> 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.
> Have these jobs existed in the US in the first place? Was it commonplace for people to have cooks for example?
IIRC, yes, there was a time (up through the late 19th, early 20th century) where having at least one live-in household servant, often either specifically a cook or a generalist where cook would be part of their duties, was typical of the middle class, and not entirely uncommon in the middle class through the middle or so of the 20th Century.
> People tell me I should clean my house, but if the cleaner charges $20/hr and I charge $50, and I don't enjoy cleaning more than twice as much as I enjoy my work, why would I clean my house myself?
You don't have to do it yourself. You might decide that it's worth paying someone else $20/hr so that you can do something else with your time, whether that is working, spending time on a hobby, or just sitting in front of the tv relaxing. One of those 3 scenarios is better financially, the other 2 are worse off financially but may be better for your health or happiness.
FWIW, I also use the services of a cleaner every couple of weeks because I judge that a worthy expense.
I was trying to make the point that not every hour of every day is "worth" exactly the same financially. My very last sentence was key, and probably should have been more prominent.
> And sometimes you might come out financially worse, but in a better position strategically, socially, or personally.
> lots and lots and lots of people clean their own house and maybe they're the ones buying the vast majority of the roombas, not people with maids
Surely the one substitutes for the other. The thought "I'm spending longer than I want to cleaning, and my house still isn't as clean as I'd like, and I've had more money lately, I can afford to..." could be completed "hire a cleaner" or "buy a roomba".
> tolerance for dirt to me seems like a textbook example of something that has a high demand elasticity
What do you mean? Different people will have their threshold in different places, certainly, and the amount they're willing to pay will vary, but I don't see how that changes anything.
I'm generally struggling to understand what your model is here. Are you saying people make the decision about whether to hire a cleaner when they're born and then never change it?
>If we assume people's willingness to hire a cleaner is a function of how dirty their house is (and how could it not be?)
Because:
a) lots and lots and lots of people clean their own house and maybe they're the ones buying the vast majority of the roombas, not people with maids.
b) just because your roomba cleans up your pet hair really well upstairs doesn't necessarily mean you will want your cleaner to stop coming on tuesdays.
c) tolerance for dirt to me seems like a textbook example of something that has a high demand elasticity
> everybody from the middle-class up had a maid, but now only rich people do because machines now do most of the household work for us.
You'd be surprised how many people hire household help. Pretty-much every dual-income couple I know over a certain age has someone come in every week or so. And no, it's not a generation thing, that "certain age" has remained stable for at least 15 years. (I didn't notice before because I was too young.)
Yes, there's an income threshold, but at $150/month, the starter cost is suprisingly low. (That's San Jose prices.)
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.
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.
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.
> Housecleaning and grass cutting are really common to pay people for in the U.S., though.
I don't know the numbers but it likely varies a lot even among those with houses and decent-sized lawns. My guess would be that in upper middle class developments where this sort of thing is more or less the norm, people will be more likely to avail themselves of these services. If all your neighbors cut their lawns on the other hand, I can see able-bodied people feeling funny about hiring someone.
> It is a cultural thing that is probably left over from the colonization era. Things will change but it takes time.
Assuming you are paying a fair salary, other cultures/countries don't have a housekeeper (even as a part-time work) because they cannot afford one not because it is an ethical or moral thing. In general, families with children need a lot of extra help when parents work.
You don't need to be rich to pay someone to do most of that stuff. You probably already pay someone to do your taxes. House cleaning/laundry isn't that expensive. I would hesitate to call someone who can't afford these things middle class.
> I think that the "easy to clean" part of the list of descriptors here is among the most important.
Also caused by the lack of "servants".
Just employing a maid service frees up a remarkable amount of time. Having someone full-time dedicated to nothing but cleaning up after you is a big deal.
One of the things that gets lost is that employing someone was much cheaper in the past. There was an article recently talking about how the affluent couldn't afford a car in the early 1900s but could easily afford multiple servants.
> Well, I can assure you that if I don't clean my apartment, nobody is going to show up magically and do it for me.
The roomba and our cleaning lady are magical?
It's very simple: I get paid x/hr, the roomba as time advances effectively approaches a cost of 0/hr of work (same goes for the clothes and dishwasher) and the 1 hour the cleaning lady spends here is cheaper than what either of us earn during an hour. Why would we possibly spend our valuable time doing that when we can outsource it to a person and a robot for much less?
> Aren’t you technically paying a company for said service? Even if that company has one employee, your house cleaner?
Plenty of people are hired for work like that without forming a business entity, and sometimes under conditions that qualify as employment rather than contract work.
> 1. The cleaners were not professionals. It felt like they were just recruiting anyone who wanted a job. You could really feel this with the lack of passion from the cleaners and the severe lack of quality cleaning. Most of the people complained and were quite rude sometimes. Cleaning is very much a skill as much as it is manual labor.
Maybe their passion wasn't cleaning your house for you and they just wanted some money to pursue real passions.
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.
reply