[disruptthelaw]

> our quite privileged lifestyles do have a concomitant cost for somebody who needs to service our day-to-day needs and wants.

But it stands to reasons that those who service our needs are doing so because it’s better for them than the alternative. If there is a systemic problem which results in lack of viable alternatives then attack those systemic causes, but it’s not obvious to me how those of us who who benefit from these services are the main cause of this issue. This seems tantamount to blaming Oscar Schindler for underpaying his Jewish factory workers rather than seeing the bigger picture in why those workers were happy to take low paying factory work.

You almost make it sound like the people who service our needs are forced to do so. It’s not like they’re giving up life of comfort and leisure because they’re forced to do our laundry.

[disruptthelaw]

To clarify the Schindler analogy, I’m obviously not suggesting that we deserve medals for providing low paid work, just that the work we provide is not causing harm, on the contrary it’s a slight improvement on the alternative options for those who take the work.

[SyzygistSix]

If that were the case, I would expect the number of hours that people work would be going down, the conditions would be getting better and the pay would increase.

There has been a lot of improvement in some parts of the world, especially some of the (formerly) worst, but a lot of workers are experiencing the opposite even while profits and productivity skyrocket.

[disruptthelaw]

I don’t follow, how does my claim imply that number of working hours would decrease or that conditions would increase? Those seem to be factors that fall outside of the specific forces we are discussing?