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

391–400 of 500 posts

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

#391

Post by Tyr42 »

dahfizz wrote: post #361
twox2 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at dollar and time amounts, all financial interactions are pretty much zero-sum.

The transaction itself is not zero sum. The existence of the transaction itself is proof that both parties value what they received more than what they gave away (otherwise they would not have transacted). The waste of time is having to haggle to arrive at the price, when the price could have been published. It benefits nobody, because that's the price the transaction would have happened at anyway. But we have to do…

I mean, why do coupons exist? They mail you stuff and you bring it to a store and the price is cheaper? Extra effort all around?

But price discrimination improves cashflow. And these merchants can do the same thing as haggling with less paper waste and on the spot.

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

#392

Post by pessimizer »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #372
Loughla wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's genuinely interesting. Here in my part of the states, you're expected to do it all yourself, and in my area (exceedingly rural and exceedingly low income) having anyone do some of those things would be seen as being stuck-up or snobbish or something to that effect. For example, I still catch grief for being a "rich bitch" from my neighbors because I hired someone to put a roof on my covered porch on the back o…

> This may sound naive, but I had legitimately never considered that it's a valid and useful way to spread my opportunities through the community. Because the better way to spread opportunity is to use that money to pay for poorer people to get an education so they do not have to do menial tasks for richer people.

The more educated people, the more educated people doing menial tasks for other people. Menial tasks have to get done.

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

#393

Post by pessimizer »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #390
FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be playing the provocateur? "Step 1: Everyone gets a Ph.D. Step 2: Meals cook themselves!" (I suppose we could all live on MREs?) Knowledge isn't zero-sum, but credentials are. Educating everyone doesn't make "menial" jobs go away. Better, really, to recognize some of those jobs as more important, and be willing to pay for them. Also, there are gains from trade, and economies of scale. The time to cook two m…

I wrote education, not credentials. That includes learning how to farm, be an electrician, a crane operator, a researcher, learning how to cook, it could be anything. It is obvious that a society with widespread use of personal drivers/housekeepers/nannies is simply one with a wider income/wealth gap. One option is to spend multiple generations slowing bringing the housekeepers kids up the ladder with the housekeeper…

Ditches still have to be dug.

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

#394

Post by lotsofpulp »

pessimizer wrote: post #392
lotsofpulp wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This may sound naive, but I had legitimately never considered that it's a valid and useful way to spread my opportunities through the community. Because the better way to spread opportunity is to use that money to pay for poorer people to get an education so they do not have to do menial tasks for richer people.

The more educated people, the more educated people doing menial tasks for other people. Menial tasks have to get done.

And they end up getting done by people themselves, in much of the developed world.

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

#395

Post by lotsofpulp »

pessimizer wrote: post #393
lotsofpulp wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote education, not credentials. That includes learning how to farm, be an electrician, a crane operator, a researcher, learning how to cook, it could be anything. It is obvious that a society with widespread use of personal drivers/housekeepers/nannies is simply one with a wider income/wealth gap. One option is to spend multiple generations slowing bringing the housekeepers kids up the ladder with the housekeeper…

Ditches still have to be dug.

What I wrote does not preclude ditches being dug, or being a ditch digger. What it does is prevent ditch digging from being one of the few options for many people which result in ditch digging labor prices to be very low.

You give people opportunities to do many more things than menial labor, then that allows the price for menial labor to rise so that it is not done by the “lower” socioeconomic rungs.

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

#396

Post by throwhauser »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #386
throwhauser wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because the better way to spread opportunity is to use that money to pay for poorer people to get an education so they do not have to do menial tasks for richer people. ...and then a data scientist with an advanced degree spends the day hand-crafting SQL to root-cause a customer complaint after Bezos sends a one-byte email, "?"... (EDIT: I may have focused on one aspect of the parent's point at the expense of the o…

How is that relevant? Is there any question that a housekeeper is better off if they were able to spend their time studying or training for something that offers a higher probability of earning higher incomes? Or should society continue to perpetuate the relative socioeconomic class you are born into by having you spend your time washing other people’s clothes and homes?

Because you've combined two concerns, the amount of money people make, and what level of stratification is involved in making it. You can study, train, and improve your economic security considerably, but still end up essentially doing menial tasks for rich people, just for more money.

(EDIT: That said, upward economic mobility is always desirable and education is essential to achieving it. It's an escape from poverty, but it's not a foolproof escape from hierarchy).

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

#397

Post by notfbi »

onion2k wrote: post #137
notfbi wrote: post #51

" The couple’s annual income was around around £700 ($50,000 in today’s dollars)—£500 ($36,000) from his salary and another £200 ($14,000) in passive income. They rented a fourth-floor walk-up apartment in London with four bedrooms, two sitting rooms, and a “nice outlook on green.” The rent was £90 for a year ($530 per month in today’s dollars). To keep it tidy, they hired a live-in maid for £36 ($2,600) per year, wh…

having income 25x that of the working class A live-in maid would have their accommodation, food and bills provided, which would be reflected in a lower wage. The UK average wage at the time was closer to £100 a year for a woman (£200 for a man). The equivalent today would be like someone earning 7 * the UK minimum wage, which would be about £120,000 a year (US$160,000).

According to this[1] you'd have ordinary workers earning 22 shillings p/w (£57.2p/y) and highest skilled labourers (firemen) sometimes earning £300, but yes the average wage seemed to be around 150[2]. (I think most people googling the average 1920s wage are getting the Australian-Victoria data accidentally, which is a bit higher, but it's still in the same ballpark) I think the Christie's equivalent today to US household income would then be 67000*700/150 = 313,000

[1] https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1... [2]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nominal-wages-consumer-pr...

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

#398

Post by ravedave5 »

Manufactured items SHOULD always be getting cheaper, that's part of capitalism & progress. Humans & buildings don't follow that same curve. So to attempt to compare those with items is folly. Also notice how cell phones & cell phone bills are not present in his items curve? That's a modern item that doesn't fit his desired outcome.

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

#399

Post by hnlmorg »

CSMastermind wrote: post #378
hnlmorg wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given our history, I was assuming there was some expectation that duties might also include requests of a sexual nature. I really hope that's not the case. But we (rich white people) don't exactly have a good track record in these types of situation. :(

> But we (rich white people) I hate to break it to you but rich white people are generally far less likely to be a sexual predation risk in these situations because they often have more to lose, have easier access to consenting parties, and come from countries that stigmatize that type of behavior to a much greater degree.

I'm not going to comment whether it's more or less likely than in other cultures. My point wasn't to start a race war, I was just commenting that we have a history on such topics (eg https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/rape-in-american-sla...)

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

#400

Post by lotsofpulp »

throwhauser wrote: post #396
lotsofpulp wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that relevant? Is there any question that a housekeeper is better off if they were able to spend their time studying or training for something that offers a higher probability of earning higher incomes? Or should society continue to perpetuate the relative socioeconomic class you are born into by having you spend your time washing other people’s clothes and homes?

Because you've combined two concerns, the amount of money people make, and what level of stratification is involved in making it. You can study, train, and improve your economic security considerably, but still end up essentially doing menial tasks for rich people, just for more money. (EDIT: That said, upward economic mobility is always desirable and education is essential to achieving it. It's an escape from povert…

> Because you've combined two concerns, the amount of money people make, and what level of stratification is involved in making it.

The two concerns are linked. You only see widespread personal drivers and housekeepers and gardeners in less developed countries with many very poor people. Reducing the stratification by redistributing wealth via taxes and an education system is preferable mechanism of spreading opportunity.

The societies telesilla and Blahah are referring to are not ones where a housekeeper works 40 hour weeks Mon to Fri and gets PTO and has time to get a law degree in the evenings.

These places have housekeepers and drivers because they are not fortunate to be born in a society with enough of a public education system that allows them to escape that fate, even if it is just being an accountant for a rich person, at least they get vacations and decent work hours and schedules.

Post reply on HN