6 ms·

I quite enjoy having servants when I'm in India. There are many jobs where I don't have a comparative advantage so I pay people to do them. Your language "own a

I quite enjoy having servants when I'm in India. There are many jobs where I don't have a comparative advantage so I pay people to do them. Your language "own a full time servant" is nonsensical, it's "pay a person for their labor at a mutually agreed upon wage". If an employee finds something better (which they often do in a fast growing economy) there's nothing I can do to keep them besides offer them more money. By contrast, in the US, I'm forced to pay people not to work. Why is preferring the former "creepy"?

someguydave 10y ago
http://thefutureprimaeval.net/servants-without-masters/ http://thefutureprimaeval.net/servants-without-masters/ White Americans have a very odd bias against personal service. Honestly I think it is a major obstacle to economic growth - image how much more productive the average upper middle class family could be if they could employ servants to get things done at home. Instead USG pays a big portion of "poor" people not to work, and also insists that they cannot work for low (market clearing) wages.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  I wouldn't describe human dignity and equality as "a very odd bias".
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - someguydave 10y ago
    So you are putting forth the idea that all forms of personal service require sacrificing dignity? What does equality even mean with respect to one's work role?
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      >So you are putting forth the idea that all forms of personal service require sacrificing dignity? Well yes. Following orders is always a sacrifice of dignity, even when we make it a small, subtle one. > What does equality even mean with respect to one's work role? That you can give input and have as much voice in the group's direction as anyone else.
      - mercer 10y ago
        > > So you are putting forth the idea that all forms of personal service require sacrificing dignity? > Well yes. Following orders is always a sacrifice of dignity, even when we make it a small, subtle one. Maybe the problem is that both 'following orders' and 'dignity' (and perhaps even 'sacrifice') are ill-defined, but I can name countless examples from my life, as well as from a cursory look at the life of friends of mine, where 'following orders' provided joy and satifsaction and where it didn't affect my (sense of) dignity. Especially in small, subtle cases.
- mahyarm 10y ago
  A lot of people hire nannies, nurses and maids in the USA, especially older people who are not up for the task physically that much anymore. Any kind of assistant is also pretty expensive in the USA, at least $2-3k full time per month, from post tax income. A very upper middle class family making $15k/month, that would be %15/%20 of their income, very expensive!
  - someguydave 10y ago
    >very expensive! Indeed, because the US government heavily disincentives selling labor via steep and onerous labor taxes. To further discourage selling labor, the US government spends a sizable portion of the taxes collected from labor-sellers to encourage people not to sell labor.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
Because leisure is preferable to labor, and labor for the overall good of society (including oneself) is better than labor for the personal whim of a wannabe hierarch.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  If you want to promote leisure, why should that leisure be concentrated in one leisure class? What's wrong with some leisure transfers - the leisure class can do some labor so that I can also consume leisure?

someguydave 10y ago

http://thefutureprimaeval.net/servants-without-masters/ http://thefutureprimaeval.net/servants-without-masters/ White Americans have a very odd bias against personal service. Honestly I think it is a major obstacle to economic growth - image how much more productive the average upper middle class family could be if they could employ servants to get things done at home. Instead USG pays a big portion of "poor" people not to work, and also insists that they cannot work for low (market clearing) wages.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
I wouldn't describe human dignity and equality as "a very odd bias".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- someguydave 10y ago
  So you are putting forth the idea that all forms of personal service require sacrificing dignity? What does equality even mean with respect to one's work role?
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >So you are putting forth the idea that all forms of personal service require sacrificing dignity? Well yes. Following orders is always a sacrifice of dignity, even when we make it a small, subtle one. > What does equality even mean with respect to one's work role? That you can give input and have as much voice in the group's direction as anyone else.
    - mercer 10y ago
      > > So you are putting forth the idea that all forms of personal service require sacrificing dignity? > Well yes. Following orders is always a sacrifice of dignity, even when we make it a small, subtle one. Maybe the problem is that both 'following orders' and 'dignity' (and perhaps even 'sacrifice') are ill-defined, but I can name countless examples from my life, as well as from a cursory look at the life of friends of mine, where 'following orders' provided joy and satifsaction and where it didn't affect my (sense of) dignity. Especially in small, subtle cases.
mahyarm 10y ago
A lot of people hire nannies, nurses and maids in the USA, especially older people who are not up for the task physically that much anymore. Any kind of assistant is also pretty expensive in the USA, at least $2-3k full time per month, from post tax income. A very upper middle class family making $15k/month, that would be %15/%20 of their income, very expensive!
- someguydave 10y ago
  >very expensive! Indeed, because the US government heavily disincentives selling labor via steep and onerous labor taxes. To further discourage selling labor, the US government spends a sizable portion of the taxes collected from labor-sellers to encourage people not to sell labor.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

Because leisure is preferable to labor, and labor for the overall good of society (including oneself) is better than labor for the personal whim of a wannabe hierarch.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
If you want to promote leisure, why should that leisure be concentrated in one leisure class? What's wrong with some leisure transfers - the leisure class can do some labor so that I can also consume leisure?