
Having a Servant Is Not a Right - GabrielF00
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/opinion/having-a-servant-is-not-a-right.html?hp&rref=opinion
======
bane
> 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?

~~~
bjourne
> 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.

~~~
bicx
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.

~~~
kamakazizuru
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!

~~~
jellicle
> all of Indias middle class didn't get together one day and decide to
> manipulate that rate!

What do you think the caste system _is_?

~~~
kamakazizuru
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.

~~~
mhogomchungu
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.

------
credo
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.

~~~
smegel
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.

~~~
kamakazizuru
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?

~~~
rhizome
To be sure, the people and companies who own those farms are some of the
strongest opponents of immigration laws.

------
jordanb
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.

~~~
whatisa
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.

------
chasing
> "If somebody cannot afford to have [X], then they don’t have [X]."

To be fair, many Americans could take the same lesson.

(And thanks for making me have to agree with the Heritage Foundation. Now I
need to go take a shower and read some Paul Krugman columns...)

~~~
mildtrepidation
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.

------
al2o3cr
"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!"

~~~
sliverstorm
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.

~~~
bradleyjg
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).

~~~
sliverstorm
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.

~~~
phaer
It does not work like that because there is plenty of crime which is non-
violent as well as not financial.

~~~
kamakazizuru
such as?

~~~
iamjustin
Any person jailed just for selling drugs.

~~~
roel_v
I don't have a horse in this race, but have you ever been around drug dealers?

~~~
phaer
Some of them are violent but some are not. It's not too hard to find people
who would not use violence an sell wee for example.

------
moocowduckquack
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.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
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.

~~~
moocowduckquack
_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.

~~~
gress
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.

------
yummyfajitas
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.

[http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServ...](http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2012/11/06/000158349_20121106085546/Rendered/PDF/wps6259.pdf)

[http://dipeco.uniroma3.it/public/WP%20163%20Liberati%202012....](http://dipeco.uniroma3.it/public/WP%20163%20Liberati%202012.pdf)

------
petilon
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?

~~~
bitops
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.

~~~
jes
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.

~~~
bitops
_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.

------
suprgeek
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.

Also see
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6947473](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6947473)
for the real motivation behind this incident.

[1] [http://www.firstpost.com/india/adarsh-scam-devyani-
khobragad...](http://www.firstpost.com/india/adarsh-scam-devyani-khobragade-
ineligible-for-flat-says-panel-1299599.html)

[2] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526719/Pictured-
The...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526719/Pictured-The-
housekeeper-center-international-furor-arrest-Indian-diplomat-boss-kept-
virtual-slave-leaked-letter-home-reveals-claimed-not-feel-like-servant-
all.html)

[3] [http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2013/12/18/richards-
dema...](http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2013/12/18/richards-
demanded-10000-khobragade-change-visa-status-termination-contract/)

~~~
skue
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).

Edit: Grammar fixes.

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

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

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

------
FrankenPC
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.

~~~
JanezStupar
U.S. is not a member of ICC [1].

And regarding war crimes... You know that the Geneva rules only apply to enemy
__combatants__ right?

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internati...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court)

~~~
JoachimSchipper
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.)

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations)

------
Havoc
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.

------
akshtest
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.

~~~
camus2
> Wages are determined by market

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.

~~~
akshtest
Market! Market determines the wage.

>> minimum salary you ought to pay in the USA

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.

------
dalit
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.

~~~
selimthegrim
[http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main13.asp?filename=Cr07300...](http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main13.asp?filename=Cr073005Dont_look_at.asp)

------
asimov42
Isn't it obvious this is the result of a country of extremely low average
income and extremely high population?

Of course it would be great to have even a semblance of equality, but I dont
see a solution given the current economic model.

~~~
pessimizer
Low average income, but extremely low median income. There's nothing obvious
or inevitable about that.

~~~
asimov42
Can you clarify what you mean by that? The slightly less poor exploit off the
extremely poor?

------
seivan
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.

------
winstonx
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.

------
toufka
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.

[1][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbHYiOAtFS4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbHYiOAtFS4)

------
kamakazizuru
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.

~~~
wrongc0ntinent
Your sample is too small. India is more of a fragmented subcontinent than a
country. There is no "city like Bombay" (other than Mumbai).

~~~
kamakazizuru
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.

~~~
wrongc0ntinent
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.

~~~
kamakazizuru
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.

~~~
wrongc0ntinent
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.

~~~
kamakazizuru
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.

~~~
wrongc0ntinent
I'm not saying having servants is only exploitation, I'm pointing out that to
chalk it all up to economics is the mistake you're making. That's all.

------
Houshalter
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.

------
puppetmaster3
Yes, I see it so clear, USA culture is superior /s.

------
jacob2271
First things first, as an Indian,

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.

------
sjtgraham
Did anyone else read the title as "Having a Servant is Not Right"?

------
aagha
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".

------
charlieflowers
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.

------
afterburner
India has a class problem.

~~~
kamakazizuru
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.

~~~
afterburner
Oh, then they're all the same then, right?

India has _more_ of a class problem than the US. Obviously, or this situation
wouldn't have happened.

If inequality in India suddenly dropped to the same level as the US, I would
be very happy for India. And I would still want the US to be less unequal.

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

~~~
afterburner
OK.

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

~~~
kamakazizuru
Which is wrong.

~~~
afterburner
What's your theory?

------
yetanotherphd
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?

~~~
tokipin
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

~~~
yetanotherphd
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.

