7 ms·

Their salary is not nearly enough. FAANG SWEs make several times more money for something that's quite a bit less important. Their pay is pretty good, but they

by wat10000 11mo ago

Their salary is not nearly enough. FAANG SWEs make several times more money for something that's quite a bit less important. Their pay is pretty good, but they also have a job which requires them to stay away from home (for most of them) for long periods of time. The pay is not really enough to maintain a household and a second living space comfortably. I get the sentiment that they shouldn't be in it for the money. But money is important even for idealists. Let's say someone wants to serve the people, but not enough to take a $174,000/year salary with a lot of travel and needing to pay for lodging in a remote city, when they could be making $500,000/year at Facebook instead. Would you say that this person doesn't want to serve the people enough, and shouldn't run? Maybe you would, but the problem is that you mostly won't get people who want to serve even more. By paying a relatively low salary, you'll end up getting: 1. Idealists with poor prospects in the job market. 2. Extreme idealists with good job prospects. 3. People who think they can leverage the position to make enough money to offset the difference in pay. 4. People rich enough not to care about piddling W-2 income. In practice, categories 3 and 4 will win. According to https://www.quiverquant.com/congress-live-net-worth/ https://www.quiverquant.com/congress-live-net-worth/, 107 members, or 20%, of Congress has a net worth of over $10 million. That net worth is in the top 2% of their age group. 16 members, or 3%, have a net worth of over $100 million. And of course people don't tend to attain substantial net worth without having an eye for ways to make money, so it's very likely that those people will abuse their position to make money as long as they think they can get away with it. I'd rather see a substantially increased salary, something like $1 million/year, so that ordinary people with decent skills can see serving in Congress as something they don't have to sacrifice for, financially. That would create a lot more competition for those positions and push out some of the extremely wealthy ones.

LunaSea 11mo ago
> The pay is not really enough to maintain a household and a second living space comfortably. Who's talking about a second living space? They can move like most Americans do for work when the commute is too much. > Let's say someone wants to serve the people, but not enough to take a $174,000/year salary with a lot of travel and needing to pay for lodging in a remote city, when they could be making $500,000/year at Facebook instead. Then they can go work for Facebook. Who cares what they would like to have. > Would you say that this person doesn't want to serve the people enough, and shouldn't run? Yes. > Maybe you would, but the problem is that you mostly won't get people who want to serve even more. Source? > In practice, categories 3 and 4 will win. According to https://www.quiverquant.com/congress-live-net-worth/ https://www.quiverquant.com/congress-live-net-worth/, 107 members, or 20%, of Congress has a net worth of over $10 million. That net worth is in the top 2% of their age group. 16 members, or 3%, have a net worth of over $100 million. Before or after they started their career? > I'd rather see a substantially increased salary, something like $1 million/year, so that ordinary people with decent skills can see serving in Congress as something they don't have to sacrifice for, financially. Ordinary people don't have the expectation of needing to be payed $1M to serve their country. > That would create a lot more competition for those positions and push out some of the extremely wealthy ones. The wealthy ones just use their wealth to get ahead.
- wat10000 11mo ago
  Could you maybe read the whole message before quote-replying? It's kind of annoying to get "Source?" followed by a quote of the data it's based on. > Before or after they started their career? Does it matter? You don't get that kind of wealth from $174,000/year. Either you came into the job with it and thus are in category 4, or you didn't and you managed to build that wealth despite not having a salary that would produce it, meaning you're in category 3. I don't understand how you envision moving for the job would work. You think a member of Congress from, say, Oregon should live full-time in DC? That certainly doesn't sound like a "serve the people" situation, that sounds like a "completely insulated from your constituents and always surrounded by insiders" situation. In practice, representatives are only in DC about half the year, and the part where they're not in DC is an essential part of the job.
  - LunaSea 11mo ago
    > It's kind of annoying to get "Source?" followed by a quote of the data it's based on. But your link doesn't answer your statement which was that you wouldn't find people more willing to serve if you were to lower the salary. Your link lists congressional representatives net worths which is a biased dataset which only looks at the type of people that currently run for Congress but also the money they managed to accumulate in sometimes illegal ways during their tenure (in Congress or other political appointments). > Does it matter? You don't get that kind of wealth from $174,000/year. Either you came into the job with it and thus are in category 4, or you didn't and you managed to build that wealth despite not having a salary that would produce it, meaning you're in category 3. Or you made that money through insider trading which is the topic at hand. > I don't understand how you envision moving for the job would work. You sell your house or rent it out and then you buy a train / plane ticket. > You think a member of Congress from, say, Oregon should live full-time in DC? Sure, that's where the votes take place. Congress representatives have reimbursements of up to $367 per day which is enough for them to pay for travel, lodging and food costs while back in their state. > That certainly doesn't sound like a "serve the people" situation This is already the case right now: https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2020/05/house-candidates-who-reside-outside-the-district/175977/ https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2020/05/house-candid... > that sounds like a "completely insulated from your constituents and always surrounded by insiders" situation Well you do have to be elected first so that means you still need to be known and liked in that district.

LunaSea 11mo ago

> The pay is not really enough to maintain a household and a second living space comfortably. Who's talking about a second living space? They can move like most Americans do for work when the commute is too much. > Let's say someone wants to serve the people, but not enough to take a $174,000/year salary with a lot of travel and needing to pay for lodging in a remote city, when they could be making $500,000/year at Facebook instead. Then they can go work for Facebook. Who cares what they would like to have. > Would you say that this person doesn't want to serve the people enough, and shouldn't run? Yes. > Maybe you would, but the problem is that you mostly won't get people who want to serve even more. Source? > In practice, categories 3 and 4 will win. According to https://www.quiverquant.com/congress-live-net-worth/ https://www.quiverquant.com/congress-live-net-worth/, 107 members, or 20%, of Congress has a net worth of over $10 million. That net worth is in the top 2% of their age group. 16 members, or 3%, have a net worth of over $100 million. Before or after they started their career? > I'd rather see a substantially increased salary, something like $1 million/year, so that ordinary people with decent skills can see serving in Congress as something they don't have to sacrifice for, financially. Ordinary people don't have the expectation of needing to be payed $1M to serve their country. > That would create a lot more competition for those positions and push out some of the extremely wealthy ones. The wealthy ones just use their wealth to get ahead.

wat10000 11mo ago
Could you maybe read the whole message before quote-replying? It's kind of annoying to get "Source?" followed by a quote of the data it's based on. > Before or after they started their career? Does it matter? You don't get that kind of wealth from $174,000/year. Either you came into the job with it and thus are in category 4, or you didn't and you managed to build that wealth despite not having a salary that would produce it, meaning you're in category 3. I don't understand how you envision moving for the job would work. You think a member of Congress from, say, Oregon should live full-time in DC? That certainly doesn't sound like a "serve the people" situation, that sounds like a "completely insulated from your constituents and always surrounded by insiders" situation. In practice, representatives are only in DC about half the year, and the part where they're not in DC is an essential part of the job.
- LunaSea 11mo ago
  > It's kind of annoying to get "Source?" followed by a quote of the data it's based on. But your link doesn't answer your statement which was that you wouldn't find people more willing to serve if you were to lower the salary. Your link lists congressional representatives net worths which is a biased dataset which only looks at the type of people that currently run for Congress but also the money they managed to accumulate in sometimes illegal ways during their tenure (in Congress or other political appointments). > Does it matter? You don't get that kind of wealth from $174,000/year. Either you came into the job with it and thus are in category 4, or you didn't and you managed to build that wealth despite not having a salary that would produce it, meaning you're in category 3. Or you made that money through insider trading which is the topic at hand. > I don't understand how you envision moving for the job would work. You sell your house or rent it out and then you buy a train / plane ticket. > You think a member of Congress from, say, Oregon should live full-time in DC? Sure, that's where the votes take place. Congress representatives have reimbursements of up to $367 per day which is enough for them to pay for travel, lodging and food costs while back in their state. > That certainly doesn't sound like a "serve the people" situation This is already the case right now: https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2020/05/house-candidates-who-reside-outside-the-district/175977/ https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2020/05/house-candid... > that sounds like a "completely insulated from your constituents and always surrounded by insiders" situation Well you do have to be elected first so that means you still need to be known and liked in that district.