Servants - yes or no?

[4consideration]

Well , it all sounds good in theory - and if we could all attain this then the world would be a better place for sure.

Unfortunately though, most people don't really take on board this way of thinking and so just carry on in their own manner, and choose to do whatever suits them best.

You are right to point out that theory is only beneficial if it actually works in real life. I agree there. I think that's what we are discussing.

People do tend to do whatever suits them best. Is it reasonable, or intelligent to expect them to do otherwise? To think that one size fits all solutions to problems are really expected to work leaves out the real probability that certain measures will produce unexpected consequences that can be much more severe and harmful than the problem that we intended to correct.

How can we expect people to change when all the artificial capitalist wants are forced into their minds from the youngest of ages?

We cannot necessarily expect people to change overnight. IMO we can support ideas that recognize an intrinsic value, which in turn supports a basic sense of dignity, for the individual. A value is a judgement call -- we will each likely come to the conclusion that either every person has value simply from the fact that they are human, or does not. As I see it, those that say "not" are likely to support approaches that require a person to buy, earn or somehow justify a basic right to be. I think that each person has an intrinsic value, a value that is already there, and that there is nothing that a person can (or needs) to buy or do that can touch that intrinsic value. THEN, once the intrinsic value is recognized first -- there are things that a person can do and achieve (like education, behave according to professional standards, work, etc.) that are valuable within specific applicable areas of life -- but are not how one justifies one's existence or earns the right to be.

IMO the negative side of advertising of products is creating, or playing on a sense of lack or feelings of inferiority, and then presenting a product as though it is possible to solve that problem by buying that product or service. That is an unfortunate misuse of intelligence in general, and in the application of our understanding of the human psyche in particular. People misuse information sometimes. We don't have to fall for it, though. Once enough people recognize those marketing ploys as mechanisms of control, and they no longer work, marketers will change their approach. (I feel sure that my children are tired of hearing me object to the underlying messages of commercials by saying, "don't buy that idea they are presenting to you." But, I also see them pointing out what is really being communicated, too. They are still young, but they get it. If a hot chick likes you because of your car, she really just likes your car.)

I think that you actually included a great point there with your use of the word artificial -- although I am not sure if you meant the distinction that I see. I don't think that the devaluing of basic human worth, or trickery of thought, resides in capitalism -- a system that in it's true form simply means lack of artificial structure. I think that the historical practice of devaluing humans and then providing "the solution" is a ploy used by any organization or structure seeking to dominate them.

I think that (true) capitalism is a good thing. However, the word "artificial" that you used is appropriate regarding "capitalists" (even though I understand you were applying it to "wants" rather than "capitalists") and is what I see creates much of the problem. I do not really know about the UK in this regard -- so I am talking about the US here. A big problem that I see here is that, through the use of special interest laws and regulations -- most often passed off as being measures to protect the public interest -- laws are passed to provide regulations that really are not at all in the public interest, but are designed to eliminate or limit competition. It is not a flaw of capitalism, per se, because capitalism is not truely an -ism. There is no predesigned structure to it. True capitalism is merely free trade. Unfortunately, we do not see the level of freedom to operate at work to really call it capitalism. (Capitalism does not mean freedom to steal, or commit fraud in any way, or to cause damage. There are, and should be, laws to protect from harm.)

On our side of the pond, we keep hearing a lot about "leveling the playing field" in economic matters, but what we are actually seeing IMO is them not only charging admission for access to the public playground -- but continuing to raise the price of admission. As I see it the way for the best "athletes" to get access is to simply allow the "kids" from all neighbors to have equal access without paying a charge for admission -- everybody has to play by the rules of fair play, though.

I believe I was actually almost laughed out of the classroom when I suggested that the supply and demand law ought to be inversed so that we could all help each other out, and that was some time ago.

Nowadays, someone saying something like that would be considered an absolute joke!

Perhaps nihilism is the way forward...

OK, Martin, I probably would have been one of those laughing, and perhaps that would have been wrong and not giving the idea a fair hearing. I would like to hear what you have to say about that. I will explain why the idea does not make sense to me, and I ask that you respond. Maybe I am overlooking something crucial in your idea.

There are things that we typically refer to as "laws." One catagory of laws include those things that people decide on, and perhaps vote on -- or our representatives vote on. They are basically a collective "agreement" about a course of action. If we find we would prefer things to be another way, those laws are agreements that we can change -- because they originated as an agreement among people.

Another way that we use the term "law" is to refer to things about how life and the world works, that are observed to be already in place -- that are in place whether or not there is any agreement about it. We may refer to gravity as "the law of gravity" but we recognize that gravity operates the way gravity operates regardless of what we think about it, and we don't get a vote in it. A person can object to gravity and step off of a building and die. However, a person can develop an understanding about how gravity works (and a bunch of other things) and can fly in something well constructed to do so -- but only by working WITH the current understanding of gravity, rather than against it.

When you mention reversing the law of supply and demand, I see it as similar to saying you want to reverse the "law" of gravity. What I refer to as the law of supply and demand is more of an observation of what occurs with people's behavior regarding availability of goods and purchasing/pricing decisions, naturally. It is not something that I believe to belong to capitalism alone. I think that capitalism is a great way for things to naturally balance out, and to do it in the quickest way possible. But, unfortunately there has been a long progression of special interest interference within the free market system that is being mistaken for the free market, itself.

The only way that I can see reversing the law of supply and demand through deprivation -- removing the supply as a means of erradicating the demand. It does not look like a good idea to me. It looks like a person going to a doctor because they need to lose weight, and a doctor prescribing a solution of: never eat again.

So, can you tell me how you think we could reverse the law of supply and demand, without creating much worse problems?

 

[Draka]

You know, this is just messed up. What of those servants who have trained in their field and take great pride in their work? A person who aspires to be a chef goes to culinary school and trains to be able to cook some of the greatest dishes. Great chefs are sought after and well paid. What difference does it make if they work for a restaurant or a private employer? In fact, one might think working for a private employer would be a more sought after job as it would most likely not be as hectic and would probably have better benefits than working for a restaurant.

Cleaning really well can be a talent. It takes hard work and knowledge of proper cleaning tactics and supplies. Some people actually really enjoy cleaning. Given the choice of a job cleaning up after the public in a store and cleaning up after a private employer in their own house, the option of a private employer, again, sounds like the preferable job.

Some people take great pride in their ability to "run a tight ship". Well organized and efficient at running a busy household and other household staff. A butler or head maid would be this person in such a house. It would be considered a management job and requires a mind adept at organizing and managing several things and people at once. Is this person to be looked down upon or up to for their abilities and their position?

Just what is wrong with working in the service of others? If one enjoys what they do, is well compensated for it, and comfortable with where they work...what difference does it make? They may take great pride in what they do and how they do it.

 

[Penumbra]

Here's a question for all those wealthy enough or else aspiring to be in a position to have servants - Would you prefer your servants call you Mr., Mrs., Miss, or by your first name in private as well as public ?

If I ever hire anyone for anything, it would seem unusual to me to ask for anything other than them to call me by my first name.

You know, this is just messed up. What of those servants who have trained in their field and take great pride in their work? A person who aspires to be a chef goes to culinary school and trains to be able to cook some of the greatest dishes. Great chefs are sought after and well paid. What difference does it make if they work for a restaurant or a private employer? In fact, one might think working for a private employer would be a more sought after job as it would most likely not be as hectic and would probably have better benefits than working for a restaurant.

Cleaning really well can be a talent. It takes hard work and knowledge of proper cleaning tactics and supplies. Some people actually really enjoy cleaning. Given the choice of a job cleaning up after the public in a store and cleaning up after a private employer in their own house, the option of a private employer, again, sounds like the preferable job.

Some people take great pride in their ability to "run a tight ship". Well organized and efficient at running a busy household and other household staff. A butler or head maid would be this person in such a house. It would be considered a management job and requires a mind adept at organizing and managing several things and people at once. Is this person to be looked down upon or up to for their abilities and their position?

Just what is wrong with working in the service of others? If one enjoys what they do, is well compensated for it, and comfortable with where they work...what difference does it make? They may take great pride in what they do and how they do it.

True.

I'm friends with a person that prepares fancy dinners for wealthy dinner parties. He takes great pride in putting together a many-course meal, as a fancy private chef in their homes. He spreads his business through word of mouth from one satisfied customer to the next, and he has several long-term relationships with some of those customers.

Great business to be in if performed well.

 

[nnmartin]

Domestic work is just that...WORK. And if there's demand and people to fill that demand then it will always exist. You make the whole thing sound so sordid. Tell me specifically what is wrong with Mrs Jia (my cleaner) coming to my apartment twice a week to clean while I'm out at work, after having responded to an ad I placed locally looking for domestic help? Have I done wrong by her by giving her work and paying her for it? Nobody said she HAD to take the job. It was her choice.

Of course it is wrong, because you are making someone else do what you should be doing yourself.

People have a certain obligation to look after themselves. This tends to operate within the personal space sphere. For instance, one should dress, wash and clean themselves, not have another do it for them.

Otherwise it is just slothfulness which encourages negativity.

and of course, just because you pay someone to do something does not make it right.

You seem to have fallen into the trap of self-justification here.

 

[nnmartin]

what world do you live in where all rich are disrepectful to all poor? Those rich who do show disrespect toward the poor are just arseholes, and that's an affliction they'll have to deal with for the rest of their cold and lonely existence.

My world is in a Developing Nation which is run as a capitalist dictatorship.

Here, the poor are treated like livestock.

This is the end result of a master and slave society.

So, it makes sense to nip this kind of behaviour in the bud where we can.

 

[nnmartin]

Here's a side question.
Is it self aggrandizement that doctors expect to be referred to professionally
by their clients/patients as
"Dr. Soandso" ? (instead of Mr. Soandso, or simply "Bob")
I mean, their clients are PAYING them,
so they should be able to call them by their first name in public and private, no?

I think it is self-aggrandizement , yes.

But of course, all health should be socialized, so the concept of customers and doctors is out of sync.

 

[nnmartin]

I'm compensated, & I don't feel "half-dead" while I work.
If someone feels half dead on their job, they should find a new job.
Don't blame employers.

That is just crony capitalist claptrap.

How can you just 'find a new job' whenever you feel like an improvement?

that is not how reality works.

 

[Draka]

Of course it is wrong, because you are making someone else do what you should be doing yourself.

People have a certain obligation to look after themselves. This tends to operate within the personal space sphere. For instance, one should dress, wash and clean themselves, not have another do it for them.

Otherwise it is just slothfulness which encourages negativity.

and of course, just because you pay someone to do something does not make it right.

You seem to have fallen into the trap of self-justification here.

He's not "making" anyone do anything. By placing an ad and looking for a person to clean for him he is asking for help. He is offering compensation. The person responding to the ad is the person in control of whether or not they will accept the job. They have the ability to walk off the job and quit if they are treated unsatisfactorily. If they do, then it is him left in the lurch again to either find time in his schedule to clean up himself or to try to hire someone else willing to work for him. If he doesn't treat an employee right, they have the right to leave. He doesn't own his cleaning lady, he employs her to do a job. That's it.

 

[nnmartin]

RE: inversing the law of supply and demand.

OK, Martin, I probably would have been one of those laughing, and perhaps that would have been wrong and not giving the idea a fair hearing. I would like to hear what you have to say about that. I will explain why the idea does not make sense to me, and I ask that you respond. Maybe I am overlooking something crucial in your idea.

So, can you tell me how you think we could reverse the law of supply and demand, without creating much worse problems?

What I was getting at when talking about the inversion of the law here as a child, was no doubt a nascent awakening to the need for socialism.

The fist time I heard about supply and demand and how it was championed by the economics teacher , I knew something was wrong.

I am not talking in economic terms here, but social. Obviously as a boy in school I did not really understand how people operated in the outside world, but could see that the system of extracting as much money out of people was not necessarily the best and only solution.

Rather than compete mercilessly and have 25 brands of coffee to choose from in the supermarket (as some kind of bizarre display of supposed progress) I felt that there must be a way of working together instead.

The other children in the classroom and even the teacher, just could not understand that someone felt this should even be attempted to be changed as they were all conditioned by the capitalist mentality.

I believe a message finally made it back to my parents along the lines of 'your son has the wrong idea about life'.

That is just narrow minded in my opinion.

I'll deal with more of your long post later.

 

[nnmartin]

You know, this is just messed up. What of those servants who have trained in their field and take great pride in their work? A person who aspires to be a chef goes to culinary school and trains to be able to cook some of the greatest dishes. Great chefs are sought after and well paid.

The main issue here is with unskilled work that exists purely for the luxury of the other person. A person who is too rich, idle, lazy and dirty to clean up their own mess.

Personal space should be cherished and maintained by its owner, not by a hired underling.

Cleaning really well can be a talent. It takes hard work and knowledge of proper cleaning tactics and supplies. Some people actually really enjoy cleaning.

anyone can learn to clean up their own mess, even my dog can do it.

Just what is wrong with working in the service of others? If one enjoys what they do, is well compensated for it, and comfortable with where they work...what difference does it make? They may take great pride in what they do and how they do it.

for a start, it depends on what work they have to do.

It is the personal space concept that is the main issue here.

also, many of these kinds of workers are very poorly paid and will continue to be so as the recession worsens and the inflated egos of the populace rise.

 

[nnmartin]

He's not "making" anyone do anything. By placing an ad and looking for a person to clean for him he is asking for help. He is offering compensation

He is trying to buy someone to make up for his own idleness.
So what if he pays them.

The person responding to the ad is the person in control of whether or not they will accept the job. They have the ability to walk off the job and quit if they are treated unsatisfactorily

In reality, they quite likely cannot just walk off the job as they could probably not afford to do so, and the employer knows this.

Do you know how many maids are raped daily in places like Malaysia and Singapore by their supposedly upstanding member of the community type employers? The answerer is, 'many'.

This is the end result of 'service'.
.

If they do, then it is him left in the lurch again to either find time in his schedule to clean up himself or to try to hire someone else willing to work for him.

'left in the lurch' - are you serious?:areyoucra

my God - the poor guy will actually have to clean his own toilet and do up his own shoelaces - what a crisis!

 

[Draka]

The main issue here is with unskilled work that exists purely for the luxury of the other person. A person who is too rich, idle, lazy and dirty to clean up their own mess.

A chef is NOT unskilled labor. A chef is hired to cook for someone, no? By your argument then, couldn't people prepare their own food and cook for themselves? Or are they just too lazy? So, instead of popping in a Hot Pocket into the microwave they fork over good money to have a trained person cook for them.

Personal space should be cherished and maintained by its owner, not by a hired underling.

Why? And why do you use the word "underling" instead of "employee"?

anyone can learn to clean up their own mess, even my dog can do it.

Congratulations. Perhaps you should go into business training dogs to scoop up their own poop and bathe themselves. You'll make a killing. Or wait, would that be serving others?

for a start, it depends on what work they have to do.

That work seems only to depend on your own "ick" factor, not anything else.

It is the personal space concept that is the main issue here.

Why?

also, many of these kinds of workers are very poorly paid and will continue to be so as the recession worsens and the inflated egos of the populace rise.

McDonald's workers don't make a bunch of money and they take more guff from customers and supervisors both than the average maid does. There are plenty of jobs that don't make a lot and make less than the average household staff member.

Really, you just seem to come off here with a huge chip on your shoulder and its origin is utterly baffling at this point.

 

[Draka]

He is trying to buy someone to make up for his own idleness.
So what if he pays them.


In reality, they quite likely cannot just walk off the job as they could probably not afford to do so, and the employer knows this.

Do you know how many maids are raped daily in places like Malaysia and Singapore by their supposedly upstanding member of the community type employers? The answerer is, 'many'.

This is the end result of 'service'.
.
'left in the lurch' - are you serious?:areyoucra

my God - the poor guy will actually have to clean his own toilet and do up his own shoelaces - what a crisis!

Honestly, why do you want to judge a whole service industry on some bad practices in certain countries? Truth be told, a good maid, chef, or so on can be in high demand. There are businesses that handle such jobs. If a maid in employ of such a service decides that a particular client is not a good one to work for they can give notice and find another client to work for through the service. Good chefs are always in demand. Be it in the private sector or in restaurants. It's not like they are a dime a dozen. It's not like your typical unskilled labor working the register at Walmart. And not everyone is "trapped" by having to have a job all the time. I don't work now. If I were to get a part-time job as a maid it would be for extra income. If the job was bad and I was mistreated I could quit.

Don't judge an entire industry because of the failings of a few places. That's stereotyping plain and simple. You might as well judge all Christians because of the actions of Fred Phelps and his ilk.

 

[nnmartin]

A chef is NOT unskilled labor. A chef is hired to cook for someone, no?
Why? And why do you use the word "underling" instead of "employee"?

A chef is skilled, that is correct.

I am saying that servants who perform unskilled tasks are merely there to prop up one's ego.

Using the term 'underling' is to mock those that have or aspire to have servants - this is irony at work.

McDonald's workers don't make a bunch of money and they take more guff from customers and supervisors both than the average maid does. There are plenty of jobs that don't make a lot and make less than the average household staff member.

It is not about the rate of pay, more the subservience factor.

Why should a person be hired to do unproductive work, such as holding the door open for someone or 'meeting and greeting' when not necessary? - they could be put to far more useful tasks instead.

 

[nnmartin]

Honestly, why do you want to judge a whole service industry on some bad practices in certain countries? Truth be told, a good maid, chef, or so on can be in high demand. There are businesses that handle such jobs.

Don't judge an entire industry because of the failings of a few places. That's stereotyping plain and simple. You might as well judge all Christians because of the actions of Fred Phelps and his ilk.

Most countries in which there is great poverty, there is also abuse of workers - especially female domestic staff.

As the recession continues, unemployment will rise and wages will decrease - so gradually this kind of behaviour will creep into the Western nations. The seed for exploitation of people has already begun - we even have a majority of supposedly spiritual people rigorously defending this archaic practice.

It is because this has become conditioned in the mindset from an early age. We think having servants is fine because we have been told to think like that. Anyone who disagrees must surely be a communist, criminal or troglodyte of some kind - right?

A good maid is in high demand now for sure - because when we have money we copy others so as to fit in.

Those with servants have the need to fit in with others of their ilk, especially at the golf course bar or upper-middle class dinner party.

One must have others serve us to demonstrate our success! :sarcastic

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

You see, here we go. "At the expense of others" - WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? They're not slaves!

I never said they were.

If they are doing such work and are underpaid for it, that's a separate issue - it doesn't mean that the very notion of someone doing the job is ridiculous. I like the fact that one day if I'm rich enough, I might be able to hire people willing to do certain jobs in my place - like cooking, cleaning...door opening is going quite far, but perhaps if I was THAT rich and there was THAT much unemployment in the area. I'd have thought some people would be glad of a job if they really needed it. I know I was when I needed it.

You are thinking about the problem in an interesting manner. You view someone who needs work a doorman and will pay them to open the door for you or for whoever and thus you see yourself as helping out and being charitable. Is there something perhaps you are missing in that equation?

If you have the money, and there's someone willing to do the job you want them to do for a fair wage...what's the problem? And if you're gonna back and say something about low wages or poor conditions - those are separate issues. And they cannot act as a basis for getting rid of the idea of a "servant" altogether.

Really, I never expected so many people to attach such a negative connotation to the word servant - you do realise that it's slavery that needs to be addressed, right? And that most servants are doing perfectly legitimate paid jobs?

Obviously. The many are working to empower and benefit the few and that has been going on for a long time. I can't argue this point with you because I don't think you really understand your own argument.

Try to simplify. Imagine there are only 10 people in the world total instead of billions. They all live on one island and try to work out how 1 of those 10 should be born in such a way that the other 9 must serve him. You might figure it out on your own.

 

[4consideration]

Try to simplify. Imagine there are only 10 people in the world total instead of billions. They all live on one island and try to work out how 1 of those 10 should be born in such a way that the other 9 must serve him. You might figure it out on your own.

Simplification of a problem is a great approach. But, when you simplify something down to the point that it contains almost none of the problem -- simplification has gone too far to be of any use.

There are approximately 7 billion people in the world at this time. If you can get them all around the campfire to discuss all of our problems (or even just this one issue) -- count me in -- and don't forget the marshmallows.

 

[jarofthoughts]

What do you think of the idea of having servants?

As long as no-one is forced to be one, I don't have a problem with it.

If you could afford it , would you have them?

For certain tasks, certainly.

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

The thing you need to keep in mind is that whenever you pay someone to do something for you that you could do yourself, or whenever you buy a product that you could make yourself, you are, in fact, employing a servant.
I can make bread or grow my own vegetables, but it's easier to buy some in the store, so I employ farmers and bakers to be my 'servants'.
It's all about an exchange of effort, time and energy.
I do work as a teacher because that is what suits me and society pays me for it, which makes me, in a sense, a servant. For the money I am paid I buy other services from society, and the people making sure I have access to those services are, in effect, my servants.

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?

Like I said, I would, and I do, for certain types of services.
See above for my perspective on this.

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

See above.
It is inevitable unless you insist on living on your own in the woods somewhere, and society (as in, the existence of human society) is based upon it.
I am, however, against exploitation.

 

[nnmartin]

Most of those points have been discussed already, and much of it relates to the 'personal space' concept.

ie: some things we should do for ourselves - such as: cleaning our own mess, washing the body, cleaning teeth, use of bathroom , opening doors etc..


when we employ others to do these tasks it is mere self-aggrandisement for self-aggrandisement's sake.

thus creating overblown egos, pomposity, artificially heightened sense of entitlement and class segregation which leads to decay.

as a side note: do you really see yourself as a 'servant' to your students?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Most of those points have been discussed already, and much of it relates to the 'personal space' concept.

ie: some things we should do for ourselves - such as: cleaning our own mess, washing the body, cleaning teeth, use of bathroom , opening doors etc..

when we employ others to do these tasks it is mere self-aggrandisement for self-aggrandisement's sake.

Well, I guess everyone has different levels of comfort regarding these things.
I, for one, would not be comfortable having someone washing me or brushing my teeth, although I have had nurses do both those things when I was hospitalized a couple of years ago.

as a side note: do you really see yourself as a 'servant' to your students?

In some respects I see myself as a servant to both my pupils and their parents as well as society at large.
I employ my time and energy teaching kids to read, write and understand science, and in return I get paid enough to buy food that I might grow myself, clothes that I might make myself and other things that I could conceivably do on my own. My point was that we are all servants of each other to some degree. That is what makes a society.
And while I might know more about teaching kids than most people, I have no doubt that the electrician fixing my fuzebox knows more about wires and electricity than me, or that the farmer knows more about growing things than me. We all lend our more or less specialised skills to others and we all benefit as a result.