3 ms·
>>So basically the people who choose to live far away get subsidized? Sure, You can put it this way - if workers living close have problem with that they can m
by v-erne 4y ago
>>So basically the people who choose to live far away get subsidized?
Sure, You can put it this way - if workers living close have problem with that they can move or select another employer (if they prefer commuting to actually working)
>> They work fewer hours for the same pay.
I would argue that You are using definition of work time that is beneficial for employers. For me every minute of commute to work is due to employers order (You have to be where I tell You). And thus is not owned by the employee.
- refurb 4y agoThis is entirely a non-workable solution. It’s basically a race to the bottom. If I live 500 km away can I just take a train ride in, stay 30 min then get back on the train ride home and collect a full paycheck? If so, please let me know how to apply.
- v-erne 4y ago>> It’s basically a race to the bottom. It only is if You ignore constraints that exist in real live (as opposed to thought models of economic systems). >>If I live 500 km away can I just take a train ride in, stay 30 min then get back on the train ride home and collect a full paycheck? Yes, you can try, but first You have to find employer that is charitable enough to pay You for doing nothing (I have said nothing in my post about forcing employers to take on grifters, just asked to recognize that commute is hidden cost for employees and should be normalized).