But you're smarter & less nasal sounding.Oh, wow! I must be. I forgot all about that song "You Gotta Serve Somebody"- Bob Zimmerman (Dylan) has a lot of wisdom.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Servants - yes or no?
- Thread starter nnmartin
- Start date
InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect
Member
Really? No one made sure the food you ate wasn't poison and the roads you drove on didn't break your car and any injuries you had were cured and how daft are you?
Go live in the desert by yourself and achieve the lifestyle you have now. You don't get what privilege being born in the USA has given you or you aren't appreciative except when it comes to jewelry you supposedly earned? Spare me the details of your private life... No one helped me... blah blah... so disrespectful.
good for you. ಠ_ಠ
I am gathering your sentiments but I don't think you understand what you're advocating. I get how you rationalize and justify your actions but I don't think you see what is going on around you and really that is kind of me fibbing. To be honest I think you are more interested in rationalizing than understanding and I don't think you can be bothered with reality. You had some hard times so will everyone else but things will get better for them just as they did for you... which IMHO is just a cop out and really a useless point of view for most people but than again it does benefit you... And if they still suffer despite working hard than what? God willed it? They should have been born looking different? Your ideology as I interpret it is delusional on multiple levels but you really sell it.
You seem charming in your ability to sell oppression.
I don't really think you appreciate what working means in america means right now. Long ago when only men worked and before technology cut the need for labor maybe you had a point... but now with modern technology and women entering the work force there simply is not enough jobs for americans and you seem like you want to blame the people not working and punish them because you don't understand what has been happening in your own country. (Its actually even more complicated than my over-simplification with outsourcing and the over-pricing of higher education nationally when compared with students and the competition internationally but lets not get more distracted.) You seem distracted and emotionally invested in arguments that have almost nothing to do with your reality and why would you take a time out and reassess when you have others serving you already. Your life is great and so can anyone elses... if they just work hard... (That is your lie.... you live it but you dont see why its a lie or believe its a lie)
So did the farmers need their king and the king need their farmers... But the king never worked and the farmer worked everyday and raised his kids to do so as well and never did he or his family enjoy the lifestyle of the king. Do you not get the feudalistic argument?
Last edited:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/insurgoinsurgiinsurrect-36183.htmlInsurgolnsurgilnsurrect - I think it's YOU who are being somewhat deluded. Arguments about the loss of American jobs to overseas competition is not what this thread is about - but I agree it's a tragedy. Same problem in the UK. But, how can you possibly refute Kathryn's point about mutual respect with some diatribe about it being "feudalistic" - it's not feudalistic AT ALL! The whole point of the feudal system is that it WASN'T based on mutual respect, but on mutual acceptance of a natural hierarchy.
The OP believes that it is inherently wrong to hire people to work as your "servants", a term which is now somewhat superceded by "domestic workers". Both Kathryn and I seem to agree on this, that as long as one treats those he/she hires with respect, pays them fairly for work done and generally is a good employer, where's the inherent wrong? You are talking about the evils of exploitation, the sins of capitalist exploiters and whatnot, and then applying THAT to what kathryn and I are saying, which is utterly different.
And by the way, just because we live in a more developed society, doesn't mean some of us don't still have to work hard to achieve the lifestyle we enjoy. The foundations may be provided through democratic government and legistlation protecting our rights, but that doesn't get us good grades in college or pay a mortgage! So, why after so much slog, if we have the money for it, shouldn't we be able to hire people willing to do certain work for us in exchange for fair pay? You CAN'T possibly deny that it's NOT inherently wrong to do so.
The things you are describing cannot be ascribed to what people like Kathryn and I are advocating. You say we are just trying to justify ourselves with this strange reasoning, and you say that we are in fact part of some evil and corrupt system designed to maintain the downtrodden status of the "lower orders" or something. Well FYI, I don't believe in anything so stupid as "lower orders", and have NEVER disrepected anyone who has worked for my family. At the same time, I know (as do our employees) that the only reason my family found themselves able to hire these good people, was through their own graft, hard work and dedication! And neither you nor any other pseudo-revolutionary is going to convince me otherwise
The OP believes that it is inherently wrong to hire people to work as your "servants", a term which is now somewhat superceded by "domestic workers". Both Kathryn and I seem to agree on this, that as long as one treats those he/she hires with respect, pays them fairly for work done and generally is a good employer, where's the inherent wrong? You are talking about the evils of exploitation, the sins of capitalist exploiters and whatnot, and then applying THAT to what kathryn and I are saying, which is utterly different.
And by the way, just because we live in a more developed society, doesn't mean some of us don't still have to work hard to achieve the lifestyle we enjoy. The foundations may be provided through democratic government and legistlation protecting our rights, but that doesn't get us good grades in college or pay a mortgage! So, why after so much slog, if we have the money for it, shouldn't we be able to hire people willing to do certain work for us in exchange for fair pay? You CAN'T possibly deny that it's NOT inherently wrong to do so.
The things you are describing cannot be ascribed to what people like Kathryn and I are advocating. You say we are just trying to justify ourselves with this strange reasoning, and you say that we are in fact part of some evil and corrupt system designed to maintain the downtrodden status of the "lower orders" or something. Well FYI, I don't believe in anything so stupid as "lower orders", and have NEVER disrepected anyone who has worked for my family. At the same time, I know (as do our employees) that the only reason my family found themselves able to hire these good people, was through their own graft, hard work and dedication! And neither you nor any other pseudo-revolutionary is going to convince me otherwise
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
ok, so when the poor peasant women from the depths of the Chinese interior services you and your children all day , who is going to take care of hers?
why should she sacrifice her motherhood to elevate your lifestyle,
and what have you done for her, other than thrown her a few coins?
why should she sacrifice her motherhood to elevate your lifestyle,
and what have you done for her, other than thrown her a few coins?
Who else will throw her coins.
People work because they need to survive.
If you take away their work, then what would you provide in its stead?
First of all - when did I force this Chinese peasant lady to come and work for me? You make it sound like I kidnapped her or something.
Second - It's unlikely this would happen in China given restrictions on residence and movement that still exist, particularly between places like Beijing and "the depths of the interior" as you put it
Third - No one is asking anyone to sacrifice anything. You twist and contort the entire thing to make it sound like I am engaging in something depraved, corrupt and sordid! If I advertise for a cleaner, or someone to walk my dog while I'm at work, or whatever, then I just put an ad somewhere and then someone responds. I don't go among the masses and pluck people from the streets and coerce them into being my servants. What planet do you live on?
If someone responds to an ad I place for a job opportunity, then that's their own choice. What part of that is so wrong? Do explain. And no one is "elevating" their lifestyle. I have the money to pay someone to do something I don't want to do, so I do it! That's my choice, and my right. And if there's someone willing to receive that money, then where's the issue?! Do you manufacture your own stuff? Do you build your own house? NO! You pay people for services all the time, and now you're creating a double standard by saying SOME service is totally wrong. Get a clue, man.
Here's a simple clarification for anyone who still believes that hiring domestic workers is some sort of evil practice
Scenario 1: You purposefully coerce a bunch of very poor people, or perhaps some illegals, to work in your house doing various work. You tell them you'll pay them at the end of the month. The time comes and you don't pay them, but instead use threats to insist they keep doing their job or else bad things will happen. You talk to them like they're nothing and regularly beat them, scold them, and work them day and night with no rest, while feeding them only stale bread and stagnant water. You don't let them rest on holidays. You regard them as lower beings not worthy to even talk to you. They are your servants and you are their master.
Scenario 2: You place an ad in a local newspaper or on a supermarket advertisiing wall or something, saying you are looking for a part-time cleaner/cook. You got promoted at work which means you have more money, but will be super busy all the time. You would like it if there was somoeone who would come two or three times a week to clean the apartment, do some laundry, take the dry cleaning, maybe cook some dinner and leave it in the fridge, just to make life a little easier. You advertise a competitive rate of pay in order to attract someone good. Someone responds, you interview them, you like them, you hire them. You pay the first salary in advance and then take it month by month or week by week from then on. You always pay on time and in the full amount. You treat them well, like you would your own family or friends. Even if they come from a different background, it doesn't matter. They are people too, no different from you. They do a great job and you appreciate it so much. They start doing such an awesome job you decide to give them a little more money. You get to know them more, you know their birthday or anniversary or something so each time you get them a gift to demonstrate you care about them. They get sick one day, so you give them time off, it's fine! They have a family emergency so you of course let them take whatever time they need. They are your employee, and you are their employer. And you are both friends.
Now, anyone wanna tell me what's so wrong with scenario 2? This is what we are advocating. The fact that Martin decides to turn this into some proleterian struggle is absolutely astonishing. He paints everyone as scenario 1 and seems to genuinely believe that that is the case. Ridiculous.
Scenario 1: You purposefully coerce a bunch of very poor people, or perhaps some illegals, to work in your house doing various work. You tell them you'll pay them at the end of the month. The time comes and you don't pay them, but instead use threats to insist they keep doing their job or else bad things will happen. You talk to them like they're nothing and regularly beat them, scold them, and work them day and night with no rest, while feeding them only stale bread and stagnant water. You don't let them rest on holidays. You regard them as lower beings not worthy to even talk to you. They are your servants and you are their master.
Scenario 2: You place an ad in a local newspaper or on a supermarket advertisiing wall or something, saying you are looking for a part-time cleaner/cook. You got promoted at work which means you have more money, but will be super busy all the time. You would like it if there was somoeone who would come two or three times a week to clean the apartment, do some laundry, take the dry cleaning, maybe cook some dinner and leave it in the fridge, just to make life a little easier. You advertise a competitive rate of pay in order to attract someone good. Someone responds, you interview them, you like them, you hire them. You pay the first salary in advance and then take it month by month or week by week from then on. You always pay on time and in the full amount. You treat them well, like you would your own family or friends. Even if they come from a different background, it doesn't matter. They are people too, no different from you. They do a great job and you appreciate it so much. They start doing such an awesome job you decide to give them a little more money. You get to know them more, you know their birthday or anniversary or something so each time you get them a gift to demonstrate you care about them. They get sick one day, so you give them time off, it's fine! They have a family emergency so you of course let them take whatever time they need. They are your employee, and you are their employer. And you are both friends.
Now, anyone wanna tell me what's so wrong with scenario 2? This is what we are advocating. The fact that Martin decides to turn this into some proleterian struggle is absolutely astonishing. He paints everyone as scenario 1 and seems to genuinely believe that that is the case. Ridiculous.
InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect
Member
I think you are falling into the same trap of rationalizing decisions you have already made. No one is judging you or Kathryn. Hiring people and paying them appropriately and treating them with respect is not a bad thing and is in fact how capitalism works. Those that have money spend it on things they would like.
My argument is not about outsourcing. Outsourcing is a small and currently tertiary issue compounding a much bigger problem. My express uncouth tone is a direct reaction to posts which strongly state their point of view without having ever really thought about why they have those views and then proudly declaring their ignorance as if it was a staple of rough necks and tough personalities.
That might be hard to process... Its not your fault but mine. I am surprisingly inept and stating my thoughts before people get bored of listening to me.
But if you really want to try and process that ideology Chris Rock sums up a version of the idea and you can try to relate...
[youtube]f3PJF0YE-x4[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4&hd=1
I think you might get what I am saying but not why. You are trying to rationalize and justify your decisions but its not because you are part of some evil or corrupt system... That is not the why.
The issue is a little bigger and it would take a while to explain and I'm not sure how interested you are but I will say this... Working hard has nothing to do with being wealthy. If Romneys children drool and walk into walls and cant nail enough nails into a board at the yearly Romney Olympics they will still make more money than your average nurses aid working 80 hours a week with three kids and no matter how hard that nurses aid works she will never acquire the wealth or even have a chance of doing so.
Some people will never ever be able to work on a regular basis. Ever. It will be impossible... they will not have finished high school or will have murdered someone in grade school and entered into our american justice system... they are forever screwed. I talked to the lady who cleans my neighbors house and she cleans 7-10 other houses a day and then goes home and cleans her own house and takes care of her family. She will never have health care even though she works really hard and if she or any of her kids get a serious disease than that is, realistically, the end for her... (And not surprisingly one of her personal biggest fears. She doesn't speak great english and worries what would happen if anyone got seriously sick on the money she actually brings in) Telling her to work harder is not the answer. (IMHO Education is the answer provided the classes were taught in a language she had a commanding grasp of and that she actually had time to participate and focus)
Its not her fault and its a hard problem. Look at the stimulus... Obama gave 100's of corporations almost free loans to create jobs and they were like great lets take this money and make cars, gadgets or whatever it is they make. So they made them and sold them to americans or will try too. They problem is they don't make anything here... Manufacturing left before IT jobs so giving a company Billions to create jobs will create jobs just not jobs here.
People are obsessed with telling people to go get a job and work hard and they will make it while missing the fact that there are not jobs to work at. Technology first cut into the labor force... New technology is great but it also means corporations can take advantage of that to make a greater profit by relying on technology rather than people. In addition in america traditionally only men worked and provided for the family but now both men and women have to work to provide for the family. Then you have outsourcing and the result is in america we don't really have enough jobs for everyone without cutting into profits. So people without work will take whatever they can get... Cleaning houses, opening bagel shops, working at walmart or mcdonalds or whatever... They are trying to live out their 40-100 years of breathing your air and have some sort of life.
The model is broken and believe it not you might be helping people by hiring servants but you are also through rationalization missing the bigger picture. People who are not outraged with what is going in america are just too comfortable to pay attention.
Oscar Wilde said:
Last edited:
InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect
Member
Sure, personally speaking if I slash an artery or get a serious disease doctors will fall over themselves to take care of me because I am employed by a major corporation with a fantastic health care plan. If I want to take the day off or work from home to wait for a package no one will even argue with me or even really care. If I want to take off a whole month paid they will say sure see you next month.
Are you going to provide health care? (Why should employers have to provide health care? Shouldn't that be a basic right?)
Basically having health care and fantastic vacation time and a salary that is above average positions you as a predator of people who do not enjoy the same benefits. The status you hold as being part of a major corporation or born rich or whatever is a status bestowed only to a limited number of people by people you don't have any control over.
By using your advantage to in your eyes help people who have no or virtually no chance of attaining the same position you have in society you can thus rationalize as being a force of good but you are also tacitly approving and pushing forth the agenda of the people who employ you and provide you those benefits.
Looking at america you can clearly see the injustices so you have to figure out how to rationalize why they exist for others and not for you.
Last edited:
This whole debate is something misconstrued. For one thing, it is illegal to have people work for you against their will in the USA or any other free country. Anyone breaking that law will be subjected to some kind of punishment and penalty by the authorities. Another thing, if someone doesn't want to work as a domestic, they don't have to- it would be their own choice to take the job or find another job at McDonald's or at a car wash or something. And finally, most people who do hire domestics, usually just hire a service, that comes to the home weekly to do these chores- most of the housework is done during the week (like cleaning the kitchen after dinner or making beds, etc) by the person/people who live in the home.
And what about hotels? Do you think someone who runs an inn, hotel, motel, etc. would be able to clean up each room by himself or herself? Do you think the people who rent these rooms should clean it up themselves? They need to have workers to make the place run smoothly and there are people who are willing to earn wages to do just that.
And what about hotels? Do you think someone who runs an inn, hotel, motel, etc. would be able to clean up each room by himself or herself? Do you think the people who rent these rooms should clean it up themselves? They need to have workers to make the place run smoothly and there are people who are willing to earn wages to do just that.
catholicfavors200
New Member
not all servants are poor... like us here in our country, servants are the head of our city and they are honored...which is out city mayor, all of the city workers are paid by us...
YES， exactly! The opposition seems to be saying that in hiring them we are supporting the idea that they SHOULD be doing this job and only this job - whereas in fact we hired them because they applied for that job. If you advertise for a domestic worker, it's an open-ended application. I'd treat anyone the same who wanted to do it.
As for providing health care - I don't think I'm obliged to provide my part-time cleaner with a healthcare plan. I'm not a corporation and I'm not providinng full-time employment. And actually, in healthcare's defence - providing health plans to workers is a good way to attract a better class of employee if you're running a business. No health plan will drive people away, and to be honest it's not a big burden to a company. If you create a good working environment and take steps to keep people happy, you'll find it creates little trouble for your system.
I worked for a financial advisory firm in Beijing, and the bosses were American-Chinese guys. They believed in keeping everyone as happy as possible (probably to make up for the so-so salaries, haha), but they gave us good health insurance, and even bought a company gym membership so we could, as they put it, "keep fit and healthy and feel good about ourselves at work" - it was genius. They spend that money on the gym membership and insurance, and the result is a workforce that never took sick days. Seriously, I was there for about 5 months (internship), and absolutely NO ONE took a sick day....except me because I was hung over one day and couldn't face financial reports that day.
Anyway, back to the OP. The OP claims that having domestic workers is inherently wrong because you are supporting some kind of unfair and unequal system that keeps people downtrodden and oppressed. The reality is, where there is demand, there will also be supply. Demand for people to help out with daily chores that we don't want to do because we're tired or busy, and people who don't mind doing them for money. It's a beautiful system.
As Christine points out too, no one is forcing ANYONE. If I place an ad and you choose to respond to it, who is forcing who? Who is being oppressed? Of course it's terrible that some people don't have the opportunities that I had - and I realize that. I realize it, and I do my best to make sure I treat everyone with respect, just as I hope they would respect me. I am one lucky son of a gun, I really am. But does that mean I should be made to feel guilty about it?
InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect
Member
No. No one should make you feel guilty. Frankly if you are not angry and disgusted than you just haven't been paying attention.
Some minor Examples:
[youtube]16K6m3Ua2nw[/youtube]
The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... - YouTube
[youtube]Irw7SRv-l44[/youtube]
North Korean film exposes Western propaganda - Part 9 of 10 - YouTube
But if you are doing well and are effectively distracted enough to be enjoying your life than why care about anything else? Enjoy life and you should probably read up on Ayn Rand as I feel like your thought line is closely mirrored by hers.
What on Earth do your "examples" have to do with hiring servants?
• Doctors are "servants" in that they are paid to serve people; they just do it by attending to patients rather than cleaning houses.
• Dustmen are "servants" in that they are given paychecks to serve people; they just clean the streets rather than houses.
• Teachers are "servants" in that they are paid to teach children — in my opinion one of the most crucial 'services' a person can do. (Not that I don't think other occupations aren't crucial, but I think this one is especially important.)
• Engineers are "servants" in that they design and plan projects based on what people need.
• Customer service employees are "servants" in that they listen to what people want, and then their employers try to adjust their business(es) accordingly.
Almost every occupation I can think of has to do with 'serving' people one way or the other; some just might be less readily noticeable for some people than other occupations in this regard.
I'm of the opinion that almost every person gets their paycheck through 'serving' people in one way or the other — either more noticeably (e.g. servants, waiters) or less noticeably (e.g. engineers, accountants), and I think that the extent to which the 'serving' aspects of said occupations are noticeable would probably vary from person to person.
If people didn't need the occupations listed above, among others, then nobody would be serving anybody else, but it happens that we all need someone else to do the things we aren't good at or aren't interested in doing for us, and they are paid for it (rightfully so, too).
• Dustmen are "servants" in that they are given paychecks to serve people; they just clean the streets rather than houses.
• Teachers are "servants" in that they are paid to teach children — in my opinion one of the most crucial 'services' a person can do. (Not that I don't think other occupations aren't crucial, but I think this one is especially important.)
• Engineers are "servants" in that they design and plan projects based on what people need.
• Customer service employees are "servants" in that they listen to what people want, and then their employers try to adjust their business(es) accordingly.
Almost every occupation I can think of has to do with 'serving' people one way or the other; some just might be less readily noticeable for some people than other occupations in this regard.
I'm of the opinion that almost every person gets their paycheck through 'serving' people in one way or the other — either more noticeably (e.g. servants, waiters) or less noticeably (e.g. engineers, accountants), and I think that the extent to which the 'serving' aspects of said occupations are noticeable would probably vary from person to person.
If people didn't need the occupations listed above, among others, then nobody would be serving anybody else, but it happens that we all need someone else to do the things we aren't good at or aren't interested in doing for us, and they are paid for it (rightfully so, too).
Last edited:
Renji
Well-Known Member
Same.
InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect
Member
What indeed. I think Debater Slayer is probably the closest to understanding what I am talking about based on the replies so far. Again if you are not angry and disgusted than you just haven't been paying attention.
Angry? I am a seething roiling cauldron of rage!
Mr. Skittles
Active Member
Servants are for lazy rich people.
Perhaps the Op was talking about something like this?
[youtube]Krhvzilkq3I[/youtube]
Coming to America - Trailer - YouTube
[youtube]Krhvzilkq3I[/youtube]
Coming to America - Trailer - YouTube