3 ms·

Why do you believe people providing domestic labor lack equal dignity? And what type of equality are you referring to? Note that I've never been to Bangladesh,

Why do you believe people providing domestic labor lack equal dignity? And what type of equality are you referring to? Note that I've never been to Bangladesh, so my only point of reference is domestic labor in India. I never felt that my maid lacked dignity. I'm pretty sure it's not income equality you are talking about, since India (33.6) and Bangladesh (32.1) have lower inequality than the US (41.1) or UK (38.8). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... Somehow I'm just not understanding your post at all - I think I'm missing a premise or core definition. Maybe if you could back up to first principles I'd be able to follow?

rayiner 11y ago
First principles: 1) Desirable societies are ones where everyone has equal dignity. That is desirable not just for the lower classes, but also for the upper classes, because even the wealthy should feel ashamed interacting with another person other than as equals. 2) Equal dignity is hard to define precisely, but its component parts include economic opportunity and social stature. People have equal dignity, notwithstanding an employer-employee relationship, when, among other things: a) the work is a choice, not a consequence of desperation; b) when the interactions between people are not defined by their work; and c) when nobody internalizes the feeling that someone is better than them, or that they are better than someone else because of their work, education, upbringing, or social class. Domestic servitude has a unique capacity to create unequal dignity because: a) it's often undertaken because someone has no better opportunities; b) because of the unique master/servant relationship that arises out of one human purchasing the services of another in his individual capacity (rather than, e.g. both of them working for a larger organization); and c) because working with the sole purpose of making another human comfortable has a unique way of cementing pre-existing economic, education, or social divides. I do not know anything about India besides what I've read. But in Bangladesh, there is a deeply ingrained class structure. The domestic servant does not think himself the equal of his employer, and employers usually don't think of servants as their equals. In first world countries domestic service suffers from these problems less because people have alternatives and so human labor is very expensive. Plus, the culture is just better. People in small town Iowa don't think that venture capitalists in San Francisco are better than them, and it would be an egregious social violation for the venture capitalists to think so out loud. None of that is true in Bangladesh, where social interactions are strongly dictated by one's class, work, and education, with domestic servants being near the bottom of the pile.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Well said. And, as an Iowan, we in Iowa are absolutely sure that venture capitalists are not better than we are.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  India does have a somewhat ingrained class structure. I've criticized it myself in the past. But from what you write, it seems as if the real issue here is the class structure and looking down on domestic labor, rather than the labor itself. As such, it seems like the way forward would be for us to encourage Uber/Homejoy/etc to create a liquid market in labor (which ensures that neither buyers nor sellers have any real power over others) and to adopt Ayn-Rand style ethics about work over our current left-wing "anyone who isn't a knowledge worker at a non-profit or bank is an exploited victim" mentality.

rayiner 11y ago

First principles: 1) Desirable societies are ones where everyone has equal dignity. That is desirable not just for the lower classes, but also for the upper classes, because even the wealthy should feel ashamed interacting with another person other than as equals. 2) Equal dignity is hard to define precisely, but its component parts include economic opportunity and social stature. People have equal dignity, notwithstanding an employer-employee relationship, when, among other things: a) the work is a choice, not a consequence of desperation; b) when the interactions between people are not defined by their work; and c) when nobody internalizes the feeling that someone is better than them, or that they are better than someone else because of their work, education, upbringing, or social class. Domestic servitude has a unique capacity to create unequal dignity because: a) it's often undertaken because someone has no better opportunities; b) because of the unique master/servant relationship that arises out of one human purchasing the services of another in his individual capacity (rather than, e.g. both of them working for a larger organization); and c) because working with the sole purpose of making another human comfortable has a unique way of cementing pre-existing economic, education, or social divides. I do not know anything about India besides what I've read. But in Bangladesh, there is a deeply ingrained class structure. The domestic servant does not think himself the equal of his employer, and employers usually don't think of servants as their equals. In first world countries domestic service suffers from these problems less because people have alternatives and so human labor is very expensive. Plus, the culture is just better. People in small town Iowa don't think that venture capitalists in San Francisco are better than them, and it would be an egregious social violation for the venture capitalists to think so out loud. None of that is true in Bangladesh, where social interactions are strongly dictated by one's class, work, and education, with domestic servants being near the bottom of the pile.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Well said. And, as an Iowan, we in Iowa are absolutely sure that venture capitalists are not better than we are.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
India does have a somewhat ingrained class structure. I've criticized it myself in the past. But from what you write, it seems as if the real issue here is the class structure and looking down on domestic labor, rather than the labor itself. As such, it seems like the way forward would be for us to encourage Uber/Homejoy/etc to create a liquid market in labor (which ensures that neither buyers nor sellers have any real power over others) and to adopt Ayn-Rand style ethics about work over our current left-wing "anyone who isn't a knowledge worker at a non-profit or bank is an exploited victim" mentality.