Servants - yes or no?

[Revoltingest]

In this OP I proposed that we have a maximum wage cap of 100K/year.

If you had your way, the underground economy would boom.
It would become as it was/is in the USSR & PRC, where favors & threats became the currency to replace money.
Tis the old law of unintended consequences....things won't turn out exactly as you imagine.

 

[nnmartin]

but of course we must remember that most people don't actually earn as much as 100K.

In the SU the wages were very low for all - so with the wage cap in place we can still have wealthy and non-wealthy yet without the extremes.

The wage cap would most likely do away with servants to a large degree as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

but of course we must remember that most people don't actually earn as much as 100K.

That was true in the PRC & USSR too.

The wage cap would most likely do away with servants to a large degree as well.

Geeze....that's one rigidly controlled society you want there, fella.

 

[Draka]

I find it ironic that in the zeal shown to deny servants to people one actually denies income to those who want to do those jobs. I really am liking the idea of getting the job as a maid when both my little ones are in school. It's a job I feel would be a good fit for me and my needs for a while, and one I could take pride in. Why shouldn't I be able to do that job? Why deny me that employment if I want it? In the realm of part time jobs I would much rather be a maid than work in a fast food place or a walmart. So why shouldn't I be able to?

 

[Revoltingest]

In the realm of part time jobs I would much rather be a maid than work in a fast food place or a walmart. So why shouldn't I be able to?

It's not your choice.
Nnm has decreed it so.

 

[LongGe123]

If you had your way, the underground economy would boom.
It would become as it was/is in the USSR & PRC, where favors & threats became the currency to replace money.
Tis the old law of unintended consequences....things won't turn out exactly as you imagine.

Absolutely right. It's so easy to simply say slap a 100k/year wage cap and everything will be fine. Will it actually work? Of course not. All you'll be doing is removing one avenue of extreme and replacing it with another By this, I mean that people will FIND ways to get "rich" over others, and what your wage cap does is force people to use less..kosher means to achieve it.

What I've been saying about nnmartin all along is basically the same - you can't just polarize the system like this, and take two extreme labels and attach them to everyone. Rich or poor, good or evil, master or slave, capitalist or communist etc. History is littered with examples of psychos who did just that, with catastrophic consequences. In a free society, one must have the freedom to aspire to be more than they start as. That's the more capitalist element. But the government needs to do more to provide opportunity to those who need the most help. That's the more socialist element. What's ideal is a social democracy, where a slightly more limited version of capitalism exists for the economy, and a representative people-minded body is elected to govern. Of course, it's hard to realise it.

Nnmartin seems to believe that this manner of spliced ideology cannot exist, and that instead we must conform to his fascist rambling and live in his joyless society where none of us have any hope of earning more than 100k a year. And where noone is free to get a job as a domestic worker, because he thinks it's not something anyone should do for a living.

 

[LongGe123]

I find it ironic that in the zeal shown to deny servants to people one actually denies income to those who want to do those jobs. I really am liking the idea of getting the job as a maid when both my little ones are in school. It's a job I feel would be a good fit for me and my needs for a while, and one I could take pride in. Why shouldn't I be able to do that job? Why deny me that employment if I want it? In the realm of part time jobs I would much rather be a maid than work in a fast food place or a walmart. So why shouldn't I be able to?

Well said! That's exactly what I've been trying to explain to nnmartin but he/she refuses to accept it! In his crusade to "liberate" all the domestic workers of the world, he'll first of all be putting thousands out of work, and second of all be denying thousands of others the opportunity for a job they might actually want!

 

[nnmartin]

I find it ironic that in the zeal shown to deny servants to people one actually denies income to those who want to do those jobs. I really am liking the idea of getting the job as a maid when both my little ones are in school. It's a job I feel would be a good fit for me and my needs for a while, and one I could take pride in. Why shouldn't I be able to do that job?

It's for the greater good of society.

Remember, you must look at the whole picture here.

Doing away with servants is only a small part of the whole system in which these kinds of useless tasks will be done away with.

Sure, we may need cleaners and lawnmowers for public buildings and parks but that will be for the benefit of all.

Also, we will not have such inequality, so the need to be a servant will be much lower and the percentage of people looking for staff will also considerably drop.

It is part of human nature to dominate and become master, so we need to attack this aberration of the ego.

 

[nnmartin]

Nnmartin seems to believe that this manner of spliced ideology cannot exist, and that instead we must conform to his fascist rambling and live in his joyless society where none of us have any hope of earning more than 100k a year. And where noone is free to get a job as a domestic worker, because he thinks it's not something anyone should do for a living.

100K is plenty enough money to live off - I've even said that the figure could be upped slightly.

do you think people in the past were joyless because they earned less than this! - of course not.

Nowadays, people only want more money, status, possessions and 'respect' because others have it - so it's all a false desire in the first place.

We need to lower peoples' sense of entitlement and avarice, not increase it!

With all the riches we have in the World why should anyone need to wipe up after another , simply to put food on the table?

 

[nnmartin]

Well said! That's exactly what I've been trying to explain to nnmartin but he/she refuses to accept it! In his crusade to "liberate" all the domestic workers of the world, he'll first of all be putting thousands out of work, and second of all be denying thousands of others the opportunity for a job they might actually want!

My crusade is not about liberating the domestic worker; it's about diminishing the force of the march towards social segregation and self-aggrandisement.

 

[Revoltingest]

My crusade is not about liberating the domestic worker; it's about diminishing the force of the march towards social segregation and self-aggrandisement.

We're all lucky that your arguments aren't convincing.
Otherwise, you'd be one dangerous dude!

 

[Draka]

This is a load of bull. If you want to do something for society then figure out how to bring maintainable fresh water and food to places where people are starving. Help people quit smoking. Work on diminishing childhood obesity. Cure cancer. But denying people perfectly good jobs is not improving society, just crippling it.

 

[nnmartin]

Those issues are easy to deal with.

1. How to bring fresh water and food to those that are starving.

answer - stop all foreign aid, and forment revolution in 3rd World nations to rid them of corrupt leaders and governments.

2. how to quit smoking

answer - ban tobacco

3. stopping childhood obesity

answer - Social feeding programs to be introduced.

4. cure cancer?

answer - not possible to do as this is an act of Nature


any more?

 

[Revoltingest]

Those issues are easy to deal with.
1. How to bring fresh water and food to those that are starving.
answer - stop all foreign aid, and forment revolution in 3rd World nations to rid them of corrupt leaders and governments.

Yes! War always benefits the poor & downtrodden.

 

[LongGe123]

Those issues are easy to deal with.
1. How to bring fresh water and food to those that are starving.
answer - stop all foreign aid and forment revolution in 3rd World nations to rid themof corrupt leaders and governments.
2. how to quit smoking
answer - ban tobacco
3. stopping childhood obesity
answer - Social feeding programs to be introduced.
4. cure cancer?
answer - not possible to cure as this is an act of Nature
any more?

Are you quite serious?

1) How does bringing war and revolution into 3rd world countries help them get food and water? It's BECAUSE there's revolution and war NOW that many don't have water and food there! Foreign aid can't get to where it needs to go! Idi Amin came to power in Uganda promising many great things --- he came in via revolution removing a "corrupt" leader, Obote, and the result?

2) Ban tobacco? First of all, that would be crazy as tobacco is a MAJOR source of government income. Perhaps more importantly though, you're talking about setting up a system which denies people pretty basic freedom - the freedom of choice. Finally, banning tobacco won't work, because it'll just give the mafia free run over theindustry - remember what happened during prohibition in the US?

3) Social feeding programs? You mean just fill the schools with gruel orsomething and make everyone eat the same until they are skinny again? Don't you think that greater education on healthy eating and improving physical education at school would be more prudent? Or even government subsidized gym membership for low-income families!

4) This one is the most laughable of them all! We stop trying to cure cancer because it's natural? What?!?! Pretty much all diseases are natural, should we stop doing AIDS research too? Should we stop trying to develop more effective vaccines for hepatitis and measles? Earthquakes are an act of nature too, should we stop working on earthquake detection? What about storm shelters? Are we all just to sit back and let nature wipe us all out?

The vision you're painting of the world you wish to create is absolutely terrifying to me. So i'm gonna make like Monty Python and :run:

 

[nnmartin]

Are you quite serious?

1) How does bringing war and revolution into 3rd world countries help them get food and water?

A reasonable point and I may make a new thread on this topic.

2) Ban tobacco? First of all, that would be crazy as tobacco is a MAJOR source of government income. Perhaps more importantly though, you're talking about setting up a system which denies people pretty basic freedom - the freedom of choice.

That looks like a good thread topic too.

I think I'll start one shortly, hope to see you there

3) Social feeding programs? You mean just fill the schools with gruel orsomething and make everyone eat the same until they are skinny again? Don't you think that greater education on healthy eating and improving physical education at school would be more prudent? Or even government subsidized gym membership for low-income families!

I actually agree with your recommendations here!

4) This one is the most laughable of them all! We stop trying to cure cancer because it's natural? What?!?! Pretty much all diseases are natural, should we stop doing AIDS research too? Should we stop trying to develop more effective vaccines for hepatitis and measles? Earthquakes are an act of nature too, should we stop working on earthquake detection? What about storm shelters? Are we all just to sit back and let nature wipe us all out?

We seem to have run into an Order of Nature type issue here.

Cancer is encoded into the DNA - so is not something we can eradicate.

Evolution probably needs this kind of coding in order to propagate the species on all its various levels; again we are verging into off-topic territory here.

 

[Draka]

 

[nnmartin]

great - a blank post!

is there some kind of hidden meaning you wish to convey here?

 

[Draka]

 

[LongGe123]

A reasonable point and I may make a new thread on this topic.
That looks like a good thread topic too.
I think I'll start one shortly, hope to see you there
I actually agree with your recommendations here!
We seem to have run into an Order of Nature type issue here.
Cancer is encoded into the DNA - so is not something we can eradicate.
Evolution probably needs this kind of coding in order to propagate the species on all its various levels; again we are verging into off-topic territory here.

And since when were you the only person in the world who understands the nature of cancer? So it's written into your DNA, so are many things, should we stop trying to find ways to treat them. The battle against cancer isn't necessarily about "eradicating" as we have done with smallpox - it's about finding ways to effectively treat it so that if you do get it, you can recover quickly and with minimal side effects. It's also about finding ways to detect it earlier so that we might improve people's chances of surviving it.