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

171–180 of 235 posts

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#171

Post by kamakazizuru »

wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #162
kamakazizuru wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I still dont see your point? I'm the first person to accept that you cannot generalize india - but that does not exclude the reality that if people could find better paying / more meaningful income - they'd go do that rather than be servants - thats all im discussing here - the sample size is irrelevant.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#172

Post by akshtest »

camus2 wrote: post #66
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 a…

Market! Market determines the wage.

>> minimum salary you ought to pay in the USA

Yes, but it was an Indian diplomat, and the comment is made wrt indian society, where there is no prevailing minimum wage. There are other issues such as visa status of the maid as au-pair.

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

Oh we as a humanity are already in that dire situation. The pseudo intellectuals at NYTimes, don't want anyone to work. This cute worldview is only held by affluent people in USA. Even Germany does not have a minimum wage and it is reflected in their unemployment rates. In USA it just means hiring illegal aliens.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#173

Post by vacri »

kamakazizuru wrote: post #99
phaer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

such as?

Burglary, drug possession, prostitution, some kinds of vandalism, providing a false ID, underage alcohol, urinating in public, driving/hunting/whatever without a license, trespass, conspiracy to commit a crime... even taking a photo of a school in some places.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#174

Post by akshtest »

winstonx wrote: post #109
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 think the disconnect between the author and you is that the author has empathy for impoverished people. Try to understand their plight. They are born poor and die poor. Why? Because they were unlucky enough to be born poor. You were lucky to be born into a family that could afford servants.

Poverty is relative, the servants who worked at my home were paid close if not more than median income India.

The daughter of both cleaner and the cook, went and graduated from a degree college. Guess what my mother who works for an Airline in India as a manager makes less 7.5 dollars per hour.

The word servant conjures a completely wrong image. The difference is not in empathy, its in understanding of economic conditions. India with its excess population, allows cheap labor, not utilizing it is idiotic.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#176

Post by vacri »

sliverstorm wrote: post #71
arsenerei wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, two reasons: - It seems to break the rule of punishment matching the crime. I wouldn't say violent criminals "deserve" to be locked in with other violent criminals & get stabbed, but at least the violent ones might be better able to fend for themselves. - Violent criminals require more security, so if we separate the violent & nonviolent criminals it will be cheaper for the US taxpayer

A jail cell is to hold arrestees, not to punish them.

I'm also finding it weird that in your 'punishment matching the crime' scenario, a burglar who makes off with your TV is treated worse than a pension fund raider who causes a string of suicides. Or even a more run-of-the-mill embezzler who 'only' makes off with 100k.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#177

Post by afterburner »

kamakazizuru wrote: post #107
afterburner wrote: post #86

India has a class problem.

just like the US - or pretty much any latin american country - and a lot of parts of africa and europe and the rest of Asia. Your point is? Humans have a class problem.

Oh, then they're all the same then, right?

India has more of a class problem than the US. Obviously, or this situation wouldn't have happened.

If inequality in India suddenly dropped to the same level as the US, I would be very happy for India. And I would still want the US to be less unequal.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#178

Post by mhogomchungu »

kamakazizuru wrote: post #169
jellicle wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I am an african from africa currently in the US giving my perspective.We have always had a house maid,we call them "house girls" and they are usually in the mid teens going up.Most families i knew had one too.Typically these are young girls from the rural places,they go to the city,work as house maids for a year or two and they go home and get married.

This has nothing to do with caste system and everything to do with "cheap labor",if there were no minimum wages laws in america or if americans were getting paid much much much more than they are,it would also have been common here.

Parents send their kids here to day care here because its cheaper than having a "house girl",if the other way was possible,the other way would be more common.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#179

Post by arsenerei »

sliverstorm wrote: post #71
arsenerei wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, two reasons: - It seems to break the rule of punishment matching the crime. I wouldn't say violent criminals "deserve" to be locked in with other violent criminals & get stabbed, but at least the violent ones might be better able to fend for themselves. - Violent criminals require more security, so if we separate the violent & nonviolent criminals it will be cheaper for the US taxpayer

Hmm, alright. To your first point, the ultimate conclusion to that idea would be a graded prison, where criminals of like-violence are kept together so everyone has the same likelihood of fending themselves, because I can imagine there are those that are charged with assault being significantly less violent than murderers. I wonder if that would also further lessen the cost for your second point.

Edit: And thanks for your response.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#180

Post by kazagistar »

allochthon wrote: post #153
credo wrote: post #127

I think it was wrong to strip-search and do cavity searches on the consular officer (in this case, a woman) "accused" of underpaying a maid. However,I'm not going to focus on that and I'm not going to quibble with some of the exaggerations in this column. Overall, I agree that Ms Khobragade must be prosecuted and the evidence clearly suggests that she is guilty. However, I find it astonishing that so many people (mos…

Arguments concerning hypocrisy are interesting, but they are tangential as well. They point up the need for a change in a different context. One can both appreciate the hypocrisy of a related issue and still be a little flummoxed at the case at hand. The cavity search sounds to me like police overreach, and it's hard to imagine that it would have been needed. I wonder whether there would be case for pursuing charges…

> pursuing charges of police misconduct

When it comes to diplomats, we might "protect our own", but it is nothing compared to how cops in the USA act.

Post reply on HN