> Why did you include commute time in their payment, and exclude it in yours? I didn't. I used myself as the example, explaining that because I could afford be

> Why did you include commute time in their payment, and exclude it in yours? I didn't. I used myself as the example, explaining that because I could afford better accommodations, specifically an apartment close to work, that my travel time was minimized. My point there was that lower income workers can't afford to be as selective in where they live as can workers with a higher income, and that they are more reliant on cheaper, yet less time-efficient, modes of travel. Having said that, I will admit that by using my situation as the example, I may have biased the analogy a bit. I overestimated the average travel time for lower income workers, and underestimated the average travel time for higher income workers. While I think it's important to note the variable of travel time, it was possibly unfair to include it in the summation. I can't speak to your example, because I don't think I'd stay in a job where 50-55 hour weeks were the norm. Overtime is fine when it's used properly, but there's a reason they call it a "9-5" job. If you go beyond that, you'll get burned out and be less efficient. Americans do seem to have a different view on working than do other countries, even compared to Canadians like me, so this could just be a cultural difference. I don't think it is though, even in the States. I can't think of any of my friends or family - an admittedly small data set - who work more than a 40 hour week on average. In Canada, I believe there are legal protections, at least in some provinces, which prevent you from working too much without adequate compensation (e.g. time and a half for hours over 40, double time for holidays, etc.) I sometimes had to work more than 40 for "straight pay", but that was apparently due to loopholes for salaried and/or on-call employees.