It could be worse than that. If your employer were to pay you specifically for the time it takes you to commute, then the only rational thing to do (assuming you don't care all that much where you live) is to find the cheapest house, far from your office. If you commute 2 hours each way, your employer has to compensate you for 4 extra hours of work per day, and, to make matters better, you're saving on housing costs.
But if you move to the city center and now have a 15-minute commute, your housing costs have likely gone up a lot, and your employer is now only paying you for 30 minutes of commute time per day.
Now, you could say that an employer wouldn't do it this way; they'd basically just give everyone a fixed "commute time stipend", and let people "spend" it how they wish: either on an actual longer commute, or on higher housing costs that shorten the commute. That's probably more fair in the case where the office is in a city center. But if it's the reverse, and the office is out in a cheap suburb, then it perhaps becomes more fair again to pay for the actual amount of time in someone's commute.
> then the only rational thing to do (assuming you don't care all that much where you live) is to find the cheapest house, far from your office
I don't know what you mean by "rational" but it sounds like there's a hidden assumption that the only thing with value in life is cash. If your life is completely devoid of anything outside of work, then, sure, I guess that makes sense. But I have hobbies, I have a child, I have a spouse, and time spent outside of work is extremely valuable. If I commute 2 hours each way, I get less sleep, I don't have time to cook so I eat drive-through garbage, I barely see my spouse, I leave home before my child is awake and return after bedtime. If you're still only focused on the cash, I'll note that my mental and physical health will degrade quite rapidly under this condition, which will impact my work performance, which will eventually cost me my job. To me, "rational" is not a synonym of "short-sighted profit-seeking," but that's how you're using it.
I guess you missed the "assuming you don't care all that much where you live" parenthetical, even though you quoted it.
You seem to be doing that a lot in these threads; ignoring parts of what other people say so you have something to argue about. Please stop doing that.
Nope, didn't miss that, but "where you live" doesn't capture my point. It's not just about where you live, but how you value your time. You'll note that I didn't mention location as a consideration, as that was already covered in the parenthetical.
But if you move to the city center and now have a 15-minute commute, your housing costs have likely gone up a lot, and your employer is now only paying you for 30 minutes of commute time per day.
Now, you could say that an employer wouldn't do it this way; they'd basically just give everyone a fixed "commute time stipend", and let people "spend" it how they wish: either on an actual longer commute, or on higher housing costs that shorten the commute. That's probably more fair in the case where the office is in a city center. But if it's the reverse, and the office is out in a cheap suburb, then it perhaps becomes more fair again to pay for the actual amount of time in someone's commute.