Subscribe: Comments on: Outsourcing Life: Unconventional Advice for When You’re Financially Secure
http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2010/02/10/outsourcing-life-unconventional-advice-for-when-youre-financially-secure/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
access  arturo  hiring  honey  iâ€m  live society  live  people maids  people  russ  society  things  time  work  world  – 
Rate this Feed
Rating: 3.5 starRating: 3.5 starRating: 3.5 starRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Outsourcing Life: Unconventional Advice for When You’re Financially Secure

Comments on: Outsourcing Life: Unconventional Advice for When You’re Financially Secure



personal finance that makes cents



Last Build Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 20:24:29 +0000

 



By: Jonha @ Happiness

Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:26:17 +0000

This is probably the second post when people would start reacting a little overly about people outsourcing in the Philippines. I understand just how disappointing it is that sometimes jobs get outsourced in less developed countries like India, Philippines and others but may this serve as a wake up call to continue innovating and embrace the change with a challenge not just judging those people who feel some fulfillment in what they do. I salute Erica for doing what she thinks would make her happy, even though it required giving up some things because in order for us to have something we really and badly want oftentimes requires emptying our hands with what we currently have, so we could have more space and capacity to receive more. And yes, giving it out to those who need counts!



By: Margot

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:34:41 +0000

I live in Morocco where most middle-class people have maids. Even lower-middle-class people have maids. The reason people have maids is that no one wants to be bothered with work if they can get someone else to do it for them. What is valued is LEISURE time. By hiring out household work, what you are buying is TIME for yourself.



By: Philam

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:27:35 +0000

Hi Erica, I read and posted comment(s) from your other articles that's why I was able to follow you here. We admire you because you shared your blessings to those who needed it badly by hiring and paying them to help you on your household chores and to assist you with your online business. Your experiences inspired a lot to your readers. Phil



By: Karen Haynes

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:56:38 +0000

Not being an American, reading this discussion is quite interesting. Australia has such a strong minimum wage, that hiring domestic help is quite expensive and hard to find. It is also very culturally awkward. We have such an egalitarian culture, that being served, even when paying for it is incredibly awkward. I'll "confess" that I hire a cleaner and a gardener. I do this with a clear conscience because I know how much they need the money and it releases my time to do more work as a Youth Pastor. Having said this, I don't tell many people about it, I too am in my twenties without kids, so most people would see my choice as indulgent. Maybe it is, but it's what I do. As for hiring help from Asia, I've got to say I have no problem being a citizen of the world and paying smart people to do good work, wherever they live.



By: Arturo

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:39:03 +0000

@Russ – Scotch and cigar sounds good. Thank you! @Honey – Excellent reply. I agree. In the end, all things will take some sort of risk for any kind of gain.



By: Honey

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:57:33 +0000

@Russ, I am not sure what appreciating your stance and reasoning has to do with whether I agree with you or not.



By: Honey

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:38:08 +0000

@Arturo - I think there are several things stopping us: 1) People falsely believe that if we give other people more, then it necessarily follows that they themselves will have less. Not only is having more employable/productive/tax-paying citizens better for everyone economically, there are numerous other advantages that can't be quantified in terms of dollars per capita that are more important. This is why the talking heads drive me so crazy on TV - they say "If we did that, we'd have to raise taxes," as if that's always a bad thing. What if something's intrinsic worth is greater than the dollar amount it costs to pay for it? Why is raising taxes a bad thing? 2) Because the world is an uncertain place, people will cash in on smaller gains immediately rather than invest in long-term solutions that will have much bigger payoffs later. I.e., "I will vote against increasing the sales tax because it is more expensive for me," even though by voting against it I am depriving my city of educational improvements/new hospitals/whatever that will have a more significant positive impact on my quality of life down the road than saving .01 per dollar would (as a made-up example). The penny in my pocket today is real; my future children and the possibility that I may get cancer one day and need a specialist are not. 3) One of the great failings of democracy is that it indulges the human desire to put off acknowledging that we must save/plan today for things that are inevitable and expensive. Just like the average American doesn't have a 6-month emergency fund (though the average GRS reader might!), as a society we ignore the fact that health care costs are skyrocketing, that the planet is overpopulated, that we are destroying our planet, and that all 3 of these things are inextricably intertwined in ways that we will not even be able to imagine until 2-3 billion people die of famine and pandemic - and even then our response will be as reactive and minimal as possible rather than as proactive and comprehensive as possible. 4) Secretly, we are all afraid that we are the expendable ones. It seems that one of the purposes in arranging humankind into a society is acknowledging the fact that if it's human nature for us to protect our own individual interests (when really our understanding of the world is so imperfect that we can't even reliably gauge what our own individual interests truly are or should be), then we need to create an external body (government) that is charged explicity with discovering what is best for the whole and ruthlessly implementing those discoveries regardless of the short-term impact on some individuals. It's all good in theory, but we're all terrified that we'd be the short-term casualty.



By: Russ

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:27:25 +0000

@Honey, I'm not so sure we're on the same page. @Arturo, I apologize, my use of the word "you" in the text you pointed out was not directed at you individually. I suppose that was a poor choice of words given the context. You have had an underlying theme of altruism throughout your posts based on an assumption that is a moral stance. I was challenging that assumption, that's all. Perhaps a beer, or better yet, a scotch and a cigar would have made for a better venue. Take care.



By: Arturo

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:05:07 +0000

@Russ – I find it interesting how Iâ€(image) m labelled altruistic. As well, the presumption that I said you were immoral. Not only that, but that I claim that your interests are in direct conflict with yours. Russ, I clarified again in my last response that what Iâ€(image) m trying to get to is my opinion on the “unconventional advice” given by the article. Now if you feel that I touched a chord in you and you want to feel better in how you think compared to what I think, then we can pursue that. But Iâ€(image) m trying to be as clear as possible. Iâ€(image) m reflecting on Ericaâ€(image) s response to her financial independence. Not on the details to which she has to do. Your response was clearly explained. The way you write, gives me the impression you are trying to prove you are right and/or I am wrong. Iâ€(image) ll be the first to say that I am not trying to do that. As I said before, Iâ€(image) m just trying to share and learn. If it seems like Iâ€(image) m judging in any way, Iâ€(image) m sorry. So if the very basic ethics of writing cannot be respected, then I do not want to engage in conversation with you anymore... so respectfully, you could probably say a lot of things better, with encouragement for change, rather than try to take a cheap stab through text. Example: what are you trying to convey when you say “If you cannot do that I would find the idea of sympathy towards you utterly repulsive.”? Russ, Iâ€(image) m sure you can see my perspective on this. I would be happy to continue to share ideas and learn more if we keep the environment for that respect. @Honey – I agree with your statement -> “I want to live in a society that's motivated to take legislative action to maximize the productivity and happines of all its citizens.”. So what do you think is stopping us from having that now?



By: Honey

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:55:25 +0000

@Russ, if I did not have a boyfriend I would demand your email address ;-) I think your clarification is awesome. For me, your line of thinking is one of the reasons that I am opposed to private/faith-based charity work. If something's a "right," then everyone should have access to it and everyone should also subsidize their access appropriately. The problems with private/faith-based charity work are that a) by endorsing this type of giving we're admitting that not everyone has access to what's being given, in which case the problem is with the setup of the society and not the individual, and/or b) we're giving a certain class of person for free something that others have to pay for, and/or c) what's being given is not, in fact, a "right" and is instead preferential treatment of the people receiving it. None of these are moral solutions for me. This is NOT to say that I believe that our society is perfectly just. There are horrendous injustices going on around the world all the time, and I think many of them are imperative and need to be rectified. I just think that if we classify something as a right, then the government should be the one providing access to it. If it's not a right, then why are there organizations providing it to some people free of charge while others have to pay? I don't want to live in a society that's comfortable with shifting the cost burden of basic rights to external bodies. I want to live in a society that's motivated to take legislative action to maximize the productivity and happines of all its citizens. Charity seems to be based in a zero-sum fallacy, when in actuality there are lots of circumstances in which more for everyone improves things for everyone.