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

81–90 of 235 posts

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#81

Post by kamakazizuru »

The author shows a complete lack of understanding of India - and brings up completely unrelated topics (casteism?!) to support her already weak point. In fact - bringing up the Diplomats caste is her being racist (casteist? - dunno the right word but you know what I mean) herself. It's as if an American author were to say "well a few hundred years ago these black people were slaves - and now they dare to treat someone badly" - how is that a reasonable argument by any means?

Coming to the crux of the matter. Having lived in Bombay - and having had servants I can say that its in no means as "exploitative" as the author claims. Sure - an indian house helper earns less than an american does. So what? The median income in India is nowhere close to comparable to that in the US. An uneducated village boy - who would either earn a few hundred rupees (10-20 USD) a month working on someone elses farm in his village - is much better off coming to the city and earning more than five or six thousand rupees (100 - 120 $) a month in the city - with which he can also support his family back in the village who get by on subsistence farming. Many servants take on multiple jobs - earning almost double or triple of that. Which is NOT bad by any means considering he will often be provided meals and accomodation in addition to his salary. Its a simple calculation - the average IT worker earns approximately 40-5000 rupees after tax per month - assume if a couple - both employed in IT - earning around 100000 rupees per month - keep a maid to cook and clean - and pay her 10000 a month. Thats 10% of their salary - why is that exploitative? The maid is free to go take 2-3 others such jobs to fill her day and is easily making close to what the IT guys make. Until we reach a standard of literacy and education where everyone can make tonnes of money - this will continue - and its NOT a bad thing. A lot of families try to break the cycle by paying the school fees for their servants children or buying them the yearly textbooks etc - we did that growing up. At the end of the day - its a free market and these are not indentured slaves - if they find better paying work elsewhere (and often they do - cleaning malls and the like) - they go do that - and no one can stop them.

As for why people "need" servants - well - its a part of the culture and has a lot to do with economics as well. Right now - in a city like Bombay -its cheaper to have a servant who washes your clothes and cleans your house - than it is to have a washing machine (if you're lucky enough to have the space to fit one in) & a vaccuum cleaner. Its a dusty country - and you do need to clean more often than you do in the temperate regions. In families where all adults are working - it just makes sense to have a servant. Its economics and logic - not exploitation.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#82

Post by atlantic »

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…

I've never been to the US. But I recently watched a series of YouTube videos on Floyd Mayweather's personal life. He lives with a retinue of about a dozen very attractive female "personal assistants", ranging from the masseuse to the cook and the secretary. It was very clear from the videos that these people were on call 24/7, and their functions included sexual services. If this doesn't fit the definition of servant, then what does? The US seems to have an aversion to the concept of servant, not to the reality.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#83

Post by allochthon »

wozniacki wrote: post #80
allochthon wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American here. Watching this case intermittently, it's a little hard to fathom the seething anger in India. The matter seems fairly straightforward: - Rule of law applies, regardless the person; that's the theory, anyway. In practice, the laws tend to favor the wealthy and powerful; but whatever gets into the books tends to be applied as resources permit. In other words, this had nothing to do with the fact that the…

Ahem. Raymond Allen Davis is a former United States Army soldier, private security firm employee, and contractor with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). On January 27, 2011, Davis killed two reportedly armed men in Lahore, Pakistan. Although the U.S. government contended that he was protected by diplomatic immunity because of his employment with the U.S. Consulate in Lahore, Davis was jailed and criminally charge…

Yeah, good point. That would seem to be a clear exception to what I wrote.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#84

Post by notahacker »

arsenerei wrote: post #56
sliverstorm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many countries generally don't cage people suspected of crimes - but not convicted or even charged - in a small holding pen similar to those used to hold animals. Others do, but let people with means bribe their way into better conditions...

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#85

Post by bicx »

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…

Isn't exploitation based on the idea that you're manipulating some part of the system to pay someone less than they're worth? If maids are typically worth $Y and you pay the maid $Y, that seems fair to me.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#87

Post by kamakazizuru »

wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #70
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…

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.

the "caste crap" has increasingly less to do with people being "servants" - its more an income and education thing. In fact - being from a "lower caste" in India - actually makes getting into the IITs (best engg. colleges) & IIMs ( best management colleges) and pretty much everywhere else a cake walk due to flawed affirmative action programs.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#88

Post by winstonx »

The moral of the article is "it's wrong to exploit the impoverished." It's easy to apply that moral to other cultures and societies, but difficult to apply to one's own.

Indians deny injustice when it gives them servants just like Westerners deny injustice when it gives them iPhones.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#89

Post by mjn »

bitops wrote: post #62
mjn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ab…

It could just be because I tend to find American customers really over-bearing and unreasonable (the "customer is always right" thing makes some people feel entitled to be jerks towards staff), but to me the Danish non-service feels refreshing, though I've definitely heard other people describe it as "bad service". I don't feel it's particularly bad service myself; stuff generally gets done fine, and it's not like I'm waiting hours for my food or they're dumping things on me or anything. They treat me the same way I'd treat someone at work at my own job: well and professionally, but not as if I'm their servant and must please them at all costs.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#90

Post by sjtgraham »

allochthon wrote: post #75
suprgeek wrote: post #59

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 compensa…

American here. Watching this case intermittently, it's a little hard to fathom the seething anger in India. The matter seems fairly straightforward: - Rule of law applies, regardless the person; that's the theory, anyway. In practice, the laws tend to favor the wealthy and powerful; but whatever gets into the books tends to be applied as resources permit. In other words, this had nothing to do with the fact that the…

AFAIK she lacked diplomatic immunity and only had consular immunity, i.e. immunity only extending to consular functions.
Post reply on HN