Except everyone in the US knows Onion news as one of the oldest and most respected satirical news agencies. BTW, that wasn’t piece of crap news, that was gold.
Yep, I’ve flown Emirates through Dubai several times and it was a fricking nightmare. Absolute worst flights I’ve endured and I fly a lot. Flight was primarily Indians with a ton of babies on board in my section. It’s like a 14 hour flight and the babies cry the entire time, waking each other up. Personal space is a different concept to Indians apparently. They’ll just drop their blanket on your lap and leave it there. One guy friggin started sleeping then tried to put his head on my shoulder… Seriously! I don’t look that feminine! Anyhow, the stewardess would definitely know the meaning of NRI
It is awful but it is like that, my first baby is a boy and now we could decide to go for 2nd or not I fear if it wud have been a gal there would be no decision, we would have gone for another.
Cannot blame anyone, but working married gals in India also dont contribute(coz its not a norm) to their parents well being and social security non existent, it becomes a factor too, other 3 i listed before.
Out of curiosity, why do you feel that way? (I’m not married, no kids, so no idea here)
Because India is a semi open society. Boy has an arbitrage over gal from day one. To not to try to leverage on that arbitrage would be considered as foolish.
^Wow. You’re actually talking about your kids in terms of “leveraging an arbitrage”. I feel pity for your kid and kid-to-be.
Thanks
He’s right though, children are investments. Girls have a lower intrinsic value, and boys start out with a higher intrinsic value and they have a lot more upside potential.
Girls are negative NPV. Complete liability.
Flaw in your theory is that you are assuming India had a population of a billion since the beginning of modern society… but in reality most have been vegetarian since the inception of Hinduism some 5000 years ago.
But if you didn’t have girls then who will breed the boys?
A girl child in the Indian society might be a -ve NPV project in isolation, but when you look at the portfolio of projects they aren’t.
APART FROM THE FACT THAT 150+ MILLION MUSLIMS EAT MEAT ALL THE TIME AND THEY ARE NO RICHER THAN THE AVERAGE INDIAN.
or are we doing stupid theories to prove indians are cheap…never mind then
jumping a traffic light causes traffic jam …but it gets me home early
i actually think this is offensive.i mean yeah indians are cheap.
but it’s something that we’ve been forced to become in general because of your nations imperialism.
You think Indians weren’t cheap before the English? Indian culture is pretty well intact for last 5000 years. It would surprise me cheapness only occurred in the past 200. But sure, it’s a theory.
‘indian culture has been intact for the last 5000 years’.
dude. india has existed as a unified nation only once before '47.let me repeat since the earliest known record of india or the indus valley civilization dating back to BC india has existed as a unified nation only once under asoka.
indian culture hasn’t changed?
you having a laugh?we went from kamasutra/erotic statues in temples to no skin show on tv.
we went from the extravagance of the maharajas to supposed cheapness according to you.
this land has been raided,plundered time and time again from muslims to europeans.
there is no ‘indian’ and there is no ‘indian culture’.
Being cheap has to do with economic reasons, it is not a genetic defect that is peculiar to Indians. Nor do I think it is anything to be ashamed of.
LIke my grandpa grew up in a household with around 10 children and the father had an indian govt salary in the early part of the century, and he himself continued to work on a low govt salary and raise and educate kids. Obviously he’s going to grow up to be *extremely* cheap and pass on the same attitude to his descendants.
Although the “Indians are cheap” topic is fascinating in its own right, can we get back on topic?
If cheapness is due to economic necessity, then Indians would have been even cheaper before the British came. What was the starvation rate 1000 years ago compared to today?
Yeah, ok call it hindustan or the people of the Hindus valley or whatever you want to call it. Everything that I’ve experienced about Indian culture is that it is very resilient. Indians living abroad in foreign Indian communities for hundreds of years are still pretty Indian, even though they left before there was an India, and before the English really did much. Your government calls them people of Indian origin so that’s good enough for me. I think we all know the people we are talking about whatever you want to call them. I think the farmers that live on the plains of India are probably still very similar to their ancestors. They squat most the day amazingly, grow rice, live in small villages, have close family units, worship the same ancient religion. The only difference is that they now have Nokia cell phones and the occasional car zooming by. Sure there have been lots of invasions and foreign influences along the way (not just Brits I’ll add) but the people I see out in the villages don’t appear very phased by that.
Is ‘phased’ the new fazed? or is it another one of those US - UK English differences? CFAvsMBA also used it in another thread.
Anyway…back to the Indian cultural argument. I agree with CT that the Indian and the Chinese are the two ancient cultures that haven’t changed much in terms of their value systems. The changes have been mostly external.