> I move further away, and take longer to get to work, and spend that time listening to audio books.

I like audiobooks and it would be nice to get paid to listen when I do. I would not trade even two hours of my day, every day I commute, by moving further away. You would have to be paid more than you value that time for it to make sense.

> You would have to be paid more than you value that time for it to make sense.

Why would you take any job where you don't get paid more than you value your time?

These are marginal decisions. Eventually, the additional utility of more money drops below the additional cost of more time.

Sure, sure, but that's why you might take a commute which is two hours each way instead of one which is eight hours each way. That doesn't remove the perverse incentive, it just attenuates it. Eventually. And generally not before you're doing something quite inefficient.

Notice that you're also e.g. screwing around on the internet on the train instead of screwing around on the internet at home. People regularly already do that for four, five, six hours a day. Who wouldn't choose to get paid for it?

As someone that used to work for minimum wage...

Because I didn't qualify for anything better.

That's you wishing you got paid more, not you valuing your time at more than they pay. Needing the money is valuing the money more than you value the time.

in the UK, commute in and out of work is not paid time. But any transport between places of work is paid time, so the argument is that "self-employed" gig workers miss out on paid transport time between gigs.