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

191–200 of 235 posts

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#191

Post by vikiomega9 »

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 agree, I don't like how people just throw the term around as if it were rooted in exploitation.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#192

Post by thedufer »

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…

So you think we should do away with a minimum wage altogether?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#193

Post by thedufer »

kghose wrote: post #31
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.

Diplomatic immunity only applies if the actions were taken as part of diplomatic work.

That's only true of consular immunity. Diplomatic immunity is somewhat broader. That said, consular immunity is the relevant one in this story.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#194

Post by wavefunction »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #114
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…

>They're given fairly little pay, maybe $1200/mo and room and board While that is a servant, such an employee is a domestic servant who makes a good deal more than the typical fast-food worker, intern, or graduate student. Such a job easily falls within humane labor standards: you're given free lodgings in an expensive area, probably in a nice house, some amount of money on top of that (which, again, goes much furthe…

Yeah when you describe it in the best possible terms it sounds wonderful.

Putting in that 9-5 every day "servanting," then returning to my spacious and luxurious servants quarters with the windows that open upon la jardin to pursue my interests and hobbies until dinner is called at 7PM.

Or perhaps about town to enjoy some of my filthy lucre (which should be also covering some sort of retirement and probably taxes but isn't), or I know, I'll have some of my friends come over, the Master and Mistress of the house certainly don't mind me having a social life like a normal person!

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#195

Post by wrongc0ntinent »

kamakazizuru wrote: post #171
wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's my point: even the job you can offer someone in India as a servant, cook, driver, DJ, depends on having access to that opportunity. You don't just go in a slum and randomly pick somebody (if you do, I admire you, but you're not the average). That access itself is based on a lot of other factors that have nothing to do with economics, and the rules for that access vary greatly accross India.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#196

Post by stefan_kendall »

droidist2 wrote: post #68
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. Would you also be opposed to raising the US minimum wage because of the same reason?

Yes!

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#197

Post by yetanotherphd »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #116
anishkothari wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> India doesn't have much income inequality This[1] page shows India's Gini coefficient at 36.8 in 2004. India suffers from very high income inequality [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...

33 by the World Bank, 36.8 by the CIA. Using the CIA's numbers rather than the world Bank, India is comparable to New Zealand or Japan. It's still well below the US (45) or the world as a whole (39). India's problem is poverty, not inequality. Much as first world hipsters try to conflate the two, they are not the same thing.

Thanks for that info, like many people I had always assumed that India was especially unequal, and this was the cause of many of its social problems. The more you know...

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#198

Post by eli_gottlieb »

wavefunction wrote: post #194
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They're given fairly little pay, maybe $1200/mo and room and board While that is a servant, such an employee is a domestic servant who makes a good deal more than the typical fast-food worker, intern, or graduate student. Such a job easily falls within humane labor standards: you're given free lodgings in an expensive area, probably in a nice house, some amount of money on top of that (which, again, goes much furthe…

Yeah when you describe it in the best possible terms it sounds wonderful. Putting in that 9-5 every day "servanting," then returning to my spacious and luxurious servants quarters with the windows that open upon la jardin to pursue my interests and hobbies until dinner is called at 7PM. Or perhaps about town to enjoy some of my filthy lucre (which should be also covering some sort of retirement and probably taxes but…

I'm not trying to say it's truly a nice deal. I'm saying that it's certainly better than the other low-end jobs available. I'm the guy who thinks every worker should have a union and wage labor should be abolished entirely, don't forget that perspective!

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#199

Post by yetanotherphd »

genwin wrote: post #119
x0054 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible, but someone has to pay for it, and their budget already has severe deficits.

Income taxes, enforced. India has plenty of money and resources, and would have more of both after adopting a minimum wage because labor would be better utilized. It might be hard but don't tell me it can't happen or that people will starve to death.

>and would have more of both after adopting a minimum wage because labor would be better utilized

How does that work? If someone has an especially productive task, that means that they can afford to pay more than current wages, there is nothing stopping them offering higher wages right now.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#200

Post by petilon »

thedufer wrote: post #192
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…

So you think we should do away with a minimum wage altogether?

No. It makes sense to have a minimum wage where the market can support it. If setting (or raising) minimum wages causes people to lose their jobs then it does not make sense.
Post reply on HN