Came across this interesting bit on AvidCareerist via Lifehacker and thought it worth sharing with you all if for no other reason than to discuss:
You might not have thought about it, but in-house recruiters know that people with long commutes have more stress and often eventually quit “because of the commute.” If you quit, they don’t look good AND they have to replace you. That’s more work, with no more money, for them.
When you put your address on your resume, believe me, they do the math. If your commute would be longer than what’s tolerable long-term, your resume often finds its way into the “maybe” or “no” pile.
This, naturally, begs the question: what exactly is tolerable long-term? Having commuted 45 minutes each way on the BW Parkway for a little over a year from DC to the NSA's backyard, I can safely say even a five minute commute on the BW Parkway is not tolerable any term, be it short or long. But how does a recruiter know how much traffic you're willing to tolerate?
AvidCareerist says instead of putting your home address, you can put the city of your most recent employer. In the example I gave above where I considered the best way to hang myself in my vehicle using just my AUX cable and an iPod while slogging along at 5 MPH on the BW Parkway, that wouldn't make sense either as my employer was in Columbia, MD and I lived in Washington proper. So that's out.
I suppose it depends how desperate you are to get the job. Plenty of people commute into NYC from Philly.
Would anyone in a hiring capacity care to chime in? Personally I've never rejected an amazing candidate because they lived too far from the office. Then again, as anyone who has done any hiring knows, it's hard enough to find that "amazing" candidate that distance won't get in the way if you really, really need them.