Happiness Tip of the Day: Ditch the Commute

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


From Alex Tabarrok on homebuying:

One final point: behavioral economics tells us that we quickly get used to big houses but we never get used to commuting. So when you have a choice, go for the smaller house closer to work.

A thousand times yes. Obviously not everyone has this choice, and it’s not practical to move every time you get a new job. But yes, if you have the option, try to keep your commute under 20 minutes.

Want something more quantifiable? Here are two of “The Rules” from Joel Garreau’s Edge City, a dated but wonderful book about the building of suburbia:

The maximum desirable commute, throughout human history, regardless of transportation technology: 45 minutes.

Cevero’s law of the value of time wasted in traffic jams: People view the time they waste in a traffic jam as equal, in dollar value, to half their hourly wage. For example, if you make $50,000 per year, that’s $25 per hour. That means you’ll pay $3.12 each way per day to cut 15 minutes off your commute. That’s about $125 per month, which scales to about $30,000 in the price of a house.

That sounds low to me—in Southern California that’s a rounding error in the price of a home—but it’s at least a good starting point. If you can buy a house 15 minutes closer to work for $30,000 more, grab it. If it’s $50,000 more, behavioral economics says you should ignore your financial angst and grab it anyway. If it’s $100,000 more, you might need to think things through a little harder. Or, as Tabarrok suggests, settle for a small house near work at the same price as the bigger house in the burbs. You probably won’t regret it.

Anyway, from personal experience I can tell you that short commutes are great. And the greatest commute of all? A walk down the stairs each morning. That’s hard to beat.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest