4 ms·

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 thin

• 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…