I really hate it when people try to turn a negative into a positive like this.
It's wonderful that he's managing to use 2 hours of his day that would otherwise be unproductive and un-fun, but if he had those 2 hours at home, he could choose to do so many more things, including spending them with family or friends.
If you're the type of person who can't do anything productive or healthy unless forced into it, a forced commute could be helpful, I guess. If you have control of yourself and your destiny, a forced commute is a negative thing.
I agree that the commute situation in the article is negative. However, it's possible to have a discussion on a deeper level that what's being presented here. For example, each way my commute is 50 minutes by bus or 25 minutes by car. I can see people falling on either side of that tradeoff.
+ Car gives me 1 hour of extra time at home and 1 hour in the car, per day. High in cost, high in stress (for me), high in freedom.
+ Bus gives me 2 hours on the bus, per day. Low in cost, medium in stress, low in freedom.
On a personal level I can't utilize the hour each day driving very well. So if I drive I think I get an effective 1.5 hours of work out of it (50% utilization while driving, 1 hour at home). Whereas with the bus I get 2 hours of work pretty reliably. As a recent college graduate, the additional hours of work and savings fit me perfectly. This is a time period where it's smart to rapidly increase your technical competency and savings. As I grow older and have a family, the tradeoff looks different. I think then it would make more sense to spend the money and lose a bit of work time, but have a lot more time at home and a lot more freedom.
I think it is a matter of "opportunity cost". If you take the commute as a given then the question wrt to the technical tome is: "What must I give up to read this book?" On the train the answer is: "Sleep, stare out the window, solve crossword".
Contrast with home where the answer is: "anything and everything." Then reading a giant technical treatise is not quite as appealing an option.
I'm not advocating long commutes but there is perhaps something to be said for artificially limiting one's choices at times.
I agree with this 100%. I feel guilty staring out a window - that's wasteful - but I don't feel guilty spending an extra half hour with my girlfriend or investing the time preparing myself a nicer dinner.
Reminds me of what I've been hearing orthodox jews say my entire life about the Sabbath. About how great it is because you are forced to not work at least one day a week and spend time with your family etc. For those not familiar, Orthodox jews don't work from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown and can't even "use" electricity or do any labor etc. If you use a refrigerator it has to be rigged so the light is always on and doesn't come on only when the door is opened. Things like that.
If I told you I'm more productive in the office than I am at home you'd probably tell me that's a fairly common reaction from those of us who have been on either side of that fence. This guy tells you he's more productive on his commute than at home and he's "...the type of person who can't do anything productive or healthy unless forced into it." I find that thinking unsound.
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.
There is something, perhaps, to be said about forced activities and artificially limited choices. There are no doubt people in possession of sufficient motivation, discipline, wisdom and insight that can take the near-infinite list of possibilities that lie before each one of us and choose the happy few which are truly worthwhile.
For the rest of us being forced to sig in one place for an hour a day might give us an opportunity to tend to parts of ourselves that might otherwise be neglected in the rush of life. To a busy person taking 30minutes to sit in the kitchen, read the paper, and sip some coffee would appear as sloth and idleness but doing the same in a train car is nearly as pleasant and gives no opportunity for the evil optimizer in our heads to give us grief about it.
I think a long commute on public transport is very different than a long commute in the car. The first I could see doing when I was younger without a family. Driving a long commute though is, IMHO, a miserable way to spend your time and money.
The misery index of your commute is inversely related to your average speed.
For a spell I had a 50min commute with an average speed of around 40mph. It was a pleasant drive, mostly rural roads.
If I had to grind my way into a major city in traffic and averaging 20-25mph (with a worst case significantly slower) for those same 50min I would go insane.
Absolutely. I used to commute in southwestern CT and it could easily take 90 minutes to drive 15 miles. It was sheer misery and I soon resorted to taking the train even though it meant walking 1.5 miles.
These days I have a 25 mile commute from a rural area to the suburbs and it's 55mph most of the way, very little traffic, pretty scenery and very relaxing (except in the middle of a snowstorm!).
I used to commute 2hrs15 mins from Brighton to London, then 2hrs 15mins back again. I took the train, always got a seat at a table (I got on at the first station), had tethering on my iPhone and got an ENORMOUS amount of work done.
I was only working four days a week though, which made it tolerable. Commuting like that five days a week would have driven me mad.
So, just to get this straight, the answer to "A 20 minute, 40 mile commute to work costs you $125.000 and 1.3 years of work, over 10 years" is "I take the train and I listen to podcasts" ?
I see how he's trying to show a most positive side, but what he's doing is both moving the goal posts and a strawman argument.
No commute is better, but if you're going to have to commute, his commute is much better than most: 1 hour of walking and 1 hour by train.
For me, walking is by far the most pleasant way of commuting. Driving is way too stressful and eliminates the opportunity to multitask. If I bike, it pumps my energy level up too high, so it takes a while to calm down enough to get into the zone. Walking is the only way I can start doing productive work the instant I get to the office.
The huge advantage of the train is that you can work on the train if it isn't too crowded. That's a big if, but if it works and you have a cooperative boss, suddenly commuting time is no longer commuting time.
When I went from having a 2 hour commute via public transit to a 15 minute walk to work, the main thing I've been lacking is the time to read recreationally - though as someone points out below that's just me not making time for it.
It's wonderful that he's managing to use 2 hours of his day that would otherwise be unproductive and un-fun, but if he had those 2 hours at home, he could choose to do so many more things, including spending them with family or friends.
If you're the type of person who can't do anything productive or healthy unless forced into it, a forced commute could be helpful, I guess. If you have control of yourself and your destiny, a forced commute is a negative thing.