• conno02@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    congratulations! companies now have motivation to hire people as close as possible to the workplace, as well as fire those who live further than everywhere else!

    those optimizing fucks would run that idea into the ground, i think

    • noerdman@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t you dare destroy my plan to move away from work to spend a full paid working day commuting!

      • conno02@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        they’ll pick the most efficient option-- to them, it’s not “people HAVE to live this far away or less”. it’s “alright, who lives the farthest away and are potential new hires closer”. basically, they’d define “near” based on where employees live and where job applicants live.

        it’d result in a world where the people who can afford to live closer than their coworkers are the people with more job security. it’d be more wealth inequality

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This would be so shit, yeah.

      In a later comment you imagine housing near the workplace to be an expensive way to boost your resume.

      I imagine us one step closer to company towns. Housing thats owned and operated by an LLC connected to your workplace and housing issues and workplace issues become one and the same.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see the issue - company towns worked out great, right?

      …right?

      …oh no…

      …oh no no ^no ^^no ^^^no ^^^^no ^^^^^no ^^^^^^no