How Government Destroys Jobs for Poor Women; D. Eiler

Traditionally in Western civilization there have been two ways in which unmarried women, with or without educations, could support themselves. One, of course, was the world's oldest profession, but the respect able one, the one with even a slight hope for a decent future was domestic service, from laundress or cook to nanny. In recent years the government has made the second choice virtually unattainable. In fact, labor regula tions have actually eliminated most of the market for casual domestic service. DntH a couple of decades ago, poor women did housework to put food on the tables for their families. Perhaps they didn't approach the job with much enthusiasm, but doing what must be done for themselves and their families must have produced more than a little satisfaction and self-esteem. Domestic workers were often employed Dorothea Eiler is a freelance writer who lives in San Diego and Rosarito, Mexico. Her book Baja Gringos is available in book stores nationwide.

by five or six households per week, often at very low wages. But cash wages went directly into workers' pockets, and nobody reported the income to the government. In those days casual domestic labor was ex empted from Social Security and other taxes. In effect those workers were probably at least as well off as most are on welfare today. Of course they didn't have any "bene fits," such as Social Security and health insurance. If a domestic worker was injured on the job, the employer often took her to the doctor for care, and though serious illnesses were a tragedy for all concerned, employers, family, and friends usually joined together and did what they could to assuage the difficulties. Thus many women, who would have been otherwise forced to go on welfare, found a way to care for and support their children. Instead of relying on daycare, they often took care of each other's children. But, then again, babysitters were not licensed, so they could charge very little. Sometimes the babysitter simply picked up a little "pin money" to supplement her husband's sal ary. Or domestic workers might take their children to work with them, teaching the youngsters the skills of housework and the dignity of earning a living as they were growing up. These children were then avail able to help in times of health or financial problems.

453 454 THE FREEMAN • JUNE 1996 This freedom to work without intetfer ence from the government kept women off welfare. It also enabled many households of limited affluence, young mothers, and eld erly people on fixed incomes to afford some one to help with the non-routine chores, thus making their lives a little easier. There was an extensive market for casual domestic labor. But now to hire a woman for casual labor in a home the employer must report to the state and federal government any wages paid. Legal identification must be estab lished. Payroll forms must be filledout every quarter, and in many cases checks must be sent for taxes withheld. The elderly couple or the busy young mother, who cannot afford both domestic help and accounting help, are often reluctant or even unable to handle the bookkeeping chores involved in the employment hassle. That simply elimi nates all but the very aftluentfrom becoming employers at all!

Some employers of domestic labor, those who can afford to pay more, now tum to cleaning services, but those businesses are burdened with workers' compensation in surance, liability insurance, minimum wage laws, health insurance, OSHA regulations (did you housewives know that window washing is considered a hazardous occupa tion?), and EEOC problems, thus pricing the service out of the market for a large segment of possible employers. Such rules and regulations also make hiring domestic workers more difficult, thereby further limiting the jobs available in the field. These sophisticated services are no substitute for the word-of-mouth, over the-back-fence employment agency that used to operate. The informal word-of mouth system of hiring and firingoften made allowances for the good domestic worker who was no longer young or was not very bright or not very fast. Such a worker could be tolerated by many individual employers, but is not suitable for hiring by a cleaning service. I once had a household cleaner who worked for me for years before I found out she was totally illiterate!

The market remains for unskilled, unin sured, and unbenefited help. And there are still countless immigrants who are willingto slip in to work without benefits or govern ment protection. They wouldn't have those advantages in their native lands, and they do not understand the laws and rules they are breaking. They fill the market niche that the government has made impossible for U.S. citizens to fill. It's all very easy for the politicians to say they will set a limit of five years on welfare recipients. And it's very true that welfare mothers would be better off working for a living. But where are these women going to work? One of the lowest rungs on the wageearning ladder has been largely re moved from the grasp of the women who would reach out for it. In making domestic jobs so difficultto provide, the government has limitedpoor women's opportunities more than liberation has broadened them. 0 OU~<, IC-'~ ~ THEFREEMAN IDEASON UBERTY Lord Acton Political Power Corrupts by Jim Powell F ew recognized the dangers of political power as clearly as Lord Acton. He understood that rulers put their own inter ests above all and willdojust about anything to stay in power. They routinely lie. They smear their competitors. They seize private assets. They destroy property. Sometimes they assassinate people, even mark multi tudes for slaughter. In his essays and lec tures, Acton defied the collectivist trend of his time to declare that political power was a source of evil, not redemption. He called socialism "the worst enemy freedom has ever had to encounter."