3 ms·
Fair enough. I only mentioned it because of this sentence: "The poor go to laundromats." Since that was not enough, there is a more obvious point I should have
by iinnPP 4y ago
Fair enough. I only mentioned it because of this sentence: "The poor go to laundromats."
Since that was not enough, there is a more obvious point I should have made:
Having the choice to be efficient or inefficient means having the option naturally allows you to choose the most time efficient options exclusively. Which a poor person would not have.
Given your example, the poor person in the laundromat has extreme social anxiety and can't even bring themselves to focus on something like reading while handling their laundry. Their clothes get stolen if they leave. They are forced to walk in a freezing cold climate with icy paths and blistering snow-filled wind 1 hour each way.
The lack of choice in the matter makes it a time tax compared to the person who can just choose that one specific scenario to just stay home and use the equipment in their well-heated home.
- graphe 4y agoI think you're making a fantastic scenario that doesn't exist. The poor Mexican neighborhood I live in is not crime heavy. People don't steal clothes. That's below most people because there are free donations for clothes. They also don't walk 1 mile in the cold either way. It's urban. If you live among the poor, you might lose some of the prejudiced ways you see them as inferior in lifestyle.
- iinnPP 4y agoI have been poor most of my life. I have had clothes stolen by people who have had access to free clothes at many locations. I'm also not talking about Mexico when I am talking about cold wind and snow in 20 below with a -42(celsius) 'feel'. The point being made was that having the option to do either "the poor" or "efficient" method is advantageous. This advantage impacts time. Which, my understanding is, you disagree with. Perhaps you can tell me when having two options is worse than having one in the context of the article. Also, I don't see anyone as inferior. Nor have I suggested such. It's highly offensive. Have a good one.
- graphe 4y agoSorry I misread your message. I may be projecting. I see over optimization as a problem, to live is to suffer and experience all of life good and bad. We would always rather not suffer, even when to suffer is humanizing or good for us. We admire princess Diana for waiting in line at Disney with her children when she could have easily cut them. That is uncommon. I used to choose comfort but I see it as severely hiding myself of the human experience to emphasize with others.