I started playing around with the idea of how much it costs to have a job based on location and it was interesting to see how different variables changed the final wage and how that played out against a map of the city.
Depending on the city, you could easily be looking at a 100% cost rise in rent, a few thousand on car maintenance and gasoline depending on your car a year, a few thousand on food, about ~12% reduction in wage, and a few days of lost PTO.
Yes it’s “easier” (sometimes) than working, but it’s still time I dedicate to work. Its entire purpose exists because work exists.
I used to have a really gnarly commute (1.5 hours one way, so 3 hours total, 3.5-4 if there was an accident). The level to which it affected my finances is one thing, but it absolutely demolished my quality of life. I couldn’t socialize, sleep, or even cook for myself due to the exhaustion. And spending minimum of 12 hours a day sitting destroyed my body and mental health. Not to mention traffic is not peaceful, it’s stressful. You have to constantly be “on” and paying attention. Even a single second of distraction can be an accident.
On the employee side, the solution is to ALWAYS factor in your commute time. A job that pays 20,000 dollars more a year can easily not be worth it if the commute is insane. If you have to double your rent to make it work, it's probably not worth it.
I factor in commute like I factor in other benefits, like health insurance and PTO. My salary can't necessarily replace those, so they implicitly have a higher value than money alone. It would take a really nice salary to override them. And I think that's why we see absurd salaries in places like Seattle. They know employee's are doing this calculus, they can't afford to pay 100,000 like you can in, say, Texas.
This is I think where hybrid (with weekly attendance) really makes more sense in theory than in practice, ending up as worst of both worlds depending.
With in-office you pay a premium for location that is good for commuting.
With remote you can choose a cheaper location without the commute constraint (maybe 50% off), somewhat offset by needing more space to setup a proper home office (add back 10-20%).
With hybrid you still need to be close enough that 2 days/week of commuting is tolerable and ALSO need space for a home office.
I start with the stated wage on a job description and attempt to calculate the value of any additional benefits to arrive at the hourly rate a potential employer thinks my time is worth. Vehicle cost is similarly straightforward since wear and mileage calculators are standardized and you're already budgeting for parking if you need to.
However. Once you collect a handful of data points the rest of the process is entirely personal. For example, a one-hour commute each way sounds terrible unless that's the only time in the day you have to yourself, but if the traffic is never smooth or you need to switch trains three times it might be a wash.
The key point is to determine if a specific activity is solely work-related and if I get anything else out of it, and then apply the dollar value this potential employer sets on my time as above.
Now take a look at your food situation. Do you and your partner meal prep every Sunday without fail? Do you start your day at the Starbucks drive thru? Now take a look at your responsibilities. Do you have children? Do you have pets? Now take a look at your wardrobe. The list goes on and it's all situational.
The interesting part of the project was seeing how much home location + commute options + work location affect net pay by just dragging a few markers around a map of the city. I was adding average residential rent by location last time I touched this and felt like the project was turning into a map of the de facto minimum wage in my area.
To answer your question this was $20k net to me, mainly from maintaining a vehicle, eating out of the house, and keeping up my in-office appearance.