I agree with others on this thread that this article reads too much like a "make lemonade from your lemons", which is not a real argument against the harm of a long commute, any more than "After I lost my sight, my sense of hearing has become stronger and I have a greater appreciation for the small noises in life that you sighted people may never have" is a rejoinder to "You should wear safety goggles while pouring beakers of acid"

However, I don't think the author's argument should be taken as just that. He brings up the possibility of gaining something from a long commute, and that those benefits should be added to the equation. Because, to restate the obvious, there are opportunity costs if you choose to reduce the commute. Such as, buying a new house and/or living in a crappier neighborhood. Or, not getting that job at all.

So the equation is no longer: the cost of moving/having a lesser job vs. 10% of my life in a car.

But: the cost of moving/having a lesser job vs. 10% of my life in a car where I have the opportunity to enrich myself.

At my first job out of college, I was assigned to a small regional office in a bland suburb. I chose to live in a college town that was nearly an hour away. So I lost two hours of my life every weekday to driving, but I did do more "reading" than I have at any other point in my post-college life. And I made friends and had the kind of social life that I would've never had had I chose to live in the soulless suburban sprawl in which my cubicle was located.