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?
Let’s make generalizations to answer the bigger problem here.
Most jobs that people are talking about are in cities.
Some people choose to not live right in the middle of a city for various reasons, but still want that job. They may live in a nearby community, the edge of the city, a county or two over, etc.
Predatory companies like Amazon resolve this by telling someone like Ryan homes to build a few 300 house communities right next to their new warehouse, resolving the issue and making their own non-city town. Normal companies do not have this ability.
There has to be a balance.
Businesses need to not be involved in commute repayment. They should instead invest into their local communities to make them more desirable to live in.
“choose” is doing a lot of work there. Have you priced housing lately? The real “choice” I see is that companies “choose” their location such that their employees can’t afford to live nearby on the wages they’re earning, or the companies “choose” to pay employees to little in wages to afford to live nearby.
You could also say the employees choose to work for the company that’s not paying them enough. Of course they have constraints in how many jobs there are and how many other job seekers exist and which jobs they are qualified for… but then the problem complexity explodes to “how do we build a fair society” very quickly.
although it is also true that near areas with lots of jobs rents will be higher and this is a case where the bourgeoise is actually relatively innocent and landlords are to blame instead. This is to a far lesser extent than it is for the proletariat an issue for the bourgeoise as it makes hiring more difficult to hire and takes money out of the economy that would likely otherwise be spent on commodities