Ask HN: Would criminalizing long commutes improve quality of life?
38 comments
No, all we need are the proper incentives and environments.
Build walkable cities, build office parks next to high-density residential housing and train-stations and do away with tax credits for commuting.
We have something called "Pendlerpauschale" in Austria that grants you tax-credits the longer you have to commute, which incentives people to buy houses in rural, underdeveloped areas. Naturally living in underdeveloped areas comes with a lot of costs all of society has to bear (mostly building and maintaining infrastructure barely anyone uses).
Build walkable cities, build office parks next to high-density residential housing and train-stations and do away with tax credits for commuting.
We have something called "Pendlerpauschale" in Austria that grants you tax-credits the longer you have to commute, which incentives people to buy houses in rural, underdeveloped areas. Naturally living in underdeveloped areas comes with a lot of costs all of society has to bear (mostly building and maintaining infrastructure barely anyone uses).
so, you want to set up a system where people change when they live every time they change their job? is this a precursor to company towns?
Would you accept a sewage treatment plant in your neighborhood? How about a metal or semiconductor foundry? Medical waste incinerator? Industrial workers also deserve short commutes between home and work.
Would you accept a sewage treatment plant in your neighborhood? How about a metal or semiconductor foundry? Medical waste incinerator? Industrial workers also deserve short commutes between home and work.
I live in Linz, Austria. This city is as industrial as it gets. It grew around a steel foundry and half the city is housing originally built for the foundry's workers.
It's actually pretty livable and brought the region wealth and lots of modern tech jobs.
It's actually pretty livable and brought the region wealth and lots of modern tech jobs.
The biggest causes are:
(a) Society not having caught up with the 21st century, where travelling to an office is not longer necessary (we'll get to production factories in a moment)
(b) People wanting to live where everyone else lives for great availability of, well, everything. A recursive problem
If we solved (a), (b) would follow. There's no need for force, it's a solvable problem. It's just that there are entrenched entities that don't want it solved.
As for work that requires physical presence, there are two categories I can think of:
1. Factories. i.e. Places that produce something
2. Retail that caters to people
Again, (2) would be solved after (a). (1) is a small number of people, and doesn't need solving, especially since most factory workers live locally anyway.
(a) Society not having caught up with the 21st century, where travelling to an office is not longer necessary (we'll get to production factories in a moment)
(b) People wanting to live where everyone else lives for great availability of, well, everything. A recursive problem
If we solved (a), (b) would follow. There's no need for force, it's a solvable problem. It's just that there are entrenched entities that don't want it solved.
As for work that requires physical presence, there are two categories I can think of:
1. Factories. i.e. Places that produce something
2. Retail that caters to people
Again, (2) would be solved after (a). (1) is a small number of people, and doesn't need solving, especially since most factory workers live locally anyway.
What would really help is making it illegal for companies to deny remote work (except for jobs where physical presence is obviously needed). That way many people wouldn’t have to commute, and those who do could travel much faster with less cars on the roads. And we could all breathe cleaner air and suffer less global warming. That we continue to commute to office jobs is grotesque and evil.
No. It would make it worse. It would force me to either have a small selection of companies to cost from it force me to move. And what happens if my spouse works in the opposite direction?
Long commutes are generally elective. And people generally elect them because they believe they have a better quality of life where they live.
It sounds like a good way to prevent you from switching to a better job that’s a 16 minute commute.
There would be a tremendous reduction in quality of life.
Criminalizing makes no sense whatsoever. Treating commute as work time could have interesting consequences, though.
A company would avoid hiring people with long commutes, and people with long commutes would most likely be the ones who need the job the most. So you've hurt poor people further.
You're probably right. A the same time, companies with offices far away from urban zones would have a good rason to reconsider their RTO policies.
This all is academic talk though as there are no plans for either criminalizing long commutes or transferring their costs on employers.
This all is academic talk though as there are no plans for either criminalizing long commutes or transferring their costs on employers.
Would outlawing a person’s job improve their quality of life?
I don't agree with criminalizing long commutes, nor do I agree with the minimum wage, which is a similar overstep from the government into employer-employee relationships. However, I agree with the spirit of both (protecting a worker), and think that an employment contract should be required to state the value of each party's consideration (what they're exchanging).
In other words, an employer should be required to state the forecasted value (measured in profit, updated annually) of the labor they are purchasing. As it stands, very few workers know their value to the company, which severely harms their ability to negotiate. An employee should know how exactly how much a company is profiting from their labor. If this information asymmetry is resolved, I don't think there would be a need for many employment regulations, including minimum wages, or hypothetical restrictions on long commutes, because workers will automatically have a far better negotiating position.
In other words, an employer should be required to state the forecasted value (measured in profit, updated annually) of the labor they are purchasing. As it stands, very few workers know their value to the company, which severely harms their ability to negotiate. An employee should know how exactly how much a company is profiting from their labor. If this information asymmetry is resolved, I don't think there would be a need for many employment regulations, including minimum wages, or hypothetical restrictions on long commutes, because workers will automatically have a far better negotiating position.
> nor do I agree with the minimum wage, which is a similar overstep from the government into employer-employee relationships.
Read up on the history of the minimum wage in the US. It was demanded by striking workers who were tired of working in sweatshops for terrible pay.[0]
By the way, the 40-hour workweek also came about due to worker strikes. Would you prefer we all go back to working 7 days a week?
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_S...
Read up on the history of the minimum wage in the US. It was demanded by striking workers who were tired of working in sweatshops for terrible pay.[0]
By the way, the 40-hour workweek also came about due to worker strikes. Would you prefer we all go back to working 7 days a week?
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_S...
And it demonstrably costs jobs and shuts down businesses so there are fewer jobs.
Just because you don't like basic supply and demand market forces doesn't mean you can just wave your hand and make them disappear.
Just because you don't like basic supply and demand market forces doesn't mean you can just wave your hand and make them disappear.
I think you're having a kneejerk reaction to the first sentence. Read the rest of the post, where I propose how workers could be protected by less controlling laws.
Yeah, it’s an interesting idea but I still don’t think it’s viable because this already done in some industries and comes with its own problems.
One high-profile example is “Hollywood” accounting for residuals paid out to actors and staff on projects. Peter Jackson sued New Line cinema because they argued that they lost millions making Lord of the Rings and therefore didn’t have any money to pay his residual, blatant manipulation and this happens all the time. Companies are good at moving cash around the world to avoid paying taxes, this same mechanism could easily be used to show workers a manipulated version of their value. Who really trusts their employer to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
One high-profile example is “Hollywood” accounting for residuals paid out to actors and staff on projects. Peter Jackson sued New Line cinema because they argued that they lost millions making Lord of the Rings and therefore didn’t have any money to pay his residual, blatant manipulation and this happens all the time. Companies are good at moving cash around the world to avoid paying taxes, this same mechanism could easily be used to show workers a manipulated version of their value. Who really trusts their employer to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
There is much more freedom when they don't have to work to support a lie though. I'd rather a dishonest person or company have to put in a lot of work to defraud someone, than to have no scrutiny whatsoever.
I agree that we need more transparency on pay and how it impacts the bottom line, even just being able to publicly post total comp on all employees would dramatically change the tone of the conversation.
That said, I don’t think there’s anything dishonest about forcing employers to pay living wages, particularly with inflation as it’s been.
That said, I don’t think there’s anything dishonest about forcing employers to pay living wages, particularly with inflation as it’s been.
Maybe workers will strike for... more detailed information about each worker's individual profit margin?
What about positions that are considered negative value usually called "cost centers".
What about the fact that higher educated skilled workers are going to require bigger slices of the pie that will enviably reduce the money available to lower skilled workers? Even though this happens everywhere all the time people tend to act poorly when it is brought attention to.
I've found in my life that low skilled/entry people often are surprisingly unaware of just how much lower paid they are than people with college degrees/skills/experience. Usually when they find out they either quit or silent quit and have to be fired.
Not 100% disagreeing or anything, just pointing out its more complicated than it seems.
What about the fact that higher educated skilled workers are going to require bigger slices of the pie that will enviably reduce the money available to lower skilled workers? Even though this happens everywhere all the time people tend to act poorly when it is brought attention to.
I've found in my life that low skilled/entry people often are surprisingly unaware of just how much lower paid they are than people with college degrees/skills/experience. Usually when they find out they either quit or silent quit and have to be fired.
Not 100% disagreeing or anything, just pointing out its more complicated than it seems.
Yeah these are good points, and I think a lot of the complicated details would need to be worked out in practice.
>What about positions that are considered negative value usually called "cost centers".
I think if finance people can get together to determine FMV of a company's private shares, they can determine how much employees in a cost center contribute to profit. There would be models and assumptions that would be generally correct to make the numbers add up.
>What about the fact that higher educated skilled workers are going to require bigger slices of the pie that will enviably reduce the money available to lower skilled workers?
No idea, but my gut says that this is a correction.
>What about positions that are considered negative value usually called "cost centers".
I think if finance people can get together to determine FMV of a company's private shares, they can determine how much employees in a cost center contribute to profit. There would be models and assumptions that would be generally correct to make the numbers add up.
>What about the fact that higher educated skilled workers are going to require bigger slices of the pie that will enviably reduce the money available to lower skilled workers?
No idea, but my gut says that this is a correction.
And if I could breath underwater I wouldn't need a scuba tank.
Is your point that having a new consideration clause to enforceable employment contracts is as impossible as a person breathing underwater? Not that you think it's a bad idea, just that it can't be done?
What is your goal? Why is that your goal?
Why criminalise long commutes, specifically?
Have you considered other factors which lead to long commutes?
- Low development density.
- Poor transit alternatives: inconvenient locations, intervals, amenities, service hours, costs, transfers, crime, ...)
- Low walkability and bikeability.
- High cost of housing.
- Low personal transportation costs (vehicles, fuel, registration, insurance, parking, maintenance).
- Poor employment options and lack of adoption of remote or flex-time schedules.
- Overly centralised employment and/or manufacturing.
- Numerous economic, political, and cultural dynamics incentivising wasteful and inefficient lifestyles.
In many ways, growth of the private automobile was based on or accelerated these tendencies, sometimes through criminal collusion.[1] During early industrialisation, streetcars and commuter rail (often electrified) extended the reach of towns from a mile or two across to many miles in extant. Commuter rail enabled "bedroom community" suburbs 25--50 miles from downtowns (40--80 km). On-premesis dormatories were also common (and remain so in places such as China), see the Fuggerei in Augsburg, Germany.[2]
Generally, if you want people to do less of some thing, the best way is either to make that thing more expensive, or to make its alternatives less expensive and/or more appealing. COVID-19 did this, in the noneconomic sense of making tightly-packed offices a health risk and remote work through phone, Zoom, and cloud-based computing a more attractive alternative.
Think though what you want to achieve and how you might best get there, though.
________________________________
Notes:
1. E.g., the General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...>
2. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuggerei>
Why criminalise long commutes, specifically?
Have you considered other factors which lead to long commutes?
- Low development density.
- Poor transit alternatives: inconvenient locations, intervals, amenities, service hours, costs, transfers, crime, ...)
- Low walkability and bikeability.
- High cost of housing.
- Low personal transportation costs (vehicles, fuel, registration, insurance, parking, maintenance).
- Poor employment options and lack of adoption of remote or flex-time schedules.
- Overly centralised employment and/or manufacturing.
- Numerous economic, political, and cultural dynamics incentivising wasteful and inefficient lifestyles.
In many ways, growth of the private automobile was based on or accelerated these tendencies, sometimes through criminal collusion.[1] During early industrialisation, streetcars and commuter rail (often electrified) extended the reach of towns from a mile or two across to many miles in extant. Commuter rail enabled "bedroom community" suburbs 25--50 miles from downtowns (40--80 km). On-premesis dormatories were also common (and remain so in places such as China), see the Fuggerei in Augsburg, Germany.[2]
Generally, if you want people to do less of some thing, the best way is either to make that thing more expensive, or to make its alternatives less expensive and/or more appealing. COVID-19 did this, in the noneconomic sense of making tightly-packed offices a health risk and remote work through phone, Zoom, and cloud-based computing a more attractive alternative.
Think though what you want to achieve and how you might best get there, though.
________________________________
Notes:
1. E.g., the General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...>
2. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuggerei>
Long as in distance or long as in time? If a road is closed so you need to take a detour (either in car or bus) have you committed a crime that morning?
A cleaner policy would be to ban cars. Probably need a transition in between, but that's definitely the destination. In the year 3000 our asses better not be sitting in traffic in single-passenger vehicles w/ 3 seats empty still for some reason.
Why do they need to be criminalized in the first place?
Nobody wants a long commute. You know why people do it? Obviously you can think of it if you try for five seconds. Criminalizing commuting blames the victim of the housing crisis.
Here’s a less cruel and weird law that totally solves the problem. When a city permits a company to build a place for a person to work (an office seat for example or a factory job) the city must also permit a house or apartment. Ya know so the person who works there can live there without displacing someone else. Because the guy with the shiny new job can afford an expensive place to live. You know who can’t? The bus driver who hasn’t had a raise in ten years. The librarian. The school teacher. The grocery store checker. They all get pushed further and further away. You think they like waking up at five to get to work by 8?
People commute to Mountain View CA because the city added 30,000 jobs and zero new houses for a decade. Had the city been forced by law to permit the housing it 100% would have gotten built. There was space, there were plans, there were requests. The city did not permit the construction. If you don’t believe me see the vacant lot at 1601 Bayshore pkwy. Zoned for hotel, a vacant muddy lot because nobody wants or needs a hotel there. You know what people want and need? A 50 story dense condo building. You know why it doesn’t exist? Because it is not permitted by the city. (by the way permit is a fun word. Consider for a few moments the two meanings that apply in this case and how they collapse into one)
But never mind, blame the victims.
Here’s a less cruel and weird law that totally solves the problem. When a city permits a company to build a place for a person to work (an office seat for example or a factory job) the city must also permit a house or apartment. Ya know so the person who works there can live there without displacing someone else. Because the guy with the shiny new job can afford an expensive place to live. You know who can’t? The bus driver who hasn’t had a raise in ten years. The librarian. The school teacher. The grocery store checker. They all get pushed further and further away. You think they like waking up at five to get to work by 8?
People commute to Mountain View CA because the city added 30,000 jobs and zero new houses for a decade. Had the city been forced by law to permit the housing it 100% would have gotten built. There was space, there were plans, there were requests. The city did not permit the construction. If you don’t believe me see the vacant lot at 1601 Bayshore pkwy. Zoned for hotel, a vacant muddy lot because nobody wants or needs a hotel there. You know what people want and need? A 50 story dense condo building. You know why it doesn’t exist? Because it is not permitted by the city. (by the way permit is a fun word. Consider for a few moments the two meanings that apply in this case and how they collapse into one)
But never mind, blame the victims.
Don't you think making long commutes a crime would put more pressure on a city like Mountain View CA to provide more housing?
Every now and then I Facebook conspiracy nuts talking about how “15 minute cities” are a way for Big Government to enforce a police state and take away people’s freedom of movement. I always have a good laugh because nobody is actually daft enough to seriously consider using the police to force through an idea that is so squarely meant to be a guide for urban planning. I’d imagine that the fantasy of a police state enforced by commuter limitations is squarely the hobby of that particular conspiracy niche.
So if I want to get a better job I have to limit myself to limit myself to work-at-home jobs, or find a job that is not a long commute away, or I have to move?
This is a horrible idea. I have had commutes up to almost 2 hours each way, because my line of work was limited and not at all work from home able. I chose to live in a smaller town, yes. But i dont feel i should be forced to live in a big city with crazy home prices just because my job cant be in a smaller town. Im a professional, and not all professions have offices like mcdonalds have food places. I feel i pay the price enough with gas and tires and brakes.
How would this impact working from home?