5 ms·

If I could afford to live 15 minutes from the office I 100% would go to an office. But housing, transportation, daycare costs make that impractical. If they re

If I could afford to live 15 minutes from the office I 100% would go to an office. But housing, transportation, daycare costs make that impractical. If they really want me in the office, companies need to engage on these issues in the metros they live in. They need to clear NIMBY barriers to urban housing, support transit, and good parental leave.

rhubarbtree 7mo ago
Thank god you're a software developer and not a cleaner.
hypeatei 7mo ago
> If I could afford to live 15 minutes from the office I 100% would go to an office. I live ~20 minutes away from my job and you eventually get tired of that, too. Car maintenance, bad weather, bad drivers, etc. grind you down little by little everyday.
- graemep 7mo ago
  20 mins walking or by public transport would be fine though? GP does not specify driving.
  - vrganj 7mo ago
    I live 20 mins by public transport or by bike in an incredibly bike-friendly city. Sometimes I just want to be at home to do deep thinking without anyone bothering me. Sometimes the weather makes it so I don't leave the house. Just let me decide where I work from.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Yodel0914 7mo ago
    I’m 20min by public transport and still much prefer my 3 days at home than my 2 in the office. I think the thing people miss about RTO is that management are more likely to be extroverted. They’re the kind of people who thrive on being surrounded by people. I don’t think RTO is as nefarious as people here make out - it’s just extroverts wanting to mold the workplace to for them. That makes them bad managers, but not necessarily bad people.
- fhd2 7mo ago
  What baffles me most about RTO is what it does to romantic partnerships. If both can find career advancing jobs in the same city, that's cool. But what if they can't? The options aren't great: 1. One of them takes a hit on their career for the benefit of the other. 2. Both move to an area with OK-ish jobs for both, sharing the sacrifice. 3. Both take optimal jobs wherever they are and move into a long distance relationship. With kids in the mix, it becomes even harder, you might want to be around family to have a support network etc. RTO mandates generally seem pretty tone deaf about this aspect.
  - vrganj 7mo ago
    It's because there's a lot of overlap between people thinking "those damn lazy workers better get back to the office so they don't slack off" and people thinking "a woman's role is in the household, raising children and cooking". Regressive attitudes tend to not come alone.
    - pc86 7mo ago
      "RTO is sexist" is a hell of a take.
      - ryandrake 7mo ago
        OP never said that. They said the venn diagram of attitudes promoting RTO coincidentally seems to largely overlap the regressive "women should be homemakers" attitudes.
      - lux-lux-lux 7mo ago
        Why? The data supports it. Women were more likely to leave during RTO efforts than men. WFH being a massive boon for workers with childcare responsibilities or medical issues is widely recognized; there’s a reason why there was a baby boom during the pandemic. A lot of the backlash against WFH workers was blatantly sexist; remember all the rage against those “day in the life of a remote worker” type TikToks? Note how they got way, way more hate than the objectively worse ‘working’ several jobs or modern hustle culture scam stuff? I don’t think it’s the be-all end-all explanation, but the shoe fits.
- axus 7mo ago
  I'm on a hybrid schedule, same "distance". With a balance of days between home and office, I no longer get tired of the commute. Commute "distance" is definitely measured in minutes and not kilometers.
- helle253 7mo ago
  there is a secret 3rd solution that alleviates most of these issues: mass transit
  - ryandrake 7mo ago
    Mass Transit isn't the solution on its own. It needs to be Mass Transit PLUS people living around mass transit stops. Mass Transit will never, ever, ever work in rural areas where houses are 2-5 miles apart from each other. It would barely work in suburbs, and only certain kinds like bus transit. You're never going to get a subway to work in the suburbs. Mass Transit is great for cities though, we should be building more of it.
    - entropicdrifter 7mo ago
      Trolleys and Regional Rail work great in the Philadelphia suburbs. When the state actually gives SEPTA funding so they can keep their vehicles up to date and pay their workers fairly
- stevekemp 7mo ago
  I live ~30 minutes from the city center, and the office locations I've had for the past ten years or so. I enjoy sitting on the tram/bus, reading a book and getting into the "work time now" mindset. Having half an hour to relax, look at the scenery, the people, and so on, is always nice.
  - mikkupikku 7mo ago
    Time to chill out and read was definitely my favorite part about commuting by train (SEPTA). Unfortunately it also ate a lot of my time, but it was time I could spend reading so I didn't really mind that too much. > getting into the "work time now" mindset This is actually the reason I never liked WFH. I don't want to be in the work mindset at home, it degrades my ability to relax at home.
cassianoleal 7mo ago
In this case you either live in the middle of an industrial hub or you can’t change jobs, so I’m not sure what it actually solves. Hiring by catchment area does seem very appealing for anyone - neither the companies nor the candidates.
- shimman 7mo ago
  You do realize the vast majority of jobs are not in industrial hubs but urban cities right? Urban cities tend to have more than one employer too. Before I moved across the country, there were maybe a dozen or so companies that were hiring devs where I lived; now after moving there are around 800 companies that hire devs. In this new, for me, city, Boston, it's quite hard to build housing for reasons that seem to only favor those in existing houses.
  - cassianoleal 7mo ago
    > not in industrial hubs but urban cities An urban city can be or have an industrial hub. By industrial I don't necessarily mean manufacture. > Urban cities tend to have more than one employer too They can also have those employers at a couple hours commute (not walking) from each other. That helps my point, not hinders it. > there were maybe a dozen or so companies that were hiring devs where I lived Assuming those were all within 15 minutes walking distance, then it would qualify as the kind of industrial hub I mentioned - although a dozen or so may not be good enough for an employee to shop around and get good deals. > now after moving there are around 800 companies that hire devs Again, within 15 min walk of each other? I find that hard to believe, but assuming so, that is an industrial hub.
scythe 7mo ago
Funny to read this as a consultant. My job is an hour away from my job.
th0masfrancis 7mo ago
Plus I need the ability to deduct my transport cost from taxable income.
- stevekemp 7mo ago
  I guess it depends where you live, I certainly claim commuting costs when I submit my taxes every year. But then again I balance that by claiming some rebates for using my home office, now and again.
- rcpt 7mo ago
  Recipe for endless sprawl
- iso1631 7mo ago
  So the person living near the office should subsidise your choice?
pj_mukh 7mo ago
This is the right answer. I have a child, work remotely and while I appreciate the flexibility, I kind of hate it for my career. The article is mostly vibe-y without any digging into why people with children need to commute from so far. It's rent, the answer is almost always rent. Its my rent, its my child-care workers rent, it my kids school-teachers rent. It's always rent.
- everdrive 7mo ago
  It's also consolidation of jobs in big cities. When I was a kid you didn't need to move away from home to find a stable income. WFH could have solved that, but I think the cultural movement to relocating has just become too entrenched.
  - rcpt 7mo ago
    You were a kid before Detroit automakers? Before NYC was the center of finance?
    - everdrive 7mo ago
      Point taken, but the trend has only increased since then.
    - smithoc 7mo ago
      When I was a kid the Detroit automakers bought air filters manufactured at a factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin and brake pads manufactured in Peoria, Illinois and lubricants from Fort Wayne, Indiana. And the people working in those places provided the customer base for local and regional financial services, along with the rest of the commercial base that made small towns and provincial cities good places to live and raise a family throughout the 20th century. And of course, a household only needed one person employed, so there was less pressure to move to a bigger city that could provide opportunities for two different careers.
- pllbnk 7mo ago
  Not necessarily. We happily moved away to suburbs because we grew tired of the city noise and chaos. The child can stay outside, we have a proper backyard, there are barely any cars in the street. It was much more affordable but was a side effect rather than the main reason to move. And when both parents work from home, as we do, we are doing just fine with a single car. For those exceptional circumstances when we need to be away in different places at the same time, the cab is still nearly infinitely more affordable than a second car.
lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
Unfortunately, much of the US, and elsewhere, has been taken in by decades of successful American propaganda promoting and romanticizing the suburb after the War. The taste for the suburb, like the taste for cars, is very entrenched in many people's minds. In our vapid consumerist culture, they have become elevated to virtual rites of passage: buying a car and buying a suburban house are marks of manhood and adulthood. Furthermore, there's a vicious cycle that keeps cities at a disadvantage, to a large part driven by the parasitic nature of suburbs themselves. Suburbs are financially completely unsustainable. Tax revenue doesn't come close to paying for the maintenance of suburban roads, infrastructure, and utilities. They survive by draining state and federal money, which itself is disproportionately drawn from urban centers where economic activity is highest. This takes money away from cities that should be reinvested back into cities. One thing we should do is tax municipal bonds. There are other ways in which suburbs are actively and artificially propped up, of course. The point is that the suburbs has always been a Frankenstein on life support that's been bleeding cities. So I think one way to address the suburb is to attack the parasitic dimension. By forcing suburbs to pay their own way, no one can be accused of robbing suburbs; it would incriminate the suburbs and call out their hypocrisy. It would also strike at the heart of the "adulthood" and "manhood" artificially bound up with owning a house in the suburbs. How adult and how masculine is it to mooch off of others to maintain the suburban lifestyle? This would then fortify the urbs and also push back on the stupidity of the housing market in cities, the poor land use in many of them, as well as bad public transportation.
- eudamoniac 7mo ago
  Your solution to "the stupidity of the housing markets in cities" is to increase their demand, and to make housing overall more unaffordable? Sorry, no, I'm not going to raise my family of six plus a dog in a high rise. Encouraging happy, productive families by subsidizing suburbs is good.
  - lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
    > increase their demand, and to make housing overall more unaffordable? You're not thinking systematically. Increased demand isn't the only variable. Consider also how gov't and the market respond to increased demand and need, especially if the paradigm of normative human settlement changes. Social pressure forces changes. Diffusing pressure allows gov'ts to kick the can down the road, which is what led to the suburban debacle. > I'm not going to raise my family of six plus a dog in a high rise. Where did I say you must live in a high rise? Urban development isn't limited to high rises. Small towns and cities exist, yes? It's a question of density and particular patterns of urban planning that enable a healthy social environment. Traditional urban planning did a far better job of that than the suburb. And btw, what's the problem having a large family in a high rise? Living in a high rise actually reduces the maintenance costs (both in terms of time and money). Owning a suburban house comes with more overhead. In well-designed cities, there is ample green space. In a landscape dotted with cities, you are also within reach of more expansive natural landscapes that haven't been spoiled, scarred, and deformed by sprawling suburbs. > Encouraging happy, productive families by subsidizing suburbs is good. I assure you: the suburb is neither good for families nor productive. They are extraordinarily wasteful. Children are shackled and isolated at home, because getting anywhere requires driving. Parents are then burdened with the task of driving their children everywhere or making arrangements. You can't do or buy anything without driving. People waste countless hours commuting. And as I already wrote, it is very expensive to maintain suburban utilities. It takes a lot more energy to keep the suburban machine running. Suburbs are basically on gov't welfare funded by city tax payers. This naturally comes off as entitled: entitled not to live in a high rise (which, as I said, is not necessarily entailed by the word "city", so rather moot) and entitled to subsidies that drain resources from cities. Why don't suburbs pay for the luxury of their own existence? Funding them is not a matter of the common good, nor is it charity. It's exploitation of others to satisfy a private fetish and fantasy, one that incidentally harms the common good. I encourage you to visit Strong Towns[0]. There's plenty of material there that targets a popular audience that covers this subject. You might find these ideas less threatening than the urban boogeyman of your mind. [0] https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/
scruple 7mo ago
Through circumstance I went from a fully remote working arrangement to working for a place that's 5 miles down a single surface street from where I live (which, during commute hours pushes up to 15 minutes). I go in twice a week, but since we have kids it's mostly a wash. I still vastly prefer the 3 days per week that I work from home. The office gets very busy and very loud, especially in the afternoons.
joshcsimmons 7mo ago
Not to mention safe neighborhood!
bombcar 7mo ago
Companies could also do this the way they used to - satellite offices and similar. In fact, I've never actually commuted into the city for a job, it's always been suburb to suburb commutes - part of the problem there has been it's not worth moving for a job that lasts on average 3-5 years.
- Cthulhu_ 7mo ago
  This would be ideal, I live right next to an industrial / office estate with plenty of flexible office space available. But in my line of work I'm often put next to people from all over the country, and / or on assignments where most the employees already do live close. I did get a job close to home once, but one, the job was a bit bleh, and two, the pandemic started three months in so we were all asked to work from home for the next 2+ years.
Cthulhu_ 7mo ago
This is it; cost and quality of living is proportional to distance to employment, especially in services and tech. I made a tradeoff, I could buy a reasonably comfortable and -priced house, but access to public transit and / or time spent commuting increased by at least half an hour. And that was a few years ago now, that option no longer exists; I might be able to get an apartment if I pay 2x as much as what I did for my house.
Corrado 7mo ago
> If I could afford to live 15 minutes from the office I 100% would go to an office. This is a really good point. At one point in my career I lived close enough to the office that I could ride my bike to work. It was actually pretty nice to work that close to home and I didn't really mind going into the office.

rhubarbtree 7mo ago

Thank god you're a software developer and not a cleaner.

hypeatei 7mo ago

> If I could afford to live 15 minutes from the office I 100% would go to an office. I live ~20 minutes away from my job and you eventually get tired of that, too. Car maintenance, bad weather, bad drivers, etc. grind you down little by little everyday.

graemep 7mo ago
20 mins walking or by public transport would be fine though? GP does not specify driving.
- vrganj 7mo ago
  I live 20 mins by public transport or by bike in an incredibly bike-friendly city. Sometimes I just want to be at home to do deep thinking without anyone bothering me. Sometimes the weather makes it so I don't leave the house. Just let me decide where I work from.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- Yodel0914 7mo ago
  I’m 20min by public transport and still much prefer my 3 days at home than my 2 in the office. I think the thing people miss about RTO is that management are more likely to be extroverted. They’re the kind of people who thrive on being surrounded by people. I don’t think RTO is as nefarious as people here make out - it’s just extroverts wanting to mold the workplace to for them. That makes them bad managers, but not necessarily bad people.
fhd2 7mo ago
What baffles me most about RTO is what it does to romantic partnerships. If both can find career advancing jobs in the same city, that's cool. But what if they can't? The options aren't great: 1. One of them takes a hit on their career for the benefit of the other. 2. Both move to an area with OK-ish jobs for both, sharing the sacrifice. 3. Both take optimal jobs wherever they are and move into a long distance relationship. With kids in the mix, it becomes even harder, you might want to be around family to have a support network etc. RTO mandates generally seem pretty tone deaf about this aspect.
- vrganj 7mo ago
  It's because there's a lot of overlap between people thinking "those damn lazy workers better get back to the office so they don't slack off" and people thinking "a woman's role is in the household, raising children and cooking". Regressive attitudes tend to not come alone.
  - pc86 7mo ago
    "RTO is sexist" is a hell of a take.
    - ryandrake 7mo ago
      OP never said that. They said the venn diagram of attitudes promoting RTO coincidentally seems to largely overlap the regressive "women should be homemakers" attitudes.
    - lux-lux-lux 7mo ago
      Why? The data supports it. Women were more likely to leave during RTO efforts than men. WFH being a massive boon for workers with childcare responsibilities or medical issues is widely recognized; there’s a reason why there was a baby boom during the pandemic. A lot of the backlash against WFH workers was blatantly sexist; remember all the rage against those “day in the life of a remote worker” type TikToks? Note how they got way, way more hate than the objectively worse ‘working’ several jobs or modern hustle culture scam stuff? I don’t think it’s the be-all end-all explanation, but the shoe fits.
axus 7mo ago
I'm on a hybrid schedule, same "distance". With a balance of days between home and office, I no longer get tired of the commute. Commute "distance" is definitely measured in minutes and not kilometers.
helle253 7mo ago
there is a secret 3rd solution that alleviates most of these issues: mass transit
- ryandrake 7mo ago
  Mass Transit isn't the solution on its own. It needs to be Mass Transit PLUS people living around mass transit stops. Mass Transit will never, ever, ever work in rural areas where houses are 2-5 miles apart from each other. It would barely work in suburbs, and only certain kinds like bus transit. You're never going to get a subway to work in the suburbs. Mass Transit is great for cities though, we should be building more of it.
  - entropicdrifter 7mo ago
    Trolleys and Regional Rail work great in the Philadelphia suburbs. When the state actually gives SEPTA funding so they can keep their vehicles up to date and pay their workers fairly
stevekemp 7mo ago
I live ~30 minutes from the city center, and the office locations I've had for the past ten years or so. I enjoy sitting on the tram/bus, reading a book and getting into the "work time now" mindset. Having half an hour to relax, look at the scenery, the people, and so on, is always nice.
- mikkupikku 7mo ago
  Time to chill out and read was definitely my favorite part about commuting by train (SEPTA). Unfortunately it also ate a lot of my time, but it was time I could spend reading so I didn't really mind that too much. > getting into the "work time now" mindset This is actually the reason I never liked WFH. I don't want to be in the work mindset at home, it degrades my ability to relax at home.

cassianoleal 7mo ago

In this case you either live in the middle of an industrial hub or you can’t change jobs, so I’m not sure what it actually solves. Hiring by catchment area does seem very appealing for anyone - neither the companies nor the candidates.

shimman 7mo ago
You do realize the vast majority of jobs are not in industrial hubs but urban cities right? Urban cities tend to have more than one employer too. Before I moved across the country, there were maybe a dozen or so companies that were hiring devs where I lived; now after moving there are around 800 companies that hire devs. In this new, for me, city, Boston, it's quite hard to build housing for reasons that seem to only favor those in existing houses.
- cassianoleal 7mo ago
  > not in industrial hubs but urban cities An urban city can be or have an industrial hub. By industrial I don't necessarily mean manufacture. > Urban cities tend to have more than one employer too They can also have those employers at a couple hours commute (not walking) from each other. That helps my point, not hinders it. > there were maybe a dozen or so companies that were hiring devs where I lived Assuming those were all within 15 minutes walking distance, then it would qualify as the kind of industrial hub I mentioned - although a dozen or so may not be good enough for an employee to shop around and get good deals. > now after moving there are around 800 companies that hire devs Again, within 15 min walk of each other? I find that hard to believe, but assuming so, that is an industrial hub.

scythe 7mo ago

Funny to read this as a consultant. My job is an hour away from my job.

th0masfrancis 7mo ago

Plus I need the ability to deduct my transport cost from taxable income.

stevekemp 7mo ago
I guess it depends where you live, I certainly claim commuting costs when I submit my taxes every year. But then again I balance that by claiming some rebates for using my home office, now and again.
rcpt 7mo ago
Recipe for endless sprawl
iso1631 7mo ago
So the person living near the office should subsidise your choice?

pj_mukh 7mo ago

This is the right answer. I have a child, work remotely and while I appreciate the flexibility, I kind of hate it for my career. The article is mostly vibe-y without any digging into why people with children need to commute from so far. It's rent, the answer is almost always rent. Its my rent, its my child-care workers rent, it my kids school-teachers rent. It's always rent.

everdrive 7mo ago
It's also consolidation of jobs in big cities. When I was a kid you didn't need to move away from home to find a stable income. WFH could have solved that, but I think the cultural movement to relocating has just become too entrenched.
- rcpt 7mo ago
  You were a kid before Detroit automakers? Before NYC was the center of finance?
  - everdrive 7mo ago
    Point taken, but the trend has only increased since then.
  - smithoc 7mo ago
    When I was a kid the Detroit automakers bought air filters manufactured at a factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin and brake pads manufactured in Peoria, Illinois and lubricants from Fort Wayne, Indiana. And the people working in those places provided the customer base for local and regional financial services, along with the rest of the commercial base that made small towns and provincial cities good places to live and raise a family throughout the 20th century. And of course, a household only needed one person employed, so there was less pressure to move to a bigger city that could provide opportunities for two different careers.
pllbnk 7mo ago
Not necessarily. We happily moved away to suburbs because we grew tired of the city noise and chaos. The child can stay outside, we have a proper backyard, there are barely any cars in the street. It was much more affordable but was a side effect rather than the main reason to move. And when both parents work from home, as we do, we are doing just fine with a single car. For those exceptional circumstances when we need to be away in different places at the same time, the cab is still nearly infinitely more affordable than a second car.

lo_zamoyski 7mo ago

Unfortunately, much of the US, and elsewhere, has been taken in by decades of successful American propaganda promoting and romanticizing the suburb after the War. The taste for the suburb, like the taste for cars, is very entrenched in many people's minds. In our vapid consumerist culture, they have become elevated to virtual rites of passage: buying a car and buying a suburban house are marks of manhood and adulthood. Furthermore, there's a vicious cycle that keeps cities at a disadvantage, to a large part driven by the parasitic nature of suburbs themselves. Suburbs are financially completely unsustainable. Tax revenue doesn't come close to paying for the maintenance of suburban roads, infrastructure, and utilities. They survive by draining state and federal money, which itself is disproportionately drawn from urban centers where economic activity is highest. This takes money away from cities that should be reinvested back into cities. One thing we should do is tax municipal bonds. There are other ways in which suburbs are actively and artificially propped up, of course. The point is that the suburbs has always been a Frankenstein on life support that's been bleeding cities. So I think one way to address the suburb is to attack the parasitic dimension. By forcing suburbs to pay their own way, no one can be accused of robbing suburbs; it would incriminate the suburbs and call out their hypocrisy. It would also strike at the heart of the "adulthood" and "manhood" artificially bound up with owning a house in the suburbs. How adult and how masculine is it to mooch off of others to maintain the suburban lifestyle? This would then fortify the urbs and also push back on the stupidity of the housing market in cities, the poor land use in many of them, as well as bad public transportation.

eudamoniac 7mo ago
Your solution to "the stupidity of the housing markets in cities" is to increase their demand, and to make housing overall more unaffordable? Sorry, no, I'm not going to raise my family of six plus a dog in a high rise. Encouraging happy, productive families by subsidizing suburbs is good.
- lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
  > increase their demand, and to make housing overall more unaffordable? You're not thinking systematically. Increased demand isn't the only variable. Consider also how gov't and the market respond to increased demand and need, especially if the paradigm of normative human settlement changes. Social pressure forces changes. Diffusing pressure allows gov'ts to kick the can down the road, which is what led to the suburban debacle. > I'm not going to raise my family of six plus a dog in a high rise. Where did I say you must live in a high rise? Urban development isn't limited to high rises. Small towns and cities exist, yes? It's a question of density and particular patterns of urban planning that enable a healthy social environment. Traditional urban planning did a far better job of that than the suburb. And btw, what's the problem having a large family in a high rise? Living in a high rise actually reduces the maintenance costs (both in terms of time and money). Owning a suburban house comes with more overhead. In well-designed cities, there is ample green space. In a landscape dotted with cities, you are also within reach of more expansive natural landscapes that haven't been spoiled, scarred, and deformed by sprawling suburbs. > Encouraging happy, productive families by subsidizing suburbs is good. I assure you: the suburb is neither good for families nor productive. They are extraordinarily wasteful. Children are shackled and isolated at home, because getting anywhere requires driving. Parents are then burdened with the task of driving their children everywhere or making arrangements. You can't do or buy anything without driving. People waste countless hours commuting. And as I already wrote, it is very expensive to maintain suburban utilities. It takes a lot more energy to keep the suburban machine running. Suburbs are basically on gov't welfare funded by city tax payers. This naturally comes off as entitled: entitled not to live in a high rise (which, as I said, is not necessarily entailed by the word "city", so rather moot) and entitled to subsidies that drain resources from cities. Why don't suburbs pay for the luxury of their own existence? Funding them is not a matter of the common good, nor is it charity. It's exploitation of others to satisfy a private fetish and fantasy, one that incidentally harms the common good. I encourage you to visit Strong Towns[0]. There's plenty of material there that targets a popular audience that covers this subject. You might find these ideas less threatening than the urban boogeyman of your mind. [0] https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/

scruple 7mo ago

Through circumstance I went from a fully remote working arrangement to working for a place that's 5 miles down a single surface street from where I live (which, during commute hours pushes up to 15 minutes). I go in twice a week, but since we have kids it's mostly a wash. I still vastly prefer the 3 days per week that I work from home. The office gets very busy and very loud, especially in the afternoons.

joshcsimmons 7mo ago

Not to mention safe neighborhood!

bombcar 7mo ago

Companies could also do this the way they used to - satellite offices and similar. In fact, I've never actually commuted into the city for a job, it's always been suburb to suburb commutes - part of the problem there has been it's not worth moving for a job that lasts on average 3-5 years.

Cthulhu_ 7mo ago
This would be ideal, I live right next to an industrial / office estate with plenty of flexible office space available. But in my line of work I'm often put next to people from all over the country, and / or on assignments where most the employees already do live close. I did get a job close to home once, but one, the job was a bit bleh, and two, the pandemic started three months in so we were all asked to work from home for the next 2+ years.

Cthulhu_ 7mo ago

This is it; cost and quality of living is proportional to distance to employment, especially in services and tech. I made a tradeoff, I could buy a reasonably comfortable and -priced house, but access to public transit and / or time spent commuting increased by at least half an hour. And that was a few years ago now, that option no longer exists; I might be able to get an apartment if I pay 2x as much as what I did for my house.

Corrado 7mo ago

> If I could afford to live 15 minutes from the office I 100% would go to an office. This is a really good point. At one point in my career I lived close enough to the office that I could ride my bike to work. It was actually pretty nice to work that close to home and I didn't really mind going into the office.