I think you have this "gender bias" backwards. Standard analysis suggests that people who change their behavior the most are the ones who are *least* affected.

Think of the it like this. The cost of the longer commute is the same for men and for women: time in traffic is time in traffic. If commuting time rises and you continue to commute, you pay the full cost. If commuting time rises and you choose to stop commuting, you would be worse off if had someone forced you to keep commuting -- in other words, you're better off than if you had continued to commute. So the harm done to the person who changes her behavior is less than the the full cost of the extra commuting time, ie, less than the harm done to someone who doesn't change his behavior.

Just to make the obvious counterpoint to my earlier comment, I stated above that the more you change your behavior, the less the cost is to you. But the inverse holds too: the higher the cost, the more you change your behavior. For instance, people in crowded areas change their behavior more than people in empty areas. So if all we know is that Person A's behavior has changed more than Person B's, we can't necessarily identify whether A is the lucky or the unlucky one.

For the case of women versus men who live in the same place, though, I think it's natural to suppose that it's the *difference in ability to respond* rather than the *difference in time costs* which is relevant here. Women are better able to quit their job and stop working than men are (or are better able to choose not to start working in the first place).

There also is a direction of causation problem here. Being a one income family makes it relatively more attractive to live in an outlying suburb with a long commute to the center of the metro area where the jobs are. Only one person has to commute and the other is full-time in the suburb which makes home location more important (though it may be that people systematically make mistakes about whether the bigger house in the exurb will make them more happy)

(though it may be that people systematically make mistakes about whether the bigger house in the exurb will make them more happy)

I would suggest it is the good public schools in the suburbs that will make family-oriented people more happy.
Otherwise, your point is excellent.

or the case of women versus men who live in the same place, though, I think it's natural to suppose that it's the *difference in ability to respond* rather than the *difference in time costs* which is relevant here. Women are better able to quit their job and stop working than men are (or are better able to choose not to start working in the first place).

My guess is that it's the 'ability to respond' issue that makes women more wary of long commutes in the first place. Being an hour away from the kids' schools should something happen is something that women tend to think about more than men do. Another inequity, of course, but not particularly policy-driven except perhaps insofar as parental-leave policies establish unequal parenting from the start.

The easy solution is to eliminate the commute in the first place. Employers just don't get it--a lot more people could be working from home, but there is a huge disincentive not to do so. Some places have policies that supposedly allow people to telecommute, but in reality the dinosaur boss wants you there and you put your future at risk if you don't struggle in every day so you can be seen at endless meetings. In any case, I think offering companies incentives to allow workers to stay home would be very cost effective.

For the case of women versus men who live in the same place, though, I think it's natural to suppose that it's the difference in ability to respond rather than the difference in time costs which is relevant here.

From observing women studying for two-year career oriented degrees in business college, it is natural for me to assume that anybody that does not understand the higher time costs of those bearing the greater share of childcare responsibilities is just making the assumption that is convenient to his preferred conclusion.

Which behavior pattern would be harder to change?
1) Car-oriented development OR
2) Men don't pull their weight around the house and taking care of kids

Oops. I mean:
2) Men don't pull their weight when it comes to household chores or taking care of kids

Clearly 1 is easier to change, because different levels of gas tax track very closely to different degrees in car-oriented development in the US, Australia, and across western Europe, but men not pulling our weight when it comes to household chores or taking care of the kids is a very much more closely bound to culture.

So we know what buttons to push to change car oriented development, but its much harder to know what buttons to push to make men be marginally less lazy around the house and with the kids.

Eskimo, don't forget that society expects men to not pull their weight. I can take off from work to get my kid no problem; for my husband, it's an Unplanned Time Off and shows up on his performance review at the end of the year. We're in different industries, but I think our situation is pretty common; men are more likely to work in 'no time off' positions.

I'm amazed at Alex F's ability to argue in favor of twisted conclusions.

"If commuting time rises and you continue to commute, you pay the full cost. If commuting time rises and you choose to stop commuting, you would be worse off if had someone forced you to keep commuting -- in other words, you're better off than if you had continued to commute. So the harm done to the person who changes her behavior is less than the the full cost of the extra commuting time, ie, less than the harm done to someone who doesn't change his behavior."

By his kind of reasoning, getting fired from a job is better than not getting fired because the newly unemployed person has saved the cost of commuting. In other words, you're better off after losing your job.

To reach this conclusion, he totally ignores the benefits of the commute: keeping a job, earning a paycheck, doing good work, perhaps even helping to make the world a better place.

In actuality, if you're forced off your job because commuting time/costs rise too high, you're worse off, not better off. It may also be true that women are more willing to stop work when commuting costs/times rise because they're getting paid less (on average, only 78% of what men get for the same work), and so the point at which commuting to earn a woman's paycheck ceases to be beneficial is more easily reached than for commuting to earn a man's paycheck.

And let's not forget the culture pressure for women to bear more of the responsibility for home, hearth, and child-rearing. If a man commutes an extra hour a day, it's a drag. If a woman commutes an extra hour a day, her family's quality of life may fall apart.

Robert Moskowitz:

By his kind of reasoning, getting fired from a job is better than not getting fired because the newly unemployed person has saved the cost of commuting. In other words, you're better off after losing your job.

Robert, I'm not sure if I follow your point. The problem with the analogy to firing is that I'm talking about a choice. You decide whether to work or not, based on the value of the job to you and the cost of the commute. If we were talking about a policy that forbade certain people from working, and women were affected more than men, I'd agree with you.

I think a better analogy might be this: Let's say that a company has two workers, A and B. The company decides to cut both of their salaries by $10,000 / year; worker A quits, and worker B keeps working. My argument is that the company's new policy has hurt worker B more than worker A, because B is $10,000 worse off and A is something less than $10,000 worse off.

Suppose, for instance, that worker A would quit after a $5000 salary cut. Then the first $5000 of cuts affect A and B equally, but the next $5000 of cuts affect B but not A.

In actuality, if you're forced off your job because commuting time/costs rise too high, you're worse off, not better off.

I think you're misreading me here. I agree that everyone is clearly worse off with the higher costs. The question is about who is made more worse off.

It may also be true that women are more willing to stop work when commuting costs/times rise because they're getting paid less...

I think this point is exactly right. Going back to my example, if worker A was only making $7,000 to begin with, then of course she won't accept a $10,000 cut. I think this could definitely be a big factor in *why* women seem to be more likely to stop working when commuting costs rise. But if a woman stops working and a man keeps at it, then she is no longer hurt by additional traffic while he is.

If a man commutes an extra hour a day, it's a drag. If a woman commutes an extra hour a day, her family's quality of life may fall apart.

There's definitely some truth to this, but it's not so clear how this should go into the analysis.

I think this is an argument in line with my second comment: the claim is that the cost of commuting is *not* equal for men and women. It takes the same amount of time to travel, but the value of the woman's time -- as measured by the value of the next best thing she could do, taking care of the kids -- is much higher than the value of the man's time. I'm not sure I'd endorse the view that women's time is worth more than men's, but it's certainly an argument that someone can make. (As anyone reading this comment can probably guess, *everyone's* time is worth more than mine).

To go back to my stupid example, now we're decreasing A's salary by $30,000 and B's by $10,000 -- it's no surprise that A quits and B doesn't, and A is probably worse off than B. (But maybe not, if she would have quit by $10,000 anyway).

Okay, I hope the html worked here... I don't like not having previews.

The hot-sale Ugg Boots are coming now.We offer wide range of colors and styles ugg boots uk and Ugg Boots Sale for you.Shopping now for your favorite!