The cost of living is typically a factor in the wages offered though, with people considering the job having the opportunity to decide what trade offs are available and which ones to make.

Like if 2 people get hired into the same role at the same time and one decides to rent a small apartment near the subway and the other decides to drive 45 miles to a suburb, why is the company on the hook to then compensate them differently?

Or am I misunderstanding the argument?

I think your argument makes some sense when it comes to high-paid, salaried jobs. I don't think this is the reality for low-wage earners, however. There often exists a significant gap between their pay and a livable wage for the area immediately around their workplace.

I guess I maybe implied an argument, but I didn't directly make an argument, I put forth a scenario and asked a question.

You've not answered the question, instead pointing out that some people have wages that encourage a commute (at the moment we can probably at least assume that they are choosing that job over other choices, for reasons left unexplored as of yet).

I'm arguing that, within many major urban areas, wage levels in certain classes of work necessitate a commute. Read the section "A persistent spatial mismatch for American low-wage workers" in this report: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/expanding-supply-af...

Right, we generally have terrible housing policy, but I still don't see an articulated theory of how employers should compensate workers that make different choices.

Like, the low paying jobs that don't have nearby housing options probably do have to increase compensation to make up for the lack of housing options. Why is it good policy to force the employer to treat the commute as part of the work day vs working to improve the generally available housing and transport options?