There’s something absurd about paying someone $25 an hour to maintain a $15 million property. Not absurd in the sense that $25/hour is bad money – it’s decent pay for housekeeping in most markets. Absurd in the sense that the value of what’s being protected versus what you’re paying to protect it is wildly misaligned. You’re trusting someone with comprehensive access to millions of dollars worth of property and possessions, expecting white-glove results, and compensating them at a rate that suggests the work isn’t particularly valuable.
Think about what a house keeper in a high-end home is actually responsible for. They’re cleaning and maintaining spaces with expensive finishes that can be damaged by using the wrong products. They’re caring for delicate fabrics and materials that cost more than most people make in a month. They’re handling artwork, antiques, collectibles whose value exceeds their annual salary. They’re protecting surfaces, fixtures, and systems that are costly to replace or repair. One mistake – using the wrong cleaner on that custom marble, scratching that table worth six figures, damaging that irreplaceable piece – could cost more than you’re paying them in a year.
The compensation doesn’t match the responsibility or the stakes. In what other context do you hand someone access to millions of dollars worth of valuable property and pay them roughly the same rate you’d pay someone working retail? You wouldn’t trust your $15 million in liquid assets to a financial advisor charging $25/hour. You wouldn’t trust your million-dollar art collection to a conservator charging $25/hour. But somehow it makes sense to trust your million-dollar home to a housekeeper at that rate?
Good housekeepers know this math doesn’t add up, and it affects how they think about their work and their careers. They’re being asked to care for and protect enormously valuable property while being compensated in a way that suggests the work is entry-level and easily replaceable. The message this sends is that anyone could do this work, that it doesn’t require particular skill or care, that the housekeeper themselves isn’t particularly valuable even though what they’re caring for obviously is.
What families often miss is that excellent housekeeping in high-end homes absolutely requires skill. You need to know which products won’t damage which surfaces. You need to understand how to care for expensive materials properly. You need to be detail-oriented enough to maintain spaces to a standard that matches what the spaces cost. You need to be trustworthy enough to work unsupervised around valuable possessions. You need to take pride in your work even when no one’s watching. These aren’t skills everyone has, and they’re not worthless.
The families paying bottom-of-market rates for housekeeping in high-end homes often end up with exactly what they paid for: housekeepers who are fine but not great, who do acceptable work but not beautiful work, who might damage something expensive because they don’t have the experience to know better. Then the family pays thousands to fix damage that could have been avoided by hiring someone with more expertise and compensating them appropriately.
Some families defend the low pay by saying housekeeping is just housekeeping regardless of what the house costs. The work is the same whether you’re cleaning a $500k house or a $15 million house, so why should pay differ? This ignores that the standards are different, the materials being cared for are different, the stakes are different, and the level of skill and care required is different. Basic housekeeping is one thing. Maintaining a luxury home to luxury standards is another thing entirely.
The compensation also affects retention. Housekeepers who are skilled enough to maintain high-end homes properly are skilled enough to command better pay in other roles or with other families. When you’re paying at the low end for work that requires high-end skill, you’re constantly cycling through housekeepers because the good ones leave for better opportunities. The cost of constant turnover – interviewing, training, the learning curve with each new person, the inconsistency in results – often exceeds what you would have spent just paying your excellent housekeeper enough to keep them.
Compare this to how the same families think about other roles. They’ll pay their estate manager $150k because they understand that managing their properties requires expertise and carries responsibility. But the housekeeper who’s actually touching those properties every day, who’s directly caring for the valuable finishes and furnishings, somehow that’s worth $25/hour? The logic doesn’t track.
What’s interesting is the families who do compensate housekeepers well tend to keep them for years and get consistently beautiful results. They’re paying $35, $40, $45 an hour for housekeepers who maintain their homes to exceptional standards. Those housekeepers stay because they feel valued, they take pride in their work because it’s appropriately recognized, and they have no reason to look elsewhere because they’re being paid what they’re worth. The family gets reliability, consistency, and work quality that actually matches their home and standards.
At Seaside Staffing Company, we push back when families want to pay bottom-tier rates for housekeeping in high-end properties. We explain that the compensation needs to match the home, the possessions, the standards being expected, and the skill level required. We show them the math of what one mistake costs versus what paying appropriately costs. We’re honest that if they want premium results protecting premium property, budget compensation won’t get them there. Some families adjust their thinking. Others insist housekeeping shouldn’t cost that much, and they struggle to find and keep anyone good because skilled housekeepers have better options than working for families who undervalue them.
