Having a Servant Is Not a Right • Hacker News Board

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#161

Post by evan_ » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 9:35 PM UTC

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…

Admittedly I haven't seen that video and I'm not very familiar with Floyd Mayweather but you should take anything you see on American light-entertainment television with a healthy dose of skepticism. It's likely the women were friends or actresses hired by either Mayweather or the production to act as staff during filming, to raise his apparent status. This is extremely common in "reality" television.

Not saying there's nobody in the US with a staff of 12 but it strains credulity- and the "sexual services" is definitely not true or he'd be up on charges.

If you post the videos someone can probably attest to the reputation of the program that produced it. Was it MTV Cribs?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#162

Post by wrongc0ntinent » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 9:35 PM UTC

kamakazizuru wrote: post #139

wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your sample is too small. India is more of a fragmented subcontinent than a country. There is no "city like Bombay" (other than Mumbai).

eh... Bombay is Mumbai - and since the author referred to her life growing up in Bombay / Mumbai - the comparison applies. That said - Bangalore, Delhi, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Chennai - are all comparable to a reasonable extend to Bombay.

That really depends on your definition of "reasonable". I'm not saying you don't have a good point about the economics of it, that would be the one thing included in "reasonable" metrics. But the fact is that all of the cities you listed have different versions of everything from traditions to religion to language. Ignoring that gets you nowhere when talking about India, though politicians and nationalists would have you believe otherwise.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#163

Post by rhizome » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 9:39 PM UTC

kamakazizuru wrote: post #142

smegel wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well he may well have been conducting official business when the crash occurred, meaning it would be quite justified to claim diplomatic immunity. Underpaying a worker in a domestic situation has nothing to do with official consular business. The US is taking a very strong stand that it will not tolerate abuse and exploitation in its borders, even under the guise or protection of diplomatic activity.

right - then maybe the US should take a look at California where Mexican agricultural workers are severely underpaid. That's just one example. But then again - someone has to harvest those avocadoes right?

To be sure, the people and companies who own those farms are some of the strongest opponents of immigration laws.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#164

Post by bradleyjg » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 9:41 PM UTC

smegel wrote: post #160

bradleyjg wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most objectionable parts of this whole story is that an Indian court put out a warrant for this woman's arrest for quitting her job ("absconding") and then took her husband and child into custody! Complaining about barbaric treatment when you have legally enforced indentured servitude and punish family members for alledged crimes, is real chutzpah.

> then took her husband and child into custody! Holy crap! I have been following this fairly closely and had not read that. Do you have a link?

http://mdaily.bhaskar.com/article/referer/4444/t/320/NAT-TOP...

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#165

Post by puppetmaster3 » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 9:46 PM UTC

Yes, I see it so clear, USA culture is superior /s.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#166

Post by xxpor » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 9:59 PM UTC

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…

You can't "run away" from a job in the US. You can leave whenever you want.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#167

Post by phaer » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 10:01 PM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #141

iamjustin wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any person jailed just for selling drugs.

I don't have a horse in this race, but have you ever been around drug dealers?

Some of them are violent but some are not. It's not too hard to find people who would not use violence an sell wee for example.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#168

Post by sanderjd » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 10:16 PM UTC

thinkpad20 wrote: post #145

sanderjd wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we should have a system in place to prosecute "immune" diplomats ourselves after they flee.

There would be no feasible way to implement such a system, even if it were desirable to do so.

I really wish your comment said "There would be no feasible way to implement such a system because , and it probably wouldn't be desirable because ." I said "maybe this would be good" in hopes that others would have interesting ideas about whether or not it would be.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#169

Post by kamakazizuru » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 10:22 PM UTC

jellicle wrote: post #144

kamakazizuru wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

> all of Indias middle class didn't get together one day and decide to manipulate that rate! What do you think the caste system is ?

not that. the caste system has nothing to do with it AT ALL. my cook was a higher caste than my family was. Caste system is yet another concept people from the west who've watched a couple of documentaries about India like to throw around. You dont understand it - it doesnt work the way it used to. Being from a "lower caste" is actually a damn boon in todays India. IF you want to get into a decent engineering college atleast.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#170

Post by kamakazizuru » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 10:24 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #147

kamakazizuru wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

If they're making 10x as much as a farm worker, including benefits, then doesn't that mean they're already making a living wage? A minimum wage probably wouldn't affect them significantly in that case. But is the article wrong then? Why would someone with 10x the income of a farm worker villager live in a shanty town without water?

because that's living in big cities unfortunately. Taking Bombay as an example - where in some areas the cost per square foot of an apartment is easily as high as 1600 USD (100000 INR) - even a shanty is a luxury for many. Also you have to realize - a village in india != a village in the developed world. Likely his shanty has tv, water for a few hours a day that fill up an overhead tank and has a doctor nearby - all or some of which may not be true in his village.