Immigration and the “servant class”

Have you ever been an expat in East Asia?

Well, neither have I, actually.  But before leaving for our expat adventure in Germany, a friend lent me a book with advice on being an expat and living abroad, which was general enough not just to cover Europe but what to expect globally.  And it discussed the fact that in East Asia — for instance, Singapore or Malaysia or the like — it is absolutely the norm to have a live-in servant or two.  It seems to me that either in this book, or in a memoir I read about an expat experience, an author described being determined to do without, and discovering that it was harder than it seemed, and yet, when she did hire a servant, this was difficult, too.

We’re not accustomed to servants in 21st century America.  In fact, it’s been a long time since anyone but the wealthy has had servants.  Many families will hire a maid service to come in for a couple hours a week, or a lawn service to mow the lawn (we’ve tried both, but do neither any longer), but we generally hire companies, not people (unless, perhaps, in some areas there are still teenagers marketing themselves as lawn-mowers?).  And we order carry-out, rather than hiring a personal chef (well, except for the Obamas in their Hyde Park days).

But one of the arguments for a legalization/guest worker program is, to put it bluntly, “Ameicans need servants.”  Now, I guess it serves me right for not linking to these articles/opinion pieces as I see them, since I now can’t find what I’m looking for, but the argument goes like this:  in order for Silicon Valley to continue to be an innovation powerhouse, we need not only a new supply of cheap programmers, but also cheap nannies and other household workers for those programmers.  We need servants.

And the argument is used repeatedly:  “Americans are hypocrites when they say that oppose illegal immigration/legalization programs/guest worker programs because no one who can afford it hesitates to hire an under-the-table nanny or housecleaner or gardener.”

And this is where I’d love to be a big-time blogger with a research assistant (like the Wonkblog people), because I’d like to know if this is just a matter of the people making those pronouncements just being, indeed, wealthy enough that they do hire such workers and think that everyone does, or whether it’s a regional thing:  Californians hiring under-the-table nannies, and Midwesterners predominantly using other types of child care or a legitimate nanny service, for instance, because it certainly isn’t a part of my world — and I find it a bit of a fantasy that we can, in fact, create a class of imported servants in the way that, for instance, Saudi Arabia has.

Yes, it’s true that “servant”-type work will grow in the United States.  The top earners are seeing their pay rise substantially, and more willing to pay for in-home services such as cleaning, yardwork, and child care, and, irregardless, the increasing numbers of elderly will mean a greater need for care providers of various kinds, not just home nursing care, but general personal and home care.

But we can treat these as “normal” occupations, corresponding to their out-of-the-home equivalents (day-care worker, cleaning staff, restaurant workers, nurses and patient care aides), rather than as special “servant” occupations requiring a wholly separate class of people, can’t we?