I understand this guilt; I've wrestled with it myself. But it's logically all wrong. Why shouldn't we pay people to clean our houses? I don't get all vaporish because I pay people to cook my food or wash my clothes, two jobs that were the province of the lady of the house-or if she was very lucky, her hired servants-until very recently in human history. I've never had a boyfriend say to me, "Well, I should be able to install those shelves, so darn it, I'm not going to debase myself and the handyman by turning my solemn duty as a homeowner into a mere market transaction." I've known lots of men who felt that they ought to be able to do traditional manly tasks like fixing an engine or keeping the lawn a beautiful, even emerald green. But I've never met one who felt that these jobs were some sort of sacred trust that could not be farmed out to a hireling without demeaning both employer and employee.
Paying a cleaning lady to clean your house is good for the cleaning lady. She wouldn't take the job if it weren't better than her next best alternative. And it's good for you, since presumably you have something to do that you value more highly than the money it costs you to pay her. It's probably also good for your family, since that's one less fight you have to have about whose turn it is to scrub the toilet. That's the awesome beauty of trade: everyone wins.
In an ideal universe, your cleaning lady would be too rich and highly skilled to be willing to work cleaning houses, unless she is some kind of freak who just really gets off on mopping floors. (And if she is, mind sending her my way?) In the actual world, however, she isn't, and if you didn't hire her, she'd be even worse off than she is now. Every time you hire a cleaning lady, you marginally increase demand for same, helping to raise wages some small fraction. You get a clean house and a poverty reduction program. What's not to love, here?
Moreover, the idea that cleaning houses is somehow degrading is the product of exactly the kind of pernicious class bias that people who feel guilty about hiring cleaning ladies are usually trying to fight in other areas. The job of cleaning houses has become tainted by association with the people who do it, the poor and unskilled. But there is nothing inherently undignified or unworthy about either the work, or the people who do it. Nor, for that matter, in any other job, provided employer and employee treat each other with respect.
The term "cleaning lady" sounds a little retarded (oops) at this late date, but I don't think it's any more "undignified" than being a proctologist.
And as a bonus you can keep the change you find in the couch.
I'd imagine that your boyfriend/shelves example is more telling than you realize. We generally pay people to perform tasks for us because they're better (in an efficiency task) than we are. A restaurant can cook a good meal more quickly than I can. A handyman can install shelves more quickly than I can (though, as a man, I'm loath to admit it and would rather put the shelving together on my own!). But the cleaning lady takes just as long to vacuum the floor as I would. This gives rise to the "I'm so much more skilled than this cleaning lady that she has no better option than to vacuum my floors at the same speed that I vacuum them myself." It's less like eating in a restaurant than it is having a $10/hr cook come to your house in the morning to prepare your kids' PB&J's.
You'll note that other skilled home tasks - plumbing, rug cleaning, etc. - leave no such distaste among the buyers.
I'm still with you that gains in trade are here, and that they're great, but I think you're missing the source of the shame.
Personally, I cook better, and more cheaply, and even occasionally faster, than do the chefs at most of the restaurants where I can afford to eat regularly. Likewise getting my shirts laundered/dry cleaned; even if it takes them very little time, the effective lag for me is a day or more. I buy from them not because they're more efficient, but because I often have better things to do with my time than to make falafel from scratch and clean the kitchen, or wash and iron my shirts.
Megan,
This post is really a sad piece. First of all, as someone stated, most other functions we pay for, we pay because they can perform the functions in a much more effective and efficient manner. I mean, frankly, you could apply your thought process to accounting, investment advise, hell, even military (why have one when we could form our own militia within the co-op!!).
But a cleaning lady does not perform the function any better than you or I could. They are not faster, and if they are, it is often to the detriment of the quality of the work. In other words, you pay them because your opportunity cost is greater than the savings you would accumulate by not paying these people.
But lets take a look at that nefarious economic equation. On the face of it, it logically fits in with the economic model, but only to the exclusion of all other concerns. But did you ever ask about the fairness in a society where we pay housecleaners so low of a wage that the opportunity cost is always greater than the price to pay a cleaning lady?
Hey, we have all in a pinch used a service or function that we may have objections to. But I know my fiancé and I go out of our way to not use the cleaning services because they are nothing but exploitive businesses, and thus, you the customer are an extension of that very model. Had you actually expressed such doubts in your post, I would maybe consider you more than the lowest form of human being around. But this post speaks for itself.
Megan really does consider herself more important and better than others in society. I understand we all cannot make the same amount of money, or have a completely equitable society. But to celebrate being in a more beneficial position in society in such a manner is disgusting.
Congrats Megan. Lets hope the door of bad luck does not slam you in the rear one of these days.
I'm glad you're so pleased with yourself. I'd be even gladder if your self-satisfaction didn't seem to require denying a job to someone who could use the work.
What one is buying is not simply the cleaning service, but the peace of mind that comes from not being eaten up with guilt over every speck of dust and grime that one encounters in one's home, and not spending energy thinking about the housework that one isn't doing, and what a bad person one is to have such a dirty house. Merry Maids is coming next week, so it's not a big deal.
An independent cleaner will make around $25 an hour. That isn't lavish in a high-cost area (considering taxes, health care, etc.), but it is very, very good for a woman's job in a low-cost area. There are plenty of college graduates who don't make anywhere near $25 an hour, but who have student loans to deal with.
When are people, like the 'cleaning lady', willingly exploited?
Brad, face it, 168. is a reality for us all.
MM, above, thinks it worthwhile, at the cost the housekeeper thinks is acceptable, to employ the housekeeper and, as a result, free up some time for other activities.
If all of our transaction were such, no doubt we'd all be much better off.
I've never hired a cleaning lady, but I've seen a couple at work for relatives, and it is simply false to say that they don't work any faster than I or my relatives would, or that their work is shoddy when it's faster. The ones I know (a married couple) are very competent and very efficient, not least because they bring a wider range of mops and liquids and vacuum cleaners than the average homeowner would have available.
Thank goodness some worthwhile comments to follow up the balderdash proceeding them. As has been stated not all housekeepers are created equal some if not most are highly skilled in their professions, i.e. they could mop the floor with most any amateur "house cleaner." (Sorry.) My mom was a self-employed housekeeper for a period of time and most of her clientèle were older people who could no longer do the heavy duty cleaning in their homes. The rest of her clients paid her well and we lived comfortably growing up in our single-parent home.
If one is truly appalled at the way one perceives how a business treats their employees one need not use them, but please don't disparage an entire industry because them. There is no sense in throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Brad:
"But a cleaning lady does not perform the function any better than you or I could. They are not faster, and if they are, it is often to the detriment of the quality of the work. In other words, you pay them because your opportunity cost is greater than the savings you would accumulate by not paying these people."
Fine, so my cleaning woman ends up with more money, and I end up with more time. And the problem is? Compared to a lot of other physical labor people do, cleaning houses is pretty low-impact (though getting down on your knees to clean floors can be tough if you have a bad back or bad joints, of course). My father's a steelworker, and both my grandfathers worked in factories. I doubt it's pleasant to scrape my hair out of the shower drain every week, but there's plenty of work that's worse.
Weevil writes: "I've never hired a cleaning lady, but I've seen a couple at work for relatives, and it is simply false to say that they don't work any faster than I or my relatives would, or that their work is shoddy when it's faster. The ones I know (a married couple) are very competent and very efficient, not least because they bring a wider range of mops and liquids and vacuum cleaners than the average homeowner would have available."
This is actually correct. The other factor is that people who do things for a living (and do it often) not-so-mysteriously find out ways to do them more quickly and more effectively than amateurs do. If you're not happy with the job done, it's like any other service - try someone else.
I've been in hotel rooms more than once working while the room was being cleaned, and sometimes it's like watching sped-up video clips. I know full well I wouldn't do these jobs as quickly or as well, just as I know I'm not up to cutting my own hair.
I just started hiring a cleaning lady in the last year for my apartment - she does it faster and better than I ever could and makes $20/hour for her trouble, which is pretty good for work that has no barriers to entry and almost no costs (since I supply the cleansers).
She seems pretty satisfied with our business relationship, so I have a lot of trouble summoning up any guilt. I can see how it might be more cringe-inducing if I was paying someone to do my laundry or cook my food (those being more personal tasks) but I don't see how she is being exploited as a cleaning lady any more than many white-collar workers with the JDs, MBAs, etc.
As Homer once said, money can be exchanged for goods or services!
rmcculloch writes: "I just started hiring a cleaning lady in the last year for my apartment - she does it faster and better than I ever could and makes $20/hour for her trouble, which is pretty good for work that has no barriers to entry and almost no costs (since I supply the cleansers).
She seems pretty satisfied with our business relationship, so I have a lot of trouble summoning up any guilt. I can see how it might be more cringe-inducing if I was paying someone to do my laundry or cook my food (those being more personal tasks) but I don't see how she is being exploited as a cleaning lady any more than many white-collar workers with the JDs, MBAs, etc."
One thing that has to be considered is that Megan may think hiring such a person might interfere with her appointment to a post in a Romney or Rudy administration. Given her leanings I'd say those would be the two camps she'd have ties with. But who knows, maybe she has Paulian pals.
Every cleaning lady I've ever come into contact with cleans much, much faster and better than I do. (Admittedly, I am an unusually lousy cleaner.) Furthermore, there's a division of labor benefit simply in dividing up tasks: the welder on a shop floor might be theoretically or even technically capable of doing just as good a job at painting and finishing, but two guys both trying to be combination welder-finishers will work more slowly than a team of a welder and a finisher. "You wash, I'll dry."
"The job of cleaning houses has become tainted by association with the people who do it, the poor and unskilled. But there is nothing inherently undignified or unworthy about either the work, or the people who do it."
Anyone who has watched Dirty Jobs will agree with that whole heartedly.
Or...never own a house larger than you could clean yourself on any given Saturday morning.
Thank you, Sean Kinsell. It was a little depressing to me that so many people were missing the point of comparative advantage, that it often benefits both parties for a to pay b to do something that a is as good at as b.
wrt free cleaners, there does appear to be a market.
I don't know where some of you people get the idea that a decent cleaning lady is no faster than the homeowner would be.
I tried to figure this out once and concluded that ours is AT LEAST twice as fast as we would be, given the same quality of output.
And my wife and I get to avoid hated tasks and our cleaning lady likes her work.
Win-Win, and an absolute no-brainer.
Wow. I didn't even realize this was still up for debate.
/The again, ever time I mention Comparative advantage to my friends they look at me like deer in headlights
I don't have a problem with the mutually benefiting scenario that 'a to pay b to do something that a is as good at as b' however, it would be nice if 'a' would stop supporting slavery by hiring under the table undocumented cheap labor 'b' so that 'a' can afford the luxury of paying more money to hire 'c' do the silicone boob job or inject the lifetime of botox or provide endless liposuction.
Brad: "But did you ever ask about the fairness in a society..." Oh please. Rather than a noble kindness, that is a highly materialistic sentiment.
Things are worth - in money - what someone will pay for it. The other measures of value - status, honor, etc - are variable and personal. Any attempt to try and inject them into the monetary system leads to greater unfairness.
Oh for pete's sake. If there's anything that aggravates me more than sanctimonious holier-than-thou-ness regarding personal behaviour, it's people who are sancimonious etc on behalf of others. Because anyone who has to clean houses is by definition too stupid and helpless to tell when they're being exploited? Because if we just don't hire them to clean our homes, they'll suddenly turn into lawyers? And this is somehow a good thing? Because house cleaning really is debasing, dehumanizing and not worth doing as a job and if they're too clueless to realize that, we'll hammer the point home for them? Oh please. People make choices in their own self interest. The lady who cleans my house chooses to do so because it's better then her next best alternative and I make it suitably profitable for her to continue to make that choice because, frankly, I need her more than I need the roughly $40/hour I'm paying her. Not that I make buckets, I work for the federal gov't, but my time with my family on a saturday morning is worth more to me than the $40/hour. Leave growups alone to make their own choices. If you feel such a strong need to make decisions for other people, please find a way to control it. Or have a kid. But don't continue to mistake adults who make different choices than you as somehow in need of your brilliant insight.
Isn't there a very, very simple way of alleviating one's guilt over the 'exploitation'? Such as... tipping?
Housecleaning is one of many ways to earn a living with no entry barriers. Evidently this is the one that gives those who choose it the best combination of pay, independence, time flexibility, subjective distaste for the work, etc. Thank heaven for different tastes, temperaments, and abilities!
As has been stated not all housekeepers are created equal some if not most are highly skilled in their professions, i.e. they could mop the floor with most any amateur "house cleaner." [and similar comments]
In reality that's true, but people don't *think* that. Everyone thinks they can mop and dust as well as anyone else, just like everyone thinks they're excellent drivers.
I just don't get some of these holier-than-thou commenters. My husband and I can perform a myriad of tasks that we hire out these days. Back when we were young and poor, we worked on our own cars, changed our own oil, fixed our own plumbing leaks, set the tile on the floors of our house, installed windows and other handy-man things. And cleaned our own house. These days we pay someone to do the things we don't want to do (like change the oil in the cars or install that new toilet). We can do the work, but if it is worth it to us to pay someone else to perform the task, how does that exploit them? You may say that the plumber can install the toilet quicker and better than we can, but that's not true. I'm willing to pay the plumber to install the toilet so that I don't have to deal with the ooky-ness that replacing a toilet involves. Just like I pay the mechanic to replace my oil filter, so I don't have to deal with that ooky-ness. We have the tools, we have the time and we have the skill to perform a lot of things, but now we pay other people to do things for us because they are tasks neither one of us want to do. And because we're in a position in life where we can pay someone else to do these things we're somehow contributing to the general unfairness of society?? WTF??? Let's just be getting off that horse right now because the cleaning ladies I know live in the same sorts of neighborhoods I do and they have the same lifestyle I do. They just clean houses to have this lifestyle instead of keeping books.
Since when is it true that we live "in a society where . . . the opportunity cost is always greater than the price to pay a cleaning lady"?
My opportunity cost is lower, and that's why I don't have a cleaning lady. If you mean that the opportunity cost of those who actually hire cleaning ladies is always greater than the price to pay a cleaning lady, isn't that a tautology? Of course it is, or they wouldn't hire them.
Meg
I love the sanctimonious twits like Brad that think they can clean as well as a professional cleaner. While his nobility is endearing, his facts are far from accurate.
I can claim to clean our house as well as our cleaning lady Marci than she can write articles and posts on my computer. While I can tidy a house, Marci can clean a house. And when I say clean, it is immaculate and she takes great pride in her job.
Marci may not have gone to a prestigious school or have a distinguished pedigree, but in my eyes she is every bit the professional when it comes to her job and business. She arrives on time, works hard, and provides a service that is exceptional.
But simpletons with an agenda like the aforementioned Brad can not see that. All they can see is an oppressed class who are being taken advantage of which plays well at the local Starbucks.
I see an entrepreneur that is providing an exception service who takes pride in her work.
To all the Marci's out there, I salute you.
Tom
Thanks Independent George! I clean houses for a living and make about $15 an hour. This is considered high for this part of the country, but I pay my own taxes and since I am self-employed, I match my SS and Medicare. I have to compete against people who work "under the table" for less than I do which means that I have to convince people that I am worth more in order for them to hire me. I don't mind this at all by the way. I have my gripes, but I am not ashamed to do this for a living. Brad, you can relax, this is a free country and I have plenty of choices.
One piece of advice: To those of you who are tempted to give your old 1980's clothes to your cleaning lady-especially in lieu of a Christmas bonus-please don't!
Some people may be reluctant to hire cleaners because it's too embarassing to have someone else dealing with one's own mess.
Some people may be reluctant to hire cleaners because it's too embarassing to have someone else dealing with one's own mess.
I've lived in several apartments while doing long-term business travel, and have hired cleaning ladies on those occasions. Aside from the fact that I didn't want to do the cleaning myself, and I could well afford it at my hourly rate (and I always work some overtime on these projects), I found that I took a lot of pleasure in coming home on cleaning day and finding an apartment that was spotless from one end to the other. Of those who do their own house cleaning, I'd bet that there are few who do the whole house on the same day. These cleaning ladies were all entrepeneurs who set their own rates. I didn't shop around, assuming that these ladies knew what the market would bear and charged accordingly.
Funny, my wife and I just had another go 'round on this subject yesterday. I like to do my own chores, and she wants to hire someone. Economically, we both agree with you Megan, but I cling to it because it is the last manual thing I get to do.
My grandfather was a poor farmer and did everything; my Dad grew up in the burbs but has a carpentry hobby. Me, I live in a city so I don't even have grass to mow. There is just something cathartic about doing a job and seeing results. Most people, including me, lack this in their real jobs.
We resisited hiring a housecleaner for years, but it was mainly just because we didn't want to spend the money. We now have a housecleaner in every other week; we pay her $90 for about 4 hours of work. No regrets whatsoever - I have not a speck of guilt about paying someone else to clean my toilets.
I have no qualms about the 'correctness' of someone being directly paid to clean my house. My problem lies in the fact that I simply wouldn't trust someone that I don't live with, to understand WHICH pieces of scrap paper are important, and that the floor is a perfectly good place on which to store loose, important items, when you have no errant feet that are going to step there.
Any sort of cost calculations would need to include, for me, a long period of training for me to feel comfortable that a given person would be competent to clean in my behalf.
Above and beyond that, though, is just a general dislike of the idea of someone wandering around in my house without my supervision. I don't let any of the 'other' professionals go traipsing through my rooms without me watching them, and keeping an eye on the general situation once they're in a secure place. Do I think they're going to pocket something? No, not really. I just think that my living environment is more 'rich' than most, and people not used to this might disturb the zen of my life carelessly. :)
It seems that Brad has confused absolute advantage and comparative advantage and finishes it off with abhorrent self-righteousness.
Here's the example from the wikipedia entry on Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage:
Suppose for example we have two countries of equal size, Northland and Southland, that both produce and consume two goods, Food and Clothes. The productive capacities and efficiencies of the countries are such that if both countries devoted all their resources to Food production, output would be as follows:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 200 tonnes
If all the resources of the countries were allocated to the production of clothes, output would be:
Northland: 100 tonnes
Southland: 100 tonnes
Assuming each has constant opportunity costs of production between the two products and both economies have full employment at all times. All factors of production are mobile within the countries between clothing and food industries, but are immobile between the countries. The price mechanism must be working to provide perfect competition.
Southland has an absolute advantage over Northland in the production of Food. Both countries are equally efficient in the production of clothes. There seems to be no mutual benefit in trade between the economies. The opportunity costs shows otherwise. Northland's opportunity cost of producing one tonne of Food is one tonne of Clothes and vice versa. Southland's opportunity cost of one tonne of Food is 0.5 tonne of Clothes. The opportunity cost of one tonne of Clothes is 2 tonnes of Food. Southland has a comparative advantage in food production, because of its lower opportunity cost of production with respect to Northland. Northland has a comparative advantage over Southland in the production of clothes, the opportunity cost of which is lower in Southland with respect to Food than in Northland.
To show these different opportunity costs lead to mutual benefit if the countries specialize production and trade, consider the countries produce and consume only domestically. The volumes are:
Production and consumption before trade Food Clothes
Northland 50 50
Southland 100 50
World total 150 100
This example includes no formulation of the preferences of consumers in the two economies which would allow the determination of the international exchange rate of Clothes and Food. Given the production capabilities of each country, in order for trade to be worthwhile Northland requires a price of at least one tonne of Food in exchange for one tonne of Clothes; and Southland requires at least one tonne of Clothes for two tonnes of Food. The exchange price will be somewhere between the two. The remainder of the example works with an international trading price of one tonne of Food for 2/3 tonne of Clothes.
If both specialize in the goods in which they have comparative advantage, their outputs will be:
Production after trade Food Clothes
Northland 0 100
Southland 200 0
World total 200 100
World production of food increased. Clothing production remained the same. Using the exchange rate of one tonne of Food for 2/3 tonne of Clothes, Northland and Southland are able to trade to yield the following level of consumption:
Consumption after trade Food Clothes
Northland 75 50
Southland 125 50
World total 200 100
Northland traded 50 tonnes of Clothing for 75 tonnes of Food. Both benefited, and now consume at points outside their production possibility frontiers.
I've thought about hiring a maid. If I did so, I'd go private instead of a service (after reading Nickel and Dimed it was a revelation on poor some services are at actually cleaning) in part also because I'd prefer most of the money went to the actual worker.
I think Syn is absolutely correct.
And finally, you don't have to be ashamed of how you treat them if you treat them honorably. For many people there is a temptation to treat service employees as serfs and they are the lords on the manor with whip in hand. Asking for unreasonable things which they'd have to be superman to do, taking advantage of the other person to scream at them because you couldn't scream at your boss, being generally disrespectful....
If on the other hand you occasionally remind yourself that the cleaning lady is a fellow citizen of the United States, or have no need to remind yourself of that...then this is not written to you.
However, if you think you're as good as a professional at a job, well, its possible. But its more likely you don't realize how hard the job is which leads directly to 'asking for impossible things'. There is a saying among engineers--everything looks easy for the person who doesn't have to do it.
A friend of mine runs a house cleaning business, and has done for many years. During that time she's provided work for several friends of hers as well as her sisters, one of whom is a licensed nurse. My friend gets all her work through referrals. People call her, she goes to their homes and does a walk through, provides an estimate of the cost, and sets up a schedule. She has two-three pairs of cleaners, one of which always includes her. Each person is paid $25/hr, and each home takes a minimum of 4 hours - so that's $200/house per cleaning, and she requires that they schedule at least two cleanings a month. She has more referrals than she can take. I consider her a small business owner, although all her "employees" are officially contract workers. She is smart, savvy, and trustworthy. She doesn't have a college degree, but that isn't for lack of capability. And none of the people who work for her are doing so because they are incapable of other tasks.
I worked for her for several months while job-hunting and doing freelance writing. I have a bachelor's and a master's and am working on a doctorate, and my work is mostly cerebral. The housecleaning was very hard work, but it was also very rewarding, to tackle a finite, physical task and complete it well and quickly. And housecleaning paid vastly better than my first job out of college as a newspaper reporter.
People like Brad undoubtedly do not count people who clean houses among their personal friends. If they did, they would have a more realistic sense of that kind of work and the people who do it. Instead, they just reveal that they feel superior to all those "little people" they have to protect because those "little people" can't do it themselves. Most of the people my friend works for see her as just another businessperson they deal with, although a few do have that little superiority thing going. But their money spends just as well.
And btw, Megan, congrats on the new gig. Awesome, and well deserved.
susanna in alabama
formerly of cut on the bias blog
Personally, I get satisfaction out of cleaning house, mowing the lawn, and especially doing carpentry, simple plumbing, and other handyman stuff. I just built myself a tool shed and had a great time. Maybe if you dislike doing this stuff so much you're willing to pay someone else to do it (and in the process, paying taxes, disability, insurance, transportation, etc.), you need to ask yourself why. I can see hiring someone to do routine stuff you just don't have time for, like mopping the floor, but if we are condemned to live in a universe where we have to exert ourselves to obtain material comfort, why not enjoy it?
There are two extremes to the situation: doing everything yourself and doing nothing yourself. If you are forced to choose, the former is vastly preferable to the latter. I think many people today are close to total alienation from their physical environment. Other people fix their cars and houses, mow their lawns, clean their houses, watch their kids, and walk their dogs. The operation of their computers, cars and TVs might as well be magic to them. I was just talking to a guy who was going to replace his plastic window shutters because they had cracks about two inches long in them. I explained to him that such cracks are easily repaired, but he had no idea what kind of epoxy to buy, the fact you have to mix the hardener and resin, or even what the package looks like.
Pretty soon people will be paying someone else to go to the park or read a book for them, and then tell them how enjoyable it was.
Prof. Laura: "it was just physically impossible to clean the house after putting in 80 hour weeks last semester. ... I have a pile of work to do tonight. I'm looking at another night of working past midnight. I probably should have planned my lectures that Friday instead of sorting newspapers."
If I were a student (or a student's parent) paying $$$$$$$ in tuition, I'd be really upset that the professor is coming to work in a daze and unprepared, not because she can't afford $ to hire a helper, but because she has some weird qualms about it. Laura's teaching gig is a little too "cozy" if you ask me.
Who's the more exploited worker, Prof. Laura's house cleaner or her grad students?
Male profs would never worry about this sort of nonsense, which sadly could make this another reason to be wary of hiring females (or feminized males like Brad, haw haw).
I'm with you, Megan. It's fine to hire somebody to clean your house. As long as people are paid reasonably and treated with respect by their employers, what can be the problem?
As much as I'd like to hire someone to clean my house, I refuse to send my children to college without them knowing how to do laundry and clean. Doing the work ourselves ensures that they will have knowledge of available products and tools and plenty of practice. Both children (8 and 10) know how to do laundry, wash dishes, mop the floor, and scrub out the toilet. It takes them scads more time to do it but I think it's worth the effort. Does anyone else think this way?
I cleaned houses when I was in college and thought it was a great job. I'm a bit of a daydreamer, and jobs like that give me plenty of room for daydreaming.
Funny housecleaning story, a little OT:
My sister-in-law keeps a spic-n-span house by doing a bit early in the morning, more over lunch. Monday is vacuuming, Tuesday, she dusts, etc. She told me that she grew up with a mother who put all the kids to work on Saturdays to clean the house. My sister-in-law always hated wasting her Saturdays that way, so when she had children, she refused to turn their Saturdays into cleaning sessions. That's how she decided to break up her house-cleaning into tasks throughout the week and manage to do it all herself.
Twenty-plus years later and her daughter has children of her own. The daughter lives in a pigsty. She told her mother--in those lofty tones reserved to daughters who know more than mothers--that "You always chose to clean house instead of spending time with me. I'm choosing to spend time with my children."
I love this story because it shows how pointless parents efforts are to improve on what their parents did. The best we can do is the best we can do!
Tennwriter: If on the other hand you occasionally remind yourself that the cleaning lady is a fellow citizen of the United States
This may be part of Brad's problem. All well and good to hire a citizen who has willingly decided to do this work; it's quite another matter if the workers are illegal immigrants being exploited. It's also possible that the "working poor" could be exploited as well. It's hard to know without transparency of corporate records.
I've considered signing up for a cleaning service because I'm lousy at keeping up with the housework. I don't enjoy it, I'm not good at it, and I have other things I do enjoy doing, so the housework doesn't get done. I think it would make sense for me to get such a service because of those factors.
Posted on the earlier topic but probably goes best here.
My wife and I recently hired a cleaning woman. Twice a week for half a day. And she is anything but cheap or low skilled. Her rate is $40/hr and she does an immaculate job. She is so booked up in our area that she has had to expand her business and hire help (her biggest problem in finding people who will measure up to her standards). Far from being an exploited worker she is a small business woman. Having talked to others her rate is not uncommon for the area.
As far as feeling guilty about hiring her, we do not feel it one bit. It is one of the best decicions we have ever made. My wife is a consultant. We both work long hours and travel. When we are home we want to be spending time with my daughter (7 mo) and each other not cleaning the house. We work when we are at work and do family things when we are at home. We outsource most of our house work, for us time is valuable. We also live in a small house (1800 sq ft) and drive small used cars so that we can afford this. Things are not important to us but time is, and our housekeeper (plus our handyman) provides that to us and does a much better job than we ever could. And they get money and a place to use their skills. It is a big win win.
I know how you feel. Some of my friends wondered about me when I decided to hire a lawn service instead of doing it myself. But it makes me happy and I no longer get letters from the HoA about my weeds. Btw, any tips on finding good and trustworthy house cleaners?
We found our word of mouth. Our neighbor's boyfriend got her the service as a gift and she recomended her to us.
There are two extremes to the situation: doing everything yourself and doing nothing yourself. If you are forced to choose, the former is vastly preferable to the latter.
That's the stupidest thing I've read all day. If God wanted us to do our own work he wouldn't have created illegal immigrants. (sorry, couldn't resist)
But seriously, who really cares how the work gets done as long as it gets done? Some people like to spend their free day cleaning their house, others like to spend their free day going fishing. Why do you get to decide that everyone should prefer cleaning their house?
I've had the same cleaning lady for 20 year, since she was, I suppose, a cleaning girl. She is a high school graduate who has held other jobs but prefers to be her own boss. Over the years, she has worked like a demon, saved her money and now owns, I guess, about a half a million dollars worth of rental property, as well as some stock and money in the bank. As my mom used to say, it's good honest work.Choosing to do or not to do your own house work is a resource allocation choice, not a moral decision.
I have a six-figure income today. I pretty much pay someone to do EVERYTHING possible: cleaning, yardwork, maintenance... I even pay Peapod to deliver my groceries, and once I paid a Chinese gold farmer to gather virtual currency in World of Warcraft for me.
When I was 18, I was, at one point, so poor I was living out of my car. Like most 18-year-olds, I had no real skills and was forced to work for near-minimum wage. I did not being poor, or working for low wages. Because I did not like it, I also went to college while working those jobs. That enabled me gain valuable skills, resulting in my current, much greater income.
It would seem strange to damn those people who paid for my education by "exploiting" me.
It would seem even stranger to demand they not hire out their labor.
Cure is kidding himself if he thinks he can clean as well as the cleaning lady.
"I understand this guilt."
Of course you do! Cleaning ladies are a veritable all purpose vehicle for instilling guilt, usually in others, of course:
Feminine guilt: You should be too embarassed to let your house get messy and dirty in the first place.
Populist guilt: Don't pretend you're too good to clean your own toilets.
Class guilt: You were born thinking other people should clean your toilets.
Capitalist guilt: You make your money off the misery of others.
Moral guilt: If you're not willing to do it yourself, you shouldn't be asking someone else to do it.
Political guilt: There's social inequality here, and you should want to fix it.
Marxist guilt: There's income inequality here, and you should want to fix it.
Ethnic guilt: Por supuesto!
S/M guilt: Cleaning toilets is your hair shirt, and you ought to be wearing it.
Are the moralizers here proposing that we should all be vacuuming our own offices and taking turns cleaning the bathrooms at work too? Or is does this just become a character issue when we get home?
We've had a cleaning lady off and on for about 8 years. We're not wealthy, but my wife and I both work and we have four kids.
My wife cares a LOT that the house is clean. She (mostly) enjoys cleaning - at least doesn't mind it. But she has a lot going on and taking time to clean means not doing something else. Trust me it's much better for her mental health - and that of everyone else who lives in our house - to have the cleaning ladies come once every two weeks to dust, clean floors, clean bathrooms, and change all the sheets.
I wish we were able, as parents, to make our kids do the cleaning, but we've tried that and have decided that there are other parenting battles that we're going to fight instead. Our kids have chores, but trying to make them do everything that needs doing - and more importantly doing it right - was more work than we felt it was worth.
So this works for us right now. But I've always felt a some guilt about it - like we were "putting on airs". So thanks for sharing your viewpoint and making me feel a little better about it.
Megan et al.
So you consider me sanctimonious. But on the face of it, the idea that this is what the market commands, so be it does not sit with me well. And I think is a better explanation:
Housecleaning is, in itself a somewhat demeaning task due to the low skill involved. What I mean by that, is unlike say, a carpenter who will come fix your cabinets, or a mechanic who will fix your car, housecleaning is not something anyone inherently values as a skill, since anyone can do it (unless as someone said, they are elderly ~ I will get to that below) So automatically, the exchange of money for cleaning of the house is different from most other transactions, as both parties (but especially the purchaser of the service) are no longer on an equal level.
For example, when I go to the auto shop, both sides of the transaction understand that the mechanic is providing a valuable service, one that I cannot perform. So the relationship is one where both sides consider themselves equals in the arrangement. I actually value his skill, and am willing to pay for that value.
But in the housecleaner relationship, it wreaks much more of an almost caste-like relationship. Where the poor, who due to their sheer numbers are always out-supplying the demand for jobs, have to submit to performing basic tasks so that us, the more important elites, can escape the basic burdens of life? And as Megan clearly stated, this is why she has no problem with this service, since, they need a job, and she (since she is such an important blogger), will pay someone less fortunate to do it for her.
Would Lewis Black’s idea of having a personal ball-washer be any different. Sure, he could clean his own genitals, but, hey, if you have the money, and there are enough desperate people just trying to feed themselves, why not.
Do you see the difference here? Megan does not value the housecleaner for her inherent skills. In fact, her entire rationale for defending the relationship is essentially because these people are desperate for work. When the business transaction does not arise because the service provider is providing value, but rather, is willing to assist an able person from the basic vestiges of life, this wreaks of serfdom and India’s Caste-System.
As for the elderly – this is the one situation where there is more of a sense of value between the two parties. Clearly, an 80 year old lady cannot clean her own house, and so, there is more of a value attached to that service than with us young people (who are merely trying to pass along our own responsibilities to the less fortunate because we happen to be more fortunate).
I do not think a democracy can work if society where a certain class of people pay another class of people to perform basic functions because the elites can and the desperate have to. This is how class resentment can foster eventual unrest within the growing masses of the have-nots.
You, uh, haven't spent a whole lot of time around working-class Americans, have you, Brad? You can't seriously believe there aren't people who treat their mechanics with disdain. (I know that wasn't your wording, but you have an amusingly naive way of making the flat, generalized assumption that "both sides consider themselves equals in the arrangement" in the case of a mechanic. Go to your local garage, try that one on the crew, and then come back and tell us all how that went.)
Besides, there's a difference between saying that housecleaning requires no skill and saying it doesn't have any barriers to entry as an occupation. Frankly, I'm surprised that safety-obsessed functionaries haven't yet gotten around to instituting mandatory hundred-hour training courses for legally licensed housecleaners, in which the chemical properties of bleach and ammonia and the dangers of vacuum cleaner cords and wet floors are spelled out in patronizing detail.
It's true that just anyone can knock the dust off horizontal surfaces with a cloth and splash Top Job around the bathroom passably, but it simply isn't true that just anyone knows how to use the best products in the best fashion for every household surface. Bathroom fixtures and certain types of floors can be marred if you grab the wrong stuff. That's information people have to learn. Just because it's not as prestigious as brain surgery or constitutional law, that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. My cleaning woman doesn't need me to defend her dignity, but I happen to think she's pretty smart and capable and should be proud of what she does. I'm a neatnik, so she has it easy as far as the obvious tasks go; but I also have vases and tea canisters and trays and things made of tricky materials that she has to treat individually every week. She does a beautiful job. And she's not desperately poor, BTW. She's a middle-class housewife who cleans a few days a week to supplement the household income.
Oh, and thanks for the shout-out, James of England. Would that the concept didn't confound so many people.
And great to see Susanna in the blogosphere again, even if only as a commenter.
Sean,
I am sure you think your cleaning lady is smart and capable. But do you pay her extra because you also value you as a human being?
Or do you, like Megan, justify the low wages of such workers because, hey, the market demands it, so, if the market says lets treat people in society like crap, lets do it.
Since when does one pay money for value as a human being? Ick. You show that you value an employee as a human being by treating her respectfully, getting out of her way so she can do her job without interference, and recommending her when other people ask what service you use. You show that you value her work itself by paying her for it, and I don't see what's wrong with paying for it at market value. Of course, you should provide a year-end bonus (I believe), and you should definitely be willing to pay more for extras that weren't in the original arrangement. No honorable person would do otherwise.
But as plenty of other people have pointed out here, the assumption that all housecleaners are paid a pittance--and that the market price is therefore somehow "too low" across the board--is simply wrong. The service I use pays its workers well, has an extensive training program, and goes to great lengths to make sure client and cleaner are communicating well. It's probably not the most expensive in the city, but it's far from the least. Does that qualify as paying extra? I will say that I am happy to join you in decrying those who use under-the-table help because illegal aliens are too scared to complain that they're being shafted on pay.
Hmmmm,
I am shocked, shocked that cleaning services use illegal alien labor. What next, janitorial services?
The fact is, if you want to use the market as justification for paying people a wage that is not even a livable wage, then I guess you are better able to ignore the image of what their lives are like after they leave your house than I am.
It must be nice to be able to not concern yourself for the plight of the poor in the United States, especially when their plight is beneficial to you (Megan...). Under Megan's philosophy, the larger the population of desperate poor, the better society is, since the cheaper basic service become for the elites in soceity who can make more money doing something else than say, washing their backsides. And as the price drops for these services, the more "net" benefit received for the educated class.
Megan,
I suggest that you really are living in the wrong country. I would suggest a place where the market is much, much more efficient than here.
- Mexico
- India
- China
They have lots of desperately poor people who are willing to do everything for you in order to ensure you do not have to waste one single precious moment doing something else than filling the internet with your drivel. Plus, do to the vast amounts of poor people, you can pay a even lower wage. But hey, who cares right. I mean, what is their alternative. Desperately poor and not servicing you or still desperately poor and servicing you, the important educated blogger who has marketable skills. How important you must feel.
Brad:
"Housecleaning is, in itself a somewhat demeaning task due to the low skill involved."
It's no more demeaning than any other low skill/low wage job like flipping burgers at the local fast food joint. Which is to say there's nothing inherently demeaning about it at all. Not only is the low entry threshhold actually a boon for folks with minimal skills who need a jobs, I'd suggest that there's a lot more on the job training going on than you think there is, and that some domestic tasks, like, say, ironing, also require considerably more experience than others. You may disdain such skills, but there are plenty of people who don't.
In a scene from an old biopic, one of the Kennedies who trekked down to Texas to scope out LBJ asked him if it was hard to find servants in that part of the world. He replied, we don't have servants sir, we have employees. Seems to me that's really the concept you're struggling with here -- along with a truckload of stereotypes.
I've had a housekeeper for years. She's a valued employee and I'm a valued employer. You've apparently never considered the possibility that there might actually be some advantages in domestic employment for unskilled workers. For example, when my housekeeper's children were in school, we arranged her working hours so that she could be there to pick them up everyday, which meant they didn't spend long hours on a bus, or arrive home alone, or, later on, end up in cramped quarters with some pretty rough teens. If her kids were sick, she could stay home with them, or make emergency trips to the doctor -- a flexibility that would have been impossible if she were manning a counter at the Mall. That's why she chose housework instead of something else.
Domestic work can also provide small business opportunities at a similarly modest threshhold, something which, in my part of the country, has been helpful to women of otherwise circumscribed means. As an aside, I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone who has worked in the same household for any extended length of time has gotten an interest free loan, or an advance, or a simple helping hand from time to time when it's needed most. If you think they'd all be better off punching timeclocks somewhere, you should ask them what they think about that kind of work environment!
Demeaning? I don't think so. If you do, I think that's your problem.
Well, obviously Brad thinks not hiring the poor is preferable to hiring them for $10-$25/hour to clean houses because he doesn't like associating with them. It gives him guilty feelings.
Any of you who thinks that cleaning is something that only the desperate do, forced into this job by heartless Megans (or me), should try to get a job at a cleaning service.
Most of you would get fired within the week, for your work would be slower and less clean than the professionals. Same goes for me.
Cleaning things well and quickly is a skill no less than cooking or woodworking.
I consider myself a reasonably capable man. I have made my living doing high-skill trades (fixing software, flying airplanes), and yet I'm not particularly good at cleaning. It also takes me fifteen minutes to change my oil. I enjoy doing that, so I do it myself. Cleaning? I don't enjoy.
I pay someone else to do it. I do so not because I look down on them, or because I think they're desperate, or any other sort of misguided yuppie guilt.
I pay them because I respect them and value them, and because they're better at it than me. I pay them because I think they are more skilled, more knowledgeable, and better-equipped than I am. I also pay them more per hour than I pay many people with graduate diplomas (my usual professional interaction with these is when I buy hot chocolate at Starbucks - though I try to tip generously, because the loans on the Masters in Comparative Transgendered Eskimo Studies are probably piling up)
You guilt-ridden types? You're the ones who don't respect the jobs the cleaners do or the people they are.
Brad,
Please don't take this the wrong way, and I'm sure it isn't your intention, but your post comes off as incredibly condescending. You're treating these folks' jobs as inherently "demeaning". Let me tell you something that my parents made very clear to me when I was growing up: There is no shame in hard work. It's their job and they do it well. Damned better than I could. Suggesting that their human worth is somehow or another of function of their relationship with you or an employer's willingness to pay them additional money as de facto charity robs them of their dignity far more than than treating them as adults performing a valued service (and, yes, contrary to your assertion, their work is valued. Otherwise people wouldn't pay them $15-$45 per hour.).
Brad wrote: They have lots of desperately poor people who are willing to do everything for you in order to ensure you do not have to waste one single precious moment doing something else than filling the internet with your drivel.
Bad news, Brad. Your affordable computer and Internet access means were enabled by low-cost Chinese manufacturing, low-cost Mexican truck drivers, and low-cost Indian call-center support. Time to dispose of them all -- wouldn't want to be seen as inconsistent, right?
THE ONLY TIME WERE MISSED IS WHEN WE DON'T SHOW UP,OR RISE THE PRICE. THINK ABOUT THAT
YES LIFE IS WOUNDERFUL WHEN THE PRICE STAYS THE SAME FOR YEARS ON END. AND WE DON"t TAKE A HOLIDAY