[wtcactus]

My work is much more valuable than moving a broom around and washing some dishes. Anyone has the basic skills to clean a house, very few people have the skills to do advanced maths or physics, or engineering or even some forms of Mechanical labor.

The cleaning lady is not some rocket scientist, she is someone that has very low skills and therefore does low skilled labor: cleaning houses.

[JetSpiegel]

If her job is so worthless, why not go without and accept the (by definition) small diminishing utility.

This is false, having a clean house, clean dishes, cooked food is extremely valuable, but this is mot captured by money, because half of the population were basically indentured servants that were culturally expected to provide this work for free.

[wtcactus]

It wasn't for free. It was their work. Which, on average and until very recently, was much, much safer, and easier to do than the work of the other half of the population that had to leave the house and seek work to get a pay and allow the that half to stay at home.

[JetSpiegel]

That "on average" is load bearing, does it include Queen Victoria? Just like ICE "allows" people to stay at Aligator Alcatraz. They should be paying rent!

Of course, the indentured servants payed rent in kind, with their bodies, whether they like it or not.

[JetSpiegel]

> It wasn't for free

Say whaat? The woman's father literally paid good money to have her taken away. Everyone but the woman saw cash changing hands, but she was legally barred from owning property.

Freedom was for men.

[wtcactus]

Indulging for a moment that fantasy of yours about the purpose of dowries:

If the present “owner” paid “good money” to take her away, doesn’t that mean she was a liability instead of an asset?