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

211–220 of 235 posts

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#211

Post by kamakazizuru »

bjourne wrote: post #159
bicx wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I purchase stocks for $X and then someone immediately comes and asks to buy those stocks for 50% more than $X I would absolutely accept (barring special circumstances). But if I pay someone $X to clean my house for an hour, and then someone asks me to clean their house for 50% more than $X I would absolutely refuse (barring special circumstances). This suggests that either a) a maids time is worth much less than m…

yes it'a a). If you're well educated you can easily make 10*$X per hour - a maid usually isn't.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#212

Post by kamakazizuru »

skue wrote: post #93
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 wha…

#2 - also the ones the US randomly decides are terorrists and bombs "humanely" from Drones? Get off your fricking high horse and look in your own backyard mate. The hypocrisy of this is bordering on hilarious. She may be earning below minimum wage in the US - but its in no way inhumane or exploitative - at 4$ an hour - she's earning more than any maid or servant in India.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#213

Post by kamakazizuru »

wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #195
kamakazizuru wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

sure - there's saying "depending on your connections you may or may not have access to opportunities" - which is true in pretty much ANY country in the world and theres saying the mere fact that people have servants is exploitation - which is simply not true. What you're saying is not false - but it has nothign to do with the original argument of my post.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#214

Post by kamakazizuru »

tokipin wrote: post #203
kamakazizuru wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while I respect what your mom did. I think the point the OP is trying to make is that - there were people willing to work for the amount of money that his mother could afford to pay for them to do it. Its really not any different from when you hire people on Mechanical Turk to solve tasks that you're time isnt worth spending on.

i understand the surface argument. but it read as if they thought a servant was some kind of necessity, when it's clearly a luxury. this is probably a misunderstanding on my part, but that's the vibe i got

well - if you understand society in India - depending on where you live - it can very much be a neccessity as well. It may be a clear luxury for someone living in the west. But there cant be 2 more different places than a developed country in the West and India.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#215

Post by kamakazizuru »

x0054 wrote: post #124
genwin wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are right. Step 1, fix the woefully broken legal system in India. Step 2, streamline the crippling and impossible to navigate bureaucracy. Step 3, create a functional income tax collection apparatus in a mostly cash society. Step 4, solve the drinking water and sewage problems. Step 5, convince the majority of the country inhabitants that the cast system is bad (they do not think so). ... Step X, implement an Cro…

wow yet another westerner sitting on their high horse of "we know what's right for you" - the caste system has little or nothing to do with this. And these steps are far from as trivial as you make them sound. If the biggest economy of the world is totally failing at preventing homelessness and sky high medical costs - do you really think its that easy for India which for all means and purposes has only truly started developing over the last 30 odd years can just do that?

Germany - which is one of the most developed nations in the WORLD - didnt have a minimum wage until now (except for individually bargained ones in specific sectors by unions).. It is only after tremendous pressure that the newly formed government has agreed to have one starting next year.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#216

Post by x0054 »

kamakazizuru wrote: post #215
x0054 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right. Step 1, fix the woefully broken legal system in India. Step 2, streamline the crippling and impossible to navigate bureaucracy. Step 3, create a functional income tax collection apparatus in a mostly cash society. Step 4, solve the drinking water and sewage problems. Step 5, convince the majority of the country inhabitants that the cast system is bad (they do not think so). ... Step X, implement an Cro…

wow yet another westerner sitting on their high horse of "we know what's right for you" - the caste system has little or nothing to do with this. And these steps are far from as trivial as you make them sound. If the biggest economy of the world is totally failing at preventing homelessness and sky high medical costs - do you really think its that easy for India which for all means and purposes has only truly started…

I am not sure if you were responding to me. But I just wanted to clarify that I think those steps are very difficult indeed. I don't think it's trivial at all to implement the changes I listed, and would take time. And that minimum wage can only be properly implemented once you get a lot of the other problems resolved.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#217

Post by wrongc0ntinent »

kamakazizuru wrote: post #213
wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

sure - there's saying "depending on your connections you may or may not have access to opportunities" - which is true in pretty much ANY country in the world and theres saying the mere fact that people have servants is exploitation - which is simply not true. What you're saying is not false - but it has nothign to do with the original argument of my post.

I'm not saying having servants is only exploitation, I'm pointing out that to chalk it all up to economics is the mistake you're making. That's all.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#218

Post by nicarus1984 »

avenger123 wrote: post #155
skue wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

The elephant in the room with all this is that America has its own big problems in this area. The illegal immigrant workers from Mexico and other places seem to have issues with wages, employment rights and other things. Let's not even talk about the big daddy of them all on the corporate side, Walmart with its wage issues. So, before Americans start feeling smug about how they set the standards for the rest of the w…

"So, before Americans start feeling smug about how they set the standards for the rest of the world, please look in your own back yard."

That's a very tired criticism/complaint. The points made were fair and if you don't think so then argue those points. Making generalizations that Americans should not share their thoughts on injustices outside the ones our government, corporations, and/or citizens create is absurd. Which nation is without problems of their own? Does that disqualify then anyone from making any statements on human rights (as in this case)?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#219

Post by afterburner »

kamakazizuru wrote: post #210
afterburner wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

except for the flawed assumption that this happened due to some class problem - I agree with your argument.

OK.

It's not an assumption, it's my theory as to why this happened.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#220

Post by wozniacki »

olavk wrote: post #134
wozniacki wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under Janteloven: The ten rules state: You're not to think you are anything special. You're not to think you are as good as us. You're not to think you are smarter than us. You're not to convince yourself that you are better than us. You're not to think you know more than us. You're not to think you are better than us. You're not to think you are good at anything. You're not to laugh at us. You're not to think anyone…

Hope you understand that this is not an actual law, but a piece of satire describing social norms in a smaller provincial town in the beginning of the twentieth century. This was a very different and much more traditional and hierarchical society, and the attitudes bitops describe more stem from the reaction against these norms which happened in the 60ies and 70ies.

Nonetheless, these statutes even if only adhered by a small population of Denmark and Scandinavia are repulsive and eminently worthy of disparage.

This is not what a technologically progressive society would want more of.

Post reply on HN