I agree with you but still see it as a net positive for the employer, even if none of those hours are spent on work. Perhaps it's a stretch, but I think that 250 hours of potentially stressful commute time being allotted to more fulfilling activities will result in a better employee (albeit only incrementally perhaps).
Yes, I'd also add that when you work without commuting, the time you start work is likely also the time you start working. Whereas if you have a long and possibly stressful journey, you might have a bit of warmup time before you are ready to start working.
Totally agree, and that's the point I would have made, vs. one where the employer benefits by having me work from the time gained by not having transit. That's why I found it odd.
And what is the correlation between happiness and 'productiveness', or more to the point, profit? Ibankers and junior associates at white shoe firms are overwhelmingly miserable, and still a) people line up for their jobs; and b) they make their firms a multiple of most other jobs (maybe with software being an exception, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that tech companies are successful just because they have great engineers).
Correlation isn't causation in either direction in this case. Among the many reasons for long hours for finance, productivity and profit are quite low on the list. "Face time" is a phrase for a reason.
