If I had the money to hire someone to clean my house, I wouldn’t need a damn “app for that.” I could throw a stone out my front door and hit fifteen or twenty people eager to clean my house, mow my lawn, deal with my scraggly oak trees, do my laundry, and any other job I could pay them ten dollars an hour to do.
Unless you are willing to exploit undocumented immigrants, house-cleaning (vacuuming, dusting, floor-washing and nothing else) goes for $120-$180. And it obviously doesn’t take 12 hours. Lawn-mowing is $40 but I’ve heard urban myths about somebody somewhere getting it done for $30. It’s a 20-minute job, not a 3-hour one. Handyman work is $40 per hour or $35 if the guy really likes you.
Mind you, I think this is great. Workers should not be exploited and should be able to make a decent living. But it gives you a little glimpse into why our ideological betters are so into bringing in undocumented immigrants.
It’s really weird that every time I mention I’ll be traveling to a conference several people at work ask me in horrified, hushed voices “But who’ll be taking care of Klara when you are gone?” while not a single person at church does.
It’s just bizarre that the reaction from the church ladies, even the elderly ones, is invariably, “Wow, that’s great! What’s the conference about? What’s your talk about? Which part of Spain are you going to?” And the reaction from academic ladies is very often, “And how does Klara feel that you are leaving her alone? Will she be sad? Have you made arrangements for Klara while you are away?”
No, I’ll just drop her in the woods and hope that wild wolves will take care of her. Because I’ve got to be just that kind of shitty mother if I dare to travel for work.
Another interesting headline in The New York Times:
Wall Street Donors Are Swooning for Mayor Pete. (They Like Biden and Harris, Too.)
Of course, the article is only interesting because the author is childishly stunned by “the surprising development” of Pete Buttigieg attracting crowds of Wall Street donors. Yeah, how surprising that the three most rabidly neoliberal candidates are pleasing to Wall Street. It’s a total shock.
The article refers to Buttigieg, Harris and Biden as “an unusual grouping,” as if the three weren’t virtual clones of each other in terms of their enthusiasm for neoliberalism.
People totally have their heads up their asses on political subjects. But at least, I’m pretty positive that nobody on this blog is shocked by the information this article communicates.
I just found out that Netflix released a mini-series titled “Law & Order: Hate Crimes Unit”! Starting Sarah Silverman and Kumail Kanjiani! And the first episode is based on Jordan Peterson!
The New York Times published an article titled “The Case for Gay Reparations.”
I’m thinking, how about fat reparations? Fat people suffer a lot, just ask Melissa McEwan. Or ugly reparations. It’s hard to be hideous! The women reparations, the short-statured men reparations, the victims-of-school-bullying reparations.
Everybody gets free money! And a victimhood ribbon!
This is what happens when the concept of civil rights is expanded from addressing a single, uniquely tragic experience such as slavery to include everybody who happens to have an identity they share with people who might have experienced unpleasantness a few decades ago. (I know, confusing. But there’s no other way to put it.) The article’s author so easily appropriates the language of the discussions about slavery that it becomes clear that he sees nothing in it but a good excuse to get free money. And that’s not funny.
Two guys took apart a Monsieur Cuisine kitchen appliance and discovered it had a microphone inside. The presence of the microphone was never revealed during purchase and is in no way justified by what the appliance (which is a blender-chopper-mixer type of gewgaw) is supposed to do.