11 ms·

Members of Congress make ~$174k/yr. [1] It will be an unpopular opinion, but I believe that we should pay better (and demand better) for a job with that much r

by ISL 5y ago

Members of Congress make ~$174k/yr. [1] It will be an unpopular opinion, but I believe that we should pay better (and demand better) for a job with that much responsibility. Otherwise, a congressperson will be forever tempted to align their incentives with service to causes other than their electorate. I'm fairly certain we should be paying our elected officials at least as much as our football coaches. [1] https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senate_salaries.htm https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing...

Handytinge 5y ago
Is that not a good wage? That's at arouns 5x median/3x average American wage from the numbers I found online and puts them in the top 6% of earners in the country based on a random calculator I found[1]. I accept there's probably some variance here, but even if they're in the top 10% of Americans, is that not sufficient? What percentage do you think they should be in? [1] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
jakelazaroff 5y ago
Let's say we increased that salary by 10x. Why would they not simply continue their lucrative conflict of interest side gig on top of the lucrative salary they make? The potential gains from trading on insider information are greater if you have more money to invest!
- sodality2 5y ago
  There's more at risk to be lost
Tenoke 5y ago
For what is worth, if they get even less compensation and more limitations it might become even less lucrative for capable individuals which I'm honestly not sure if it won't make things even worse as it leads to both less misaligned incentives but also worse quality talent. You can't get anywhere near a top-notch CEO for their salaries, why would you expect to get a top-notch Congressman?
- ip26 5y ago
  I think you're mixing up your branches. Congressmen are legislators, not executives. How much does a board member cost? :)
  - atlasunshrugged 5y ago
    Couple hundred thousand a year for the right board! Edit to add a link https://www.investopedia.com/articles/wealth-management/040416/retired-execs-what-do-corporate-boards-pay.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/wealth-management/0404...
abakker 5y ago
it would also probably reduce the opportunity costs for other good candidates to be members of congress for shorter periods. Career politicians are a blight.
peteradio 5y ago
I think there should be more of them so that we might actually know the guy. It's too big a job for its original intent I somewhat think.
- tastyfreeze 5y ago
  The house would be much bigger if the size wasn't capped in 1929. Representation would also be more equally distributed.
- ISL 5y ago
  Totally agreed for the House. There is an outstanding amendment from 1789 that would apportion one representative for every 50,000 voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am...
redanddead 5y ago
Or our doctors! Imagine if most kids would answer "congressperson" instead of doctor or lawyer. More competition might help that sector.
- ShamelessC 5y ago
  I mean, lots of kids want to become president which at a certain age is basically code for "I want to be a political leader and don't know how the system works in its entirety". Does that not qualify?
  - pm90 5y ago
    Not really. Presidential aspirants are more about personal glory than serving people. It’s the people who like to serve the public that should ideally be involved in politics.
    - ShamelessC 5y ago
      My point was that the desires of children are largely inconsequential to their future careers, particularly when being asked questions like "what do you want to be when you grow up".
jmann99999 5y ago
The problem with this assessment is that it will never be enough. There is always more to make. For you. For your partner. For your kids. Many of us here are in software development and make more than $174K a year. That's great. However, even if we were paid $225K, but found an easy way to make $3 million a year, many of us would be tempted to go for the millions.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Many state governments don't pay much or anything at all to their state legislators. Which is a great way to make sure that only rich well connected people can afford to serve.
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
    Is being a legislator a full time job in the US? As in, you are legally not allowed to also have another job? (It isn't in my country. You can be a pilot, an actor or an engineer and still be a legislator)
    - MarkSweep 5y ago
      To give an example, that may not representative: the Texas legislature meets for 140 days, every 2 years. The governor can call special sessions that are up to 30 days in length. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Legislature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Legislature So at least in Texas it does not have to be a full time job.
      - jonnycomputer 5y ago
        But neither is it a job that most people could afford not working for that long a time.
        mohanmcgeek 5y ago
        For the jobs I mentioned above, it would be very easily possible: Actors, sportsmen and pilots
hourislate 5y ago
I don't know if you realize this but most of the folks who get elected to Congress are already very wealthy and those that are not become wealthy very quickly. And this might come as a surprise to you but the Democrats in Gov are far more wealthier than the Republicans...Go figure the party that says they represent the small guy...lol...
- pm90 5y ago
  You can be personally wealthy and want to support the “small guy”. It is not a contradiction.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  Based on data from disclosures, it seems that the democrats invest way smarter than republicans. I wonder who has more income when entering congress, vs who ends up making more per term. Are democrats actually wealthier, or do they just better use their inside knowledge.
ShamelessC 5y ago
> I'm fairly certain we should be paying our elected officials at least as much as our football coaches. Or! Pay our football coaches significantly less/tax them more and redistribute that wealth towards a safety net for all Americans. But sure, give members of congress a cool million while the poor go hungry. To be clear, I agree with the sentiment. Elected officials should probably get a bit more money. But, I think you vastly underestimate the greed of the ultra-wealthy in the US. Ultimately government jobs need to be motivated by a desire to change the system for the better. If you just give them all millions of dollars you're inducting them into the class of the wealthy on day one.
TimTheTinker 5y ago
Regardless of their pay, a congressperson will be tempted to align their incentives with service to causes other than their electorate. Plus, people who just want to make a lot of money (instead of serve their country) would be tempted to run for congress to receive "football coach level pay". It makes sense to pay them a high enough wage so (lack of) money doesn't become a worry in their life, but incentives get borked beyond that. What worries me more is the fact that they are guaranteed that same wage for the rest of their life after serving in Congress.
- ISL 5y ago
  Congressional pensions: https://foxx.house.gov/legislation/fact-or-fiction-members-and-pensions.htm https://foxx.house.gov/legislation/fact-or-fiction-members-a... Looks like one must serve at least 5 yr to get them (so House members aren't automatically in, but Senators are).
- kup0 5y ago
  Hell, maybe even it would be okay to have lack of money become a worry in their life- potentially would help them understand a significant portion of their electorate better. So many of them are out of touch as it is in regards to financial security, the prices we pay for things, etc.
chad_oliver 5y ago
My rule of thumb is that for decision-making roles, you want financial compensation to at least match the 'status compensation' (respect, status, etc). When the vast majority of the role's compensation comes via the _prestige_ of being a member of congress, you're bound to get weird results.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
belter 5y ago
It has been proven multiple times, that already very well paid company managers, will accept bribes for small amounts of money and petty motives. Integrity is not connected to how well someone is paid. Reckless behavior for minor motives that makes people risk careers of years, family responsibilities, seems the norm for some individuals. I collect these cases, as they fascinate me on what they say about human nature. I am still trying to find out if these individuals end up on those roles because of that unhinged behavior, or getting into these roles is what intoxicates their moral judgement, despite many years of successfully running professional careers. In other words, your strategy will not work.
- Rd6n6 5y ago
  Can you share some of these cases or research?
  - belter 5y ago
    Random sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moffat_(businessman) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moffat_(businessman) https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executive-sentenced-30-months-bribes-and-kickbacks-netflix-vendors https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executiv... https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-senior-executive-french-power-company-charged-connection-foreign-bribery-scheme https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-senior-executive-frenc...
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    We had a governor selling Obama’s senate seat for a garage sale discount.
- DantesKite 5y ago
  A fairer framing would be, “Does increasing salaries of politicians decrease corruption, increase it, or make no difference whatsoever due to other factors?” I suspect it helps more than it hurts since it seems to be a successful policy in Singapore. I’m skeptical decreasing the salaries would help because competent people would work elsewhere.
pm90 5y ago
Agreed. A salary that would allow them a decent quality of life while having to maintain at least 2 residences (DC and their home district) is absolutely required. Money is deferred time: we want politicians to focus fully on serving the people not trying to balance their household budgets. The cheaters are going to cheat anyways. The politicians who are inclined to do the right thing: let’s make it easier for them.
- imnotlost 5y ago
  How about public housing in DC for congress critters and senators? Windowless dorm rooms so they're tempted to go outside and do stuff instead of sitting inside watching tweets or whatever.
ren_engineer 5y ago
or just make the consequences for abusing power so drastic that power hungry psychopaths don't run for public office which would be far more effective. The main reason congress is corrupt is because they make the rules and know they will only ever get a slap on the wrist. Make any form of corruption by congress automatic death penalty and congress would clean itself up pretty quick because the type of scum who go into politics to make money would look for easier targets where their life isn't at risk Of course the problem with this is who enforces the law and how do you stop them from being corrupt themselves. The obvious answer to the root problem is to have the smallest government possible to limit centralization of power and ability for mass corruption
IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
No. Hell no. Elected office is a sacrifice and a duty. It is not a way to make a living. Thats how you end up with dinosaurs working those halls for 68 years. I have a better idea. 1)Fix salary at 2x poverty wage. 2) make house members 1:50,000 representation to their county (yes that means the house would explode to 8000 elected officials) 3) tax any earnings above their pre-office historical income avg, at say 98%. No ones lives off the taxpayer and no ones lives off favors given. If they want to serve. They serve. The country would be far better off if congress shut down because they have DAY jobs to perform to keep their families fed. If they cant make ends meet with their basic salary, they dont know sacrifice. If they dont know sacrifice shouldn't be running for office. Stop paying for busy bodies and start electing hardworking, everyday americans
- atlasunshrugged 5y ago
  If you're going to this extreme why not keep the system as is with the only change being that we no longer have elected officials but rather citizens of voting age chosen at random in much the same way a jury is selected to serve for a term? No competitions, no prestige, just a duty that people are randomly asked to do to serve their countries.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
    That sounds great but what natural random number generator will you use? You can appreciate that jurt selection mostly works becayse the vast majoritt of events for which you are selecting is truly unimportant and thus with no value. When you are making a selection that in fact provides well paid jobs, arent you making the selection process a highly sought target for criminals and thieves seeking power?
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > If they cant make ends meet with their basic salary, they dont know sacrifice. If they dont know sacrifice shouldn't be running for office. This is how you get bad candidates. > If they dont know sacrifice shouldn't be running for office. The poster might like AOC then. But something tells me they're not a supporter. > Stop paying for busy bodies and start electing hardworking, everyday americans TBH not sure i trust the "everyday american" to make really big complex decisions for a job. People who are familiar with such decision making process make a lot more and may not be "hardworking, everyday americans" to this poster.
atlasunshrugged 5y ago
Yes, I 100% agree. I've mainly been in tech throughout my career with a few times working in gov here and abroad but have above average familiarity with how the current system works in Congress. Unfortunately, there is no constituency that is ready to vote for higher congressional salaries now. However, while there salaries are one thing, I think the caps they get on # of workers, square feet of office space, and total budget they get in both the House and the Senate is far more dangerous. These offices are criminally understaffed, you've got kids with 1-2 years of work experience, most of it probably in opening letters for the same person they're working for now, managing portfolios for freshman Congresspeople that have serious potential impacts for the nation. There are some fellowships that have sprung up to assist and some federal agencies lend people out to committees but it is nowhere near enough and the repercussions are going to be serious, esp for tech which is now truly on the radar for regulation but which very few congresspeople or their staffers understand.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
paxys 5y ago
How much is fair compensation for a Congressperson? $250K? $500K? $1M? Why not even more? They certainly have a lot more power and responsibility than a CEO or sports coach who is paid many times that. The problem is that there isn't a free market which any politician's salary can be determined by. Someone can't decide they don't like the salary in the US Senate and apply to the Canadian Parliament instead. Plus, these salaries aren't that much out of line compared to other Federal government employees. The benefits are what really keeps them in the job.
- Rd6n6 5y ago
  Very high salaries are a countermeasure against conflicts of interest and “lobbying.” We can trust our leaders better if we don’t have to worry quite as much about other parties tempting them
  - paxys 5y ago
    They really aren't. You are implying that highly paid people are automatically more honest, but reality often shows the opposite. There are unlimited opportunities for corruption in these roles, and whether someone decides to act on it or not isn't dependent on them making $125K vs $250K in salary.
    - Fezzik 5y ago
      Agreed. I’d be surprised if money moved the ethics needle at all - ethical people are ethical, unethical people are unethical. The notion that one day someone unethical wakes up with an extra $100k/year (or $1 million) and all of a sudden realizes their past transgressions were wrong and they will henceforth be an upstanding citizen seems ludicrous to me. I’d also be shocked if there was any evidence to support the notion that higher pay attracts more ethical people. Bernie Sanders is going to be Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is going to be Donald Trump regardless of their respective net-worths or paychecks. I’m struggling to think of anyone I have ever met, or from pop culture, who became more ethical as their wages increased.
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
User23 5y ago
I suggest that you spend some time at certain popular bars inside the beltway where you can hear drunk staffers flapping their lips. You will quickly learn that our elected representatives have virtually no responsibility whatsoever beyond maintaining the charade that the USA is in any way a democracy. The schoolhouse rock look at me I’m a bill thing isn’t even wrong anymore. There’s not a single “legislator” who actually writes legislation anymore. They literally just broker their signatures (those brokers are called lobbyists) to the parties that actually write the laws. It’s a painful bandaid to rip off, but that’s how the system actually operates.
- krapp 5y ago
  >I suggest that you spend some time at certain popular bars inside the beltway where you can hear drunk staffers flapping their lips. You will quickly learn that our elected representatives have virtually no responsibility whatsoever beyond maintaining the charade that the USA is in any way a democracy. As you seem to be a beltway insider with connections, and not just making up bullshit to sound cool, which bars specifically would you suggest?
  - novok 5y ago
    Like most business district bars, you would go to the bars close to where they work after work hours for 'happy hour', sit and listen. Not much special research required.
throwoutway 5y ago
I’d be in favor of allowing them to put their money in blind trusts and withdraw them tax free after 10 years. It would encourage them to adopt measures that help the nation gain long term advantages, not short term
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
I heavily disagree. We are already in a situation were poor people don't even fucking bother to vote anymore because none of the politicians live on the same planet as they do. None of these millionaire douchebags are relatable at this point.
- jrockway 5y ago
  I think the problem is that if we don't pay them, someone else will. And the "someone else" always attaches strings.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    Nancy Pelosi, as an example off the top of my head, has a net worth of 100 million dollars. How much more should we pay her to stop stealing via insider trading? In my view there should just be a law that says congresspeople can't have their net worth increase by more than their after tax salary period. Then, when we find one of them doing corrupt things we should send them to prison.
  - kup0 5y ago
    Even if we pay them, someone else still will. What makes you think that someone earning a lot of money is magically going to stop looking for even more money?
imtringued 5y ago
Or maybe you shouldn't build a society around making capital gains and interest income from doing no work as that encourages politicians to become corrupt for a quick 10 million bucks and thereby let them off off dividends or stock buybacks long after their political career ended. All those people that pretend to understand that interest rates affect discounted future values seem to forget that this is also creating short term thinking where destroying something (potentially long lived) to get money today is profitable and encouraged.
yunohn 5y ago
I strongly do not believe that higher salaries will change anything. In every country I’ve lived in, politicians are not there for the formal salary/responsibilities. Those are tangential. Political roles attract people who want power and control. The networking of favours is expected and emphasised - with money being the underlying foundation for it all. This is all quite obvious social science, and I’d be curious to hear others thoughts.
nopenopenopeno 5y ago
More salary is fine, but stock trading is an entirely different question.

by ISL 5y ago

Handytinge 5y ago

Is that not a good wage? That's at arouns 5x median/3x average American wage from the numbers I found online and puts them in the top 6% of earners in the country based on a random calculator I found[1]. I accept there's probably some variance here, but even if they're in the top 10% of Americans, is that not sufficient? What percentage do you think they should be in? [1] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/

jakelazaroff 5y ago

Let's say we increased that salary by 10x. Why would they not simply continue their lucrative conflict of interest side gig on top of the lucrative salary they make? The potential gains from trading on insider information are greater if you have more money to invest!

sodality2 5y ago
There's more at risk to be lost

Tenoke 5y ago

For what is worth, if they get even less compensation and more limitations it might become even less lucrative for capable individuals which I'm honestly not sure if it won't make things even worse as it leads to both less misaligned incentives but also worse quality talent. You can't get anywhere near a top-notch CEO for their salaries, why would you expect to get a top-notch Congressman?

ip26 5y ago
I think you're mixing up your branches. Congressmen are legislators, not executives. How much does a board member cost? :)
- atlasunshrugged 5y ago
  Couple hundred thousand a year for the right board! Edit to add a link https://www.investopedia.com/articles/wealth-management/040416/retired-execs-what-do-corporate-boards-pay.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/wealth-management/0404...

abakker 5y ago

it would also probably reduce the opportunity costs for other good candidates to be members of congress for shorter periods. Career politicians are a blight.

peteradio 5y ago

I think there should be more of them so that we might actually know the guy. It's too big a job for its original intent I somewhat think.

tastyfreeze 5y ago
The house would be much bigger if the size wasn't capped in 1929. Representation would also be more equally distributed.
ISL 5y ago
Totally agreed for the House. There is an outstanding amendment from 1789 that would apportion one representative for every 50,000 voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am...

redanddead 5y ago

Or our doctors! Imagine if most kids would answer "congressperson" instead of doctor or lawyer. More competition might help that sector.

ShamelessC 5y ago
I mean, lots of kids want to become president which at a certain age is basically code for "I want to be a political leader and don't know how the system works in its entirety". Does that not qualify?
- pm90 5y ago
  Not really. Presidential aspirants are more about personal glory than serving people. It’s the people who like to serve the public that should ideally be involved in politics.
  - ShamelessC 5y ago
    My point was that the desires of children are largely inconsequential to their future careers, particularly when being asked questions like "what do you want to be when you grow up".

jmann99999 5y ago

The problem with this assessment is that it will never be enough. There is always more to make. For you. For your partner. For your kids. Many of us here are in software development and make more than $174K a year. That's great. However, even if we were paid $225K, but found an easy way to make $3 million a year, many of us would be tempted to go for the millions.

jonnycomputer 5y ago
Many state governments don't pay much or anything at all to their state legislators. Which is a great way to make sure that only rich well connected people can afford to serve.
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago
  Is being a legislator a full time job in the US? As in, you are legally not allowed to also have another job? (It isn't in my country. You can be a pilot, an actor or an engineer and still be a legislator)
  - MarkSweep 5y ago
    To give an example, that may not representative: the Texas legislature meets for 140 days, every 2 years. The governor can call special sessions that are up to 30 days in length. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Legislature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Legislature So at least in Texas it does not have to be a full time job.
    - jonnycomputer 5y ago
      But neither is it a job that most people could afford not working for that long a time.
      - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
        For the jobs I mentioned above, it would be very easily possible: Actors, sportsmen and pilots

hourislate 5y ago

I don't know if you realize this but most of the folks who get elected to Congress are already very wealthy and those that are not become wealthy very quickly. And this might come as a surprise to you but the Democrats in Gov are far more wealthier than the Republicans...Go figure the party that says they represent the small guy...lol...

pm90 5y ago
You can be personally wealthy and want to support the “small guy”. It is not a contradiction.
vineyardmike 5y ago
Based on data from disclosures, it seems that the democrats invest way smarter than republicans. I wonder who has more income when entering congress, vs who ends up making more per term. Are democrats actually wealthier, or do they just better use their inside knowledge.

ShamelessC 5y ago

> I'm fairly certain we should be paying our elected officials at least as much as our football coaches. Or! Pay our football coaches significantly less/tax them more and redistribute that wealth towards a safety net for all Americans. But sure, give members of congress a cool million while the poor go hungry. To be clear, I agree with the sentiment. Elected officials should probably get a bit more money. But, I think you vastly underestimate the greed of the ultra-wealthy in the US. Ultimately government jobs need to be motivated by a desire to change the system for the better. If you just give them all millions of dollars you're inducting them into the class of the wealthy on day one.

TimTheTinker 5y ago

Regardless of their pay, a congressperson will be tempted to align their incentives with service to causes other than their electorate. Plus, people who just want to make a lot of money (instead of serve their country) would be tempted to run for congress to receive "football coach level pay". It makes sense to pay them a high enough wage so (lack of) money doesn't become a worry in their life, but incentives get borked beyond that. What worries me more is the fact that they are guaranteed that same wage for the rest of their life after serving in Congress.

ISL 5y ago
Congressional pensions: https://foxx.house.gov/legislation/fact-or-fiction-members-and-pensions.htm https://foxx.house.gov/legislation/fact-or-fiction-members-a... Looks like one must serve at least 5 yr to get them (so House members aren't automatically in, but Senators are).
kup0 5y ago
Hell, maybe even it would be okay to have lack of money become a worry in their life- potentially would help them understand a significant portion of their electorate better. So many of them are out of touch as it is in regards to financial security, the prices we pay for things, etc.

chad_oliver 5y ago

My rule of thumb is that for decision-making roles, you want financial compensation to at least match the 'status compensation' (respect, status, etc). When the vast majority of the role's compensation comes via the _prestige_ of being a member of congress, you're bound to get weird results.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

belter 5y ago

It has been proven multiple times, that already very well paid company managers, will accept bribes for small amounts of money and petty motives. Integrity is not connected to how well someone is paid. Reckless behavior for minor motives that makes people risk careers of years, family responsibilities, seems the norm for some individuals. I collect these cases, as they fascinate me on what they say about human nature. I am still trying to find out if these individuals end up on those roles because of that unhinged behavior, or getting into these roles is what intoxicates their moral judgement, despite many years of successfully running professional careers. In other words, your strategy will not work.

Rd6n6 5y ago
Can you share some of these cases or research?
- belter 5y ago
  Random sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moffat_(businessman) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moffat_(businessman) https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executive-sentenced-30-months-bribes-and-kickbacks-netflix-vendors https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executiv... https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-senior-executive-french-power-company-charged-connection-foreign-bribery-scheme https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-senior-executive-frenc...
- threatofrain 5y ago
  We had a governor selling Obama’s senate seat for a garage sale discount.
DantesKite 5y ago
A fairer framing would be, “Does increasing salaries of politicians decrease corruption, increase it, or make no difference whatsoever due to other factors?” I suspect it helps more than it hurts since it seems to be a successful policy in Singapore. I’m skeptical decreasing the salaries would help because competent people would work elsewhere.

pm90 5y ago

Agreed. A salary that would allow them a decent quality of life while having to maintain at least 2 residences (DC and their home district) is absolutely required. Money is deferred time: we want politicians to focus fully on serving the people not trying to balance their household budgets. The cheaters are going to cheat anyways. The politicians who are inclined to do the right thing: let’s make it easier for them.

imnotlost 5y ago
How about public housing in DC for congress critters and senators? Windowless dorm rooms so they're tempted to go outside and do stuff instead of sitting inside watching tweets or whatever.

ren_engineer 5y ago

or just make the consequences for abusing power so drastic that power hungry psychopaths don't run for public office which would be far more effective. The main reason congress is corrupt is because they make the rules and know they will only ever get a slap on the wrist. Make any form of corruption by congress automatic death penalty and congress would clean itself up pretty quick because the type of scum who go into politics to make money would look for easier targets where their life isn't at risk Of course the problem with this is who enforces the law and how do you stop them from being corrupt themselves. The obvious answer to the root problem is to have the smallest government possible to limit centralization of power and ability for mass corruption

IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago

No. Hell no. Elected office is a sacrifice and a duty. It is not a way to make a living. Thats how you end up with dinosaurs working those halls for 68 years. I have a better idea. 1)Fix salary at 2x poverty wage. 2) make house members 1:50,000 representation to their county (yes that means the house would explode to 8000 elected officials) 3) tax any earnings above their pre-office historical income avg, at say 98%. No ones lives off the taxpayer and no ones lives off favors given. If they want to serve. They serve. The country would be far better off if congress shut down because they have DAY jobs to perform to keep their families fed. If they cant make ends meet with their basic salary, they dont know sacrifice. If they dont know sacrifice shouldn't be running for office. Stop paying for busy bodies and start electing hardworking, everyday americans

atlasunshrugged 5y ago
If you're going to this extreme why not keep the system as is with the only change being that we no longer have elected officials but rather citizens of voting age chosen at random in much the same way a jury is selected to serve for a term? No competitions, no prestige, just a duty that people are randomly asked to do to serve their countries.
- IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
  That sounds great but what natural random number generator will you use? You can appreciate that jurt selection mostly works becayse the vast majoritt of events for which you are selecting is truly unimportant and thus with no value. When you are making a selection that in fact provides well paid jobs, arent you making the selection process a highly sought target for criminals and thieves seeking power?
vineyardmike 5y ago
> If they cant make ends meet with their basic salary, they dont know sacrifice. If they dont know sacrifice shouldn't be running for office. This is how you get bad candidates. > If they dont know sacrifice shouldn't be running for office. The poster might like AOC then. But something tells me they're not a supporter. > Stop paying for busy bodies and start electing hardworking, everyday americans TBH not sure i trust the "everyday american" to make really big complex decisions for a job. People who are familiar with such decision making process make a lot more and may not be "hardworking, everyday americans" to this poster.

atlasunshrugged 5y ago

Yes, I 100% agree. I've mainly been in tech throughout my career with a few times working in gov here and abroad but have above average familiarity with how the current system works in Congress. Unfortunately, there is no constituency that is ready to vote for higher congressional salaries now. However, while there salaries are one thing, I think the caps they get on # of workers, square feet of office space, and total budget they get in both the House and the Senate is far more dangerous. These offices are criminally understaffed, you've got kids with 1-2 years of work experience, most of it probably in opening letters for the same person they're working for now, managing portfolios for freshman Congresspeople that have serious potential impacts for the nation. There are some fellowships that have sprung up to assist and some federal agencies lend people out to committees but it is nowhere near enough and the repercussions are going to be serious, esp for tech which is now truly on the radar for regulation but which very few congresspeople or their staffers understand.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

paxys 5y ago

How much is fair compensation for a Congressperson? $250K? $500K? $1M? Why not even more? They certainly have a lot more power and responsibility than a CEO or sports coach who is paid many times that. The problem is that there isn't a free market which any politician's salary can be determined by. Someone can't decide they don't like the salary in the US Senate and apply to the Canadian Parliament instead. Plus, these salaries aren't that much out of line compared to other Federal government employees. The benefits are what really keeps them in the job.

Rd6n6 5y ago
Very high salaries are a countermeasure against conflicts of interest and “lobbying.” We can trust our leaders better if we don’t have to worry quite as much about other parties tempting them
- paxys 5y ago
  They really aren't. You are implying that highly paid people are automatically more honest, but reality often shows the opposite. There are unlimited opportunities for corruption in these roles, and whether someone decides to act on it or not isn't dependent on them making $125K vs $250K in salary.
  - Fezzik 5y ago
    Agreed. I’d be surprised if money moved the ethics needle at all - ethical people are ethical, unethical people are unethical. The notion that one day someone unethical wakes up with an extra $100k/year (or $1 million) and all of a sudden realizes their past transgressions were wrong and they will henceforth be an upstanding citizen seems ludicrous to me. I’d also be shocked if there was any evidence to support the notion that higher pay attracts more ethical people. Bernie Sanders is going to be Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is going to be Donald Trump regardless of their respective net-worths or paychecks. I’m struggling to think of anyone I have ever met, or from pop culture, who became more ethical as their wages increased.
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago

User23 5y ago

I suggest that you spend some time at certain popular bars inside the beltway where you can hear drunk staffers flapping their lips. You will quickly learn that our elected representatives have virtually no responsibility whatsoever beyond maintaining the charade that the USA is in any way a democracy. The schoolhouse rock look at me I’m a bill thing isn’t even wrong anymore. There’s not a single “legislator” who actually writes legislation anymore. They literally just broker their signatures (those brokers are called lobbyists) to the parties that actually write the laws. It’s a painful bandaid to rip off, but that’s how the system actually operates.

krapp 5y ago
>I suggest that you spend some time at certain popular bars inside the beltway where you can hear drunk staffers flapping their lips. You will quickly learn that our elected representatives have virtually no responsibility whatsoever beyond maintaining the charade that the USA is in any way a democracy. As you seem to be a beltway insider with connections, and not just making up bullshit to sound cool, which bars specifically would you suggest?
- novok 5y ago
  Like most business district bars, you would go to the bars close to where they work after work hours for 'happy hour', sit and listen. Not much special research required.

throwoutway 5y ago

I’d be in favor of allowing them to put their money in blind trusts and withdraw them tax free after 10 years. It would encourage them to adopt measures that help the nation gain long term advantages, not short term

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

I heavily disagree. We are already in a situation were poor people don't even fucking bother to vote anymore because none of the politicians live on the same planet as they do. None of these millionaire douchebags are relatable at this point.

jrockway 5y ago
I think the problem is that if we don't pay them, someone else will. And the "someone else" always attaches strings.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  Nancy Pelosi, as an example off the top of my head, has a net worth of 100 million dollars. How much more should we pay her to stop stealing via insider trading? In my view there should just be a law that says congresspeople can't have their net worth increase by more than their after tax salary period. Then, when we find one of them doing corrupt things we should send them to prison.
- kup0 5y ago
  Even if we pay them, someone else still will. What makes you think that someone earning a lot of money is magically going to stop looking for even more money?

imtringued 5y ago

Or maybe you shouldn't build a society around making capital gains and interest income from doing no work as that encourages politicians to become corrupt for a quick 10 million bucks and thereby let them off off dividends or stock buybacks long after their political career ended. All those people that pretend to understand that interest rates affect discounted future values seem to forget that this is also creating short term thinking where destroying something (potentially long lived) to get money today is profitable and encouraged.

yunohn 5y ago

I strongly do not believe that higher salaries will change anything. In every country I’ve lived in, politicians are not there for the formal salary/responsibilities. Those are tangential. Political roles attract people who want power and control. The networking of favours is expected and emphasised - with money being the underlying foundation for it all. This is all quite obvious social science, and I’d be curious to hear others thoughts.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago

More salary is fine, but stock trading is an entirely different question.