• Asifall@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the primary issue though is that it incentivizes businesses to only hire people who live nearby. On the one hand that’s good because it’s good for the environment, but on the other hand it means I can’t decide to move further away from my employer without risking being fired. This is a bigger problem if your house has multiple working adults.

    We could mitigate that by forbidding companies from firing employees who move further away but stay within some reasonable distance, but that then creates an incentive to move as far away from your job as possible to make that extra income.

    So, how do you compensate employees for their commutes without restricting where they can live or creating an adverse incentive?

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think that would work for most companies. The education demands at this point make it impossible to get all the knowledge worker/white collar jobs you need from a 15 mile radius, unless you’re in the middle of a city. They’ll be able to hire exclusively local for their blue collar positions – but they already do that anyway. Companies would not pay thousands for relocation from far away states if they could fill the position easily locally.

      I think the workers, at least white collar, really hold the cards here.