5 ms·
Agreed. As I read this piece, I was struggling to find the part The Guardian got wrong. If anything this is an argument over semantics.
by jeffehobbs 13y ago
Agreed. As I read this piece, I was struggling to find the part The Guardian got wrong. If anything this is an argument over semantics.
- throwaway0094 13y agoWell, not everyone earns the average income (obviously). So the percentage is wrong for everyone.
- mpclark 13y agoIndeed, but harmless generalisations and simplifications like this are part of the art of making it read like a newspaper article rather than a contract.
- jasonlotito 13y agoIf you are dissatisfied with a commute, earning more money doesn't necessarily increase your satisfaction with having the commute. You still dislike the commute, and you are dissatisfied with is, you are just willing to accept it as the price you pay for more money and lower rent. > If anything this is an argument over semantics. This is also explained in the article. "A person w/ a 1hr commute has to earn 40% more money to be as satisfied with life as someone who walks to the office" That's a take away from someone reading the original article. This is obviously not true, even disregarding the 40% part, and not what the original article even suggested, but it's being interpreted that way. While I strongly dislike pedants, word choice is important, and can change the meaning even if technically correct.