7 ms·

We are still paying our cleaner even though she does not come. We also paid our nanny when she could not come for twelve or fourteen weeks at the beginning of t

We are still paying our cleaner even though she does not come. We also paid our nanny when she could not come for twelve or fourteen weeks at the beginning of the pandemic, and again when NYC seemed like it was going to have a large second wave. But we are fairly wealthy and it is not painful for us to do this. This behavior seems pretty typical of my friends in similar income levels.

gruez 6y ago
"tipping" culture strikes again! When the wage for certain service workers is too low, we try to subsidize it by tipping them. Now when the government doesn't provide enough coronavirus relief for service workers, some of us keep them on the payroll as a kind of cornavirus relief.
- lambda_obrien 6y ago
  That's a bad thing why? These people are just taking care of the people who take care of them and their kids. It seems logical to me.
  - rubicon33 6y ago
    The point is that in a politically and economically healthy society, they shouldn't have to.
    - lambda_obrien 6y ago
      I think we know that America isn't healthy in any respect right now. Part of that is we don't think it's necessary to take care of each other.
- animal_spirits 6y ago
  Well, on one hand at least the money goes directly to the one in need and not through the government as a middle man. There's no department heads or managers of managers to pay in between this transaction.
  - gruez 6y ago
    Pros: no government "middle man" taking a "cut" (although I'd like to see how much % was used to administer the trump/biden checks, for instance) Cons: Totally arbitrary. Have a generous employer? Great! Stingy employer? Sucks for you. I'd also imagine that whether you'd get this kind of "relief" depends on your job, kind of like how waiters get tipped but fast food workers don't.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  This isn't tipping, but assured maintenance. We usually think of wages as payment for work produced, and generally, if the cost of producing a thing isn't exceeded by the value created, you won't pay that cost. But the true cost of labour is its upkeep, sustenance, that of its family, the training, risk, and uncertainty associated with the employment, as detailed 245 years ago by Adam Smith (Book 1, Chapter X, Wealth of Nations). And that means, in a time when work is impossible, paying a maintenance wage to ensure future productive capacity.
  - chii 6y ago
    That's exactly what unemployment benefits should be. It's an emergency measure, funded by taxation of society, to allow for those who would be affected by a calamity to weather the storm and emerge on the other side capable of resuming their productivity.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      Unemployment insurance in the US is handled state-by-state, with commensurate variance. But virtually no states offer unemployment insurance as a routine basis for self-employed individuals, which would include individuals with small businesses, gig workers, or independent contractors, which largely describes housecleaning services workers. The US did pass emergency national legislation (the CARES Act) which allows (but does not AFAIU require) states to extend unemployment insurance to those workers. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20200617001228/https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/unemployment-benefits-for-the-self-employed https://web.archive.org/web/20200617001228/https://money.usn... Mind: I agree with your point from an ought perspective, unfortunately the is is at odds here. For the US, this means individuals have to step in. My comment above only means to illustrate the economic rationale by which one might choose to do so. Unfortunately given market mechanics, most people will like decide not to. That's the cause of much of the economic disruption and dislocation of the past year, in the US and elsewhere.
stickfigure 6y ago
As someone who is distinctly not of your wealth level, I have mixed feelings about the companies which compose my modest wealth (equity) burning a lot of money for services not rendered. And may never be rendered at the same level again.
- anon_tor_12345 6y ago
  >money for services not rendered is a convenient abstraction. in reality we're talking about people. it's so miserably brutal to come into the comments of any article on hn where wealthy people (engineers) bandy about about working class people. i don't have much else to say because i'm not going to debate whether ___ tech company, at some (even nontrivial) cost to their equity holders, should help support people that make minimum wage. i'm only leaving this comment so that some can reflect on their position.
  - PurpleFoxy 6y ago
    The thing is, if you leave it up to the companies to look after these people, it’s going to turn ugly every time. It should be the governments job to make sure everyone has a baseline level of life quality.
    - sitkack 6y ago
      In the meantime do we do the right thing, or do we wait for the right solution? We fix the thing needing fixing right now with the tools we have.
      - chii 6y ago
        But that's the problem - if some companies do the "right thing" (whatever that means), it lessens the pressure on society to establish this baseline. Companies shouldn't have to do the "right thing" - they're concern is to make money for their owners. They should follow the rules of society, but should not be expected to offer charity whenever something calamitous happens.
Aunche 6y ago
In this case, you have a personal relationship with a cleaner. What if you hire a cleaning service instead that sends someone different every time. Would you still continue paying to service that you don't receive, even if you know that it's all going to the employees?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Probably not, unless it were like a mom and pop type situation. To be clear, I am not saying anyone else ought to do what we have done. I don't view it as a universal obligation.
  - random_kris 6y ago
    What was the point of your comment then? Bragging ?
    - breakfastduck 6y ago
      To contribute to the conversation? Don't be so cynical.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      Few comments on this site have any real point. Yours is a perfect example. We're all just sharing our feelings and experiences here, to little productive end.

gruez 6y ago

"tipping" culture strikes again! When the wage for certain service workers is too low, we try to subsidize it by tipping them. Now when the government doesn't provide enough coronavirus relief for service workers, some of us keep them on the payroll as a kind of cornavirus relief.

lambda_obrien 6y ago
That's a bad thing why? These people are just taking care of the people who take care of them and their kids. It seems logical to me.
- rubicon33 6y ago
  The point is that in a politically and economically healthy society, they shouldn't have to.
  - lambda_obrien 6y ago
    I think we know that America isn't healthy in any respect right now. Part of that is we don't think it's necessary to take care of each other.
animal_spirits 6y ago
Well, on one hand at least the money goes directly to the one in need and not through the government as a middle man. There's no department heads or managers of managers to pay in between this transaction.
- gruez 6y ago
  Pros: no government "middle man" taking a "cut" (although I'd like to see how much % was used to administer the trump/biden checks, for instance) Cons: Totally arbitrary. Have a generous employer? Great! Stingy employer? Sucks for you. I'd also imagine that whether you'd get this kind of "relief" depends on your job, kind of like how waiters get tipped but fast food workers don't.
dredmorbius 6y ago
This isn't tipping, but assured maintenance. We usually think of wages as payment for work produced, and generally, if the cost of producing a thing isn't exceeded by the value created, you won't pay that cost. But the true cost of labour is its upkeep, sustenance, that of its family, the training, risk, and uncertainty associated with the employment, as detailed 245 years ago by Adam Smith (Book 1, Chapter X, Wealth of Nations). And that means, in a time when work is impossible, paying a maintenance wage to ensure future productive capacity.
- chii 6y ago
  That's exactly what unemployment benefits should be. It's an emergency measure, funded by taxation of society, to allow for those who would be affected by a calamity to weather the storm and emerge on the other side capable of resuming their productivity.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Unemployment insurance in the US is handled state-by-state, with commensurate variance. But virtually no states offer unemployment insurance as a routine basis for self-employed individuals, which would include individuals with small businesses, gig workers, or independent contractors, which largely describes housecleaning services workers. The US did pass emergency national legislation (the CARES Act) which allows (but does not AFAIU require) states to extend unemployment insurance to those workers. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20200617001228/https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/unemployment-benefits-for-the-self-employed https://web.archive.org/web/20200617001228/https://money.usn... Mind: I agree with your point from an ought perspective, unfortunately the is is at odds here. For the US, this means individuals have to step in. My comment above only means to illustrate the economic rationale by which one might choose to do so. Unfortunately given market mechanics, most people will like decide not to. That's the cause of much of the economic disruption and dislocation of the past year, in the US and elsewhere.

stickfigure 6y ago

As someone who is distinctly not of your wealth level, I have mixed feelings about the companies which compose my modest wealth (equity) burning a lot of money for services not rendered. And may never be rendered at the same level again.

anon_tor_12345 6y ago
>money for services not rendered is a convenient abstraction. in reality we're talking about people. it's so miserably brutal to come into the comments of any article on hn where wealthy people (engineers) bandy about about working class people. i don't have much else to say because i'm not going to debate whether ___ tech company, at some (even nontrivial) cost to their equity holders, should help support people that make minimum wage. i'm only leaving this comment so that some can reflect on their position.
- PurpleFoxy 6y ago
  The thing is, if you leave it up to the companies to look after these people, it’s going to turn ugly every time. It should be the governments job to make sure everyone has a baseline level of life quality.
  - sitkack 6y ago
    In the meantime do we do the right thing, or do we wait for the right solution? We fix the thing needing fixing right now with the tools we have.
    - chii 6y ago
      But that's the problem - if some companies do the "right thing" (whatever that means), it lessens the pressure on society to establish this baseline. Companies shouldn't have to do the "right thing" - they're concern is to make money for their owners. They should follow the rules of society, but should not be expected to offer charity whenever something calamitous happens.

Aunche 6y ago

In this case, you have a personal relationship with a cleaner. What if you hire a cleaning service instead that sends someone different every time. Would you still continue paying to service that you don't receive, even if you know that it's all going to the employees?

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Probably not, unless it were like a mom and pop type situation. To be clear, I am not saying anyone else ought to do what we have done. I don't view it as a universal obligation.
- random_kris 6y ago
  What was the point of your comment then? Bragging ?
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    To contribute to the conversation? Don't be so cynical.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    Few comments on this site have any real point. Yours is a perfect example. We're all just sharing our feelings and experiences here, to little productive end.