In Mexico, for example, most middle-class people hire maids, nannies, etc. Even the poor hire poorer people to work for them. To some extent, I think, that reflects less segregation of rich and poor. But also, I think that there's something odd about American culture. People will pay to have their vehicle repaired, but not to have their home cleaned.
In my anecdotal experience this hasn't been the case. Most people I know in the US can't afford to pay people to do house work or chores. I'm thinking in contrast to a place like India where it's the norm to have hired help for things like cooking, cleaning, and laundry.
I'm not sure it's related to work ethic or religious roots but it's certainly true that there was never a particular culture in the US of service whereby even people of fairly middle-class backgrounds had servants. And this has probably carried over to modern culture whereby people probably outsource fewer tasks like grass cutting, housecleaning, and so forth than they arguably should (whatever that word means in this context).
That said, a lot of people do outsource tasks like cooking--but they do so in different ways (like going to restaurants) rather than by explicitly hiring help.
> Do middle class Americans clean their own homes?
Middle class Americans (petit bourgeois) might, but probably contract out for at least some of it; middle income Americans probably can't afford to contract out and probably do their own cleaning. But Americans often say the former when they mean the latter, so it's not usually clear what is being discussed.
The "Cleaning Services" people in the U.S. and I suspect Europe are either independent contractors or wage workers for an independent contractor. They don't do 8-plus hour shifts in your home, or even live in your own home in "servants' quarters" as is common in places like India, Brazil, etc.
In a "servant" relationship involving close physical proximity the servant almost is obliged to care for the emotional well-being of those whom they serve, or to at least feign that care. The contractor on the other hand is doing a job at your home in one of many such places and aren't expected to service the customer's emotional needs except as social nicety, and conceivably are raking in more cash per unit-time worked (for independents especially) than those who hire them.
It seems that part of the problem in the US (at least the part I live in) is that it can be very difficult to find a maid, nanny, even a gardener who takes pride in their work. I'm sure they are out there and their customers value them and try not to lose them. I've found that using a service like Handy for cleaning never works because the workers tend to clearly really resent doing that kind of work and seem to not care if you give them a bad rating. Of course, a big part of the problem is the wage for this kind of work is not even close to a living wage in a lot of areas.
There's another, perhaps US-specific dimension to the discomfort:
The self-sufficiency and egalitarianism of doing one's own chores used to be a note of middle class pride, at least in the once strong middle-class industrial areas of the country.
These values were further facilitated by the post-war boom in home-labor saving appliances (washing machines, etc.)
Many of us who grew up in such a cultural context have a more difficult relationship with others serving us, and we don't feel it gives us an increase in status, but rather it feels almost like a moral failing. Of course, with the ever busier nature of our lives and the availability of low-wage workers, it's quite hard to stick to those morals, hence the inner conflict.
People I know who grew up in US cities or other countries where a significant service-employed underclass exists don't seem to have issues with being served. From what I've seen, being able to afford service labor in those places is actually a status symbol that people strive towards.
Maybe because the people with means and influence don't really worry about this problem: they pay someone to do menial tasks like cleaning for them. I know in the country I live manual labour is so cheap I have a maid and a gardener that do that for me. It's so cheap I probably wouldn't bother automating it even if I could. The furthest I go is packing a dishwasher. Just because I don't like dirty dishes standing around on the days that the maid isn't there.
You can go to India and see exactly this. Even many middle income families have cleaning maids, drivers, etc also known as "servants". The job of "servant" no longer exists in the west.
It's the same for Asia. If USA had no mimimum wage and it wasn't a faux pas to have a working relation that involved somebody working nearby without acknowledging them, I'm sure many many people would also have maids. (The weirdest part is going to a home and seeing your host confused as to why you thank or interact with their maid!)
As a middle class person, you can’t pay someone else a middle class living to fetch your groceries. Or clean your house, or drive you to the airport, or any of those things. You can only buy a service like this because the price that will get someone else to do it is small to you.
It’s a large scale trend. As an economy gets more productive, a would-be servant’s alternatives get better, and we wind up doing more of our own chores. Generally a healthy sign.
I have relatives in an Asian country where even the middle class can afford to have maids and a driver or two. Whenever I visit I'm never quite used to having someone take your dishes away (versus cleaning them yourself), doing your laundry, etc. I doubt I'll get over it any time soon.
I can tell you where I grew up (third world country), we have live in maids and some treat them as family (we do) and some treat them as slaves. Maybe that is where 'murica is headed with au pairs etc..
In contrast, in the U.S., "people have to even clean their own toilets,"
You know, I could easily afford to have someone clean my toilet. In fact, our receptionist offered to be my housekeeper, at good terms. But...I don't know...I just don't want 3rd parties involved in the matter. I guess it's my lower-middle class heritage thing.
Some of it is cost. And almost everyone knows a handyman or somebody in the neighbourhood who is an electrician, concrete guy, tile guy, &c. But part of it is cultural. It's considered a form of virtue signalling to have a bunch of servants or workers on your property. Most middle class people also have maids, nannies, drivers, and such.
> pretty much every Indian I know had maids/gardeners/cooks at home.
In poorer countries - especially those with fairly unequal societies, hiring help is cheaper - not just absolutely, but proportionally, as well, so it's much more common. I read some economics discussions of this years ago, but don't really recall the details.
In other words, an Indian is a lot more likely to have hired help than a Norwegian, even if the Norwegian is better off.
Yeah, I think it definitely has a "weird things aristocratic British people do" association: job titles like au pair, chauffeur, butler, chef, governess, etc. don't seem like something that would fit into a red-blooded, down-to-earth American household.
Housecleaning and grass cutting are really common to pay people for in the U.S., though. I think in the neighborhood I grew up the same large company must've had at least 20-30% of the lawns, because they basically came through with their big trailers of equipment and went house to house marching through their customer list.
The vast, vast majority of Americans are doing their own laundry, house cleaning, gardening, and driving.
I know quite a few households in the $200k+ income, and no one has a driver, everyone does their own laundry, and only a few have a house cleaner come by every couple weeks.
reply