5 ms·

A categorical ban is way better than past efforts to subject Congress to insider trading laws. That gives way to much power to the executive branch to go after

A categorical ban is way better than past efforts to subject Congress to insider trading laws. That gives way to much power to the executive branch to go after members of the legislative branch for political reasons. We should also raise congressional salaries to $1 million a year. Voters don’t like the idea, but if you ban stock trading high quality candidates will just become lawyers and lobbyists instead.

chucksta 1y ago
What so they have more money to invest? "I have enough money already I don't need more" said basically no one ever.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  Ha ha, I said that. It's why I retired when I did. (I know, not exactly what you meant though.)
- ben_w 1y ago
  Carrots and sticks. Now don't get me wrong, given how often legislation in the USA and the UK seems to get rubber-stamped by members of the legislative body who did not (and in some cases could not have) actually read it, I think there's something structurally wrong with at least these two governments, where the senators and MPs are more like overpaid customer support agents and less like the legal/constitutional equivalent of software engineers doing code review or maintaining system architecture, but conditional on if we actually want the elected representatives to be the people's preferred choices amongst the best legal minds available, we have to pay enough to encourage… actually, even before that, even just to get the attention of the top m=contested_seats candidates whose views allow them to comfortably be members of each of the n=num_parties. Now, I don't know what that pay rate is, and ChatGPT's guess would be better than mine, so the best I can do is link to a page that I only found because ChatGPT gave me a searchable phrase, "magic circle law firm": https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/school-leaver-law-careers/becoming-a-lawyer/how-much-does-a-partner-at-a-magic-circle-law-firm-earn https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/school-leaver-law-careers/beco... That suggests >>£1M/year in the UK. I assume the USA is more. Consider: would you take a 90% pay-cut to do your current day job but for the public good?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
t-3 1y ago
I very strongly doubt that salary is a driving force behind any kind of political corruption. Even those wealthy enough to support three generations without work won't pass up opportunities to make easy money.
- rayiner 1y ago
  It’s more to increase the social status of legislators in comparison to the people around them. For the most part, the problem is not back alley “corruption.” It’s people trying to not rock the boat too much so they can exit to something reasonable when the kids need to go to college.
  - lapcat 1y ago
    Nobody is running for Congress to pay for college tuition. That would be the stupidest, most improbable investment plan in the world. The reason that legislators don't rock the boat is that they're paid by their wealthy campaign contributors to not rock the boat. But the reality is usually not honest candidates getting corrupted; rather, the wealthy campaign donors specifically select candidates who are naturally amenable to their interests, and give them boatloads of money (and needless to say, would stop giving them boatloads if they failed to do what the contributors wanted). It's a trade of money for political power, between willing parties. The political system, as it is, attracts and benefits those who are already corrupt or corruptible. Increasingly, members of Congress are already wealthy even before taking office, so they never had any fear of paying for college. Stock trading itself is largely a luxury of the wealthy. Even those people of lesser means who do own stock typically don't trade it directly but have it managed for them by a pension or retirement fund.
lapcat 1y ago
> if you ban stock trading high quality candidates will just become lawyers and lobbyists instead. What are your criteria for a "high quality candidate"? I personally would start with honest, ethical, and selfless.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- RajT88 1y ago
  Vote in people who do not want the job, lol (Yes, I have no idea how you could architect such a system without having it easily gamed)
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    It's true though, probably the people you want are the ones least likely to run. Or maybe the other way around: the ones most likely to run are the ones that shouldn't be in office. Yeah, either way, you could probably do a lot worse than a national lottery. (Perhaps requiring some level of education but that's about it.)
- rayiner 1y ago
  So religious nuts and ideologues?
  - lapcat 1y ago
    > So religious nuts and ideologues? I'll await your answer to my question about your criteria before I answer this unfortunately phrased follow-up. Actually, I won't wait: Democracy depends on voters getting what they voted for. It's essential that there's consistency between a candidate's election campaign and the elected representative's behavior in office, otherwise you might as well vote for Mickey Mouse for all it matters. So yes, I'd take a consistent "religious nut" any day over someone who sells their soul to the highest bidder. I have respect for people who do what they say and say what they mean, even if they don't agree with me. I have no respect for liars and con artists, regardless of their "intelligence" or "skill". The latter will always screw over the people they were elected to represent.
weberer 1y ago
Congressional salaries should be exactly the median US salary. That way their incentives are aligned with the median citizen and not just the 1%.
- plantain 1y ago
  They do not have the same employment security as the median citizen.
  - watwut 1y ago
    They have better one.
  - sumeno 1y ago
    You think the median citizen has 2 years of guaranteed job security and a cushy consulting job lined up if it doesn't pan out after that?
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  That's a good way to ensure that only the very wealthy run for office. A professional might make $200k/yr, which is a nice household income - but "only" 85th percentile - and their family probably can't afford(with their lifestyle) to make only $50k/yr.
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    Or the very dedicated.
    - tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
      Dedicated to obtaining power? I'd much rather have a person there who doesn't need the money vs. one who does.
    - runako 1y ago
      Even the very dedicated would have trouble maintaining two residences (DC & home district) on the median income.
beached_whale 1y ago
There's a reason to pay politicians well, it reduces corruption. The other side is to have enforceable ethics rules.
RickJWagner 1y ago
“High quality candidates will become lawyers and lobbyists instead.” That’s the way it should be. If they’re in it for a big pile of cash, they should go the proper routes. We’d be better off if our expectations were that politics does not pay well, and a politician that retires wealthy has not been a good public servant.
up2isomorphism 1y ago
They will become lawyers anyway if money is the key motivation. The rule should be: One has to give up dream to become rich if they want to become congressmen. They should be able to live like a middle class, but not rich. Also they need to have term limit.
salawat 1y ago
>Voters don’t like the idea, but if you ban stock trading high quality candidates will just become lawyers and lobbyists instead. I'm sorry, but what? Are you proposing that being a member of Congress should come with legal insider trading as part of their compensation package? That's downright abhorrent. Where on Earth are you getting the impression there should be a class of people uncovered by the constraints we put on literally everyone else?
Balgair 1y ago
Two issues going on here in this subthread: 1) Paying people more won't help corruption 2) You get what you pay for So, both can be right and wrong at the same time. I think that we need to pay them a lot more. Running and serving in congress is a hell of dumb idea for anyone that we'd want in the position. Your life gets pulled apart by the press, you spend absurd amounts of money just to get there, and you essentially have to quit your career and buy a house/condo in DC for an indeterminate timeline, you get yelled at. Smart people would not do this job; it really is a service for the people they represent. [0] This really only allow the corrupt and the already wealthy to do the job. Issues there are obvious. Look, the labor theory of value is wrong. Something is not worth what went into it (capital, labor, R&D, etc). Something is worth what you pay for it. This is why you don't see a lot of marxists about these days, because prices are determined by the market, not the production. Same thing goes for CEOs and politicians. They are not worth what they produce (mostly headaches). They are worth what it takes to get them there. If you want a good one to run and try for election, then you have to make it worth their time relative to their other options. You want a good one? You have to pay exponentially. Pro sports understands this. Sure, you can get a lot of people playing NFL any Sunday for like $10; they'll do it just for the crowds and the dream. Nearly all of them will suck. But if you incentivize correctly ($$$), then you get a much better game and viewing experience than a Sunday afternoon beer league. Better politicians means better incentive structures. [0] campaign finance reform is also desperately needed, but that's another related subject.

chucksta 1y ago

What so they have more money to invest? "I have enough money already I don't need more" said basically no one ever.

JKCalhoun 1y ago
Ha ha, I said that. It's why I retired when I did. (I know, not exactly what you meant though.)
ben_w 1y ago
Carrots and sticks. Now don't get me wrong, given how often legislation in the USA and the UK seems to get rubber-stamped by members of the legislative body who did not (and in some cases could not have) actually read it, I think there's something structurally wrong with at least these two governments, where the senators and MPs are more like overpaid customer support agents and less like the legal/constitutional equivalent of software engineers doing code review or maintaining system architecture, but conditional on if we actually want the elected representatives to be the people's preferred choices amongst the best legal minds available, we have to pay enough to encourage… actually, even before that, even just to get the attention of the top m=contested_seats candidates whose views allow them to comfortably be members of each of the n=num_parties. Now, I don't know what that pay rate is, and ChatGPT's guess would be better than mine, so the best I can do is link to a page that I only found because ChatGPT gave me a searchable phrase, "magic circle law firm": https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/school-leaver-law-careers/becoming-a-lawyer/how-much-does-a-partner-at-a-magic-circle-law-firm-earn https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/school-leaver-law-careers/beco... That suggests >>£1M/year in the UK. I assume the USA is more. Consider: would you take a 90% pay-cut to do your current day job but for the public good?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

t-3 1y ago

I very strongly doubt that salary is a driving force behind any kind of political corruption. Even those wealthy enough to support three generations without work won't pass up opportunities to make easy money.

rayiner 1y ago
It’s more to increase the social status of legislators in comparison to the people around them. For the most part, the problem is not back alley “corruption.” It’s people trying to not rock the boat too much so they can exit to something reasonable when the kids need to go to college.
- lapcat 1y ago
  Nobody is running for Congress to pay for college tuition. That would be the stupidest, most improbable investment plan in the world. The reason that legislators don't rock the boat is that they're paid by their wealthy campaign contributors to not rock the boat. But the reality is usually not honest candidates getting corrupted; rather, the wealthy campaign donors specifically select candidates who are naturally amenable to their interests, and give them boatloads of money (and needless to say, would stop giving them boatloads if they failed to do what the contributors wanted). It's a trade of money for political power, between willing parties. The political system, as it is, attracts and benefits those who are already corrupt or corruptible. Increasingly, members of Congress are already wealthy even before taking office, so they never had any fear of paying for college. Stock trading itself is largely a luxury of the wealthy. Even those people of lesser means who do own stock typically don't trade it directly but have it managed for them by a pension or retirement fund.

lapcat 1y ago

> if you ban stock trading high quality candidates will just become lawyers and lobbyists instead. What are your criteria for a "high quality candidate"? I personally would start with honest, ethical, and selfless.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
RajT88 1y ago
Vote in people who do not want the job, lol (Yes, I have no idea how you could architect such a system without having it easily gamed)
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  It's true though, probably the people you want are the ones least likely to run. Or maybe the other way around: the ones most likely to run are the ones that shouldn't be in office. Yeah, either way, you could probably do a lot worse than a national lottery. (Perhaps requiring some level of education but that's about it.)
rayiner 1y ago
So religious nuts and ideologues?
- lapcat 1y ago
  > So religious nuts and ideologues? I'll await your answer to my question about your criteria before I answer this unfortunately phrased follow-up. Actually, I won't wait: Democracy depends on voters getting what they voted for. It's essential that there's consistency between a candidate's election campaign and the elected representative's behavior in office, otherwise you might as well vote for Mickey Mouse for all it matters. So yes, I'd take a consistent "religious nut" any day over someone who sells their soul to the highest bidder. I have respect for people who do what they say and say what they mean, even if they don't agree with me. I have no respect for liars and con artists, regardless of their "intelligence" or "skill". The latter will always screw over the people they were elected to represent.

weberer 1y ago

Congressional salaries should be exactly the median US salary. That way their incentives are aligned with the median citizen and not just the 1%.

plantain 1y ago
They do not have the same employment security as the median citizen.
- watwut 1y ago
  They have better one.
- sumeno 1y ago
  You think the median citizen has 2 years of guaranteed job security and a cushy consulting job lined up if it doesn't pan out after that?
IncreasePosts 1y ago
That's a good way to ensure that only the very wealthy run for office. A professional might make $200k/yr, which is a nice household income - but "only" 85th percentile - and their family probably can't afford(with their lifestyle) to make only $50k/yr.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  Or the very dedicated.
  - tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
    Dedicated to obtaining power? I'd much rather have a person there who doesn't need the money vs. one who does.
  - runako 1y ago
    Even the very dedicated would have trouble maintaining two residences (DC & home district) on the median income.

beached_whale 1y ago

There's a reason to pay politicians well, it reduces corruption. The other side is to have enforceable ethics rules.

RickJWagner 1y ago

“High quality candidates will become lawyers and lobbyists instead.” That’s the way it should be. If they’re in it for a big pile of cash, they should go the proper routes. We’d be better off if our expectations were that politics does not pay well, and a politician that retires wealthy has not been a good public servant.

up2isomorphism 1y ago

They will become lawyers anyway if money is the key motivation. The rule should be: One has to give up dream to become rich if they want to become congressmen. They should be able to live like a middle class, but not rich. Also they need to have term limit.

salawat 1y ago

>Voters don’t like the idea, but if you ban stock trading high quality candidates will just become lawyers and lobbyists instead. I'm sorry, but what? Are you proposing that being a member of Congress should come with legal insider trading as part of their compensation package? That's downright abhorrent. Where on Earth are you getting the impression there should be a class of people uncovered by the constraints we put on literally everyone else?

Balgair 1y ago

Two issues going on here in this subthread: 1) Paying people more won't help corruption 2) You get what you pay for So, both can be right and wrong at the same time. I think that we need to pay them a lot more. Running and serving in congress is a hell of dumb idea for anyone that we'd want in the position. Your life gets pulled apart by the press, you spend absurd amounts of money just to get there, and you essentially have to quit your career and buy a house/condo in DC for an indeterminate timeline, you get yelled at. Smart people would not do this job; it really is a service for the people they represent. [0] This really only allow the corrupt and the already wealthy to do the job. Issues there are obvious. Look, the labor theory of value is wrong. Something is not worth what went into it (capital, labor, R&D, etc). Something is worth what you pay for it. This is why you don't see a lot of marxists about these days, because prices are determined by the market, not the production. Same thing goes for CEOs and politicians. They are not worth what they produce (mostly headaches). They are worth what it takes to get them there. If you want a good one to run and try for election, then you have to make it worth their time relative to their other options. You want a good one? You have to pay exponentially. Pro sports understands this. Sure, you can get a lot of people playing NFL any Sunday for like $10; they'll do it just for the crowds and the dream. Nearly all of them will suck. But if you incentivize correctly ($$$), then you get a much better game and viewing experience than a Sunday afternoon beer league. Better politicians means better incentive structures. [0] campaign finance reform is also desperately needed, but that's another related subject.