Last thing I'll say before I mute the post and let tumblr have at it: convenience is morally neutral. Things being more convenient just means it's easier to do and easier to get — and it can go either way whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. Convenience by itself is so normal and people paying more to expend less effort has existed since before money as a concept.
Labor is the value you exchange for material goods (money being representative of your labor value), and labor is what creates material goods and services. If goods and services are suddenly more affordable and accessible (ie require less labor on the part of the consumer), then what happened to make those things cost less either in terms of money or effort?
Was it a technological tool that made the process of manufacturing and service require less labor on the workers' side? Did the monetary/labor cost to the consumer rise to appropriately accomodate the additional cost to the worker required to make things easier and more accessible? Or did we just shift the work to a place where people are more willing to devalue their own labor and expertise?
The washing machine gave homemakers more leisure time and contributed to women's liberation. You don't see people decrying the loss of community because of how laundry used to be a communal activity where people went down to the river. Nor do you see them mourning the fact that people just don't know how to handwash clothes nowadays. The cost of labor is outsourced to a machine and technological advancement made things easier.
On the other hand, we have convenience appliances, products, and services that instead of liberating populations and allowing them more time and freedom have only furthered their oppression. Fast fashion has led to working class people being able to have more access to clothing. Now, everyone can wear a suit and this leads to greater social mobility and less discrimination (now, most everyone can go to places that used to be heavily dress-code restricted). But it's done at the expense of people who work for slave wages in the global south. The social mobility of one population comes from the lack of social mobility of another. The cost of ease is shouldered by an exploited, severely mistreated underclass.
Laundromats and fast fashion stores both sell convenience, but one can only exist by exploiting an invisible underclass and that's what makes it reprehensible.
tl;dr: Things being more convenient (cost less effort on the consumer's part) because someone else (the worker) is bearing the effort is fine and normal, as long as the worker is being properly compensated for it. That is how the exchange of labor works, and things being "easier" and becoming more accessible is actually a good thing. Stop romanticizing needless toil and people having to walk the hill both ways to get what the elite atop that hill would rather hoard to themselves. Convenience is something we should strive for, but not at the expense of devaluing the labor of others and exploiting their environment! It is only true convenience if everyone benefits from it.
