I really wonder if that's the best she can do. Article states her rent is $800 instead of double that, $1600. But it also states she has $400 in commuting costs

I really wonder if that's the best she can do. Article states her rent is $800 instead of double that, $1600. But it also states she has $400 in commuting costs. (and citing the environment is a reason to take the train, heh). But she's moved into that home when her children were still kids. Surely she doesn't need the space now that they've moved out, and surely something else must be available. I mean, she works 9 hour days, travels for 6... If you add a normal sleep pattern of 8 hours, she's got 1 hour left for life, so she breaks down her sleep structurally. But even then, there's just no time on any of her working days to actually live. In addition, it's as if she had to spend 6 hours in a room every day, unpaid, on a noisy chair. I can't imagine she can't optimise that. I'm hearing: I spend $400 per month to sit in a room 6 hours a day without pay/productivity/leisure, to live in a home with 2 redundant bedrooms, because equivalent rent is $800 more expensive. Surely: 1) can live in a smaller home. 2) can find a slightly better rent. 3) can reduce her commute costs. 4) can earn money through extra work (to trade for leisure) or get more leisure time by cutting commute costs.