4 ms·

The part GP highlighted wasn't the museum, or restaurants, or the lake. It was the short commute to work. Slashing the commute from 1 hour to 10 minutes gives y

by Sacho 11y ago

The part GP highlighted wasn't the museum, or restaurants, or the lake. It was the short commute to work. Slashing the commute from 1 hour to 10 minutes gives you at least 1 and a half hours more each day, or about 10% more life. If you count it in "time spent with the family"(subtract work hours, personal time and various other engagements), it's anywhere from 20-50% more time spent with the family. Is a house worth that much time? Well, it probably depends on the people.

koolba 11y ago
> The part GP highlighted wasn't the museum, or restaurants, or the lake. It was the short commute to work. Slashing the commute from 1 hour to 10 minutes gives you at least 1 and a half hours more each day, or about 10% more life. If you count it in "time spent with the family"(subtract work hours, personal time and various other engagements), it's anywhere from 20-50% more time spent with the family. Is a house worth that much time? Well, it probably depends on the people. While true on paper here's what really happens to most people: 1) They spend the extra time working instead of what they would otherwise consider family/fun/relax time. 2) If buying a place costs X and renting costs Y, they end up spending (Y-X) frivolously and getting accustomed to that level of spending. If nothing else, owning a home tricks/forces/cajoles people into saving money. Sure you can argue, "I'll save the difference and invest it at Z% ... Win!" but that's not what the VAST majority of people will do.
- wernercd 11y ago
  The question tho is simply: Are they happier? If you spend 2 hours in transit... or 20 minutes. If you "invest" or "spend on frivolities"... If you use your time more productively instead of sitting on a bus/in a car... While the trade off might not make sense to you, it obviously does make sense to the GP. I live on family property... and it would actually cost more (no rent/mortgage... vs something new) to live close to work, but I would get ~2 hours of driving (~1 each way) if I moved closer. Due to a variety of reasons, I stay where I'm at. Due to a variety of reasons, other people choose to move closer. Just because they aren't super efficient (wasting money/time, as you seem to suggest), doesn't mean they aren't better off with that decision.
  - koolba 11y ago
    > The question tho is simply: Are they happier? Having done both (short and long commutes), I'd say yes, but only in the short term. There's a distinct joy in not taking any form of powered transit to work. You feel it with every step you take walking in the mornings. Eventually that joy wears off though as you realize that you haven't saved squat over the past N years and if that trend continues, you'll eventually get priced out of renting too!
    - wernercd 11y ago
      While I understand what you are saying - Short commutes and not making forward progress lead to short term happiness - not everyone agrees with you. Growing up, I lived closer to where I worked... I'd walk or bike to work. Getting older, I moved around and anything I've done in the longest time requires "long" commutes (30-60 minutes each way). I've been on both sides and am fine with either. Given a slightly modified set of circumstances, I would probably pay a bit more to shave an hour or two off my commute... the added time and lessened stress (so many bad drivers on the roads... more time to play CoD...) would be worth it. I am lucky enough to live on Family Property - so the economic benefits of having zero rent/mortgage can't be understated (and is a major reason I commute) but it does come at an expense in time commuting.
    - jschwartzi 11y ago
      I gained 50 pounds over the course of a year spent with a commute pof 1.5 hours one way. For all my interest in owning a house, I'd rather not be morbidly obese because I've given up all the time I have to work out. The only solution I have is to live close to work, and that means renting.
- seanmcdirmid 11y ago
  Time is money, you can spend that extra time however you wish, and working more can have a payoff even if it shouldn't. And not everyone can buy, especially if they aren't in high home ownership cultures (or can't afford the $1 million needed to break into the market). Homes as a trick to saving or not spending seems vacuous, it's like the enforced marriage wedding debt hyped up about a certain tribe in the phillipines. If you need to be deeply in debt to spend money wisely, something is wrong.
jasode 11y ago
>The part GP highlighted wasn't the museum, or restaurants, or the lake. It was the short commute to work. The GGP highlighted both the commute and the city amenities. He specifically contrasted the house with "big backyards" vs apartment access to "Central/Riverside parks, etc" I was countering the notion that those city amenities are so wonderful that supposedly clueless suburbanites "don't know what they're missing out on". Well, we do know what those city benefits are. We enjoyed them at one phase in our lives. We just don't prioritize them. As for the longer commute time of suburbia... to me, it was already an underlying premise. In any case, there are also several factors affecting it. In two-income families, if one spouse works in the city, it's common for the other spouse to work outside of it. So, depending on the type of jobs the husband & wife have, they really don't reduce total commute time for the entire family unit by choosing to live in downtown. Another interesting data point is that many wealthy earners (e.g. hedge fund mgrs, etc) in NYC deliberately purchase their family homes out in the suburbs instead of a high rise apartment next to Central Park. They have the high income to live anywhere and yet they also made the "irrational" decision to commute 2 hours every day to live away from downtown. >Is a house worth that much time? Well, it probably depends on the people. Exactly. People prioritize different things. I had a balcony with my nice Chicago apartment but I never used it. My ears didn't like the constant noise of traffic. On the other hand, my house has a covered outdoor area with a grill that I use all the time. It seems like people spend their "commute" time as a calculated tradeoff to enjoy a certain lifestyle away from the office.
- harrumph 11y ago
  Wait, you lived in downtown Chicago -- not a community by any stretch, but instead a commercial and tourism district that rolls up its sidewalks by 7PM -- and you call that "living in the city" and imagine that area descriptive of "city benefits"? Hey, you prefer the suburbs and long commutes. Great. But neighborhoods do actually exist in a city of 3 million+. Commutes are minimal, with few taxis and sirens to rattle one prone to rattling. Let's not for a second indulge the idea that you made a fair comparison.
  - carlmcqueen 11y ago

by Sacho 11y ago

koolba 11y ago

> The part GP highlighted wasn't the museum, or restaurants, or the lake. It was the short commute to work. Slashing the commute from 1 hour to 10 minutes gives you at least 1 and a half hours more each day, or about 10% more life. If you count it in "time spent with the family"(subtract work hours, personal time and various other engagements), it's anywhere from 20-50% more time spent with the family. Is a house worth that much time? Well, it probably depends on the people. While true on paper here's what really happens to most people: 1) They spend the extra time working instead of what they would otherwise consider family/fun/relax time. 2) If buying a place costs X and renting costs Y, they end up spending (Y-X) frivolously and getting accustomed to that level of spending. If nothing else, owning a home tricks/forces/cajoles people into saving money. Sure you can argue, "I'll save the difference and invest it at Z% ... Win!" but that's not what the VAST majority of people will do.

wernercd 11y ago
The question tho is simply: Are they happier? If you spend 2 hours in transit... or 20 minutes. If you "invest" or "spend on frivolities"... If you use your time more productively instead of sitting on a bus/in a car... While the trade off might not make sense to you, it obviously does make sense to the GP. I live on family property... and it would actually cost more (no rent/mortgage... vs something new) to live close to work, but I would get ~2 hours of driving (~1 each way) if I moved closer. Due to a variety of reasons, I stay where I'm at. Due to a variety of reasons, other people choose to move closer. Just because they aren't super efficient (wasting money/time, as you seem to suggest), doesn't mean they aren't better off with that decision.
- koolba 11y ago
  > The question tho is simply: Are they happier? Having done both (short and long commutes), I'd say yes, but only in the short term. There's a distinct joy in not taking any form of powered transit to work. You feel it with every step you take walking in the mornings. Eventually that joy wears off though as you realize that you haven't saved squat over the past N years and if that trend continues, you'll eventually get priced out of renting too!
  - wernercd 11y ago
    While I understand what you are saying - Short commutes and not making forward progress lead to short term happiness - not everyone agrees with you. Growing up, I lived closer to where I worked... I'd walk or bike to work. Getting older, I moved around and anything I've done in the longest time requires "long" commutes (30-60 minutes each way). I've been on both sides and am fine with either. Given a slightly modified set of circumstances, I would probably pay a bit more to shave an hour or two off my commute... the added time and lessened stress (so many bad drivers on the roads... more time to play CoD...) would be worth it. I am lucky enough to live on Family Property - so the economic benefits of having zero rent/mortgage can't be understated (and is a major reason I commute) but it does come at an expense in time commuting.
  - jschwartzi 11y ago
    I gained 50 pounds over the course of a year spent with a commute pof 1.5 hours one way. For all my interest in owning a house, I'd rather not be morbidly obese because I've given up all the time I have to work out. The only solution I have is to live close to work, and that means renting.
seanmcdirmid 11y ago
Time is money, you can spend that extra time however you wish, and working more can have a payoff even if it shouldn't. And not everyone can buy, especially if they aren't in high home ownership cultures (or can't afford the $1 million needed to break into the market). Homes as a trick to saving or not spending seems vacuous, it's like the enforced marriage wedding debt hyped up about a certain tribe in the phillipines. If you need to be deeply in debt to spend money wisely, something is wrong.

jasode 11y ago

>The part GP highlighted wasn't the museum, or restaurants, or the lake. It was the short commute to work. The GGP highlighted both the commute and the city amenities. He specifically contrasted the house with "big backyards" vs apartment access to "Central/Riverside parks, etc" I was countering the notion that those city amenities are so wonderful that supposedly clueless suburbanites "don't know what they're missing out on". Well, we do know what those city benefits are. We enjoyed them at one phase in our lives. We just don't prioritize them. As for the longer commute time of suburbia... to me, it was already an underlying premise. In any case, there are also several factors affecting it. In two-income families, if one spouse works in the city, it's common for the other spouse to work outside of it. So, depending on the type of jobs the husband & wife have, they really don't reduce total commute time for the entire family unit by choosing to live in downtown. Another interesting data point is that many wealthy earners (e.g. hedge fund mgrs, etc) in NYC deliberately purchase their family homes out in the suburbs instead of a high rise apartment next to Central Park. They have the high income to live anywhere and yet they also made the "irrational" decision to commute 2 hours every day to live away from downtown. >Is a house worth that much time? Well, it probably depends on the people. Exactly. People prioritize different things. I had a balcony with my nice Chicago apartment but I never used it. My ears didn't like the constant noise of traffic. On the other hand, my house has a covered outdoor area with a grill that I use all the time. It seems like people spend their "commute" time as a calculated tradeoff to enjoy a certain lifestyle away from the office.

harrumph 11y ago
Wait, you lived in downtown Chicago -- not a community by any stretch, but instead a commercial and tourism district that rolls up its sidewalks by 7PM -- and you call that "living in the city" and imagine that area descriptive of "city benefits"? Hey, you prefer the suburbs and long commutes. Great. But neighborhoods do actually exist in a city of 3 million+. Commutes are minimal, with few taxis and sirens to rattle one prone to rattling. Let's not for a second indulge the idea that you made a fair comparison.
- carlmcqueen 11y ago