Having a Servant Is Not a Right • Hacker News Board

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#61

Post by camus2 » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:29 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…

Yeah, why paying them at all , after all , they would be starving if they ware not slaves ... And folks like you are ok with slavery and exploitation...

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#62

Post by bitops » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:32 PM UTC

mjn wrote: post #47

toufka wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Heh...as a Danish person, I think part of that distinction also is that Denmark has a really bad service culture compared to the US. It does seem to be changing. But I feel like Danes are a pretty proud (and/or headstrong) folk with very strong (and sometimes misguided, see Janteloven) notions around class and equality.

I feel like many Danes who work in the service sector project this attitude that they're really above the work and that the customers are a complete imposition on their time and energy. That's why I'm always so impressed when I get a really nice waiter in CPH or just shopping at a grocery store like Irma.

I think you're right about the high-end places -- I've only been to one fancy place one (cause, yikes! the prices) and they did act very differently because it was so expensive. But by and large, yes, I agree, they tend to see it more as a "job" than "service."

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#63

Post by JoachimSchipper » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:33 PM UTC

JanezStupar wrote: post #15

FrankenPC wrote: post #8

Yeah. OK. I think any rational human would agree that the treatment of the servant was wrong. OTOH: NEVER violate diplomatic immunity rules! They are there to protect US...not THEM. You know, sort of like how it would be incredibly hypocritical to agree to international war crime laws then commit acts of torture and overthrow the sovereign ruler of a country. You can't do that! You...oops.

U.S. is not a member of ICC [1]. And regarding war crimes... You know that the Geneva rules only apply to enemy __combatants__ right? [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internati...

It is true that the U.S. is not specifically bound by the ICC, and that the Geneva protocols have never been held to apply to franc-tireurs, which is probably the closest analogue to "terrorist".

However, this has very little bearing on GP's main point about diplomatic immunity, which is a widely-observed custom going back to at least the Council of Vienna; apparently, it's even an official convention [1] nowadays. The U.S. can and should indeed be expected to respect that. (Yes yes, I know about Assange/Snowden, no need to bring it up again.)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic...

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#64

Post by whyenot » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:34 PM UTC

chasing wrote: post #2

> "If somebody cannot afford to have [X], then they don’t have [X]." To be fair, many Americans could take the same lesson. (And thanks for making me have to agree with the Heritage Foundation. Now I need to go take a shower and read some Paul Krugman columns...)

> "If somebody cannot afford to have [X], then they don’t have [X]."

suppose X = {health care, an education, a lawyer, ...}

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#65

Post by tokipin » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:35 PM UTC

akshtest wrote: post #41

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 determin…

i don't understand. for years my mom worked at her job (12hrs night shift, hard labor, without most of her fingers on one hand which she lost in an accident), cooked and cleaned, and took care of her young children

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#66

Post by camus2 » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:36 PM UTC

akshtest wrote: post #41

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 determin…

> Wages are determined by market

Yet there is a minimum salary you ought to pay in the USA. Your comment is rather idotic too if you ignore that fact.

> Who determines the "Decent" wage, idiots at NYTimes?

yeah , who?

> 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.

ok,I wont even bother answer that. When you find yourself in a dire situation , remember that comment you've made.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#67

Post by sliverstorm » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:36 PM UTC

saalweachter wrote: post #58

sliverstorm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

All of your listed crimes are not violent crimes in themselves, although any and all can commit violence in the course of their "profession" in which case, yes, they are now violent criminals.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#68

Post by droidist2 » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:36 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.

Would you also be opposed to raising the US minimum wage because of the same reason?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#69

Post by genwin » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:39 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.

Replace "servant" with any low-paying job. That's the old argument for ending the minimum wage. How many people starve to death in countries with a minimum wage? What actually happens is that wealth gets redistributed. The masses will revolt against the wealthy before they'd starve.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#70

Post by wrongc0ntinent » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:40 PM UTC

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…

You cannot figure out the "servant" business in India without considering the caste system. We get the income inequality side pretty well, it makes sense. But until the caste crap gets replaced by a different currency, being/having a servant is a different concept from a westerner's.