[ectoplasm]

Yeah, me neither... but I don't think blaming commuters like ryandrake for advocating their lifestyle is the answer. Different people have different priorities. You wouldn't sneer at OP for working 60-hour weeks (it's glorified in the valley), but that's what a 40-hour work week with a 4-hour daily commute amounts to. I dunno, maintaining a separation between work and home can be healthy.

[Apocryphon]

Truthfully, I think we're getting to the point where there's a backlash against 60 workweeks. You can see it in the comments that are on HN. Devs are getting disgruntled at the "perpetual college all-nighter" coding culture, even as they feel they're not getting properly compensated by startups. But that's a different comment thread for a different future story.

[simoncion]

> You wouldn't sneer at OP for working 60-hour weeks...

Sneer? No. Pity and feel sorry for? Unless he was getting a really big payout from all that work, absolutely. Because:

> ... that's what a 40-hour work week with a 4-hour daily commute amounts to.

Don't give up half of 5/7ths of your leisure time on anything that doesn't richly reward you.

[ectoplasm]

It's not 5/7ths, you're awake for 16 hours: 8 work, 8 leisure. This means on 5 out of 7 days, half of your leisure time is gone. So if you burn 4 commuting then you've given up 20 hours out of 40 + 2 * 16 on the weekends = 72, which is 28% vs. your 71%.

Personally I would never do it, but like, different strokes.

Also, define richly. Assume monthly savings of $2000/month on housing, call it $500 / week, that's $25 an hour. Plenty of people make less than that, so again it's just priorities.

[simoncion]

> It's not 5/7ths...

I know. That's why I said:

"Don't give up half of 5/7ths of your leisure time..."

> Also, define richly.

For the purposes of that analysis, I can only define it for myself.

My "richly" is probably not going to be the same as someone else's "richly". What's more, as we age its definition is very much likely to change.

One thing's for certain: a "lost wage" analysis is probably going to grossly underestimate the value of the lost time for a lot of people.

[ectoplasm]

Alright, so I missed the "half of". But you missed that there are 9 8-hour blocks of leisure in a week, not 7. So it's half of 5/9, or simply 5/18. Which doesn't sound that bad compared to 2.5/18 which is what a 1-hour commute gets you.

Let's face it, we're both being kind of sloppy.

[simoncion]

> But you missed that there are 9 8-hour blocks of leisure in a week, not 7.

Unless his partner is unemployed or a "housewife", there are childrearing and housekeeping tasks that are certain to occupy the "work" time on the weekends. Until the kid gets is own job and (if you live in a place with poor-to-nonexistent public transit) can be trusted with a car, having a kid is work.

> So it's half of 5/9, or simply 5/18. Which doesn't sound that bad compared to 2.5/18 which is what a 1-hour commute gets you.

No, it still sounds bad. A two-hour commute kills half of your leisure time every work day. A one-hour commute kills a quarter of the same. In both cases, that's a lot of time to lose.