[shahbaby]

I think people should get paid for the time they spend commuting too and from work.

Companies would change their tune on WFH real quick if that were the case.

[CalRobert]

You just made sure only people who can afford to live near work are hired.

[chroma205]

> You just made sure only people who can afford to live near work are hired.

And what’s wrong with that?

Is every person on earth entitled to a job?

If yes, voice your concern with your local government.

[Rebelgecko]

I don't think we should incentivize people to have longer commutes

[vladvasiliu]

That "incentive" already exists in the form of cheaper housing the further away you go.

I agree that commuting should be considered as part of "work", but I always took into account commute time when considering job opportunities. The pay obviously never had an explicit "commute" line, but my math was "this job + this commute for this pay". Figure if it's worth it or not.

[kelseyfrog]

I don't think people should be doing unpaid labor. What's the win-win?

[kaashif]

That surely already is the case. I pay more for rent to live closer to work. People who live further away don't.

If you want to get paid more, negotiate it.

Seems like a non issue to me.

[tirant]

You can get paid for that. You just need to negotiate it with your employer. It’s not easy, specially if they have other candidates.

[IAmBroom]

"It's not easy"... "Nearly impossible" is another word for it.

[energy123]

Everyone already does. If a job involves picking up toxic sludge, commuting long distances, or any other badness factors, you're going to get paid more because the labor market will clear at a higher price. This is how all markets function, the labor market is no exception. I believe governments should fix market failures, but this isn't an example of a market failure.

You could maybe make an argument only for minimum wage jobs as a special case, because the price for labor can't freely adjust downwards if you force companies to also pay for commute.

[IAmBroom]

The Efficient Market Hypothesis is an approximation at best, and fails hard at labor issues.

Employee salaries don't fluctuate continuously. In most cases, labor loading - the number of warm bodies paid to be there 9-5 - can't fluctuate much, quickly (with the exception of catastrophic business failure). Salaries and wages almost never go downwards for employees already hired. Etc.