A new model study by Econtime Consultants claims that a flexible work schedule can increase the ‘effective’ salary by 56%. This figure may seem surprising, even inflated, until you imagine a real worker: a 39-year-old programmer with one or two children, a mortgage or other debts, a demanding job, and a schedule where every saved hour matters.
The value of flexible work in the life of an IT worker does not come from abstract corporate generosity. It arises from fewer rushed mornings, lost evenings, unpaid hours in traffic, and greater control over the fragile balance between work and personal life.
The Econtime Consultants model is based on an average net salary of 104,000 dollars for an American programmer and estimates their ‘extended salary’ at 162,768 dollars after adding the economic value of flexible work. This is a difference of more than 58,000 dollars in additional value. The worker, of course, does not receive this amount in cash — it is expressed in saved time, avoided costs, fewer daily inconveniences, and a more comfortable workday.
The most important aspect of the study is conceptual: it calls on managers to stop considering salary as the only form of compensation that matters. Salary shows employees how much they earn, but it does not show what the job costs them.
Long commutes cost money. A rigid schedule takes away family time. Mandatory office presence costs sleep, physical activity, concentration, and the ability to handle everyday life without constant stress. The model gives these losses and benefits an economic dimension.
Economic value of personal time
Econtime calls this indicator the “Economic Value of Personal Time.” In the model, the value of an employee’s free hour is estimated at 193.79 dollars, while an hour of work time is estimated at 48.17 dollars. This gap is explained by the fact that the model views free time as a limited, personal, and emotionally significant resource.
A free hour after work gives more than just a replacement for a paid hour. It can mean dinner with a child, a visit to the doctor without rushing, exercise before exhaustion sets in, or simply a psychological reset that helps avoid irritation and burnout.
The model is based on several assumptions. It considers a 39-year-old programmer with children, with a life expectancy of about 79 years and a debt-to-asset ratio of 29%. It is also assumed that the employee values free time 1.5 times higher than work time and assesses their health status 90% positively. These assumptions are important because they affect the final result. An employee without children, with a short commute and few household chores, would likely value the benefits of flexibility lower.
The point is not that every employee gets the same 56% benefit, but that work has a hidden economic component. Employees know the difference between finishing work at 5:30 PM when they are already at home and finishing work at 5:30 PM followed by a commute in traffic, fuel expenses, and attempts to return to family life without any transition. They also know that commuting costs include not only fuel, parking, and car wear and tear: the trip takes away attention, patience, and a significant part of the evening.
The study suggests that flexible work returns about six hours of personal time per week. Six hours may seem insignificant on paper, but for many employees, they can change the entire week. This time can be enough for several trips to pick up children from school, two workouts, a calmer morning, a family dinner, care for elderly relatives, a session with a psychotherapist, household chores, or additional sleep. Managers who see these hours as merely a ‘convenience’ do not consider the reality of employees who have been trying to balance work with personal responsibilities for years.
The model also accounts for the costs of working from home. Remote workers may spend more on utilities, heating, air conditioning, internet, and maintaining a home office. This is a reminder that flexible work does not magically eliminate costs: it shifts some of them from the employer to the employee while eliminating other costs from their life. The main question is whether the saved time and avoided costs outweigh the new costs associated with working from home. In the scenario of this study, the benefits prevail — and by a significant margin.
A randomized experiment on hybrid work conducted in 2024 with 1,612 employees of a technology company also supports this conclusion. It showed that hybrid work reduced turnover by a third and increased employee satisfaction. The same experiment found no significant decrease in productivity based on evaluations over two years, which challenges the simplified assumption that greater flexibility automatically leads to lower productivity.
Managers should pay attention to this, as employees’ patience has limits. A rigid office work policy can be perceived as a hidden salary reduction if it takes away time, increases costs, and complicates daily life without increasing pay. And when managers tell employees that returning to the office is necessary for corporate culture, many hear something else: “Your time outside of work is still not accounted for.”
Of course, not every requirement for office presence is wrong. Some types of work benefit from physical presence. Some teams need in-person mentoring, social trust, and quick collaboration. But return-to-office requirements become economically unjustified when managers ignore what they cost employees.
A better response may be thoughtful flexibility. Companies should evaluate the savings from hybrid work considering specific positions, commute durations, employee categories, and team needs. They should determine where office presence truly improves results and where it merely reproduces old habits. Mentoring, collaboration, and corporate culture should be developed consciously, not assumed to be created by physical office presence alone.
The 56% figure from the Econtime study is a signal for managers. It shows that employees’ time has an economic value that companies have historically not accounted for. Time, autonomy, and flexibility should also be part of the compensation conversation. For the employees themselves, this means that their burnout has not only an emotional but also an economic dimension.
Salary matters. Career growth matters. Benefits and social packages matter. But the work-life balance has also become a matter of pay, as employees’ time has value: work can either respect it or consume it. And when flexible work returns meaningful hours of life to people, it gives them something that is very much like income in its value.
Source: The Hill
