Servants - yes or no?

[nnmartin]

let's just face facts here.

Most people with the money choose not to do the unpleasant tasks such as cleaning, working in Macdonalds etc.. - why not just admit this and then we can move forward?

 

[Penumbra]

The op is interesting. Rich people on this forum say there is nothing wrong with this. No surprises there. A) But if they suddenly become poor and are reduced to the same status, then I am sure they'll sing a different tune. B) Goes on to show that our ideas keep changing according to circumstances.

(Letters added for reference.)

B does not go on to show anything, since A was unsupported, only assumed.

 

[nnmartin]

it's true enough though. I can't see many people with reasonable positions wanting to trade places with those lower down the ladder with them, yet these are usually the first to brand others as lazy degenerates when they don't grovel enough to them.

 

[Penumbra]

let's just face facts here.

Most people with the money choose not to do the unpleasant tasks such as cleaning, working in Macdonalds etc.. - why not just admit this and then we can move forward?

I'd say most people, regardless of money, try to usually avoid unpleasant tasks wherever possible or appropriate.

it's true enough though. I can't see many people with reasonable positions wanting to trade places with those lower down the ladder with them, yet these are usually the first to brand others as lazy degenerates when they don't grovel enough to them.

So what's the thread about again?

 

[nnmartin]

The thread is about the need for people to have their egos puffed-up whenever possible. Often this comes in the form of having other people subservient to you , and by employing a servant type figure to work for you (when not actually needed) is a common means of achieving this aim.

Most people won't admit this - and this is the curious point here as it implies guilt.

 

[Penumbra]

The thread is about the need for people to have their egos puffed-up whenever possible. Often this comes in the form of having other people subservient to you , and by employing a servant type figure to work for you (when not actually needed) is a common means of achieving this aim.

Interesting, because none of that was in the OP. These were the underlying assumptions you were working with?

Most people won't admit this - and this is the curious point here as it implies guilt.

Or rather than implying guilt, it explicitly states that the assumptions were incorrect or unfounded.

Not admitting something doesn't imply guilt.

"You like vanilla!"
"What? No I don't."
"Guilty! That's evidence you do!"

 

[Revoltingest]

well, I know you and Kathryn for a start, so that's 2 people already

Then you have no examples of people who hire cleaners for status.
I hire a cleaning lady cuz I don't want to do it, nor does Mrs Revolt.
Status? There is no status whatsoever associated with it.
Methinks reality is far different from what you imagine.

 

[nnmartin]

Interesting, because none of that was in the OP. These were the underlying assumptions you were working with?

It is close enough to the OP in which I questioned whether servants should be allowed or not.

If we go back in time somewhat, many richer folk had servants and it was considered the norm. Nowadays though people tend to keep quiet about the fact that they have 'staff' as it is not so socially accepted.

What does this tell you?

to me it shows that with the advancement of society, we now feel awkward when confronted with our own primitive psychological needs and demands of others.

Many of us have to fuel our own sense of insecurity, frustration and weakness by having others humble themselves to us - then we justify it with artifice - saying things like, 'I am helping them feed their families'. This is just further grandiosity and self-serving egoism.

 

[Revoltingest]

If we go back in time somewhat, many richer folk had servants and it was considered the norm. Nowadays though people tend to keep quiet about the fact that they have 'staff' as it is not so socially accepted.
What does this tell you?

It tells me that you don't really know any people with servants.
You judge without knowing.

 

[4consideration]

It is close enough to the OP in which I questioned whether servants should be allowed or not.

If we go back in time somewhat, many richer folk had servants and it was considered the norm. Nowadays though people tend to keep quiet about the fact that they have 'staff' as it is not so socially accepted.

What does this tell you?

to me it shows that with the advancement of society, we now feel awkward when confronted with our own primitive psychological needs and demands of others.

Many of us have to fuel our own sense of insecurity, frustration and weakness by having others humble themselves to us - then we justify it with artifice - saying things like, 'I am helping them feed their families'. This is just further grandiosity and self-serving egoism.

Martin, were you born into a very wealthy family? If so, are you feeling guilty for it?

 

[Kathryn]

let's just face facts here.

Most people with the money choose not to do the unpleasant tasks such as cleaning, working in Macdonalds etc.. - why not just admit this and then we can move forward?

Because I clean toilets, weed my yard, bathe my dogs, and all sorts of other unpleasantries myself.

 

[Viker]

I would never have any use for them, even if I had the money. I don't see how it could be a problem for people who want to hire their services.

 

[Uragand-2]

What do you think of the idea of having servants?

If you could afford it , would you have them?

I am thinking of servants such as butlers, cleaners, chefs, door openers etc..

Would you really want to have these people in your home attending to your every need, and what do you think of those people that have such staff?

another question, should they be allowed at all in the first place?

As long as they are paid fairly, I don't see why it's wrong. A cook or a cleaning lady is not really any different than hiring someone to mow your lawn or do your landscaping. They are selling a skill or a talents to you in exchange for payment.

 

[nnmartin]

ok , let's change tack a minute.

does anyone agree with me that this type of arrangement encourages segregation in society - ie: servers and served?

 

[Kathryn]

ok , let's change tack a minute.

does anyone agree with me that this type of arrangement encourages segregation in society - ie: servers and served?

No. Let me tell you why.

Nearly everyone serves someone. If you have a job, you serve someone. If you have kids, you serve someone. If you have a spouse you serve someone. If you have parents you serve someone.

Even Bill Gates serves someone - his customers - and the IRS.

When I had a maid, I was also working outside the home. So - I had a "servant" as you like to call maids, I guess, and I also had customers that I "served" as well. And a boss, too for that matter. And HE had a boss that HE "served."

So who was the servant in my case? Maybe we were both just working gals.

 

[LeftishBritInPA]

ok , let's change tack a minute.

does anyone agree with me that this type of arrangement encourages segregation in society - ie: servers and served?

I think the whole idea of servants is morally repugnant. It's not too far away from slavery, just that you're dangling dollar bills in front of them and then making them work for it. Segregation isn't a bad word to describe it, either. I know some families back home in England that have maids. They don't get treated very well at all, and are expected to disappear when their bosses don't want to be seen.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the whole idea of servants is morally repugnant. It's not too far away from slavery, just that you're dangling dollar bills in front of them and then making them work for it.

That would describe all employment, which leads to the awkward view that this too is repugnant.
Slavery is still very different, since one is owned property, & serves involuntarily.

 

[Chisti]

That would describe all employment, which leads to the awkward view that this too is repugnant.
Slavery is still very different, since one is owned property, & serves involuntarily.

Wage slavery is of course a lot sweeter than the 'traditional' one. You have the freedom to quit your job and suffer, unlike slaves who lacked such choices.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wage slavery is of course a lot sweeter than the 'traditional' one. You have the freedom to quit your job and suffer, unlike slaves who lacked such choices.

"Wage slavery" seems a clever name invented to object to voluntary exchange. We'd all love to have food, housing & other
essentials (& optionals) provided to us gratis. But alas, without offering something in return for our largess, no one will
step up to provide it. This is where someone like me can be useful. I have some money, & I have some work to be done.
But I don't have the time or skill to do it all, so I hire others. It's win-win for us. Perhaps I'm a wage slave by your reckoning
too.....I have customers whose money I need to earn.

 

[Kathryn]

Wage slavery is of course a lot sweeter than the 'traditional' one. You have the freedom to quit your job and suffer, unlike slaves who lacked such choices.

So what's your real life application?