6 ms·

>only gets paid 225k salary That is six times the American median wage, or alternatively it places you in the top 3% of the American income distribution. Is th

>only gets paid 225k salary That is six times the American median wage, or alternatively it places you in the top 3% of the American income distribution. Is this a bad attempt at sarcasm? That salary, plus I assume a generous pension is enough for her to not own any stocks, which I actually think is something that should be the norm for political representatives, given the blatant conflict of interest.

x0x0 5y ago
Pelosi doesn't get paid enough. She's one of the leaders of a country with a $23T economy and a $4.8T federal budget. She maintains houses in two different (very) high COL areas, and has a punishing work and travel schedule. We'd be shocked at an exec in a round C company, helping lead 100+ people, who didn't make more than that.
- cdot2 5y ago
  Pelosi doesn't get paid enough is a surface of the sun level hot take.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    It really isn't. If your goal was to make investing while in congress less appealing, you'd pass laws, yes, but also pay people more. AoC had made the point before that if you make congressional pay too low, it becomes only feasible for the already-wealthy to maintain a political career. Also note that being a congressperson has weird extra expenses, you usually need to have two homes, one in DC and one in your home state, so expenses will naturally be higher than average. (this is one of the reasons that, e.g. Trump claiming to donate his presidential salary was frowned upon: Sure it sounds nice at first, but it implies that either he'll profit off of the presidency in other ways, or if that becomes a norm, that only those who can afford to donate their salary should become president)
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      Because when people pass a certain wealth threshold they just say, "that's enough money, I am satisfied."
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        I mean...yes, many people do exactly that.
    - cdot2 5y ago
      "Trump claiming to donate his presidential salary was frowned upon" Literally every recent president has done this. It only implies that he has enough money to live on and doesn't need a salary. If he hadn't donated it the media would have exploded. I'll add that to the list of instances where people would hate him no matter the decisions he made.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        > Literally every recent president has done this. It only implies that he has enough money to live on and doesn't need a salary. Obama and Bush didn't. They donated some, but not all, and they certainly din't make it an aspect of their campaign. As far as I can tell, the last president to donate their entire salary was Kennedy.
    - carlivar 5y ago
      Um, if the goal was to make investing while in Congress unappealing I would just ban that. Index funds only. Don't like it? Don't run for re election.
    - ben940830298432 5y ago
      Being in government isn’t meant to be a lifelong career. People should only serve a few terms and leave.
  - JohnClark1337 5y ago
    welcome to HN
- lupire 5y ago
  You're right, her burden is too high. We need to expand the house of representatives to lessen her burden and increase democracy. She also should use her extreme power to help lower the cost of housing for her constituents and residents of the Capitol area.
solveit 5y ago
> top 3% of the American income distribution Pelosi has a good claim to being the most powerful woman in the US, and she makes less than a twentysomething hotshot engineer/banker/consultant/whatever. Any system that actually cared about her not being tempted by conflicts of interest would pay her two more zeroes. You can of course ask why 225k isn't enough, and you can moralise all you want about how 225k should be more than enough, but going against a part of human nature as fundamental as the instinct to compare one with one's peers will just not succeed.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  I think there are two entirely separate concerns. First, is the salary for Speaker of the House sufficient. Second, isn't it a bit of a coincidence that Pelosi and her husband made 100+ million for themselves investing in stocks through his investment company while she was in Congress? Maybe that's just a coincidence. I don't think we could meaningfully increase salaries. Pelosi is still making money despite having a hundred million. How much more should we pay? What would satiate her or those in her position such that they would be immune from inducements? I think back to Roman politicians, who, despite being monstrously wealthy, were still monstrously corrupt.
  - solveit 5y ago
    The way to do it is to give a very generous salary and to simultaneously crack down hard on even the appearance of impropriety. Neither is being done right now, and part of the reason is that you can't really do one without the other[1], so you're stuck in a bit of a catch-22. [1] You can't crack down on on public servants questionably but not clearly criminally making money on the side if everyone that's supposed to be doing the cracking down are also public servants who sympathize (more cynically, are in on the same gig) because they're also making a fraction of what their peers are making. And you can't pay your public servants more when the people are fuming at the individually arguable but clear-in-aggregate corruption that is rampant.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
andrepd 5y ago
Is she in the top 3% of responsibility? She (like her or not) is a significant leadership figure in the USA. 225k$ isn't that much. I have the unpopular opinion that politicians should be paid more. If they are paid generously perhaps there isn't as much temptation to get rich some other way. Why do we pay top CEOs millions of dollars, or a better analogy, why do we pay top engineers 500k, 600k, 1mil, but not top politicians? Perhaps then they wouldn't legislate around their stock portfolio or corporate lobbyists' preferences.

x0x0 5y ago

Pelosi doesn't get paid enough. She's one of the leaders of a country with a $23T economy and a $4.8T federal budget. She maintains houses in two different (very) high COL areas, and has a punishing work and travel schedule. We'd be shocked at an exec in a round C company, helping lead 100+ people, who didn't make more than that.

cdot2 5y ago
Pelosi doesn't get paid enough is a surface of the sun level hot take.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  It really isn't. If your goal was to make investing while in congress less appealing, you'd pass laws, yes, but also pay people more. AoC had made the point before that if you make congressional pay too low, it becomes only feasible for the already-wealthy to maintain a political career. Also note that being a congressperson has weird extra expenses, you usually need to have two homes, one in DC and one in your home state, so expenses will naturally be higher than average. (this is one of the reasons that, e.g. Trump claiming to donate his presidential salary was frowned upon: Sure it sounds nice at first, but it implies that either he'll profit off of the presidency in other ways, or if that becomes a norm, that only those who can afford to donate their salary should become president)
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Because when people pass a certain wealth threshold they just say, "that's enough money, I am satisfied."
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      I mean...yes, many people do exactly that.
  - cdot2 5y ago
    "Trump claiming to donate his presidential salary was frowned upon" Literally every recent president has done this. It only implies that he has enough money to live on and doesn't need a salary. If he hadn't donated it the media would have exploded. I'll add that to the list of instances where people would hate him no matter the decisions he made.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      > Literally every recent president has done this. It only implies that he has enough money to live on and doesn't need a salary. Obama and Bush didn't. They donated some, but not all, and they certainly din't make it an aspect of their campaign. As far as I can tell, the last president to donate their entire salary was Kennedy.
  - carlivar 5y ago
    Um, if the goal was to make investing while in Congress unappealing I would just ban that. Index funds only. Don't like it? Don't run for re election.
  - ben940830298432 5y ago
    Being in government isn’t meant to be a lifelong career. People should only serve a few terms and leave.
- JohnClark1337 5y ago
  welcome to HN
lupire 5y ago
You're right, her burden is too high. We need to expand the house of representatives to lessen her burden and increase democracy. She also should use her extreme power to help lower the cost of housing for her constituents and residents of the Capitol area.

solveit 5y ago

> top 3% of the American income distribution Pelosi has a good claim to being the most powerful woman in the US, and she makes less than a twentysomething hotshot engineer/banker/consultant/whatever. Any system that actually cared about her not being tempted by conflicts of interest would pay her two more zeroes. You can of course ask why 225k isn't enough, and you can moralise all you want about how 225k should be more than enough, but going against a part of human nature as fundamental as the instinct to compare one with one's peers will just not succeed.

ALittleLight 5y ago
I think there are two entirely separate concerns. First, is the salary for Speaker of the House sufficient. Second, isn't it a bit of a coincidence that Pelosi and her husband made 100+ million for themselves investing in stocks through his investment company while she was in Congress? Maybe that's just a coincidence. I don't think we could meaningfully increase salaries. Pelosi is still making money despite having a hundred million. How much more should we pay? What would satiate her or those in her position such that they would be immune from inducements? I think back to Roman politicians, who, despite being monstrously wealthy, were still monstrously corrupt.
- solveit 5y ago
  The way to do it is to give a very generous salary and to simultaneously crack down hard on even the appearance of impropriety. Neither is being done right now, and part of the reason is that you can't really do one without the other[1], so you're stuck in a bit of a catch-22. [1] You can't crack down on on public servants questionably but not clearly criminally making money on the side if everyone that's supposed to be doing the cracking down are also public servants who sympathize (more cynically, are in on the same gig) because they're also making a fraction of what their peers are making. And you can't pay your public servants more when the people are fuming at the individually arguable but clear-in-aggregate corruption that is rampant.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago

andrepd 5y ago

Is she in the top 3% of responsibility? She (like her or not) is a significant leadership figure in the USA. 225k$ isn't that much. I have the unpopular opinion that politicians should be paid more. If they are paid generously perhaps there isn't as much temptation to get rich some other way. Why do we pay top CEOs millions of dollars, or a better analogy, why do we pay top engineers 500k, 600k, 1mil, but not top politicians? Perhaps then they wouldn't legislate around their stock portfolio or corporate lobbyists' preferences.