In message , at 13:24:08 on Sun, 10 May
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:
On 10/05/2020 13:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:55:01 on Sun, 10 May
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:

Many people spend (spent!) two to three hours a day commuting.
*Not as many as you probably think. See the transport survey I've cited.

Probably just as many as I think.
What's the percentage you have in mind?

For London, quite high.

OK, so quote what you had in mind for that, if you don't have anything
in mind for the national average (which we can then look up for
comparison).

[And remember, for a true comparison, we would need people living within
six miles of Oxford Circus too, but that's not a figure that will easily
come to hand]

What do you suggest she should be doing instead ?
*She has a husband and three youngish children for starters,
which is* going to keep all of them busy.

On £200k she can afford a nanny.

*Which few people can, and part of the reason why her behaviour
isn't a* good aspirational model for the rest of society which can't.

Tall poppy syndrome.

It's nothing to do with disparaging what she's achieved, just the
practical situation that employing a nanny is likely to cost more than
the average wage-earner's disposable income. I employed nannies for
about eight years, so I know a bit about the logistics.
Including that not many of them will want to stay up until an hour
and half after someone has finished reading the Ten O'clock news.

By which time her husband is home.

Maybe his work pattern needs a nanny just as much as hers. Or are we
adding yet another outlier "everyone can jog to work like that as long
as you have a nanny *and* a house husband".
--
Roland Perry