edit: Oh, yeah, I pay rent and insurance to Berkshire today, guess I'm there.

Interestingly, the modern US military base still often resembles a company town. While not perfect, my impression is that life isn't worse then off base.

You get promoted, you're now given duplex housing in the NCO housing area. You now have a yard. Your grass grows too long. The military police ticket you, and notify your supervisor.

You goto the store on post. A coworker is there. He's with some girl who isn't his wife.

You goto the dining facility. You have to go to the dining facility because your paycheck is automatically deducted $300+ a month because you are forced to have a meal card, regardless of how often you eat there.

Just a few examples from people I know. Everyone tries to get statement of non-availability so they can live off base.

I guess the ideal situation is when your goals align with what the company wants out of you.

For example, California could presumably make better housing decisions if existing property owners didn't get a say.

That said, the weaknesses of dictatorships obviously apply equally. A benevolent dictator leads to great happiness; a terrible one leads to hell that can only be overthrown by revolution.

I'd expect a much more sophisticated 21st century take on company stores before some libertarian utopia.

There’s a wicked critical mass factor where you need enough now to be able to get people to start businesses there rather than moving, and there’s a nasty feedback cycle with shrinking tax bases cutting into city services which is hard to break out of.

SF and NYC probably haven’t priced out enough diversity to get through this but there are a lot of cities which only need a couple of employers to fold or relocate to start having big challenges. Attracting teleworkers quickly enough could help but a lot of old industrial and even office space will require a lot of work to convert into residences.