Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
More than 400 readers voted: $240K in-office Boston job or $120K remote?
Is doubling your salary worth giving up remote flexibility — especially in a city like Boston?
A viral workplace question has been circulating online: Would you rather take a $240,000 in-person job or $120,000 remote one?
That got us thinking — what if the in-office job is located in Boston, where commuting time and cost of living can be significant?
So we asked readers to weigh in on the modern workplace dilemma: higher pay in the office, or lower pay with the flexibility of working from home?
More than 400 readers responded to our informal poll. While the higher paycheck came out ahead, the results show a workforce still split on what matters most.
In total, 56% of readers said they would take the $240,000 in-person Boston job, compared to 40% who chose the $120,000 remote role. Another 4% said neither option worked for them, with many in that group saying a hybrid setup would be their ideal scenario.
Would you rather have a $240K in-person job (in Boston) or a $120K remote one?
$240K in-person job
56%
$120K remote job
40%
Neither
4%
Why some chose the $120K remote job
Readers who chose the lower-paying remote role mostly cited time and flexibility — especially parents and longtime commuters.
Advertisement:
“3 kids under 8 — commuting plus the cost of it is horrible. You can’t get the time back,” one anonymous reader wrote.
Erica from West Roxbury said working from home allows them to juggle school schedules and appointments “without hiring additional childcare or paying for before or after-school programs.”
For many, the commute was the deal breaker.
“An in-person job adds at minimum two hours to my work day,” RM from Arlington wrote, saying their mental and physical health is “so much better without the hassle of a commute.”
Others argued that once you factor in commuting costs and higher expenses living near the city, the salary gap shrinks — even feeling “close to the same.”
Why others picked the $240K in-office Boston job
Readers who chose the $240,000 in-person job largely pointed to the salary — and, for some, a desire to get back to pre-pandemic norms.
Advertisement:
“$120K isn’t much these days. Especially around Boston,” Dan from Winchester wrote.
Others said the pay gap made it simple: “The extra $120K is life changing,” wrote Michael from Arlington, citing housing costs, retirement savings, and childcare.
Several also said they prefer being around colleagues.
“I like working in an office environment and having interactions with other humans. Remote work is isolating,” Douglas from Dorchester wrote.
“I worked 5 days a week for 30 years — remote work only started in the last five,” said Shaun from Weymouth, while another added, “People need to get out of the house and get used to in-person interactions again.”
The split underscores an ongoing tension in today’s job market: Is doubling your salary worth giving up remote flexibility — especially in a city like Boston?
Below, see a sampling of reader responses.
Responses have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.
Would you rather have a $240K in-person job (in Boston) or a $120K remote one?
$240K in-person
“$120K really doesn’t buy much these days. I’d take the $240K job and find some cheap hole-in-the-wall accommodations near the office during the week, then return home on the weekends.” — Trevor M., Great Barrington
“Boston is a very dynamic city with lots of perks. $240K is still a great salary and for that I would drive 2 hours each way to collect it.” — Julian V., Leominster
“I like the office and having to get dressed I think it makes you more productive.” — Lisa, Taunton
“Boston is so expensive that I would make it work. If I had children, my choice might be different.” — Molly, Somerville
“I’m a single mom with a 9-year-old boy. Every penny counts. With $240K, I can hire the tutor, nanny, take him on vacations, and provide financial security which would be almost not feasible with $120K living in Boston.” —Sara, Chinatown
“As long as the job was on public transportation. It’s not a big deal. More money, please!” — John, Medford
“Double the money to commute and build in-person relationships is a no brainer.” — Rodger, Medford
“I like the social aspect of being in the office. Being at home is great in some ways but it gets old sitting alone in my home office.” — Serena, Cambridge
“I worked 5 days a week for 30 years, remote work only started in the last 5.” — Shaun C., Weymouth
“I’m doing the remote thing for this month. Not a fan. Being home all day is not all it’s cracked up to be. I like the people in my office and being social on a daily basis.” — Kerri, Whitman
“I’m tired of remote work and lack of community.” — A Boston.com reader from Holliston
“MONEY!!!!!!!!!!” — Rosemary, Watertown
$120K remote
“Hours lost in traffic are never recovered. Most meetings are virtual anyway. Why drive to sit on the screen!” — CJ, Braintree
“Freedom/time is more important than money especially as you get older.” — DL, New Haven, Conn.
“As someone with friends across the world, a remote job would allow me time/opportunity to travel, visit friends, have new experiences, and still make a decent salary.” — Anthony, Jamaica Plain
“Commuting is a treacherous waste of time and office life is mentally suffocating (noise, politics, gossip, atmosphere, infrastructure…), whereas remote work enables the best possible work-life balance for those of us that must still work for a living but cherish flexibility and our freedom.” — A Boston.com reader from Somerville
“3 kids under 8, commuting plus the cost of it is horrible, can’t get the time back.” — Emily
“An in-person job adds at minimum two hours to my work day — my commute is ‘work’ whether the company likes calling it that or not, which means now I’m working 50 hours a week (more if you count time wasted on packing lunch, dressing up fancy, etc.). It means I can’t be with my dog, so I have to deal with the fallout of that, both financial and just lost time with her. It means I can’t let the dishwasher run while I’m working. It means I put wear on my body, vehicle, or bicycle, or deal with the misery that is depending on public transit … My health — mental and physical — is so much better without the hassle of a commute.” — RM, Arlington
“Working from home allows me to bring our kids to school and appointments without hiring additional childcare or paying for before/after-school programs. Remote work is more family-friendly; the trade-off is the isolation from my peers.” — Erica J., West Roxbury
“As a mom of a toddler and 2 dogs, I need the flexibility of being home as much as I can.” — MJ, Plymouth
“Covid was bad for the world but great for my work life. Working from home allowed my to save almost 3 hours/day commuting.” — Francine M., Wenham
“MBTA public transportation is horrible, trains always late, the Red Line is a mess. I don’t miss any of that.” — A Boston.com reader
“I have actually turned down a $210K base salary role that required 3X a day in the office for a $150K base, fully remote role.” — A Boston.com reader from Sudbury
Neither
“Hybrid works.” — Casey, Westwood
“Since you offered the choice of ‘neither,’ I’d rather have no job. No one ever told me that was an option!” — Chip S., West End
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com