Workers are grappling with new sources of stress

Last summer, Julio Carmona started the process of weaning himself off a fully remote work schedule by showing up to the office once a week.

The new hybrid schedule at his job at a state agency in Stratford, Connecticut, still enabled him to spend time cooking dinner for his family and taking his teenage daughter to basketball.

But in the next few months, he's facing the likelihood of more mandatory days in the office. And that's creating stress for the father of three.

Carmona, 37, whose father died from COVD-19 last year, worries about contracting the virus but also ticks off a list of other anxieties: increased costs for lunch and gas, day care costs for his newborn baby and his struggle to maintain a healthy work-life balance.

“Working from home has been a lot less stressful when it comes to work-life balance,” said Carmona, who works in finance at Connecticut's Department of Children and Families. “You are more productive because there are a lot less distractions.”

As more companies mandate a return to the office, workers must readjust to pre-pandemic rituals like long commutes, juggling child care and physically interacting with colleagues. But such routines have become more difficult two years later. Spending more time with your colleagues could increase exposure to the coronavirus, for example, and inflation has increased costs for lunch and commuting.

Among workers who were remote and have gone back at least one day a week in person, more say things in general have gotten better than worse and that they've been more productive rather than less, an April poll from The Associated PressNORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows. But the level of stress for these workers is elevated.

Overall, among employed adults, the April AP-NORC poll

An interesting collection of eight California metros showed declines over the decade in this measurement of how living expenses compare across the nation. Note that most of these California markets remain among the priciest places to live in America.

INLAND EMPIRE » Costs fell 0.3 percentage point in 10 years to a level that's 4% above the national average for 2018-20 — ranking 33rd-highest.

LOS ANGELES-ORANGE COUNTY » Down 0.6 point to 10.7% above average (No. 11).

EL CENTRO » Down 1.1 points to 6% below average (No. 193).

NAPA » Down 2 points to 11.9% above average (No. 6).

SAN JOSE » Down 2.1 points to 12.5% above average (No. 4).

SANTA ROSA » Down 2.6 points to 10.6% above average (No. 13).

VALLEJO » Down 2.9 points to 9% above average (No. 18).

SANTA CRUZ » The state's biggest 10-year drop — off 3.7 points to 10% above average (No. 14).

Bottom line

California's cost-of-living challenges have expanded to so-caled affordable inland towns away from the giant population hubs of Southern California and the Bay Area — well-known for pricey lifestyles.

That means even California's cheapest communities are fairly expensive on a national scale — another factor why California does so poorly attracting new residents.

Postscript

Here's how other California metro areas tracked, ranked by expense-ratio increases over 10 years.

FRESNO » Costs rose 2.9 percentage points in 10 years to 0.8% above the U.S. average in 2018-20 (ranking No. 61 among all metros).

SANTA BARBARA » Up 2.9 points to 10.9% above average (No. 9).

CHICO » Up 2.6 points to 2.4% above average (No. 47).

YUBA CITY » Up 2.4 points to 0.1% above average (No. 70).

BAKERSFIELD » Up 2.3 points to 0.1% below average (No. 71).

MADERA » Up 0.7 points to 2.1% below average (No. 98).

SAN DIEGO » Up 0.4 points to 12.1% above average (No. 5).

HANFORD » Up 0.3 points to 2.2% below average (No. 101).