Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Having a Servant Is Not a Right

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 235 posts

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#41

Post by akshtest »

Typical idiotic argument by NYTimes, As someone who had multiple servants working at my home (a cook and cleaner), so that my mother could work at her job. I find the argument "If you can't pay a decent wage, don't hire one" idiotic. Wages are determined by market, and in case of our house, we routinely had to give a raise as well as bonus near holidays. Simply because reliable servants are hard to find. Who determines the "Decent" wage, idiots at NYTimes?

This is the same misguided argument against garment factory workers from Bangladesh and FOXCONN workers in China. Rest of the world does not have the luxury of Social Security, Food Stamps, Medicaid and a ridiculous minimum wage.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#42

Post by btgeekboy »

bane wrote: post #7

> Last week, I watched with bewilderment as India’s most vociferous talk show host, Arnab Goswami, repeatedly asked his guests if they expected an Indian diplomat who is paid $4,180 a month to pay her domestic servant $4,500 a month. Meanwhile an American guest, Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, tried to make a point: “If somebody cannot afford to have domestic help, then they don’t have domest…

Perhaps the mechanic is not a servant because he's performing a skilled trade for multiple people.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#43

Post by yummyfajitas »

The numbers in this article don't make sense. The article complains that servants in India receive earn $64-161/month (4-10,000 rs/month). India's median income is only 53,000rs/year. So according to the article, the average servant in India is earning between 1x and 2.5x the median income.

(These numbers are skewed a bit due to the rural/urban divide.)

I have no idea what is "exploitative" about this. The article talks about paying Indian servants low wages by "any objective standard", which I assume means US standards. This is true but silly - it's not just the servants with low income, even the masters are dirt poor by US standards.

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServ...

http://dipeco.uniroma3.it/public/WP%20163%20Liberati%202012....

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#44

Post by bjourne »

bane wrote: post #7

> Last week, I watched with bewilderment as India’s most vociferous talk show host, Arnab Goswami, repeatedly asked his guests if they expected an Indian diplomat who is paid $4,180 a month to pay her domestic servant $4,500 a month. Meanwhile an American guest, Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, tried to make a point: “If somebody cannot afford to have domestic help, then they don’t have domest…

> I'm curious though, where does the concept of "servant" actually end? Is my mechanic a servant? Or is he not because I go to his place for him to do the work instead of having him come to mine?

A mechanic is a specialist. You likely can't repair your car so you have to purchase that service. Servants are just a plain time-to-money arbitrage. A maid isn't significantly better at vacuuming than you are, so you are just trading a surplus of your money for more free time.

And yes it is exploitative in that it puts a much higher value on your time than on your servants. Suppose a maid saves you 1 hour/week in household chores which you then use for working, earning you $X. But you only pay your maid $Y, a value likely much smaller than $X. The difference between the values is how much your maid has saved you by doing household chores for you.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#45

Post by petilon »

According to the story, servants only earn about $64 to $161 per month, which is too little. Author also opines that if someone cannot afford to pay more for domestic help then they shouldn't have domestic help.

That's easy to say. That's like saying it is better to starve than work for $64 to $161 per month. If that's the most the employer can afford to pay you, why wouldn't you take it, as opposed to starving?

Indian salaries are low across the board. A school teacher may get paid around $320 per month. If that school teacher wants to hire domestic help for $160 per month, and the alternative for the would-be servant is starvation, what's wrong with taking that job? What's wrong with the school teacher hiring that help?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#47

Post by mjn »

toufka wrote: post #16
bane wrote: post #7

> Last week, I watched with bewilderment as India’s most vociferous talk show host, Arnab Goswami, repeatedly asked his guests if they expected an Indian diplomat who is paid $4,180 a month to pay her domestic servant $4,500 a month. Meanwhile an American guest, Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, tried to make a point: “If somebody cannot afford to have domestic help, then they don’t have domest…

Having lived in the US, and then having encountered 'servants' in other countries, a striking difference is the respect for the person when they are not 'on duty'. In the US, when I go to a restaurant, I am being 'served', but after the waiter gets off work he's a full and equal neighbor of mine under both law and custom. A lifetime servant is conditioned to be deferential, in every part of their life, not just while…

In the US, when I go to a restaurant, I am being 'served', but after the waiter gets off work he's a full and equal neighbor of mine under both law and custom.

That's definitely true. An interesting cultural difference even further in that direction, that I noticed as an American who moved to Denmark, is that in Scandinavia the equality extends even into the restaurant. I'm not really being "served" at a restaurant, but rather the expectation is that we're interacting in a professional setting as equals. Perhaps partly due to culture, partly due to the lack of tipping, and partly due to the fact that the waiter likely has the same socioeconomic position as their customers, there isn't really an obsequious service-oriented relationship, and it's definitely not the case that the customer is always right. It's more like, their job is to take care of business at the restaurant, and they'll aim to do it well but expect respectful treatment in return, like any other professional employee in any other job.

(It's possible things are different at really high-end places that aim to impress international customers, like the $200/plate restaurants and $500/night hotels, but I don't have any personal experience patronizing such establishments.)

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#48

Post by x0054 »

bane wrote: post #7

> Last week, I watched with bewilderment as India’s most vociferous talk show host, Arnab Goswami, repeatedly asked his guests if they expected an Indian diplomat who is paid $4,180 a month to pay her domestic servant $4,500 a month. Meanwhile an American guest, Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, tried to make a point: “If somebody cannot afford to have domestic help, then they don’t have domest…

> Last week, I watched with bewilderment as India’s most vociferous talk show host, Arnab Goswami, repeatedly asked his guests if they expected an Indian diplomat who is paid $4,180 a month to pay her domestic servant $4,500 a month. Meanwhile an American guest, Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, tried to make a point: “If somebody cannot afford to have domestic help, then they don’t have domestic help.”

I am not sure where the figure of $4,500 is coming from. $9.50/h * 60 hours * 4 weeks is $2,280/month. I am using 60 hours a week rather then 40, considering that servants probably work longer hours. The US law was clearly broken in this case because the servant was not part of the diplomatic staff and was brought to this country under false pretenses.

However, to all of you who are now screaming for equality, please remember that in India the solution of "if you can't afford to pay your servant well, you should not have one" is NOT a solution. The simple fact is, there are a lot of middle (and lower middle) class people in India who can not (or will not) pay their servants more than they already do. If the laws pass that require servants to be paid more, some servants will be lucky enough to make more money as a result, others will starve to death because they will go from making $64/month to nothing at all. Unless you first address the issue of people willing to work for such a low wage, because they have no other options, you will only cause further misery.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#49

Post by peter-fogg »

sliverstorm wrote: post #20
al2o3cr wrote: post #14

"India is furious that the diplomat, Devyani Khobragade, was strip-searched and kept in a cell in New York with criminals." Because wage theft isn't at all like those nasty crimes everybody else does, amirite? Well, it is slightly different - it's only committable by people who have enough cash to pay wages. So in short: "waddya mean I'm a criminal? I'M RICH!"

Well, it's white-collar crime. Even Americans are not entirely happy with white-collar criminals getting thrown in with blue-collar criminals. Not because of classism, just because white-collar criminals are non-violent and it doesn't seem right to throw an embezzler in with cutthroats & muggers.

It's worth remembering that a large portion of blue-collar criminals are arrested for possession of, say, a small amount of marijuana. There's a big difference between mugging someone and lighting a joint.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#50

Post by ars_technician »

sliverstorm wrote: post #36
imsofuture wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cutthroats aren't a thing, and muggers are desperately impoverished. It's classism.

So you feel there's nothing wrong with placing non-violent criminals in with violent criminals?

Being violent is not a choice, you are just forced to be violent by circumstances. /s
Post reply on HN