7 ms·

> a 25% increase in the amount of their time that's committed to work I think you mean committed to life rather than work? Remember, people normally commute ou

by mojuba 5y ago

> a 25% increase in the amount of their time that's committed to work I think you mean committed to life rather than work? Remember, people normally commute outside of work hours. Therefore your math doesn't add up. 2hr commute against 8 hours of work is not a 25% increase. But I think your point is still valid. Personally I'd "buy" my extra 2 hours of daily life for a 10% decrease in salary. Given that I'm awake for 17 hours, 2 hours saved is 11% of my waking time. Not a bad deal if you value your free time, or say you work on a side project. Edit: see the correction below. It's still 25%, I was wrong.

wutbrodo 5y ago
> Therefore your math doesn't add up. 2hr commute against 8 hours of work is not a 25% increase. What? Going from 8 to 10 hours is absolutely a 25% increase. 10 is 125% of 8
- throwaway3b03 5y ago
  The situation is a bit more complex than that. First, people don't live in the office, so even if you live closer to the workplace, you still spend a non-negligible amount of time preparing and getting there. It can easily amount to more than 30 minutes a day. And secondly, an office job can be stressful, consuming, in a way that commuting isn't (if done by train or bicycle for instance). So i wouldn't put them all in the same box as time devoted to work.
  - UglyToad 5y ago
    There's a world of difference between going for a nice cycle or taking the train to see a new place or even going for a drive in the country versus cramming onto a standing-room-only train or risking your life in rush hour traffic or crawling along the highway in a tailback. Commuting is absolutely part of work, it's an unpaid part sure, but people aren't choosing it of their own free will.
  - l-lousy 5y ago
    This is mainly discussing WFH, so in this case people actually are living in the office.
- mojuba 5y ago
  You are right, I was wrong. But I was mainly arguing that the commute time shouldn't be counted against work time, it really isn't: you can listen to radio, or read if you are on public transport. Rather, I'd count the saved commute against my life (as in, not work) time.
  - ihattendorf 5y ago
    But I can listen to music while I work 90% of the time if I want to.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by mojuba 5y ago

wutbrodo 5y ago

> Therefore your math doesn't add up. 2hr commute against 8 hours of work is not a 25% increase. What? Going from 8 to 10 hours is absolutely a 25% increase. 10 is 125% of 8

throwaway3b03 5y ago
The situation is a bit more complex than that. First, people don't live in the office, so even if you live closer to the workplace, you still spend a non-negligible amount of time preparing and getting there. It can easily amount to more than 30 minutes a day. And secondly, an office job can be stressful, consuming, in a way that commuting isn't (if done by train or bicycle for instance). So i wouldn't put them all in the same box as time devoted to work.
- UglyToad 5y ago
  There's a world of difference between going for a nice cycle or taking the train to see a new place or even going for a drive in the country versus cramming onto a standing-room-only train or risking your life in rush hour traffic or crawling along the highway in a tailback. Commuting is absolutely part of work, it's an unpaid part sure, but people aren't choosing it of their own free will.
- l-lousy 5y ago
  This is mainly discussing WFH, so in this case people actually are living in the office.
mojuba 5y ago
You are right, I was wrong. But I was mainly arguing that the commute time shouldn't be counted against work time, it really isn't: you can listen to radio, or read if you are on public transport. Rather, I'd count the saved commute against my life (as in, not work) time.
- ihattendorf 5y ago
  But I can listen to music while I work 90% of the time if I want to.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]