Help with the help: Occupy my imaginary penthouse

December 13, 2011 4:52 PM

Let's pretend I'm rich. Maybe not a member of the 1%, but definitely a member of the 10%: What kind of household staff would I have? What would I call them? And what would they call me?

So, I was reading Goop on my lunch break and had a prolonged daydream about what it would be like to be Gwyneth Paltrow, or maybe just her lower-profile-but-still-wealthy socialite sister living in a NYC penthouse and enjoying a summer home in the Hamptons (or the like).

I can't imagine I'd have the level of staffing you see in Downton Abbey, but definitely more than Alice from the Brady Bunch.

I'm imagining someone like Bruce Wayne's Alfred having a role, but obviously Alfred can't do it all alone. So I kind of brainstormed the following complement:

- Live-out personal assistants for me and my hubby
- Live-in nanny for kiddos
- Live-in housekeeper and butler/house manager
- One or two live-out maids to help the housekeeper
- Live-out personal chef (or would a good housekeeper do this?)
- Live-out driver (or would this be another service of the butler?)
- Obviously the building will have doormen
- Anyone else I'd have on staff and see on a daily basis? I'm not as concerned about limited or ad-hoc staff like personal trainers, dog walkers, decorators, etc.

Once I have my staff, who would I call Alfred and who would I call Mr. Pennyworth? Who would call me Elizeh and who would call me Miss Paltrow? Especially the senior live-in help? Would it matter if they were older than me?

And who would travel with me? For example, who would I take to my summer home?

What else do I need to know about having household staff in these modern times?

posted by elizeh to Home & Garden (53 answers total)

The top 10% only gets you above $82k a year. You don't have any servants. You might have a maid that comes once a week.
posted by sanka at 4:55 PM on December 13, 2011 [59 favorites]

The level of income required to have a full complement of staff like you suggest is far above the mere 1%. If I recall correctly, the 1% have incomes starting at around $300,000 per annum.

But I'd wager that you'd need an income north of $5 million to (1) afford this kind of staffing and (2) be so busy as to warrant it.

I do know that very wealthy people, such as Ron Perelman have (1) their own security detail, (2) medical personnel, (3) chefs, (4) drivers, (5) maids, (6) assistants, etc. But again these people are in a far more rarified sector of the economy than the mere 1%.
posted by dfriedman at 4:56 PM on December 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

1% is about 350k a year. Nothing to sneeze at, but you'd need more than that to have full-time staff, at least "more than Alice from the Brady Bunch".
posted by supercres at 4:56 PM on December 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Yeah my parents' household income might even put them in the top 5% of US households at this point; they get the house cleaned every other week.
posted by silby at 4:57 PM on December 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Twice weekly maid/food shopper, weekly therapist, part time assistant, and dog walkers.
posted by StickyCarpet at 4:59 PM on December 13, 2011

The staff that I have encountered in wealthy people's homes are almost all housekeepers and/or live-in nannys, and are are universally referred to by their first names. This goes for both the parents and children.

Nannys frequently travel with families on vacation, so that the parents don't have to worry about childcare.
posted by Narrative Priorities at 5:01 PM on December 13, 2011

I could only find data for 2007, but it looks like the the top 10% in 2007 was $394,500. So, as everyone has said, being in the top 10% is not enough to get you a full complement of household staff especially if, like much of the top 10%, you live in an expensive city on the East or West Coast.
posted by bananafish at 5:03 PM on December 13, 2011

I had a friend in college whose parents had a live-in housekeeper/cook/nanny-type person. I stayed with them over a long weekend and his social status was basically a "family friend" - first-name basis in both directions, he ate with them at the dinner table, it's just that the rest of his time was spent doing laundry, cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, etc.. I don't know if he traveled with them or not. Having a personal assistant each for two people AND a nanny AND a cook AND a housekeeper would be huge overkill - you'd be basically burning money at that point. You can't really keep that many people busy yourself unless you're living some really weird lifestyle.

As others said, having a residence large enough to require (and house!) more than one live-in worker is far above the means of anyone in the 3-10% range.
posted by 0xFCAF at 5:05 PM on December 13, 2011

Mod note: Folks, maybe not get hung up on the numbers so much and answer what appears to be the OPs core question? Thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:07 PM on December 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

Household staff are much more common in the developing world. In India, for example, a well-off family might have a driver, a housekeeper, and a cook.
posted by alms at 5:09 PM on December 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

I've known people in the, I don't know, 0.5%? 0.1%? The very, very rich, but not crazy super wealthy. They have housekeepers and/or nannies, generally live-in. They don't have chefs, though maybe their housekeeper cooks, or maybe the restaurants they go to regularly will deliver meals to them. They probably have some kind of personal assistant at work. They don't have personal drivers, though they have drivers they call regularly for when they need a taxi. They get parties catered, and hire extra cleaners after parties, but don't need multiple ones on a regular basis. Here they live in houses, not places with doormen.
posted by jeather at 5:10 PM on December 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

They would all call you Miss. Paltrow unless you gave them specific permission to. It would depend on how close you are to that specific person.

You would call them by what they do: Butler, Nanny, Chef, Housekeeper, Maids, etc.

If you needed a general term to call all of them.. I'd say Hired Help is the least offensive.
posted by royalsong at 5:14 PM on December 13, 2011

Realistically the only household staff I see in my Very Wealthy Area are Nannies, sometimes live in sometimes not, they made be expected to do some cooking or cleaning but there is usually a "once a week" maid, I have met one person with a Cook, but they're only called for events (which are often, like once a week) and they don't live-in. Most of the services you're describing are outsourced to food delivery programs, cabs, and devices that take the role of PAs. The people I know with PAs tend to have them running/help run the grunt work of their small business with chores on the side. (you'd ask them to go over your paperwork and pick things up, but not clean your house). Also if you reach this level of income, some of this stuff is provided by your job, a PA and a car service.

Something you missed, personal trainer. Very common. If looking good is your job, you may see them six days a week.

The people I know who you would call rich, that is they don't really have to look at a price tag if they don't want to, only tended to have combo cleaning lady/cooks or live in nannies. They will use catering services and personal shoppers on occasion - the network is just more diffuse and handled through companies, not individuals. (with the exception of decorators who still get that "not really a *servant* treatment, they are likely to be - if your your direct peers, then someone who goes to the same parties as you.

Also not mentioned: Gardening service.

Getting into the really rich no seriously rich still doesn't get you much household staff unless you a very high maintenance household (say an isolated location where you need things on hand). Butlers don't exist in any meaningful way, and again, a lot of the service is done for children, private tutors that come to you for example. If you have ailing relatives they might have a live-in nurse.
posted by The Whelk at 5:24 PM on December 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Over the years, I've had a few visits to the homes of Very Rich Folks. Very Very Rich. Multiple billions in some cases, and a number of multi-millionaires several times over.

From what I've seen, the family has tended to call the help by their first name. The younger white help (typically nannies who might be off from school or just out of school) have tended to call the family members by their first names. The older help, and the non-white help has more often than not called the parents by Mr./Mrs., though the kids were still just first names.

You would probably just travel with your personal assistant and the nanny for your kids, but I can't say I've really seen the billionaires on the move--they were always at home. My mother has worked in PR for a bazillion years and her Hollywood clients tended just to travel with assistants, if that.

As commenters above noted, 1% doesn't get you very stratospheric at all.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 5:26 PM on December 13, 2011

Also, if you're a Lady and in the upper upper reaches, you would have a personal relationship with a designer whom you would pay outlandish prices for one-offs.
posted by The Whelk at 5:26 PM on December 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Do you watch any Real Housewives shows? A lot of the behavior those women display is pretty vile and dramatically different from the way "regular" rich people who aren't on TV act. But in terms of socioeconomic status, those are basically the kinds of families you're thinking about: people with enough disposable income to hire assistance with the kinds of things the rest of us do ourselves. Many of them have full-time nannies, and a few have full-time housekeepers or personal assistants. Several of them have part-time help, such as hairstylists who come over when they're getting ready to go out to a huge event, or party planners who put together big social gatherings for them. There are some personal shoppers and food prep services and trainers and landscapers and other little luxuries. They almost all seem to call people they hire by their first names, and almost all of them seem to prefer to be called by their first names by their employees (except for that one super-crazy lady who makes everyone call her The Countess). If you want to see at least a hint of who has what at what income levels and how it works logistically, reality TV wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I cannot believe that I am recommending this, or that I am admitting on the internet to having watched enough Real Housewives to make an informed recommendation.
posted by decathecting at 5:26 PM on December 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

I know of a man who was unmarried and had adopted a child. He had a live-in nanny, a housekeeper (real nannies specialize in child care and won't also do laundry), and a chef. And then he had my friend, whose job was to buy and arrange fresh flowers every day for the entryway, kitchen, bedroom, etc.
posted by xo at 5:29 PM on December 13, 2011

I once had a housekeeper, a cook, and a driver (in Nepal). The housekeeper we called 'Didi' which meant sister (at her request). The driver and the cook we called by their given names at their request. They called us Miss first name and Mr first name even though we asked them just to call us by our first names.

By Nepali standards we were in the 1%. We didn't actually need staff, but it was the right thing to do so that money (wages) was shared around in the community.

These days I call my cook, housekeeper and driver darling, sweetie, or cute-bum. And I don't even have to pay him!
posted by Kerasia at 5:34 PM on December 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

A relative of mine was a butler for many years for such a family, in the U.S. He referred to them as "the Mister" and "the Mrs." even when talking with us outside of work, but he was on a first name basis with the children. He was referred to by his first name by the family. A good chunk of his job was managing the lower level staff; there were dozens but not hundreds. I'm not sure what they all did. He would travel to various residences and wherever the boat happened to be; it seemed like five or so of the staff would go with them, including the pilot.
posted by Kwine at 5:35 PM on December 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

You would call them by what they do: Butler, Nanny, Chef, Housekeeper, Maids, etc.

Somehow I don't believe this. I see fictional rich people in TV and movies doing this, but surely actual rich people call their staff by their human names? (I mean, I'm a professor, and I don't call my TA "TA". On the other hand, I once was a TA, whereas most people who have household staff never were household staff.)
posted by madcaptenor at 5:41 PM on December 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

I don't want to take this too far afield, but you do need to understand that many, many many of the manor houses such as depicted in Downton were economic burdens on their owners (indeed, the real Highclere Castle, ca. 1915, probably had at least double the household staff than depicted). The entire point of the "entail" subplot of the first season is about whether Cora's money will remain with the estate so that it didn't have to be sold to pay the debts. This can also be seen in the soapier modern-times TV series, in which Julian Fellowes acted, Monarch of the Glen.

By those days, ca. 2000, the staff of this fictional great house in Scotland was reduced to a "ghillie" (land manager/conservationist), a maid-slash-cook, and a jack-of-all-trades -- and the income from the property (rents, primarily, from tenant farmers) was barely able to support that on top of the costs.

The novels of Austen, Trollope and the like touch on this, in the way that a man is required to have an "income" (in this context, investment interest from what today would be a trust) sufficient to cover the necessary maintenance expenses of a house including staff.

And of course, a house of sufficient size needed a staff of sufficient size, so these requirements were often considerable; and quite often they would bankrupt the unfortunate aspirant. Indeed, quite a few great houses began to change hands in the 19th century, falling from a titled family to a parvenu industrialist.

There are many tales of people trying to keep up appearances by hiring temporary staff for parties, only running a fraction of the fireplaces, and that sort of thing. It was, of course, a topic for hushed voices.
posted by dhartung at 5:43 PM on December 13, 2011 [9 favorites]

My experience is that income of about $1,500,000/yr will get you a live-in maid/cook/nanny. (Well, not *my* experience, more like my close-up observation.) You would call her by her first name, and she'd call you Mrs. E. She'd go with you to the summer home. Her main role would be housekeeping, and then she'd watch the kids as needed and prepare mediocre meals (i.e., not a trained chef). You'd experiment with having a dedicated driver/groundskeeper but wouldn't really be able to find anyone that worked out in the long term, but you'd have local guys in each place who were sort of your on-call handymen.
posted by HotToddy at 6:07 PM on December 13, 2011

I can tell you what it'd be like in Guatemala, where I visited for a bit. The family of two older adults had a caretaker who lived on the property with his wife and child. He provided security, and also did chores around the house, repairs and such.

Every day, they had various maids and gardeners in and out. A cook did all the grocery shopping and all the cooking--breakfast was ready when we got up, and dinner was laid out on the table before we were called in from the den. We were served for dinner, but served ourselves for breakfast (of course, all dishes were done, too). For a party, more help appeared and was paid and extra food was bought all like magic.

I stayed in the guest house. When I got up in the morning and went to take a shower, someone who I never saw made my bed and collected my dirty clothes before I got out of the bathroom. Clean clothes reappeared later.

From what I could tell, most folks didn't have live-in nannies, but they did have private nannies who spent all day with the family. Furniture was all custom made. Clothes, too, could be made cheaply and quickly. The folks drove themselves, and shopped for themselves when they felt like it.

All the maids and gardeners and caretakers were referred to by their first names. The home owners were called Don Rich and Dona Betsy.
posted by MrMoonPie at 6:09 PM on December 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

The scenario jeather mentions is what I am familiar with in a family of 5 that I am close to. A lot of the services, except for trainer, out-of-home cook who prepares meals for freezing (but not all that they eat), nanny and cleaning are on an ad hoc basis: car service, caterer/bartender, gardener. The vacation property is looked in on, and the main boat is in drydock. I think the wife and mother of the crew needs a PA, and many of her friends and associates have one.

One thing to remember is that changes in technology and energy sources have greatly changed the demand for a lot of household positions, even conventional middle- to upper-middle class familes. As use of the telephone expanded, for example, there was no need for someone to "do the messages." Laundry is much less of a burden to all social classes. Oil lamps, wood fires, and coal furnaces absolutely necessitated "spring cleaning" -- everything, literally, was cleaned because it had to be. The first part of Home Comforts has interesting discussion of this sort of social history, plus a later chapter on hiring and supervising household help.
posted by jgirl at 6:14 PM on December 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

Yeah, most rich people I know pretty much hire everything out to companies. I guess I might as well admit I'm a 1%er at the low end and I know a lot of other people in my position/field live similarly. Laundry gets picked up by a laundry company, a catering company delivers personalized frozen and fresh meals for the week (or they eat out or get takeout all the time), tutoring companies or centers instead of a private autor, and a cleaning company is used instead of a maid. A lot of folks are using TaskRabbit for random tasks like taking packages to the post office. Instead of an Alfred, you might meet with or have an organizational/productivity consultant help you once or twice a week. However, if you own property that you don't live on, it's really a good idea to have someone managing it, but a lot of people use companies for that now too.

I personally don't have any staff at all, except for the productivity consultant I meet with once a month or so, and a guy who helps me manage some property. Both of them are very skilled individuals and I interact with them on a first-name basis. We have attended conferences together and actually have gone into side businesses together, so they are colleagues too. They definitely aren't anything like servants. I use tons and tons of the aforementioned ad hoc services though.
posted by melissam at 6:27 PM on December 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

I watch the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (and New York) to be able to answer these very questions.

From what I gather, what you call you staff will depend very much on the region of the country you are in (assuming U.S.), your personal background (are you old-school European money or new money?), and personal preferences. There aren't really Upstairs/Downstairs rules about this, I don't think. A lot of first-naming (at least on the west coast), a bit more Ms. X/Mr. X in New York. Kyle Richards refers to her personal assistant as her "ladysitter" but calls him by his first name, Justin.*

Live-in child care seems be fairly common if there are young children. Live-in maid/housekeeper are kind of the next level up -- but pretty rare. Personal assistants also live out, but come in every day. Cooks/caterers as needed.

Your nanny will definitely go with you to the summer home (assuming you take the kids) and maybe also a personal assistant if you are fond of him/her and look forward to having them on vacation with you. Presumably the place you are vacationing will have staff on hand for cooking and cleaning duties.

You will likely want them all to sign air-tight NDAs if you are at all famous.

(This answer is entirely based on years of viewing the RH franchise. Caveat emptor.)

*Yes I know this. Shut up.
posted by pantarei70 at 6:40 PM on December 13, 2011

As others have said, the very big majority of the top 10% won't have any live-in staff. A lot of them will have maids that come to clean once a week or so. Depending on demographics they may have a nanny who spends a lot of time there but isn't live-in. You have to go into the top 1% to find many people with live-in staff, and most of those will be top 0.1%.

Most will call staff by their first names and will be called either by their first name or by Mr./Mrs. Whatever depending on a lot of factors.

If you're really trying to get a picture of the top 10% it's simple; No full time live-in staff, probably a maid service once a week, possibly a nanny. The first step up is a live-in nanny. That would cover the vast majority of cases.
posted by Justinian at 6:55 PM on December 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Here in LA, you'll be called by your first name. Mrs. SoandSo is not done, unless you're very, very old. Arianna's staff call her Arianna.


Live-out personal assistants for me and my hubby--Emily and Abby (or whatever their names are)

- Live-in nanny for kiddos--Juana

- Live-in housekeeper and butler/house manager-- Both are live-out. Adirenne and Manuel. (Or whatever their names are.)

- One or two live-out maids to help the housekeeper--Theresa and Juanita, one of whom is live-in.

- Live-out personal chef (or would a good housekeeper do this?) Housekeepers don't cook. Daily chefs are called by their first names.

- Live-out driver (or would this be another service of the butler?)--you use a car service or drive yourself. If Paris Hilton had a driver, she wouldn't have gotten arrested.
posted by Ideefixe at 7:01 PM on December 13, 2011

One thing you're not realizing is that people with high incomes, if not cheap, exactly, are quite money-conscious. Every dollar they spend on "household staff" is a dollar that comes out of their pocket, leaving them with less money (after taxes!) afterwards.

Any personal assistant is going to be folded into their business staff, so it's provided by their employer/company (and thus isn't counted as part of taxable income), or you have a situation where their secretary is also making dinner reservations and taking care of dry cleaning (or, like google, the employer has a dry-cleaning drop-off service in the office). Landscaping and housecleaning is generally contracted out as pay-for-service, rather than live-in, salaried staff. The big exception to this, as everyone else has pointed out, is the nanny, which is why the nanny will frequently get saddled with a lot of "household staff" duties (laundry, cooking, etc.)

Also, not just dog-walkers, but dog-groomers are hired who come, pick up the dog, take them to the grooming place, and then drop off the dog afterwards.

In NYC, a lot of the coordination is handled by the doorman, who buzzes in the dog-walkers, signs for packages, arranges dry-cleaning pickup, etc. In that case, it's the building retains a staff (including a full-time handyman for the building), and the people who live in the building share them.
posted by deanc at 7:02 PM on December 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Close relatives well into the 1% (several million a year in income - a huge chunk of which they pay in state and federal taxes). They have a house cleaner, a pool cleaner, and a gardener who each come once a week. One of them visits a trainer once a week outside the home. Every month or so, someone comes to wash their large dogs as this has become physically challenging for them. Everything else they do for themselves. People have a warped sense of how "the rich" live.
posted by cecic at 7:08 PM on December 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

The richest people I have known are in the million+ income per year bracket, an income level I personally consider to be pretty rich, but which I think doesn't actually get into butler territory here in the U.S.

These families usually have a nanny (usually live-out), household help (much more likely to be a weekly housecleaner plus meal delivery than a full-time housekeeper/cook), and maybe, at the highest end, a personal assistant type who coordinates all the rest of the services the family uses, does shopping, scheduling, etc. As Melissam mentions, it looks to me like rich people use services more than having a person on staff. You don't have a chauffeur, you have a fancy car lease and a service that picks your car up for detailing while you're at work, etc.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 7:11 PM on December 13, 2011

One thing you're not realizing is that people with high incomes, if not cheap, exactly, are quite money-conscious.

QFT! I've posted before in a similar "lives of the rich" thread about being hauled all over downtown Seattle while *really Ihavetoeatrightnow* hungry while my rolling-in-it hostess tried to find the best parking deal. They are also really pleased when companions (not me) do not assume they will pick up the tab. I don't blame them. They both come from exceptionally modest circumstances.

Also as I've said before, if you met them, you'd never know. Probably not even if you went to the house.
posted by jgirl at 7:14 PM on December 13, 2011

Luckily, I too watch the Real Housewives so I have some expertise in the matter. Of all the shows, the Housewives of Beverly Hills are the *really* rich ones and even the "poor" ones (comparatively) of the bunch appear to at least have an assistant and a nanny (Taylor and Kyle) or a maid (Kim). The richer ones have cooks and for special events, drivers (at least).

During college I was a nanny for the 1% and they really only had me as the "help". They hired a cleaner to come in bi-weekly and had personal trainers and whatnot at the gym but no cook, chauffeur or anything else. I'm not certain, but I don't think as many really wealthy people have in-home help as much anymore, but instead seem to avail themselves of lots of outside services (trainers, landscapers, tennis instructors, masseuse, personal shoppers etc).
posted by triggerfinger at 7:23 PM on December 13, 2011

There does seem to be a strange disconnect between the current wealthy and previous generations. My grandparents view household staff as an obligation. The family that maintains their vacation Ranch gets to use the land for ranching and maintain a way of life that the current economy has essentially destroyed. Their housekeeper has been with the family half a century, and they continue to renegotiate the work load to justify suplementing her Social Security. They've paid for college courses for her children, and treat them like family.

Their children havent picked up that habit, and honestly the catered Thanksgiving feels uncomfortable, even though I know my grandparents have the best of intentions in the way they spend their wealth. I don't consider it greed so much as an evolution of the market. It's hard to justify the cost, and as far as social norms go, it's seen as extravagance in a way that other consumerism really isn't.
posted by politikitty at 7:37 PM on December 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

There are many "super wealthy" people in this zip code, and it's a good gig to be a major domo for one or two sane ones. I've made a good living that way, but the good ones always seem to expire. It's always on a first name basis, unless a point needs to be made...

Since life is much more casual around here, it's usually one caretaker who is expected to do all of the outside maintenance and gardening when the owners are in residence, and everything else when they are not. During season, daily housekeeping comes in and does laundry, dishes, dusting, etc, maybe four hours. Off season, they do maintenance dusting and whatnot once a week. Pool maintenance pro comes once a week. Rotating au pairs keep the kids entertained, but usually there are extended family members in residence so it looks more like "Home Alone", and they just go with the flow.

Event planners handle all of the party stuff, from decorating to food prep and service and cleanup afterward. Landscape guys come and do all the palm trees and pruning once or twice a year, depending on how bad the hurricane season is.

Travel staff usually is involved with a big, big boat. They enjoy it but tell me it is a lot more work than just keeping the brass polished, since they have to do all maintenance, upkeep, provisioning, sailing and maintain all the official paperwork and contacts in all of the ports.

Everything else is on an "as needed" basis and outsourced, usually by the major domo.
posted by halfbuckaroo at 7:38 PM on December 13, 2011

As someone whose household income is on the low end of the top decile, I'll tell you what we call them: the guy who does our lawn, the math tutor, the two girls who come to clean on Fridays.
posted by Crotalus at 7:43 PM on December 13, 2011

You might be interested in the book "The Millionaire Next Door". It talks, in part, about how the wealthy live on a day-to-day basis.
posted by procrastination at 8:03 PM on December 13, 2011

There does seem to be a strange disconnect between the current wealthy and previous generations. My grandparents view household staff as an obligation.

There is a kind of noblesse oblige in older money families who are expected to be a kind of patron for their staff, but it's more of an ideal then actuality. You really see it when you have rich (or even just well off, or just middle class, to them) Westerners in poorer/huge rich-poor gap areas of the world. They don't want (or need) the whole staff that comes with being the rich guy in town, but its expected they would distribute their money around to the local community that way.
posted by The Whelk at 8:04 PM on December 13, 2011

Response by poster: These are really interesting answers, thank you!

My aunt and uncle lived in a third-world country for a while--they lived in an expat subdivision and had a maid who cooked, a nanny, and a groundskeeper. That was expected of them, the rich westerners (in fact they were in the military--an officer, but not rolling in the dough) but the cost was so inexpensive that they felt obligated to keep the help, mostly because it helped my aunt and cousin pick up the language.

I do agree that there seems to be some difference between new and old money. I think old money does seem to keep some older staff around out of obligation--at least, from the wealthy folks I've encountered. But I live in the South, and the whole attitude toward household help is really different (lots of daytime housekeepers, no nannies for school-aged children.) The demeanor is very different here--we called our housekeeper Mrs. XYZ or Miss Firstname and she always called my mother Miss Firstname and my dad, whom she rarely saw, Dr. Lastname. We called our yard guy Mr. Lastname or just Lastname. He called my dad Dr. Lastname and referred to himself as "the boy who cuts the lawn" even though he was in his fifties (and white, which now strikes me as interesting).

Anyway, all this to say, it's funny what a daydream can turn into. I find this all very interesting, even what people consider "rich." I suppose it's all relative, right?
posted by elizeh at 8:54 PM on December 13, 2011

"My aunt and uncle lived in a third-world country for a while--they lived in an expat subdivision and had a maid who cooked, a nanny, and a groundskeeper."

Oh yeah, I didn't realize that you were going afield - this is still the case. Most people I know, whether expats or people born there, have exactly the staff you mention. Actually, it's usually a couple of gardeners/groundskeepers, plus a general handyman/plumber sort. None of them are over the top wealthy - as you mentioned, the cost of help is much more inexpensive than it would be in the States. Plus, there's a bit of a social stigma to (gasp!) doing your own housework and laundry. When I lived there, I had a maid that came once a week, but this was familiar to me - we had a maid/nanny (here in the US, that is) when I was younger, and my grandmother had a maid plus a handyman/gardener. In the case of my parent's maid, it was on a first name basis all around, but in all the other cases, last names only.
posted by HopperFan at 9:23 PM on December 13, 2011

I know some wealthy people (although this is in Australia, not in the USA) - those worth multiple millions. All those I know are socially active and involved in charity; some are retired. I don't think I know any with live-in staff.

Several of the wealthy elderly ladies have a secretary who does things like manage their personal appointments, do their mail, help with shopping, etc. A couple of families have live-out nannies but I don't know anyone with a live-in nanny. There are people to do the garden, cleaners, and cooks who come in for special occasions or big dinners. If they don't want to drive, instead of having a chauffeur they'll generally have a relationship with a particular chauffeur company and will often have a preferred driver there.

This is Australia so most of them are fairly casual with names - staff tend to be on a first-name basis with employers they are familiar with and vice-versa. I do know a couple of Ladies whose secretaries call them Lady Thingummy although they've worked for them for decades, but then again I also know some Ladies and Sirs who emphatically prefer not being called Sir or Lady Thingummy.

(Sidenote: I always do a double-take when I see people in other countries talk about having a maid because we don't use that term here and it seems so Upstairs Downstairs!)
posted by andraste at 10:07 PM on December 13, 2011

Yeah you don't get servants if you're in the 10%, which is "only" $82k/year, and not -- in all likelihood -- even if you're in the 1%, which is something like $400k/year or so and up.

It depends on the cost of living and certain labor/capital tradeoffs, though. As you are aware, in some places (mostly outside the US), labor is so much cheaper that it makes sense for people who would be middle-class in the US to have a small army of live-in servants. However, my experience in places like this is that their households typically don't have things like laundry machines or dishwashers, instead relying on human labor. Or even vacuum cleaners, depending on where you go in the world. There is a lot more human labor spent on stuff that would be automated, in some fashion or another. (Pre-prepared food is another example of a non-obvious labor/capital tradeoff.)

The net result is that I think there's a certain amount of time that someone -- typically a female homemaker -- spends on household chores for a certain income level, beyond which it makes sense to start expending income on it. But in some places the way you solve the problem is with labor, and in other places the way you solve it is with capital (machines, in other words). Obviously it's more complex and there's a lot of inequality that keeps it from being straightforward as to where the tradeoff points lie, but I think the decisions being made are basically consistent.

But anyway, due to the high level of mechanization and high preference for capital over labor in the US (and most of Europe), it's difficult for someone to maintain a big household staff unless they're pulling in a few million bucks a year. And even then, it's likely that most people who take down that much live more modestly -- I'm not sure how many households there are with domestic help, but probably not as many as there are millionaire-income-earners.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:44 PM on December 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

elizeh I find this all very interesting, even what people consider "rich." I suppose it's all relative, right?

It is. In NYC, cops, firefighters, union carpenters and teachers all can earn >$82,000 a year. Maybe that puts them in the top 8%. I know plenty of them and they do not even employ once-a-week house cleaners.
posted by mlis at 12:13 AM on December 14, 2011

My wife has an aunt that is rich. They live in old brookville long island (considered the gold coast) and have a house in the hamptons, italy and france. They are considered I guess the 10 percent .Millionaires but not huge millionaires .

They have 2 maids and thats it. No drivers or anything like that.

Keep in mind the REAL rich are rich because they do not spend their money. Like my wifes family they will have a maid or two but thats it. I do not think they have a new piece of furniture in their hosue.
posted by majortom1981 at 4:49 AM on December 14, 2011

Anecdotal; from a friend who worked as an au-pair in Australia (she was Canadian) everyone just used first names. she would just call the dad greg or whatever his name was.

The cleaner who came once a week to clean my mothers house when I was a teenager. everyone used first names.
posted by mary8nne at 4:51 AM on December 14, 2011

I don't know if this is as popular as it was, but one thing certain "rich" people would do is live in a nice hotel as their "city" home. Like an apartment, their suite would be their own, but able to take advantage of the hotel's services for laundry, maid and concierge kinds of things.

(I'm not even near the top 10%, and I've considered moving into one of those $250 a week executive suites kinds of places. Just as expensive as my rent/mortgage, and no utility bills, closer to work, etc. I didn't do it because I'd have to put a lot of my stuff into storage.)
posted by gjc at 5:54 AM on December 14, 2011

My grandmother had a live-in couple who worked as cook/maid/butler/shopper etc. They called my grandmother Mrs. last name and we called them by their first names. This was in Florida as late as the mid-1980s.
posted by emelenjr at 6:19 AM on December 14, 2011

I grew up as an expat kid in Asia. In Singapore, we had an maid and a gardener and we called them by their first names. In turn, they called my dad Master (then his first name) and my mom Mrs (then her first name.) My sister and I were simply called by our first names.

In Indonesia, we had a maid, a houseboy and two drivers. Each was called by their first name, or in the case of one of the drivers a shortened version of his full name, sort of like a nickname, which he preferred. Each of the home staff called my dad and I Master (first name) and my mom and my sister Miss (first name.)
posted by lstanley at 7:56 AM on December 14, 2011

A tiny bit tangential, but in my experience growing up in the Deep South and then living in Westchester County, one of the main distinguishing characteristics between new and old money is both how they referred to and treated "the help." The old money invariably treated people working for them with a great deal of deference and even camaraderie. The new money treated them...differently.

This is not to excuse the behavior of any kind of money of any sort in this economy.

However, this may or may not have an influence on what they call you or what you call them or what their actual job titles are.
posted by digitalprimate at 10:52 AM on December 14, 2011

In India where I grew up, we had a maid for cleaning a couple of hours a day, and a live-in cook who doubled up as a sort of nanny. We called them by their first names, and they called my parents "Mother" and "Sir" (sounds less odd in our language) respectively, and used the affectionate names for "Daughter" and "Son" for us kids. We never had a driver, but I know lots of families that do, and many of them will simply call him "Driver" (in English).
posted by redlines at 12:29 PM on December 14, 2011

This might be a derail, but I just want to point out that there's a lot of nostalgia surrounding relationships between those with money and their household staff, in particular in the South. Then, as now, those relationships were as varied as any human relationship and I think it's worth it to be careful about either romanticizing the past version of that dynamic or praising the current version for being more "casual" or "professional." Those relationships are always complicated and they are always unique.
posted by Polyhymnia at 12:31 PM on December 14, 2011

When I was growing up, we had multiple household staff members. (For context, this was near a large city in the American Midwest, about 20 years ago.) This is what it was like when I was a teenager:

We had one gentleman, "John," [not his real name] who did miscellaneous household and outdoor maintenance, errands, and drove those of us not of driving age wherever we needed to go. We called him by his first name, and he called us (and our parents) by their first names.

We had one woman, "Jane," who helped around the house in more stereotypically female ways: getting us kids up and about, cooking, light cleaning, grocery shopping, and so on. She didn't live with us full time, but she did stay at our home with us when our parents travelled. She also called us by our first names, and we called her by her first name.

We had two house cleaners who came in two days a week every week. Again, we were on a first name basis for them.

Neither John nor Jane lived with us, but they were a significant part of our lives from the time we woke up until the time they left in the evening, usually before dinner. They played ball with us and swam with us in the pool.

My aunt's family had live-in help, and I recall her maid wearing a uniform and staying behind the scenes as much as possible. I was always struck by how ridiculous that seemed, but we were generally an informal, somewhat chaotic family.

I think that if my parents had been more pretentious folks, they would have added personal trainers and golf coaches, but that wasn't their thing.
posted by metarkest at 4:32 PM on December 14, 2011

A related question that I've found rather fascinating over on Quora: What does it feel like to be rich?
posted by craniac at 12:34 PM on December 23, 2011