3 ms·

Somehow I don’t think paying them more is going to be a very popular idea among the citizenry.

by someguyiguess 11mo ago

tokai 11mo ago
It also wouldn't help anything.
- esafak 11mo ago
  Not unless you combine it with outlawing trading for them.
- jobs_throwaway 11mo ago
  Yes it would. It'd make Congress a viable career path for ambitious-but-not-yet-wealthy people. Currently, you have to already be rich to be able to make it work. Public service should be a viable path to wealth for ambitious, capable young people.
  - throwaway2037 10mo ago
    There are lots of members of Congress who are not wealthy. (The senate is another story.) AOC was broke the first time that she won a seat.
dr_dshiv 11mo ago
They should benchmark to early USA and Singapore and corporations. George Washington was paid 4x Trump, I believe. In the context of corruption cleanup, I think people understand that paying people well avoids corruption. Mexican cops, that sort of thing. Yes, not popular, but important.
hypeatei 11mo ago
I agree, but the substance of the issue is that their pay has remained the same since 2009 at $174k/year (i.e. not kept up with inflation at all) so if we want to discourage corrupt behavior then giving them a proper salary is probably a good idea if we're going to restrict other methods of building wealth.
- salawat 11mo ago
  I beg your pardon, but if that applies to Congresspeople, what about the common laborer? All I'm seeing is more pandering to those in a position of power.
  - hypeatei 11mo ago
    The common laborer doesn't control the thing that has a monopoly on violence (the government)
    - salawat 11mo ago
      Neither does Congress. Only it's funding. Still does not answer my question. Good of goose, good of gander. If the secret to a "well behaved and ethical" Congress person is more money, then please point out and explain why in the fuck I can't executives or corporations elbow deep in sketchy shit. All I see is the more money can be accrued faster, the less ethical the population a position attracts. Further, if higher wages really were that much of a miracle cure for better performing people, I'd expect to see more profit sharing with employees, whereas I typically see the exact opposite. Wherein an inordinate amount of executive effort is spent trying to maximize information asymmetry, and divide and conquering labor in terms of value extraction from them.
  - dfxm12 11mo ago
    Less concentrated wealth means less discretionary funds for bribery. :)
- dfxm12 11mo ago
  You still have to prove if raising wages will reduce corruption, and if so, prove that it is reasonably cost effective. Keep in mind, there are already independently wealthy people involved in government in the US, and they still engage in corruption: Trump & his family, Musk while at Doge, Chris Collins, etc. After all, how much do you have to pay the world's richest man to keep things above board, I wonder?

Somehow I don’t think paying them more is going to be a very popular idea among the citizenry.

tokai 11mo ago

It also wouldn't help anything.

esafak 11mo ago
Not unless you combine it with outlawing trading for them.
jobs_throwaway 11mo ago
Yes it would. It'd make Congress a viable career path for ambitious-but-not-yet-wealthy people. Currently, you have to already be rich to be able to make it work. Public service should be a viable path to wealth for ambitious, capable young people.
- throwaway2037 10mo ago
  There are lots of members of Congress who are not wealthy. (The senate is another story.) AOC was broke the first time that she won a seat.

dr_dshiv 11mo ago

They should benchmark to early USA and Singapore and corporations. George Washington was paid 4x Trump, I believe. In the context of corruption cleanup, I think people understand that paying people well avoids corruption. Mexican cops, that sort of thing. Yes, not popular, but important.

hypeatei 11mo ago

I agree, but the substance of the issue is that their pay has remained the same since 2009 at $174k/year (i.e. not kept up with inflation at all) so if we want to discourage corrupt behavior then giving them a proper salary is probably a good idea if we're going to restrict other methods of building wealth.

salawat 11mo ago
I beg your pardon, but if that applies to Congresspeople, what about the common laborer? All I'm seeing is more pandering to those in a position of power.
- hypeatei 11mo ago
  The common laborer doesn't control the thing that has a monopoly on violence (the government)
  - salawat 11mo ago
    Neither does Congress. Only it's funding. Still does not answer my question. Good of goose, good of gander. If the secret to a "well behaved and ethical" Congress person is more money, then please point out and explain why in the fuck I can't executives or corporations elbow deep in sketchy shit. All I see is the more money can be accrued faster, the less ethical the population a position attracts. Further, if higher wages really were that much of a miracle cure for better performing people, I'd expect to see more profit sharing with employees, whereas I typically see the exact opposite. Wherein an inordinate amount of executive effort is spent trying to maximize information asymmetry, and divide and conquering labor in terms of value extraction from them.
- dfxm12 11mo ago
  Less concentrated wealth means less discretionary funds for bribery. :)
dfxm12 11mo ago
You still have to prove if raising wages will reduce corruption, and if so, prove that it is reasonably cost effective. Keep in mind, there are already independently wealthy people involved in government in the US, and they still engage in corruption: Trump & his family, Musk while at Doge, Chris Collins, etc. After all, how much do you have to pay the world's richest man to keep things above board, I wonder?