I was reading the super summarized version of capital that Nia Frome wrote on red sails, and this question popped into my head. In the general formulation, capitalists exploit workers who they employ, because they pay them a wage that is not in line with the value that they imbue into their product. When I think about a laundromat, though, there’s not really any employees to be exploited, seemingly. There’s certainly an owner, and they are renting out a service, but they don’t have employees working under them. Is it more akin to like, being a landlord? I was also thinking it has similarities to the Terry Pratchett “boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness” in the sense that if you can’t afford the whole washing machine, or live in a place without one, you end up spending much more on washing clothes in the long run. Anyways, I would love to hear your thoughts comrades :].

  • Xavienth
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    If by “attendant” you mean somebody physically in the building at all times, then no, laundromats don’t need attendants. A lot of the time they just have someone come in once or twice a day (if that), make sure things are working, clean the bathroom, and leave. Could be the owner or could be hired out. Overnight you can do your laundry without seeing another soul, at least in my experience.