Professionals Choose 4-Hour Super Commute over Office Proximity

Jaxon Wildwood

Updated Thursday, July 4, 2024 at 12:00 AM CDT

In a recent Fortune article authored by Orianna Rosa Royle, professionals are revealing their preference to endure a 'super-commute' of over four hours daily rather than give up their suburban lifestyle, which became a norm during the pandemic. Published on July 1, 2024, the article delves into the growing trend where workers opt to travel long distances to maintain their pandemic-style living arrangements rather than move closer to their offices.

The accompanying photograph illustrates this phenomenon, depicting a woman diligently working on her laptop while seated on a train with blue seats. The image, credited to MASKOT—Getty Images, succinctly captures the essence of modern commuting, showcasing how cities are reviving and offices are reopening, yet workers prefer these extended commutes to sustain their new way of life.

Commentary from various users highlights the broader implications and sentiments surrounding this trend. One user points out the inefficiencies and health drawbacks of lengthy commutes, while another emphasizes the benefits of remote work, such as reduced traffic, lower pollution, and improved worker morale. The discussion also touches on the controversial push for a return to office (RTO), with some arguing that it is a form of astroturfing – a deceptive campaign orchestrated to appear as though it is grassroots-driven.

Moreover, the impact of remote working on worker organization and social interaction is also noted. The shift to remote work has reportedly made it challenging for administrative staff to organize effectively, reducing opportunities for spontaneous workplace interactions and collective actions.

A mix of opinions suggests that while remote work offers numerous advantages, it also presents unique challenges. For instance, one user humorously recounts an attempt to work remotely from a restaurant, which led to unsatisfactory service for customers. This anecdote underscores the fact that not all jobs are suitable for remote work.

The article and the ensuing debate underscore a significant shift in work culture and the complex dynamics at play as workers and employers navigate the post-pandemic landscape. With cities slowly bouncing back, the preference for super-commuting reflects a desire for work-life balance and the newfound appreciation for suburban living, even at the cost of enduring long hours in transit.

For more insights and detailed discussions on the evolving work environment, read the full article by Orianna Rosa Royle on Fortune's website.

Noticed an error or an aspect of this article that requires correction? Please provide the article link and reach out to us. We appreciate your feedback and will address the issue promptly.

View source: Imgur

Top Comments from Imgur


Is that Forbes article trying to twist the "Apartments near offices are so expensive workers need 4h commute to live in areas with affordable housing"? Or is that just someone's w******** about sitting all day in train pretending to be working instead working from home or office?


Everyone who has a job that can be done remotely should be encouraged to work remotely. The only people -required- to turn up in person should be those who need to move or rearrange matter in some capacity. Not only do you get much better worker morale, but you also reduce traffic & pollution, as well as vastly reduce illness / absenteeism AND reduce your business overheads due to not needing as much physical space. People fighting this are either petty tyrants or bootlickers of said tyrants.


If i could work from home i would leave the city instantly and move back into the countryside.


my job is a 54 minute walk, i love it its what i want, but noone should have a commute like this, (my boss drives an hour and twenty-five...... DRIVING fts)


My company started forcing everyone within a 60m commutable distance back in 3 days/week. So I'm moving 1500 miles away.


My view is that if the employer requires your physical presence, then they should pay at least a portion of your travel time, inbound and out. Like if they want you onsite at 9:00 then you start getting paid at 8:30 and the clock runs till 30 minutes after you leave the site. Corporations should also get taxed a little extra for each on site worker, nominally to fund transport infrastructure, but really as extra pressure like "are you SURE they need to be on site?"


The fake RTO push is the most obvious astroturfing ever.


I tried it, but the customers at the restaurant complained that their food was cold, had dog hair on it and took 2 hours to get to the table. I only have 1 tiny oven and a 4 burner stove Melissa!


Forbes seems to be a website entirely devoted to rich a******s pandering to other rich a******s about how they can exploit their workers more.


WFH shouldn’t be a right. That’s stupid. It should be a benefit.

Check out our latest stories