Suppose there are two employees: Alice and Bob, who do the same job at the same factory. Alice has a 10 minute (20RT) commute, Bob commutes 35 minutes(70RT).
If you’re the owner of the factory, would you compensate them for their commutes? How would you do it?
The answer is they don’t compensate them, because that would be silly.
Why? Bob has higher costs and longer preparation time for work.
In economic theory, the job is worth less to Bob, and he should be compensated more for taking it.
Is it fair that Bob should subsidise the company’s labor costs?
Bob’s labor also incurs greater costs on the communal infrastructure (roads, pollution, gas, etc), why should the company not also have a higher burden (higher tax) to compensate the commons for that?
Because the simplest option for the company is not to hire Bob.
Bob chose to live and work where he does, he can live with the consequences of his choices.
I don’t feel sorry for bob.
But the question is not what is simplest for the company. Arguably it would be even simpler for the company not to pay Bob, or anyone for that matter, they could also simplify a lot with not bothering with doing anything beside extracting money from people, slavery and robbery are very simple.
If we change the viewpoint from people living to serve companies, we might arrive at different conclusions, and maybe even a society better suited for humans, rather than companies.
Bob lives where they do because that’s what they can afford that will fulfill their needs. If you want them to work for you, make an attractive offer. Compensating for a commute is one way to do that.