> You say this like norms are not meant to be challenged.
You’re free to challenge the norms. I just don’t agree with the arguments made on this occasion and had listed other reasons why beyond just social norms. Ie you’re already being compensated by choosing to live in a bigger yet cheaper property then you’d have afforded if you wanted to live closer to work.
Ultimately there is always going to be a trade off but that’s your choice not your employers.
WFH is completely independent from the idea of moving to a suburb to afford a bigger house.
You're literally just making up an imaginary scenario of people moving just because they can WFH and then acting like that's "compensation" built into WFH.
We aren’t talking about WFH though. We are taking about people with long commute times being compensated for their efforts. And the exact reason people move out of the city, and thus have a longer commute, is precisely to buy something bigger somewhere quieter.
This isn’t a weird new concept I’m throwing out there either. It’s a well discussed topic. So much so that I could name several TV shows that feature this as a plot point.
You’re free to challenge the norms. I just don’t agree with the arguments made on this occasion and had listed other reasons why beyond just social norms. Ie you’re already being compensated by choosing to live in a bigger yet cheaper property then you’d have afforded if you wanted to live closer to work.
Ultimately there is always going to be a trade off but that’s your choice not your employers.