We’re all paying for someone else’s 4-hour work week, not ours
Not really sure why this was originally flagged (or this is possibly a dupe of the original post which was flagged?), but even though the comments that I&#x27;ve seen so far are giving it a negative spin I think there are quite a few important points in the article about the way in which our (I&#x27;m generalizing about the broad HN demographic) quite privileged lifestyles do have a concomitant cost for <i>somebody</i> who needs to service our day-to-day needs and wants.<p>This ranges from everything like online shopping (I bought a pair of trainers yesterday on a <i>Sunday</i> afternoon, and they were shipped from the warehouse 2 hours later), to the people who are used in low-wage countries to make those trainers at a price I feel is &#x27;affordable&#x27;.<p>I&#x27;m reminded of a newspaper interview with a bank director here in Sweden a few years ago. She spoke at length about how we should accept that our children won&#x27;t have regular jobs - they would have a few &#x27;gig&#x27; employments: driving a cab a few days each week before stocking shelves in the evening and maybe working part-time at an old-people&#x27;s home. The obvious implication to me was that it was <i>other people&#x27;s children</i> she was talking about <i>not her&#x27;s.</i> On the contrary, <i>they</i> would obviously be sitting in the back of the cab, on their way to their well-paid career in banking, just like their mother.