> 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 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.