Because that just limits people’s ability to find employment.
Not really? In cities with actual functional public transit, you can go way further than you can with a car. In cities with reasonable density, the stuff you need, including job opportunities, aren’t 2 hours away to begin with. The problem isn’t incentivizing short commutes.
Even in my city with mediocre transit, and that’s got way more sprawl than necessary for the population, I can cross the city, a distance of 20 miles/31km, using transit, in 1.5hrs. The problem isn’t incentivizing short commutes.
I’ve had jobs where I lived 10 minutes away, and took a different job with a further commute because it paid significantly more.
How much further? 30 mins? 2 hours? Let me guess, you used a car because transit and density is bad?
Should an employee have to up and move their house every time they change employers, or should employees be able to decide if a long commute is worth it to them based on the offer?
That’s a load question, a strawman, and a black or white fallacy. It isn’t an either/or, and framing it as if it is is dishonest.
HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I would argue yours is strawman - you are arguing against a city with quality public transportation which is not always the case and wasn’t the original arguement.
I think the biggest point the other poster is arguing is that personal choice comes into play. It’s not the employers job to tell you how to get to work, nor is it their responsibility if you want to take a job a distance from your house - its their job to find the best candidate who is willing to do the job offered.
You also argue against the argument that people won’t move house every time they change job. It sounds extreme, but it is always an option for the employee and a part of free choice.
JamesFire@lemmy.world 9 months ago
It should be, and we should be making those changes, so arguing that something is only a problem if the given situation really should be temporary isn’t a very good argument. Arguing that this change is a problem (It still isn’t for the majority of people) if we’re dealing with problems in other areas (So this change itself isn’t even the problem, it just exacerbates another one, that we should be fixing anyway), isn’t a very good argument.
“Personal Choice” is only an argument when it doesn’t affect other people. Having a 2 hour commute by car definitely does. And even if it didn’t, it has a large effect on the person doing it. And we block/disincentivize people from doing other harmful things. Why is this one special?
Good thing nobody suggested it was.
So commutes should be unpaid, despite the only reason you do it is because of work? Why are commutes different from other work? They pay when you’re moving between jobsites, why is this different? “Employers don’t have control over it”? Did you know relocation packages are a thing? Lobbying for loosened zoning, so we can have higher density? Better public transit? They have far from 0 control over it.
And they need to include a variety of circumstances, one of which is the employee’s proximity to any jobsites, because how long it takes them to get there is very much relevant in many industries. And in the ones it isn’t, remote work is quite often possible.
I didn’t though. In fact, if you’re planning on a 2 hour commute, you should be considering moving closer, or not taking that job.
We also block people from purchasing food with bleach in it. That’s part of free choice, isn’t it? Why is this choice so important that it should be up to the person to make? The externalities of having a 2 hour commute are massive, and even just the effects on the person themselves are also huge. Since these 2 hour commutes are mostly done by car, that’s a huge mental load on the person doing the commute, and a lot of emissions, which we should be avoiding.
No, people should not be free to choose a 2 hour car commute.