Megan McArdle (September 30, 2007) - We had to destroy the village in order to save it . . . (Econ 101)

That cat should get a job in a movie theatre, seems that he's quite the projectionist.

Posted by Mark E Hoffer | September 30, 2007 11:32 PM

Isn't this just an individual-level application of the idea that reducing trade with countries if they don't improve their labor/environmental rights or wages will improve the welfare of that country's people?

Of course, this is more extreme (I don't see anybody arguing an embargo of China would improve working/living conditions or wages).

In any case, if a cleaning lady really is locked into her job and is being exploited, how will not paying her expand her opportunities? There may be few options for someone of that skill level but there are even less for some of that skill level who is broke.

Posted by DPT | September 30, 2007 11:38 PM

The point here is that the transaction is voluntary. The cleaning lady is not coerced to accept the deal, but wants to accept the it. As that is the case, we must infer that she thinks she is better off with the deal than without it. So she benefits. And Megan does too. What exactly is the problem with a transaction in which both parties benefit?

Posted by JohnF | October 1, 2007 12:13 AM

"I understand that there are people who think it is immoral that the educated should earn substantially more than people who clean houses."

You know, Megan, I've generally been on your side, believe it or not, in the face of some of the criticism you receive here. But sometimes it's like you're trying to be as condescending and Barbara-Bush-my-beautiful-mind-like as possible.

I've had a few women clean my house over the years, and two of them (the poor dears) only had simple college degrees, and one had an MA. There were various reasons why they were picking up some money doing what they were doing, but this vapid garbage about "the educated" makes you look every bit as shallow as your worst critics say you are.

All of this while you're still capable of talking about "restaurants you can afford." Remarkable. I don't think the Olympics have gotten around to holding an Obtuse competition yet, but maybe the time is ripe.

Go ahead - delete this one, too. I'll keep a copy.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 1, 2007 12:30 AM

ML&J, c'mon. I worked as a secretary for a while after I got my MBA, but the average secretary does not have an MBA; the average secretary has a BA or less. Most people who clean houses full time--the people the commenter presumably feels sorry for--do so because they do not have the education or skills to get a better paying, less backbreaking job. That's not condescending; it's a statement of fact. There is an enormous wage premium on education in this country, and it is getting bigger. Pointing this out is a condescending, classist statement only if you believe that lacking an education is somehow contemptible. I don't. I just think it's hard.

Would it make you feel better if you knew that "restaurants I can afford" cluster more towards the McDonalds end of the market, where the local housecleaners shop, than Le Cirque?

Posted by Megan McArdle | October 1, 2007 12:39 AM

Yeah, two better solutions would be hiring a cleaning lady and paying here extra in cash, thus ensuring she gets what you think is a fair wage for here work, or, even better, hiring a cleaning lady from a company you believe does not exploit cleaning ladies. Both of these would much better than not hiring a cleaning lady, which is almost the worst thing you can do for the situation.

Posted by Ben | October 1, 2007 12:45 AM

Megan replies: "ML&J, c'mon. I worked as a secretary for a while after I got my MBA, but the average secretary does not have an MBA; the average secretary has a BA or less. Most people who clean houses full time--the people the commenter presumably feels sorry for--do so because they do not have the education or skills to get a better paying, less backbreaking job. That's not condescending; it's a statement of fact. There is an enormous wage premium on education in this country, and it is getting bigger. Pointing this out is a condescending, classist statement only if you believe that lacking an education is somehow contemptible."

That's not what I'm criticizing. I'm talking about your hamhanded use of language. When you say that "the educated should earn substantially more than people who clean houses," you're not just wrong on the facts - many people who clean houses are educated, and many who do not meet your criteria for that status earn more than "educated" people who do, for various reasons. Perhaps you should ask yourself what you mean by "the educated" and find a less repugnant way of expressing what you mean.

I have met very few people who I would refer to as "uneducated." I've met many more "educated" people I would describe as "clueless."

As for your dining habits, I would suggest that you can get a much better meal to go from any Thai restaurant or Vietnamese Pho kitchen than you can from a McDonalds, and I'm pretty sure you know that already, so why use Mickey D's as your point of reference? I've spent enough time in the DC area to recommend a nice little chain called Noodles, in case you're really strapped for cash or some Atlantic checks bounce.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 1, 2007 12:56 AM

Here guys, try economics

Moral is as moral does. It is perfectly moral for Megan to spend more time doing what she does best because she's paying (profiting) others to handle other time consuming tasks—even if Megan can do it better than them.

yours/
peter.

Posted by peter jackson | October 1, 2007 1:37 AM

I don't agree with the comment but a variant is perfectly sensible. If you believe cleaning houses is inherently more degrading (or dangerous or whatever) than equivalent unskilled labor than it is rational enough to refuse to hire cleaning people.

Do you believe prostitution should be legal? Do you further believe anyone who thinks it should be illegal is stupid? If you apply your argument consistently you should.

Posted by James B. Shearer | October 1, 2007 1:58 AM

James B. Shearer says: "If you believe cleaning houses is inherently more degrading (or dangerous or whatever) than equivalent unskilled labor than it is rational enough to refuse to hire cleaning people.

Do you believe prostitution should be legal? Do you further believe anyone who thinks it should be illegal is stupid? If you apply your argument consistently you should. "

I believe prostitution is a far more noble calling than whatever it was Tony Snow has been doing for the past couple of years. Cleaning houses is like caring for kids suffering from cancer by comparison.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 1, 2007 2:16 AM

My quibble with you in this particular matter is that you seem to think hiring a maid to perform menial house cleaning is a noble act of charity. Your comment in response to Brad's in the previous post positively drips with noblesse oblige:

I'd be even gladder if your self-satisfaction didn't seem to require denying a job to someone who could use the work.

From this, I can only gather that you apparently experience moral satisfaction in stimulating demand for unskilled work, once performed by servants or slaves, that you could easily do yourself. I also gather that you seem to think that people who do not contract basic cleaning functions to others who "want" and are "willing" to do the work are less morally upstanding than you. That's really preening your feathers.

I don't mean to imply that cleaning one's own house is servile. Obviously, it's not degrading to serve oneself. But cleaning other people's houses *is* degrading. I used to do it on the side for spare cash when I was a teenager, and I loathed every second of it.

Posted by Immoralist | October 1, 2007 2:35 AM

"But cleaning other people's houses *is* degrading. I used to do it on the side for spare cash when I was a teenager, and I loathed every second of it."

This has something to do with the weird way you were raised rather than the inherent qualities of the work.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 1, 2007 3:48 AM

I think cleaning houses is perfectly honorable work. So is cleaning offices, mowing lawns, washing cars, or even (gasp!) working at McDonald's. Probably more honorable in a way than the work many lawyers do for $500/hour. I find people who denigrate these jobs to be patronizing and offensive (and I've had jobs like these myself).

Posted by ed | October 1, 2007 4:14 AM

This is almost identical to the issue of sweat shops. It's a horrible condition to work in, but the alternative is worse, and not buying the product actually does NOTHING (well, makes things worse to be blunt) to improve the alternative.

In any case, I would hire the nanny and make sure taxes were at high enough levels that the nanny's children would be given the opportunity to have a better career.

Posted by Jake | October 1, 2007 4:30 AM

Well, the moral anxiety involved in the employment of house cleaners is legitimately higher than that involved in the purchase of items made in low-wage third-world countries, basically because the wage and status differential is within your own society, and it's hard to imagine that this particular wage and status differential will ever go away. Sweatshop workers in China will most likely see their wages and working conditions improve dramatically in their lifetimes. But house cleaning is very resistant to further technology-driven efficiencies -- apart from robot vacuum cleaners, most of the efficiencies are 50 years old (dishwashers, washing machines, etc.). And most people who work as house cleaners aren't young people with degrees who need some extra money; they're people with less education who probably aren't going to get out of the low-wage end of the economy. And they are almost all women. So there are implications of a permanent and somewhat arbitrary wage and class differential in most situations when someone comes into your house to clean it.

What I find interesting, actually, is that people are usually more uncomfortable having a young person with a college degree come in and clean their house, than having an immigrant with little formal education do it. This, even though the person with the degree might be doing this as a temporary job, while the immigrant might be stuck in it. I think that subconsciously, major markers of class status, like race and language, serve to reassure us that there is a reason why "they" are doing the cleaning, while "we" are employing them. And race is a particularly effective marker in this regard, helping to make the arbitrary status difference seem natural.

Posted by brooksfoe | October 1, 2007 5:42 AM

From this, I can only gather that you apparently experience moral satisfaction in stimulating demand for unskilled work, once performed by servants or slaves, that you could easily do yourself. I also gather that you seem to think that people who do not contract basic cleaning functions to others who "want" and are "willing" to do the work are less morally upstanding than you. That's really preening your feathers.

Not at all. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I'm doing this for purely self-interested reasons." What there is something wrong with is saying, "I care about these people. That's why I refuse to hire them."

Posted by David Nieporent | October 1, 2007 7:43 AM

. But it seems to me that the obvious solution to this dilemma, until you have effected the radical political change you believe will rectify this situation globally, is to give away all of your salary in excess of the wage of the average housecleaner.

I'm sorry, Megan, but that's just not fair. This is a piece with the kind of argument that says that rich people simply can't support liberal economic policies. "If you're a liberal, why don't you just give all that money away?" But of course, there is a huge difference, ideologically and (more importantly) practically between one person giving and one person advocating structural redistribution of assets. Even if Bill Gates decided he was going to give all of his money away to the poor, he wouldn't make the problem of poverty in our country significantly better. But if he used his considerable wealth and access to advocate a universal government policy whereby the better off help create a safety net for those in need, he could. It really galls me to read this here because that is such a classic empty argument against liberalism. "Why aren't you giving all your money away?"

This is almost identical to the issue of sweat shops. It's a horrible condition to work in, but the alternative is worse, and not buying the product actually does NOTHING (well, makes things worse to be blunt) to improve the alternative.

Except that there are other alternatives than the one you propose. If we could actually enact a worldwide living wage, there wouldn't be any advantage to closing up shop and moving someplace else. And while that prospect is unrealistic in the near term, I'm unimpressed with the libertarian tendency to assert that deviations from their view of the world are flights of fantasy. Yes, change takes time. That doesn't mean it is unattainable. And what precisely is wrong with someone saying "I refuse to purchase goods that are produce in inhumane conditions"? Whether or not that produces change is immaterial to the moral component of that decision.

And, by the way, it simply isn't true that the sweatshop will always close down if some effort is made to force it to improve working conditions. The idea that any and all upward pressure on costs to the factory owner results in an immediate closing of the factory and relocation just isn't supportable in reality.

Posted by Freddie | October 1, 2007 7:44 AM

And, of course, you are well aware that in no community whatsoever could a single person create such a demand for unskilled labor that the value of the labor is driven upward. But then, you're point wasn't to demonstrate an actual vehicle for improving the wages of unskilled labor, but to make that prospect seem like a futile enterprise and belittle those who would attempt it.

I mean, really. I really try to be a fair critic of yours but this is precisely the kind of post that drives me and others up the wall--logically tenuous, deliberately obtuse, snarky, and far too enamored with its own cleverness.

Posted by Freddie | October 1, 2007 7:48 AM

Doesn't the commenters post ignore comparitve advantage?

What sense does it make to spend however many hours doing whatever sort of work that I could hire someone @ $x/hr when I could be makeing $2x/hr? Both the local kid I pay to mow my lawn and myslef are better off when I work extra hours on Saturdays.

I mean, for example, you can grow more wheat and corn per acre of Florida farmland than in Iowa or Kansas, yet we don't 'waste' either by having Florida grow Oranges and Grapefruit and Iowa and Kansas groing Corn, Wheat and Soybeans. We are all richer when people work where they have a comparative adavantage.

Posted by kristiah | October 1, 2007 8:10 AM

A friend of mine once told me that one time she traveled on a junket with a labor union official. Every day he would trash his room, throw cigarette ashes on the carpet and things of that sort. She asked him why and he said he was trying to increase the demand for labor. I'm sure the poor cleaning lady who had to clean up his messes appreciated the sentiment as it took her twice as long to clean his room as all the others she was assigned.

Posted by Bruce Bartlett | October 1, 2007 8:16 AM

Megan, you don't "get this comment" for a simple reason. The guy's an idiot.

Not everything everybody says makes sense, or must be analyzed to death.

You'll find you can save a lot of time if you avoid such tasks.

Comparative advantage, you know.

Posted by Chester White | October 1, 2007 8:31 AM

When I think about this issue, I always imagine that there is some other, highly advanced civilization out there. The people there are so productive that they earn in an hour what I earn in a week, and consequently work only 4 hours per week.

Upon hearing that I work ::gasp:: 40 hours per week - and for such ridiculously low wages - they are outraged and decide to boycott the company I work for.

These rich people undoubtedly think they're helping me. But under what other circumstances would someone boycotting me (or the company I work for) be considered "helping"?

Posted by Josh | October 1, 2007 8:47 AM

Freddie, that's why I said that you could use the money for political action. But if you think it is immoral for you to earn so much more than a housecleaner, the correct response is to give away all of the excess money. Saying you can't help everyone is a cop out; you can help some people whom you clearly think need it. Poverty reduction among the working poor is not a collective action problem; it works just fine one at a time.

What is wrong with refusing to buy goods that you think are made in inhumane conditions, while doing little to nothing to improve those conditions in other ways, is that it makes the people you are trying to "help" worse off. It purchases your moral self-satisfaction at the high price of suffering for other people who are already suffering a lot more than you are. Worse, it does so while claiming to be aimed not, at your aesthetic enjoyment of the objects you buy, but at the betterment of the people who are now suffering because of your actions.

It is almost an iron law of economics that, if you raise the wages of marginally unproductive labor, you will see less of that labor consumed. Yes, some factories in Asia could produce even with higher wages. But some couldn't; the lower wages largely compensate for lower productivity, as you'll see if you read outsourcing literature. And the factories that aren't economically viable at the new price will go out of business, throwing poor people who were grateful to get that job, because it was better than whatever their alternative was, out of work.

Many people seem to think that this is okay because it relieves them of a feeling of responsibility for the poverty of the workers. But you aren't responsible for whatever poverty drove them into that plant--or at least, you aren't any less responsible for it just because you don't buy the goods. You cannot wash your hands of whatever responsibility you think exists for the poor in other nations by the bizarre expedient of refusing to buy their goods until they are produced in western-style conditions.

Posted by Megan McArdle | October 1, 2007 8:53 AM

But house cleaning is very resistant to further technology-driven efficiencies -- apart from robot vacuum cleaners, most of the efficiencies are 50 years old (dishwashers, washing machines, etc.).

This is simply false. There have been a wide variety of technological improvements in the last fifty years that have either made house cleaning more efficient or simply kept houses cleaner in the first place. Off the top of my head: advanced cleansers, easy-clean surfaces (fiberglass, corian, affordable granite), microwave ovens (far fewer pots and pans to clean), HEPA filters, high-power vacuums, vastly more efficient washers and dryers, non-stick pans, double-glazed windows, moving from oil and coal to natural gas for heating, advancements in carpet and upholstery fabrics.

It's a common mistake to confuse the processes of mechanization and (recently) digitization with technological progress in general. The former are the flashiest parts of technological progress, but the small improvements in how we manipulate our environment and how we divide up our labours are just as important.

Posted by Dave | October 1, 2007 9:06 AM

A side-issue, but worth covering:

I wonder whether this is really true (Freddie, 7:44am): "Even if Bill Gates decided he was going to give all of his money away to the poor, he wouldn't make the problem of poverty in our country significantly better."

If Wikipedia can be trusted, Bill Gates has a net worth of $59 billion and the poverty rate in the U.S. is roughly 13%. With a hair over 300 million Americans, that comes to roughly 40 million poor. Many of them are only nominally poor (e.g. retired people whose houses are paid for, students in law school with zero income who will soon be making six figures). Many are illegals and possibly ineligible for subsidy. Even if we ignore such provisos, Bill Gates could give every man, woman, and child in the U.S. who is below the poverty line something over $1,400 and still have enough left over to live the rest of his life without having to work.

Such a gift would improve the life of anyone smart enough not to spend it all on drugs or hookers or a big-screen TV. It would, for instance, buy a pretty decent car for someone who can't find work or can't find good work because he has to confine his search to areas near bus lines. Even a considerably smaller amount could provide a destitute person with a decent suit and pair of shoes for that all-important first job interview. In fact, a gift of $1,400 would make a difference in my financial well-being and I'm above the poverty line.

Posted by Dr. Weevil | October 1, 2007 9:09 AM

One of my closest friends cleans homes for a living and had done so for about 20 years. The only thing degrading about about her occupation is the despicable contempt and patronization of others that she only rarely encounters in social situations when others learn of her job. That mindset has been amply demonstrated here and on the previous thread. The idea that some of you have that you can do her job as efficiently as she can is laughable. Contrary to what you here believe, she takes great pride in her work, makes a decent living, her clients adore her, and she lives mortgage-free in a comfortable home in a nice neighborhood in one of the most desirable cities in our region. In her late 50's now, she's cut back to part-time, traveling and pursuing other interests. Would she have preferred doing something easier and more profitable? Sure, but while people like you were focusing on lemons, she was too busy making lemonade, and profiting from it, to worry about what you think about her or her occupation.

Posted by Internet Ronin | October 1, 2007 9:26 AM

I endorse everything Freddie just said.

Seriously, every time you pull this "if you really believe it you have to go broke without any help from anybody while I sit here and laugh at you" bullshit it makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

You're also making a really weird assumption about who can speak to you. You respond to everyone in this argument, collectively, that if they think the poor need more money, they should give up all their disposable income. But Megan, what if a poor person had the temerity to speak to you. You seem to assume that isn't going to happen. Only the rich or middle class read your blog and comment. I'm poor, and I'm speaking to you. Am I allowed to be a liberal because I need money? Because I'm only making rent and going to school right now on the generosity of the state?

Posted by Mike Meginnis | October 1, 2007 9:28 AM

Freddie said:
"And, of course, you are well aware that in no community whatsoever could a single person create such a demand for unskilled labor that the value of the labor is driven upward. "

In no community whatsoever? I find that difficult to believe.
How is unskilled labor any different from any other labor market? Certainly, in a particularly small isolated community, one person's demand for a service would increase the value of the labor; a second person's demand would further increase the value, but less than the first person's, the third person's demand a little bit more but less than the second person's, etc., etc. The reality is that in EVERY community "a single person create[s] such a demand for unskilled labor that the value of the labor is driven upward." The increase in value is marginal, though, and the higher the preexisting demand, the less that one additional person will add to the demand (and thus the value of the labor)- but there is still an increase in demand and value. While one additional customer for cleaning services in a well-populated area won't increase wages by a noticeable amount, the combination of a few hundred additional customers will.
To the extent you can claim that wages for cleaning ladies are too low, you should point the blame at the fact that there is an overly high supply of cleaning ladies (or an insufficiently high demand). You could then ask why there is such a high supply of cleaning ladies (or, alternatively, why demand isn't higher). The answer of course is that they don't have anything better that they are able to do at that moment in their lives. Firing a cleaning lady because you think the work is degrading will just force them to a less-preferable alternative (increasing supply of labor and marginally decreasing wages for that less-preferable alternative in the process).
Besides, the term "unskilled labor" is something of a misnomer since there are varying degrees of competence in just about any imaginable job.

Posted by Mark | October 1, 2007 9:30 AM

Freddie,

With these sentiments:

"..one person advocating structural redistribution of assets.."

".. advocate a universal government policy whereby the better off help create a safety net for those in need.."

"..we could actually enact a worldwide living wage.."

I'm surprised that you wouldn't railing against the pernicious effects of Inflation on the working classes.

see:
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/inflation.htm

for starters.

Posted by Mark E Hoffer | October 1, 2007 9:53 AM

Mike, I'm afraid I don't understand the question. When I said "you", I was fairly obviously talking about people who are in a position to pay housecleaners. Okay, you're not among them. I'm not either. What are you asking?

Posted by Megan McArdle | October 1, 2007 10:12 AM

Why is it that some people bitch about the low wages that workers get at WalMart but also bitch about the high prices as WholeFoods (which they avoid)?

Good posts Megan!!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 1, 2007 11:16 AM

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.

Posted by Eccdogg | October 1, 2007 11:40 AM

I'm glad I'm not the only one who couldn't make heads-nor-tails of Mike's statement.

(And, Freddie... a worldwide living wage? Why not wish for a unicorn, while you're at it?

Contrafactuals that are so unlikely as to be effectively impossible are hardly forceful.

Then again, a "worldwide living wage" law, if possible, would also be disastrous for anyone whose labor was worth less than that wage - nobody would ever hire them.

And I can't imagine a regime that would support that that would not also support lifetime employment or some equivalent ala France or Spain, and thus doubly restrict employment opportunities.

But the lucky ones who had jobs would get to support the worldwide government bureaucracy, so that'd be a win, I guess... what?)

Posted by Sigivald | October 1, 2007 1:28 PM

Am I allowed to be a liberal because I need money?

You're "allowed" to be a liberal for whatever damnfool reason you want. Your thoughts are your own private property. It is unfortunate that our system channels such thoughts into socialism, but that's hardly your fault.

That said... I've rarely seen a liberal discuss so candidly the basis of his "ideology".

Posted by the Ugly Truth | October 1, 2007 2:01 PM

Refusing to hire cleaning people because they are exploited does not seem logical to me. Add more information, and it can make sense.

Many house cleaners work for small businesses which exploit them. Refusing to hire them, so they can't profitably exploit people, and instead hiring a different cleaning person makes sense.

If there were a nascent house-cleaners unionization movement, one could improve the lot of cleaning people by insisting on union house cleaners.

Me, I just don't like strangers in my house, nor people I know seeing my house dirty, so I'm screwed.

Posted by Njorl | October 1, 2007 3:38 PM

It boils down to this: You don't make people better off by taking away their best option. It is astonishingly hard to get people to understand this.

Posted by Alan Gunn | October 1, 2007 4:26 PM

That is because most people are more interested in feeling good than doing good. That is why they are prepared to fire people in their own best interests.

James:If you believe cleaning houses is inherently more degrading (or dangerous or whatever) than equivalent unskilled labor than it is rational enough to refuse to hire cleaning people.

My mother is retired, but is a part time cleaning lady. Has she been degraded?

Who by, as she made the decision to work voluntarily?

I once had a job disposing of sanitary waste in high summer. Was that degrading?

How should my mother and I be treated, as we are such degraded people?

Posted by Frank | October 1, 2007 5:23 PM

Is business, or the trade of good and services, really evil? Is it wrong to look at the situation logically?

Facts:
a) I want a cleaner house.
b) I'd rather spend $X to get a cleaner house than clean it myself.
c) A person/business offers to clean my house for $X.
----
Conclusion:
I should hire the person/business to clean my house.

All this talk of morality is pointless. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Megan does her thing. The cleaning lady does her thing. Both parties are self-interested and both are better off when the transaction takes place.

Posted by Nelson | October 2, 2007 6:58 PM

We had to destroy the village in order to save it . . .

TrackBack

Comments (38)

Post a comment

Search

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives

Categories

Comment of the Week

The State has its head

Object of the week