Perhaps, therefore, we need less privatization. Also, quite possibly, the "efficiency" so lauded by its advocates does more harm than good. What would be the disadvantages, except to The Wicked Rentier Class, of encouraging what the petty bourgeois so often call "overmanning"? Global disadvantage, possibly; but few of the bourgeoisie in rich countries are likely to be willing to see their incomes reduced to a par with their counterparts in, say, India or China. 

The rich in either country may well not care about the situation of their poorer compatriots. In this context, "rich" includes even the moderately well-to-do. Quite probably, the rich and well-to-do in rich countries may not even be aware of those who earn less than they do: people notoriously tend to estimate their own income as "average", even when it is well above. Median self-reported household incomes in the UK and USA, averaged from 2006-2012, in US dollars, were $31,617 and $43,584. The corresponding figure for India for the same period was $3168. Using a very crude exchange rate of £1 = 1.40, this translates to UK £22,583; USA, £31,131; and India, £2,262. In other words, Indian household incomes were near enough one-tenth of UK incomes. Of course differences in buying power are enormous, but this is one reason why far more Indians than Britons or Americans can afford servants: the well-to-do have proportionately far more money than their UK or US equivalents, but the poor are even worse off.