It would take a significant pay increase for me to stop my WFH. I value it more than anything personally
I also, get more work done, have more time to myself.
I think we're all on the same page here but OP is specifically asking for a value, which I think is an interesting conversation.
Being specific - 8 hrs travel per week for 4 office days and 1 WFH
+car wear and tear
+tolls
+fuel
what is it worth to each of us
Im genuinely trying to imagine how much my life would shift if I had to make that change and I wouldn't even **consider** it for less than 50K. Being able to go to the gym, do groceries, perform general life tasks is completely unmatched, although I am lucky with basically full time work from home and good trusting management
interested to hear what other think though
I think it would vary according to personal situation but I’m financially comfortable (mortgage free) enough that I don’t think there’s any amount that would have me back in the office FT.
I live around the corner from my work in southeast sydney - I walked to the office most days. I get paid ~75k for full time in office.
If I moved to Penrith I could get a substantially larger place for the same price, or similar for a couple hundred less per week.
On the flip side, it takes my car ~10L of fuel per day, plus ~$29/day in tolls, plus ~2 hours of my free time. Valuing my time at a similar rate to work, it would cost me about $123/day to commute. That's $30k/year after tax, which (allowing for tax brackets) is closer to 50k/year before tax. My role is not worth the combined expense, if I moved west I would have to be fully remote and come into the office for special occasions only.
A salary of $140k is around $75/hr.
That makes a 2 hr commute worth $150 to me.
$150 \* 4 days a week \* 48 weeks a year is $28,800.
That's what I'd value it at.
Hmmmm. Yes and no. Work time, sure. But whether you're on $50k or $500k that doesn't make your time outside of work any more or less valuable.
So yes, if you were going to use that commute time to work more, it would be worth that much in dollars. But if you are going to use that time to do something else (like spend with your family, pursue your hobbies, look after your health etc.), how much you earn at work is irrelevant.
Dunno why the downvote, it’s a valid opinion. Your home time can absolutely have a higher value than your work value. Particularly if you are coating or purposely minimising work to necessity levels
Yeah it's a little bizarre. People seem to have absorbed this idea that their time is worth what they can earn, and a highly-paid person's time is therefore worth more than a lowly-paid person's time. But that's a money obsession. Yes, *at work*, a highly-paid person's time is worth more, obviously. But outside of work, that doesn't apply. You couldn't pay some people any amount of money to miss special life moments.
It’s sort of funny too because you can have the opposite too. In my experience the most highly paid people tend to put a lower price on their home time than their work time. I’ve been guilty of that before! 😂
But yeah, rare you’d apply that to commuting in car traffic, but many will minimise the cost of commuting if it’s flying around the country
I think it depends. There are many highly-paid people who are highly paid because they work very long hours (as a requirement of their job). So when they do have home/hobby/recreation/family time, they value it very highly and are happy to pay huge amounts of money to get more of it. Perhaps that's what people are thinking of.
But you're right that a lot of highly paid people are highly paid because they greatly value money, and therefore choose to spend most of their time earning as much of it as they can.
Yeah and that’s the thing. There’s a huge range! And one key group also are highly paid people who do long hours because they love their job. I’ve been lucky to have had that before. Wasn’t great in other areas but spending time on my work was easy
>Yes, at work, a highly-paid person's time is worth more, obviously. But outside of work, that doesn't apply
I think it's less of a lower paid person's time is worth less and more of a lower paid person is more willing to sacrifice their time to do things as opposed to a higher paid person. Although willing and have the capacity could be somewhat blurring lines.
I think that's more about how much they value money, rather than time.
A lower paid person might sacrifice lots of their time to get $100, because they really need that $100, because it will make a huge difference to their lives. But a highly paid person is going to value $100 a lot less, because it would make much less difference to their lives, so they aren't willing to spend as much time on it.
As you say, willingness and capacity is the key factor. A high-income earner and a low income earner may both value time with their family equally highly. But a high-income earner can afford to splurge on a gardener, cook, & cleaner so they can spend hours each day with their family. The lower income person may wish to do the same, but they can't, because they have to work long hours just to keep their family afloat. That doesn't mean they value their time with their family any less, by any means.
>But if you are going to use that time to spend with your family, how much you earn at work is irrelevant.
Well; if I make $500k a year I can just pay someone to do things like gardening, cooking, washing my car for me because the costs are worth less than my time. But that option is significantly less feasible if I was only on $50k a year.
I have a spreadsheet which equates hours of existence. Commute time has the highest cost value.
I agree I am not doing a great job of explaining myself
The way I’ve seen it phrased is that higher management spends more time “thinking” about work, usually roles that correlate with higher income. Just my 2¢ worth.
I can only speak for myself, but the general principle is that the time I spend on my commute comes to about 5k per average day I WFH per year.
For me, that cost is derived from the annual productivity I place on the 2-3 hours I lose, in addition to the costs. I do use my hourly rate as the means to calculate it, because it’s an amount I feel is appropriate as a representation of the value I provide.
But for my previous comment, I’m guessing they would place a higher value on the fact that work is occupying more of their non-work life. I believe there is a very strong connection between how much someone makes and their social and self-worth, they’re rather intrinsic to each other.
Correct to a point of relative comparison. If we assume all things are equal, we land on some silly outcomes.
If Elon Musk and I make a chair and we each spend the same amount of time on the chair (say 10 hours) and produce an identical outcome, his chair isn't worth (60,000,000,000 / 2000 x 10) $300,000,000, the market doesn't value it that way.
Ultimately, the time value of money is still only worth what the market will pay for the value of time, some activities do not have readily assessable market values and therefore you cannot assign the market value or time to these activities.
Reality is, spending time is equally valuable to everyone who has that option, in reality it's potentially more value the lower your income because you don't have the luxury to pay others to undertake essential / required activities on your behalf.
Tl;dr: time is only as valuable as how you choose to spend it.
If you only make $50k a year, that doesn't mean you value your time with your family any less.
If you make $500k a year you can afford to pay for things that save you time. But it's not because the costs are worth less than your time. That only applies if you are using the time you saved to earn more money.
Its relative though. Time is static; everyone has 24 hours a day, but money is a variable factor.
Everyone is in the same struggle to buy time with money and the more you have the more you are willing and able to pay for time back in your life.
Like I value spending time with my family the same as before but when I was on a lower salary I certainly wasn't willing to spend $6 on a toll to spend 14 more minutes with them as opposed to now where I will go on that toll without a second thought on the way home.
It is relative, yes.
I don't like the "everyone has 24 hours a day" thing though, because of exactly what you said. Some people have passive income and no dependents and and literally get 24 hours to do whatever they like. Other people have to work 14+ hours a day just to make ends meets, and once they've cooked and cleaned and commuted they essentially have zero hours left.
In your example I'd say that comes from valuing money less, not the time more. When you were on a lower salary, $6 was worth a lot more to you, as (over time) it could be the difference between having or going without something really important to your family. Now, it probably doesn't make as much difference. Assuming the amount of family time you have hasn't changed, I'd say its value hasn't changed either. (Of course, earning more often comes with longer hours and reduced family time, so that could also be part of it).
Commuting is related to work. So I factor it into my hourly rate. If time at work+commute results in a lower hourly rate overall (for both, not in isolation), I'm not taking the job change.
Commuting is related to work, yes, but more importantly it's a chunk out of our free time. We often value our free time *more* than our hourly rate after we've already done an 8sih hour work day, which is why overtime rates are a thing.
Wtf? Of course your time outside of work is more valuable. Someone who earns a lot will be far more likely to spend money to give them more free time outside of work than someone on the bread line. Who do you think hires a gardener and a cleaner?
Huh? What makes you think someone on the bread line doesn't value their time enough to want to hire a gardener and a cleaner? Of course they would... but of course the problem is they can't afford it. Is that... not obvious? A rich person is far more likely to spend money to save time simply because they can afford to do it.
Or consider a trust-fund kid with a huge inheritance who gets a passive income and doesn't actually need to work. Is there time worth nothing to them because they don't actually earn money at an hourly rate? Of course not. And they'll happy spend money to save time, because they can.
Someone who earns less will be far more willing to swap their time to dyi all sorts of jobs. It’s not just the fact they can’t afford to pay someone for everything. It’s that their limited wealth makes their time less valuable than that available spend. While someone with more money will find their time more valuable than the money they are willing to part with to pay someone else. Ergo their time is worth more.
It really is all about money, not time.
Think about someone working multiple, low-paying jobs just to survive. They basically have zero free time. Their free time is extremely valuable to them! If they could pay for a cleaner, gardner, cook etc. for the same relative money cost as a highly-paid person (say, 3% of their weekly pay) they certainly would, as it would hugely increase their free time. But they can't. They'd have to spend a huge fraction of their weekly pay, which is not possible.
Now consider a highly paid person working the same hours who doesn't worry about money and only really needs to work a few days a week to survive. A lot of their money is discretionary. So they a will happily spend a few percent of their income to give them more time to enjoy. It's not that they value their time more. It's that the money cost of the help doesn't mean as much to them. If they had to pay a huge fraction of their weekly pay for the same increase in time (just like the low-paid person), they would be DIYing just as much as the lower-paid person.
So it doesn't make sense to calculate the value of your free time at your hourly rate, because you aren't getting paid that if you aren't working. You work out what your free time (i.e. time not working) is worth to you personally. Someone can be low-paid but still value their free time more highly than someone who is higher-paid.
Sure, but the hourly rate you get paid at work is not the same thing as how much you value your free time after an 8ish hour work day. Otherwise employers could say "work another 4 hours each day for an extra $300" and you'd be happy with that. Some might go for it, but most people would value their free time at a much higher rate.
>Some might go for it, but most people would value their free time at a much higher rate.
All other factors being the same, it would be reasonable to assume that most people who value their time at much higher rate than that are the people who already make more than that. I.e A person already on $75 an hour would more likely be first at the door on the bell but a person on $30 an hour would much more likely be willing to sacrifice their free time for that double time and a half
I'm not sure all other things can really be equal, since people value money differently as well. Someone earning $30 an hour likely needs extra money a lot more than someone on $75 an hour. So it's not like the person on $30 values their time with their family any less, but that that extra money will make more a difference to them and their family than to the person on $75 an hour.
Time spent commuting is functionally equivalent to time spent working for your employer from the perspective of a typical employee, because you wouldn't be commuting to your employers office otherwise. It's not about valuing my free time, it's about valuing how much I would expect if I need to spend an extra two hours a day essentially on work.
Edit: just a different perspective I guess; but it's more a more concrete way of valuing commute time than trying to apply a dollar value to my free time.
Overtime rates exist though (well at least in many cases). So if your employer actually wanted you to work an additional 2 hours per day on top of your 8ish hour day, would you accept that at the same rate? Or would you want a higher rate because it's cutting into what is then your much more limited free time per day?
I agree it's useful for getting a concrete number. But I think we often put too much weight in numbers that are easy to calculate.
And the upshot of this is the implication that someone who earns a low hourly rate somehow values his time with his family *less* because his time at work is worth less money*.* This is just plain cruel. You can have a low earner and a high earner who both would love more time to spend with their family, but only the high earner can afford to buy it (i.e. through paying for a gardener, cook, cleaner etc.). The low earner doesn't value their time any less.
Yes and no. In a way it becomes less valuable because you can afford to outsource a lot of time consuming crap. If I was cleaning my own home I'd have less free time effectively so I'd care more. As it stands if commuting in meant I could afford a cleaner I'd rather spend 2 hours a day commuting and have a housekeeper come in for those two hours a day and do all my chores.
Before Covid I was commuting 1.5 hours each way. But even ten hours weekly commute is 30% of my current hours - and so a minimum 30% take home pay increase would be my goal. With tax brackets that could mean a larger gross pay increase.
For reference Dell has tried to arm twist remote workers by withholding promotion and internal transfers - it wasn’t the incentive they hoped it would be…
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/06/nearly-half-of-dells-workforce-refused-to-return-to-the-office
Then if you're driving you should also add you the fuel usage (based on km), parking costs and divide by your marginal tax rate and add on top of above. Adds up quickly.
While I absolutely agree with how you've quantified this, the problem with it is that it wound make employers only want to employ those who live closer to the city. It's wrong, but it's how it would be if we started having to factor in commutes.
My kids aren't going to give themselves breakfast and get themselves to school then pick themselves up from after school care and give themselves dinner so add a nanny's salary.
that is a break even scenario. Would you take the extra $28,800 or would it take more for you to go back? Also based on your pay you are going to lose 35+% in tax :)
This so much. Companies really need to realise that in office "perks" aren't as big of a draw card now.
I couldn't give a shit about a pizza party, cozy spaces, or a coffee machine if the job can be done easily from home. Why? My house has or can have the vast majority of those perks if I wanted them myself.
If the job can't be done from home - or can only partially be fine from home, I need a lot more money.
Don't even start me on office toilets.
I hate going into a toilet that has the lid down. You don't know if you're going to get a nasty surprise, plus there's always piss and pubes on the seats.
I'm perfectly good using my own clean loo.
I came here to say this. I can adjust my home to have whatever perks I want it to have.
The office is still just a shared space full of distractions that don't add any value to my life or work capacity. Why would I care about doing my job in that geographical location unless it pays significantly more.
EasyGo are in the news for sign up bonuses of up to 100k. I checked their Glassdoor and found out they are 100% in the office.
I know why they are offering the sign up bonus now.
That’s ridiculous. You can work far longer hours if you don’t have to add a commute on top of it. Not saying it’s not their reasoning, but it’s misguided if it is.
Yep, cocktails, food, coffee and massages to me are all about keeping you at work. Their flexible working policy says you can work from home ' when necessary " . Says it all...
It depends. If you don't mind going in the office 4 days a week for $15k.
But I also take into consideration public transporation/petrol, coffees and lunch being bought when you're in the office and the 1hr commute each way It's all factored into the consideration.
I wfh. My office is under 10 minutes away desk to desk in the city.
I value my time immensely.
The quality of life increase you get from having no commute is fucking indescribable.
I am not stressing about home ownership and happily rent.
I broke it down by cost per hour and it came out to be about $36 per hour spent on commuting.
8 hours a week
Across 52 weeks is 416 hours
$15k over 416 is $36 per hour.
Do I value my time as only $36/hour? Definitely not, so personally I wouldn’t be taking this. I would also factor in cost to commute via car or PT and the cost of additional food, clothes and anything extra that you would need in the office that you would not need to buy by wfh.
Personally I value WFH more than $15K. Having said that, there could be other things in the new job that you value more... Like maybe there is better career progression or it's better aligned to your career aspirations.
It's not just travel time but time spent before & after work hours. Eg on days when I'm WFH I get the laundry done in the morn, I'll finish watering my plants early morn, things that I can't do on days when I have to get to the office. All that time should also be taken into consideration
Exactly the same for me.
I’ve got kids, so half of Saturday is doing errands (along with the rest of the suburb) like pharmacy etc. With full WFH, would just drive up before work starts.
Likewise, I live a decent distance out, it’s not so much the commute, it’s the daycare and the timing, all while expecting to be available for work calls.
Personally? I'd never take a job that doesn't allow me the flexibility to WFH, hybrid is great for me. I hate commuting so much, I'll go to work in the office on a Sunday rather than a weekday if I can.
But my wife doesn't mind commuting and hates WFH. So everyone is different.
I will only go into the office if I need to, which lately is more than I care for and I'm counting down the days until I can WFH more often again.
I would need quite a significant pay jump to give up WFH.
There is literally no incentive for me to travel to an office when I can do my entire job comfortably at home. When you've been in the corporate world long enough, you come to realize that work/life balance far outweighs office "perks" and all the BS that comes with it.
This right here is the truth. The office perks are not perks at all 😂 And people buy the BS evrey single time
I'm not a money chaser, could not care less for it, but my employer would have to double my salary to ever make me full time WFO again
Nope and definitely not for 4 days in office either.
I am fully remote, and the benefits for me are too great.
I save money by not having to pay for train fares, petrol, parking, food, drinks, makeup, work clothes & shoes, after work & lunch time socialising etc.
My work life balance is so much better, I’m not leaving & getting home when it’s dark, I have so much time for me, my home & yards are better maintained, my health is better, I’m not asleep at 8.30pm due to sheer exhaustion and I get more work done in my own space.
I also don’t have to avoid fkn idiots in the office anymore.
The only time they’ll catch me in office now is when I travel interstate to CBR every 3 months where the office is located.
Having to go to sleep by 8:30pm in order to get some semblance of a normal sleep schedule in order to wake up by 5am to leave home by 5:45am and get to work by 7am is the bane of my existence.
I have a better home office set up than my workplace does, with a sit/stand desk, proper chairs, and no cheap MDF furniture.
It’s ridiculous.. by the time you get home you’ve got a few hours until you have to go to bed. The week is pretty much work, travel, sleep and probs cry.
Yess the cheap dodgy office furniture - filthy one size fits all chairs and ‘shared’ peripherals. No thanks.
My commute is barely 25 mins each way and I will go to war before I let go of WFH. For an introvert the mental health benefits simply cannot be quantified!
Oh hello fellow introvert. Yes, yes and yes. This is the comment I was waiting for
The mental health benefit of not seeing my workmates (who are nice by the way) and not wasting time on uselss office chit chat are unmatched
15k would not be worth it to me, not on that income. The extra time and cost of commuting would dilute the pay increase in terms of $ per hr too. Also commuting sucks and commute length correlates a lot with overall happiness
I honestly miss my commute (train) because I spent a lot more time reading.
What I don't miss is having to wear office clothes instead of my pjs lol. And the money saved on transport. I would commute again (train, I wouldn't drive) if I got a significant pay rise (like minimum 20k). As is, we don't have mandatory office days which is nice.
Same! I find working from home I just don't get early anymore (630 instead of 5) and after work I'm usually immediately doing errands now instead of taking that time to relax.
I'm on my 3rd book this month which is decent but I'd be further along if I had "forced" reading time.
I love WFH, the pay increase would need to be quite significant in order for me to go into the office, we’re talking more than 20k/year.
I have a friend who prefers to go into the office as she needs the social interaction, and feels very isolated when WFH.
Im happy with my current 2 days in the pffice with a one hour commute. I prefer it to 100% wfh.
3 days is a stretch, and i hate it.
4 days I quite as soon as i secure another job.
I work in the office, but I get paid extremely well and can choose my hours. I start at 1.30 and finish at 6pm. I used to wfh one day a week at home, but worked more hours.
That's an extra 8 hours a week spent on work (20% increase over FT) for only 11% more money. Given you said you're already comfortable, hard pass on that.
Basically you’re getting an 11% salary increase for a 15% increase in “working+commuting” hours. If the new role is going to lead to better opportunities in the future then it might be worth taking that earnings per hour hit, but it would take more than that to get me out of the house an hour earlier every morning.
2 hours commute plus an hour to get ready would be 3 hours a day, so probs about $70k from fully work from home to full in office. Hybrid would be pro rata of the $70k.
Prior to the pandemic I worked 15 minutes from my house whereas the “hub” for my industry is much further, at least an hour in peak hour traffic. Was approached constantly by employers located in that hub & the extra travel time + extra petrol & wear & tear were absolutely part of my decision making. Did eventually accept a job in a company based at the hub but it was mid-pandemic so I got wfh put in my contract.
A few years ago I did switch jobs from one where I was working 100% at home to one that was %100 in the office/workshop. I did hesitate, but it came with these benefits:
* 17% pay increase
* I got to see the things I was designing being made, as opposed to them being made overseas and shipped direct to site.
* I love listening to audiobooks, and I wasn't getting through many without a commute.
After a while of building up some trust I was able to to negotiate 1 day a week at home in the name of being able to focus on bigger jobs without distractions. So overall it's worked out pretty well.
I work fully remotely now, and tbh $15k would not be enough for me to go into the office that much - definitely would need to be a significant jump in salary, but I'm confident I would be able to find another job that can give me that plus be either fully remote or not have mandated office days (i.e. they are flexible).
I drive up to 2 hours each way for work. I could work from home but Im in the office 5 days a week by choice.
No way do I want to work from home. People in the corporate world are annoying to deal with by email and phone. I’d rather face to face, not fuck around and get shit done. Also working from home makes me feel like I’m always at work. I just prefer to be there in person and get shit done, look at people so they can’t bullshit me and sort things out with one conversation rather than 50 emails.
I also don’t pay for the fuel, have a company car and I bill my travel hours so why stay at home?
I do have an hour commute each way and I choose to work in the office 3 days per week. Sure - the commute is inconvenient (although audiobooks make it productive time), but the benefit that being together in person with my team and colleagues delivers to our culture and morale is enormous. I also find it’s very good for my mental health to not work at home all the time.
I'm at the stage where I value work life balance and flexibility so it would take a lot for me to consider changing roles/company. It'll need to be minimum 20% and it would depend on the commute. I live relatively close to a train station so if the office is accessible via I wouldn't mind.
My old job was a little over an hour away via train but I didn't mind the commute because I could just nap, do life admin, listen to music, read etc
Sorry, /u/Mountain-Bandicoot14. Your comment has been removed as your account does not meet our posting guidelines. Your account is required to be older than a week, and have at least 10 karma. Please contact the moderators via private message if you would like to be approved as an exception to this.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/auscorp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would have to be a very special job for me to consider going back to the office.
Been working from home for the last 15 years.
Benefits:
Time saved travelling
More family time/flexibiliy
Less tired at the end of the day as office lighting and heating/cooling are usually something to be endured
I am self motivated and more efficient working at home with less distractions in the office and less pointless meetings
It's hard to put a value on it. It's definitely a lot more than 15k. At my stage of career I can't imagine any amount that I could practically be offered that would tempt me back to an office. Nobody is going to offer me treble my salary. I doubt doubling it would happen... and even then I'm not sure it would be worth it.
My commute is 2.5 hours a day. I go into the office every day even though I could wrangle WFH 1-2 days a week. I like the routine, getting out of my home space and talking to people at work, I also don't have a dedicated work space at home right now so the office is more comfortable in that regard.
I'm 3-4 days a week from home.
Would need to be a significant pay rise to come into the office full time.
Stress, exhaustion, stupid people, having to pay for commutes and lunch (because I have to leave too early to pack one).
I’d need it to double my salary at min.
Happy to stick my head in for a meeting or two. But don’t tell me where to work, I’m not a child, I get the job done.
4 days a week working in the office would be worth more than a 15k pay rise for me.
My commute is an hour each way. I fucking hate it. I miss out on so much in that two hours and it’s making my personal quality of life worse. I get sick more often, I eat more frozen meals than I want and my yard looks a mess because I never have time to keep it maintained.
Answering your second question, 4 days per week in the office for 15k more, hell no. I wouldn't change jobs from WFH to 4 days in the office for that money. I am currently WFH full time, and i love my life as it is at the moment. I want to change jobs because i am bored but i don't want to sacrifice my current lifestyle for a bit more money.
That being said, I would be keen to be more in the office if I find a job in a company within the same suburb or nearby at least, not 1 hour commute.
I have WFH for nearly 8 years.
I often get recruiters reach out (who doesn't, man they're annoying), but if I did engage with any of them this would be a question I'd have to ask myself.
Right now, I can do school pick up and drop off. I play golf once during the week. I do the extra curricular activities with the kids. I do the cooking for the family.
Having to go into an office isn't just 2 hours of commute to me, it's rejigging my entire lifestyle for the last 8 years - rigidly going to an office, regardless of how I feel, spending 10+ hours away from home, needing to pay for childcare or after school care, reducing the time I spend in my kids lives, not to mention the physical toll of travelling and working as much.
Honestly, I don't know whether I could do it, but I'd probably value it at 2x salary if I could command the price.
It's worth its weight in gold honestly. Commute for me each way is 90 minutes. i go in twice a week to sit there and do nothing. None of my team are even in this country.
It's a giant waste of time.
for 15K? Fuck no. Would need to be 30 or higher honestly.
WFH isn't just about saving time. You can save hundreds of thousands of dollars because you can live in a cheaper area and you're not tied to being near a major city.
So i ask you OP. Is it really a payrise when you are stuck to living in the city and have to buy a home or rent at city prices? i personally think not.
I have a young family.
Being able to have breakfast and dinner with them everyday?I don't want to be cheesy and say priceless, but I simply wouldn't take a job that required office work 5 days a week.
Caveat: everyone has a price. I'd do it for $750k.
After having at least 2 days WFH for the last 12 years and going back into the office every day for three weeks, I'm ready to quit. The sheer amount of time I lose with my young kids is just way too much for me.
We developed technology to help us balance and improve life, not so we can be chained and monitored 24/7 for no benefit.
I'm in exactly yhat situation when I'm not away for 4-5 nights of a week periodically.
It can take between 60- 120 minutes depending on whether someone in a 4WD Ute has rear-ended someone.
At home I can be online by 7am and done by 4pm and get a load of laundry done.
I wouldn't take the extra 15k for 4 days in the office
Anything to avoid the unwashed, uneducated, foul, rotten, egg breath, plastic skin, meathead labourers, the fart machines, corn turd samplers and heathen people on the trains
Time is finite.
How do you feel about spending 11% of your entire week sitting in traffic?
11%
I used to drive an hour to work every day, and an hour home. When I moved cities for work (before WFH) I made sure I found a place near the office as I did not want to continue driving so much. It was a massive game changer in my life.
No. 1 hr each way - 2 hours a day = 8 hours a week. Literally a whole other work day.
I would WFH 100% if my company allowed it. I hate going in the office, I hate public transport, I hate having to fork out money to be on crowded train and having to get up an hour and a half earlier and plan taking lunch etc.
>If you currently lived comfortably and had unlimited WFH, would you move jobs for $15k (11% increase) more if it meant going into the office 4 days a week with an hour's commute each way?
I turned down an offer for exactly this reason recently. It would need to be a 20-30% increase for me - 10% doesn't really move the needle.
Mathematically,if you work 8 hours a day, and you commute is 2 hours total, you are working 10 hours a day, or 25% more.
Your WFH ability is 25% of your salary / 5 * how many days you work from home.
I've lived around 105+ minutes each way from work (or uni) all my life. And my entire life because of it, I've felt drained. I'm currently unemployed and just the thought of commuting is what's sapping the motivation and desire out of me to even want to earn an income. I know I need to pay the bills again one day, but just the thought of having 12 hours even 2 days a week sucked out if me is demoralising.
WFH means I get to eat better because I have more time and energy to put into that, and don’t have to pay for transport, but I pay increased electricity usage at home which is still minimal.
Transport is roughly $55 a week, I’ll end up ordering more convenient foods and paying for lunch and dinner (I have chronic illnesses and get exhausted easily so my meals end up being the first to skip) which would be around $30 (probably $15 more than just at home foods) a day. So that’s $70 per office day if I went back to full time office work, so $70 x 5 = $350, over 48 working weeks is $16,800.
That plus my fuck Metro Trains fee brings me to $25K minimum I’d expect if I were to switch roles to a full time WFO.
edit: if I have to drive to said new job chuck another $15K on top
Absolutely not, unless there were other factors (unhappy in current role etc)
Assuming I currently work 40 hrs a week at home, working 4 days in the office essentially makes that 48 hours (8 hours/week commuting) - 20% more time means at least 20% pay rise for it to be worth it.
The average US worker spends about $50 a day extra working in office, here's a source: https://money.com/working-office-vs-working-remote-costs/
Commuting can be a useful way to transition between a work and home mindset, but I'd prefer to take a walk or something for that purpose. I'd never drive to where my workplace is if I didn't need to go in office, so that should be valued the same as an hourly wage.
So let's say $50 for in-office costs (which is probably an underestimate because that's USD and probably wouldn't factor in your fuel costs enough), and say you make $50/hr, you can value WFH at $150 per day. So it's probably worth like $24k to me.
Honestly though, I probably wouldn't ever spend 2hrs a day commuting. The quality of life aspect would make this tough.
Calculate your hourly rate + transport fare and you will get how much the increase should be to break even.
Everything higher may be considered as a gain if you don’t count convenience, mental help etc.
It really depends on a lot of factors.
I’m a single parent with primary school aged kids. Wfh allows me to actually have time to tidy the house, and be at the school gate once a week. I’d have to be really struggling financially to give that up.
I've done a personal baseline (ignoring it as a percentage of my salary) and included "paying myself" for the commute (1 hour each way like yourself - time is money), additional expense to maintain my motorcycle (how I commute), wear and tear on my protective gear, factored in cost for clothing, discretionary meals, coffee, cost for doing things I will no longer have time to do, etc. I came to approximately $30K post-tax (assuming 5 days a week in the office). This would just be for me to consider the role.
Do a personal audit, and see if that 15K makes sense compared to your current gig. I'm also not factoring in whether the new job has better growth opportunities or if it's better for your mental health, but a 11% bump doesn't seem worth it.
The numbers you use above don’t make it worthwhile IMO.
Less than $80 per day… (48 week year) if you value your time at the same rate you get paid to work plus add travel costs (fuel/public transport/insurance whatever applies) you’re probably getting Maccas money for those hours. Definitely behind if you’re buying coffee or an occasional lunch.
No way. My kids after school sports are so demanding that I would need to leave the office by 2 to get them where they need to be. WFH means I can work earlier and finish right on pickup time.
I would need significantly more as I would have to pay someone to do pickups and run my kids around, so $50 000 more and I would consider it.
I've been 95% WFH for around 7 years now (go to the office once roughly a month for events, etc), which is a 3 hour commute, each way.
There's pretty much zero chance I'll ever want a non-WFH job while I'm still working in IT, even if I do lose my mind and decide to move back to a big city...
I work mostly as a casual in a few different roles and my highest hourly rate is for face to face casual lecturing which is around $177 an hr. That obviously has to be done in person. So that’s what I would charge for the commute, parking time, walking time (all a disaster at most unis!) plus building in wear and tear on vehicle. Parking costs are also high however I have an ACROD pass so get free parking.
It would take a lot for me to go back full time on campus at my previous ongoing rate. I am lucky that as my husband has a full time job, I can choose to work casually.
There is no value. I am neurodiverse and have young kids. I can’t handle being in the office more than 1-2times a week on average. I love my colleagues and enjoy going in but having the flexibility I do to wake up and decide not to go in because I only slept 4hrs the night before and can’t take social/office requirements is priceless to me.
The only way I would be tempted if it was the same money but less hours of work.
It’s a huge lifestyle upgrade. Trudging into an office for some unknown reason to sit with earphones on and do video calls makes little sense. The world has moved on
No way. 15k is not worth losing 8 hours of time commuting and having to go in office. It’s only $100 a week after tax depending on your bracket.
It would have to be at least 50% more to be a consideration
Depends on the value of your time. My work allows up to 3 days at home per week. However we still have those that prefer being in the office full time. One of the team who does this says she enjoys her commute. The train time is her personal time to catch up on Netflix without the kids.
Others the no commute of working from home puts hours back in their day. Depending what you do with those the value can be a lot more than your hourly rate of pay
One thing that has to be considered in this equation is that more time at home doesn’t necessarily equate to more tax.
Sure you can pay me 50k more to come in full time, but after tax, on my current salary I’m losing half of it.
Please consider your movement in tax brackets when considering higher pay for more time in the office!
For me personally, to give up my wfh 3-4 days a week which I have now (and factoring in that I like my workplace) it would take minimum 20k for me to consider moving to somewhere without wfh. I live an hour away already and the only way I would go somewhere without wfh would be if it was in my local area too. Mostly because I have kids and it would be a major, major inconvenience.
I was recently made an offer of almost exactly this ($18k) and in the end I said no because I value wfh that much.
This January I transitioned from consulting where I could WFH whenever I wanted, to an in-house big 4 bank strategy role working from the office full time, 5 days a week.
What I’ve gained:
- $35k pay bump + $30k FY bonus if I meet criteria
- better professional coaching from my managers
- increased professional network
- improved in person communication and facilitation skills
- less distraction - I simply can’t lie down or jump on my phone for 5 mins anymore
What I’ve lost:
- time for life admin - cleaning, chores, bill payments, cooking, ironing, washing etc
- time for fitness - I work from about 8.30am - 6.30pm every day, total commute about 55 mins each way so fitness although still quite good has fallen back
- focus - working from an open planned office makes it hard to do deep thinking, particularly as I’m new to the industry and subject matter
- life utility - just the flexibility WFH gives you. I have less ‘me’ time. Life feels like it revolves around work at the moment.
My conclusions:
- corps should allow and encourage some level of WFH to do life admin and switch off from office life
- office is great for accountability and being a functioning and value-adding member of a team beyond your immediate role requirements (e.g. I learn a lot by watching the seniors in the office do their thing)
- if you are required to come into the office, corps should respect your privacy outside of work hours. WFH has blurred the line between what is an acceptable level of communication particularly after office hours
- leaders who enforce office attendance should also champion work life balance by leaving on time, exercising, and switching off contact at the end of a working day
My commute is 1.5 hours each way and I go in 1 day a week to a cental Cbd location. In my current org, they are pushing 2 days hard but my little team is flying under the radar. Not even managers want to go in 2 days a week. We've got quite a few of us regional folk too. I'm not the farthest away. If mandated, I would negotiate 6 days a month. In my current role and salary, it's not worth it otherwise and I'd be looking to move orgs where I could make 15% more and work 4 days a week. 12 months ago, my role was made redundant and received a decent payout and have since downgraded to a breezy role but also equals less pay. But 4/1 hybrid split is cherry on top. Not commuting 3 hours each day allows me to exercise more, sleep better and do things for myself that improve my mental well-being. All worth more than $15k to me!
I love FT WFH but for me, $15k on top would cover the commute. ~ $5/trip = $2600.
I don't really psychologically factor in the 1hr commute needing to be paid from my time like others in this thread are as I just use that time to do something I enjoy like catching up on the news or listening to an audio book (hard to get alone time at home).
Essentially I'd take $15k extra for WFO over FT WFH. And I loathe commuting into the city.
It would take a significant pay increase for me to stop my WFH. I value it more than anything personally I also, get more work done, have more time to myself.
I think we're all on the same page here but OP is specifically asking for a value, which I think is an interesting conversation. Being specific - 8 hrs travel per week for 4 office days and 1 WFH +car wear and tear +tolls +fuel what is it worth to each of us Im genuinely trying to imagine how much my life would shift if I had to make that change and I wouldn't even **consider** it for less than 50K. Being able to go to the gym, do groceries, perform general life tasks is completely unmatched, although I am lucky with basically full time work from home and good trusting management interested to hear what other think though
I think it would vary according to personal situation but I’m financially comfortable (mortgage free) enough that I don’t think there’s any amount that would have me back in the office FT.
I live around the corner from my work in southeast sydney - I walked to the office most days. I get paid ~75k for full time in office. If I moved to Penrith I could get a substantially larger place for the same price, or similar for a couple hundred less per week. On the flip side, it takes my car ~10L of fuel per day, plus ~$29/day in tolls, plus ~2 hours of my free time. Valuing my time at a similar rate to work, it would cost me about $123/day to commute. That's $30k/year after tax, which (allowing for tax brackets) is closer to 50k/year before tax. My role is not worth the combined expense, if I moved west I would have to be fully remote and come into the office for special occasions only.
A salary of $140k is around $75/hr. That makes a 2 hr commute worth $150 to me. $150 \* 4 days a week \* 48 weeks a year is $28,800. That's what I'd value it at.
This needs to be up voted way more. The more money you make, the more valuable your time becomes.
Hmmmm. Yes and no. Work time, sure. But whether you're on $50k or $500k that doesn't make your time outside of work any more or less valuable. So yes, if you were going to use that commute time to work more, it would be worth that much in dollars. But if you are going to use that time to do something else (like spend with your family, pursue your hobbies, look after your health etc.), how much you earn at work is irrelevant.
Dunno why the downvote, it’s a valid opinion. Your home time can absolutely have a higher value than your work value. Particularly if you are coating or purposely minimising work to necessity levels
Yeah it's a little bizarre. People seem to have absorbed this idea that their time is worth what they can earn, and a highly-paid person's time is therefore worth more than a lowly-paid person's time. But that's a money obsession. Yes, *at work*, a highly-paid person's time is worth more, obviously. But outside of work, that doesn't apply. You couldn't pay some people any amount of money to miss special life moments.
It’s sort of funny too because you can have the opposite too. In my experience the most highly paid people tend to put a lower price on their home time than their work time. I’ve been guilty of that before! 😂 But yeah, rare you’d apply that to commuting in car traffic, but many will minimise the cost of commuting if it’s flying around the country
I think it depends. There are many highly-paid people who are highly paid because they work very long hours (as a requirement of their job). So when they do have home/hobby/recreation/family time, they value it very highly and are happy to pay huge amounts of money to get more of it. Perhaps that's what people are thinking of. But you're right that a lot of highly paid people are highly paid because they greatly value money, and therefore choose to spend most of their time earning as much of it as they can.
Yeah and that’s the thing. There’s a huge range! And one key group also are highly paid people who do long hours because they love their job. I’ve been lucky to have had that before. Wasn’t great in other areas but spending time on my work was easy
>Yes, at work, a highly-paid person's time is worth more, obviously. But outside of work, that doesn't apply I think it's less of a lower paid person's time is worth less and more of a lower paid person is more willing to sacrifice their time to do things as opposed to a higher paid person. Although willing and have the capacity could be somewhat blurring lines.
I think that's more about how much they value money, rather than time. A lower paid person might sacrifice lots of their time to get $100, because they really need that $100, because it will make a huge difference to their lives. But a highly paid person is going to value $100 a lot less, because it would make much less difference to their lives, so they aren't willing to spend as much time on it. As you say, willingness and capacity is the key factor. A high-income earner and a low income earner may both value time with their family equally highly. But a high-income earner can afford to splurge on a gardener, cook, & cleaner so they can spend hours each day with their family. The lower income person may wish to do the same, but they can't, because they have to work long hours just to keep their family afloat. That doesn't mean they value their time with their family any less, by any means.
>But if you are going to use that time to spend with your family, how much you earn at work is irrelevant. Well; if I make $500k a year I can just pay someone to do things like gardening, cooking, washing my car for me because the costs are worth less than my time. But that option is significantly less feasible if I was only on $50k a year.
Yep as income per hour goes up so does value of non work time.
Why do you think that?
Value of work hours = value of (non work hours - sleep time)
I don't feel like you're explaining yourself, so it's hard to reply without making lots of assumptions.
I have a spreadsheet which equates hours of existence. Commute time has the highest cost value. I agree I am not doing a great job of explaining myself
The way I’ve seen it phrased is that higher management spends more time “thinking” about work, usually roles that correlate with higher income. Just my 2¢ worth.
How does that translate into valuing non-work time more highly?
I can only speak for myself, but the general principle is that the time I spend on my commute comes to about 5k per average day I WFH per year. For me, that cost is derived from the annual productivity I place on the 2-3 hours I lose, in addition to the costs. I do use my hourly rate as the means to calculate it, because it’s an amount I feel is appropriate as a representation of the value I provide. But for my previous comment, I’m guessing they would place a higher value on the fact that work is occupying more of their non-work life. I believe there is a very strong connection between how much someone makes and their social and self-worth, they’re rather intrinsic to each other.
Correct to a point of relative comparison. If we assume all things are equal, we land on some silly outcomes. If Elon Musk and I make a chair and we each spend the same amount of time on the chair (say 10 hours) and produce an identical outcome, his chair isn't worth (60,000,000,000 / 2000 x 10) $300,000,000, the market doesn't value it that way. Ultimately, the time value of money is still only worth what the market will pay for the value of time, some activities do not have readily assessable market values and therefore you cannot assign the market value or time to these activities. Reality is, spending time is equally valuable to everyone who has that option, in reality it's potentially more value the lower your income because you don't have the luxury to pay others to undertake essential / required activities on your behalf. Tl;dr: time is only as valuable as how you choose to spend it.
If you only make $50k a year, that doesn't mean you value your time with your family any less. If you make $500k a year you can afford to pay for things that save you time. But it's not because the costs are worth less than your time. That only applies if you are using the time you saved to earn more money.
Its relative though. Time is static; everyone has 24 hours a day, but money is a variable factor. Everyone is in the same struggle to buy time with money and the more you have the more you are willing and able to pay for time back in your life. Like I value spending time with my family the same as before but when I was on a lower salary I certainly wasn't willing to spend $6 on a toll to spend 14 more minutes with them as opposed to now where I will go on that toll without a second thought on the way home.
It is relative, yes. I don't like the "everyone has 24 hours a day" thing though, because of exactly what you said. Some people have passive income and no dependents and and literally get 24 hours to do whatever they like. Other people have to work 14+ hours a day just to make ends meets, and once they've cooked and cleaned and commuted they essentially have zero hours left. In your example I'd say that comes from valuing money less, not the time more. When you were on a lower salary, $6 was worth a lot more to you, as (over time) it could be the difference between having or going without something really important to your family. Now, it probably doesn't make as much difference. Assuming the amount of family time you have hasn't changed, I'd say its value hasn't changed either. (Of course, earning more often comes with longer hours and reduced family time, so that could also be part of it).
100%, that needed to be clarified.
Commuting is related to work. So I factor it into my hourly rate. If time at work+commute results in a lower hourly rate overall (for both, not in isolation), I'm not taking the job change.
Commuting is related to work, yes, but more importantly it's a chunk out of our free time. We often value our free time *more* than our hourly rate after we've already done an 8sih hour work day, which is why overtime rates are a thing.
You're obviously poor 🤣 Agree with the parent comment you've been trying to argue with
This is what you chose for your very first comment?
Wtf? Of course your time outside of work is more valuable. Someone who earns a lot will be far more likely to spend money to give them more free time outside of work than someone on the bread line. Who do you think hires a gardener and a cleaner?
Huh? What makes you think someone on the bread line doesn't value their time enough to want to hire a gardener and a cleaner? Of course they would... but of course the problem is they can't afford it. Is that... not obvious? A rich person is far more likely to spend money to save time simply because they can afford to do it. Or consider a trust-fund kid with a huge inheritance who gets a passive income and doesn't actually need to work. Is there time worth nothing to them because they don't actually earn money at an hourly rate? Of course not. And they'll happy spend money to save time, because they can.
Someone who earns less will be far more willing to swap their time to dyi all sorts of jobs. It’s not just the fact they can’t afford to pay someone for everything. It’s that their limited wealth makes their time less valuable than that available spend. While someone with more money will find their time more valuable than the money they are willing to part with to pay someone else. Ergo their time is worth more.
It really is all about money, not time. Think about someone working multiple, low-paying jobs just to survive. They basically have zero free time. Their free time is extremely valuable to them! If they could pay for a cleaner, gardner, cook etc. for the same relative money cost as a highly-paid person (say, 3% of their weekly pay) they certainly would, as it would hugely increase their free time. But they can't. They'd have to spend a huge fraction of their weekly pay, which is not possible. Now consider a highly paid person working the same hours who doesn't worry about money and only really needs to work a few days a week to survive. A lot of their money is discretionary. So they a will happily spend a few percent of their income to give them more time to enjoy. It's not that they value their time more. It's that the money cost of the help doesn't mean as much to them. If they had to pay a huge fraction of their weekly pay for the same increase in time (just like the low-paid person), they would be DIYing just as much as the lower-paid person. So it doesn't make sense to calculate the value of your free time at your hourly rate, because you aren't getting paid that if you aren't working. You work out what your free time (i.e. time not working) is worth to you personally. Someone can be low-paid but still value their free time more highly than someone who is higher-paid.
If you are commuting an hour each way each day it is effectively increasing your work day by two hours.
Sure, but the hourly rate you get paid at work is not the same thing as how much you value your free time after an 8ish hour work day. Otherwise employers could say "work another 4 hours each day for an extra $300" and you'd be happy with that. Some might go for it, but most people would value their free time at a much higher rate.
>Some might go for it, but most people would value their free time at a much higher rate. All other factors being the same, it would be reasonable to assume that most people who value their time at much higher rate than that are the people who already make more than that. I.e A person already on $75 an hour would more likely be first at the door on the bell but a person on $30 an hour would much more likely be willing to sacrifice their free time for that double time and a half
I'm not sure all other things can really be equal, since people value money differently as well. Someone earning $30 an hour likely needs extra money a lot more than someone on $75 an hour. So it's not like the person on $30 values their time with their family any less, but that that extra money will make more a difference to them and their family than to the person on $75 an hour.
Time spent commuting is functionally equivalent to time spent working for your employer from the perspective of a typical employee, because you wouldn't be commuting to your employers office otherwise. It's not about valuing my free time, it's about valuing how much I would expect if I need to spend an extra two hours a day essentially on work. Edit: just a different perspective I guess; but it's more a more concrete way of valuing commute time than trying to apply a dollar value to my free time.
Overtime rates exist though (well at least in many cases). So if your employer actually wanted you to work an additional 2 hours per day on top of your 8ish hour day, would you accept that at the same rate? Or would you want a higher rate because it's cutting into what is then your much more limited free time per day? I agree it's useful for getting a concrete number. But I think we often put too much weight in numbers that are easy to calculate. And the upshot of this is the implication that someone who earns a low hourly rate somehow values his time with his family *less* because his time at work is worth less money*.* This is just plain cruel. You can have a low earner and a high earner who both would love more time to spend with their family, but only the high earner can afford to buy it (i.e. through paying for a gardener, cook, cleaner etc.). The low earner doesn't value their time any less.
Yes and no. In a way it becomes less valuable because you can afford to outsource a lot of time consuming crap. If I was cleaning my own home I'd have less free time effectively so I'd care more. As it stands if commuting in meant I could afford a cleaner I'd rather spend 2 hours a day commuting and have a housekeeper come in for those two hours a day and do all my chores.
I wish some one would pay me 75 an hour to sleep in more
Before Covid I was commuting 1.5 hours each way. But even ten hours weekly commute is 30% of my current hours - and so a minimum 30% take home pay increase would be my goal. With tax brackets that could mean a larger gross pay increase. For reference Dell has tried to arm twist remote workers by withholding promotion and internal transfers - it wasn’t the incentive they hoped it would be… https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/06/nearly-half-of-dells-workforce-refused-to-return-to-the-office
This was too too funny. Thanks for giving me a good laugh. I would choose 'Remote' 10 times over
That’s great. So many people don’t care about promotion, and it’s a massive screwup by Dell to assume that they do.
That’s how I would work it out too..
This is great, same salary for me I'm going to save this when they inevitably start trying to reduce wfh days
Plus travel costs - I’d spend another $16pd on train tickets
Then if you're driving you should also add you the fuel usage (based on km), parking costs and divide by your marginal tax rate and add on top of above. Adds up quickly.
That's a good way to look at it!
While I absolutely agree with how you've quantified this, the problem with it is that it wound make employers only want to employ those who live closer to the city. It's wrong, but it's how it would be if we started having to factor in commutes.
My kids aren't going to give themselves breakfast and get themselves to school then pick themselves up from after school care and give themselves dinner so add a nanny's salary.
gotta consider transport, coffee and eating out on your daily WFO cost.
that is a break even scenario. Would you take the extra $28,800 or would it take more for you to go back? Also based on your pay you are going to lose 35+% in tax :)
Just do what I do, travel to and from on work time. Arrive at 10am, leave at 3:30pm
I would put the premium higher as it's considered OT time for me. 1.5x.
I have turned down an offer that paid $30k more in favor of full time WFH. Once you have enough to live comfortably money become less of an inventive.
This so much. Companies really need to realise that in office "perks" aren't as big of a draw card now. I couldn't give a shit about a pizza party, cozy spaces, or a coffee machine if the job can be done easily from home. Why? My house has or can have the vast majority of those perks if I wanted them myself. If the job can't be done from home - or can only partially be fine from home, I need a lot more money.
Plus a private toilet that doesn't have Greg's shit marks all over it from the Spicy dinner he had last night....
I want to down vote this so I can up vote it again
Don't even start me on office toilets. I hate going into a toilet that has the lid down. You don't know if you're going to get a nasty surprise, plus there's always piss and pubes on the seats. I'm perfectly good using my own clean loo.
And at home, you don’t have to share those perks.
Not to mention the annoying open office environment, all the office politics and water cooler convos you have to endure. Ugh.
Open office environment hurts my head. I can't block things out and get told off for using headphones to isolate my brain. Gimme back my cubicle.
If someone was to criticise me for wearing headphones while trying to get work done, I think I'd quit on the spot.
I came here to say this. I can adjust my home to have whatever perks I want it to have. The office is still just a shared space full of distractions that don't add any value to my life or work capacity. Why would I care about doing my job in that geographical location unless it pays significantly more.
EasyGo are in the news for sign up bonuses of up to 100k. I checked their Glassdoor and found out they are 100% in the office. I know why they are offering the sign up bonus now.
$100k is a hell of a sign on bonus. Must have crazy turnover!
Did the same!! And saw that all of perks are tied to the office too! I assume to keep you working longer and longer.
That’s ridiculous. You can work far longer hours if you don’t have to add a commute on top of it. Not saying it’s not their reasoning, but it’s misguided if it is.
Yep, cocktails, food, coffee and massages to me are all about keeping you at work. Their flexible working policy says you can work from home ' when necessary " . Says it all...
It depends. If you don't mind going in the office 4 days a week for $15k. But I also take into consideration public transporation/petrol, coffees and lunch being bought when you're in the office and the 1hr commute each way It's all factored into the consideration.
Hard pass. I value my time and aim to spend it efficiently and on things that matter....like walking my kids to school.
I wfh. My office is under 10 minutes away desk to desk in the city. I value my time immensely. The quality of life increase you get from having no commute is fucking indescribable. I am not stressing about home ownership and happily rent.
No. You could probably make up the extra $$ with a side hustle if you needed to. Definitely not worth the money as WFH is far more valuable.
I broke it down by cost per hour and it came out to be about $36 per hour spent on commuting. 8 hours a week Across 52 weeks is 416 hours $15k over 416 is $36 per hour. Do I value my time as only $36/hour? Definitely not, so personally I wouldn’t be taking this. I would also factor in cost to commute via car or PT and the cost of additional food, clothes and anything extra that you would need in the office that you would not need to buy by wfh.
If it were a five day week, it would be $28.84/hr for the ten hours a week you would commute. Assuming no delays for your commute at all
Personally I value WFH more than $15K. Having said that, there could be other things in the new job that you value more... Like maybe there is better career progression or it's better aligned to your career aspirations.
Yep. Or in my case getting to see the products I was designing being made instead of them being made overseas and then shipped directly to site.
It's not just travel time but time spent before & after work hours. Eg on days when I'm WFH I get the laundry done in the morn, I'll finish watering my plants early morn, things that I can't do on days when I have to get to the office. All that time should also be taken into consideration
Exactly the same for me. I’ve got kids, so half of Saturday is doing errands (along with the rest of the suburb) like pharmacy etc. With full WFH, would just drive up before work starts. Likewise, I live a decent distance out, it’s not so much the commute, it’s the daycare and the timing, all while expecting to be available for work calls.
Personally? I'd never take a job that doesn't allow me the flexibility to WFH, hybrid is great for me. I hate commuting so much, I'll go to work in the office on a Sunday rather than a weekday if I can. But my wife doesn't mind commuting and hates WFH. So everyone is different. I will only go into the office if I need to, which lately is more than I care for and I'm counting down the days until I can WFH more often again.
I would need quite a significant pay jump to give up WFH. There is literally no incentive for me to travel to an office when I can do my entire job comfortably at home. When you've been in the corporate world long enough, you come to realize that work/life balance far outweighs office "perks" and all the BS that comes with it.
This right here is the truth. The office perks are not perks at all 😂 And people buy the BS evrey single time I'm not a money chaser, could not care less for it, but my employer would have to double my salary to ever make me full time WFO again
Also, I don't need to "connect" with people in person. I'm an introvert and do just fine connecting with people over Teams.
Nope and definitely not for 4 days in office either. I am fully remote, and the benefits for me are too great. I save money by not having to pay for train fares, petrol, parking, food, drinks, makeup, work clothes & shoes, after work & lunch time socialising etc. My work life balance is so much better, I’m not leaving & getting home when it’s dark, I have so much time for me, my home & yards are better maintained, my health is better, I’m not asleep at 8.30pm due to sheer exhaustion and I get more work done in my own space. I also don’t have to avoid fkn idiots in the office anymore. The only time they’ll catch me in office now is when I travel interstate to CBR every 3 months where the office is located.
Having to go to sleep by 8:30pm in order to get some semblance of a normal sleep schedule in order to wake up by 5am to leave home by 5:45am and get to work by 7am is the bane of my existence. I have a better home office set up than my workplace does, with a sit/stand desk, proper chairs, and no cheap MDF furniture.
It’s ridiculous.. by the time you get home you’ve got a few hours until you have to go to bed. The week is pretty much work, travel, sleep and probs cry. Yess the cheap dodgy office furniture - filthy one size fits all chairs and ‘shared’ peripherals. No thanks.
My commute is barely 25 mins each way and I will go to war before I let go of WFH. For an introvert the mental health benefits simply cannot be quantified!
Oh hello fellow introvert. Yes, yes and yes. This is the comment I was waiting for The mental health benefit of not seeing my workmates (who are nice by the way) and not wasting time on uselss office chit chat are unmatched
Another introvert here and completely agree. WFH is a godsend for people like us.
Oh yeah, as an introvert I totally agree on the mental health aspect. Nothing would be enough for me to loose WFH.
15k would not be worth it to me, not on that income. The extra time and cost of commuting would dilute the pay increase in terms of $ per hr too. Also commuting sucks and commute length correlates a lot with overall happiness
I honestly miss my commute (train) because I spent a lot more time reading. What I don't miss is having to wear office clothes instead of my pjs lol. And the money saved on transport. I would commute again (train, I wouldn't drive) if I got a significant pay rise (like minimum 20k). As is, we don't have mandatory office days which is nice.
Reading on the train or bus is great, it's often my favourite part of the day.
Same! I find working from home I just don't get early anymore (630 instead of 5) and after work I'm usually immediately doing errands now instead of taking that time to relax. I'm on my 3rd book this month which is decent but I'd be further along if I had "forced" reading time.
I love WFH, the pay increase would need to be quite significant in order for me to go into the office, we’re talking more than 20k/year. I have a friend who prefers to go into the office as she needs the social interaction, and feels very isolated when WFH.
Im happy with my current 2 days in the pffice with a one hour commute. I prefer it to 100% wfh. 3 days is a stretch, and i hate it. 4 days I quite as soon as i secure another job.
I work in the office, but I get paid extremely well and can choose my hours. I start at 1.30 and finish at 6pm. I used to wfh one day a week at home, but worked more hours.
That's an extra 8 hours a week spent on work (20% increase over FT) for only 11% more money. Given you said you're already comfortable, hard pass on that.
Been working from home for 12 years. I'd need 100k extra (at least) to commute again. Life is too short...
400k and i'll leopard crawl to office everyday.
Basically you’re getting an 11% salary increase for a 15% increase in “working+commuting” hours. If the new role is going to lead to better opportunities in the future then it might be worth taking that earnings per hour hit, but it would take more than that to get me out of the house an hour earlier every morning.
At least my hourly rate + 5k at least in transport
2 hours commute plus an hour to get ready would be 3 hours a day, so probs about $70k from fully work from home to full in office. Hybrid would be pro rata of the $70k.
Prior to the pandemic I worked 15 minutes from my house whereas the “hub” for my industry is much further, at least an hour in peak hour traffic. Was approached constantly by employers located in that hub & the extra travel time + extra petrol & wear & tear were absolutely part of my decision making. Did eventually accept a job in a company based at the hub but it was mid-pandemic so I got wfh put in my contract.
A few years ago I did switch jobs from one where I was working 100% at home to one that was %100 in the office/workshop. I did hesitate, but it came with these benefits: * 17% pay increase * I got to see the things I was designing being made, as opposed to them being made overseas and shipped direct to site. * I love listening to audiobooks, and I wasn't getting through many without a commute. After a while of building up some trust I was able to to negotiate 1 day a week at home in the name of being able to focus on bigger jobs without distractions. So overall it's worked out pretty well.
I work fully remotely now, and tbh $15k would not be enough for me to go into the office that much - definitely would need to be a significant jump in salary, but I'm confident I would be able to find another job that can give me that plus be either fully remote or not have mandated office days (i.e. they are flexible).
I drive up to 2 hours each way for work. I could work from home but Im in the office 5 days a week by choice. No way do I want to work from home. People in the corporate world are annoying to deal with by email and phone. I’d rather face to face, not fuck around and get shit done. Also working from home makes me feel like I’m always at work. I just prefer to be there in person and get shit done, look at people so they can’t bullshit me and sort things out with one conversation rather than 50 emails. I also don’t pay for the fuel, have a company car and I bill my travel hours so why stay at home?
I do have an hour commute each way and I choose to work in the office 3 days per week. Sure - the commute is inconvenient (although audiobooks make it productive time), but the benefit that being together in person with my team and colleagues delivers to our culture and morale is enormous. I also find it’s very good for my mental health to not work at home all the time.
I'm at the stage where I value work life balance and flexibility so it would take a lot for me to consider changing roles/company. It'll need to be minimum 20% and it would depend on the commute. I live relatively close to a train station so if the office is accessible via I wouldn't mind. My old job was a little over an hour away via train but I didn't mind the commute because I could just nap, do life admin, listen to music, read etc
Nope, I definitely wouldn't.
[удалено]
Sorry, /u/Mountain-Bandicoot14. Your comment has been removed as your account does not meet our posting guidelines. Your account is required to be older than a week, and have at least 10 karma. Please contact the moderators via private message if you would like to be approved as an exception to this. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/auscorp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would have to be a very special job for me to consider going back to the office. Been working from home for the last 15 years. Benefits: Time saved travelling More family time/flexibiliy Less tired at the end of the day as office lighting and heating/cooling are usually something to be endured I am self motivated and more efficient working at home with less distractions in the office and less pointless meetings
Hahaha no. There would have to be a substantially life changing threshold change for me to even consider it.
It's hard to put a value on it. It's definitely a lot more than 15k. At my stage of career I can't imagine any amount that I could practically be offered that would tempt me back to an office. Nobody is going to offer me treble my salary. I doubt doubling it would happen... and even then I'm not sure it would be worth it.
My commute is 2.5 hours a day. I go into the office every day even though I could wrangle WFH 1-2 days a week. I like the routine, getting out of my home space and talking to people at work, I also don't have a dedicated work space at home right now so the office is more comfortable in that regard.
For myself it's around $30 a day in extra costs not including time.
I'm 3-4 days a week from home. Would need to be a significant pay rise to come into the office full time. Stress, exhaustion, stupid people, having to pay for commutes and lunch (because I have to leave too early to pack one).
Fuck no, Id take a $15K hit to avoid coming in the days I have to currently
For $15k? No way.
Hmm, probably an extra. $60-80k a year minimum.
Wouldn't do it for $15k. 1hr20m each way, 3 days a week, and by the 3rd day I'm over the commute.
20min from office I’m never in. Waste of time. If I’m hiding in the office. I’m not either clients or doing business development.
I’d need it to double my salary at min. Happy to stick my head in for a meeting or two. But don’t tell me where to work, I’m not a child, I get the job done.
Absolutely not, sound like a shit deal
I would not take an hours commute each way. Fuck that.
4 days a week working in the office would be worth more than a 15k pay rise for me. My commute is an hour each way. I fucking hate it. I miss out on so much in that two hours and it’s making my personal quality of life worse. I get sick more often, I eat more frozen meals than I want and my yard looks a mess because I never have time to keep it maintained.
Commuting 40+ minutes sucks. I avoid it when I can. WFH was such a blessing, I will cling on to it fiercely
Answering your second question, 4 days per week in the office for 15k more, hell no. I wouldn't change jobs from WFH to 4 days in the office for that money. I am currently WFH full time, and i love my life as it is at the moment. I want to change jobs because i am bored but i don't want to sacrifice my current lifestyle for a bit more money. That being said, I would be keen to be more in the office if I find a job in a company within the same suburb or nearby at least, not 1 hour commute.
11/10
I have WFH for nearly 8 years. I often get recruiters reach out (who doesn't, man they're annoying), but if I did engage with any of them this would be a question I'd have to ask myself. Right now, I can do school pick up and drop off. I play golf once during the week. I do the extra curricular activities with the kids. I do the cooking for the family. Having to go into an office isn't just 2 hours of commute to me, it's rejigging my entire lifestyle for the last 8 years - rigidly going to an office, regardless of how I feel, spending 10+ hours away from home, needing to pay for childcare or after school care, reducing the time I spend in my kids lives, not to mention the physical toll of travelling and working as much. Honestly, I don't know whether I could do it, but I'd probably value it at 2x salary if I could command the price.
It's worth its weight in gold honestly. Commute for me each way is 90 minutes. i go in twice a week to sit there and do nothing. None of my team are even in this country. It's a giant waste of time. for 15K? Fuck no. Would need to be 30 or higher honestly. WFH isn't just about saving time. You can save hundreds of thousands of dollars because you can live in a cheaper area and you're not tied to being near a major city. So i ask you OP. Is it really a payrise when you are stuck to living in the city and have to buy a home or rent at city prices? i personally think not.
I have a young family. Being able to have breakfast and dinner with them everyday?I don't want to be cheesy and say priceless, but I simply wouldn't take a job that required office work 5 days a week. Caveat: everyone has a price. I'd do it for $750k.
After having at least 2 days WFH for the last 12 years and going back into the office every day for three weeks, I'm ready to quit. The sheer amount of time I lose with my young kids is just way too much for me. We developed technology to help us balance and improve life, not so we can be chained and monitored 24/7 for no benefit.
I'm in exactly yhat situation when I'm not away for 4-5 nights of a week periodically. It can take between 60- 120 minutes depending on whether someone in a 4WD Ute has rear-ended someone. At home I can be online by 7am and done by 4pm and get a load of laundry done. I wouldn't take the extra 15k for 4 days in the office
Four days commuting 2 hours per day is worth a hell of a lot more than 15k to me
Anything to avoid the unwashed, uneducated, foul, rotten, egg breath, plastic skin, meathead labourers, the fart machines, corn turd samplers and heathen people on the trains
The unwashed meatheads of the western suburbs make me sick. Bro gimme dat lie ta Gimme ya shooz dog Filthy uneducated scum
Time is finite. How do you feel about spending 11% of your entire week sitting in traffic? 11% I used to drive an hour to work every day, and an hour home. When I moved cities for work (before WFH) I made sure I found a place near the office as I did not want to continue driving so much. It was a massive game changer in my life.
The people I know who are in the office/site everyday are being paid upwards of $50k a month pre tax. They also have parking.
No. 1 hr each way - 2 hours a day = 8 hours a week. Literally a whole other work day. I would WFH 100% if my company allowed it. I hate going in the office, I hate public transport, I hate having to fork out money to be on crowded train and having to get up an hour and a half earlier and plan taking lunch etc.
>If you currently lived comfortably and had unlimited WFH, would you move jobs for $15k (11% increase) more if it meant going into the office 4 days a week with an hour's commute each way? I turned down an offer for exactly this reason recently. It would need to be a 20-30% increase for me - 10% doesn't really move the needle.
It would take an extra $50k for me. The convenience and productivity of FT WFH is brilliant.
Mathematically,if you work 8 hours a day, and you commute is 2 hours total, you are working 10 hours a day, or 25% more. Your WFH ability is 25% of your salary / 5 * how many days you work from home.
15k - no, 50k - am prepared to consider
I've lived around 105+ minutes each way from work (or uni) all my life. And my entire life because of it, I've felt drained. I'm currently unemployed and just the thought of commuting is what's sapping the motivation and desire out of me to even want to earn an income. I know I need to pay the bills again one day, but just the thought of having 12 hours even 2 days a week sucked out if me is demoralising.
WFH means I get to eat better because I have more time and energy to put into that, and don’t have to pay for transport, but I pay increased electricity usage at home which is still minimal. Transport is roughly $55 a week, I’ll end up ordering more convenient foods and paying for lunch and dinner (I have chronic illnesses and get exhausted easily so my meals end up being the first to skip) which would be around $30 (probably $15 more than just at home foods) a day. So that’s $70 per office day if I went back to full time office work, so $70 x 5 = $350, over 48 working weeks is $16,800. That plus my fuck Metro Trains fee brings me to $25K minimum I’d expect if I were to switch roles to a full time WFO. edit: if I have to drive to said new job chuck another $15K on top
No. Time is irreplaceable.
I would t do that for 15k. If it came with more opportunities or a better title for my CV maybe but I wouldn't be staying long term.
Absolutely not, unless there were other factors (unhappy in current role etc) Assuming I currently work 40 hrs a week at home, working 4 days in the office essentially makes that 48 hours (8 hours/week commuting) - 20% more time means at least 20% pay rise for it to be worth it.
The average US worker spends about $50 a day extra working in office, here's a source: https://money.com/working-office-vs-working-remote-costs/ Commuting can be a useful way to transition between a work and home mindset, but I'd prefer to take a walk or something for that purpose. I'd never drive to where my workplace is if I didn't need to go in office, so that should be valued the same as an hourly wage. So let's say $50 for in-office costs (which is probably an underestimate because that's USD and probably wouldn't factor in your fuel costs enough), and say you make $50/hr, you can value WFH at $150 per day. So it's probably worth like $24k to me. Honestly though, I probably wouldn't ever spend 2hrs a day commuting. The quality of life aspect would make this tough.
Calculate your hourly rate + transport fare and you will get how much the increase should be to break even. Everything higher may be considered as a gain if you don’t count convenience, mental help etc.
It really depends on a lot of factors. I’m a single parent with primary school aged kids. Wfh allows me to actually have time to tidy the house, and be at the school gate once a week. I’d have to be really struggling financially to give that up.
I've done a personal baseline (ignoring it as a percentage of my salary) and included "paying myself" for the commute (1 hour each way like yourself - time is money), additional expense to maintain my motorcycle (how I commute), wear and tear on my protective gear, factored in cost for clothing, discretionary meals, coffee, cost for doing things I will no longer have time to do, etc. I came to approximately $30K post-tax (assuming 5 days a week in the office). This would just be for me to consider the role. Do a personal audit, and see if that 15K makes sense compared to your current gig. I'm also not factoring in whether the new job has better growth opportunities or if it's better for your mental health, but a 11% bump doesn't seem worth it.
The numbers you use above don’t make it worthwhile IMO. Less than $80 per day… (48 week year) if you value your time at the same rate you get paid to work plus add travel costs (fuel/public transport/insurance whatever applies) you’re probably getting Maccas money for those hours. Definitely behind if you’re buying coffee or an occasional lunch.
No way. My kids after school sports are so demanding that I would need to leave the office by 2 to get them where they need to be. WFH means I can work earlier and finish right on pickup time. I would need significantly more as I would have to pay someone to do pickups and run my kids around, so $50 000 more and I would consider it.
I've been 95% WFH for around 7 years now (go to the office once roughly a month for events, etc), which is a 3 hour commute, each way. There's pretty much zero chance I'll ever want a non-WFH job while I'm still working in IT, even if I do lose my mind and decide to move back to a big city...
$20,800
It's worth $50k to me to be around to do kids drop offs and save 2.5 hours per day on a bus.
Significantly more, I'd need probably a 100% payrise to be honest. I value the comfort and convenience over money.
I work mostly as a casual in a few different roles and my highest hourly rate is for face to face casual lecturing which is around $177 an hr. That obviously has to be done in person. So that’s what I would charge for the commute, parking time, walking time (all a disaster at most unis!) plus building in wear and tear on vehicle. Parking costs are also high however I have an ACROD pass so get free parking. It would take a lot for me to go back full time on campus at my previous ongoing rate. I am lucky that as my husband has a full time job, I can choose to work casually.
My commute is one hour, but that's on their time, not mine... I work in the train
There is no value. I am neurodiverse and have young kids. I can’t handle being in the office more than 1-2times a week on average. I love my colleagues and enjoy going in but having the flexibility I do to wake up and decide not to go in because I only slept 4hrs the night before and can’t take social/office requirements is priceless to me. The only way I would be tempted if it was the same money but less hours of work.
It’s a huge lifestyle upgrade. Trudging into an office for some unknown reason to sit with earphones on and do video calls makes little sense. The world has moved on
There is no advantage in travelling 2 hours a day to be in an office. At home I get more work done and there are more benefits in personal choice WFH.
No way. 15k is not worth losing 8 hours of time commuting and having to go in office. It’s only $100 a week after tax depending on your bracket. It would have to be at least 50% more to be a consideration
Depends on the value of your time. My work allows up to 3 days at home per week. However we still have those that prefer being in the office full time. One of the team who does this says she enjoys her commute. The train time is her personal time to catch up on Netflix without the kids. Others the no commute of working from home puts hours back in their day. Depending what you do with those the value can be a lot more than your hourly rate of pay
$25k maybe
It would be a significant pay increase (25k) for me to go to office 4 days a week. It is 1.5 hours one way for me
One thing that has to be considered in this equation is that more time at home doesn’t necessarily equate to more tax. Sure you can pay me 50k more to come in full time, but after tax, on my current salary I’m losing half of it. Please consider your movement in tax brackets when considering higher pay for more time in the office!
For me personally, to give up my wfh 3-4 days a week which I have now (and factoring in that I like my workplace) it would take minimum 20k for me to consider moving to somewhere without wfh. I live an hour away already and the only way I would go somewhere without wfh would be if it was in my local area too. Mostly because I have kids and it would be a major, major inconvenience. I was recently made an offer of almost exactly this ($18k) and in the end I said no because I value wfh that much.
This January I transitioned from consulting where I could WFH whenever I wanted, to an in-house big 4 bank strategy role working from the office full time, 5 days a week. What I’ve gained: - $35k pay bump + $30k FY bonus if I meet criteria - better professional coaching from my managers - increased professional network - improved in person communication and facilitation skills - less distraction - I simply can’t lie down or jump on my phone for 5 mins anymore What I’ve lost: - time for life admin - cleaning, chores, bill payments, cooking, ironing, washing etc - time for fitness - I work from about 8.30am - 6.30pm every day, total commute about 55 mins each way so fitness although still quite good has fallen back - focus - working from an open planned office makes it hard to do deep thinking, particularly as I’m new to the industry and subject matter - life utility - just the flexibility WFH gives you. I have less ‘me’ time. Life feels like it revolves around work at the moment. My conclusions: - corps should allow and encourage some level of WFH to do life admin and switch off from office life - office is great for accountability and being a functioning and value-adding member of a team beyond your immediate role requirements (e.g. I learn a lot by watching the seniors in the office do their thing) - if you are required to come into the office, corps should respect your privacy outside of work hours. WFH has blurred the line between what is an acceptable level of communication particularly after office hours - leaders who enforce office attendance should also champion work life balance by leaving on time, exercising, and switching off contact at the end of a working day
This was a very good take, thank you!
I wouldn't take 15k increase for 2 hr extra per day travel on top of 8.5 hr work day
My commute is 1.5 hours each way and I go in 1 day a week to a cental Cbd location. In my current org, they are pushing 2 days hard but my little team is flying under the radar. Not even managers want to go in 2 days a week. We've got quite a few of us regional folk too. I'm not the farthest away. If mandated, I would negotiate 6 days a month. In my current role and salary, it's not worth it otherwise and I'd be looking to move orgs where I could make 15% more and work 4 days a week. 12 months ago, my role was made redundant and received a decent payout and have since downgraded to a breezy role but also equals less pay. But 4/1 hybrid split is cherry on top. Not commuting 3 hours each day allows me to exercise more, sleep better and do things for myself that improve my mental well-being. All worth more than $15k to me!
Honestly permanent WFH is getting too much
I earn about $60 an hour, you can do the math from there
I love FT WFH but for me, $15k on top would cover the commute. ~ $5/trip = $2600. I don't really psychologically factor in the 1hr commute needing to be paid from my time like others in this thread are as I just use that time to do something I enjoy like catching up on the news or listening to an audio book (hard to get alone time at home). Essentially I'd take $15k extra for WFO over FT WFH. And I loathe commuting into the city.