Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

fullstackeconomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 500 posts

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#251

Post by blutack »

NoPie wrote: post #198

I have a different conclusion. The article mentions that the car would have cost her 3 months of income. That doesn't sound too much and is roughly about the same what people pay for cars today, maybe even more. The reason she thought about the car as a luxury and not a necessity is that then the society wasn't dependent on cars like we do today. They travelled less, worked closer to home, milkman brought milk to hom…

She lived in central(ish) London, where today still a car isn't a necessity or particularly useful other than for travelling to the greater UK or specific jobs.

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#252

Post by tintor »

jmnicolas wrote: post #243

TIL that Starbucks is a luxury experience (I'm not a coffee drinker and there's no Starbucks in my town). I thought it was the McDonald's of coffee, I mean if it's luxury why are they using Styrofoam cups instead of glass?!

Because people buy Starbucks coffee to go. Glasses are heavier.

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#253

Post by ascar »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #244

Interesting that he brings up "a robot to automatically brew Starbucks-caliber coffee". Here in Australia, you can get a really high-quality coffee from just about any petrol station for $1 (in AUD; around 70c in USD). Yet in spite of this, we have a thriving cafe scene where people will gladly pay $4-$5 for a take-away latte. What's equally "irrational" is that Starbucks, despite the high amount of effort put into e…

As a coffee enthusiast I wonder what the definition of "really high quality" is here. For me the coffee bean needs to be well roasted (most/all big brands roast too hot to save time and burn the bean. Starbucks too, they cover it with milk and lots of sugar), freshly grinded before brewing and made with a portafilter. No full automatic coffee machine I used produced high quality coffee, at best acceptable coffee, usually nearly undrinkable office caffeine shots.

While Starbucks coffee isn't top quality coffee, it still beats your usual office space full automatic poison by a long shot and is readily available everywhere. That's why it's considered good coffee by many.

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#254

Post by tourist2d »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #244

Interesting that he brings up "a robot to automatically brew Starbucks-caliber coffee". Here in Australia, you can get a really high-quality coffee from just about any petrol station for $1 (in AUD; around 70c in USD). Yet in spite of this, we have a thriving cafe scene where people will gladly pay $4-$5 for a take-away latte. What's equally "irrational" is that Starbucks, despite the high amount of effort put into e…

> Here in Australia, you can get a really high-quality coffee from just about any petrol station for $1

7-11 or Coles Express coffee do not have high quality coffee. Everyone I know who drinks it does so just because it's convenient.

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#255

Post by jaclaz »

The basic flaw in the article is that they used the Bank of England calculator, actually explicitily saying how it wasn't suitable, to then make the conclusion:

>What we can say, however, is that there are far more people who make $50,000 in today’s America than earned £700 in 1919 Britain. Agatha Christie claimed she wasn’t rich, but her income was far above average in 1919. In contrast, most American households earn more than $50,000.

It is more likely that the "real" correspondence is to current 100,000-150,000 US$ today (after taxes).

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#256

Post by estaseuropano »

NoPie wrote: post #198

I have a different conclusion. The article mentions that the car would have cost her 3 months of income. That doesn't sound too much and is roughly about the same what people pay for cars today, maybe even more. The reason she thought about the car as a luxury and not a necessity is that then the society wasn't dependent on cars like we do today. They travelled less, worked closer to home, milkman brought milk to hom…

It was also much more unusual to be in long-term debt as that often would have ended in serfdom-like situations. The ease of getting huge loans and credits nowadays is very novel.

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#257

Post by christophilus »

leoedin wrote: post #224
R0b0t1 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen an updated definition that kicks in at the time you can take one or more yearly vacations, so basically just doctors, highly paid laywers, highly paid SWEs, and executives.

Maybe this is my naive European view, but taking a yearly vacation doesn't seem like a "rich person" thing here. You don't need to be earning vast amounts to afford a weeks package holiday in Spain.

It sounds strange to me, too. I grew up pretty poor in the US, and we always took at least one family vacation per year. Often, it was a camping trip or the like. Sometimes, it was a visit to a city or national park. My parents were very, very frugal. We almost never had new clothes. I guess it was just a matter of what they prioritized. Looking back on it all, I’d say they got just about everything right.

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#258

Post by AussieWog93 »

tourist2d wrote: post #254
AussieWog93 wrote: post #244

Interesting that he brings up "a robot to automatically brew Starbucks-caliber coffee". Here in Australia, you can get a really high-quality coffee from just about any petrol station for $1 (in AUD; around 70c in USD). Yet in spite of this, we have a thriving cafe scene where people will gladly pay $4-$5 for a take-away latte. What's equally "irrational" is that Starbucks, despite the high amount of effort put into e…

> Here in Australia, you can get a really high-quality coffee from just about any petrol station for $1 7-11 or Coles Express coffee do not have high quality coffee. Everyone I know who drinks it does so just because it's convenient.

(OK, fair. It's of course not "really high-quality" compared to the top-grade stuff where they roast the beans in-house and all. It is surprisingly good, though, and comparable in quality to many smaller cafes.)

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#259

Post by Veen »

mattwad wrote: post #77
joe_the_user wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a fellow American friend who lived in Bali for a year in the mid-70s. When he arrived, he shopped for his own food and cooked it. But he found that, since the merchants charged people by their social class, he could hire a housekeeper and have them buy and cook his food for the same price as buying his own found. And people expect him to do this.

In Egypt, that's true unless you haggle. You can always haggle to get close to Egyptian prices, but if I didn't have my friend with me to show me how to do that, I would have paid American prices the whole trip. I'm sure a lot of places work similarly. At the end of the day, they want to make a sale, doesn't matter who you are just what they think you'll pay.

When I lived in Morocco, the prices went down the longer I shopped with particular market vendors. The first time I bought oranges, for example, they were eye-wateringly expensive. As I became a regular buyer, the price gradually dropped until they were a fraction of the original cost. (It would probably have been cheaper to begin with if I'd haggled, but I am not great at that sort of interaction).

Re: Agatha Christie could afford a maid and a nanny but not a car

#260

Post by mmmmmbop »

miniwark wrote: post #227
Snoddas wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdata : My wife's parents worked in Kenya for a few years in the 70s and they where advised that having a maid and a nanny was expected. (we are Swedish)

I have heard of the same in Ethiopia around the 90's. For white worker it was expected to: - rent a house - hire a house guardian - hire at last one maid - hire a chauffeur if you own a car It was also recommended than they come form the local neighborhood. It was a social norm, and if you do not do it you can expect the local policemen to "fine you" every time you take the car, the food cost to be x5 the price (or m…

> (I will avoid the more complicated subject of the maid...)

I'm really curious now. Why is the maid a more complicated subject?

Post reply on HN