Servants - yes or no?

[Revoltingest]

We're wasting our time here. He does not understand the meaning of the word "service."

He has a most unusual perspective.

 

[nnmartin]

ok, let's have a definition of the word service then and see what we can discover.

and landlords and tenants could almost make an entirely new thread as the concept of rent is interesting. (perhaps later)

 

[Penumbra]

that is an absurd way of looking at things.

You own the property and the tenants are only paying rent - therefore whatever work you do on the building is working for yourself , not them.

and of course, being the landlord, makes you the one in the higher position.

I don't see how being a landlord puts one in the higher position.

I currently rent, and could easily find another place at any time if for any reason I was dissatisfied with my current arrangement. The landlord and her staff have to work to my satisfaction, not the other way around, for the most part.

 

[nnmartin]

The landlord is not serving you - he is merely allowing you to live in his property as long as you pay the rent.

Any repairs he does to the building is of benefit to himself as he gets to keep the property once the tenants move on.

 

[nnmartin]

Btw, you think that a landlord works for himself? Hah!
I am at the beck & call of my tenants, at all hours.
If they need, I provide. It's a service industry, bub.

you mean you are at their beck and call in regards to maintaining your own property for your own future benefit.

I doubt somehow, your role includes cleaning up after your tennants or cooking their dinner.

so, let's be clear - being a landlord or servant is hardly the same thing and trying to use this as a kind of comparative analogy is nothing short of disingenuous.

 

[Penumbra]

The landlord is not serving you - he is merely allowing you to live in his property as long as you pay the rent.

Any repairs he does to the building is of benefit to himself as he gets to keep the property once the tenants move on.

It's a matter of supply and demand. There are vacancies all over.

The landlord markets to attract my business, not the other way around. She's not "allowing" me to live on her land- she's asking strongly that I (or at least someone) lives in her investment property. The landlord does maintenance when I call, to keep the building maintained, to follow applicable landlord laws, and to make sure it remains a place that attracts quality tenants.

We each rely on each other merely as one option of many. If I leave, they could eventually fill the spot, although a landlord does appreciate a tenant that has a history of paying the rent on time. Likewise, I could leave whenever I choose, if I no longer felt it was a good deal. Alternatively, I could just buy a place if the renting market wasn't good.

I don't think having a one-sided view of business exchanges is a good thing. Slavery is a one-sided exploitation. Business agreements to exchange goods and services, especially between two people in a developed country is just that- a business agreement.

 

[nnmartin]

it is more the psychology I am attacking here.

The desire for a servant , rather than the business arrangement itself.

Many people with the money feel they need to have a maid in order to 'keep up with the Jones' , ie: to maintain their status and perceived position in upper-middle class society - this is a form of social engineering as it creates further segregation between the classes.

One doesn't need a maid but one has one anyway - simply to give out the right impression to the neighbours and dinner party guests.

This is one of the many methods by which those of a certain position in society further the disdain of the masses and increase arrogance and self-serving righteousness.

 

[Kathryn]

it is more the psychology I am attacking here.

The desire for a servant , rather than the business arrangement itself.

Many people with the money feel they need to have a maid in order to 'keep up with the Jones' , ie: to maintain their status and perceived position in upper-middle class society - this is a form of social engineering as it creates further segregation between the classes.

One doesn't need a maid but one has one anyway - simply to give out the right impression to the neighbours and dinner party guests.

This is one of the many methods by which those of a certain position in society further the disdain of the masses and increase arrogance and self-serving righteousness.

Martin, how many wealthy people do you actually know personally who have this attitude? I ask because I have known a lot of very wealthy people over the course of my 50 years on this earth, and I can truly think of not ONE who had this attitude.

Hey. PUT DOWN THE REMOTE AND BACK AWAY FROM YOUR COLLECTION OF "UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS." And can someone please wrestle "Downden Abbey" away from this guy?

 

[Draka]

Okay, so far what I've gotten from this thread is that if anyone pays someone else to do something for them then they must think themselves "better" and that the service is too lowly for them to do and paying someone else to do it means that person is "lower" than them.

With that line of thinking then...not only should there be no maids, chefs, and chauffeurs, but...no cosmologists, taxi drivers, tailors, babysitters/nannies/daycare professionals, auto mechanics, landscapers, photographers, and so much more. I mean, if we pay people to serve us, to provide a service to us that we could just do ourselves, we make them nothing more than glorified slaves and second-class citizens, right?

So, when I pay someone else to cut my hair for me, even though I have a pair of scissors and could do it myself, I am relegating them to a lower position than me?

Many years ago I was a single mother. I had a good job and made enough money to live in a nice house and furnish it nicely, pay my bills, and then some. I had a friend who did not have a job and really didn't have anywhere to go. So, instead of putting my daughter in daycare I had my friend move in with me. Her job became taking care of my daughter and cleaning my house while I worked. She would cook and clean and watch my daughter while I worked. She had room and board, I handled all the bills and she would get some cash to spend on herself. Basically, I had a live in maid and nanny if you think about it (I guess you could say she was my housewife). It benefited both of us, so where was the harm?

 

[nnmartin]

you have trivialised the issue here and completely avoided dealing with the master/slave analogy at work.

The need for having someone subservient, such as a maid, is the fact we are supposed to be looking at.

What do you think of those people then that have maids but don't actually need them?

Can't you see anything wrong in this kind of arrangement?

and also, let's try to keep our personal anecdotes out of the thread as they only sidetrack the issue.

 

[Kathryn]

you have trivialised the issue here and have completely avoided dealing with the master/slave analogy at work.

The need for having someone subservient, such as a maid, is the fact we are supposed to be looking at.

What do you think of those people then that have maids but don't actually need them?

Can you see anything wrong in this kind of arrangement?

NO. If the two adults have reached a mutually satisfactory business arrangement, that's what matters. As long as the maid is being paid fairly for her services, that's what matters.

You seem so concerned with people's attitudes. What about the maid with a rotten attitude who cuts corners on her job?

 

[nnmartin]

Martin, how many wealthy people do you actually know personally who have this attitude? I ask because I have known a lot of very wealthy people over the course of my 50 years on this earth, and I can truly think of not ONE who had this attitude.

most people who had maids would deny that they had this attitude either because they didn't realise they had it or because they felt guilty.

I will at least commend the ones who openly admit that they enjoy this kind of subservience, as honesty is a good quality.

 

[nnmartin]

NO. If the two adults have reached a mutually satisfactory business arrangement, that's what matters. As long as the maid is being paid fairly for her services, that's what matters.

You seem so concerned with people's attitudes. What about the maid with a rotten attitude who cuts corners on her job?

ok, some new territory again.

1. How much do you think a fair pay rate would be for the maid?

2. do you think the maid's attitude should be in line with such rate?

 

[Kathryn]

ok, some new territory again.

1. How much do you think a fair pay rate would be for the maid?

2. do you think the maid's attitude should be in line with such rate?

I can't give you a fair pay rate because different households have different needs. I can tell you that the maids I've used usually charge about $60 for half a day/three hours or so - which is about $20 an hour.

As for your question about the "maid's attitude being in line with the rate" I honestly don't know how to answer that because it's such a weird question. I think that if the maid and the employer agree upon a rate - and it doesn't matter what that rate is - the maid should have a positive attitude and do the job she agreed to do well and honorably.

 

[Draka]

you have trivialised the issue here and completely avoided dealing with the master/slave analogy at work.

The need for having someone subservient, such as a maid, is the fact we are supposed to be looking at.

What do you think of those people then that have maids but don't actually need them?

Can't you see anything wrong in this kind of arrangement?

I think you have to define what "need" would be. Also, why it isn't okay to want something done for you?

I don't "need" a maid, but would I like to have one if I could afford one? Sure, why not? I don't mind cleaning my livingroom or even my bathroom, but I personally don't care for doing dishes and a few other things around the house. If someone else would have no problem with doing those things for me and I pay them for the service, then what is wrong with it? I don't think those tasks are "below" me, I do them anyway, but I'd much rather be doing something else with my time like playing outside with my kids or even relaxing with a book in a bubblebath. I take care of little kids and the house all day, so what would be so bad in hiring someone to take on a few of the chores to give myself a break every now and then? It gives me downtime AND would provide someone else with income. What is the issue?

 

[nnmartin]

'treat others how you would like them to treat you' , 'freedom ,liberty, egality' - how do you feel about these ideas?

and do you think that 'aspiring to have others be your servant' is a good outlook?

 

[blackout]

Originally Posted by Kathryn
I have some landscapers working in my yard as I type this. My husband and I use them several times a year - in fact, anytime we have a large yard project to do. I could go out there and ask them to do just about anything in the yard - paint my fence, pull weeds, you name it - and they'd do it for me. Then I'd pay them.

I would not categorise these people as servants.



same question for you here, who allowed the maid to spend quality time with her own family?

Who allowed the landscapers to spend quality time with their own family?

You do realize yard clean up can take up just as much of a person's 'free time' as room clean up. What really is the magical difference between a vaccume cleaner and a lawn mower?

 

[blackout]

Anyway, if I had any real money, I'd hire a chef,
to take care of dinner from shopping to clean up
5 nights a week.

Beyond that, maybe someone to transport my kids places
so they can participate in classes and activities
while I'm out running my own business in the afternoons after school,
combined with light babysitting.
(as none of them are 'babies')
Just drop off pick up and light sitting till an older sibling is home to take over.


That's probably it.
I think my own kids need to develop a cleaning ethic themselves,
so it wouldn't be in their best interest
to always have someone cleaning up after them.

Without kitchen duty,
I could happily handle the rest.

 

[nnmartin]

Who allowed the landscapers to spend quality time with their own family?

You do realize yard clean up can take up just as much of a person's 'free time' as room clean up. What really is the magical difference between a vaccume cleaner and a lawn mower?

A lot of this is also about status.

The lawnmower or landscaper may well be doing a job that the housewife cannot, thus he is needed specifically.

Also let's not forget that in some instances having a young hunk working in the yard topless is another kind of master/slave situation for the housewife.
Having an alpha male tend her lawn so to speak!

in this instance I may be inclined to allow it, and this may well be a true example of a win-win situation!

 

[nnmartin]

That's probably it.
I think my own kids need to develop a cleaning ethic themselves,
so it wouldn't be in their best interest
to always have someone cleaning up after them.

yes, I can agree here too - this is one of the key concepts.

as long as people have staff and they can remain with their feet on the ground, the situation is not all bad. It is especially true that children should learn the value of work and equality otherwise they will end up with a conditioned lord of the manor mentality that will be impossible to eradicate.

Unchecked social engineering in this way leads to disaster, the decay of society, and ultimately national dysfunction.