Posted on 06/17/2024 11:32:11 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
(NewsNation) — Americans’ morning commutes are getting longer as remote work and rising housing costs continue to change the way people live.
The share of “super-commutes,” those 75 miles or longer, is up by nearly a third since the start of the pandemic, according to new research from Stanford University.
Those trips to the office typically take two hours and 20 minutes each way, nearly five hours total, the study found. For workers who super-commute daily, that’s almost a full 24-hour day of travel per week.
However, a daily journey may not be the norm. Researchers suspect hybrid work is driving the shift.
Employees who no longer have to trek into the office each day appear to be more willing to tolerate a longer commute once or twice a week if it means a higher standard of living further away.
In that sense, workers are making a trade-off.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
If I was a CEO, I would fire any senior executive who thinks it’s a good idea to lease office space and only use it 3 out of 7 days.
This is the sub-headline “Skyrocketing housing prices could be another factor pushing workers away from urban centers and into more affordable areas.”
““Do I live in a small apartment that doesn’t work for us but I have a shorter commute? Or do I just have two days of, you know, driving hell?”
This relates to the new push of trying to push old people out of their homes with property taxes.
When these workers are of retiring age after sacrificing to have a better home life their areas will probably be seen as the most desirable areas as the cities overtake them and property taxes going off the charts, a process that is happening to the old of today.
Most senior execs are in the office 5 days a week. The people directly under them are the same. It’s the staff that work remotely. We had employees who weren’t even in the same state as us. It was just easier to find remote developers.
It depends on the psychological effect it has on the workers, if it still serves the goal of keeping them mentally tied to the office, then it serves its purpose, also a company can have different office days similar to 2 shifts.
If I was a CEO, I would fire any senior executive who thinks it’s a good idea to lease office space and only use it 3 out of 7 days.
How about 5 out of 7 days?
Or 60% of the space previously used for a commensurate cost savings? How about that while giving employees a 'perk' of commuting into the office fewer days at no cost?
That’s fine, but the scenario you describe is not what the other Freeper posted.
But this Freeper’s example has a combination of factors that makes no sense. If every employee is working on-site for the same three days every week, then the company’s office utilization is reduced by 40% but the cost of the space is the same. That makes no practical sense.
Complaining that your coworkers want remote five days a week?
One of our daughters is 100% remote as is her husband.
Other daughter lives in the SF Bay Area and works for a company in Albuquerque. She spends a week every couple months at the home office, the rest of the time working remotely at home.
Our son manages a retail outlet, but has a short one-mile commute.
Lots of options these days!
The last time I visited the building in Sept 2017, it was for the purpose of a in-person visit with the 25 staff members under my lead. We had a good time. I was somewhat hobbled by not having a physical office to work.
Those "super commuters" are those who are likely traveling to an office every several months for meetings that corporate doesn't want to have recorded via Teams or Webex, to make sure they can control exactly who is privy to the information. I know several who people are in that situation, where they're discussing financial or medical decisions in person because they don't trust having that go through the web. Once every three months, they have high-level people travel from all over the country to headquarters for such meetings. Other than that, there is no reason to have people in an office (and they couldn't afford to hire enough talent locally anyway).
I think the hybrid thing is what my employer is doing. I’ve been remote for years so it doesn’t affect me.
I also think that many managers are very flexible about it. Get your job done and they don’t seem to care where from.
I had a conversation recently with someone who is a tenured professor at the University of Arizona but lives in Columbus, Ohio. All of his courses are taught online.
So, if 5 of 7 days occupancy ideal for an office building? Or 6 days - allowing for 2 shifts of 3-day a week people - Mon to Wed, Thu to Sat, or some other combination. And smaller space, since only half of your workforce is occupying at any given time.
That would be for people who do the actual work that the company exists for. Support staff, like IT and HR, can be on another schedule to provide coverage as needed.
The real missing ingredient is competent management to make this all work. It's a lot easier to follow one model, and not build your own that works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.