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

111–120 of 235 posts

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#111

Post by x0054 »

genwin wrote: post #102
x0054 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

It's impossible to create a social safety net? When they have dirty drinking water that's largely because they don't have a minimum wage. In computer terms this is called bootstrapping. You convert from a backwards country to a developed country via (in part by) a minimum wage. Many other countries have done it. So can India.

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

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#113

Post by bane »

bjourne wrote: post #44
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…

> 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…

> A mechanic is a specialist.

Yeah, I think I agree with you. But playing devil's advocate, my handyman might be called a "Groundskeeper" or similar if he was full-time and a servant...and to me (who's not handy at all) he's a specialist as well.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#114

Post by eli_gottlieb »

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 further when you've got no rent to pay), and hopefully humane working hours. Plenty of people I know would do this job in preference to their actual jobs.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#115

Post by marquis »

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…

>Growing up in the U.S., servants have a kind of old-world upper-class, if not crusty and exploitive, vibe.

In parts of Mexico and South America I have seen lavish, large homes built for U.S. retirees, where the real estate agent indicated without shame that certain small and often un-windowed rooms were for live-in help. What would the Americans, who move into these homes, call the people (mostly women) who will inhabit these rooms?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#116

Post by yummyfajitas »

anishkothari wrote: post #101
yummyfajitas wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India doesn't have much income inequality. Their Gini is 33, same ballpark as France, Bangladesh and the UK. (For comparison, Denmark is at 25 and the US is at 45.)

> 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.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#117

Post by delinka »

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…

'You are calling another human being a "perk"!'

uh, no ... CEOs get assistants as perks (our CEO has three - maybe one is 'necessary' but the others are certainly perks) and no one bats an eye. That's because they're paid a salary and are employed at-will: they can leave whenever they want. It's not "another human being as a perk," it's a position benefiting the CEO that the company is willing to pay for.

About #7: I'm a USian and I'd absolutely have servants if I could afford them. Not slaves, but servants with a paycheck. Why not? I'm happen to "spread the wealth" but I'm not just going to give it away- you need to earn it ... how about keeping my lawn looking nice? Here's your paycheck. Maybe do my laundry? Here's your paycheck. Keep the place tidy, please... and here's your paycheck.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#118

Post by iamjustin »

sliverstorm wrote: post #67
saalweachter wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you consider violent criminals? Thieves? Drug users? Fences? Smugglers? Forgers? Vandals? Illegal immigrants? Heck, do you think being an arsonist makes you particularly likely to stab a guy in prison?

All of your listed crimes are not violent crimes in themselves, although any and all can commit violence in the course of their "profession" in which case, yes, they are now violent criminals.

What are you saying? Just because they could be violent means they are violent?

There's no profession where someone couldn't act violently.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#119

Post by genwin »

x0054 wrote: post #111
genwin wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to create a social safety net? When they have dirty drinking water that's largely because they don't have a minimum wage. In computer terms this is called bootstrapping. You convert from a backwards country to a developed country via (in part by) a minimum wage. Many other countries have done it. So can India.

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.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#120

Post by [deleted] »

delinka wrote: post #117
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…

'You are calling another human being a "perk"!' uh, no ... CEOs get assistants as perks (our CEO has three - maybe one is 'necessary' but the others are certainly perks) and no one bats an eye. That's because they're paid a salary and are employed at-will: they can leave whenever they want. It's not "another human being as a perk," it's a position benefiting the CEO that the company is willing to pay for. About #7: I…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN