4 ms·
- It's thrifty: houses further away are cheaper. - It's good for the kids: suburban schools perform better. - It's a sacrifice: a family man is supposed to pr
by closeparen 5y ago
- It's thrifty: houses further away are cheaper.
- It's good for the kids: suburban schools perform better.
- It's a sacrifice: a family man is supposed to prioritize his own comfort last.
- It's accessible: we don't look at bankers or tech workers and say how great it is that they're doing so much for the families. That's just classism and privilege at work. Maybe, if we're feeling charitable, natural-born talent. But we, too, could deliver a better life to our families by driving longer hours. We just don't have the stomach for it. So we respect those who do.
Of course no one cares what it's doing to the environment. That really ought to factor in the moral calculus. But right now super-commuting is just about the most virtuous thing an American middle-class adult can do.
- brnt 5y ago> a family man is supposed to prioritize his own comfort last. A family woman isnt?
- missedthecue 5y agoOften yes, but in different ways. Parents make sacrifices all the time.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- brailsafe 5y agoThis all depends on whether or not the 2 hours you're losing everyday with your hypothetical kids is sufficiently nullified by the (marginal)savings. Your kid's grade school academic performance is more important than effectively a full extra work week worth of availability for the family? Doesn't sound so virtuous.
- watwut 5y agoBut father/husband travelling that much have negative consequences for both wife and kids. If they live where worker travells over 2 hours a day and he does it, she cant work. And they dont spend time together either.