“Vivere da soli non è proprio conveniente”

Well yeah, obviously it costs more. People living alone is very inefficient, and they require more resources per head than people living in larger groups – so it’s not exactly surprising they have to pay a premium.

> If I go on a trip, I pay the same for a hotel room as a couple would.

Again, seems pretty obvious because you’re still taking up the whole room regardless of whether there’s one of your or two of you. The only place where you might end up costing the hotel less is at breakfast, and that’s often not included in the room rate anyway.

> And I run a car, so every year I pay for road tax, breakdown cover, MOT, service, repairs, insurance by myself. That’s another several hundred pounds a year more.

What exactly ere they expecting here? The taxpayer to subsidise their annual MOT and car repairs because they’re living on their own?

If they live in a house share with 4 other people, do they really live alone?

There are many people in this country who are struggling horribly to make ends meet through no fault of their own. These people deserve sympathy.

But some people not in this group seem to aspire to victimhood. The first dude in the article was able to move from one affluent country to another affluent country to live and work. In London whilst being in his early twenties no less. By most definitions of the word, he is privileged.

The second person owned her own house, was able to choose to move to another and therefore presumably could afford a mortgage in the current climate and owns and runs a car. Again, compared to the majority of those 40-odd or under, privileged.

Raising awareness that economies of scale apply to people pooling resources? While we’re at it should we raise awareness of the wetness of water?