Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Domestic help was once available because there was an extreme surplus of dirt poor people.

After the economic boom due to rising productivity, there weren't enough dirt poor people willing to work for peanuts, and today things like minimum wage and various benefits programs make it easier to not work for so little money a middle class family can easily afford it.

People would rather buy cheap factory goods than the more expensive hand made ones because they prefer to spend money on other things instead.

Google says the average barber haircut in 1900 for a man (women often did their hair at home) was 25 cents, which is just shy of $10 adjusted for inflation. Most places around me offer basic haircuts for $20.

In 1900, only the state of Minnesota had a requirement for barbers to be licensed (it was the first state to do so, in 1897). No beautician school requirement, no licensure payments, no state or federal income or sales taxes.

In short, it's surprising that the rise in cost of a haircut hasn't been higher.

I think there's something to Baulmol's theory, but there's a lot of hand waving that isn't really supported as well by the examples given here or elsewhere that I've seen. That, or the effect isn't all that it is claimed to be; it's almost tautological that as supply of workers for a low paying job dries up, the wages for the job have to go up to retain workers.



> Domestic help was once available because there was an extreme surplus of dirt poor people.

That's precisely the Baulmol effect. When your next-best job is subsistence farming, being employed as domestic help is a step up. When your next-best job is (e.g.) something relatively well-paid in a factory or a phone exchange, being domestic help is no longer so attractive.

> That, or the effect isn't all that it is claimed to be; it's almost tautological that as supply of workers for a low paying job dries up, the wages for the job have to go up to retain workers.

I think we agree here. The mechanism of the Baulmol effect is pretty boring and pedestrian, but the outcome is surprising in aggregate. It's "why are we paying X times more for the same number of teachers?" and "why are there fewer tailors and more fast fashion?" and "why can't I find a handyman who won't refuse to fix something around my house because the job is 'too small'?" all wrapped up in one.


In most of the world, a haircut averages at $5.


In France the average man cut is between 15€ and 30€. You can find cuts at 8-10€ in poorer areas.

For reference, a visit to a family doctor is 30€, 28€ is reimbursed (you pay 2€ effectively)


> You can find cuts at 8-10€ in poorer areas.

It's not about poor areas. My city is middle-class AF and there's a 8€ barber there.

It's just that they have a list of exactly one haircut they apply to everybody, and a few more shaving styles.


Sure, this will depend on the region. I am west of pairs (middle-class AF as well :)) and the cheapest haircut is 13€ in a somehow shady place without any fancy information about the kind of haircuts.

Barbers are crazy priced (because hipsters and whatnot) and the typical chain (Jean Louis David) is 30€ or so.


The cost of goods does not change. It just means someone else is paying the 28 EUR part


Yes you are right of course - my main point was about the cost of an MD visit. The reimbursement part was just to flex about how our health insurance is good :) (unrelated to the discussion)


Not in Europe or any other developed country. Haircut is that cheap when worker lives on super low wage.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: