3 ms·
I think your argument makes some sense when it comes to high-paid, salaried jobs. I don't think this is the reality for low-wage earners, however. There often e
by cardamomo 4y ago
I think your argument makes some sense when it comes to high-paid, salaried jobs. I don't think this is the reality for low-wage earners, however. There often exists a significant gap between their pay and a livable wage for the area immediately around their workplace.
- maxerickson 4y agoI guess I maybe implied an argument, but I didn't directly make an argument, I put forth a scenario and asked a question. You've not answered the question, instead pointing out that some people have wages that encourage a commute (at the moment we can probably at least assume that they are choosing that job over other choices, for reasons left unexplored as of yet).
- cardamomo 4y agoI'm arguing that, within many major urban areas, wage levels in certain classes of work necessitate a commute. Read the section "A persistent spatial mismatch for American low-wage workers" in this report: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/expanding-supply-affordable-housing-low-wage-workers/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/expanding-supply-af...
- maxerickson 4y agoRight, we generally have terrible housing policy, but I still don't see an articulated theory of how employers should compensate workers that make different choices. Like, the low paying jobs that don't have nearby housing options probably do have to increase compensation to make up for the lack of housing options. Why is it good policy to force the employer to treat the commute as part of the work day vs working to improve the generally available housing and transport options?