4 ms·

Servants for the rich never went away. What's new is the concept of easily summoned single-task servants for the middle class: now anybody with a phone and a b

Servants for the rich never went away. What's new is the concept of easily summoned single-task servants for the middle class: now anybody with a phone and a bit of spare money can delegate tasks, and the people fulfilling those tasks lack even the basic job security of having a steady employer. All that said, I do find the article's use of "servant" somewhat demeaning. Is a self-employed tradesman like a plumber a "servant"? How about a freelance software developer? Where do you draw the line?

leetcrew 8y ago
it's worth asking what the word servant even means/connotes. a first-rate butler can make $100k or more. if you have a well-paid butler working for a single household, a low wage house cleaner who cleans many different homes, a salaried web dev, and a freelance web dev, which members of the group would you describe as "servants"? does it matter if the butler makes more money than the devs?
- torpfactory 8y ago
  I don' think that is a terribly good example to bring up. While there are certainly a small number of well paid butlers, there is a veritable army of contract cleaners who roam our offices and homes during the night and day. Most of them are making in the vicinity of minimum wage. I'm not sure if servant is the right word for them, but gosh it seems unfair just how badly paid they are.
  - gbacon 8y ago
    The economist must consider both the seen and the unseen. Let’s say a $15 minimum wage for custodians is instituted. Sure, it’s great for the “lucky” ones who remain employed. A moment’s reflection shows they aren’t lucky at all: they’re going to be the most productive of the bunch and not selected at random. This policy, allegedly put into place in the name of fairness, is decidedly unfair to people (for example young, inexperienced, or disabled) whose hourly productivity lies between the arbitrary minimum and consumers’ actual demand, or to the staff at the place of business who just picked up additional “other duties as assigned” because cleaning services just got so expensive. Competing on price for low-skill work that anyone can walk in off the street and do (that is, lots of competition) is a terrible strategy compared to competing on quality. Think: “Acme Cleaners, where all our employees have passed multiple background checks.”
alexgmcm 8y ago
Servants used to be common for the middle class too. Didn't Agatha Christie say something like: "I never thought I would be so poor as to not have staff, or so rich as to have an automobile."
tokyodude 8y ago
why is this special? every time to eat out I'm paying someone to make a meal for me instead of making it myself. I pay the delivery person to get my package to me rather than drive myself to the manufacturer. I pay people to make furniture for me rather than building it myself although I did help my dad build some in the past. I pay an accountant to do my taxes instead of doing them myself. I pay people to make clothing even though my mom used to make clothes. what's special about Lyft drivers to Uber Eats? seems like absolutely nothing
- coldtea 8y ago
  >why is this special? every time to eat out I'm paying someone to make a meal for me instead of making it myself. You don't just order a person waiting for orders to cook you a meal special for you, though, and have their daily income depend on whether you ordered or not. That was a problem restaurant owners had -- which was part of the "risk" in being an entrepreneur. Cooks weren't paid per meal (door-to-door salesmen were paid in commission, musicians might been paid for gigs, etc, but that was the exception not the rule -- working gig per gig was a thing for hobos during the Great Depression). Now this model is getting more widespread ("gig economy").
  - gbacon 8y ago
    Everyone works on commission. If you don’t believe me, try not showing up for a few days. An employee’s stable, dependable paycheck is a comforting illusion. When hungry diners abandon a certain restaurant, the cook finds herself unemployed. Not sure whether you intended to use scare quotes around risk or asterisks for emphasis. The entrepreneur’s role is coordinating present production with future demand and placing real-money bets accordingly. That’s no freebie.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >Everyone works on commission. If you don’t believe me, try not showing up for a few days. You keep using this word, commission. I don't think it means what you think it means. Yes, job's are not for life, and if a business goes under, or if you don't show up, etc, you will get let off/fired. That's not the same as a "per gig" payment. >An employee’s stable, dependable paycheck is a comforting illusion. Well, in many places in the world, it's a concrete reality, protected by law. You can't get fired without notice (and in some places, serious cause), you're given several months pay if you're laid off, and you have legal right to your payment as long as you're employed whether the company has business that day or not (e.g. an off day or week at a restaurant). With a "gig economy" workers, none of these guarantees exists. They're more like freelancers with very small contracts.

leetcrew 8y ago

it's worth asking what the word servant even means/connotes. a first-rate butler can make $100k or more. if you have a well-paid butler working for a single household, a low wage house cleaner who cleans many different homes, a salaried web dev, and a freelance web dev, which members of the group would you describe as "servants"? does it matter if the butler makes more money than the devs?

torpfactory 8y ago
I don' think that is a terribly good example to bring up. While there are certainly a small number of well paid butlers, there is a veritable army of contract cleaners who roam our offices and homes during the night and day. Most of them are making in the vicinity of minimum wage. I'm not sure if servant is the right word for them, but gosh it seems unfair just how badly paid they are.
- gbacon 8y ago
  The economist must consider both the seen and the unseen. Let’s say a $15 minimum wage for custodians is instituted. Sure, it’s great for the “lucky” ones who remain employed. A moment’s reflection shows they aren’t lucky at all: they’re going to be the most productive of the bunch and not selected at random. This policy, allegedly put into place in the name of fairness, is decidedly unfair to people (for example young, inexperienced, or disabled) whose hourly productivity lies between the arbitrary minimum and consumers’ actual demand, or to the staff at the place of business who just picked up additional “other duties as assigned” because cleaning services just got so expensive. Competing on price for low-skill work that anyone can walk in off the street and do (that is, lots of competition) is a terrible strategy compared to competing on quality. Think: “Acme Cleaners, where all our employees have passed multiple background checks.”

alexgmcm 8y ago

Servants used to be common for the middle class too. Didn't Agatha Christie say something like: "I never thought I would be so poor as to not have staff, or so rich as to have an automobile."

tokyodude 8y ago

why is this special? every time to eat out I'm paying someone to make a meal for me instead of making it myself. I pay the delivery person to get my package to me rather than drive myself to the manufacturer. I pay people to make furniture for me rather than building it myself although I did help my dad build some in the past. I pay an accountant to do my taxes instead of doing them myself. I pay people to make clothing even though my mom used to make clothes. what's special about Lyft drivers to Uber Eats? seems like absolutely nothing

coldtea 8y ago
>why is this special? every time to eat out I'm paying someone to make a meal for me instead of making it myself. You don't just order a person waiting for orders to cook you a meal special for you, though, and have their daily income depend on whether you ordered or not. That was a problem restaurant owners had -- which was part of the "risk" in being an entrepreneur. Cooks weren't paid per meal (door-to-door salesmen were paid in commission, musicians might been paid for gigs, etc, but that was the exception not the rule -- working gig per gig was a thing for hobos during the Great Depression). Now this model is getting more widespread ("gig economy").
- gbacon 8y ago
  Everyone works on commission. If you don’t believe me, try not showing up for a few days. An employee’s stable, dependable paycheck is a comforting illusion. When hungry diners abandon a certain restaurant, the cook finds herself unemployed. Not sure whether you intended to use scare quotes around risk or asterisks for emphasis. The entrepreneur’s role is coordinating present production with future demand and placing real-money bets accordingly. That’s no freebie.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Everyone works on commission. If you don’t believe me, try not showing up for a few days. You keep using this word, commission. I don't think it means what you think it means. Yes, job's are not for life, and if a business goes under, or if you don't show up, etc, you will get let off/fired. That's not the same as a "per gig" payment. >An employee’s stable, dependable paycheck is a comforting illusion. Well, in many places in the world, it's a concrete reality, protected by law. You can't get fired without notice (and in some places, serious cause), you're given several months pay if you're laid off, and you have legal right to your payment as long as you're employed whether the company has business that day or not (e.g. an off day or week at a restaurant). With a "gig economy" workers, none of these guarantees exists. They're more like freelancers with very small contracts.