[SirMaster]

I mean, I am biased because my commute by car is 10 minutes and there's barely any traffic. But that was also by choice. I chose to locate myself close to the office like that, because I like working in the office at least a lot of the time, and I hate long commutes too. So I sought out and made happen a situation that was to my preferences.

I live in a suburb and work at a company that is in the suburbs. It's a manufacturing company, but they need software developers all the same.

I don't know, sometimes I feel like a bit of an outlier. I arrange my life for fun and convenience and joy. I don't try to maximize money at the expense of those things. Making say 20% more but having a long commute or working in an office that I don't enjoy being in is not worth it to me because time is money, and my day to day joy and happiness are more important to me than a little more money as well.

People seem so unhappy all the time. I just don't get it. I go for what makes me happy and it seems to work great for me.

[spokaneplumb]

Tensions arise for most folks that can’t easily be resolved by just moving close to work (what if you change jobs, though? Laid off, or too-slow wage increases? Even this is only a partial solution)

It’s not usually a choice to be unhappy, as you seem to be framing it. You live ten minutes from work, but you get a partner, and how far away is your place from their employer? You have kids and all the schools within 20 minutes of your employer are fairly bad, plus the above issue of conflicting partner commutes, and also you can’t just move them between school districts frequently to move around near your current employer.

So yes, lots of people end up with shitty commutes because the alternatives are worse. They’re not choosing that because they’re dumb or choosing to be unhappy, but because of conflicting interests. WFH for one or both adults in a household removes a ton of that tension in ways that basically nothing else can (short of “stay single and never have kids”)