>Everyone has the same amount of time in a day. A better way to phrase this is that some people produce more wealth per unit of time than others How we value l

>Everyone has the same amount of time in a day. A better way to phrase this is that some people produce more wealth per unit of time than others How we value labor, other things matters. Say we talk about the people who make our shit dissappear, cleaning up, etc... Much of this work is done at a loss to those who labor to do it. They are poor, having to labor most all of their time. Without them, the cost to us is much higher. Having to manage our own shit, where to store it, who takes it away, amd so forth. Doing that work would deny us our time, we would be less wealthy, and or need to pay more to have these things done, make arrangements, and forth. Further, our current society is one that requires, does not even provide for people not doing that work. Essentially, no matter what any of us says, a large number of us will be doing that work. How then is that work not valued well enough to provide for those doing it? We all have the same hours, and theirs very seriously improve our ability to make use of our time each day. Which is it? Do we value them enough to insure their labor is not performed at a loss? Or, if we are to subsidize their labor, and any reason is fine, how come it must be so painful, looked down upon, seen as some crime or failure to obtain this subsidy? You write about basic economic realities. The fact is, how we value things, why we value them matters and those valuations are not physical laws. Economics is not an objective science either. Perhaps we place too high a value on some things and people, while ignoring value on other things and people. None of this says we need to work for others, but it does strongly suggest we could be valuing things a bit differently and arrive at a much better overall outcome for people than we see today.