The true cost of that high-paying job in the city (or low-cost mortgage in the suburbs)

An interesting piece in the New Yorker about one possible reason for Americans' ever-increasing commute: they have a hard time tallying the intangible costs of commuting with the tangible gains of living in a cheaper location or having a higher-paying job.

Three years ago, two economists at the University of Zurich, Bruno Frey and Alois Stutzer, released a study called “Stress That Doesn’t Pay: The Commuting Paradox.” They found that, if your trip is an hour each way, you’d have to make forty per cent more in salary to be as “satisfied” with life as a noncommuter is. (Their data come from Germany, where you’d think speedy Autobahns and punctual trains would bring a little Freude to the proceedings, and their methodology is elaborate and thorough, if impenetrable to the layman, relying on equations like U=α+ß₁D+ß₂D²+γX+δ₁w+δ₂w²+δ₃log y.) The commuting paradox reflects the notion that many people, who are supposedly rational (according to classical economic theory, at least), commute even though it makes them miserable. They are not, in the final accounting, adequately compensated.

...

They tend to overvalue the material fruits of their commute—money, house, prestige—and to undervalue what they’re giving up: sleep, exercise, fun.

The article goes on to blame post-WWII zoning laws, which separated residential and commercial areas, but I'm not sure I agree with the thesis: even if workplaces were closer to residential areas, I doubt people would limit their employment options by proximity any more than they do now.