4 ms·

It seems like the whole congestion problem could be greatly diminished if employers would take responsibility of the negative externality they are causing. Let

by vlehto 11y ago

It seems like the whole congestion problem could be greatly diminished if employers would take responsibility of the negative externality they are causing. Let's say employer can dictate when you arrive at work. Then your employer has to pay you salary for the time you spend commuting. The result should be either flexible hours or employers finding arrival times that don't overlap too much. It's overly simplistic idea, but you get the point?

1stop 11y ago
Or employers who only hire people who live nearby?
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Companies routinely establish themselves in locations where their employees can't live or can't afford to live. Zoning laws don't help with this either.
  - snarfy 11y ago
    Zoning laws are a big part of the problem. There are far too many backroom deals where the politician rezoning an area as 'high occupancy residential' happens to be the brother of the guy building the apartment complex there. The problem is systemic.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    That is only partially true. Company has to be within acceptable commute range for the employee. Lets say our company needs several employees. It is necessary to have critical mass of employable people living inside that range. The problem here is that 15min commute vs. 45min commute doesn't matter much to the employer. So companies try to go near major traffic routes at the outskirts of big cities. There employable population and cheap property converges.
- vlehto 11y ago
  In the beginning of the industrial revolution, it used to be relatively common for employer to arrange housing for the workers. No time commuting, but the catch is that the house is part of the salary. But the employer then gets to hire based on merit.
humanrebar 11y ago
> It's overly simplistic idea, but you get the point? Yeah, schools are probably the culprit more than employers are. Many employers have flex schedules, but I've never seen a school that lets students learn starting at 11 a.m. Parents pick jobs that fit around their kids' school schedules; in that sense, schools have more power over when they commute than even their bosses do. I also think you're too easy on employers. Many, many employers make decisions that affect commute length aside from when work hours take place. If McDonald's pays its employees minimum wage and then expects them to work in the expensive part of town, it has just mandated a longer commute since there is no way the employee could live in the neighborhood she works in. If that doubles the commute time of the employee, it doubles the stress on the transportation infrastructure. I would argue that the current U.S. policy of giving employers zero responsibility when employees have hour-plus commute times gives them a huge pass on a negative externality, on both the community (transportation infrastructure) and on their employees (wasted hours on the train/highway, higher transportation costs). If it's not a good idea for the government to do something about this, we should at least apply social pressure to employers to be more responsible. It seems to be working a bit for improving carbon emissions and parental leave, and I think it could work for unreasonable commuting arrangements. Employers should brag about the low average commute times of their employees.
- vlehto 11y ago
  All good points and I don't have any answers ready. There was some article way back that stater short commute is one of the few things how you can spend money to be happier.
snarfy 11y ago
I don't have a link but read recently that a judge ruled this to be true - commute time counts as work time.
npsimons 11y ago
> It seems like the whole congestion problem could be greatly diminished if employers would take responsibility of the negative externality they are causing. Yes! If employers had to pay more to compensate employees who insisted on living closer, this might start to solve the underlying problems. Here's some more food for thought: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-commuting/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-c...

by vlehto 11y ago

1stop 11y ago

Or employers who only hire people who live nearby?

jacquesm 11y ago
Companies routinely establish themselves in locations where their employees can't live or can't afford to live. Zoning laws don't help with this either.
- snarfy 11y ago
  Zoning laws are a big part of the problem. There are far too many backroom deals where the politician rezoning an area as 'high occupancy residential' happens to be the brother of the guy building the apartment complex there. The problem is systemic.
- vlehto 11y ago
  That is only partially true. Company has to be within acceptable commute range for the employee. Lets say our company needs several employees. It is necessary to have critical mass of employable people living inside that range. The problem here is that 15min commute vs. 45min commute doesn't matter much to the employer. So companies try to go near major traffic routes at the outskirts of big cities. There employable population and cheap property converges.
vlehto 11y ago
In the beginning of the industrial revolution, it used to be relatively common for employer to arrange housing for the workers. No time commuting, but the catch is that the house is part of the salary. But the employer then gets to hire based on merit.

humanrebar 11y ago

> It's overly simplistic idea, but you get the point? Yeah, schools are probably the culprit more than employers are. Many employers have flex schedules, but I've never seen a school that lets students learn starting at 11 a.m. Parents pick jobs that fit around their kids' school schedules; in that sense, schools have more power over when they commute than even their bosses do. I also think you're too easy on employers. Many, many employers make decisions that affect commute length aside from when work hours take place. If McDonald's pays its employees minimum wage and then expects them to work in the expensive part of town, it has just mandated a longer commute since there is no way the employee could live in the neighborhood she works in. If that doubles the commute time of the employee, it doubles the stress on the transportation infrastructure. I would argue that the current U.S. policy of giving employers zero responsibility when employees have hour-plus commute times gives them a huge pass on a negative externality, on both the community (transportation infrastructure) and on their employees (wasted hours on the train/highway, higher transportation costs). If it's not a good idea for the government to do something about this, we should at least apply social pressure to employers to be more responsible. It seems to be working a bit for improving carbon emissions and parental leave, and I think it could work for unreasonable commuting arrangements. Employers should brag about the low average commute times of their employees.

vlehto 11y ago
All good points and I don't have any answers ready. There was some article way back that stater short commute is one of the few things how you can spend money to be happier.

snarfy 11y ago

I don't have a link but read recently that a judge ruled this to be true - commute time counts as work time.

npsimons 11y ago

> It seems like the whole congestion problem could be greatly diminished if employers would take responsibility of the negative externality they are causing. Yes! If employers had to pay more to compensate employees who insisted on living closer, this might start to solve the underlying problems. Here's some more food for thought: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-commuting/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-c...