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.
> 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.