You’re kidding right? You use a PPP measure where it suits you, and bring up cost of living where it doesn’t?
So, if she didn’t mind never never leaving the house she didn’t have to spend a cent! Cell phones, eating out, movies, shopping, presents for friends & family, books - none of that is *mandatory. *Why, what a great deal she was getting!
:rolleyes:
Seriously.
Also:
Guess what: the diplomat wasn’t paying for rent either. And she was getting a cost of living allowance for being in New York…I guess, because it’s more expensive in New York. I guess they figured the diplomat was important enough to have non-mandatory costs.
:rolleyes:
leave it dear friend. you are not fast.
You’re comparing with an ideal that was never an option. Her life in India didn’t have eating out, movies and shopping either. I’m trying to say that she was better off than she would otherwise have been. You’re trying to say she wasn’t in the best situation imaginable. You’re right, being paid American minimum wages would have meant she would have had an even better life, if it could have happened. But guess what, being paid American minimum wages would have meant she would be unaffordable for the consul, and she would still be in India, making a third of what this deal gave her. I repeat again - that is what should have happened, the consul should not have been so stupid as to make this deal. But nobody should forget that the maid would have been worse off under that circumstance.
for male workers, dragonash should also include strip club visits.
So simultaneously, the maid could manipulate her well-placed political connections through her husband to gain a sweet job in the United States and obtain favorable treatment from the US Embassy and its employees; but if she had not gone to New York she would been stuck in a miserable dead-end job with barely any money.
That story doesn’t hold together.
No. The maid was employed in New York, not India, so the Indian cost of living is irrelevant. The maid was paid from India, so Indian wealth is relevant. Same as an American company employing people in India, as happens often, they have to obey Indian employment laws, and pay according to Indian standards. That they do so, of course, is one of many reasons India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world - although not a major one, as far as I know.
They should be able to do what they want in their free time. If they’d prefer a strip club to the theatre, that’s fine. The point is, they should both have that free time and money to enjoy it.
Obviously not everyone in America does have those things, but most people have some leisure time and money.
Well placed political connections? Sweet job in the US? Favourable treatment? Where have I mentioned any of this? Her ‘connections’ in the US embassy are important only as far as information is concerned - it is likely or at least possible that she knew of cases where Indian maids had been awarded damages. She had worked in the US embassy as a maid but was apparently unemployed at the time her husband approached Khobragade for a job (which I have maintained was sweet only in comparison to her options in India, not in any absolute sense). There have been news reports that the US embassy pays drivers and cooks in the range of INR 10,000. That’s a reasonably high amount for drivers or maids to be making in India.
You mentioned India being the third largest economy and thus being able to pay American minimum wages. That’s a PPP measure and invalid for use in your argument. Now you’ve switched to saying ‘not a major one’, which is fine.
maid would have preferred a digital tv connection with indian channels more than english movies plays books etc. for 600 dollars per month ,occasional strip club visit woud be affordable
Ravenman - I’ve responded to your cost of living post on the previous page, in case you missed that.
[QUOTE=dailymail, so take grains of salt as appropriate]
[ I]n the case of some semi-skilled [Indian] staff [at the US embassy in India], the wages are below those prescribed under India’s Minimum Wages Act
[/QUOTE]
If true, we have our own idjits in the state department.
Forget ‘grain of salt’, take that with the whole fucking salt shaker. It’s not even an apples to oranges comparison, it’s an apples to antelope argument.
Assuming the report is true, Indian employees of the US embassy being paid below Indian minimum wage laws is an apples to antelope comparison?
coz there is no human trafficking.
#dragonashFTW
The main thrust of the article has nothing to do with ‘embassy workings being paid below minimum wage’. The complaint is ‘local hires aren’t paid as much as the expats’. Well, no shit. Completely different skill sets, oh by the way basic supply & demand (last time I checked, there were a bunch of native Indian speakers in India…), and yes…different functions & responsibilities, no matter how often local hires will complain that ‘we do the same jobs, but they get more’.
Cite: I’ve worked as both an expat and as a local hire for close to 30 years. I’ve seen both sides of the fence.
More importantly, the article doesn’t make sense. For example:
So the US Ambassador to India makes more than the Indian Ambassador to the US…right. Um, is the US government responsible for setting the salary levels for Indian government employees?
Or this:
As far as I can make out, the daily minimum wagein the State of Delhi, where the US Embassy is located (there are consulates in other parts of India) for ‘semi-skilled’ workers (as noted in the article) is Rs 343. Based on an average of 21 days a month, that’s a minimum monthly salary of…Rs. 7,200. The guard says he was getting over 10% more than this.
hmm…8000, means you are near the edge. better be careful. a month sometimes has 23 working days.
Thanks.
Unfortunately, your argument that cost of living comparisons are invalid (whether between Richards’ home and New York, or Charleston, West Virginia and New York) so long as room and board are taken care of is simply factually incorrect.
I believe Richards’ signed a three-year contract. Was she expected not to buy clothes for three years? Was she not expected to own a telephone to call home to her family? Is it expected that she would only eat in her employer’s home for three years? Is she not expected to buy gifts for anyone during those three years, such as for a birthday or whatnot?
Is it reasonable to expect that she would not take a taxi or public transportation on her personal time (I note that she went to church on Sundays, was she under an obligation to walk)? (I further note that I just looked online to find that a taxi in New Delhi for 4km ride costs the US equivalent of 62 cents. A two mile fare in NYC costs about $15 to $20. )
These are all totally legitimate, non-frivolous expenses associated with a normal lifestyle. I am not making an argument, for example, that playing golf or yachting is more expensive in New York than it is somewhere else.
The comparison of cost of living in different cities is completely valid EVEN IF room and board are accounted for. This is simply a fact.
ETA: The Indian government seems to acknowledge this, as I believe Khobragade’s housing was provided at no cost to her, and I also believe she was given a supplement to her income for living in a high cost area. Surely you don’t think that her supplement was only for food costs, do you?
It seems that the Indian diplomatic term for “human trafficking” may be “domestic help.”
And sometimes it only has 19…or even fewer. You do know that Embassy employees get both US and local holidays off, right? There will be only 18 working days in October this year for US Embassy workers in India, for example.
And by ‘close’ I assume you mean, ‘still above the Minimum Wage Act’, right?
This. Basically they seem to believe that the diplomat was somehow footing the bill for the maid’s room & board out of her own pocket, and thus the maid should reimburse the diplomat. It’s batshit crazy, but there you are.