> If you try to find more affordable housing by living further from the city, you start hating your life as you commute the 2+ hours in. It's like trying to liv

> If you try to find more affordable housing by living further from the city, you start hating your life as you commute the 2+ hours in. It's like trying to live in Walnut Creek and work in SF. It can be done, but why? The answer to this is to pressure companies to move their offices out to the suburbs. One of the reasons why Texas still has affordable housing with good commutes is because a lot of companies have abandoned the traditional central business districts and moved into boomburbs and edge cities. I live in the burbs, and of the four jobs I've had here, I've commuted farther out into the burbs for three of them (with a 15-20 minute commute by car). The one company I worked for that had offices downtown was the most poorly-run company I've ever worked for; them having offices in a place where no other tech company has offices was the least of my problems with them, but I did think "what tech company in Dallas makes people commute downtown?" when I was working there. Why are people in Toronto's suburbs not just working in the suburbs? Is it because the businesses there are still stuck in the old model of having all their offices downtown? If so, let's throw huge financial incentives at them to get them to move their offices to the suburbs. I've been mulling around an idea for a while of placing massive tax penalties on companies that hire people to work in a different county from where they live. Let's make employers pay ten times the income tax on every employee that lives outside the county where they work, and at the same time make it illegal for companies to make a current employee move or discriminate against a potential hire based on where they live. This will make them relocate to where their employees actually live. Or at least get them to switch as much of their workforce to remote as they can. I'm fine either way.