3 ms·

I agree. The whole thing is unseemly, but Nvidia is a poor example. Lots of people made money on Nvidia this year. For what it's worth, I was surprised that th

I agree. The whole thing is unseemly, but Nvidia is a poor example. Lots of people made money on Nvidia this year. For what it's worth, I was surprised that the Speaker of the House earn 250k. That seems too low.

syspec 3y ago
Is it though? I mean consider their pension, their health benefits, the fact that they probably spend very little of that salary on their daily needs. Most things for them are paid for, so that's nearly all take home money.
- AnotherGoodName 3y ago
  It is honestly low for the role. It's actually a worldwide problem that we don't pay politicians enough and as such we discourage people going into politics for reasons other than pure narcissism. Senior engineers, senior managers and above all make that sort of money but without the horrible lifestyle of politics. Would you trade a Bay Area engineering career for that? I wouldn't. Yet whenever it's even suggested to raise politician wages for the sake of those politicians who aren't already billionaires there's uproar. Let me be blunt. You don't get talent without paying for it. The USA's mix of political backgrounds has become a monoculture of wealthy lawyers and investment bankers. We don't have enough representation from other careers in politics and it'll ruin us if we don't fix it, namely by increasing the salary of a highly stressful career to ensure we encourage the best and brightest to sign up for it.
  - setgree 3y ago
    Your comment reminds me of a Bill Murray quote: > I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: 'try being rich first'. See if that doesn't cover most of it. There's not much downside to being rich, other than paying taxes and having your relatives ask you for money. But when you become famous, you end up with a 24-hour job. In Pelosi’s case, that job includes the possibility of a lunatic attacking your husband with a hammer. You would have to pay me very well indeed to put up with that kind of risk, esp. if you need to hire private security…
mulmen 3y ago
> I was surprised that the Speaker of the House earn 250k. That seems too low. Maybe! But what if politics wasn’t a career? What if there was no profit motive? What type of people would it attract?
- krapp 3y ago
  >But what if politics wasn’t a career? What if there was no profit motive? What type of people would it attract? The only kind of people I can think of willing to put up with the negatives of high political office (which include a non-zero chance of conspiracies to assassinate you) for no or little pay would be zealots and ideologues, likely already independently wealthy.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    One person’s zealot or ideologue is another’s heroic activist. Rather than making politics a career what if people were only involved long enough to make the specific change they wanted to see?
    - krapp 3y ago
      Having every politician only able to execute specific short term goals would make long-term planning and complex policy goals impossible to achieve. Most politicians would simply undo their predecessor's policies in favor of their own, or else accomplish nothing due to gridlock. It would wind up being the political version of Twitch Plays Pokemon.
      - mulmen 3y ago
        That sounds reasonable and you might even be right. But I’m not certain. The tech sector is famously productive, arguably even too productive. But average time in a specific job is similar to congressional terms. If people with specific expertise and goals in mind are in congress they could compromise to achieve those goals just like we do in the private sector.

syspec 3y ago

Is it though? I mean consider their pension, their health benefits, the fact that they probably spend very little of that salary on their daily needs. Most things for them are paid for, so that's nearly all take home money.

AnotherGoodName 3y ago
It is honestly low for the role. It's actually a worldwide problem that we don't pay politicians enough and as such we discourage people going into politics for reasons other than pure narcissism. Senior engineers, senior managers and above all make that sort of money but without the horrible lifestyle of politics. Would you trade a Bay Area engineering career for that? I wouldn't. Yet whenever it's even suggested to raise politician wages for the sake of those politicians who aren't already billionaires there's uproar. Let me be blunt. You don't get talent without paying for it. The USA's mix of political backgrounds has become a monoculture of wealthy lawyers and investment bankers. We don't have enough representation from other careers in politics and it'll ruin us if we don't fix it, namely by increasing the salary of a highly stressful career to ensure we encourage the best and brightest to sign up for it.
- setgree 3y ago
  Your comment reminds me of a Bill Murray quote: > I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: 'try being rich first'. See if that doesn't cover most of it. There's not much downside to being rich, other than paying taxes and having your relatives ask you for money. But when you become famous, you end up with a 24-hour job. In Pelosi’s case, that job includes the possibility of a lunatic attacking your husband with a hammer. You would have to pay me very well indeed to put up with that kind of risk, esp. if you need to hire private security…

mulmen 3y ago

> I was surprised that the Speaker of the House earn 250k. That seems too low. Maybe! But what if politics wasn’t a career? What if there was no profit motive? What type of people would it attract?

krapp 3y ago
>But what if politics wasn’t a career? What if there was no profit motive? What type of people would it attract? The only kind of people I can think of willing to put up with the negatives of high political office (which include a non-zero chance of conspiracies to assassinate you) for no or little pay would be zealots and ideologues, likely already independently wealthy.
- mulmen 3y ago
  One person’s zealot or ideologue is another’s heroic activist. Rather than making politics a career what if people were only involved long enough to make the specific change they wanted to see?
  - krapp 3y ago
    Having every politician only able to execute specific short term goals would make long-term planning and complex policy goals impossible to achieve. Most politicians would simply undo their predecessor's policies in favor of their own, or else accomplish nothing due to gridlock. It would wind up being the political version of Twitch Plays Pokemon.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      That sounds reasonable and you might even be right. But I’m not certain. The tech sector is famously productive, arguably even too productive. But average time in a specific job is similar to congressional terms. If people with specific expertise and goals in mind are in congress they could compromise to achieve those goals just like we do in the private sector.