Should Rich People Have Servants and Tutors? - Gisaengchung (2019) Discussion

[–] JohnnyDoe (1884) 5 years ago

Should neurosurgeons spend time tutoring their children, prepare meals, drive etc.?

reply

[–] Geff (453) 5 years ago

Tyrants throughout history have dictated what people should be able to do and what people should not be able to do. Does freedom mean anything to the tyrant? I think not.

In my opinion, everyone should be able to do whatever they want. Everyone should be able to follow their own selfish desires and nobody should be able to tell other people what to do or what not to do. If you want someone else to do something or not do something, you must commit violence or threaten violence. The only difference is that the violence is not being threatened by a collective, a government or a society. A world where people engage in duels without rules is a better world than a world with established collectivist laws and rules limiting human freedoms.

It is better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brux (14724) 5 years ago

Read the book "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich

Ehrenreich concludes with the argument that all low-wage workers, recipients of government or charitable services like welfare, food, and health care, are not simply living off the generosity of others. Instead, she suggests, we live off their generosity:
“ When someone works for less pay than she can live on … she has made a great sacrifice for you …

The "working poor" … are in fact the major philanthropists of our society.

They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone.”

— Nickel and Dimed, p. 221

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LockardTheGOAT (342) 5 years ago

We,, whether you like it or not, the poor and middle-class are the main ones who keep society from collaspsing, not the rich.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

That is grossly ignorant; how many jobs do poor and middle-class produce? How much stock dealings, production, foreign affair policies, Disaster relief, charity, etc are the poor participating in?

Before there was free markets, there was no poor or middle class, there was just Nobles and serfs. In those societies it was not the 'poor' that kept things form collapsing, it was the nobles that ran everything and the serfs just obeyed. At least in a free market the poor have more freedom of choice and opportunity to rise.

The poor and middle-class are much more often the cause of chaos and disorganization than the "rich". People are often rich because of a combination of age and competence. not always but mostly. People are poor or middle class usually because of age or inexperience that they still need to gain. Not always but this the general case. So the poor and inexperienced are not the ones leading the way into stability.

reply

[–] LockardTheGOAT (342) 5 years ago

If there were no policemen, no firemen, no doctors or construction workers, if there was no one working the banks or selling automobiles, flying airplanes, etc. then yes, society would collaspse. You can throw hundreds of other jobs in the mix as well.

lol @ bringing up charity. The (vast?) majority usually comes from the lower classes. Even when the rich drop money into something, they're usually only doing it because they can easily afford to, and it's worth the positive PR that it brings. But normally what they'll do is they'll open up a charity, and then expect everyone else to throw in while they sit back and get rich off it.

As far as the poor and middle-class being more responsible for chaos and disorganization than the rich, you're correct, but that's a numbers game. There's far more of them/us than there are of the wealthy, so of course they'll make up the majority of deviants in the world.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

"If there were no policemen, no firemen, no doctors or construction workers, if there was no one working the banks or selling automobiles, flying airplanes, etc. then yes, society would collaspse. You can throw hundreds of other jobs in the mix as well. "

IF there was no rich people none of those markets would exist in the first place. This statement shows no sense of history whatsoever; how did society exist before 200 years ago when things shifted from Monarchy and Noble based economies to Free Market economies?

"lol @ bringing up charity. The (vast?) majority usually comes from the lower classes."

Incorrect: 1/3 of all charity comes form the wealthy 1% while the lower class gives on average around 3% off all donation. If you expand that out to the top 10% are giving over 2/3 of all charity collections. You are just wrong on this. What you should argue is that poor people give a higher percentage of THEIR income to charity. That is at least true, because they have less money.

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/who-gives

"As far as the poor and middle-class being more responsible for chaos and disorganization than the rich, you're correct, but that's a numbers game. There's far more of them/us than there are of the wealthy, so of course they'll make up the majority of deviants in the world."

This is also true of the idea of order, production, job creation, and charity. The Rich 'control' all of this. The poor just take the opportunities that the rich provide and some succeed and some don't; but that success if mostly based on the individuals ability and dedication. Do you think there would be less chaotic if everyone had the same amount of money? Because that is a Pipe dream that leads directly to things like the Gulags.

reply

[–] LockardTheGOAT (342) 5 years ago

1. Doesn't change the fact that the lower classes are the ones doing those jobs, and not the rich. And how did those people become rich in the first place? Off the work that lower classer people do for them. And it's not like the rich created these job opprotunities for us out of charity or something, they did it because these tasks are necessary for society and society would collaspse from them not existing.

2. First off, I love how you only quote the first sentence of what I wrote, and ignore the rest even though it would have soundly refuted what you wrote here. Let me repeat it: "Even when the rich drop money into something, they're usually only doing it because they can easily afford to, and it's worth the positive PR that it brings. But normally what they'll do is they'll open up a charity, and then expect everyone else to throw in while they sit back and get rich off it.

Of course the rich are the ones who give more to charity, they've got far more cash to throw around than the average person does.

3. Read what I wrote above. The rich wouldn't be rich without our work, and these jobs exist because they are a must if society is to continue functioning as it does. Everybody contributed in their own way, but the lower classes are certainly more important than the higher ones in many ways.

And I never said things would be less chaotic if everyone had the same money; you sort of implied that yourself, though, when you blamed the poor for the majority of chaos in the world (the implication being that if they weren't poor, maybe they wouldn't be such deviants, I presume.)

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

" And how did those people become rich in the first place? Off the work that lower classer people do for them"

Go look up the statistics of people's wealth increasing with age. Most of the "rich" started out in the lower or middle class doing those same jobs; difference is they had more effort, competence, and ability so they excelled and became richer then their peers.

"And it's not like the rich created these job opprotunities for us out of charity or something, they did it because these tasks are necessary for society and society would collaspse from them not existing."

that is not why wealthy create jobs; they do it because there is a market for it. And they are looking to participate in free exchange with people. They are not creating job opportunities with no incentive; it is about profit and return on investments. This is the most basic of economics. But you sound like a socialist so basic economics is probably far beyond your understanding.

"First off, I love how you only quote the first sentence of what I wrote, and ignore the rest even though it would have soundly refuted what you wrote here."

Because the rest of you comment is completely based on presumption. You have no idea what anyone's motivation to give is; and it is insanely arrogant to think you do.

" usually only doing it because they can easily afford to"

Presumptuous. That makes no sense either, why give money just because you have it? They have other reasons to do it and their reasons are up to the individual giving.

"it's worth the positive PR that it brings"

Presumptuous again. Most of the rich donating are doing it anonymously. and you don't know their motivation either.

"normally what they'll do is they'll open up a charity, and then expect everyone else to throw in while they sit back and get rich off it."

More presumptions. And also not true. The wealthy 1% are donating, donating does not mean opening a charity and collecting from it.

reply

[–] LockardTheGOAT (342) 5 years ago

1. It doesn't really matter where the rich started out in life, I said the lower classes were more important because the majority of jobs that exist in order to keep society from collaspsing are done by them. This is the case regardless of where the rich started in life, or why they create these jobs, or whatever other excuse you want to bring up.

2. If there wasn't a market for these jobs, most of them would still need to exist for the betterment of society. Cops, firemen, doctors, teachers, construction workers, architects, people selling automobiles, people working the airports, people working the banks and keeping a hold of all your money, people delivering the mail, people creating and selling lawnmowers, people making food, etc. Tell me how society manages to function as well if you don't have these things.

3. I'm afraid what I wrote about why most (or at least a lot of) wealthy people donate is true. What you call presumptious, I call common sense and me understanding human nature better than you do. Of course most rich people donate anonymously; most rich people are anonymous citizens. Being rich doesn't automatically make you famous. But if you look at the rich folks that exist in the public eye, especially the head of major corporate entites, they sure love to show off how much they're giving to charity. It's obviously PR motivated more than anything.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

1. No one is more important than anyone else based on their wealth level. This is just pure classism. The systems do not exist on their own. People have to organize them, If you are concerned with feeding your family you have no time to organize community efforts. To suggest the 'poor' would take the time off work to decide community policy is just insane and ignorant. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

2. "most of them would still need to exist for the betterment of society."

The need would be there, but it wouldn't exist just for the betterment of society. That is why it didn't for LITERALLY ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.

" Tell me how society manages to function as well if you don't have these things."

You know, NO ONE WOULD DO THOSE THINGS IF THEY DIDN'T GET PAID. Who the fuck do you think is paying them? RICH PEOPLE. God it like talking to a retard. Just think about what you are saying. Stop feeling, start thinking.

3. "Being rich doesn't automatically make you famous. But if you look at the rich folks that exist in the public eye, especially the head of major corporate entites, they sure love to show off how much they're giving to charity. It's obviously PR motivated more than anything."

Oh so it is not rich people? but the combination of being rich and corporate elites? This is a classic shift of the goal post when you point is called out for being horse crap.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

"these jobs exist because they are a must if society is to continue functioning as it does. Everybody contributed in their own way, but the lower classes are certainly more important than the higher ones in many ways."

Jobs exist because there is a market for it. Not because society would collapse without them. Society would not collapse without Amazon hiring people.

"Everybody contributed in their own way, but the lower classes are certainly more important than the higher ones in many ways."

Neither is more important then the other, you do not determine human being worth based on their bank size. you sound like you are just envious of the rich for having more than you. The only difference is the wealthy are the ones that are creating the jobs and opporunities for the poor to work, earn and rise their economic level. Both are needed for each other to succeed, but one is producing the market, the poor produce the good for the market. You have this all backwards.

"And I never said things would be less chaotic i..."

what were you implying when you said ", the poor and middle-class are the main ones who keep society from collaspsing, not the rich."? That was an incorrect statement and you admitted it. The poor are not generating the societal stability; the market does. And the rich are the ones that generate the market.

reply

[–] LockardTheGOAT (342) 5 years ago

4. I have what backwards? I ssid the work that the lower classes do is what keeps society functioning, nothing you've said to the contrary refutes that. Yapping on about there being a market for things and how the rich create these opportunities for the rest of us in the first place doesn't change the FACTS. And the FACTS are that A. the lower classes are what keep society from collasping, regardless of who create the jobs, B. There would be incentive to create these jobs even if there wasn't a market for several of them, becaus they are needed for the betterment of society, and C. Even if you harp on the economical value of these jobs, the rich still would make no money off of them without other people's work. So you can't disregard the importance of the lower classes' work in keeping society functioning.

5. And it was clear what I meant was that the jobs the lower classes do is more important than most of the jobs that the higher classes perform. I never said or even implied it was because the rich were somehow bigger deviants than middle/lower class people. You did just the opposite, though

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

" FACTS. And the FACTS are that A. the lower classes are what keep society from collasping, regardless of who create the jobs, B. There would be incentive to create these jobs even if there wasn't a market for several of them, becaus they are needed for the betterment of society, and C. Even if you harp on the economical value of these jobs, the rich still would make no money off of them without other people's work. So you can't disregard the importance of the lower classes' work in keeping society functioning."

I don't think you know what the word FACT means. Because your A, B and C are all interpretations not facts.

"betterment of society"

You keep saying this betterment of society. Who works their job for the betterment of society? do you, IF you did not get a pay check from some rich asshole would you still go to work for the "betterment of society"?

"it was clear what I meant was that the jobs the lower classes do is more important than most of the jobs that the higher classes perform."

IT is 'symbiotic', not one way. One is not more important then the other inherently. It is about execution.

reply

[–] LockardTheGOAT (342) 5 years ago

1. They are all facts. Break them down and explain factually and logically how each of them aren't. I mean, don't just SAY that they aren't, explain it

2. It doesn't matter if anyone works for the betterment of society or whatnot, the fact is their professions are absolutely necessary for society to exist the way it does, and they are the ones performing those jobs, thus lower class people are still technically the most important people society had to rely on

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

1. "the lower classes are what keep society from collasping, regardless of who create the jobs,"

This is not a fact, this is a hyperbole statement based on YOUR interpretation of lower classes working jobs stop society from collapsing. A fact would be taking an example of a situation all lower class people going on strike and then shortly after a collapse of economy in a society. even trying to attribute cause and effect in this hypothetical is not a fact, it would be an interpretation. point A is not, in fact, a fact.

"B. There would be incentive to create these jobs even if there wasn't a market for several of them, becaus they are needed for the betterment of society,"

How in the hell is this a fact? You are just assuming that free of profit a market would still exist. This is based in not a single number or example from actual reality. This is not even close to a fact.

"C. Even if you harp on the economical value of these jobs, the rich still would make no money off of them without other people's work. So you can't disregard the importance of the lower classes' work in keeping society functioning"

Really, because it seems rich people are finding ways to increase automation to replace the "other people's work". So here is a fact for you, as demands for salary increases come from lower class, the jobs are outsourced to machines:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/16/evidence-minimum-wage-hikes-result-in-workers-being-replaced-by-robots.html

"2. It doesn't matter if anyone works for the betterment of society or whatnot"

That was your whole argument begin with, no you are saying it doesn't matter? I asked you a specific question, would you work if you got no pay if you felt it "bettered society"?

"the fact is their professions are absolutely necessary for society to exist the way it does"

By what right do you think they would exist had a market for them not been there? do you even have any knowledge on history?

reply

[–] LockardTheGOAT (342) 5 years ago

1. Explain what society would look like if no one was working the banks or the airports, if there were no policemen, no firemen, no doctors, architects or construction workers, no one building the lawnmowers, etc. It's pretty much undeniable that these jobs must exist if society is to function the way it does

2. It's a fact because of what I wrote above.

3. lol We're still a ways from replacing humans with robots. And if it were not for the lower classes, then society would never reach the point where we were able to build robots to do our jobs for us in the first place. Btw, robots can eventually replace 99.9% of wealthy people as well

4. Wrong! My argument was that the work the lower and middle classes do is more important than the work than at least 99% of the wealthy do. And that is still my argument. I'm simply saying that it doesn't mater WHY people do the work, only that they do

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

1. How many of these positions/jobs existed before markets? The only thing that even resembled the market based jobs that you take for granted was positions that were filled by nobles of people from wealthy families, that could afford to send their kids to get educations. And then they weren't employed as you understand it, they were selected by monarchs, churches and rich nobles. So these jobs did not exist, and only started to appear in the last 200 years. You ignorance of history is surpassed only by your entitlement and ingratitude for the societal structure you have no respect for.

2. LOl you literally are just trying to say: 'it is a fact because i say so'. No it is not. You are using the word "Fact" incorrectly.

3. The idea is about outsourcing. If the lower class can be replaced easily, they are not essential to society. The rich can not be replaced so easily.

4. Why? What makes the work that the lower and middle class do more important than the 'rich' people that supply the market and jobs? Say you have a construction worker building a new building. Someone is funding the project, probably a rich someone. So what makes the construction worker more important than the person funding it; without the funding the construction worker would even be there in the first place. Your logic is either backwards or non-existent. And you did not answer the question: WOULD YOU WORK YOUR JOB IS YOU DID NOT GET PAID FOR IT?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

"they are the ones performing those jobs, thus lower class people are still technically the most important people society had to rely on"

This comment is insane. This would be like saying I am typing on a computer, thus I am more important than the rich people that provided me the computer. Neither is inherently more important than the other. Both are equally needed to flourish in the market. Rich usually create the opportunities, but the poor or working class are the ones that have the chance to take those opportunities. The rich need the poor but the poor need the rich more.

For example, take this thought experiment. Let us say we killed all the wealthy 1% and had to figure out how to divide up the wealth and assets? Do you think this would be chaotic? who would get what? how would you divide it up? The world would be at war, people would be killing each other in the streets trying to get their hands on some money.

Now let us say we killed off the poorest 1%? How much trouble would there be trying to divide up that wealth? Almost none because there is no wealth to divide up anyway. The only thing the world would do to this is say 'it was a horrible thing to do'.

reply

[–] LockardTheGOAT (342) 5 years ago

Wrong! Both contribute to society but the rich need the poor a lot more than the other way around. These jobs aren't gonna do themselves, it's the people that do the work that make the jobs as important and beneficial as they are

Your analogy is shit, btw. I'm saying that the ones who do the work are more important than the ones who simply create the opportunity for them. So someone who uses a computer that somebody else built isn't comparable to the lower/middle class people in this case, because they aren't the ones doing any work, they're just benefitting from it. A better analogy following your logic would be saying that a person who creates a computer is more important than the people who simply create the work environment for them to do so... In which case, I would definitely agree, they are!

Your last analogy is silly too, because why compare the 1% wealthy to only the 1% poorest? I'm comparing the higher classes with all the poor and middle classes, so trickling down to only the bottom 1% is pretty disingenious. What is your point anyway?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

"the rich need the poor a lot more than the other way around."

How do you come to this conclusion? Without rich people the majority of those jobs those lower and middle class do would not even be there.

"These jobs aren't gonna do themselves"

and the jobs don't just create themselves either.

" it's the people that do the work that make the jobs as important and beneficial as they are "

So your argument is the person doing the job is more important than the one creating the? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The person doing the job would not be there in the first place if someone did not create the job.

"Your analogy is shit, btw"

Well because you said so; your entire position and ability to reason is shit, btw

"A better analogy following your logic would be saying that a person who creates a computer is more important than the people who simply create the work environment for them to do so... In which case, I would definitely agree, they are!"

That is asinine. and misses the point of my analogy. The rich person that creates the company that builds the computer is just as important as the individual worker that 'assists' with his part of the process. Who is easier to replace in this hypothetical computer company, the owner or the worker? If it is the worker why would he be more important?

" because why compare the 1% wealthy to only the 1% poorest? "'

even if you expand it out to the top and bottom 10% the same thing would happen. the point is, you can determine who is more important by imagining a scenario in which they were no longer there and you had an opportunity to divide up their material worth. This this case trying to divide up the wealth of the richest would cause much more chaos then doing the same for the poorest. So how can the lower and middle class be more important and be the ones generating societal stability? How many individuals are greatly concerned with the betterment of society over their own well being?

reply

[–] brux (14724) 5 years ago

> Who ever said life was fair?

It is a barbarian or an animal that does not accept the responsibility to make life as fair for all as possible.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

someone that is 5 feet 5 inches tall and has cerebral palsy can never participate in the NBA. Is that fair? How would you go about correcting this injustice to make everything fair?

Equality of opportunity is the goal; not equity of outcome. Making 'life fair' is impossible and often to give someone an additional benefit or consideration comes at the cost of someone else, how is it fair to take from someone to give to someone else? Equality of outcome is the type of mentality that leads the dumb masses to go along with corrupting ideology such as communism.

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 5 years ago

This is the truth, but it is not accepted by the ignorant masses - mainly due to greed of 'want'.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Yes, Socialism is an ideology of theft based on envy. The people that support it are not inspired by love for the poor but by envy and hate of the rich. It is an evil ideology, hidden under a mask of false charity.

reply

[–] Rorikon (17856) 5 years ago

"how is it fair to take from someone to give to someone else?"

Socialism too? Socialism is the first step to communism or eventually leads to it aka revolution which a certain someone keeps mentioning while running for president.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Yes, Bernie Sanders speeches about revolution and 'starting a movement' sound just like Lenin in pre-Soviet Russia. The Bernie Sanders supporters seem to be utterly ignorant of history and blind to the disaster and violence that has happened as a result of their ideology. Communism begins with Speeches of socialism, and Communism murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century. How soon we forget.

reply

[–] MoviesSuck (964) 5 years ago

Well said.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4889) 5 years ago

I don't think there is anything remotely wrong with wealthy people hiring other people to do work for them. They should treat them like people, though, have respect for them. Not think they are better than their employees especially when they have such big flaws themselves.

I think that is what the movie is saying.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 5 years ago

Uniformity, equality, egalitarianism ... no, no one should be a servant, per se, and particularly no one should be a servant for less money than it takes to lives a dignified life.

reply

[–] exatera (3953) 5 years ago

Except that everyone would have a differing opinion of what constitutes "dignified".

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6146) 5 years ago

'Remains of the Day'is one of my favorite movies. I would highly recommend it in light of you post.

The movies star, played by A Hopkins, displays a fierce professionalism in his craft as a butler. It is almost a lost art today. Hopkins character is quite unique in movie history, his profession requires pride in his work but remianing humble in front of others.

After watching the film you will have a new respect for those that serve. Your post suggests that they should be embarrassed by the lowly postion...this movie might change your mind.

reply

[–] Rorikon (17856) 5 years ago

Sums up everyday society. Rich rule, poor drool. Rich lie, poor comply. How most of society has worked for the longest of time. So easy to get poor people fighting over each other against their own good. The deal is to balance it so the poor don't revolt over the rich. Give them bread and circuses and they'll forget about the rest (most of them anyway).

See for example under Trump and how he's handled this and it shows the breakaway of reality. Government shutdown and people in federal jobs couldn't last long without their next check. Sure, most of everyone has jobs but they're working 2-3 just to make ends meet with the low nearly stagnant wage rise. They don't complain much as they're too busy working/paying off bills. The drones of society.

Rich folks consider these types of thing as you describe in your OP as minimal tasks so they hire those that can do it for them while they work on bigger things, things that make them rich in the first place. Think of the rich as the queen in an ant colony and the rest have a role in that arch-type society.

reply

[–] liscarkat (18388) 5 years ago

Think of them as employees, who are receiving (it is to be hoped) fair payment and considerate treatment from their employers. If I had the appropriate skills, I would have no objection to working in such a situation.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I like the thought being put into these responses, because I honestly didn't intend for my question to be arrogant or hypocritical, etc.

I am really trying to ask "What is Parasite about?"

If we are told broadly, "it is about class warfare," is that enough? Does the movie really get into that. Indeed, aren't societies composed of people who work for other people.

I do think that Parasite posits the poor family we meet at the beginning as fairly predatory crooks -- they ruin the lives of the chauffeur and the housekeeper to take over their jobs. They work against the other poor people who arrive later in the story. And come the end of the film...one of the original family members commits murder.

So it is as if the story is separate FROM class issues. They almost don't matter. Parasite is about...crime?

reply