Yuppies and The Servant Problem

By Michael Kinsley

The Zoe Baird episode earlier this year revealed a deep American squeamishness on the subject of servants. We don't even have names we feel comfortable with for people who do this kind of work. "Nanny"? O.K. for news headlines -- nice and short -- but too arch and archaic for daily use. "Child-care worker"? Too clinical. And then there's the cleaning lady. "Cleaning lady"? Please! "Maid"? "The help"?

Yuppies (or are we now "yuppies emeritus"?) find the whole subject a minefield of embarrassment, as the remains of 1960s values rub against 1990s bourgeois affluence. And leaving home is no escape. Hotels, in particular, seem intent on making you feel ridiculous, with their doormen dressed up like Nubian slaves and their insistence on having someone else carry your bag even if you're perfectly capable of carrying it yourself. You, meanwhile, follow along making desperate small talk and wondering nervously how many singles you have in your wallet. Who needs this?

It makes me wince when an older person calls me "sir." (Of course, it also makes me wince when a younger person calls me "sir" -- but for different reasons.)

This squeamishness is a healthy thing. It's the tribute prosperity pays to democracy. In America we are committed to political equality and resigned, at least, to financial inequality, but uncertain and unhappy about the vast middle ground of social relations. What we want, or should want, is for financial inequality to pollute social equality as little as possible. Money should buy things, but not people. This is where the "servant problem" arises. There is no solution, but here are a few suggestions.

First, ask, Is this service valued for itself or only for the privilege of lording it over someone else? Servants are what economists call a "positional good." That means they are something that, by their nature, not everyone can have. No matter how rich a society gets, it will never be so rich that everyone can have a maid. Someone has to be the maid. Maids are generally valued for the work they actually do, and not for their lowly status. But the fellow standing in the restaurant bathroom to hand you a towel is a different matter.

It is too easy to say, on egalitarian grounds, people should do their own dirty work instead of hiring someone else. Not only is this a hopeless goal in an era when few households have a spouse that stays at home full time. It also overlooks the basic morality of free-market exchange: people work because they need the money, and denying them that opportunity in the name of equality is doing them no favor.

But this leads to a second suggestion: make domestic service more like < capitalism and less like feudalism. The relationship between customer and supplier is inherently more equal than that between employer and servant. There is no squeamishness involved in taking your clothes to the dry cleaner. If domestic service were generally provided by business firms (ideally, co-ops of the workers themselves) with all the trappings of a business relationship (monthly bills instead of cash on the kitchen table, etc.), the arrangement would be more dignified for both parties. It would also provide household workers some of the benefits -- such as reliable Social Security enjoyed by those of us who work in the grownup economy.

Third, no adult should be expected to call any other adult "sir" or "ma'am" -- outside the military, I suppose -- except as a sign of respect for large differences in age. The recent trend in restaurants of young waiters who want to be on an immediate first-name basis with their customers ("Hi! I'm Courtney . . .") has been the subject of much justified mockery. But there is a comfortable balance that can be struck. Waiters shouldn't have to pretend to be your friend, but they shouldn't have to pretend to be your butler either. What we need is an all-purpose egalitarian honorific. Not "comrade," I guess. Any suggestions?

Fourth, let's get rid of uniforms, or at least redesign them. Maybe hotels need doormen (though I'm not sure why), but why can't they wear a simple coat and tie instead of those ridiculous getups? Obviously, if someone's job is cleaning bathrooms, that can't be done in a coat and tie. But why must cleaners, in hotels and even some homes, look like they stepped out of Upstairs, Downstairs? You wouldn't dress that way to clean your own bathroom. It's reasonable enough to expect neatness. But neatness does not require uniformity; and even uniformity, if necessary (which I doubt), does not require a lot of status codes.

Fifth, abolish tipping. My pay for writing this Essay does not depend on whether TIME is in a generous mood on the day I turn it in. Why should waiting on tables be different? In most fields of endeavor, the economy has found plenty of ways to create incentives for good performance without making remuneration so immediately contingent on someone's whim. The real function of tipping is to make a business relationship seem more like a feudal one. Our goal in America should be exactly the opposite, and yet we are far behind Europe in replacing tips with standard service charges.

Sixth, don't stand in the way of technology. Automatic washing machines eliminated millions of domestic-service jobs. Only a Luddite would object. The more drudge work machines eliminate, the better. Someday, certain hotels may discover, as supermarkets did long ago, that there are machines that can open doors automatically.

Finally, if you're still feeling squeamish, try paying a bit more. That might help too.