I assert that you have it backwards. Virtue only exists in interactions with actual people, not with abstract people. Paying a maid more than market value is pu

I assert that you have it backwards. Virtue only exists in interactions with actual people, not with abstract people. Paying a maid more than market value is putting his money where his mouth is, because he believes the maid should be paid more is actual virtue. (Paying the maid more so that he could boast to his friends about resourcing the underprivileged/oppressed-group would be virtue signaling, but at least it would still have the virtue of some amount of self-sacrifice) Voting for politicians is the abstract. Not necessarily virtue signaling, if you actually believe the cause, but how is that likely to help the maid? Even if the party succeeds in doing something effective, how long will it take before the maid is actually better off? And is anyone going to evaluate whether the changes are actually effective in making people better off? Or consider two scenarios: 1) someone claims maids should be paid more but pays them market rate and votes for politicians who claim to be changing the world to make maids better off, or 2) someone else pays the maid 3X the going rate (which he appears to be doing, see other thread) and does not vote for politicians who claim to be making maids better off (to be clear, this is hypothetical, I doubt he does this). Person 2 has made the maid actually better off. Person 1's maid is not better off, and any impact on maids (if any) is disconnected, and conveniently does not require any sacrifice on the part of Person 1. Person 2 has made the maid better off at the expense of themselves; this is the opposite of virtue signaling.