Why are house-elves associated with rich families, if they are not paid?

Question

In the second book, when Harry tells the Weasleys about Dobby, Fred says that "whoever owns him will be an old wizarding family, and they'll be rich", and George adds that house-elves "come with big old manors and castles and places like that".

Other mentions of owners (or masters) of house-elves in the books include Barty Crouch who is presumably well-off, Hepzibah Smith and the Black family, who are known to be very rich, and the house-elves of Hogwarts (which surely has some important numbers in their account at Gringotts).

Also, no mention of house-elves is done in the context of poor families, or even what could be middle-class families.

So, how come house-elves always seem to be associated with riches, when their work is not paid? Were they paid servants in some distant past?

To partially answer or offer perspective, I don't really follow the theory that the elves actually "come with the castle/house/manor", because it is explained more than once that the elves are bound to serve a family, and I take that to mean they keep serving them even if the family moves to a different house.

Answer 1

I have no canon information, but I think we can reason this out:

1. Servants are more useful if you're rich- Housework is hard. It's even harder in a large house. If you have an estate, you will pretty much need to hire people in order to keep it tidy. Why hire someone when you can get a house elf and not pay them?

2. You still have to feed them- If you are a single parent with three kids, you don't want to account for another mouth. They may not eat much, but they have to eat something.

3. Prestige- Not only for the family, but also for the elves. Hogwarts elves were, apparently, happy in their work (despite what Hermione may have thought). To be associated with a rich, powerful family may be a source of pride for them (Dobby notwithstanding).

4. Economics - There is likely an up-front cost for a house-elf. It is likely very high. I doubt an average middle-class family can afford to purchase the life of a sentient creature.

5. Scarcity- We don't know where house-elves come from, or what their society is like beyond what the wizards see, or even their lifespan. Do they reproduce? How frequently? How long is it before the child is independent? Is that child also sworn to the house of his/her parents? These factors might make it difficult to acquire a house-elf if you don't already have one.

6. Principles - If you are a middle class wizard, chances are that at some point you had to work really, really hard. Maybe you have qualms about unpaid labor? There is a tendency in the Potterverse for wealth and prestige to be associated with evil. Maybe good people are less likely to employ slave labor?

Answer 2

There really isn't any reason to complicate this beyond "house elves come with big manors".

The key is to realize that house-elves are like serfs, not slaves. They're not free, but they aren't property, either. Instead, they're bound to a property, in a totally practical sense (as opposed to a magical sense, though with house-elves there's doubtless a magical component, too): They can't move away from that property unless their liege-lord/master says so, and they are obligated to work at that property, unless their liege-lord/master says otherwise. What happens if the property they're bound to is sold is anybody's guess: if you take even a superficial look at the history of serf-hood, you'll realize that it was Complicated^TM. Basically, the answer to "Do they stay with the property (and serve the new owners) or do they go with the original family?" is "Yes."

But in any case, what this means is that the way for a family to acquire house-elves is to acquire a place that has house-elves, and since those kinds of places tend to big, expensive manors, it follows logically that you need to be rich to acquire them.

---

I don't really follow the theory that the elves actually "come with the castle/house/manor", because it is explained more than once that the elves are bound to serve a family, and I take that to mean they keep serving them even if the family moves to a different house.

If you're talking about old enough money, serving a family is functionally equivalent to serving the place they live. The two are not separable, at least not in the usual fashion. Think "awarded a noble estate", not "bought a house on Elm Street".

Answer 3

It's possible that placing house-elves with wealthy wizarding families with long histories in the wizarding world is wizarding tradition or perhaps even wizarding law. On the fourth floor of the Ministry for Magic is the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures Office for House-Elf Relocation. This suggests that the Ministry has some sort of policy or policies in place for placing a house-elf with a family. In Chamber of Secrets, as noted in the original question, house-elves are associated with wealthy families and/or old manors or castles. This would explain the presence of approximately 100 house-elves at Hogwarts -- Hogwarts is over 1000 years old. Wealth would explain why the families in question own house-elves while the impoverished Weasleys cannot. It's possible there are high taxes or assessments placed on owners of house-elves by the Ministry of Magic, which would explain why the Ministry has such a vested interest in where a house-elf is placed (i.e. the Ministry would want to place the house-elf in a home or work placement where it is almost guaranteed the Ministry can levy their taxes and collect that revenue). Canon doesn't dictate this, but there's a reason why the Ministry has a vested interest in where house-elves are placed, and, as always, revenue is always a priority for a bureaucracy. An idea anyway, as canon doesn't address this directly.

Answer 4

Although the house elves themselves aren't paid they would have been exchanged for money which would likely only be affordable for the rich families. Furthermore there would probably have been a social stigma involved with having slaves if you were rich so the more well off would have purchased house elves to prove their wealth. It was also a common trend that pureblood families were rich, probably due to inheritance, and amongst their inheritance would be the house elves.

Answer 5

Since house elves are a kept magical creature, the long established familes would be the only ones having them since there are no 'wild' house elves, they would be keeping them for generations (as shown by the house elves heads on the Grimald Place wall).

Due to their usefulness and powers that can arguably be superior to wizards, they would be loathe to part with even one for monetary gain, even if it was possible ('bound to serve one family'). They could go between family members, but they could never leave, unless they were freed.

The Hogwarts house elves make it clear they consider freed elves shameful, and Dobby's cheerfulness and seeking to make a money for himself un-natural, so they'd be shunned by the rest. His cheerful attitude was un-natural, if you took Winky's freedom as a 'normal' reaction.

Given this attitude towards freed elves, it's unlikely, if Dobby had lived, even if he found other freed elves, he would have ended up having any offspring.

Elves considered their families exsisted to serve their Wizard family; Winky probably wouldn't have children, even if she found another freed elf, because:

• They no longer have the motivation to provide more servants through having another generation born (logical elf motivation; providing for your family in the event of your death). Having children was decided by the masters probably, and she wouldn't feel worthy anymore, if it wasn't.
• The Hogwarts elves made it clear they did not consider freed elves appropriate; they were social pariahs, having been so bad they were cast out from their home. It's unlikely they would have had a child with something so inappropriate, and even then, since one parent isn't free, the child would be born owned by Hogwarts in all likelyhood.
• Their child would be born into the world, having no one to serve ('no purpose'); with Winky suffering this, she would not want her own hand to cause her own child to suffer such a terrible fate in an elf's eyes.

So, with the two house elves freed we know of, it's cannonically clear no born-free elves on the table anytime soon.