An hour spent commuting is 1/16th of your daily life, and that hour is by far the biggest risk to your life every day. You should be getting triple pay to ameliorate the hazard risk it represents.

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I apologize if it felt like a personal attack. It was more dripping sarcasm. But the reason for the employees being so randomly located is because there is no incentive from the employer. Where couples work is often influenced by where the other partner works unless you are in the enviable position where both have great jobs. So when someone gets an incredible opportunity on the other side of the country the other spouse does not stay with their job and take a flight to commute each day. They look for work closer to that great opportunity. Similarly someone married to someone in the military which ironically does have incentives to live close by.

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You’re talking about giant differences in location (cross-country) which, of course, would need some hard decisions to be made. I’m talking about realistic compromises that may have to be made between a couple with very different work locations in the same general area. When I talked about Lincoln vs Omaha, NE, those two cities are an hour apart. But could be a 30-minute commute in opposite directions for each. Maybe one person works in downtown Chicago, while the other works in the O’Hare airport. Maybe people work in two different boroughs of NYC. If the employer incentived an employee to live nearby, what about their family who works across town? Things crumble apart with that.

      • HubertManne@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not really. If one spouses makes significantly more than the other it makes sense to go near that spouses work and the other one to find a job close by when the local incentive is in place. The distances was just an example to show that decisions of a couple will line up with the major earner and when there is incentive the other will change jobs.

        • spongebue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          From a financial perspective, and IF one does make significantly more, I guess maybe.

          From a relationship perspective, using my 2x 30 minute commutes for workplaces an hour apart example, if I had to take two additional hours out of my day away from home every work day, while my partner had to take 2 minutes… Woof. Even if there’s a perfectly logical financial reason that’s hard not to feel resentment over.

          • HubertManne@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            again the idea is given the incentive the other spouse would find it worthwhile to change jobs by getting an equivalent one local to the others. Remember both jobs are incentivizing living locally not just the one spouses.