Reply-To: <daniel at wholarts.com> From: "Daniel" <drdq at m5.sprynet.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Subject: servants Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:22:36 -0800 Message-ID: <000c01be1db3$c5eabf40$2064afce at default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199812012350.SAA08690 at dont.panix.com>
Max, you wrote: "and full-time servants are pretty much out of the question."
Without really knowing, it seemed to me that the post about the income and life-style of the top quintile was way off (I'm referring to the post you responded to). So, I waited to hear someone quote the facts. Thanks.
But still, I'm just wondering about the servant thing, especially with respect to places like Los Angeles. I got the impression when I lived there that the well-to-do middle classes could easily afford au pair "girls" and maids (who also cook). I rather thought I was seeing the shape of things to come, and predicted to a friend that in twenty years, being middle-class all over the country would be more like what it was for the Victorians. Of course, I didn't mean it really. I have no predictions to make - but just as a manner of speaking, to say something about the way things seem to be changing.
What was the percentage of middle-class people in the Victorian period? Maybe in the future, the middle-classes will live much more comfy, but their numbers will shrink?