This is basically how it happens in practice. Single people generally don't commute as much. People get this "happiness equation."

But, with a partner and kids, commuting becomes a greater good sacrifice. Depending on work location, a 60 minutes commute can mean a bigger house, better neighborhood and college savings.

Commuting affects kids too, they get less time with a more exhausted, stressed parent. Compromises are harder to make with five people.

This is one of the reasons urban architecture, with an eye to the economics of it all, are important. Architects tend to swim in abstract water. But, when they say things like "how people relate to and occupy their built environemt," I like to think they mean things like "*How people to get to work, and how awful it is."

IMO, these are exactly the kinds of measures we should have have governments, rather than gdp. Commute times/pleasantness, housing-share of income, etc.

For a city, knocking 10% off average commute time is on par with reducing crime rates or similar.

Cities often have rules that increase sprawl and help cause the long commutes. Here are some: - Not allowing mixed residential/commercial/office - Setbacks from lot lines, especially front and side. They increase cost of roads, sewer, water, electric and increase commute times for... vague aesthetic reasons? The fire code thing is a non-issue if appropriate building techniques and materials are used. - Not allowing simple density improvements such as duplexes/triplex/quadplex or garage attic apartments.

> This is complicated for couples though, because it is hard for you and your partner to find employment in the same part of a city. So one of you will probably have to make a sacrifice.

Yeah, I think this may be an under-appreciated factor. Also the cost and misery of moving house when you change jobs.

If the individuals literally walk into office, I also wonder how much of it is literally walking. I find walking has an outsized influence on my mood, much more than I expect a priori. (of course the stress from traffic and lost time must not help...)

Absolutely. I’ve come to realise two things about humans recently, that are quite obvious really. We are social animals, and we are walking animals.

> Does the interaction with humans outweigh the benefits of being able to roll out of bed and be at the office?

I wonder if this harrowing 911 call sheds some light on this question:

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/i-work-from-hom...

I don’t consider working hours proper human interaction. It’s professional interaction. Working from home is not recommended for every personality type.

Holy hell what did I just read

> Does the interaction with humans outweigh the benefits of being able to roll out of bed and be at the office?

Depends on the personality of the person and the health of the rest of their social life.

I lived out of a suitcase for 4 years preferring to hotel it rather than commute 1.25hrs each way. It worked for me because of the contracting arrangement legitimately let me take the employees non-reimbursed biz expense deduction for the out of town days. Living away from home sucked though, and when the president got pissed off at Hollywood and successfully lobbied to kill the non-reimbursed biz expense deduction it no longer made financial sense. On the bright side I see more of my family now.

So many resources are freed when remote working that can be invested in other activities that involve human interaction.

Yep. And the interaction with coworkers is shallow/guarded because of the nature of work.

It’s like longing for the interaction offered by a long flight. Chat with your neighbor, get on with your day.

Why not have social interaction with people you look forward to interacting with? (Does anyone go to the office to hang out on their day off?)

It would be interesting to know if people, on average, actually do put those resources towards human interaction, and whether it improves their well-being overall.

... or live in Kanto countryside and commute to Tokyo by Shinkansen.

That would be rather expensive surely?

I did that for a while (like two months). The shinkansen pass for Odawara->Shinagawa/Tokyo costs about 70,000 per month (it's a bit more now due to the tax increase). May be reasonable if your workplace is close to Shin-Yokohama or Shinagawa or Tokyo, but if you're in a place like Roppongi, there is very little benefit. Plus the shinkansen that stop in Odawara don't run very often, and the last train is pretty early. (Don't know about the other shinkansen.)

Not particularly, since most employers reimburse your transportation costs (generally up to 50k yen, but I’ve seen 100k).

vs living in a similar sized place inside Tokyo itself?

I'm not very familiar with Tokyo real estate but prices far west on the Chuo line are quite reasonable, but even out there you're still much closer to the CBD than Shinkansen commuting from eg. Saitama or Kanagawa. (Of course I'm not arguing about quality of life, sailing in from your minka in the real countryside on the Shinkasen sounds great if I could afford that life)

"An individual with a 60 minute commute has to earn 40 per cent more money to be equally satisfied with life as an individual who can walk to the office"

This mixing of units is enough to call the whole paper into question. 60 minutes - by what mode. There is no reason you can't walk 60 minutes to work even though I don't know of anybody who does.

I have walked to work before, it took me about 40 minutes. I have also drove the same distance, takes about 12. I can take the bus which takes about 30 minutes (including 10 minutes walking to/from the stop). A helicopter could probably do it in 5. You can imagine other ways I could get to work with different travel times (practical is not a requirement).

There are affordable houses ($172K to $306K) near my workplace that are close enough that you could commute by pogo stick or pole vault.

I'm farther away, at unicycle distance.

Did you read the paper to find their definition of commute?