Traditionally, retiring entails leaving the workforce permanently. However, experts found that the very definition of retirement is also changing between generations....
On the other hand, should the distance a employment candidate lives from work be material to the companies employment decision?
This only seems like a difficult question if it’s one worker having the conversation with their employer. The moment it’s one employer vs. all their workers, the answer is obviously yes, with the employer left footing the bill.
Why would the employer have to foot the bill when they could just fire all their workers and hire people who live closer? Because our housing market is hell and nobody lives closer. Either businesses will have to pay for commutes directly by treating them as hours worked, or they’ll have to pay for them indirectly by relocating their offices to places where workers actually live.
Given how sprawled we all are, the latter will be the more expensive option. At least, until sufficiently large businesses lobby governments to subsidize the costs of relocating their offices… ugh.
What the hell is this shit? Instead of pushing for the return to traditional pensions, capitalism is celebrating the idea that Millennials and Gen Z may simply never be able to stop working. ( www.cnbc.com )
Traditionally, retiring entails leaving the workforce permanently. However, experts found that the very definition of retirement is also changing between generations....
Bosses and workers still can’t agree on whether the commute is part of the work day, and it’s creating a $578 billion productivity problem ( fortune.com )