Those low-paying service sector jobs

By -
In commenting on a previous post, some readers felt that new service sector jobs would pay subsistence wages.

But they ain't so low-paying:

"According to the WSJ, “A good housekeeper earns $60,000 to $90,000 a year. A lady’s maid can make $75,000 a year. A butler may start at $80,000 a year and can earn as much as $200,000.”

Another reader wondered what this economy would consist of: would everyone just be giving each other haircuts and back rubs? No, you and I will be giving haircuts and back rubs to the people who own the hundred billion dollar robotic factories.

Comments

  1. John Goes1:28 PM

    With 20 servants per 100-bil-factory owners, we should have full employment tout de suite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:57 AM

      Those factories will be owned by more than one person. Plus there are others who will want servants: e.g., the investment bankers who funded those factories.

      John, I am not totally in favor of this brave new world. But the personal servant bit strikes me as a return to more organic connections between members of different social classes, and certainly healthier than those between factory owners and assembly-line workers.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more