I still think you're making far too much of something that is perfectly innocent. I want a part time cleaner in Beijing so I advertise for one. Someone responds. I interview them, think they're great, they work for me 2 days a week, about 2-3 hours tops each time. I pay them at the end of each month. What's the immoral part of that? Point out actually which part of what I'm doing there is inherently wrong.
-
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
Draka
Wonder Woman
Unless someone employs fulltime domestic help in their home then a part time housekeeper who has several homes they clean would be considered self-employed. They are in business for themselves and like anyone else in that situation, they are responsible for providing their own insurance and so on. Why would someone who pays to have their home cleaned once or twice a week by a self-employed housekeeper pay for their insurance or retirement fund or so on?
InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect
Member
This is standard... I can't explain how you rationalize things. I can explain how I see things and you know you disagree with me. You haven't really responded to what I said but you restate your actions and your rationalization. This is not abnormal. You are asking me to answer something you can realistically only answer for yourself.
Fine then, since you're so adamant that I haven't responded to something - just put it in one sentence and I shall answer it directly. I don't think you've answered any of my points either, and yet you seem to prefer making me out to look like the one who is avoiding an issue. Just spit it out instead of whinging about it
Mr. Skittles
Active Member
Let me first say, that in my opinion, the word "servant" has a negative connotation. Servitude especially the one that is catering to the catered implies a certain "lordship." I still believe that most affluent types employ servants due to laziness. At least in the United States I personally feel there is an exploitation of illegal immigrants. Most don't ask for whether the person is legal or illegal they just want to know if the person is capable. I personally think at least in the U.S there is a market of exploiting illegal immigrants and in turn, a promotion of illegal immigration...but that is just me.
Nothing wrong with being rich & lazy.
I'd like to give it a try some day.
Then, you may call me "Your Revoltingship".
InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect
Member
Why is nothing wrong with being either rich or with being lazy? I am trying to see in the context of this thread where you are going with this but I am only coming up with misguided attempts at humor. Granted its easier than addressing the crux of the problem.
I will again to invite you to consider the world as nothing more than a desert island. On this island 10 people exist. One person is lazy and rich at the expense of the other 9. Why is this fine?
It harms no one.
I addressed.
You missed.
False analogy.
To be wealthy imposes no burden upon others.
Suppose that I'm a fabulously wealthy....please explain how this harms you.
Draka
Wonder Woman
I am trying to understand why the examples used are the "rich and lazy" when most people who employ housekeepers and the like are neither. Why the stereotype? Why the gross false generalization? Because without it you have no argument? Without making false assumptions about people you don't even know you can't make an argument against them demonizing them for something you feel is wrong "just because"?
Draka
Wonder Woman
His seething jealousy makes him incapable of performing everyday tasks.
If there's no logical argument against employing servants, then demonize the employers.
Mr. Skittles
Active Member
Sorry I grew up poor never was taught the mentality of having the desire to being rich and lazy
Mr. Skittles
Active Member
I don't understand how some of the people don't understand that being called a servant has a negative connotation.
I will say again, calling someone a servant implies that you are a lord over them and that, they serve you. At my hospital we are not called employees we are called associates because we are a part of the company that runs the place.
Misplaced titles is no bueno.
Maybe the average illegal immigrant from Mexico, El Salvador, Cuba, or Africa may not care but I don't think along the lines of someone whom I employ is my servant at the very least I would call them an employee.
How does one work to become rich and then lazy?
I would rather mow my own lawn
Clean my own sheets
Wipe down my own table counter.
I will say again, calling someone a servant implies that you are a lord over them and that, they serve you. At my hospital we are not called employees we are called associates because we are a part of the company that runs the place.
Misplaced titles is no bueno.
Maybe the average illegal immigrant from Mexico, El Salvador, Cuba, or Africa may not care but I don't think along the lines of someone whom I employ is my servant at the very least I would call them an employee.
How does one work to become rich and then lazy?
I would rather mow my own lawn
Clean my own sheets
Wipe down my own table counter.
Like raw oysters, a life of ease isn't to everyone's taste.
Work hard, work smart, be frugal, invest......& enjoy.
InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect
Member
Are you trying to assert this as fact or as your opinion? You just stated that anyone who is rich and lazy is harming no one by being lazy and rich.
It as a generalization is false, but, as your opinion it is an interesting look at how you are rationalizing this viewpoint.
Perhaps qualify your opinion with what is harm, what is rich and what is lazy?
You really don't see the cost? I find it odd. I will give you my opinion... you sound like a consumer and not a producer. I read a book called "Killing Sacred Cows" which at one point discusses this odd mental state. (It was mostly a terrible book imo but there was a framework of ideology I valued)
Ultimately your idea is selective socialism. Its a socialism based not on people but on people who have money. Elite socialism?
If someone is born rich enough to not have to work and can use the money they inherited to provide than why become educated and contribute anything to society when they just leech off of society. But why are they a leech? They are paying for their entertainment which is really all anyone wants when all their needs are by default met... You really don't see the hole you are digging in this odd contortion of logic?
Wealth is gathered by society but society is not harmed by this act and the recipients of the wealth provided by society are better for it and society is no worse for it. Have you researched this ideology at all? (It seems pretty straight forward to offer public examples of how this is silly since almost ever corporation fails and you have obvious corrupt corporations like enron etc but perhaps I can present a more personal view that you might relate too?)
I used to know this guy who runs his own business... he drives a silver truck and gets up every day at 5:00 so he can stock his truck with ice (Had his own icemaker in the garage), hit the commissary, and get to the 'good' lunch sites. (He had some breakfast spots too but he lived for lunch he said) He does this 6 days a week and works probably close to 60 hours a week for himself. He does pretty good... probably 90k a year. He is buying stuff cheap and driving to places where there are people who are probably not capable of buying stuff as cheap as he can and than marking the cheap stuff he can buy to near or just above the price that they can afford and making a living off of it. He could explain the value he provides just as well as he could explain the cost of the people purchasing his wares were paying. He rationalized well where else are they gonna go? McDonalds? Hes not wrong... right? But he knows there is a cost in what he is doing and he accepts that and rationalizes it. (Hes not with us anymore, his wife got breast cancer and bankrupted the family and eventually died and he killed himself shortly after.)
Being wealthy and rich is a privilege of the society you are born into and you owe that society a debt as they are the ones that provided and in many cases still provide such a privilege. That society pays a cost which they rationalize is being paid back to them and then some by people of wealth. You have articulated a view that wealthy people are wealthy and its because of how great they personally are and not because of society and they owe no debt to society as being rich causes harm to no one which is, for you, strikingly ignorant.
Last edited:
For once I agree with you...at least partly. The rich who do nothing but sit about on their arses and chase entertainment are indeed leeches who contribute nothing. But that doesn't translate to "being rich is bad" or "we should rid ourselves of the rich". I'm not saying you are advocating that as such, but I get the impression you have issues with the rich, so I thought I'd throw it in there. In my mind there is a big leap in logic when you say things like "some rich people are lazy and useless" and jump to "we should rid ourselves of the rich".
There is a sad reality behind it all. There will always be rich and poor. But that doesn't mean that you don't care about the gap between rich and poor, or that you are insufficiently socialist. There are too many people trying to slap labels on everything in a gargantuan effort to create "standards" of everything, it's nuts!
I don't quite understand the relevance of the story about the guy running his own business. Could you just bottom line that? Are you saying the guy made an impact but recognized it and proffered something in return?
I agree that with wealth (as with power) comes responsibility, and to your statement "you owe that society a debt" I offer my cautious agreement. I say cautious because I'm not exactly sure how far you take that, perhaps you could elaborate? The whole analogy seems to lump all kinds of wealthy people in together, and I really don't think it's ever a good idea to have such polarized, black and white viewpoints.
There is a sad reality behind it all. There will always be rich and poor. But that doesn't mean that you don't care about the gap between rich and poor, or that you are insufficiently socialist. There are too many people trying to slap labels on everything in a gargantuan effort to create "standards" of everything, it's nuts!
I don't quite understand the relevance of the story about the guy running his own business. Could you just bottom line that? Are you saying the guy made an impact but recognized it and proffered something in return?
I agree that with wealth (as with power) comes responsibility, and to your statement "you owe that society a debt" I offer my cautious agreement. I say cautious because I'm not exactly sure how far you take that, perhaps you could elaborate? The whole analogy seems to lump all kinds of wealthy people in together, and I really don't think it's ever a good idea to have such polarized, black and white viewpoints.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
When I was a boy every one had at least a mothers help.
My maternal granfather managed with a cook-house keeper, man servant, a gardener and a chauffeur plus a resident nanny to look after visiting grand children and a personal secretary. (But then he lived on his own for many years). My paternal grandfather had eight living-in staff and twelve living-out staff. Up until WW2 that was fairly normal for the well off.
I am sure the staff were pleased to have good paying jobs.
Today in the UK, to have living in staff is rare indeed.
My maternal granfather managed with a cook-house keeper, man servant, a gardener and a chauffeur plus a resident nanny to look after visiting grand children and a personal secretary. (But then he lived on his own for many years). My paternal grandfather had eight living-in staff and twelve living-out staff. Up until WW2 that was fairly normal for the well off.
I am sure the staff were pleased to have good paying jobs.
Today in the UK, to have living in staff is rare indeed.
I say there's no harm done. You use many words to object, but present no argument.
Now, now....ad hominems are bad form.
"Socialism" is the state owning the means of production. It does not apply here.
Geeze, please be civil.
I've been polite enuf to not dis you forr rambling, incoherent, snarky, & ill reasoned posts.
So I expect you to be kinder, & not bring up my many shortcomings. Sound fair?
Last edited: