Having a Servant Is Not a Right • Hacker News Board

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#51

Post by moron4hire » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:18 PM UTC

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?

I think, to say that they don't belong in the same prison together, would require a certain acceptance of the current state of things as "natural". One would have to accept that the violent conditions of maximum security prisons are an unavoidable situation. And one would also have to accept that even minimum security prison is as equal deterrent to crime as maximum security prison.

Given what we know about prison guard misconduct and how countries like Norway handle their most violent offenders, I don't think it is the case that prison has to be terrible, violent, places. In every case I've ever heard of, compassion and rehabilitation for criminals of all types is the best way to reduce recidivism. Punishment turns out to not be that much of a deterrent for desperate people who think they screwed either way.

And given that minimum security federal penitentiaries have the nickname "Club Fed", it would seem that they don't serve as a very significant deterrent.

The full, correct answer is that the entire prison industrial complex needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Unfortunately, there is too much money in it for that to happen anytime soon in America.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#52

Post by tokipin » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:22 PM UTC

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.

i don't see the problem. crime -> prison. it seems classist to me to not throw them all into the same place

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#53

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:23 PM UTC

asimov42 wrote: post #25

Isn't it obvious this is the result of a country of extremely low average income and extremely high population? Of course it would be great to have even a semblance of equality, but I dont see a solution given the current economic model.

Low average income, but extremely low median income. There's nothing obvious or inevitable about that.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#54

Post by gaius » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:25 PM UTC

bjourne wrote: post #44

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 ju…

I don't think this is a good model. F'rinstance you can have something delivered or drive to the store yourself. Are you "exploiting" the postman? Do you think he feels exploited?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#55

Post by bitops » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:25 PM UTC

petilon wrote: post #45

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? Indi…

I think what you may not be considering here is that there's a broader point being made about what constitutes a "living wage." Of course it's better to get some money rather than nothing. But if the money is below the minimum wage and/or below a living wage, it forces the "servant" to either live close to poverty or work multiple jobs.

Also, what's being touched on is a notion of entitlement. For instance, I hire somebody to periodically come and clean my house every few weeks. I pay well, way above what they asked for - both because they do a good job and because I know it's a hard way to make a living. When I made less money, I cleaned my house myself, and I never felt a sense of entitlement or right to that help.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#56

Post by arsenerei » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:25 PM UTC

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?

I guess rather than what could be wrong with it, why do you think or feel it's necessary to have them separately placed? Is it that you believe non-violent offenders shouldn't be at risk to violence from violent ones? Do you find there to be a societal benefit to this? To the inmates? I honestly just want to know your take on this.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#57

Post by phaer » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:25 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #38

bradleyjg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of "blue collar" crimes that are non-violent. Some Americans have a problem mixing white collar and blue collar criminals because they are classist, like thier peers in India. This American thinks there should be one criminal justice system, not a seperate one for the rich (see e.g. affluenza).

Ok, then replace "blue collar" with violent and "white collar" with non-violent in my comment. I don't care which term we use, I just started with "white collar crime" because that's the most common term for financial crime, and "blue collar crime" (though an uncommon phrase) is the antonym.

It does not work like that because there is plenty of crime which is non-violent as well as not financial.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#58

Post by saalweachter » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:26 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #39

JulianMorrison wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling them non-violent is a mistake given the wake of chaos they leave. Sure, they don't personally swing a knife around - instead, they blow away economies, or at a smaller scale they leave people crying in the street next to their piled-up possessions and repossessed house. That's plenty violent.

I'm not trying to downplay their crimes. They are real, and they can be hugely damaging. But when we're talking about throwing people together in a box, it's an important distinction. Someone who destroyed an economy may be amoral, but they are still pretty unlikely to stab their cellmate as compared to a violent criminal.

What do you consider violent criminals?

Thieves? Drug users? Fences? Smugglers? Forgers? Vandals? Illegal immigrants? Heck, do you think being an arsonist makes you particularly likely to stab a guy in prison?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#59

Post by suprgeek » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:27 PM UTC

While this diplomat person as an individual is none too commendable (back home in India she is involved in some questionable property dealings [1]) - there is much more to the story than this shallow but seemingly introspective "article".

The lady (servant - according to the article) was brought in on an authorized "Au pair" visa. Indian Diplomats in the US are paid little in-terms of monetary benefits. Most compensation is in the form of "perks" that help in their day-to-day lives - this "au pair" benefit is one such perk.

While in the US this "au pair" ran away despite being (apparently [2]) treated well. Then there are serious allegations that she contacted a lawyer thru whom she tried to extort the diplomat [3].

No one is implying that having a "servant" is a right. Having an "au pair" was an accepted & Authorized perk. The article starts off with a wrong-headed premise and does some hand-waving from there.

Also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6947473 for the real motivation behind this incident.

[1] http://www.firstpost.com/india/adarsh-scam-devyani-khobragad...

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526719/Pictured-The...

[3] http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2013/12/18/richards-dema...

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#60

Post by bitops » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:28 PM UTC

x0054 wrote: post #48

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 domest…

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.

In a way, this sort of proves that not having a servant IS an option in India. If laws pass that push people not to hire help they can't afford, they will stop hiring. I know that's not the point you're trying to make, but it's worth considering.

That said, I'm curious: why you do you think people in India won't go without hired help? Is it a cultural/historical thing? Or something else? (I ask this not knowing your background).