[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.