> The point of the piece is that the author is a cheapskate(nothing wrong with that) and they would rather save the extra 387 quid/week.
No - the author does not suggest that he plans to carry this out: note that he uses only hypothetical averages. He only points out that it is theoretically possible, which is outrageous enough in itself.
I object to the idea that people in general have the simple option to "work harder" to make up 387 difference. In truth, that amount is enough to legally employ 1.5 people.
Poor people (up to and beyond median earners) are excluded from options that you describe as investments precisely because they are investments - if you need to spend your labour and capital on survival, you can't afford to "spend it in smart ways".
What? The author never actually said they were going to do this, it was just to make the point of how expensive London is, which is what the parent comment said.
