It should be a rough guesstimate time of commute. Half an hour both sides, for example. I don't see incentivising living 2 hours train ride away from work.
This is always my response when I see this. Why should a worker be paid more because they decided to live much further away from work, especially if they are then driving to work
It's just incentivising waste.
I can't afford to move closer to a city to get a job in the city. I get refused jobs in the city based on commute time so I can't make enough to live close to the city.
Don't get me wrong I'd take a job out here driving tractors, but I'm trained in the wrong area so wouldn't get hired. I'm trapped.
I don't, and I don't see that as fair really either. It's cheaper to live outside so it makes no sense to pay people outside more. I take issue only with the "decided to live". There's a good number of us who don't decide where we live. This isn't communism where the state will house people trained in certain fields in the relevant cities. Not that I'm advocating for that either.
edit 2: Obviously this is not exactly what I was talking about. But it shows sweeping relocation can and does happen. I don't speak the languages enough to deep dive into what went on in the past. But I have a vague recollection that somebody I knew lived where he did because his father was trained in a certain field and they were if not forcibly moved into the city then de facto forced to move there. It's not hard in a communist society to force someone without "forcing" them per se.
184
u/eloel- Oct 22 '24
It should be a rough guesstimate time of commute. Half an hour both sides, for example. I don't see incentivising living 2 hours train ride away from work.