sure, they act as a landlord, but then there's also the indirect exploitation involved in producing the washing machines, the detergent, and then in turn people mining minerals for that, mining coal for electricity, etc.
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
18 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
22524 readers
56 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
-
Posts about mental health should go in [email protected] you are loved here :meow-hug: but !mentalhealth is much better equipped to help you out <3.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Right, but that indirect exploitation applies to effectively everything in everyone's life and doesn't have a lot to do with the laundromat owner specifically.
Lots of laundromats do have employees; there has to be an attendant and if the owner wants to have business hours longer than they’re willing by to work they’ll have to hire someone.
I think any business with an owner and no employees can probably be classified as somewhere between a skilled laborer and a landlord, depending on how much capital is involved in their business. A web developer might only own $1000 worth of computer equipment and their main contribution is their knowledge. A laundromat owner owns many thousand dollars worth of laundry equipment and a space to keep it in, and only provides a small contribution of their own skills.
Even if there's no labor employed, the owner is doing the same thing as a landlord: Turning an amount of money into capital, then charging a rent on it over time to make a profit. I think something could be said about them turning the labor embedded in the washing machines into profit, since they're only good for some finite number of cycles, but it's secondary to the main part of renting.
They're either shopowners or landlords, depending on if they're renting the land and equipment or own it. Only difference is the labor of washing is provided by the people using the machines instead of by employees like at a dry cleaner.
They own the means of production (of clean and dry clothes).
They can increase the "rents" or reduce supply or let the machines go unmaintained/replaced and charge the same amount of money for less and less of a service. Heck, I'm sure I've seen signs in laundromats that say something like "Not responsible if the machines eat your money".
So yeah, like, the people who are using the machines would be the people most likely to be exploited.
Most likely people who consistently use laundromats probably don't have stable housing.
i agree that they're most like landlords, barely even petit-boug due to the rarity of having formal employees or skilled labor they perform. of coirse in the basic motion of capital accumulation 1 landromat becomes 2 becomes 3 and then they're definitely bourgeois bosses, but its definitely a strange initial situation