Stick to sticky rice, or stick with sticky rice?

I'm still on language usage issues today.

A headline in today's Straits Times (8 Feb) said: "Few existing maids have asked for pay rise". The story is about Indonesian maids who are already working here, many for a long time. To try and resolve the recent problem of a reduced supply of new Indonesian maids coming here, 17 maid agencies plan to raise the new maids' starting pay from $380 to $450 a month.

But many of the maids already here earn less than $450. One -- who has been here 10 years -- even said she still earns $380 a month. The headline writer then decided to refer to such maids as "existing" maids.

You can have existing laws or rules, because when such laws or rules are, say, repealed or abolished, they no longer exist. In other words, in ordinary usage, existing used as an adjective should modify an inanimate (non-living) noun or pronoun. You can even have an existing building, because such a building can be torn down and it no longer exists.

How can -- again, I must stress in ordinary usage -- existing modify people/a person? If the maid (in the sense of her occupation) no longer works as one, she is still a living, breathing person.

Of course, existing can modify people/a person but in the narrow sense here: The Neanderthals no longer exist. Mr Smith no longer exists, although such usage is weird. It should be: Mr Smith is dead!

Likewise, dinosaurs no longer exist, etc, etc.

Headline writers perforce have to look for short words but not when this one, existing, is used in this manner. If I have to work on the available headline space, I would write "Few serving maids have asked for pay rise".

So, the opposite of existence is non-existence. This example is a clear-cut one. But there are other examples which I must admit are my personal preference.

Take "average", when this term is applied to people. The meaning here is "ordinary" or "typical". Most people would not do a double take if they see this sentence or headline: "The average lawyer earns $10,000 a month". But I would prefer to retain average for its statistical meaning and use "The typical lawyer earns $10,000 a month". I am of course okay with "The average remuneration of lawyers is $10,000". I will not insist on my preference if someone uses "average lawyer". But in my mind that person is no wordsmith.

Finally, what about the choice between "stick to" and "stick with"? They are arguably interchangeable but I would be careful about any literal unintended meaning when using "stick to". I would not say "Stick to honey, it's better than sugar, healthwise" but I would say "Stick with honey, it's better than sugar, healthwise".

For people, the meaning should be figurative, perhaps for dramatic effect. Hence, "Stick to John (like a leech?); he knows the woods well". And idioms like "stick to your guns" should be kept as such and not changed to "stick with your guns".

So, stick with good English usage. And if you like to eat sticky rice, stick with it. Or you'd rather stick to sticky rice?