When I thumb a ride with a boat over my shoulder, nobody has to stop, and I'm sure nobody feels too bad for the dummy who might have to walk all afternoon because he decided to huck a river without a shuttle plan. When the author crashes at a fire-house, my hunch is the chief isn't worried that if he declines then the guy who's been camping for most of his trip anyway is going to freeze to death. Maybe he's just stoked to do someone a solid and chitchat with a traveler on a slow night. These are not 'CEO at a foodbank' type situations.
If I go on a mission to yoink a boater out of a gnarly river, I never hear anyone on my S&R crew worrying over whether the subject could have afforded a guided trip instead. We're just happy to help, and hope they learn from the experience. I think people legitimately enjoy helping eachother out more than you assume here, and are probably less concerned with economic status of the recipient than you.
> Ironically this effort to relate to other real live humans with normal incomes is only possible by indulging in the ultimate luxury, which is taking major time off of work rather than being stuck working a shit job.
So what do you advocate for here? Growing the increasing cultural isolation between economic classes because those lucky enough to afford time off work should be so concerned with potentially imposing that they shamefully avoid putting themselves in situations where they could benefit from the help of someone less well off?
Wealth inequality is a huge problem, and I'm excusing the level of salt in your comment because I agree with your general theme that exploitation of that dynamic is bad. But it feels like you're attacking a harmless treatment because you're upset the disease exists in the first place.