> What's wrong with the person having a lower hourly productivity being the one stuck with the commute?

The productivity of labor is not determined by wages. Period.

What is right with the person having a lower hourly wage being the one stuck with the commute? What is wrong with the person with the higher hourly wage being the one stuck with the commute?

Due to space constraints, what argument is there for preferential treatment of those already economically better off? It is far less of a hit on your pocketbook to shoulder the expensive commute than it is on someone making 50% of your wages. Perhaps the social expectation should be that the more money an agent makes, the greater his social responsibility to give up conveniences to those making less to better balance the equation?

There is far more reason to be found in those with higher wages being 'stuck with the commute' and living in less convenient areas than there is in an elitist notion that one ought to have the benefit of both higher wages and maximum convenience. Unless, of course, higher hourly wages also bestow upon the bearer an inherent right to misanthropy and rejection of a social obligation to produce greater equality across humankind.

Who's to say that a teacher, policeman or civil administrator has a lower hourly productivity than some rails coder working on a social mobile startup? Heck, dishwashers work harder than we do.

That opens up a debate about skills scarcity, which I can see, but calling public service jobs 'less productive' just because we get to vote (indirectly) on their paychecks seems a bit circular to me.