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

91–100 of 235 posts

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#91

Post by kamakazizuru »

bitops wrote: post #60
x0054 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 tryi…

yes it is very much a cultural thing (see my longer comment) & often just makes economic sense. The argument that they are underpaid is relatively flawed. Servants in cities make much more than they would make if they stayed in their towns or villages an did nothing / worked on someone elses farm. If there is a minimum wage in all sectors with unorganized labour (construction, farming etc) - then yes - these people will be tempted to move there. But really - if you're making 10x cleaning a few houses a day - which is in no way risky / life threatening - why would you go work on a construction site or spend your days on a farm in 30+degrees C of heat?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#92

Post by kamakazizuru »

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…

actually people would still hire them - on the black market - with lower wages - just like most of the agricultural sector in the US with mexicans. You cant stop the free market.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#93

Post by skue »

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…

Your response perfectly illustrates the flawed attitude the author was describing. Can you not hear yourself? You are calling another human being a "perk"!!!

Enough with the semantic arguments:

1. Calling a servant an "au pair" or a "perk" doesn't make her less of a human being.

2. ALL human beings have rights, and in the US those rights include employment protections, such as a minimum wage.

3. It doesn't matter what "perks" the diplomat was promised. She cannot violate another's legal rights because she feels entitled to a servant (excuse me, an "au pair").

4. Shipping a human being overseas to be a servant with the expectation that they will be underpaid doesn't make this okay. On the contrary, that's ominously close to human trafficking.

5. Asking to be released from unjust and illegal labor conditions and proposing a settlement for back-pay and damages IS NOT BLACKMAIL! (If it were blackmail, why is the servant not being prosecuted for extortion? Answer: because it's not blackmail!)

6. The arrest really isn't about the servant (Ms. Richard). Ms. Khobragade is being prosecuted by the federal government for a crime committed against the federal government. She lied on a federal form, which is a felony right there. She also did so to cover up that she violated the minimum wage law. That's why she was arrested.

7. All the talk about servants that has arisen in Western media and online is due to India's response and how stunned we in the West are that there are still people on this planet who can be this inhumane (as your comment sadly illustrates).

Edit: Grammar fixes.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#94

Post by x0054 »

genwin wrote: post #69
x0054 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 r…

You can not compare low paid workers in US to the once in India. US has some social safety nets. Admittedly, not a lot, but US has food stamps, and assistive housing, and an economy that's working, maybe not well, but well enough. India has none of those. Many people in India lack basic things like drinking water. You can not compare the two.

Lets say tomorrow India passes a law that requires, under penalty of jail, for everyone to pay their servants at least $X per month, and as a result of this law 20% of the servants loose their job. If the government does nothing to support those people, what's going to happen to them?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#95

Post by genwin »

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…

That's murky relevancy since there was a self-defense angle to it.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#96

Post by superuser »

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...)

How dare you agree with the Heritage Foundation and its crazy libertarian views.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#97

Post by kamakazizuru »

bicx wrote: post #85
bjourne wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes - this is my point too - from an elitist western perspective it maybe exploitation - but the servants are not indentured slaves who dont have an option to go find better paying work! They are earning what the market is ready to give them and all of Indias middle class didn't get together one day and decide to manipulate that rate!

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#98

Post by rgbrgb »

atlantic wrote: post #82
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…

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…

Yeah, Floyd Mayweather is a pretty good example of typical American life.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#99

Post by kamakazizuru »

phaer wrote: post #57
sliverstorm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

such as?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#100

Post by serge2k »

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…

Being able to obtain the visa is fine, but the servant should have been paid properly.
Post reply on HN