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 :].
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.
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.
This has been my experience