3 ms·

Should elected officials be earning $250k (or more)?

7 points by wallacrw 15y ago

HN: I've recently read in the voter info pamphlet that the mayor in SF stands to make a salary of over $250k next year, which is almost 5 times the average household income in this country. This has me infuriated, because I don't think public jobs compete with private sector jobs based on pay. Being mayor is hard work, but I think people take on this work for reasons other than compensation, and therefore we needn't offer them high pay. In fact, I think no candidate should make more than the average salary in their jurisdiction, and I need help understanding why this shouldn't be so. Arguments I've heard: -The job is hard, they deserve higher pay. -Higher pay gets us better candidates. Those two are really the same statement, and apart from saying the job is hard (no argument there), are they really true? They presume there aren't enough candidates at an average salary, and without evidence, that doesn't persuade me. I've never seen evidence (and I don't think it would be appropriate) that someone who was or could be a great politician has looked at the position of mayor (or President, or Congressman) and thought, "I want/don't want that job because of the pay." Paying the average salary in the jurisdiction governed would deter no one: by definition, it's not poor. If you have a middle-class family of 4 and it feels like average is struggling, then that's good: now you know how your voters feel. You'll make better policies as a result, and you should take the job (and the sacrifice) because of the prestige, the respect, the nobility of serving the public. Poor people could still run and would in fact get a pay raise, and rich people may not have to make a sacrifice at all (nothing unusual there; rich people have all sorts of other advantages, which is a separate issue). As a short end to a long point, I think leaders should be rewarded for the results they create. In the private sector, we use salaries as a reward, because companies are created to generate profit. It makes sense that we choose money as the reward for for-profit leaders (I may be in favor of offering bonuses to politicians who run surpluses…would have to be careful there). I don't think we need the same reward in the public sector, because cities (and the country) aren't run for profit. Results are a better administration and policies in the eyes of the voters. Reward is re-election and several non-measurable great things like respect, admiration, congratulations, etc. Folks who want to earn those things instead of money are the candidates we should want to run, aren't they? So doesn't reducing pay (but not below average salary, so that anyone can run) actually get us better candidates? Would love to hear thoughts. Thanks, Russ

mbzastava 15y ago
NOOOOO!!!!! Absolutely Not!!! All public position pay should be capped at the national median salary. If compensation is to be a motivating factor, then they must be motivated in a fashion that brings compassion to the public. Not just given despotic positions with high pay that will ultimately only seek to increase that individual pay at every other expense. We need to eliminate the thought of "money" from politics entirely. There is just no room for it whatsoever. It's like the FPS server that prohibits profanity: sure we are all adults with complex senses of humor in an arena set for eachothers destruction, but that tiny principal creates an atmosphere of communal respect that one can not find any other way.
SHOwnsYou 15y ago
Working as an elected official is much more stressful than it may appear -- Their every move is analyzed, they are accountable for every word they speak, and threats are commonplace. And all of these things drive up the wages required to take the job. Also I believe you're grossly overstating the other "rewards" for elected officials. For starters, re-election is limited in several cases by term limits. Furthermore, I don't think any elected official (save President and the like) receive any more respect, admiration, or congratulations for their jobs and if anything, actually receive much less. Finally, I don't want people that do not have demonstrable success in other areas of their life (or as you refer to them - "poor people") running my town or my country. A high salary serves as a psychological barrier to keep successful people interested and others disinterested. I want to keep those barriers as high as possible, even if I get some false positives.
- wallacrw 15y ago
  All of this may be true, but I'd like to see the public record where legislature took a look at the existing candidates for elected official, didn't like the results, and decided to raise salaries in order to improve the candidates. My guess is that it didn't happen that way at all. Instead, the legislature voted to increase salaries for itself, and no one bothered to ask questions. Now we have retrospective justifications that it's hard so there were no candidates until salaries were raised, but I just don't see that happening anywhere.

rick888 15y ago

"If you have a middle-class family of 4 and it feels like average is struggling, then that's good: now you know how your voters feel." Maybe. But I know when I'm struggling, I worry most about where I'm going to get my next dollar. I don't think we want politicians either getting another job on the side to make ends meet or not concentrating on the task at hand because they are struggling to pay the mortgage. I would also worry that they could easily be bought off (more than they are now). "Poor people could still run and would in fact get a pay raise, and rich people may not have to make a sacrifice at all (nothing unusual there; rich people have all sorts of other advantages, which is a separate issue)." I honestly don't want poor people running my city, state, or country. If you can't manage your own life, how could you possibly manage the lives of thousands of other people effectively? You also don't want people running just for the money and it seems like this is exactly what you would be doing. At least when you are wealthy and running for government, it's a pay cut most of the time. They could be making lots of money elsewhere, but they choose to take the responsibility of running a government.

wallacrw 15y ago
That just seems like a dangerous argument, like we implicitly discriminate against poor people but won't say it directly. I disagree that wealth is an accurate proxy for capability in any field.
wallacrw 15y ago
Re: struggling, issues of being bought off exist independent of salary. If someone can be bought off, making an extra $180k a year isn't going to stop them from taking more. So that's not really a valid concern, since it exists in both cases. The point about making the salary average is that it is by definition neutral, doesn't discriminate against anyone. I don't argue that we shouldn't pay politicians at all (what Benjamin Franklin wanted) because that does discriminate against the poor, who could never afford to be politicians irrespective of ability. Sounds like that wouldn't bother you anyway, but I wanted to clarify.