3 ms·

To me, the most fascinating thing about this story is the starkly different picture it paints of wealth in America. We're currently debating how much of a midd

To me, the most fascinating thing about this story is the starkly different picture it paints of wealth in America. We're currently debating how much of a middle class there even IS anymore, and they're talking about how upper-middle class families had servants. There's a lot going into the difference, for sure, but its quite a different world.

rayiner 11y ago
That's the wrong takeaway from that point. It's a good thing that upper middle class people today can't afford to have lower class people do domestic services for them. It's an indication that lower class people can make a lot more money doing non-domestic work. Although the task rabbit economy is pushing us back in that (wrong) direction.
- Amorymeltzer 11y ago
  You'll notice I wasn't passing judgement, merely noting the WOW factor. As I said, there's a lot going into that difference but it is quite stark nonetheless.
  - eru 11y ago
    The same developments are happening as we speak in places like South America. The Economist runs enlightening articles about this. (A collection available via https://www.google.com.au/search?q=economist+domestic+servant https://www.google.com.au/search?q=economist+domestic+servan...)
- hugh4 11y ago
  > It's a good thing that upper middle class people today can't afford to have lower class people do domestic services for them. It's an indication that lower class people can make a lot more money doing non-domestic work. Not necessarily. Many lower-class people are unemployed. It may also be an indication that lower-class people are getting lower in, well, class. Many, many rich people would be happy to employ in-home servants for some reasonable wage (say, more than minimum) but the days when you could get servants who knew how to dress, speak, et cetera properly around upper-class people are long gone. Culture has bifurcated, the lower class have no idea how to behave around polite society, and more problematically don't think it's worth trying. It's much better to be a butler (or even a footman) than a janitor at McDonald's, but the average McDonald's janitor isn't someone you'd want inside your house.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  It's actually an indication that lower class people can consume quite a bit regardless of whether they work. It's hardly clear that this is a good thing. http://www.bls.gov/cex/2011/Standard/income.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cex/2011/Standard/income.pdf It's hardly clear how task rabbit is pushing is in that "wrong" direction - it's not as if task rabbit has somehow eliminated other good options (such as not working and receiving wealth transfers, or perhaps those unsustainably overpaid factory jobs politicians like to talk about).
  - rayiner 11y ago
    TaskRabbit is pushing things in the wrong direction because people should work together for institutions, not work for other people as personal servants. That's not how you build an equal society.

rayiner 11y ago

That's the wrong takeaway from that point. It's a good thing that upper middle class people today can't afford to have lower class people do domestic services for them. It's an indication that lower class people can make a lot more money doing non-domestic work. Although the task rabbit economy is pushing us back in that (wrong) direction.

Amorymeltzer 11y ago
You'll notice I wasn't passing judgement, merely noting the WOW factor. As I said, there's a lot going into that difference but it is quite stark nonetheless.
- eru 11y ago
  The same developments are happening as we speak in places like South America. The Economist runs enlightening articles about this. (A collection available via https://www.google.com.au/search?q=economist+domestic+servant https://www.google.com.au/search?q=economist+domestic+servan...)
hugh4 11y ago
> It's a good thing that upper middle class people today can't afford to have lower class people do domestic services for them. It's an indication that lower class people can make a lot more money doing non-domestic work. Not necessarily. Many lower-class people are unemployed. It may also be an indication that lower-class people are getting lower in, well, class. Many, many rich people would be happy to employ in-home servants for some reasonable wage (say, more than minimum) but the days when you could get servants who knew how to dress, speak, et cetera properly around upper-class people are long gone. Culture has bifurcated, the lower class have no idea how to behave around polite society, and more problematically don't think it's worth trying. It's much better to be a butler (or even a footman) than a janitor at McDonald's, but the average McDonald's janitor isn't someone you'd want inside your house.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
It's actually an indication that lower class people can consume quite a bit regardless of whether they work. It's hardly clear that this is a good thing. http://www.bls.gov/cex/2011/Standard/income.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cex/2011/Standard/income.pdf It's hardly clear how task rabbit is pushing is in that "wrong" direction - it's not as if task rabbit has somehow eliminated other good options (such as not working and receiving wealth transfers, or perhaps those unsustainably overpaid factory jobs politicians like to talk about).
- rayiner 11y ago
  TaskRabbit is pushing things in the wrong direction because people should work together for institutions, not work for other people as personal servants. That's not how you build an equal society.