Sneer? No. Pity and feel sorry for? Unless he was getting a really big payout from all that work, absolutely. Because:
> ... that's what a 40-hour work week with a 4-hour daily commute amounts to.
Don't give up half of 5/7ths of your leisure time on anything that doesn't richly reward you.
Personally I would never do it, but like, different strokes.
Also, define richly. Assume monthly savings of $2000/month on housing, call it $500 / week, that's $25 an hour. Plenty of people make less than that, so again it's just priorities.
I know. That's why I said:
"Don't give up half of 5/7ths of your leisure time..."
> Also, define richly.
For the purposes of that analysis, I can only define it for myself.
My "richly" is probably not going to be the same as someone else's "richly". What's more, as we age its definition is very much likely to change.
One thing's for certain: a "lost wage" analysis is probably going to grossly underestimate the value of the lost time for a lot of people.
Let's face it, we're both being kind of sloppy.
Unless his partner is unemployed or a "housewife", there are childrearing and housekeeping tasks that are certain to occupy the "work" time on the weekends. Until the kid gets is own job and (if you live in a place with poor-to-nonexistent public transit) can be trusted with a car, having a kid is work.
> So it's half of 5/9, or simply 5/18. Which doesn't sound that bad compared to 2.5/18 which is what a 1-hour commute gets you.
No, it still sounds bad. A two-hour commute kills half of your leisure time every work day. A one-hour commute kills a quarter of the same. In both cases, that's a lot of time to lose.