This is a novel idea, but introduces worse problems of discrimination. You should not use candidates address or commute as criteria in hiring.
I do see companies set up satellite or second offices. I do wonder if an companies of scale use proximities and travel time to influence renewing leases or moving office buildings. What do these formulas look like? What data do they use?
>You should not use candidates address or commute as criteria in hiring.
Why not? You claim it like a truth without justifying it: A person living near a restaurant that want a job there should get it over someone just as qualified in the opposite end of the city.
I raise the topic of discrimination and instead of addressing it, you respond with a simple example. The person who creates the straw man should fill it.
If you use any criteria other than the qualifications of the job, you open yourself up to accusations of discrimination. Rightly so.
Outside of government, I haven’t seen equally qualified candidates. When government organizations achieves this, they do it be using fixed duration “contests”. Gov optimizes to minimize discrimination. This approach is not something that matches the needs of businesses, specifically as they are often competing for talent that will take another job if delay in offer, retention of other works who are burdened by the position not being filled, and business objects that will not be met or costs incurred if delayed.
The fact is that in all population centers cost increases closer to the center, many types of business and locations with shorter transit times to these desirable locations. In other words, the poor live furthest away from their jobs.
This isn’t even bringing in the topic of diversity, which is much more nuanced. Here though there is no argument that many groups live in communities and those communities take real space. In other words, distance from a business is unlikely to correlate to diverse communities.
>The fact is that in all population centers cost increases closer to the center, many types of business and locations with shorter transit times to these desirable locations. In other words, the poor live furthest away from their jobs.
Jobs only attract people that can survive with the income it returns, meaning nobody is going to take a job from a poor person living in the opposite end of the city if living near the location costs more than what is being paid; meaning the proposed incentive still works because this poor person still gets the job over some other poor person living in a near-by city willing to commute from there.
Your example is not a good one as you are using extremes of local vs next town.
You proposal a complex system, but use simple examples. Assuming you have equally qualified candidates, which you don’t because you can’t afford to wait, how large of an incentive and in what industries? How do you address the “other side of the track” situation? This quickly has all the markings of discrimination.
You disagree that the only considerations for a position should be the ability to do the job? Incentives is the flip side of discrimination.
The poor is just one impacted protected class by your proposal. Working elders also make different choices in living arrangements including location.
You seem the kind of person who would say hiring a white male actor to play Abraham Lincon is discrimination because black actors should have the same chance of getting the role. No point on further discussion here.
"I made the decision!" is not an argument, the ability to make decisions (e.g. I decided to run you over!) bear no weight if it goes against a better alternative rule for everyone else.
I do see companies set up satellite or second offices. I do wonder if an companies of scale use proximities and travel time to influence renewing leases or moving office buildings. What do these formulas look like? What data do they use?