3 ms·

This is true. A lot of people are. But part time gigs do not make for stable employment situations for people that need them. I really don't know the answer. N

This is true. A lot of people are. But part time gigs do not make for stable employment situations for people that need them. I really don't know the answer. Nothing seems politically feasible at the moment. People need stable jobs. Would-be employers need to be able to afford to keep on 'the help'. Allowing full-time, below-minimum-wage service staff seems to give a lot of people economic viability that otherwise would be constantly teetering on ruin. Can we bring those days back? Or at least try it out? I don't know. Perhaps the real problem is employers' tendency to over-negotiate. So the only thing the new service class can really expect is to be oppressed by their bosses. Edwardian-period England was not a nice place for servants. Maybe new tech tools will give employees an advantage that pre-industrial servants didn't have.

maxerickson 9y ago
Maybe spend $100 a day if you really want a servant?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  It's not just about finding market-clearing rates, it's also about the regulatory environment. If you directly employ people to work in your home, then your home is a workplace with all that entails. This is the reason that even people who can hire full-time service staff, such as nannies, often don't, and instead rely on part time contract service. It's an arrangement that better suits employers than employees. I'm trying to think of ways we can offer people who aren't economically competitive in the workplace the ability to find stable employment. The current job market is just getting more and more hostile to the less-advantaged.