I believe most of the households in my neighborhood have the skills and tools to fix their own stuff like that as well. At least half the households have at least a farm tractor. A number of them have metal working equipment. Some have heavy equipment like an excavator. People rent lifts and take down their own trees, etc... People don't do their own work because they're poor; some of the people have or had a fancy job, like a tech executive or an executive at a tool company or whatever. I think they're a bunch of extremely competent people.
That pattern likely goes back several generations. It does in my family. As I got into my 40s, I realized I was replicating the pattern my grandfather and great grandfather followed by setting up a "hobby farm" mainly because I don't really trust "the system". The "hobby farm" and the competent family is a pretty old scenario. It is and was the typical scenario in the Northern US, and also in several European countries. In the north of the US, the typical scenario for hundreds of years since Europeans settled the continent was a smallish "subsistence farm" which would provide some portion of necessities, maybe an income, plus a clever person might be able to do some type of value added labor as a small business, or maybe go work for others. The Amish people who live in my area follow this same pattern today.
In the southern US states, though, the plantation system created an aristocratic slave economy. The southern US could grow "cash crops" that were easily monetized by exporting them to Europe. Most of those crops were bulk commodities, like cotton, tobacco, sugar, or whatever, so the money-making model that "worked" was slave labor + giant plantation with minimal overhead. That enabled bankers and other "investors" in Europe to make money with their money by financing such operations too.
I was curious if this scenario persists today, and indeed, it does, though the regional differences get less stark as the generations go by. One bit of evidence for this pattern is the patents per capita by state in the US. There's an obvious split to this day. Basically the subsistence farmers turned into factory workers, engineers, etc... through the industrial revolution. The slave economy of the south, though formally destroyed almost 200 years ago, still affects the pattern of activity and investment in those states many generations later.
Note that "subsistence farming" like the northerners did 200 years ago was replaced with "subsistence factory work", that is a j-o-b, just over broke.
Another pattern that goes way back in the northern US is there is an often uneasy relationship between the wealthy "merchant class" and the northern farmer types who choose to help those people out with their businesses and schemes, versus slaves who were compelled into work. The US federal government serves as a proxy for the northern merchant interests and schemes.
It's interesting the southern plantation class was super influential early on in the US; many of the so called founders of the US were Virginia planters. The plantation owners' influence waned quickly after the very early days of the United States. Really it seems like the "Articles of Confederation" was the southern oriented organizing document of the US, then the US Constitution was the norther oriented one, even though the institution of slavery persisted for a while.
The "MAGA" movement is a great example of the uneasy relationship between the merchant class people, like Trump and his cronies, and the average dude. The merchant class wanted to reduce labor costs in the US and establish a new type of slavery by importing workers from overseas, or shipping jobs overseas. That undercut wages for the past 50 years. Periodically the merchants have to give the northern farmer types "a new deal". Trump's administration seems like a fraudulent new deal scenario. Some lip service is given to the concerns of the citizenry while the overall screw job of the merchant class continues and even significantly accelerated under Trump.
In the early US there was a conflict between northern subsistence farmer populations and the plantation owner/slave society. Slavery was ostensibly kept out of the "north" for moral reasons, but it was really about the subsistence farmers' ability to make a living. The idea that people who were wiping out the Indians were "moral" about blacks is pretty stupid.
Anyway, it's interesting these patterns last such a long time.



