The Sun's Ian McGarry mocks William Gallas:
It is a long way from Cobham to Colney — just ask Ashley Cole — and Gallas has admitted he suffers the same daily drudgery as thousands of other commuters when he leaves his Surrey home for his new training ground in Hertfordshire.
The Frenchman said: “I haven’t moved house yet so, at the moment, I have to tackle the M25 every morning to get to training.
“It takes 90 minutes just to drive to training. It’s very difficult and I have to get up early every morning just so I can be ready to leave by eight o’clock.
“Every morning it’s like ‘Oh no, I’ve got to take the M25 again’....
Makes you want to cry doesn’t it?
McGarry shows a good grasp of economic theory, but a poor knowledge of recent research.
In theory, commuters should have nothing to complain about. They should only take jobs with long commutes if they are compensated for doing so in other ways - with higher wages, a better job or a nicer house. So their complaints should be mocked.
However, this paper by Bruno Frey and Alois Stutzer shows that theory is wrong. Commuters report significantly lower well-being than non-commuters - so much so that it would take a 19% pay rise to compensate someone for a 23 minute commute.
This, they say, might be because people fail to anticipate their future tastes - they fail to foresee that they'll get used to higher pay and better jobs, but not get used to the hassle of commuting.
Choices, then, can be ill-informed.
Whilst this is true of many people, it's not true, of course, for King William, whose move from the money-launderers was a good one (via).