• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    15
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This would create an issue where they only hire people in close proximity. This is terrible, for a number of reasons.

    Nepotism gets exponentially worse and is then excused, poor areas will be effected the most because they lack businesses

    I think a better solution is allowing people who have longer commutes to write it off on their taxes. This prevents the issues above

    • @Acters
      link
      41 year ago

      Subsidize based on type of transportation used? Public transit is mostly subsidized, and private transportation is the least subsidized. This would make employers seek out poorer people.

      • Hildegarde
        link
        81 year ago

        Private transportation is not the least subsidized. The government spends ridiculous sums of money to maintain infrastructure specifically for cars.

        • @wavebeam
          link
          61 year ago

          I think they’re saying kind of the opposite, they’re proposing that the employer be assisted in payroll by the government to hire folks, and they get more assistance for people with less commute impact?

          Idk, most of these solutions boil down to UBI with extra steps imo. Once we get much further up the chain than “workers shouldn’t be burdened by commutes” then the obvious answer is to pay people to not need cars and that’s a lot like UBI, and I’d prefer we just do that than make it more complicated

      • @psud
        link
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        When I studied sociology, the common time spent commuting was generally 1 hour each way.

        My own commute by public transport or bicycle is 50 minutes to 1 hr