Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Servants

brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 10:49:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Apparently, using the word "servant" to describe somebody in your personal employ is considered insulting in America, but I don't know what generic word you chaps over there use to refer to your domestic staff so I've got no choice but to use it.

Anyway, I don't know how many servants you and your families retain (I bet Ragnar_Rahl's folks have got quite a few) but I bet it's not as many as the average British aristocrat.

The idle, parasitic nobility of England who top up their munificent inheritances with generous EU subsidies – the Single Farm Payment (SFP) is based on how much land they own, not on how much food their land produces – enables them to retain a retinue of staff that may include such specialists as valets, pastry chefs and sommeliers.

Personally, I am not in regular receipt of taxpayers' cash as a reward for being enormously over-privileged so I am not in a position to be decadent with domestic help, although I do have a part-time cleaner.

Some of my friends say this is incompatible with my socialist principles but I don't think so.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 1:35:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 10:49:44 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Apparently, using the word "servant" to describe somebody in your personal employ is considered insulting in America, but I don't know what generic word you chaps over there use to refer to your domestic staff so I've got no choice but to use it.

Anyway, I don't know how many servants you and your families retain (I bet Ragnar_Rahl's folks have got quite a few) but I bet it's not as many as the average British aristocrat.

Why would that be, I wonder....
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 1:50:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 10:49:44 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Apparently, using the word "servant" to describe somebody in your personal employ is considered insulting in America, but I don't know what generic word you chaps over there use to refer to your domestic staff so I've got no choice but to use it.

Anyway, I don't know how many servants you and your families retain (I bet Ragnar_Rahl's folks have got quite a few) but I bet it's not as many as the average British aristocrat.

The idle, parasitic nobility of England who top up their munificent inheritances with generous EU subsidies – the Single Farm Payment (SFP) is based on how much land they own, not on how much food their land produces – enables them to retain a retinue of staff that may include such specialists as valets, pastry chefs and sommeliers.

Personally, I am not in regular receipt of taxpayers' cash as a reward for being enormously over-privileged so I am not in a position to be decadent with domestic help, although I do have a part-time cleaner.

Some of my friends say this is incompatible with my socialist principles but I don't think so.

I don't know why paying someone a fair wage to clean your house is some violation of socialist principles, communist yeah, but why are they contrary to socialist values? If that bothers you, make sure they belong to a union - if there is such a thing. Knowing someone who does this work, and is very happy to have houses to clean, i hardly see it as demeaning work at all. To some they prefer having to answer to the client rather than having a boss they must be accountable to.

I honestly don't understand the problem unless you are judging someone by their work, and that's kind of silly. If you are employing someone to paint your house or fix your plumbing is that somehow more acceptable than cleaning your house? If you are being an A-hole to the person cleaning your house and treating them like a piece of crap, well that's your deal, not theirs (not that i would ever think you would do that, but i think you understand my point).
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 2:12:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Socialism = Anti-capitalism = Anti-America
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 2:21:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 2:12:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
Socialism = Anti-capitalism = Anti-America

But the Anarcho-Capitalists say Americs =/= Capitalism?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 2:21:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 2:21:30 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/23/2011 2:12:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
Socialism = Anti-capitalism = Anti-America

But the Anarcho-Capitalists say America =/= Capitalism?

Fix'd
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 4:48:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 1:50:58 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/23/2011 10:49:44 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Apparently, using the word "servant" to describe somebody in your personal employ is considered insulting in America, but I don't know what generic word you chaps over there use to refer to your domestic staff so I've got no choice but to use it.

Anyway, I don't know how many servants you and your families retain (I bet Ragnar_Rahl's folks have got quite a few) but I bet it's not as many as the average British aristocrat.

The idle, parasitic nobility of England who top up their munificent inheritances with generous EU subsidies – the Single Farm Payment (SFP) is based on how much land they own, not on how much food their land produces – enables them to retain a retinue of staff that may include such specialists as valets, pastry chefs and sommeliers.

Personally, I am not in regular receipt of taxpayers' cash as a reward for being enormously over-privileged so I am not in a position to be decadent with domestic help, although I do have a part-time cleaner.

Some of my friends say this is incompatible with my socialist principles but I don't think so.

I don't know why paying someone a fair wage to clean your house is some violation of socialist principles, communist yeah, but why are they contrary to socialist values? If that bothers you, make sure they belong to a union - if there is such a thing. Knowing someone who does this work, and is very happy to have houses to clean, i hardly see it as demeaning work at all. To some they prefer having to answer to the client rather than having a boss they must be accountable to.

I honestly don't understand the problem unless you are judging someone by their work, and that's kind of silly. If you are employing someone to paint your house or fix your plumbing is that somehow more acceptable than cleaning your house? If you are being an A-hole to the person cleaning your house and treating them like a piece of crap, well that's your deal, not theirs (not that i would ever think you would do that, but i think you understand my point).

Thank you for that reply and I can assure you that she is paid well in excess of the minimum wage,

She isn't a member of a union, though I am, and I would be happy to enroll her if she so wished.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 5:18:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 4:48:09 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Thank you for that reply and I can assure you that she is paid well in excess of the minimum wage,

She isn't a member of a union, though I am, and I would be happy to enroll her if she so wished.

Sounds like some of your friends want to convert you to a communist?
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:49:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:21:55 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Brian why is it that you don't have time to clean up after yourself?

I leave for work at 7.30am and don't usually get back until around 11.00pm and I don't want to waste my weekends doing housework.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 4:17:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think a larger question is why we look down on people depending on their profession. If they are earning an honest dollar (or pound), why do people look at them as lower and higher? Honestly, i know some doctors who are personally reprehensible, and someone who used to dig ditches for the water department who taught me more about life than most anyone else.

If you are deeming people higher and lower depending on their profession, it isn't the system that's at fault, it's you who are looking at people with less value depending on how they make a living.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 4:52:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 10:49:44 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Apparently, using the word "servant" to describe somebody in your personal employ is considered insulting in America, but I don't know what generic word you chaps over there use to refer to your domestic staff so I've got no choice but to use it.

Anyway, I don't know how many servants you and your families retain (I bet Ragnar_Rahl's folks have got quite a few) but I bet it's not as many as the average British aristocrat.

The idle, parasitic nobility of England who top up their munificent inheritances with generous EU subsidies – the Single Farm Payment (SFP) is based on how much land they own, not on how much food their land produces – enables them to retain a retinue of staff that may include such specialists as valets, pastry chefs and sommeliers.

Personally, I am not in regular receipt of taxpayers' cash as a reward for being enormously over-privileged so I am not in a position to be decadent with domestic help, although I do have a part-time cleaner.

Some of my friends say this is incompatible with my socialist principles but I don't think so.

Is it the notion of inherited wealth or EU subsidies that you are angry about?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 9:39:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 4:17:45 AM, innomen wrote:
I think a larger question is why we look down on people depending on their profession. If they are earning an honest dollar (or pound), why do people look at them as lower and higher? Honestly, i know some doctors who are personally reprehensible, and someone who used to dig ditches for the water department who taught me more about life than most anyone else.

If you are deeming people higher and lower depending on their profession, it isn't the system that's at fault, it's you who are looking at people with less value depending on how they make a living.

IMO, it's not the people who are doing such work, but the work itself that I find far beneath human potential.

There's nothing uplifting or self-satisfying in being a "servant", unless one has been brought up with such a world-view.

I don't know if you have seen the movie "The Remains of the Day", but in it, it's shown how butlers lead their lives.

As long as there remains jobs where a human being has to take care of personal stuff for others, instead of them having it done themselves or having loved ones do it for them, there is the chance of human potential being squandered.

This just somehow reiterates the fact that some proportion of humanity is somehow fit only for such jobs.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 9:54:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 4:52:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 10:49:44 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Apparently, using the word "servant" to describe somebody in your personal employ is considered insulting in America, but I don't know what generic word you chaps over there use to refer to your domestic staff so I've got no choice but to use it.

Anyway, I don't know how many servants you and your families retain (I bet Ragnar_Rahl's folks have got quite a few) but I bet it's not as many as the average British aristocrat.

The idle, parasitic nobility of England who top up their munificent inheritances with generous EU subsidies – the Single Farm Payment (SFP) is based on how much land they own, not on how much food their land produces – enables them to retain a retinue of staff that may include such specialists as valets, pastry chefs and sommeliers.

Personally, I am not in regular receipt of taxpayers' cash as a reward for being enormously over-privileged so I am not in a position to be decadent with domestic help, although I do have a part-time cleaner.

Some of my friends say this is incompatible with my socialist principles but I don't think so.

Is it the notion of inherited wealth or EU subsidies that you are angry about?

Both.

My dad used to be a shipyard worker on the Tyne. The Tory government at the time could have subsidised the industry so that it could compete with subsidised shipyards in Germany, Holland and elsewhere but they chose not to, saying it was uneconomic, and all the yards on the Tyne except one closed down as a result.

Farming is a similarly uneconomic industry but much of the land in Britain is owned by the aristocracy, who have always been politically allied to the Tories, so their subsidies remain intact.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:07:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 9:54:47 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 8/24/2011 4:52:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 10:49:44 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Apparently, using the word "servant" to describe somebody in your personal employ is considered insulting in America, but I don't know what generic word you chaps over there use to refer to your domestic staff so I've got no choice but to use it.

Anyway, I don't know how many servants you and your families retain (I bet Ragnar_Rahl's folks have got quite a few) but I bet it's not as many as the average British aristocrat.

The idle, parasitic nobility of England who top up their munificent inheritances with generous EU subsidies – the Single Farm Payment (SFP) is based on how much land they own, not on how much food their land produces – enables them to retain a retinue of staff that may include such specialists as valets, pastry chefs and sommeliers.

Personally, I am not in regular receipt of taxpayers' cash as a reward for being enormously over-privileged so I am not in a position to be decadent with domestic help, although I do have a part-time cleaner.

Some of my friends say this is incompatible with my socialist principles but I don't think so.

Is it the notion of inherited wealth or EU subsidies that you are angry about?

Both.

My dad used to be a shipyard worker on the Tyne. The Tory government at the time could have subsidised the industry so that it could compete with subsidised shipyards in Germany, Holland and elsewhere but they chose not to, saying it was uneconomic, and all the yards on the Tyne except one closed down as a result.

Farming is a similarly uneconomic industry but much of the land in Britain is owned by the aristocracy, who have always been politically allied to the Tories, so their subsidies remain intact.

Subsidies are not part of true capitalism though. subsidies are more socialist than capitalist.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:39:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 9:39:19 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 4:17:45 AM, innomen wrote:
I think a larger question is why we look down on people depending on their profession. If they are earning an honest dollar (or pound), why do people look at them as lower and higher? Honestly, i know some doctors who are personally reprehensible, and someone who used to dig ditches for the water department who taught me more about life than most anyone else.

If you are deeming people higher and lower depending on their profession, it isn't the system that's at fault, it's you who are looking at people with less value depending on how they make a living.

IMO, it's not the people who are doing such work, but the work itself that I find far beneath human potential.

There's nothing uplifting or self-satisfying in being a "servant", unless one has been brought up with such a world-view.

I don't know if you have seen the movie "The Remains of the Day", but in it, it's shown how butlers lead their lives.

As long as there remains jobs where a human being has to take care of personal stuff for others, instead of them having it done themselves or having loved ones do it for them, there is the chance of human potential being squandered.

This just somehow reiterates the fact that some proportion of humanity is somehow fit only for such jobs.

Who are you to judge another person by their profession? There is of course something honorable in earning your own way in life, and of course as long as it's legal and ethical, there is no shame in doing a job you volunteer to do. Few who are cleaning houses want your pity, nor do they want you to think they are working "beneath human potential". How dare you judge them. These people are often self made, and are earning decent coin by most standards. They provide an honest service, and you deem them beneath human potential. That is elitist snobbery.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:59:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:39:36 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 9:39:19 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 4:17:45 AM, innomen wrote:
I think a larger question is why we look down on people depending on their profession. If they are earning an honest dollar (or pound), why do people look at them as lower and higher? Honestly, i know some doctors who are personally reprehensible, and someone who used to dig ditches for the water department who taught me more about life than most anyone else.

If you are deeming people higher and lower depending on their profession, it isn't the system that's at fault, it's you who are looking at people with less value depending on how they make a living.

IMO, it's not the people who are doing such work, but the work itself that I find far beneath human potential.

There's nothing uplifting or self-satisfying in being a "servant", unless one has been brought up with such a world-view.

I don't know if you have seen the movie "The Remains of the Day", but in it, it's shown how butlers lead their lives.

As long as there remains jobs where a human being has to take care of personal stuff for others, instead of them having it done themselves or having loved ones do it for them, there is the chance of human potential being squandered.

This just somehow reiterates the fact that some proportion of humanity is somehow fit only for such jobs.

Who are you to judge another person by their profession? There is of course something honorable in earning your own way in life, and of course as long as it's legal and ethical, there is no shame in doing a job you volunteer to do. Few who are cleaning houses want your pity, nor do they want you to think they are working "beneath human potential". How dare you judge them. These people are often self made, and are earning decent coin by most standards. They provide an honest service, and you deem them beneath human potential. That is elitist snobbery.

Ha ha. I seem to have got off on the wrong foot here.

Where in my post did you find me saying that I judged people by their professions? I was just saying that some professions are hardly something that one would "want" to do, it's just they don't have much choice.

Let me put it this way. Do you think such "jobs" will be around as long as humanity exists? Do we really need such jobs? Would advancing human civilization eliminate such jobs?

Just take the factory line as an example. Where people used to stand in one place and do the same action throughout the day. Now, without demeaning the people who used to do such jobs, wouldn't it be right to say that such jobs are beneath "human potential" and better done by machines?

I know conditions right now are not feasible for each and every individual to maximize their brain potential, but that doesn't mean that there is something "inherently valuable" about such jobs.

It's just that they have to be done right now, and some people have no other choice but to do it.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 12:07:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:59:00 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:39:36 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 9:39:19 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 4:17:45 AM, innomen wrote:
I think a larger question is why we look down on people depending on their profession. If they are earning an honest dollar (or pound), why do people look at them as lower and higher? Honestly, i know some doctors who are personally reprehensible, and someone who used to dig ditches for the water department who taught me more about life than most anyone else.

If you are deeming people higher and lower depending on their profession, it isn't the system that's at fault, it's you who are looking at people with less value depending on how they make a living.

IMO, it's not the people who are doing such work, but the work itself that I find far beneath human potential.

There's nothing uplifting or self-satisfying in being a "servant", unless one has been brought up with such a world-view.

I don't know if you have seen the movie "The Remains of the Day", but in it, it's shown how butlers lead their lives.

As long as there remains jobs where a human being has to take care of personal stuff for others, instead of them having it done themselves or having loved ones do it for them, there is the chance of human potential being squandered.

This just somehow reiterates the fact that some proportion of humanity is somehow fit only for such jobs.

Who are you to judge another person by their profession? There is of course something honorable in earning your own way in life, and of course as long as it's legal and ethical, there is no shame in doing a job you volunteer to do. Few who are cleaning houses want your pity, nor do they want you to think they are working "beneath human potential". How dare you judge them. These people are often self made, and are earning decent coin by most standards. They provide an honest service, and you deem them beneath human potential. That is elitist snobbery.

Ha ha. I seem to have got off on the wrong foot here.

Where in my post did you find me saying that I judged people by their professions? I was just saying that some professions are hardly something that one would "want" to do, it's just they don't have much choice.

Let me put it this way. Do you think such "jobs" will be around as long as humanity exists? Do we really need such jobs? Would advancing human civilization eliminate such jobs?

Just take the factory line as an example. Where people used to stand in one place and do the same action throughout the day. Now, without demeaning the people who used to do such jobs, wouldn't it be right to say that such jobs are beneath "human potential" and better done by machines?

I know conditions right now are not feasible for each and every individual to maximize their brain potential, but that doesn't mean that there is something "inherently valuable" about such jobs.

It's just that they have to be done right now, and some people have no other choice but to do it.

Why do you assume that everyone wants to maximize their brian potential? Why do you assume everyone is at some level of cognition that such work is 'beneath their potential'? What if they are happy doing that work and living that way? I could see a lot of merit in getting paid $50 an hour to clean someone's house, without having a boss to answer to, or deal with the crap that goes with working for someone else. What if they are just happy doing what they're doing, do you assume that cannot be the case? You're being incredibly egocentric in casting your values on others. If a machine replaces someone how does that relate to this argument? Will all manual labor jobs be replaced? Dunno, but I'm guessing it will be a while before you see a maching replacing your waiter at a restraunt.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 12:30:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:07:37 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/24/2011 9:54:47 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 8/24/2011 4:52:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 10:49:44 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Apparently, using the word "servant" to describe somebody in your personal employ is considered insulting in America, but I don't know what generic word you chaps over there use to refer to your domestic staff so I've got no choice but to use it.

Anyway, I don't know how many servants you and your families retain (I bet Ragnar_Rahl's folks have got quite a few) but I bet it's not as many as the average British aristocrat.

The idle, parasitic nobility of England who top up their munificent inheritances with generous EU subsidies – the Single Farm Payment (SFP) is based on how much land they own, not on how much food their land produces – enables them to retain a retinue of staff that may include such specialists as valets, pastry chefs and sommeliers.

Personally, I am not in regular receipt of taxpayers' cash as a reward for being enormously over-privileged so I am not in a position to be decadent with domestic help, although I do have a part-time cleaner.

Some of my friends say this is incompatible with my socialist principles but I don't think so.

Is it the notion of inherited wealth or EU subsidies that you are angry about?

Both.

My dad used to be a shipyard worker on the Tyne. The Tory government at the time could have subsidised the industry so that it could compete with subsidised shipyards in Germany, Holland and elsewhere but they chose not to, saying it was uneconomic, and all the yards on the Tyne except one closed down as a result.

Farming is a similarly uneconomic industry but much of the land in Britain is owned by the aristocracy, who have always been politically allied to the Tories, so their subsidies remain intact.

Subsidies are not part of true capitalism though. subsidies are more socialist than capitalist.

Agreed. So wealthy country landowners should no longer be subsidised - but they are too influential politically so they continue to get handouts when nobody else does.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 12:41:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 2:12:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
Socialism = Anti-capitalism = Anti-America

LMAO at the thought of America's economic system being considered genuinely capitalist.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 12:46:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 12:07:04 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:59:00 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:39:36 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 9:39:19 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 4:17:45 AM, innomen wrote:
I think a larger question is why we look down on people depending on their profession. If they are earning an honest dollar (or pound), why do people look at them as lower and higher? Honestly, i know some doctors who are personally reprehensible, and someone who used to dig ditches for the water department who taught me more about life than most anyone else.

If you are deeming people higher and lower depending on their profession, it isn't the system that's at fault, it's you who are looking at people with less value depending on how they make a living.

IMO, it's not the people who are doing such work, but the work itself that I find far beneath human potential.

There's nothing uplifting or self-satisfying in being a "servant", unless one has been brought up with such a world-view.

I don't know if you have seen the movie "The Remains of the Day", but in it, it's shown how butlers lead their lives.

As long as there remains jobs where a human being has to take care of personal stuff for others, instead of them having it done themselves or having loved ones do it for them, there is the chance of human potential being squandered.

This just somehow reiterates the fact that some proportion of humanity is somehow fit only for such jobs.

Who are you to judge another person by their profession? There is of course something honorable in earning your own way in life, and of course as long as it's legal and ethical, there is no shame in doing a job you volunteer to do. Few who are cleaning houses want your pity, nor do they want you to think they are working "beneath human potential". How dare you judge them. These people are often self made, and are earning decent coin by most standards. They provide an honest service, and you deem them beneath human potential. That is elitist snobbery.

Ha ha. I seem to have got off on the wrong foot here.

Where in my post did you find me saying that I judged people by their professions? I was just saying that some professions are hardly something that one would "want" to do, it's just they don't have much choice.

Let me put it this way. Do you think such "jobs" will be around as long as humanity exists? Do we really need such jobs? Would advancing human civilization eliminate such jobs?

Just take the factory line as an example. Where people used to stand in one place and do the same action throughout the day. Now, without demeaning the people who used to do such jobs, wouldn't it be right to say that such jobs are beneath "human potential" and better done by machines?

I know conditions right now are not feasible for each and every individual to maximize their brain potential, but that doesn't mean that there is something "inherently valuable" about such jobs.

It's just that they have to be done right now, and some people have no other choice but to do it.

Why do you assume that everyone wants to maximize their brian potential? Why do you assume everyone is at some level of cognition that such work is 'beneath their potential'? What if they are happy doing that work and living that way? I could see a lot of merit in getting paid $50 an hour to clean someone's house, without having a boss to answer to, or deal with the crap that goes with working for someone else. What if they are just happy doing what they're doing, do you assume that cannot be the case? You're being incredibly egocentric in casting your values on others. If a machine replaces someone how does that relate to this argument? Will all manual labor jobs be replaced? Dunno, but I'm guessing it will be a while before you see a maching replacing your waiter at a restraunt.

Of course not everyone is at some level of cognition that deems such work beneath their potential. I was talking about human potential in general. In a roundabout way, it's you who is making the generalization that some people don't have much potential other than doing such menial jobs.

I'm not at all against cleaning somebody else's house, I'm just, let's say, in principle, against HAVING to make a living that way. This does not mean I want all such jobs abolished right now, but we should trend towards such, so that they are not required in the future.

It's wonderful and great if you make 50$ per hour cleaning somebody else's house. I assume in such jobs one doesn't get to work the whole 40 hours in a week. Otherwise, this kind of earnings would put technology professionals to shame. The fact that you don't have bosses to answer to and all that crap is not much of a benefit if you are not earning that much. I assume one would take a boss and a much higher salary than no boss and a low salary.

I just checked how much they actually make with your 50$ an hour jobs.
http://www.indeed.com...
http://www.simplyhired.com...

The sad truth is that not everyone wants to maximize their brain potential. But then, one has to make a living. Somehow, such jobs being available, encourage people to not change their mindsets and try to increase their brain potential.

What would you say is the main reason for much of the decline of education here where people don't want to do hard sciences, or anything that involves utilizing their brains?

I'd assume the easy availability of jobs where not much qualifications are required. Wal-mart, McDonald's and their ilk. Although, now, things have come to such a pass that even these jobs are highly fought for and are not so easily available anymore.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 12:52:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 12:07:04 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:59:00 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:39:36 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 9:39:19 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 4:17:45 AM, innomen wrote:
I think a larger question is why we look down on people depending on their profession. If they are earning an honest dollar (or pound), why do people look at them as lower and higher? Honestly, i know some doctors who are personally reprehensible, and someone who used to dig ditches for the water department who taught me more about life than most anyone else.

If you are deeming people higher and lower depending on their profession, it isn't the system that's at fault, it's you who are looking at people with less value depending on how they make a living.

IMO, it's not the people who are doing such work, but the work itself that I find far beneath human potential.

There's nothing uplifting or self-satisfying in being a "servant", unless one has been brought up with such a world-view.

I don't know if you have seen the movie "The Remains of the Day", but in it, it's shown how butlers lead their lives.

As long as there remains jobs where a human being has to take care of personal stuff for others, instead of them having it done themselves or having loved ones do it for them, there is the chance of human potential being squandered.

This just somehow reiterates the fact that some proportion of humanity is somehow fit only for such jobs.

Who are you to judge another person by their profession? There is of course something honorable in earning your own way in life, and of course as long as it's legal and ethical, there is no shame in doing a job you volunteer to do. Few who are cleaning houses want your pity, nor do they want you to think they are working "beneath human potential". How dare you judge them. These people are often self made, and are earning decent coin by most standards. They provide an honest service, and you deem them beneath human potential. That is elitist snobbery.

Ha ha. I seem to have got off on the wrong foot here.

Where in my post did you find me saying that I judged people by their professions? I was just saying that some professions are hardly something that one would "want" to do, it's just they don't have much choice.

Let me put it this way. Do you think such "jobs" will be around as long as humanity exists? Do we really need such jobs? Would advancing human civilization eliminate such jobs?

Just take the factory line as an example. Where people used to stand in one place and do the same action throughout the day. Now, without demeaning the people who used to do such jobs, wouldn't it be right to say that such jobs are beneath "human potential" and better done by machines?

I know conditions right now are not feasible for each and every individual to maximize their brain potential, but that doesn't mean that there is something "inherently valuable" about such jobs.

It's just that they have to be done right now, and some people have no other choice but to do it.

Why do you assume that everyone wants to maximize their brian potential? Why do you assume everyone is at some level of cognition that such work is 'beneath their potential'? What if they are happy doing that work and living that way? I could see a lot of merit in getting paid $50 an hour to clean someone's house, without having a boss to answer to, or deal with the crap that goes with working for someone else. What if they are just happy doing what they're doing, do you assume that cannot be the case? You're being incredibly egocentric in casting your values on others. If a machine replaces someone how does that relate to this argument? Will all manual labor jobs be replaced? Dunno, but I'm guessing it will be a while before you see a maching replacing your waiter at a restraunt.

First, very very VERY few house cleaners are going to be making $50 an hour, as most are illegal immigrants and are paid under the table. My mother in law use to work as a nanny (and house cleaner and barn manager) and was only paid $100 a day (for about 12 hours a day, doing 3 jobs). She was eventually fired when the kids grew up and were going to school (natural part of being a nanny) and her boss (yes, you still have a boss) demanded that she continue to clean the house and take care of the barn for half the money.

She's been trying to get work cleaning houses (namely because she does drugs, knows she won't pass a drug test for a normal job, and refuses to give up her drugs to get a job), and everything she's finding is at or below minimum wage.

If they paid $50 an hour standard, you'd see a hell of a lot more people doing it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 1:12:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 12:52:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/24/2011 12:07:04 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:59:00 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:39:36 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 9:39:19 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 4:17:45 AM, innomen wrote:
I think a larger question is why we look down on people depending on their profession. If they are earning an honest dollar (or pound), why do people look at them as lower and higher? Honestly, i know some doctors who are personally reprehensible, and someone who used to dig ditches for the water department who taught me more about life than most anyone else.

If you are deeming people higher and lower depending on their profession, it isn't the system that's at fault, it's you who are looking at people with less value depending on how they make a living.

IMO, it's not the people who are doing such work, but the work itself that I find far beneath human potential.

There's nothing uplifting or self-satisfying in being a "servant", unless one has been brought up with such a world-view.

I don't know if you have seen the movie "The Remains of the Day", but in it, it's shown how butlers lead their lives.

As long as there remains jobs where a human being has to take care of personal stuff for others, instead of them having it done themselves or having loved ones do it for them, there is the chance of human potential being squandered.

This just somehow reiterates the fact that some proportion of humanity is somehow fit only for such jobs.

Who are you to judge another person by their profession? There is of course something honorable in earning your own way in life, and of course as long as it's legal and ethical, there is no shame in doing a job you volunteer to do. Few who are cleaning houses want your pity, nor do they want you to think they are working "beneath human potential". How dare you judge them. These people are often self made, and are earning decent coin by most standards. They provide an honest service, and you deem them beneath human potential. That is elitist snobbery.

Ha ha. I seem to have got off on the wrong foot here.

Where in my post did you find me saying that I judged people by their professions? I was just saying that some professions are hardly something that one would "want" to do, it's just they don't have much choice.

Let me put it this way. Do you think such "jobs" will be around as long as humanity exists? Do we really need such jobs? Would advancing human civilization eliminate such jobs?

Just take the factory line as an example. Where people used to stand in one place and do the same action throughout the day. Now, without demeaning the people who used to do such jobs, wouldn't it be right to say that such jobs are beneath "human potential" and better done by machines?

I know conditions right now are not feasible for each and every individual to maximize their brain potential, but that doesn't mean that there is something "inherently valuable" about such jobs.

It's just that they have to be done right now, and some people have no other choice but to do it.

Why do you assume that everyone wants to maximize their brian potential? Why do you assume everyone is at some level of cognition that such work is 'beneath their potential'? What if they are happy doing that work and living that way? I could see a lot of merit in getting paid $50 an hour to clean someone's house, without having a boss to answer to, or deal with the crap that goes with working for someone else. What if they are just happy doing what they're doing, do you assume that cannot be the case? You're being incredibly egocentric in casting your values on others. If a machine replaces someone how does that relate to this argument? Will all manual labor jobs be replaced? Dunno, but I'm guessing it will be a while before you see a maching replacing your waiter at a restraunt.

First, very very VERY few house cleaners are going to be making $50 an hour, as most are illegal immigrants and are paid under the table. My mother in law use to work as a nanny (and house cleaner and barn manager) and was only paid $100 a day (for about 12 hours a day, doing 3 jobs). She was eventually fired when the kids grew up and were going to school (natural part of being a nanny) and her boss (yes, you still have a boss) demanded that she continue to clean the house and take care of the barn for half the money.

She's been trying to get work cleaning houses (namely because she does drugs, knows she won't pass a drug test for a normal job, and refuses to give up her drugs to get a job), and everything she's finding is at or below minimum wage.

If they paid $50 an hour standard, you'd see a hell of a lot more people doing it.

It's actually very competitive here, and you will get paid about $100 - $150 per house which generally takes about 3 hours or so. Like any job you have to fit the expectations of the clients.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 1:20:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 12:46:00 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 12:07:04 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:59:00 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:39:36 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 9:39:19 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 4:17:45 AM, innomen wrote:
I think a larger question is why we look down on people depending on their profession. If they are earning an honest dollar (or pound), why do people look at them as lower and higher? Honestly, i know some doctors who are personally reprehensible, and someone who used to dig ditches for the water department who taught me more about life than most anyone else.

If you are deeming people higher and lower depending on their profession, it isn't the system that's at fault, it's you who are looking at people with less value depending on how they make a living.

IMO, it's not the people who are doing such work, but the work itself that I find far beneath human potential.

There's nothing uplifting or self-satisfying in being a "servant", unless one has been brought up with such a world-view.

I don't know if you have seen the movie "The Remains of the Day", but in it, it's shown how butlers lead their lives.

As long as there remains jobs where a human being has to take care of personal stuff for others, instead of them having it done themselves or having loved ones do it for them, there is the chance of human potential being squandered.

This just somehow reiterates the fact that some proportion of humanity is somehow fit only for such jobs.

Who are you to judge another person by their profession? There is of course something honorable in earning your own way in life, and of course as long as it's legal and ethical, there is no shame in doing a job you volunteer to do. Few who are cleaning houses want your pity, nor do they want you to think they are working "beneath human potential". How dare you judge them. These people are often self made, and are earning decent coin by most standards. They provide an honest service, and you deem them beneath human potential. That is elitist snobbery.

Ha ha. I seem to have got off on the wrong foot here.

Where in my post did you find me saying that I judged people by their professions? I was just saying that some professions are hardly something that one would "want" to do, it's just they don't have much choice.

Let me put it this way. Do you think such "jobs" will be around as long as humanity exists? Do we really need such jobs? Would advancing human civilization eliminate such jobs?

Just take the factory line as an example. Where people used to stand in one place and do the same action throughout the day. Now, without demeaning the people who used to do such jobs, wouldn't it be right to say that such jobs are beneath "human potential" and better done by machines?

I know conditions right now are not feasible for each and every individual to maximize their brain potential, but that doesn't mean that there is something "inherently valuable" about such jobs.

It's just that they have to be done right now, and some people have no other choice but to do it.

Why do you assume that everyone wants to maximize their brian potential? Why do you assume everyone is at some level of cognition that such work is 'beneath their potential'? What if they are happy doing that work and living that way? I could see a lot of merit in getting paid $50 an hour to clean someone's house, without having a boss to answer to, or deal with the crap that goes with working for someone else. What if they are just happy doing what they're doing, do you assume that cannot be the case? You're being incredibly egocentric in casting your values on others. If a machine replaces someone how does that relate to this argument? Will all manual labor jobs be replaced? Dunno, but I'm guessing it will be a while before you see a maching replacing your waiter at a restraunt.

Of course not everyone is at some level of cognition that deems such work beneath their potential. I was talking about human potential in general. In a roundabout way, it's you who is making the generalization that some people don't have much potential other than doing such menial jobs.

I'm not at all against cleaning somebody else's house, I'm just, let's say, in principle, against HAVING to make a living that way. This does not mean I want all such jobs abolished right now, but we should trend towards such, so that they are not required in the future.

It's wonderful and great if you make 50$ per hour cleaning somebody else's house. I assume in such jobs one doesn't get to work the whole 40 hours in a week. Otherwise, this kind of earnings would put technology professionals to shame. The fact that you don't have bosses to answer to and all that crap is not much of a benefit if you are not earning that much. I assume one would take a boss and a much higher salary than no boss and a low salary.

I just checked how much they actually make with your 50$ an hour jobs.
http://www.indeed.com...
http://www.simplyhired.com...

The sad truth is that not everyone wants to maximize their brain potential. But then, one has to make a living. Somehow, such jobs being available, encourage people to not change their mindsets and try to increase their brain potential.

What would you say is the main reason for much of the decline of education here where people don't want to do hard sciences, or anything that involves utilizing their brains?

I'd assume the easy availability of jobs where not much qualifications are required. Wal-mart, McDonald's and their ilk. Although, now, things have come to such a pass that even these jobs are highly fought for and are not so easily available anymore.

What we should be doing is valuing all people, particularly all people who are earning their own way in life, and not passing judgment at all. There was a time that i did judge people that way, so i don't want to sound hypocritical, but i had my eyes opened.

Are there some who are forced to labor differently than their talents might allow? Sure, but they are still the master of their labor and as long as we aren't speaking of slavery, all work is honorable. I don't know how to break this to you, no matter what job you have, there will be a part of it that you will hate. - However, this is besides the point of looking down on someone who has a job of servitude, or blue collar. Life isn't fair, true, and it NEVER WILL BE, but how you look at your fellow human being is completely up to you.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 1:36:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 1:20:27 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 12:46:00 PM, Indophile wrote:
The sad truth is that not everyone wants to maximize their brain potential. But then, one has to make a living. Somehow, such jobs being available, encourage people to not change their mindsets and try to increase their brain potential.

What would you say is the main reason for much of the decline of education here where people don't want to do hard sciences, or anything that involves utilizing their brains?

I'd assume the easy availability of jobs where not much qualifications are required. Wal-mart, McDonald's and their ilk. Although, now, things have come to such a pass that even these jobs are highly fought for and are not so easily available anymore.

What we should be doing is valuing all people, particularly all people who are earning their own way in life, and not passing judgment at all. There was a time that i did judge people that way, so i don't want to sound hypocritical, but i had my eyes opened.

Are there some who are forced to labor differently than their talents might allow? Sure, but they are still the master of their labor and as long as we aren't speaking of slavery, all work is honorable. I don't know how to break this to you, no matter what job you have, there will be a part of it that you will hate. - However, this is besides the point of looking down on someone who has a job of servitude, or blue collar. Life isn't fair, true, and it NEVER WILL BE, but how you look at your fellow human being is completely up to you.

My friend, you are not understanding me.

I am not looking down upon the people who are laboring in such a manner. I'm looking down upon our system where such jobs need to be done by human beings at all.

I don't respect a person just because he's earning 6 figures or just because he's laboring as a janitor. I respect people by their way of looking at life and what they have to teach me. How they make an earning is irrelevant to me.

At the same time, I do feel certain jobs are well left to machines and don't involve human beings. I know we don't have machines yet to do most of our manual jobs, but we should be trending towards that.

I am not at all getting from where you think I "look down" upon people or any such condescending things.

Another fact that I feel is relevant, is that the availability of such jobs where you don't need much qualifications, leads to a society where some proportion of it is more than happy to stop gaining skills and just do these jobs and make ends meet.

If such jobs were not so easily available, people would train themselves to do more progressive things, which would further boost human advancement in this universe.

If a high school kid can get a job in McDonald's what's the incentive for him to go for advanced studies?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 1:42:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 1:12:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 12:52:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/24/2011 12:07:04 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:59:00 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:39:36 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 9:39:19 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 4:17:45 AM, innomen wrote:
I think a larger question is why we look down on people depending on their profession. If they are earning an honest dollar (or pound), why do people look at them as lower and higher? Honestly, i know some doctors who are personally reprehensible, and someone who used to dig ditches for the water department who taught me more about life than most anyone else.

If you are deeming people higher and lower depending on their profession, it isn't the system that's at fault, it's you who are looking at people with less value depending on how they make a living.

IMO, it's not the people who are doing such work, but the work itself that I find far beneath human potential.

There's nothing uplifting or self-satisfying in being a "servant", unless one has been brought up with such a world-view.

I don't know if you have seen the movie "The Remains of the Day", but in it, it's shown how butlers lead their lives.

As long as there remains jobs where a human being has to take care of personal stuff for others, instead of them having it done themselves or having loved ones do it for them, there is the chance of human potential being squandered.

This just somehow reiterates the fact that some proportion of humanity is somehow fit only for such jobs.

Who are you to judge another person by their profession? There is of course something honorable in earning your own way in life, and of course as long as it's legal and ethical, there is no shame in doing a job you volunteer to do. Few who are cleaning houses want your pity, nor do they want you to think they are working "beneath human potential". How dare you judge them. These people are often self made, and are earning decent coin by most standards. They provide an honest service, and you deem them beneath human potential. That is elitist snobbery.

Ha ha. I seem to have got off on the wrong foot here.

Where in my post did you find me saying that I judged people by their professions? I was just saying that some professions are hardly something that one would "want" to do, it's just they don't have much choice.

Let me put it this way. Do you think such "jobs" will be around as long as humanity exists? Do we really need such jobs? Would advancing human civilization eliminate such jobs?

Just take the factory line as an example. Where people used to stand in one place and do the same action throughout the day. Now, without demeaning the people who used to do such jobs, wouldn't it be right to say that such jobs are beneath "human potential" and better done by machines?

I know conditions right now are not feasible for each and every individual to maximize their brain potential, but that doesn't mean that there is something "inherently valuable" about such jobs.

It's just that they have to be done right now, and some people have no other choice but to do it.

Why do you assume that everyone wants to maximize their brian potential? Why do you assume everyone is at some level of cognition that such work is 'beneath their potential'? What if they are happy doing that work and living that way? I could see a lot of merit in getting paid $50 an hour to clean someone's house, without having a boss to answer to, or deal with the crap that goes with working for someone else. What if they are just happy doing what they're doing, do you assume that cannot be the case? You're being incredibly egocentric in casting your values on others. If a machine replaces someone how does that relate to this argument? Will all manual labor jobs be replaced? Dunno, but I'm guessing it will be a while before you see a maching replacing your waiter at a restraunt.

First, very very VERY few house cleaners are going to be making $50 an hour, as most are illegal immigrants and are paid under the table. My mother in law use to work as a nanny (and house cleaner and barn manager) and was only paid $100 a day (for about 12 hours a day, doing 3 jobs). She was eventually fired when the kids grew up and were going to school (natural part of being a nanny) and her boss (yes, you still have a boss) demanded that she continue to clean the house and take care of the barn for half the money.

She's been trying to get work cleaning houses (namely because she does drugs, knows she won't pass a drug test for a normal job, and refuses to give up her drugs to get a job), and everything she's finding is at or below minimum wage.

If they paid $50 an hour standard, you'd see a hell of a lot more people doing it.

It's actually very competitive here, and you will get paid about $100 - $150 per house which generally takes about 3 hours or so. Like any job you have to fit the expectations of the clients.

"You will be paid" or the cleaning company that you work for will be paid that amount? It is going to be difficult for a single individual to get a huge list of clients on their own to file a week of work (if you make $50 an hour, but only work 4 hours a week, you're still gonna have a hard time paying your bills).

Merry Maids charges about that much, but it would be foolish to think that all goes to the laborers. It is also going to be hard to convince too many people that you (a random person to the customer) are going to be a better option than a Merry Maid service. Unless you 1) charge significantly less, to allow them to give you a chance, or 2) they've had a bad experience with Merry Maids (which can be done by contacting several workers of merry maids, convince them to do bad jobs so you can swing in and collect the customers afterwards, then hire those people that did bad jobs to work for you at a higher rate).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 2:54:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 1:42:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/24/2011 1:12:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 12:52:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/24/2011 12:07:04 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:59:00 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:39:36 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 9:39:19 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/24/2011 4:17:45 AM, innomen wrote:
I think a larger question is why we look down on people depending on their profession. If they are earning an honest dollar (or pound), why do people look at them as lower and higher? Honestly, i know some doctors who are personally reprehensible, and someone who used to dig ditches for the water department who taught me more about life than most anyone else.

If you are deeming people higher and lower depending on their profession, it isn't the system that's at fault, it's you who are looking at people with less value depending on how they make a living.

IMO, it's not the people who are doing such work, but the work itself that I find far beneath human potential.

There's nothing uplifting or self-satisfying in being a "servant", unless one has been brought up with such a world-view.

I don't know if you have seen the movie "The Remains of the Day", but in it, it's shown how butlers lead their lives.

As long as there remains jobs where a human being has to take care of personal stuff for others, instead of them having it done themselves or having loved ones do it for them, there is the chance of human potential being squandered.

This just somehow reiterates the fact that some proportion of humanity is somehow fit only for such jobs.

Who are you to judge another person by their profession? There is of course something honorable in earning your own way in life, and of course as long as it's legal and ethical, there is no shame in doing a job you volunteer to do. Few who are cleaning houses want your pity, nor do they want you to think they are working "beneath human potential". How dare you judge them. These people are often self made, and are earning decent coin by most standards. They provide an honest service, and you deem them beneath human potential. That is elitist snobbery.

Ha ha. I seem to have got off on the wrong foot here.

Where in my post did you find me saying that I judged people by their professions? I was just saying that some professions are hardly something that one would "want" to do, it's just they don't have much choice.

Let me put it this way. Do you think such "jobs" will be around as long as humanity exists? Do we really need such jobs? Would advancing human civilization eliminate such jobs?

Just take the factory line as an example. Where people used to stand in one place and do the same action throughout the day. Now, without demeaning the people who used to do such jobs, wouldn't it be right to say that such jobs are beneath "human potential" and better done by machines?

I know conditions right now are not feasible for each and every individual to maximize their brain potential, but that doesn't mean that there is something "inherently valuable" about such jobs.

It's just that they have to be done right now, and some people have no other choice but to do it.

Why do you assume that everyone wants to maximize their brian potential? Why do you assume everyone is at some level of cognition that such work is 'beneath their potential'? What if they are happy doing that work and living that way? I could see a lot of merit in getting paid $50 an hour to clean someone's house, without having a boss to answer to, or deal with the crap that goes with working for someone else. What if they are just happy doing what they're doing, do you assume that cannot be the case? You're being incredibly egocentric in casting your values on others. If a machine replaces someone how does that relate to this argument? Will all manual labor jobs be replaced? Dunno, but I'm guessing it will be a while before you see a maching replacing your waiter at a restraunt.

First, very very VERY few house cleaners are going to be making $50 an hour, as most are illegal immigrants and are paid under the table. My mother in law use to work as a nanny (and house cleaner and barn manager) and was only paid $100 a day (for about 12 hours a day, doing 3 jobs). She was eventually fired when the kids grew up and were going to school (natural part of being a nanny) and her boss (yes, you still have a boss) demanded that she continue to clean the house and take care of the barn for half the money.

She's been trying to get work cleaning houses (namely because she does drugs, knows she won't pass a drug test for a normal job, and refuses to give up her drugs to get a job), and everything she's finding is at or below minimum wage.

If they paid $50 an hour standard, you'd see a hell of a lot more people doing it.

It's actually very competitive here, and you will get paid about $100 - $150 per house which generally takes about 3 hours or so. Like any job you have to fit the expectations of the clients.

"You will be paid" or the cleaning company that you work for will be paid that amount? It is going to be difficult for a single individual to get a huge list of clients on their own to file a week of work (if you make $50 an hour, but only work 4 hours a week, you're still gonna have a hard time paying your bills).

No not 4 hours a week. If you have 4-5 houses a week to clean, you can get by. Yeah it is hard, but generally they work on referals, and that's how it is when you are in business for yourself, you do have to hustle. Try selling paperclips ;-)

Merry Maids charges about that much, but it would be foolish to think that all goes to the laborers. It is also going to be hard to convince too many people that you (a random person to the customer) are going to be a better option than a Merry Maid service. Unless you 1) charge significantly less, to allow them to give you a chance, or 2) they've had a bad experience with Merry Maids (which can be done by contacting several workers of merry maids, convince them to do bad jobs so you can swing in and collect the customers afterwards, then hire those people that did bad jobs to work for you at a higher rate).

A lot of people (around here) don't go to Merry Maids for that very reason, and would rather help out an individual out on their own. Craigslist is a great way of getting a start, but people just put their numbers on bulletin boards in supermarkets. It's such a terrible profession, and yet there are droves of people who would leave their offices for a shot at working for themselves.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:11:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 2:54:35 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/24/2011 1:42:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

"You will be paid" or the cleaning company that you work for will be paid that amount? It is going to be difficult for a single individual to get a huge list of clients on their own to file a week of work (if you make $50 an hour, but only work 4 hours a week, you're still gonna have a hard time paying your bills).

No not 4 hours a week. If you have 4-5 houses a week to clean, you can get by. Yeah it is hard, but generally they work on referals, and that's how it is when you are in business for yourself, you do have to hustle. Try selling paperclips ;-)

As said, it is difficult to get a large client list. Most homes will only need to be cleaned once a month, so getting 5 houses a week (the equivilent of $750 a week, or $18.75 an hour, not mentioning the cost of gas to get to all these houses, if they are all in your neighborhood that would be amazing luck) would need to get 20+ regular customers. That is not an easy task.

My wife does Mary Kay, and getting regulars is very difficult, you'll likely (at least with Mary Kay) only get 1 regular and 19 one timer customers out of every 20. So while it is possible, you are really looking at the extreme high end of the spectrum in that regards.



Merry Maids charges about that much, but it would be foolish to think that all goes to the laborers. It is also going to be hard to convince too many people that you (a random person to the customer) are going to be a better option than a Merry Maid service. Unless you 1) charge significantly less, to allow them to give you a chance, or 2) they've had a bad experience with Merry Maids (which can be done by contacting several workers of merry maids, convince them to do bad jobs so you can swing in and collect the customers afterwards, then hire those people that did bad jobs to work for you at a higher rate).

A lot of people (around here) don't go to Merry Maids for that very reason, and would rather help out an individual out on their own. Craigslist is a great way of getting a start, but people just put their numbers on bulletin boards in supermarkets. It's such a terrible profession, and yet there are droves of people who would leave their offices for a shot at working for themselves.

Yes, and like with most entrepeneurs (completely botched that spelling, probably), most will fail miserably and be in a worse financial situation than when they started.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:16:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 10:49:44 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Anyway, I don't know how many servants you and your families retain (I bet Ragnar_Rahl's folks have got quite a few)
Well, there's the children of the family, but as for PAID servants, the number is 0.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:18:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 3:16:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/23/2011 10:49:44 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Anyway, I don't know how many servants you and your families retain (I bet Ragnar_Rahl's folks have got quite a few)
Well, there's the children of the family, but as for PAID servants, the number is 0.

But your a capitalist, that must mean your filthy rich! :p. Only the rich and those who live in socialist countries want capitalism.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...