this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
105 points (93.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
1009 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a good concept in my opinion, but only when people have plenty of choice in where they live. In practice, especially with the current housing situation in many countries, that's not always the case.
If you apply this, you'll end up in a situation where someone living outside the city can't get a job anywhere. Without a good job, you also can't live in the city, so you're stuck trying to start your own business (as employees also could without such a system) or you're forced to take whatever you can get, giving the few employers near sparsely populated areas an immense amount of power.
This solution punishes people who live far out in a different way, in that they can't find a job at all. I don't think that's better than a system without compensation of any kind.
I see how that becomes a negative feedback loop. Gotta think some more.