The FT has reported:
The exodus of wealthy UK residents following last year's Budget has hit the market for butlers, housekeepers and security guards in London's largest homes.
Many of the rich non-doms who left the UK after changes to the tax regime have kept their houses but no longer had full-time staff, according to Caroline Baker, who provides management service for luxury properties.
They added:
Baker added that the downsizing of full-time staff meant it was now “easier to find good-quality, high-calibre candidates” who can start immediately.
My immediate reaction was to think, 'First world problems'. And then I revised that to 'Elite problems, solved'. After that I got to, 'Is this what we're worried about?' Finally, I just thought, 'Really, you think that's worth reporting?'
Is the reason for keeping the non-dom rule that we want to ensure that the shortage in supply of butlers continues?
Of all the problems in the world, is the supply of staff willing to live at the beck and call of the ultra-rich the issue that now has to feature in the FT, and be the concern of our politicians?
Are the FT serious? This is really not an issue of concern, most especially when the world totters on the brink of fascism, genocide is a reality again, and climate change is continuing apace. And yet, the FT are worrying about demand for butlers.
This is an issue my series on wealth will look at.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Are you kidding ? Frankly all I can do at this moment is go outside and work in the veg garden. Insanity is everywhere else.
I’m not going out to tend my veg until the evening, its far to hot!
Apparently there are around 10,000 butlers in the UK, up from around 100 in the 80s. But don’t worry about them. It’s a global trade, so they should be OK.
Where did that data come from?
Here’s an extract from Wikipedia:
In 2007, the number of butlers in Britain had risen to an estimated 5,000. That number rose to 10,000 by 2014, consistent with increased worldwide demand.
I believe there are other sources like the Butlers Guild, and apparently the BBC.
Weird
And a sure sign we have a totally screwed up world.
A shortage of carers, except for the wealthy.
“Baker added that the downsizing of full-time staff meant it was now “easier to find good-quality, high-calibre candidates” who can start immediately.”
They need to relocate to Southwest Florida as there is a manager shortage of domestic workers and hospitality workers for all position.
LOL!
🙂
My first thought was to worry about all the maids, cooks and housekeepers out of work, joining the numbers of the unemployed.
Those skills are entirely transferable, and in demand.
The 10,000 butlers add to a picture of the real UK that helps us understand:
Why apparent contradictions (like pro-rich policies in a time of austerity) keep happening,
Why many progressive proposals are treated as naive, impractical, or “anti-business,”
And why even Labour governments can seem captured by elite interests.
It helps us see the size and scale of the problem that progressives need to face up to. Not easy.
Add to that builders, carpenters, gardeners, decorators, pilates teachers, golf instructors, pt instructors..the list goes on and on for the kind of people employed by the “wealthy”..
All of whom could so very easily work for others, or more socially usefully if the wealth of the wealthy was redistributed. What is it about the extraordinarily low multiplier effects of wealth that you do not understand?
There was an early 70’s Slovenian Communist PM Stane Kavčič, notable for his liberal and economic reforms, who said when asked why he was so much against tourism (it’s a country between the Alps and Adriatic) – I’m not going to allow my people to become the nation of chamber-maids and baristas for rich Germans. We are capable of so much more.
Is Britain becoming the nation of chamber-maids and baristas for the world ‘elite’ something to be celebrated? Is that all Britain is capable of? Some people might think so, but I’d strongly disagree.
Interesting question
Good. We need workers to care for the sick and elderly, install solar panels, insulate houses, build houses..
Butlers indeed!
You assume that the article has an element of truth and not just spin to try to spread the story that the rich especially non Dom’s are leaving. Whoever wrote it could have a brief to spread what are basically lies, either from within the FT ( read by mostly the asset stripping classes and with major links to the big vested interests ) or a freelancer with encouragement ( financial or otherwise) from a vested interest.
It could also be covertly sponsored by Servile Staff Employers Federation ( or alike ) to try to drive down Butlers and other servants pay.
There was that book ‘Butler to the World by Oliver Bullough – not sure if it had an estimate of how many actual butlers there are.
I think the “butlers” referred to in Oliver Bullough’s book were bankers and lawyers. The sort of professionals who were prepared to launder wealth and store it away somewhere safe. The Caymans?
Agreed
Apparently the super-prime property market is flourishing – so much for the wealth exodus although no doubt some of these properties are being bought as safe investments but that’s long been the case.
https://www.cityam.com/super-prime-london-property-market-flourishing-despite-non-dom-reforms/
What I took away from this is that they’ve left the UK, but kept their houses. Presumably they’re not listing them on AirBnB, so why? I would guess it’s because to them, their expensive houses are not primarily homes but assets, along with all the other things they own that bolster their “net worth”, so it’s irrelevant to them whether any particular one is occupied or not.
Could also be that they expect either this government or the next to reverse this measure.
I will address this in the wealth series – but the fact is that their assets are remarkably immobile – despite what is claimed
And, have the really left? That’s the question.
Yes they have – plenty of evidence to support this. Why don’t you believe the evidence?
The article suggests that they have not.
What’s your evidence? No one can find it.
Good, I thought I was getting the wrong end of the stick here. I find it difficult to believe that the far too wealthy would leave Gwobal Bwitain. Life here is easy for them. Why would they leave it behind.
Posh estate agents and other parasitic suppliers to the rich can write as many boo hoo stories about rich people being unfairly treated. I have great difficulty believing that narrative.
I think they are game playing, as usual
It’s really hard work protecting your wealth…
As I will explain in a video soon, that’s all they nhave time to do
What they are not is entrepreneurs or wealth creators
Maybe it’s the heat and I need a lie down, but I thought I’d look into it a bit more, with ChatGPT help. Here are some estimates it’s come up with which it assures me are “reasoned”, showing where the 10,000 are employed. It gives a bit of context, and makes it all look a bit less barking. But not much. My earlier comments about the State of the Nation still apply, I feel.
Private households – UK nationals ~2,000 ~20% Predominantly aristocracy, old money, and newer UK-based UHNW individuals.
Private households – foreign nationals ~3,000 ~30% Includes non-doms, rotating international residents, and second-home owners in London or the countryside.
Luxury hospitality (hotels, clubs) ~2,000 ~20% Includes roles at top-tier hotels (e.g. Ritz, Savoy), private clubs (e.g. Annabel’s), and concierge services.
Training placements and academies ~1,000 ~10% Includes students in formal training, many from overseas, often employed temporarily.
Diplomatic, ceremonial, or institutional ~500 ~5% Includes royal households, embassies, historic estates (e.g. Blenheim Palace), government residences.
Yachts, jets, international rotation (UK base) ~1,500 ~15% Some live in the UK but are employed globally; UK-based between assignments.
This made me laugh. I could have had a butler but for the minimum wage. Probably only 30mins a month though.
Serious point, housing shortage in UK. Why not restrict ownership to UK tax payers/ residents? If the wealthy leave they sell their houses. What a dilemma for them.
We really do need freedom of movement
I come from what is, essentially a migramt family
“We really do need freedom of movement”
Agreed, but we ought not to conflate home ownership with freedom of movement. Why build more homes just for them to stand empty or be used a month or two a year, if at all.
Not owning a house here does not affect the right to enter and move around the UK.
But the denial of the right is deeply prejudicial
Interesting. In my view, our government, in a world of finite resources, has to balance out the rights of citizens. In this instance, there is a right to own and live in a UK home if we can afford to do so. This right to home ownership ought to end when we leave these shores so that there is more of a chance of there being sufficient housing for all. An end to homelessness is a laudable aim. UK citizens have the right to come and go from these isles as they wish. But they have a duty when they leave not to continue to consume valuable resources such as housing. To do so artificially pushes up the demand for housing and with it the price. Some in the UK, as a direct result of house price rises, lose their ability to house themselves and thereby lose their right to a home. It follows that the right to own a home in the UK is not an absolute one, nor has it ever been. But the right to home ownership is undermined with every home left empty by those no longer living here. This is because such empty homes drive up prices. Freedom of Movement is an absolute right for UK citizens. The right to house ourselves is relative to our ability to pay. It could be argued that this ought not to be the case, but it is at present. In the meantime, we have a duty to take action to hold down housing costs. To leave a growing number homeless while others leave housing locked up and unused seems to me to be morally reprehensible.
Oh come on. If someone goes abroad to work for three years they can’t be forced to sell their house. Can we stick to the politically plausible?
Not all Butlers serve the super rich. Long ago we had a member of Ipswich Quakers who was butler to two elderly sisters. Maybe nowadays he would be classed as a full time live-in care worker!
🙂
“ Oh come on. If someone goes abroad to work for three years they can’t be forced to sell their house. Can we stick to the politically plausible?”
Obviously if you go on holiday for a long weekend you don’t have to rent your house out. I do have friends that went abroad to work though and rented their house out. They subsequently sold after deciding not to come back. The policy on this would have timescales. It has to have a sophisticated approach.
We have to give this a go if we are serious about helping the 350k homeless in the UK. Actions such as this speak much louder than words
No, if we are serioius about those without homes we are serious about the empty homes here – not those owned by people who have left and let them. I have addressed this for years. See https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/02/03/an-empty-property-tax-my-2009-proposal-for-the-tuc-needs-to-be-revisited/
Totally agree. The approach you got the TUC to adopt 11 years ago is spot on
I was suggesting such an approach, but I focussed on why it was justifiable. I didn’t understand you comment about not being politically possible.
But just me crossing wires. On same page now.
I am pleased