this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
107 points (91.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
638 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why would an employer care how far away their employees live, or compensate them for their travel?
Unless the employer also gets to decide where they can and can't live, why should they compensate them?
Commute obviously has an impact on overall satisfaction. In roles that can be done remote or in person you can effectively trade commute time for pay.
This logic can be extended to employees working in person with contrasting commute times. Thus op's question
Most of an employees job has perverse incentives
I don't think anyone is successfully taking advantage of longer commute time for more pay.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, commute time is already factored in to employees compensation. This happens in a few ways but one of the ways it doesn't happen is employees choosing to more farther away to make more money.