[swatcoder]

Because (thank goodness) employers don’t have a say in where you live or what your commute looks like.

If you want a long train commute because you enjoy audiobooks and living near woodlands, great. If you want a studio apartment in the building next to the office, great. If you live halfway across the city but are already dropping your kid off at school next to the office, great.

The employer doesn’t need to know or become invested in any of those choices. Otherwise, we end up on a road where employers push for you to live in ways that are most appropriate to their financial interests. No thanks.

That said, many employers do offer things like universally available metro passes or gas cards as a token acknowledgment of commute costs more broadly. That seems like a good balance of autonomy and support.

[dehrmann]

The WFH corollary is if your employer started paying for a WFH spare bedroom (which almost certainly costs more than office space for one desk), they'd only pay you for median (at best) rent for that room. Why should they pay for a bedroom in SF when you could just as easily be in Akron.

[witheld]

Just cap the commute costs to the mean of the commute cost of local businesses.

[treis]

That just adds one more cost to doing business. And a potentially expensive one if it goes to litigation.

Money for work is simple and easy for both sides.