this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
1004 points (98.1% liked)

Work Reform

10032 readers
556 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AdmiralShat@programming.dev 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] wavebeam@lemmy.world 6 points 1 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

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Why would the employers care?