3 ms·

"Government work needs to be highly regulated, very controlled, stodgy by nature, because it is for the public good. It needs checks and bounds far beyond a pri

"Government work needs to be highly regulated, very controlled, stodgy by nature, because it is for the public good. It needs checks and bounds far beyond a private corp, or at least different than a private corp, this is the nature of the beast." Few want to pay for this

b112 4y ago
There is nothing to "pay for". Government work is like this, already, everywhere. It has been for thousands of years. Canada, US, India. It has another name, bureaucracy. It is to the public good, that there are checks and bounds on power, forms to fill out, procedures to be followed. Yet this is counter to creativity, to moving fast, to embracing the new. But if governments at least paid market rates for tech labour, not 1/4 of it, they would at least overcome one hurdle.
- xoa 4y ago
  >There is nothing to "pay for". There is: salary. I assume that's what GP meant, that one way to attract talent (beyond other important stuff like preventing dumb fiefdoms, trying to keep down unnecessary red tape vs reasonable, general workplace quality etc) despite other unattractive aspects is to offer a very competitive salary/benefits. A lot of government jobs in general do still have some solid benefits, but the salaries now lag fantastically behind equivalents in the private sector for many key roles, and "spirit of public service!" only does so much. This is true all the way to the very top in the US at least. Presidents used to get paid more: $25k at the founding (what President Washington got) would probably be something like $4.5m today. $200k in 1969 would still be about $1.5m today. But POTUS salary now is still $400k. In my opinion it should be more like $100-250m. It's easily one of, if not the, single most important jobs on the planet at the head of one of the largest, most powerful and highest revenue "organizations". It should pay more or at least equivalently to CEOs of big corps, enough that POTUS will never feel financially beholden. And onwards down, Senate should probably be $25m, House $7m etc. Pay structures throughout gov don't match the responsibility and impact the jobs have on the world. Trillions of dollars and millions to billions of people are impacted by the decisions of people getting paid a relative pittance and we wink and pretend that it's some noble thing while of course what actually happens is everyone is expected to either be independently rich or to cash in somehow or be beholden to rich patrons. It's stupid. But the political will for paying for doing it right doesn't seem to be be there anymore.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    > In my opinion it should be more like $100-250m. It's easily one of, if not the, single most important jobs on the planet at the head of one of the largest, most powerful and highest revenue "organizations". It should pay more or at least equivalently to CEOs of big corps, enough that POTUS will never feel financially beholden. Good idea in principle. But the problem is not the salary. It's all the campaign contributions with strings attached which they have to take to even make it to office. This is what you should tackle first before you look at the president's salary if you want to assure independence from backers. Also, most presidents have already been really rich and they really don't need it. The path they need to take (congress, senate) to even be considered pretty much guarantees they are already rich and influential. Also, a good president is one that doesn't do it for the money obviously. And it's still a LOT.

b112 4y ago

There is nothing to "pay for". Government work is like this, already, everywhere. It has been for thousands of years. Canada, US, India. It has another name, bureaucracy. It is to the public good, that there are checks and bounds on power, forms to fill out, procedures to be followed. Yet this is counter to creativity, to moving fast, to embracing the new. But if governments at least paid market rates for tech labour, not 1/4 of it, they would at least overcome one hurdle.

xoa 4y ago
>There is nothing to "pay for". There is: salary. I assume that's what GP meant, that one way to attract talent (beyond other important stuff like preventing dumb fiefdoms, trying to keep down unnecessary red tape vs reasonable, general workplace quality etc) despite other unattractive aspects is to offer a very competitive salary/benefits. A lot of government jobs in general do still have some solid benefits, but the salaries now lag fantastically behind equivalents in the private sector for many key roles, and "spirit of public service!" only does so much. This is true all the way to the very top in the US at least. Presidents used to get paid more: $25k at the founding (what President Washington got) would probably be something like $4.5m today. $200k in 1969 would still be about $1.5m today. But POTUS salary now is still $400k. In my opinion it should be more like $100-250m. It's easily one of, if not the, single most important jobs on the planet at the head of one of the largest, most powerful and highest revenue "organizations". It should pay more or at least equivalently to CEOs of big corps, enough that POTUS will never feel financially beholden. And onwards down, Senate should probably be $25m, House $7m etc. Pay structures throughout gov don't match the responsibility and impact the jobs have on the world. Trillions of dollars and millions to billions of people are impacted by the decisions of people getting paid a relative pittance and we wink and pretend that it's some noble thing while of course what actually happens is everyone is expected to either be independently rich or to cash in somehow or be beholden to rich patrons. It's stupid. But the political will for paying for doing it right doesn't seem to be be there anymore.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  > In my opinion it should be more like $100-250m. It's easily one of, if not the, single most important jobs on the planet at the head of one of the largest, most powerful and highest revenue "organizations". It should pay more or at least equivalently to CEOs of big corps, enough that POTUS will never feel financially beholden. Good idea in principle. But the problem is not the salary. It's all the campaign contributions with strings attached which they have to take to even make it to office. This is what you should tackle first before you look at the president's salary if you want to assure independence from backers. Also, most presidents have already been really rich and they really don't need it. The path they need to take (congress, senate) to even be considered pretty much guarantees they are already rich and influential. Also, a good president is one that doesn't do it for the money obviously. And it's still a LOT.