3 ms·
Let's say your time is worth $75/hour. Not having to commute is worth 1.5 hours per day. Call it $110/day. Lunch/snack savings per day = $10/day. Gas/car wear s
by staunch 15y ago
Let's say your time is worth $75/hour. Not having to commute is worth 1.5 hours per day. Call it $110/day. Lunch/snack savings per day = $10/day. Gas/car wear savings = $10/day.
$140/day * 200 days per year = $28k.
The way it can be seriously beneficial is you can live/move to somewhere really cheap and still get paid big-city rates.
I knew a guy living on his own small ranch in the middle of nowhere making $150k/year. Living far better than the guy making $300k/year in Manhattan.
- CyberFonic 15y agoOf the $26k (110+10+10 != 140), $4k is actual costs out of your pocket, i.e. comes out off whatever you earn after taxes. So look at the benefits you gain from that extra money.
- qq66 15y agoLiving on a ranch is not comparable to living in Manhattan in terms of "living far better." What a ranch and Manhattan can offer, and cannot offer, are so vastly different that another $200K in salary (above basic needs) is the least of it.
- pixeloution 15y agoThe way you calculate it above is an odd way to look at it; sure you save 1.5 hours a day - but you certainly aren't getting paid for those hours. And chances are you won't be doing side work that will pay you that $110/day with your free 1.5 hours. The value is increased freedom. The OP has to decide what value that has to him - assigning it an arbitrary number based on what a person earns per hour is silly. Your second point was much more valid -- if you can live in a much more inexpensive way, that's a benefit you can put an actual # on.
- staunch 15y agoYou certainly can put those saved hours to use in a side project or consulting. They're hours of "work" time you get to keep for yourself. If you just use them to watch more TV then you're right, it's not a useful way to measure.