> 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 domestic help.”
I had a few Indian friends in college who all lamented the lack of servants in their American day-to-day. One woman I knew recalled having 6 or 7 servants, but described herself as coming from just a normal, slightly-upper-middle class family.
It really stuck with me over the years. Growing up in the U.S., servants have a kind of old-world upper-class, if not crusty and exploitive, vibe.
Yet I've found myself over the years, as free-time disappeared into work and salaries increased, hiring a maid to come in once a month to clean house and a gardener to mow my lawn and tidy my plants once every couple of weeks. I've hired tutors and other private instructors, a fixit guy who comes and does other maintenance on my home every once in a while and so on. My wife and I have toyed with having a cook come in once a week and prepare a bunch of meals.
I'm sure if pressed I could come up with a half dozen other people I've hired on for their physical labor at one time or another. If needed, I'm sure most of them would become "live in servants" for the right price and accommodations.
It's also not uncommon in my area for families to hire Au Pairs which is really just a fancy way of saying live-in Nanny/house maid, which is a servant's title. They're given fairly little pay, maybe $1200/mo and room and board in exchange for child care and some house chores/personal assistant work. In other areas dedicated personal assistants are quite common. And I've seen people setup "internships" for their personal businesses which are so tied to their personal lives that the work is usually just personal assisting for intern pay.
Yet in the U.S. we've allergic to calling these people "servants" because it seems menial and disparaging I guess.
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?
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 working. Or said another way, they are always 'working' - oftentimes from birth until death. There is a stark difference in hiring a cook to come over and cook - and when he's not cooking for you be able to have his own family, hobbies, political motivations and all the rest of his life - and having a cook who 'serves' you - full stop. There is a fundamental difference between these perspectives. I believe this is why the idea of a 'servant' is so distasteful to an American. Though again, it took meeting and interacting with true 'servants' (outside the US) to even become aware of the distinction.
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.
That's definitely true. An interesting cultural difference even further in that direction, that I noticed as an American who moved to Denmark, is that in Scandinavia the equality extends even into the restaurant. I'm not really being "served" at a restaurant, but rather the expectation is that we're interacting in a professional setting as equals. Perhaps partly due to culture, partly due to the lack of tipping, and partly due to the fact that the waiter likely has the same socioeconomic position as their customers, there isn't really an obsequious service-oriented relationship, and it's definitely not the case that the customer is always right. It's more like, their job is to take care of business at the restaurant, and they'll aim to do it well but expect respectful treatment in return, like any other professional employee in any other job.
(It's possible things are different at really high-end places that aim to impress international customers, like the $200/plate restaurants and $500/night hotels, but I don't have any personal experience patronizing such establishments.)
Heh...as a Danish person, I think part of that distinction also is that Denmark has a really bad service culture compared to the US. It does seem to be changing. But I feel like Danes are a pretty proud (and/or headstrong) folk with very strong (and sometimes misguided, see Janteloven) notions around class and equality.
I feel like many Danes who work in the service sector project this attitude that they're really above the work and that the customers are a complete imposition on their time and energy. That's why I'm always so impressed when I get a really nice waiter in CPH or just shopping at a grocery store like Irma.
I think you're right about the high-end places -- I've only been to one fancy place one (cause, yikes! the prices) and they did act very differently because it was so expensive. But by and large, yes, I agree, they tend to see it more as a "job" than "service."
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 cares about you.
You're not to think you can teach us anything.*
Wow. Just wow. Needless to say, a lot of American go-getters and super-achievers would find that bitterly stultifying.
They don't even seem that strange as an American. It's just (a parody of) typical conservative Protestant small-town mentality. Much of Scandinavia at the time was made up of religious, Protestant small towns, with most of the population engaged in farming or fishing (and the novel in question was set in such a town). People in small-town and rural America don't like big-city, degree-and-money-having people who "think they're better", either. Sinclair Lewis's 1920 novel Main Street, about small-town American attitudes, has some loose parallels.
I think the same is true even today in the US. Some of the people who're lionized in Palo Alto or NYC would be shunned in much of the "heartland", if they flaunted their wealth or education and came across as thinking they were a "super-achiever". You're allowed to be rich, but you're expected to act somewhat humble and "down-to-earth" about it and not see yourself as better than other kinds of people (especially farmers, who have their own mythos). Warren Buffet, a lifelong midwesterner, is an example of being rich but still sort of pulling that off.
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.
Totally agree! Interesting though that Denmark has better social mobility than the US, even though Denmark has historical attitudes like the Law of Jante, while the US have "The American Dream."
It could just be because I tend to find American customers really over-bearing and unreasonable (the "customer is always right" thing makes some people feel entitled to be jerks towards staff), but to me the Danish non-service feels refreshing, though I've definitely heard other people describe it as "bad service". I don't feel it's particularly bad service myself; stuff generally gets done fine, and it's not like I'm waiting hours for my food or they're dumping things on me or anything. They treat me the same way I'd treat someone at work at my own job: well and professionally, but not as if I'm their servant and must please them at all costs.
Though I think it is widely regarded as unseemly to treat people differently according to a ranking of professions or wealth, the US is not actually a classless society, and in many social settings certain amounts of deference are expected as the default even when people are off the clock. With the number of parties this time of year, if you look for it it can be a little ugly.
Another example that readily comes to mind is the comments in response to Mario Batali suggesting bankers as Time man of the year in the vein of Hitler and Mussolini a couple years ago. Many of those comments, rather than focusing on the quip being offensive or stupid, primarily complained that he should be more deferential to a great portion of his restaurant customers.
Throughout history many artists have criticized their patrons, and today there's the widely claimed ideal of not penalizing everyone from unskilled workers to professionals and business owners for their political beliefs that are independent of their employers and customers, yet the reality is different even if sometimes manifests itself subtly.
You cannot figure out the "servant" business in India without considering the caste system. We get the income inequality side pretty well, it makes sense. But until the caste crap gets replaced by a different currency, being/having a servant is a different concept from a westerner's.
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.)
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.
Bear in mind that "income" is a loose concept in India. A lot of the economy is 'under the table'. So while someone may report an "income" of $1000/month, their actual take may be 10x or more. Most Indians outside the salaried sector don't pay income taxes. And there are tax loopholes (agricultural income comes to mind) which allow people to shield massive amounts of income.
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...
I would agree, but life in a city like Kolkata is very different from a place like tribal Odisha. Sheer numbers (as opposed to percentages) are more important when you get in the hundreds of millions.
the "caste crap" has increasingly less to do with people being "servants" - its more an income and education thing. In fact - being from a "lower caste" in India - actually makes getting into the IITs (best engg. colleges) & IIMs ( best management colleges) and pretty much everywhere else a cake walk due to flawed affirmative action programs.
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, then what does? The US seems to have an aversion to the concept of servant, not to the reality.
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?
>"The US seems to have an aversion to the concept of servant, not to the reality."
I hope this is deadpan sarcasm.
You're drawing an analogy between sub-living wage housemaids to the for-television version of an exceptionally flamboyant professional athletes entourage.
Worse, you're extrapolating the latter - the promotional image of a singular talent, the elite prizefighter of a generation, who earns the U.S. median yearly income every 1.5 seconds in a 12 round fight - to be somehow representative of "the US".
> 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 domestic help.”
I am not sure where the figure of $4,500 is coming from. $9.50/h * 60 hours * 4 weeks is $2,280/month. I am using 60 hours a week rather then 40, considering that servants probably work longer hours. The US law was clearly broken in this case because the servant was not part of the diplomatic staff and was brought to this country under false pretenses.
However, to all of you who are now screaming for equality, please remember that in India the solution of "if you can't afford to pay your servant well, you should not have one" is NOT a solution. The simple fact is, there are a lot of middle (and lower middle) class people in India who can not (or will not) pay their servants more than they already do. 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. Unless you first address the issue of people willing to work for such a low wage, because they have no other options, you will only cause further misery.
> 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.
Replace "servant" with any low-paying job. That's the old argument for ending the minimum wage. How many people starve to death in countries with a minimum wage? What actually happens is that wealth gets redistributed. The masses will revolt against the wealthy before they'd starve.
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, for everyone to pay their servants at least $X per month, and as a result of this law 20% of the servants loose their job. If the government does nothing to support those people, what's going to happen to them?
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.
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 Cross the board minimum wage.
There you go. I'd start with step 5. At the root level of India's problems is the widespread belief that not everyone deserves equal opportunity. The faster that belief is changed the faster the other steps will be achieved.
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.
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.
>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.
One of many ways to see it: Ultra low wage workers work long hours and spend all their money to barely survive, thus confront great difficulty in improving their skills. In the US a minimum wage worker can have the funds and time to become a software developer.
That certainly sounds plausible, but that doesn't sound like what a person would call "labor better utilized". But I do see the point: when people have low incomes, they are unable to invest in their own human capital. If possible it would make more sense to target poor people through welfare than through the minimum wage, but I'm don't know the practicalities of implementing either policy in India.
Workers using more of their potential is labor better utilized to improve the economy. When minimum wage workers become software developers a software company arises, and then a restaurant to serve them, and so on. A basic income (welfare for anyone) would work even better to improve the average standard of living, but not necessarily the economy.
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.
In a way, this sort of proves that not having a servant IS an option in India. If laws pass that push people not to hire help they can't afford, they will stop hiring. I know that's not the point you're trying to make, but it's worth considering.
That said, I'm curious: why you do you think people in India won't go without hired help? Is it a cultural/historical thing? Or something else? (I ask this not knowing your background).
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 will be tempted to move there. But really - if you're making 10x cleaning a few houses a day - which is in no way risky / life threatening - why would you go work on a construction site or spend your days on a farm in 30+degrees C of heat?
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.
What is life in the village like? I'll admit my first reaction upon reading this is to think "that doesn't sound very pleasant" but maybe it's a lot better relative to where this person came from. Why are people moving to the city?
> 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?
actually people would still hire them - on the black market - with lower wages - just like most of the agricultural sector in the US with mexicans. You cant stop the free market.
> 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 just trading a surplus of your money for more free time.
And yes it is exploitative in that it puts a much higher value on your time than on your servants. Suppose a maid saves you 1 hour/week in household chores which you then use for working, earning you $X. But you only pay your maid $Y, a value likely much smaller than $X. The difference between the values is how much your maid has saved you by doing household chores for you.
I don't think this is a good model. F'rinstance you can have something delivered or drive to the store yourself. Are you "exploiting" the postman? Do you think he feels exploited?
The difference here is that you're not paying the postman to drive to the store for you alone, you're paying for one tiny fraction of his rounds. It's simply a matter of efficiency.
I don't think it is necessarily exploitative, even in the sense you describe. Imagine a world where both person A and person B work 4 hours a day, and clean their own houses 4 hours a day. Person A, due to the nature of his work/skills, produces more per unit time at his job then person B. Both of them could make more money if person A spends 8 hours at his job, person B spends 8 hours cleaning both houses, and they split person B's earnings evenly.
Another way of looking at this situation is the marginal value of time. There are 24 hours in a day. Assume you sleep for 8 of them, you have 12 waking hours. At this point, you might be willing to spend a hour cleaning your house. Now, imagine that you spend another 8 hours at work (but have the same amount of total income). In this situation you only have 4 hours of free time. In this case, you would likely be willing to spend more money to keep that free time, because you have less of it. This is also why we often pay more for overtime.
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.
'specialist' should really be measured in comparison to how well the average person or perhaps 85th percentile person can perform the job, not whether they're better than their employer.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 mine or b) the market price for cleaning services is severely depressed below its "true price".
Only a few days before Khobragade’s choreographed detention, New York’s heady prosecutors drew up a litany of charges of medical- insurance fraud against 49 Russian diplomats to the tune of $1.5 million. These 49 Russians now figure in a criminal complaint unsealed in the same Manhattan court, where India’s acting consul general was produced for a $250,000 bail hearing last week. Of these, 11 Russian diplomats continue to work at the Russian consulate in New York or at Moscow’s permanent mission to the United Nations in the Turtle Bay area of Manhattan.
So when Preet Bharara, the attorney for the Southern District of New York, unsealed the criminal complaint against the Russians in court in his usual flashy style, reporters who cover Bharara expected at least a few of the 11 Russians still within the reach of New York’s law enforcement to be paraded before them: it would have been a precursor to Khobragade’s arrest and subsequent bail. But nothing of that sort happened. Instead, when Bharara’s men set out in quest of the alleged offenders, with handcuffs in their pockets, they were promptly restrained by the US state department, according to authoritative sources who spoke to this writer. The state department told Bharara’s office that all the 11 serving Russian diplomats on US soil had diplomatic immunity and could not be arrested.[1]
This entire Khobragade incident reeks of political grandstanding. Someone wanted to divert attention away from a certain incident - either connected to politics in India or in the region - and used this to help orchestrate it.
Kinda like how Martha Stewart was incarcerated to make a larger point.[2]
Your mechanic and most of the others will give you an itemized bill, and you can't order him to make you a cup of tea for free.
In India and the Middle East this concept of "servitude" is really just slavery - lower class people are basically owned by wealthy families for their entire lives, are are given bare sustenance in return for total control over their labor and time, without conditions or restraint over when and how their labor can be used. Furthermore their work "contracts" actually prevent them from leaving or "quitting", and the legal systems in those countries will actually enforce these contracts and essentially uphold ownership of these "servants" (as did the Indian high court in this case apparently).
In all the cases you are describing, the work is part of a regulated labor market, where there are conditions and laws against exploitation, that are actually enforced as has been witnessed in this case.
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.
>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.
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!
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!
Specialization and number of customers seem to be pretty clear distinguishers (where servant sort of implies lots of different tasks for a single household).
> We still call all those people service providers.
Well, I'm wondering if we're using "service providers" as a euphemism for certain classes of servants because we're uncomfortable with the word. I've never actually heard anybody in the U.S. say they have "servants", despite having a Au Pairs, Personal Assistants, Live-in gardeners etc.
At what point does my maid, who I personally contract with become a servant rather than a service provider? Does she have to come every day? Do I have to be her only employer? Can she just come once a week?
I think in reality what Americans are afraid of is not "servants" per se, but "servitude" and all that implies.
Yes, I was sort of trying to point out that "service" has the same word root in there.
I don't think I've ever had a conversation with someone that had an Au Pair or live-in gardener, so of course I haven't heard them talk about their servants. I've known people who were sort of uncomfortable about paying a maid (but I guess this was more rooted in the protestant work ethic than any sort of queasiness over servitude, never mind that these people weren't very religious).
> I've known people who were sort of uncomfortable about paying a maid
We've also been very uncomfortable with the yard service and maid service because it seem like something we should be doing. But long hours and a continuously ugly yard and messy house eventually solved those debates.
>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?
I assume they would call them servants, nannies, or au pairs. The later two would be hard to get away with if they were retirees (no children I assume), they would be calling them that just to avoid calling them servants.
Just because some retirees retire to developing countries so that they can pretend to have old-money and have servants does not mean that having servants is viewed by Americans as normal.
I had a middle-class upbringing, (certainly not upper-middle, but money was rarely a source of stress or unease in my family, so not really lower-middle either). One of my aunt/uncles were very solidly upper-middle though, and had for several years a series of "au pairs" who were ostensibly in the US first and foremost to study. Even this wasn't "normal" to my family, the entire arrangement made us very uncomfortable.
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 (most of them sharing my citizenship) can be so oblivious to some of the mind-boggling arrogant hypocrisy going around.
Recently, there was a news report on "diplomatic immunity" for an "information management officer" in the US embassy in Kenya. This American man was speeding in his SUV. He crossed the middle-line and crashed into another vehicle killing one man and injuring many more.
This wasn't just the garden-variety "hit and run" accident we see in America. This man didn't just flee the scene, he fled Kenya (with US government help) and the US government is asserting "diplomatic immunity".
Can any critic of India seriously argue that it is OK for the US to assert diplomatic immunity and spirit this "information management officer" out of the country - even though he killed one innocent man (in this case, a father of three) with his reckless driving.
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 of police misconduct, even if the practice turned out to be something that is routinely done in such situations.
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.
I suspect he had no official business crossing the line in the road. Using your logic, if you are tasked with delivering official documents from point A to point B, is it covered under diplomatic immunity to stop somewhere between A and B and murder someone?
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?
It's not straightforward hypocrisy when the legal system or jail system in the other country is substandard to the US's. That may be unlikely nowadays but it's something to consider.
I really wish your comment said "There would be no feasible way to implement such a system because <X>, and it probably wouldn't be desirable because <Y>." I said "maybe this would be good" in hopes that others would have interesting ideas about whether or not it would be.
An important thing to clear up here is that Khobragade was not a full "diplomat" at the time of her arrest but rather a "consular official" who receives a limited type of immunity that only applies to laws broken while carrying out official duties.
Also the most serious charge against her isn't the wage dispute but perjury resulting from incorrect data she put on the visa forms.
India has subsequently promoted her from the NY consulate to the Indian diplomatic mission to the UN and has claimed retroactive diplomatic immunity for her, but there are procedural questions about this move.
A better approach would have been to deport Khobragade while still offering protection/visas to the servant and her family. Quite a few Indians have been arrested on similar charges in the past without serious uproar, it's the fact that a consular official was treated this way. The US tends to be rather lax in its definition of "diplomatic immunity" when it comes to their benefit (see Raymond Davis) so such strictness is very hypocritical. The impression I get as a neutral observer is that the focus of the action was to punish the alleged guilty rather than try and achieve recourse for the alleged victim.
If being fair is your intention, perhaps "Americans" ought to be replaced with "people." There's a lot of things you can lay on the USA's doorstep, but a monopoly on irresponsibility or entitlement is not one of them.
"India is furious that the diplomat, Devyani Khobragade, was strip-searched and kept in a cell in New York with criminals."
Because wage theft isn't at all like those nasty crimes everybody else does, amirite?
Well, it is slightly different - it's only committable by people who have enough cash to pay wages. So in short: "waddya mean I'm a criminal? I'M RICH!"
Well, it's white-collar crime. Even Americans are not entirely happy with white-collar criminals getting thrown in with blue-collar criminals. Not because of classism, just because white-collar criminals are non-violent and it doesn't seem right to throw an embezzler in with cutthroats & muggers.
There are plenty of "blue collar" crimes that are non-violent. Some Americans have a problem mixing white collar and blue collar criminals because they are classist, like thier peers in India. This American thinks there should be one criminal justice system, not a seperate one for the rich (see e.g. affluenza).
Ok, then replace "blue collar" with violent and "white collar" with non-violent in my comment. I don't care which term we use, I just started with "white collar crime" because that's the most common term for financial crime, and "blue collar crime" (though an uncommon phrase) is the antonym.
Yes, I know "white collar" was not the best term, it's just the most commonly used for the type of crime(s) like what she committed. Please, let us not get mired down in nitpicking over the precise term I used hours ago which I already freely admit was the wrong choice. I think it's clear now what I meant.
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.
Calling them non-violent is a mistake given the wake of chaos they leave. Sure, they don't personally swing a knife around - instead, they blow away economies, or at a smaller scale they leave people crying in the street next to their piled-up possessions and repossessed house. That's plenty violent.
I'm not trying to downplay their crimes. They are real, and they can be hugely damaging. But when we're talking about throwing people together in a box, it's an important distinction. Someone who destroyed an economy may be amoral, but they are still pretty unlikely to stab their cellmate as compared to a violent criminal.
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.
You folks are trying real hard to put words in my mouth. My parent asked if I thought those were violent crimes; I said no. I also added that if they commit violence in the course of those crimes, then yes they are now violent criminals. Maybe it was unnecessary extra commentary, but do you disagree with either of these statements?
I should try the words-in-mouth game, it seems fun.
Are you trying to say just because they aren't automatically violent, means they can't be violent? How could you say a thing like that? You are such a foolish person.
It's worth remembering that a large portion of blue-collar criminals are arrested for possession of, say, a small amount of marijuana. There's a big difference between mugging someone and lighting a joint.
I think, to say that they don't belong in the same prison together, would require a certain acceptance of the current state of things as "natural". One would have to accept that the violent conditions of maximum security prisons are an unavoidable situation. And one would also have to accept that even minimum security prison is as equal deterrent to crime as maximum security prison.
Given what we know about prison guard misconduct and how countries like Norway handle their most violent offenders, I don't think it is the case that prison has to be terrible, violent, places. In every case I've ever heard of, compassion and rehabilitation for criminals of all types is the best way to reduce recidivism. Punishment turns out to not be that much of a deterrent for desperate people who think they screwed either way.
And given that minimum security federal penitentiaries have the nickname "Club Fed", it would seem that they don't serve as a very significant deterrent.
The full, correct answer is that the entire prison industrial complex needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Unfortunately, there is too much money in it for that to happen anytime soon in America.
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.
- 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.
If burglary is considered a violent crime, I may need to rework my comments.
As for jail v. prison, my apologies. I know the distinction, but so few people make the distinction in their use of the two words I usually ignore the difference.
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.
Many countries generally don't cage people suspected of crimes - but not convicted or even charged - in a small holding pen similar to those used to hold animals. Others do, but let people with means bribe their way into better conditions...
In fact it's highly unlikely she was put in a cell with convicted inmates. In all likelihood she was placed with others awaiting arraignment, with an outside possibility that the cell also had pre-trial detainees (i.e. those who were denied or couldn't make bail).
Arresting a diplomat will always cause problems but it was absolutely inexcusable for this diplomat to expect to get away with underpaying their housekeeper.
That said, strip-searching someone over a wage dispute is far beyond the pale as well.
And strip-searching an Indian diplomat for no particularly good reason during an arrest, is not just wrong, but also really fucking stupid, as it could have actual security implications for the US in India as we have already seen with some of the embassy's protection being withdrawn.
Rich, poor, American, Kazakh, it doesn't matter. If you are arrested you are strip searched to protect you, the prison staff, and the other prisoners.
There are different kinds of diplomatic immunity. Hers was explicitly limited to official work. The run-Americans-over-and-get-off-scot-free kind is a different diplomatic designation.
And yet Raymond Davis went scot free when the Americans claimed that he had diplomatic immunity.
Let's just take this for what it was, a District Attorney trying to gain as much publicity as possible.
The Saudis have been committing graver abuse of their domestic help for years, but nobody in America has had the balls to come out and cavity search an oil rich Saudi yet.
It wasn't reported that he was strip searched, but I hope that's just because strip searches are pretty standard procedures when admitting detainees in most countries. Drugs and weapons can still be found in jails and prisons, of course, but I would hope most countries put in strict measures to at least minimize the number of weapons that detainees have.
If you are arrested you are strip searched to protect you, the prison staff, and the other prisoners.
Given that it obviously doesn't at all work at keeping stuff out of jails, would you entertain the idea that the reason behind standardising strip-search might be more psychological in nature.
This is false, It's not a given that it doesn't work at all. This measure could well be dramatically reducing the amount of stuff in jails. Just because there are other ways to bring things in that haven't been prevented yet does not imply that all measures are ineffective.
Our authoritarian oligarchy is spilling over into the international community. First the wars, then the NSA, now violating laws of diplomatic immunity.
If I weren't a level headed guy, I'd have to say that on the OUTSIDE, The USA is starting to look like an insane imperialist nation.
May I present, for your viewing pleasure, a certain Raymond Allen Davis.
"President Barack Obama asked Pakistan not to prosecute Davis and recognize him as a diplomat, stating, "There's a broader principle at stake that I think we have to uphold."
I see that this 'broader principle' doesn't seem to apply to a legitimate diplomat...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident
The numbers in this article don't make sense. The article complains that servants in India receive earn $64-161/month (4-10,000 rs/month). India's median income is only 53,000rs/year. So according to the article, the average servant in India is earning between 1x and 2.5x the median income.
(These numbers are skewed a bit due to the rural/urban divide.)
I have no idea what is "exploitative" about this. The article talks about paying Indian servants low wages by "any objective standard", which I assume means US standards. This is true but silly - it's not just the servants with low income, even the masters are dirt poor by US standards.
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?
Indian salaries are low across the board. A school teacher may get paid around $320 per month. If that school teacher wants to hire domestic help for $160 per month, and the alternative for the would-be servant is starvation, what's wrong with taking that job? What's wrong with the school teacher hiring that help?
I think what you may not be considering here is that there's a broader point being made about what constitutes a "living wage." Of course it's better to get some money rather than nothing. But if the money is below the minimum wage and/or below a living wage, it forces the "servant" to either live close to poverty or work multiple jobs.
Also, what's being touched on is a notion of entitlement. For instance, I hire somebody to periodically come and clean my house every few weeks. I pay well, way above what they asked for - both because they do a good job and because I know it's a hard way to make a living. When I made less money, I cleaned my house myself, and I never felt a sense of entitlement or right to that help.
If I offer Joe a job at $2.00 an hour, which is less than the minimum wage, and Joe wants to accept the job, then I have forced Joe to live close to poverty or to work multiple jobs?
The offer is voluntary. Joe can either accept it or refuse it.
Why doesn't Joe get to say whether he's willing to accept the job or not? I'd say that the government is the entity introducing the use of force into what was otherwise a voluntary situation.
The offer is voluntary. Joe can either accept it or refuse it.
I feel like this point is really kind of secondary to the discussion, or at least, it seems like there's an assumption in here that I don't share. For some reason, I feel like maybe there's an assumption that Joe has other options? Maybe I'm missing something.
Yeah, why paying them at all , after all , they would be starving if they ware not slaves ... And folks like you are ok with slavery and exploitation...
except they arent slaves - and if they could find better paying work - there would be nothing stopping them from going after it. It is a free market at the end of the day.
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.
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 compensation is in the form of "perks" that help in their day-to-day lives - this "au pair" benefit is one such perk.
While in the US this "au pair" ran away despite being (apparently [2]) treated well. Then there are serious allegations that she contacted a lawyer thru whom she tried to extort the diplomat [3].
No one is implying that having a "servant" is a right. Having an "au pair" was an accepted & Authorized perk. The article starts off with a wrong-headed premise and does some hand-waving from there.
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 what "perks" the diplomat was promised. She cannot violate another's legal rights because she feels entitled to a servant (excuse me, an "au pair").
4. Shipping a human being overseas to be a servant with the expectation that they will be underpaid doesn't make this okay. On the contrary, that's ominously close to human trafficking.
5. Asking to be released from unjust and illegal labor conditions and proposing a settlement for back-pay and damages IS NOT BLACKMAIL! (If it were blackmail, why is the servant not being prosecuted for extortion? Answer: because it's not blackmail!)
6. The arrest really isn't about the servant (Ms. Richard). Ms. Khobragade is being prosecuted by the federal government for a crime committed against the federal government. She lied on a federal form, which is a felony right there. She also did so to cover up that she violated the minimum wage law. That's why she was arrested.
7. All the talk about servants that has arisen in Western media and online is due to India's response and how stunned we in the West are that there are still people on this planet who can be this inhumane (as your comment sadly illustrates).
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.
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 world, please look in your own back yard. It's not that much prettier.
"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)?
That is probably true, but it is totally unrealistic. Should we all remain silent in the face of such abuses until we have made our own "backyards" clean?
"...only those without sin should cast the first stone. [This] is so relativistic and "nonjudgmental" that it would not allow the prosecution of Charles Manson. Our few notions of justice have had to evolve despite these absurd codes of ultra vindictiveness and ultracompassion." - Christopher Hitchens
#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.
why are you so stunned that people can be inhumane? Have you looked into how all those clothes you rushed so madly to buy on black friday are so dirt cheap? Or that iphone? There are people in the west who are equally or even more inhumane - being distant from the inhumanity is just washing your hands off it. Make statements like those - if you're someone who only buys things produced fairly and the makers of which pay minimum wages to their employees - otherwise you're as inhumane as the next guy - but just have the luxury of being able to ignore it and feel good for yourself because you're not directly involved.
So, let's say that the au pair finds out that she's getting paid a third of what her employer claimed on an official document to be paying her (and also considerably less than the legal minimum wage). What's wrong with the au pair then leaving the employer? What's wrong with her seeking legal advice? What's wrong with her lawyer threatening legal action?
Also, I find it very sleazy that the diplomat's sister possesses and released to the press a personal letter from the au pair to her family.
American here. Watching this case intermittently, it's a little hard to fathom the seething anger in India. The matter seems fairly straightforward:
- Rule of law applies, regardless the person; that's the theory, anyway. In practice, the laws tend to favor the wealthy and powerful; but whatever gets into the books tends to be applied as resources permit. In other words, this had nothing to do with the fact that the diplomat was Indian; it had to do with a point of law.
- There are well-known limits to diplomatic immunity.
Recall the reckless young American that went around and broke a bunch of car windows in Singapore sometime back. Americans were all upset that he was caned. But on one level, it was quite fair -- any Singaporean would have received the same punishment, and Singapore did not budge on the rule.
Raymond Allen Davis is a former United States Army soldier, private security firm employee, and contractor with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). On January 27, 2011, Davis killed two reportedly armed men in Lahore, Pakistan. Although the U.S. government contended that he was protected by diplomatic immunity because of his employment with the U.S. Consulate in Lahore, Davis was jailed and criminally charged by Pakistani authorities with double murder and the illegal possession of a firearm. A car coming to aid Davis killed a third Pakistani man in a "hit and run" while speeding on the wrong side of the road. On March 16, 2011, Davis was released after the families of the two killed men were paid $2.4 million in diyya (a form of monetary compensation or blood money). Judges then acquitted him on all charges and Davis immediately departed Pakistan.
The incident led to a diplomatic furor and deterioration in Pakistan–United States relations. A major focus of the incident was the U.S.'s assertion that Davis was protected under the principle of diplomatic immunity due to his role as an "administrative and technical official" attached to the Lahore consulate. The U.S. government claimed that Davis was protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and demanded he be released from custody immediately. President Barack Obama asked Pakistan not to prosecute Davis and recognize him as a diplomat, stating, "There's a broader principle at stake that I think we have to uphold."
The maid in question could have refused to work and returned back to India - but the reality which most Americans dont want to accept is that she would have gotten a salary 1/10 of what she was making there.
So she played the american justice system very intelligently. But this is all OK - if anything that is not what is causing the resentment.
There is also a case of overreach here. The woman has a case in India registered because she went absconding. Now let's take this in context - India is the only country which has suffered worse in international terrorism. So a maid going AWOL in the US is a pretty big deal.
what the American embassy did was unbelievable - get US visas for the whole family of the maid and fly her to the US without going through the Indian authorities.
This has everyone pissed mad coming after the heels of the Americans denying access to 26/11 accused Headley. Ergo the anger.
> Recall the reckless young American that went around and broke a bunch of car windows in Singapore sometime back. Americans were all upset that he was caned. But on one level, it was quite fair -- any Singaporean would have received the same punishment, and Singapore did not budge on the rule.
I remember when that happened. There were some Americans who were upset that the young man was going to be caned, but there were plenty of other Americans who wholeheartedly approved of the caning and wished we had in here in this country.
The support for "being treated well" in the Daily Mail article is a letter written to her family, one month after arriving in the US. That's not strong evidence for the claim. One, it was only after one month, which may not be representative of the rest of her working time. Two, when people aren't doing well, they don't always tell their family so, because they don't want their family to worry.
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.
It is true that the U.S. is not specifically bound by the ICC, and that the Geneva protocols have never been held to apply to franc-tireurs, which is probably the closest analogue to "terrorist".
However, this has very little bearing on GP's main point about diplomatic immunity, which is a widely-observed custom going back to at least the Council of Vienna; apparently, it's even an official convention [1] nowadays. The U.S. can and should indeed be expected to respect that. (Yes yes, I know about Assange/Snowden, no need to bring it up again.)
At the time of the alleged crime, the accused was a member of the consular staff, not a diplomat, and would therefore only be entitled to consular immunity, not full diplomatic immunity. Consular immunity extends only to actions taken as part of her consular duties. That's a very important distinction.
India has re-assigned her to a diplomatic post and tried to get retroactive full diplomatic immunity for her, but she was not a diplomat at the time she allegedly committed perjury by misreporting wages.
Having a maid/gardener etc is fairly common in most 3rd world countries. Often the wage is a bit on the dubious side, but I think most of our 1st world country hn people are misinterpreting this as intentionally malicious. The process usually involves asking some close friends/relatives what they pay & then paying similar amounts. The end result is that its market forces driven.
As for minimum wage - certainly. However it must be set according to the country. e.g. If you set the minimum wage in my country at what an American might think appropriate then you'd double unemployment overnight. "Living wage"...sure but one has to be realistic too - at some point you push people out of the formal economy & that point is very very low for 3rd world countries.
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 determines the "Decent" wage, idiots at NYTimes?
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 and a ridiculous minimum wage.
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 and a ridiculous minimum wage.
ok,I wont even bother answer that. When you find yourself in a dire situation , remember that comment you've made.
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.
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.
i don't understand. for years my mom worked at her job (12hrs night shift, hard labor, without most of her fingers on one hand which she lost in an accident), cooked and cleaned, and took care of her young children
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.
The real curse of India is the hindu caste system. Here in India it's something like "you shall not name it, or say it". Everyone knows it's the real cause, but no one says it or worse tries to generalise and hide it in other words. For every single Devayani, or K.R.Narayanan (who was made the president of India), there are lakhs and lakhs of untold unspeakable cruelty and suffering and that is the true ratio.
International readers would get the real picture of India if they skim through local hindi newspapers (especially states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar) using Google translator everyday to know about the real India and the real hindu caste system, instead of relying on sugar-coated and watered-down reality and wonderland being churned by cunning authors or Bollywood.
Here the issue is simple. It's a matter of protocols and rights. It was about nations. But even the cunning author (like the other snakes in India) brought in the hindu caste factor, perhaps for a good reason. You know the kind of sly hint to the upper caste NRIs that she's not one of us, so lie low for now and pretend to be good in the eyes of the US.
The low castes (untouchables) are making headway in India not due to any empathy of the hindu caste system and hinduism but due to their becoming aware of the sheer strength of their numbers and the power of organisation. So much so that even karma and dharma have been flushed down the latrines, and people have begun to realise and make their own destiny and bright future. And the best part is that, hinduism no more has the balls to assert or speak about its true philosophy and values but is forced to hide itself in the "progressive" sheep cloth.
I've noticed this tendency to abuse the crap out of the Air Stewards on-board Singapore Airlines from indians.
Not a single occurrence, but several times on several flights.
The moral of the article is "it's wrong to exploit the impoverished." It's easy to apply that moral to other cultures and societies, but difficult to apply to one's own.
Indians deny injustice when it gives them servants just like Westerners deny injustice when it gives them iPhones.
The talk show mentioned in the last paragraph is here [1]. The quote comes at the end, ~45:30. Pretty terrible moderation - it's hard to watch, though it might at least bring out some of the points from another perspective. The focus seems to be entirely on the diplomatic insult of a pretty woman put in handcuffs over a 'trivial' matter. But combined with the US's (genuine) hypocrisy as noted by their handling of the Raymond Davis issue in Pakistan, there seem to be ulterior tensions leaking into this particular incident.
Diplomatic relations are hard - there is such difficulty knowing how actions will be perceived by another nation/culture.
The author shows a complete lack of understanding of India - and brings up completely unrelated topics (casteism?!) to support her already weak point. In fact - bringing up the Diplomats caste is her being racist (casteist? - dunno the right word but you know what I mean) herself. It's as if an American author were to say "well a few hundred years ago these black people were slaves - and now they dare to treat someone badly" - how is that a reasonable argument by any means?
Coming to the crux of the matter. Having lived in Bombay - and having had servants I can say that its in no means as "exploitative" as the author claims. Sure - an indian house helper earns less than an american does. So what? The median income in India is nowhere close to comparable to that in the US. An uneducated village boy - who would either earn a few hundred rupees (10-20 USD) a month working on someone elses farm in his village - is much better off coming to the city and earning more than five or six thousand rupees (100 - 120 $) a month in the city - with which he can also support his family back in the village who get by on subsistence farming. Many servants take on multiple jobs - earning almost double or triple of that. Which is NOT bad by any means considering he will often be provided meals and accomodation in addition to his salary. Its a simple calculation - the average IT worker earns approximately 40-5000 rupees after tax per month - assume if a couple - both employed in IT - earning around 100000 rupees per month - keep a maid to cook and clean - and pay her 10000 a month. Thats 10% of their salary - why is that exploitative? The maid is free to go take 2-3 others such jobs to fill her day and is easily making close to what the IT guys make. Until we reach a standard of literacy and education where everyone can make tonnes of money - this will continue - and its NOT a bad thing. A lot of families try to break the cycle by paying the school fees for their servants children or buying them the yearly textbooks etc - we did that growing up. At the end of the day - its a free market and these are not indentured slaves - if they find better paying work elsewhere (and often they do - cleaning malls and the like) - they go do that - and no one can stop them.
As for why people "need" servants - well - its a part of the culture and has a lot to do with economics as well. Right now - in a city like Bombay -its cheaper to have a servant who washes your clothes and cleans your house - than it is to have a washing machine (if you're lucky enough to have the space to fit one in) & a vaccuum cleaner. Its a dusty country - and you do need to clean more often than you do in the temperate regions. In families where all adults are working - it just makes sense to have a servant. Its economics and logic - not exploitation.
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.
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.
A minimum wage would definitely help the wages of a lot of servants. But it would (probably) mean some percent of them becoming unemployed because they can't be afforded/aren't worth the cost anymore. It might also decrease working conditions, because those unemployed people are now competing for your job. You can't compete on the basis of wages anymore so now it on the basis of how much you can do/put up with. Also because it then becomes harder to leave your job and find another.
That doesn't mean there isn't a net benefit to doing it. An ideal solution would be a basic income. Tax everyone equally, not just those that hire lots of servants, and benefit everyone equally, not just employed servants. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Ms. Khobragade if she exploited the maid is in the wrong. The rich and the powerful do get away with a lot in India, which to the chagrin of Ms. Khobragade, she found out was not the case elsewhere.
Most of the criticism we see in India about US actions and support for Ms. Khobragade isn't necessarily that. There are a couple of concerns which largely underlie the anger
(a) US diplomats (and diplomats of other nations) enjoy many privileges in India. These privileges are reciprocal and India feels that this reciprocity was not available when dealing with Ms. Khobragade. Older folks like my father who was a government officer for his entire working life understand that she should be prosecuted, they only expect an apology for the treatment meted out to Ms. Khobragade during and after the arrest, which is not forthcoming.
This reciprocity extends to looking the other way when granting permits and licenses such as those for importing liquor, visa for same sex couples, which is a grey area in Indian penal code and many other benefits which are not all clearly legal.
(b) US actions to grant visa and arrange for Ms. Sangeeta Richards and family be flown out of India despite requests by Indian government, which provided US with details of a missing persons/absconding report having been filed in India, undermine Indian Judiciary. The undercurrent claim, Ms. Richards would not be served justice in India.
It is debatable whether Ms. Richards would have justice served in India, what is not debatable is the wrong doing of the US to publicly undermine the Indian judiciary. Ms. Richards is an Indian citizen and needs to pursue cases under the Indian law.
(c) There has been for a time now, a proposal to contract and place positions like those of Ms. Richards directly under the preview of the Indian government. This proposal had not been approved by the parliament yet, however the US department of state was aware of this. It is expected to be approved and when it does pass the parliament, Ms. Richards would be paid wages in India and would be free to accept or decline the offered pay. Ms. Richards was in a similar situation and was free to return to India if she considered herself exploited.
This is the gray area reciprocity that India extends to US diplomats and expects the same in return.
Ms. Khobragade is a smoke screen for why India feels wrong.
What a piece of crap link-bait. The actual title of the article should have been the last sentence of her piece: "Having a servant you cannot pay a decent wage cannot be a birthright".
When we choose a diplomat for a country that makes homosexuality illegal, shouldn't we avoid selecting a homosexual diplomat? That seems like fairly basic diplomacy.
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.
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.
I wonder if the same people who say "If you can't afford to pay a servant a living wage, you shouldn't have one" also like to claim the raising the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment?
i'm pretty sure there have been studies on this. i think one study found that raising the minimum wage either didn't make a difference in unemployment, or that it lowered unemployment slightly (i believe this study was based on a border region between two states, one of which raised the minimum wage)
but either way, i don't think you should assume it's a simple matter
but the point is that if you are saying "don't hire a person to do something that you can't afford to pay a living wage for" then you are encouraging them to hire less people, which directly creates unemployment (even if there are other mechanisms that counteract this).
I'm aware of the study, but I think that economic theory is more informative than a single study that can't necessarily be generalized.
I had a few Indian friends in college who all lamented the lack of servants in their American day-to-day. One woman I knew recalled having 6 or 7 servants, but described herself as coming from just a normal, slightly-upper-middle class family.
It really stuck with me over the years. Growing up in the U.S., servants have a kind of old-world upper-class, if not crusty and exploitive, vibe.
Yet I've found myself over the years, as free-time disappeared into work and salaries increased, hiring a maid to come in once a month to clean house and a gardener to mow my lawn and tidy my plants once every couple of weeks. I've hired tutors and other private instructors, a fixit guy who comes and does other maintenance on my home every once in a while and so on. My wife and I have toyed with having a cook come in once a week and prepare a bunch of meals.
I'm sure if pressed I could come up with a half dozen other people I've hired on for their physical labor at one time or another. If needed, I'm sure most of them would become "live in servants" for the right price and accommodations.
It's also not uncommon in my area for families to hire Au Pairs which is really just a fancy way of saying live-in Nanny/house maid, which is a servant's title. They're given fairly little pay, maybe $1200/mo and room and board in exchange for child care and some house chores/personal assistant work. In other areas dedicated personal assistants are quite common. And I've seen people setup "internships" for their personal businesses which are so tied to their personal lives that the work is usually just personal assisting for intern pay.
Yet in the U.S. we've allergic to calling these people "servants" because it seems menial and disparaging I guess.
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?