Do you believe "I cannot come into work because I cannot afford gas" will be viable?

[Poopymonster]

Wait, that's not a thing in every civilized country? Dayum. I get 19 cents per kilometer, no tax. Also 150 euros per month for other expenses.

It is.
/Iwentthere.

- - - Updated - - -

I have not gotten a job since 2017, because in interviews I lay out expenses and pay based on things like travel, commuting, leave, debate about pay and compensation.

Suffice it to say when you discuss to that degree you don't end up being looked upon favourably, but it beats being taken advantage of for years and years.

Last 2 interviews I had after formalities, "If I may, what's the payscale. What are you offering." Um, er. "You have things do to, I don't want to waste your time, if we get it out of the way up front it'll be faster for both of us."

One ended it right there. The other countered "Based on this interview, we might offer you more if you are exceptionally qualified." after my bullshit detector went off, "Then that gives us a ground floor to work from." at the end "My bottom line is X." They still called offering 2 bucks less an hour.

Fuck em, my semi fatass is making enough to cover my side of the household bills donating plasma twice a week.

[Shadowferal]

I had the opposite experience.
I had one off the cuff chat with a prospective employer, a warehouse Mgr for a tech company. One look at my resume and he flat out said with a shake of his head that I was over qualified. I've never heard that before. He clarified by saying it pays little better than min wage."
Ouch.

[Forogil]

Wait, that's not a thing in every civilized country?

That employer pays for your commute to work? No.

In some countries it's deductible from your own tax (to some extent).
The Netherlands have a special variant where the government has made that amount tax-exempt for the company - so your company could give you more, but it would taxed as salary. However, it also seems that not every company in the Netherlands pays the maximum tax-exempt amount.

It's also a trade-off for the government; people shouldn't take no or lower-paying jobs because of the commute-cost, but apart from that commute-cost doesn't really contribute. And as any other tax-deduction scheme there's sure to be some that misuse it - and a significant part of it will be spent on people with high income who could pay the cost themselves (it's easier to pass tax-deductions if the middle- and high-income earners also gain).

[Kraenen]

They probably won't, but I think it's a justifiable reason. An employer who doesn't let someone work remotely given due cause (like transportation being unavailable) is an unreasonable person.

[Elegiac]

Wait, that's not a thing in every civilized country? Dayum. I get 19 cents per kilometer, no tax. Also 150 euros per month for other expenses.

It isn't, sadly.

Then again, neither is compensating workers for having to use their personal resources (re: internet) to work from home. Employers in the US have a myriad of ways to nickel and dime their workers.

[MCMLXXXII]

That employer pays for your commute to work? No.

In some countries it's deductible from your own tax (to some extent).
The Netherlands have a special variant where the government has made that amount tax-exempt for the company - so your company could give you more, but it would taxed as salary. However, it also seems that not every company in the Netherlands pays the maximum tax-exempt amount.

It's also a trade-off for the government; people shouldn't take no or lower-paying jobs because of the commute-cost, but apart from that commute-cost doesn't really contribute. And as any other tax-deduction scheme there's sure to be some that misuse it - and a significant part of it will be spent on people with high income who could pay the cost themselves (it's easier to pass tax-deductions if the middle- and high-income earners also gain).

It isn't tax exempt for the company, it's tax exempt for the employee. And yes, if I chose public transportation as means to get to my working location, my employer would pay for that card.

[Forogil]

It isn't tax exempt for the company, it's tax exempt for the employee.

As far as I understand it is both (technically the other tax for the company is called a "health insurance"); and the employee has to know to not send in the tax.

But more importantly, as far as I understand, the company can chose whether to compensate the employers or not.

[MCMLXXXII]

As far as I understand it is both (technically the other tax for the company is called a "health insurance"); and the employee has to know to not send in the tax.

But more importantly, as far as I understand, the company can chose whether to compensate the employers or not.

It depends, some CAO's, collective employers-employees agreement per industry, make it mandatory. Some don't and I think the supermarket branch is one of them. Even if it isn't mandatory most companies do pay them. And yes technically it benefits the company too, because it one of those things that lessens profit, which automatically means less profit tax.

And the last few years employers pay all kind of benefits. For the first time in decades the unemployment rate is negative, meaning more jobs then jobseekers.

[Daedius]

It's viable if you commute long distance. I live 20 minutes from driving to work so the impact isn't hard on me, yet.

[Powerogue]

If employers paid people for commute time that feels like it'd motivate investment in infrastructure that makes that more efficient and motivate said employers to allow more people to just work from home.

[Elegiac]

If employers paid people for commute time that feels like it'd motivate investment in infrastructure that makes that more efficient and motivate said employers to allow more people to just work from home.

Bingo.

I know I keep banging the "car culture ruins everything" drum in discussions of American economic activity but it really is the case that expecting everyone to have a car and being able to commute for hours at a time with them produces really shitty infrastructural and economic results.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Bingo.

I know I keep banging the "car culture ruins everything" drum in discussions of American economic activity but it really is the case that expecting everyone to have a car and being able to commute for hours at a time with them produces really shitty infrastructural and economic results.

Car culture could be a lot less problematic just by increasing traffic infrastructure taxes on companies and requiring employers to at least share in the vehicle maintenance and transit costs of their employees. We'd start seeing more companies incentiving car pools, electrified vehicles and using public transit...not because it's better for their employees or the environment...but because it's better for their bottom line.

But of course, "taxation is theft" and all that

[Moadar]

The government should put its money where its mouth is. Offer to buy the electric equivalent of whatever vehicle someone owns and install the charging equipment in the person's home.

[Forogil]

Car culture could be a lot less problematic just by increasing traffic infrastructure taxes on companies and requiring employers to at least share in the vehicle maintenance and transit costs of their employees. We'd start seeing more companies incentiving car pools, electrified vehicles and using public transit...not because it's better for their employees or the environment...but because it's better for their bottom line.

Companies already know a good solution from their perspective for that, but it's very bad for everyone else.

The solution is called 'company towns' - and the reason it declined the last century is that people (not companies) chose to have their houses far from their employer.

- - - Updated - - -

The government should put its money where its mouth is. Offer to buy the electric equivalent of whatever vehicle someone owns and install the charging equipment in the person's home.

Many government have been giving rebates for electric cars and charging equipment for years (or just taxing them less than other cars), but it's also a matter of generating electricity - and other practical considerations (having charging equipment in apartments doesn't make sense).

People and government who haven't prepared - or have prepared less wisely - now face the cost.

[Poopymonster]

If employers paid people for commute time that feels like it'd motivate investment in infrastructure that makes that more efficient and motivate said employers to allow more people to just work from home.

That fancy office building needs people in it to justify the cost of having a fancy office building to put people in.

[Elegiac]

The government should put its money where its mouth is. Offer to buy the electric equivalent of whatever vehicle someone owns and install the charging equipment in the person's home.

Electric vehicles are ultimately not the solution, even if tax breaks for EV adoption are an important transitional step in resolving carbon emissions.

What the government *should* be doing is aiming to reduce dependence on cars entirely by creating more walkable living spaces and investing more in public transport.

[Endus]

Electric vehicles are ultimately not the solution, even if tax breaks for EV adoption are an important transitional step in resolving carbon emissions.

What the government *should* be doing is aiming to reduce dependence on cars entirely by creating more walkable living spaces and investing more in public transport.

The problem with this "should" is that you're dealing with a century of urban design that's already been done "wrong", and in many cases, it's not reversible, not without tearing a hell of a lot down. Like, at least 30% of an existing city, and that's on the low end. You need to insert a lot of residential complexes into what's currently commercial space, and a lot of commercial space into residential areas. Suburbs need to largely vanish, at least in the single-detached-home form, in favor of higher density, shrinking the city borders in the process (the more sprawl, the less walkable, and the more difficult to establish mass effective and efficient mass transit). This also isn't something you can do piecemeal; not really, not if you're expecting the problem to be solved in less than another century or so.

You can do small development projects that include mixed-use zoning, greater density, and street design that encourages walkability, but that's gonna improve things in that neighbourhood, not the city as a whole. And there's still greater issues with mass transit that operate at the city level which can't properly be addressed proactively, but have to reactively serve the city as it currently exists.

I agree we should have dense, urbanized cities with minimal suburb sprawl and a strong focus on walkability and minimizing personal vehicle use, but we're already deep down the rabbit hole in the Americas, and it's gonna cost about as much to fix that as it cost to build these cities the way they already are.

[Elegiac]

The problem with this "should" is that you're dealing with a century of urban design that's already been done "wrong", and in many cases, it's not reversible, not without tearing a hell of a lot down. Like, at least 30% of an existing city, and that's on the low end. You need to insert a lot of residential complexes into what's currently commercial space, and a lot of commercial space into residential areas. Suburbs need to largely vanish, at least in the single-detached-home form, in favor of higher density, shrinking the city borders in the process (the more sprawl, the less walkable, and the more difficult to establish mass effective and efficient mass transit). This also isn't something you can do piecemeal; not really, not if you're expecting the problem to be solved in less than another century or so.

You can do small development projects that include mixed-use zoning, greater density, and street design that encourages walkability, but that's gonna improve things in that neighbourhood, not the city as a whole. And there's still greater issues with mass transit that operate at the city level which can't properly be addressed proactively, but have to reactively serve the city as it currently exists.

I agree we should have dense, urbanized cities with minimal suburb sprawl and a strong focus on walkability and minimizing personal vehicle use, but we're already deep down the rabbit hole in the Americas, and it's gonna cost about as much to fix that as it cost to build these cities the way they already are.

Sounds like a great opportunity for economic revival by dumping a ton of money into public works projects vis a vis the New Deal, quite frankly.

[prwraith]

Man some employees need to be hounded at work to stay on task but are otherwise good employees. Sending them home? Dear god no

[Jastall]

That gas prices are too low in the US (in part due to the excise tax not being adjusted for inflation), and these prices will make people more aware of the fuel-consumption of their cars, and of alternatives (ride-sharing, mass-transit, hybrids, electric, moving, etc).

For comparison the prices in many countries in the EU are at least 30% higher.

Yes, I understand that this is unpopular and adapting to higher gas prices will be painful.

There are significant differences. Europe is built for public transport, having invested a lot more into engineering and building a robust network and usually requiring to travel far smaller distances within the country. Higher gas prices don't help them for sure but it also doesn't hurt them quite as much.

North America is built around cars almost entirely. Its public transport infrastructure is far less developed, people are more spread out, and distances required to travel typically much greater.

"Painful" doesn't do it justice. In many cases and places in NA the transition will be excruciating at best and basically impossible at worst.