Some other more empathetic reasons:

1. They live in one city, and received a job in another. 2 hours would be Philadelphia to DC or NYC for example. But they can't get a more local job (those don't exist, they can't land them, etc.)

2. They can't move for some reason. Their partner can't get another job. Their children are in a school and they don't want to move them until they graduate. Their parents are family are nearby and they must be near them, medical issues are possible, elderly, etc.

3. They just really love where they live

4. They Can't afford to live.

4. is likely not true - software positions at worst are decently middle class.

3. is an argument against empathy. they made their choice to prioritize where they are living over commute. That's exactly OP's point.

1. again, if they choose not to relocate then the commute is their responsibility not the job's fault.

2. is the main point i now have a lot of sympathy for now that I have kids. Kids benefit from continuity and uprooting your whole life for one of the partner's jobs is somewhat selfish.

But even in that situation, I feel like the onus is still on the person - they are choosing their kids over their commute. The commute isn't for the job. The commute is for the kids.

Hopefully this isn’t from delusions but there ARE SE positions with very bad pay especially when what class you eligible for depends on where you live. Software positions at worst can be lower class.

4. is actually true -- in certain SF bay area it probably needs 2 dev salaries to get a house now.

I fail to see how this is at all relevant to whether or not we should return to in person work. If the Bay Area truly is unlivable, that strikes me as a local political concern. A place with that much wealth surely could have built more housing, infrastructure, etc, but the local population chose not to. Either vote with your feet or live with the consequences of the life you and your neighbors chose.

"getting a house" is not the minimal threshold for success.

Maybe "I recently quite a job/quality of life balance that necessitated a 2 hour+ commute".

Modifying one of those (ideally the job half) to eliminate that commute is a great choice if available.

How do you know they live in an exurb? Maybe they just live in a town two hours away? Why do they live in that town and work in another? Maybe they have family or social responsibilities that force it - I don't know and neither do you.

It's absolutely the most likely scenario. I'm making a point.

> It's absolutely the most likely scenario.

I don't think so. I know many people who for example wanted to keep their children in the same school so commute for a new job. I don't know anyone who commutes through two hours of suburbs. Where is that even possible? Los Angeles maybe?

> I'm making a point.

Well what is it?

People in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, L.A. etc, get themselves into these situations by buying new construction on the edge of the city thinking that the traffic on the expressways can't possibly get any worse. They then realize several years later that it has, in fact. The open secret is that their lifestyle choices are what's causing it.

My point is that you are not entitled to both your McMansion enclave and your cushy software engineering position at Big Corp. Denser development (in the U.S.) is necessary and would be achieved if people were willing to pay for it and vote for it.

Instead, they do the worst possible thing, which is imagine they can live a pseudo-bucolic existence and not be members of the urban center, or at least old growth dense suburbs, that actually support the jobs they want to have.

Is this pathology uniquely American? No, but arguably we invented it and have taken it to the most extreme level.

You've got absolutely no idea what kind of home this individual lives in or their personal situation or why they're commuting that far. You're criticising them for something you've imagined.

Let's imagine for a second you're correct that they are commuting from one relatively underdeveloped area to another.

That's still totally unrealistic in the modern economy. I get it. All of you that have kids and a settled life want to flip the table and make yourselves as unavailable as possible. No more mentorship of younger engineers and new team members. No more face to face planning and strategy. No more conferences, after-work networking, etc.

It's selfish. You're going to be proven wrong by those who are willing to show up, collaborate, and innovate. We're going to run circles around you and leave your failing businesses in the dust.

!remindme 1 decade.

Or San Francisco.