This gets groans in the liberal arts/Portland/hippie/yuppie circles I run in, but having a housekeeper as an adult changed my life. In Mexico, it was the norm, it's kind of socially expected for you to employ someone if you can. And it freed up an incredible amount of my time, both in actually doing the chores but also just in thinking about them (which is easily twice as much and leads to not doing better things). Now as I watch my totally educated, employed, awesome girlfriends complain about their husbands/live in boyfriends/children's messes taking up a lot of their time, I just can't believe time away from their work to scrub bathrooms is considered ok because having a housekeeper is haughty. I now have no guilt in a housekeeper, and if the money I can earn is equal to or more than I'll pay for their time spent, done deal. But for other people it's a symbol of much more and that prevents them from considering it. A lot of 'wealthy' things are that way. Reducing taxes is one where I'd like a panel of wealthy people to just tell me how they do it. And then Offshore Banking 101 or whatever.
I grew up in Telluride, where the wealthiest people were often the scrubbiest looking and the full length fur coat people were trying too hard because they were stretching their monetary limits. Sharon Stone once asked me to babysit, and I said no because of volleyball practice and then later saw her in a gorgeous car and had it all explained to me, she'd just looked like a lady in a park. Which she was, and it's a good lesson for a kid. I've later found it really valuable, especially kicking around a place like San Francisco, to be attuned to who is interesting rather than who looks wealthy. I have a friend who cares very much about Ivy education, and is convinced that the wealthiest people look it at all times. Not so, but I can see why it's dazzling. You have to build a tolerance to wealth and celebrity.