3 ms·
This seems like it would have the opposite effect as it would allow for higher earners to work further out and decrease demand for in city housing.
by archgoon 7y ago
This seems like it would have the opposite effect as it would allow for higher earners to work further out and decrease demand for in city housing.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoIf an employer has to pay someone more if they live further away, then someone who lives closer is a preferable candidate for the job. So a person who was born into a family that already lives near offices or city centers has an advantage over someone who was born further away (typically lower cost of living areas).
- imtringued 7y agoCompanies can't conjure money out of nothing. If they have to pay X dollars for your commute then they have X dollars less to pay you.
- dredmorbius 7y agoFlipside: worker's noncompensated contributions to employment aren't free. Ulitmately, labour benefits the business, and surplus accrues to the business. Changing costs mean a shifting balance of inputs (labour, capital). But if your firm isn't profitable whilst paying a living and sustaining wage to its workers, then what exists isn't a profit-making enterprise, but a charity, on behalf of the owners, subsidised by the workers. There's no law that says a non-viable business has a right to continue operations.