This is a subject worth talking about, but the article is a bit all over the place. I'm not going to be easily convinced that chores are a blessed thing. I do

This is a subject worth talking about, but the article is a bit all over the place. I'm not going to be easily convinced that chores are a blessed thing. I do think chores will eventually die out because their value is fairly low: they're mostly repetitive tasks that don't require much skill. Ask women from the time before the vacuum cleaner and the washing machine how they feel about the awesomeness of chores. If you want to know why something happens, look at incentives. Real ones, not the ones that you think should be true. Too often people have an ideal person in their head, and they assume all must act and think that way, so anyone who disagrees cannot really voice their opinion. Then a new solution comes out and a bunch of people rush to it. Or a new president. That demand was always there, it just was not allowed to be heard. If you don't want to hear it, it will catch you off guard. People work a lot. People are protective of their time. People don't want to socialize. People are forced to earn income through part time jobs. People don't like those other people over there. In my experience, rarely does anyone really care to know why, they just announce a judgment to make themselves feel better and move on. I don't think this Shut-In Economy development drives inequality. Rather, it's a consequence of it, and one of the examples of why inequality is bad, no matter how "objectively" well the less well off are doing. For the shut-in class, and for the serving class... and for those below. In a more fair society, elimination of chores would be driven by either shared work or automation, and it will benefit all, so we wouldn't be complaining about it and calling the beneficiaries entitled. But it would take a fundamental rejection of this style of economic affairs to get there.