When Work Moves – What Happens to the Human Being?

Remote work, commuting, and the rise of the nomadic work culture

The hidden burden of commuting

For decades, commuting has been treated as a logistical issue: how far do you travel, how do you get there, how long does it take? But evidence increasingly shows that commuting is much more than that. It is a psychological burden that systematically shapes mental health.

The impact is especially strong among people who already find themselves in a vulnerable mental position. For them, even relatively small changes in travel time can lead to measurable declines in well-being. The effect is not evenly distributed across genders either – women often appear to be more affected than men.

This is not just about minutes spent in a car, on a train, or in traffic. It is about:

• the feeling of always being on the way

• time lost that can never be recovered

• stress caused by delays and unpredictability

• the sense that the workday begins long before work actually starts

Commuting does not only consume time. It consumes mental energy.

Remote work – solution or new dilemma?

When remote work expanded rapidly, many saw it as an obvious improvement. Less stress, more freedom, better balance between work and private life. But the reality is more complex.

Evidence suggests that working from home can improve mental health – but only up to a point. The relationship is not linear. Instead, it follows a pattern:

• no remote work at all may create unnecessary strain

• too much remote work can lead to isolation

• a balanced combination seems to produce the best outcomes

This reveals something fundamental about human nature. We need both autonomy and belonging. Both freedom from the daily commute and a sense of connection to others. When working life leans too heavily in one direction, new problems emerge – particularly on the psychological level.

Digital nomads – pioneers of freedom or a warning sign?

In this landscape, the digital nomad has become a symbol of ultimate freedom. No fixed workplace. No permanent home. Just a laptop, an internet connection, and constant movement.

But these developments raise a deeper question:
Is the human mind really built for a life without anchors?

For some, the nomadic lifestyle works beautifully. They experience increased life satisfaction, reduced stress, and renewed creativity. But for others, it can bring:

• social rootlessness

• difficulty building long-term relationships

• blurred boundaries between work and personal life

• financial insecurity

• a persistent sense of being in motion without ever fully arriving

Digital nomadism thus becomes more than a lifestyle choice. It becomes a psychological experiment in real time – one that still lacks clear safety nets, long-term structures, and sustainable models of stability.

Inequality in the age of flexibility

One of the most important insights from recent research is that these changes do not affect everyone equally. Flexibility does not automatically mean fairness.

People with:

• financial stability

• strong social networks

• high levels of autonomy at work

are far better positioned to benefit from remote work and mobility.

But for those already in more vulnerable situations, the same changes can mean:

• increased loneliness

• greater psychological strain

• weaker boundaries between work and recovery

• more responsibility without adequate support

This turns remote work into a new form of social inequality. No longer a matter of factory labor versus office jobs, but of who has the resources to handle a boundaryless working life – and who does not.

Mental health as a strategic issue

Perhaps the most important message is not found in any single statistic, but in what the overall pattern signals to decision-makers.

For a long time, success in working life has been measured in:

• productivity

• efficiency

• cost reduction

• flexibility

But it is becoming increasingly clear that this perspective is incomplete. A working system that undermines people’s mental health becomes, in the long run, self-destructive – for individuals, for organizations, and for society.

When evidence shows that:

• long commutes systematically weaken psychological well-being

• balanced remote work can strengthen mental health

• insecurity and stress hit the most vulnerable the hardest

… then work arrangements can no longer be seen as neutral technical solutions. They become ethical, political, and human choices.

Three possible futures of work

Based on current trends, three broad paths for the future of work can be imagined.

1. The efficiency path

Remote work is primarily used as a tool for cutting costs. Offices disappear, responsibility shifts to individuals, and support systems lag behind.
Result: high efficiency in the short term – growing psychological strain in the long term.

2. The nomadic path

Work becomes fully borderless and location-independent, but also more individualized. Everyone becomes their own system.
Result: great freedom for some – increased insecurity for many.

3. The human path

Work is organized around well-being as a guiding principle. Commuting is reduced wherever possible. Remote work is used strategically, not automatically. Social structures are built not only in physical spaces but also in digital ones.
Result: a working life that lasts – not only one that performs.

Of these three, only the third appears truly sustainable over time.

We are not just moving work – we are reshaping everyday life

When we talk about remote work and digital nomadism, we are not merely discussing new ways of working. We are discussing how people will live their lives in a digital age.

Commuting, offices, home offices, and nomadic lifestyles are not technical details. They are the architecture of everyday life. And like all architecture, they shape us – slowly, quietly, but powerfully.

So the real question is not whether the future of work will be more flexible.
It will be.

The real question is:
Will it also be more human?