>The example used to combat this notion is that servants used to be more plentiful than they are now, and low-skilled workers would be ripe for these types of c

>The example used to combat this notion is that servants used to be more plentiful than they are now, and low-skilled workers would be ripe for these types of careers. Well, what did servants do? The same thing my robot vacuum cleaner and dishwasher and microwave and Amazon Echo do now. Where I used to live (Singapore), having a live-in servant was very common. It is hardly a primitive society either - a lot of them are probably getting fancy new Amazon Echos for Christmas. Those servants, of course, aren't local. The labor pool is drawn from relatively more impoverished countries (usually Philippines). The women would accept very, very low wages and usually deal with a large amount of abuse. The job wasn't automated away in England in the 19th century (no dishwashers or roombas back then), rather it was industrialization - automation, in fact - which provided better, higher paid opportunities that led to the decline of domestic work. The key to its decline in 19th century England and the key to its continued existence today is simply about the relative exploitability of the workforce.