That’s rather the question of how much you open up the solution space. You can also change the employer - then the mobility time doesn’t even increase.
But that’s not so easy to do in every job.
I know the FAZ article, but unfortunately it is also viewed very one-sidedly and merely represents the opinion of one journalist.
Maybe, nevertheless I consider the points valid.
It is also forgotten what mobility gain you have through a car. Urban infrastructure is nice and all, but if I want to go to a certain forest or the mountains with my bike, I’m not going there by train with 3 transfers - and then I would have to buy a separate ticket for the bike and only come back the next day because the trains on site no longer run so late.
No one is saying not to have a car – but just one instead of 2 (or 3 with adult children, at least that was common in my school’s upper grades). We actually wouldn’t need one in everyday life, but we have one for comfort (exactly for day trips, holidays, my parents live 250 km away, or just really bad weather or a big weekly grocery shopping).
If every other weekend there are demos or climate activists glued to the streets and you can therefore not even leave the city to go to nature (experienced that myself).
As you already say, there is no “the city.” Ours is politically very green and we indeed already had glue protesters right next to our apartment, but they disturb at most about 30 cars at a time?
There are pros and cons to both concepts and everyone has to find the best solution for themselves.
First of all, the budget is fixed and based on that you have to maximize ‘happiness.’ Several hundred thousand euros don’t just fall out of your pocket.
Exactly, the decisive factor is the time of purchase – I am aware that not everyone has a choice. But there is also the option to stay in the city and downsize a bit (e.g. terraced house instead of detached). Another question of priorities, depending on how much weight you give to the factor ‘type of housing.’
The time difference will be about 1-2 hours per day.
So with a classic nanny I was thinking full-time. But even if it’s only about babysitting in the evenings: I don’t believe that. Just if you take a child to sports training, for example. 1.5h training + 30 minutes shower/changing + travel time is already >2 hours, and that only covers one child, and only for a leisure activity. The same child in our case (!) would have to take the bus at 6:30 to sit in class just before 8. Then hang around school for 45 minutes before (yes, great time to do homework, but still not nice). After school, the same annoying trip back home. Alternatively, mom can drop off the child on the way to work, but then work can’t start before 9, so again a loss of time on one side.
You can discuss and weigh this endlessly, we really talked a long time about it. But for us it wouldn’t have been the right thing. Of course, everyone can see that differently.