these basic ideas.

Early Days: Just Not Enough

Before economics became a science, people just naturally understood that resources were limited.

• Ancient Thinkers (like Aristotle): They talked about managing homes and wealth, showing they knew resources weren't endless.
• Medieval Times (like Thomas Aquinas): They discussed "fair prices," which again hints at how to share limited goods justly.
• Mercantilists (16th-18th Century): These folks wanted their country to get as much gold as possible. They knew gold was scarce, so they pushed for more exports and fewer imports. This was a clear trade-off: more gold meant less of other goods from outside.

---

Classic Thinkers: Facing Limits

The first true economists started looking at how societies deal with limited resources.

• Adam Smith (1700s): The "father of economics." He wrote about the "invisible hand" guiding markets. While he didn't use the word "scarcity," his ideas about dividing up work to make more goods showed he understood we need to make the most of what we have. It's about efficiently using limited resources.
• Thomas Malthus (Late 1700s): He famously worried that people would have too many babies, and food wouldn't keep up. This was a stark warning about scarcity leading to a terrible trade-off: more people meant less food per person.
• David Ricardo (Early 1800s): He gave us "comparative advantage." This idea says countries should make what they're best at, even if another country is better at everything. Why? Because resources are scarce, and by specializing, everyone can get more through trade. This perfectly shows how to make a trade-off (give up making some things) to gain more overall.

---

The "Marginal" Revolution: Every Last Bit Counts

This was a huge turning point, making scarcity and trade-offs central.

• Jevons, Menger, Walras (Late 1800s): They came up with "marginal utility." This means how much extra happiness you get from one more unit of something. If something is scarce, that last bit is really valuable. Their work showed how individuals make choices, always weighing the value of one more unit against its cost – a classic trade-off for maximizing satisfaction.
• Alfred Marshall (Late 1800s/Early 1900s): He tied together supply and demand. Supply is limited (scarcity), and demand is about what people want (unlimited wants). He also clearly defined "opportunity cost": what you give up when you choose something else. This is the ultimate way to think about trade-offs.

---

Modern Economics: Scarcity Everywhere

Today, scarcity and trade-offs are applied to almost everything.

• Keynes (Early 1900s): During the Great Depression, he showed that even with lots of workers available, they might be "scarce" if nobody was hiring. His ideas about government spending were a trade-off: spend money now to boost jobs, even if it means debt.
• Austrian School (Mises, Hayek - 20th Century): They argued that knowledge itself is scarce and spread out. So, central planning can't work because no single person knows everything. Markets, with their prices, help share this scarce information to make better trade-offs.
• Chicago School (Friedman, Becker - 20th Century): They applied economic thinking to almost everything, even family life and crime. They said people always make choices based on costs and benefits, even in non-money situations. For them, every choice is a trade-off involving scarce resources, even time.
• Public Choice (Buchanan - 20th Century): This group looked at how politicians and voters make choices. They argued that even in government, resources are scarce, and decisions involve trade-offs, just like in a market.
• Behavioral Economics (Kahneman, Tversky - 20th/21st Century): While they showed people aren't always perfectly rational, their research still revolves around how people make choices with limited resources (even limited brainpower) and the trade-offs they make.

---

In short, scarcity and trade-offs are the bedrock of economics. Every economic idea, from ancient times to today, tries to understand how people and societies make choices when there's not enough of everything to go around.