4 ms·

I've been almost permanently WFH since April, with a few weeks back in the office during summer when the incidence rate was lower, then back to WFH when the sec

I've been almost permanently WFH since April, with a few weeks back in the office during summer when the incidence rate was lower, then back to WFH when the second wave hit. I enjoy not having to commute, but I absolutely miss the banter across the desks and lunch conversations. I would absolutely like to keep 2-3 weekly WFH days in the future, which would also give me more flexibility in where I choose to live, I really want to move farther from the city and closer to nature. A longer commute would be acceptable if I didn't have to do it every day.

b3kart 6y ago
One negative is that such a hybrid mode still ties you to a location, albeit more loosely. Being able to travel and live in arbitrary (often cheaper) places is a benefit of pure remote work that many people seem to enjoy.
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  I know a lot of people want that nomad lifestyle, but that's not for me. Both my girlfriend and I have moved a lot during our educations and work histories, we would like somewhere to grow roots, have a vegetable garden, invite friends for barbecues, that sort of thing. Upholding a nomad lifestyle means it's very hard to establish and maintain friendships and we've both had to completely abandon several circles of friends over the years, due to moving. That's not something I enjoy.
ghaff 6y ago
2-3 days commuting per week, you still probably don't want a 2 hr. each way commute. Even 1 day per week that ends up being a day you sort of dread. That said a 1.5 to 2 hour commute once a week is doable but that still only gets you to a closer to nature location. It doesn't really give you the option to live in a different cheaper city if that's what you want--which is what many people (not myself) are looking for rather than a rural house.
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  A 2 hour each way commute is definitely excessive. Luckily the distances here are not as great as for instance in the US, so my colleague who lives in a town perceived as "far away" from the city has a ~1 hour commute by car. For comparison, I live 6km away from work (well within good public transit coverage) and it takes me around 35 minutes by bus. As a downside to distances being generally shorter, we also don't have the same vast impressive swathes of nature that the US and Canada do, plus historically we cut down most of our forests to maintain an impressive navy. However we do have some forests left and plenty of coastline, no part of the country is more than 50km from the coast, there is still plentiful natural beauty to admire. So it is possible to live closer to nature here, while still being not too far away from the city. In the long run, I may also want to get out of IT and do something less stressful and more "real", but that's something I'm still weighing the pros and cons of. There is also the consideration that by living in the city, I have very easy access to events and dining experiences, which is something I do still value, even if the pandemic has made all of that seem like the distant past. One thing I do know is that I'm not interested in suburbia. It's either apartment living or close to nature, I'm not interested in the small identical plots of land, cookie cutter communities, HOAs, any of that stuff. I want my neighbors either on the other side of a wall or more than a stone's throw away :-)
  - ghaff 6y ago
    >It's either apartment living or close to nature I actually agree with you. I grew up in what, at least at the time, would probably properly be called ex-urban and live somewhere similar today (on 5 acres next neighbors with a lot more land as well as conservation land but within a few miles of plenty of stores, etc.). I've never had much interest in classical suburbia but I do like cities--at least to visit. 2 hours gets you way out of even most Northeastern US cities. I'm about 90 minutes to get into Boston at rush hour if I time it right and less in the evening. I've actually commuted into the city--I also have a pretty convenient commuter rail--for some days for about a year and a half. It wouldn't have been sustainable long-term though.

b3kart 6y ago

One negative is that such a hybrid mode still ties you to a location, albeit more loosely. Being able to travel and live in arbitrary (often cheaper) places is a benefit of pure remote work that many people seem to enjoy.

KozmoNau7 6y ago
I know a lot of people want that nomad lifestyle, but that's not for me. Both my girlfriend and I have moved a lot during our educations and work histories, we would like somewhere to grow roots, have a vegetable garden, invite friends for barbecues, that sort of thing. Upholding a nomad lifestyle means it's very hard to establish and maintain friendships and we've both had to completely abandon several circles of friends over the years, due to moving. That's not something I enjoy.

ghaff 6y ago

2-3 days commuting per week, you still probably don't want a 2 hr. each way commute. Even 1 day per week that ends up being a day you sort of dread. That said a 1.5 to 2 hour commute once a week is doable but that still only gets you to a closer to nature location. It doesn't really give you the option to live in a different cheaper city if that's what you want--which is what many people (not myself) are looking for rather than a rural house.

KozmoNau7 6y ago
A 2 hour each way commute is definitely excessive. Luckily the distances here are not as great as for instance in the US, so my colleague who lives in a town perceived as "far away" from the city has a ~1 hour commute by car. For comparison, I live 6km away from work (well within good public transit coverage) and it takes me around 35 minutes by bus. As a downside to distances being generally shorter, we also don't have the same vast impressive swathes of nature that the US and Canada do, plus historically we cut down most of our forests to maintain an impressive navy. However we do have some forests left and plenty of coastline, no part of the country is more than 50km from the coast, there is still plentiful natural beauty to admire. So it is possible to live closer to nature here, while still being not too far away from the city. In the long run, I may also want to get out of IT and do something less stressful and more "real", but that's something I'm still weighing the pros and cons of. There is also the consideration that by living in the city, I have very easy access to events and dining experiences, which is something I do still value, even if the pandemic has made all of that seem like the distant past. One thing I do know is that I'm not interested in suburbia. It's either apartment living or close to nature, I'm not interested in the small identical plots of land, cookie cutter communities, HOAs, any of that stuff. I want my neighbors either on the other side of a wall or more than a stone's throw away :-)
- ghaff 6y ago
  >It's either apartment living or close to nature I actually agree with you. I grew up in what, at least at the time, would probably properly be called ex-urban and live somewhere similar today (on 5 acres next neighbors with a lot more land as well as conservation land but within a few miles of plenty of stores, etc.). I've never had much interest in classical suburbia but I do like cities--at least to visit. 2 hours gets you way out of even most Northeastern US cities. I'm about 90 minutes to get into Boston at rush hour if I time it right and less in the evening. I've actually commuted into the city--I also have a pretty convenient commuter rail--for some days for about a year and a half. It wouldn't have been sustainable long-term though.