4 ms·
According to the story, servants only earn about $64 to $161 per month, which is too little. Author also opines that if someone cannot afford to pay more for do
by petilon 13y ago
According to the story, servants only earn about $64 to $161 per month, which is too little. Author also opines that if someone cannot afford to pay more for domestic help then they shouldn't have domestic help.
That's easy to say. That's like saying it is better to starve than work for $64 to $161 per month. If that's the most the employer can afford to pay you, why wouldn't you take it, as opposed to starving?
Indian salaries are low across the board. A school teacher may get paid around $320 per month. If that school teacher wants to hire domestic help for $160 per month, and the alternative for the would-be servant is starvation, what's wrong with taking that job? What's wrong with the school teacher hiring that help?
- bitops 13y agoI think what you may not be considering here is that there's a broader point being made about what constitutes a "living wage." Of course it's better to get some money rather than nothing. But if the money is below the minimum wage and/or below a living wage, it forces the "servant" to either live close to poverty or work multiple jobs. Also, what's being touched on is a notion of entitlement. For instance, I hire somebody to periodically come and clean my house every few weeks. I pay well, way above what they asked for - both because they do a good job and because I know it's a hard way to make a living. When I made less money, I cleaned my house myself, and I never felt a sense of entitlement or right to that help.
- jes 13y agoIf I offer Joe a job at $2.00 an hour, which is less than the minimum wage, and Joe wants to accept the job, then I have forced Joe to live close to poverty or to work multiple jobs? The offer is voluntary. Joe can either accept it or refuse it. Why doesn't Joe get to say whether he's willing to accept the job or not? I'd say that the government is the entity introducing the use of force into what was otherwise a voluntary situation.
- bitops 13y agoThe offer is voluntary. Joe can either accept it or refuse it. I feel like this point is really kind of secondary to the discussion, or at least, it seems like there's an assumption in here that I don't share. For some reason, I feel like maybe there's an assumption that Joe has other options? Maybe I'm missing something.
- camus2 13y agoYeah, why paying them at all , after all , they would be starving if they ware not slaves ... And folks like you are ok with slavery and exploitation...
- kamakazizuru 13y agoexcept they arent slaves - and if they could find better paying work - there would be nothing stopping them from going after it. It is a free market at the end of the day.
- thedufer 13y agoSo you think we should do away with a minimum wage altogether?
- petilon 13y agoNo. It makes sense to have a minimum wage where the market can support it. If setting (or raising) minimum wages causes people to lose their jobs then it does not make sense.