this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
949 points (98.1% liked)
/r/50501 Mirror
1219 readers
923 users here now
Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Like I get the whole moralistic bent about not wanting to pay representatives big incomes relative to their constituents because politician bad and “they should be doing it for the pride of serving”, or like term limits because “I don’t like these politicians and they keep getting reelected/ serve life terms.”
But realistically, if you want skilled professionals in a field, you need to pay them competitively and offer long term career prospects. Otherwise you’re going to only get people who take the job as a stepping stone to another position, like a high paying job at a big company they passed a bunch of laws to help, or who can make money in other ways.
As it stands right now, the whole stock trading thing is largely a result of how little congress people are payed relative to the importance of the position. Like, sure, it’s a six figure salary with a great benefits package, but, that’s peanuts compared to what a modern private sector executive make, even a mediocre one.
If anything, congress people should probably have their wages increased significantly.
They can have that when they start serving the got damn people like they're supposed to
Well, not really, according to the banner "Cap Politicians Wages to 1.5x Median Wage in their district" that's really not a lot. Even if they made 150k it would still be less than they could be making with their law degrees or by working as a lobbyist for big companies.
We can tie it to the median wage without fixating on that exact multiplier they can also consider ways to raise the median wage...
Yeah I agree it's a good idea, I also agree that it isn't competitive.
Fastest way to raise the median wage is to kick out the poor and stop all social housing projects, turn everything expensive and boooom, median wage goes up. I think that's a perverse incentive and is actually hurting representatives that take good care of poor people, who, because of that, move to the district. It's also a glaring loophole.
No if we're gone tie pay to performance, we need better tools to evaluate performance.
The poor overwhelmingly do things that need to be done and often these physical tasks unlike office jobs are the least automatable. Few people by percentage live in any sort of social housing and there is no short term way to toss every poor person onto the street while not also ruining most of the rich people.
This is really an imaginary problem.
Counterpoints:
It's really, really good messaging, to a population that reads at a 6th grade level.
The entire point is that being a Representative is not supposed to be a lucrative career path to become wealthy, it is supposed to be public service.
Also, overturning Citizens United, in a fully comprehensive way, would make... not all, but a whole, whole lot of currently 'standard' lobbying (ie legalized bribery) completely fucking illegal.
Also also, if you can 'tax billionaires out of existence', presumably by actually effectively taxing their wealth, as well as capping CEO pay, and all other forms of non direct income compensation...
... well then you don't actually have a giant wealth disparity society, you have a functional upper bound once you 'win' capitalism, thus much less dark money to throw at lobbyists as well as an upper bound to how lucrative it csn be to throw away all your principles and embrace your inner sadistic narcissistic sociopathy.
...
I would add to this platform ....maybe the bullet point slogan would be 'death penalty for corporations'.
What I mean by that is something like this:
Ok, your corporation and its executive officers committed some heinous crime, that we normallly punish with fines, fines that are almost always a pittance in comparison to how much money that corp has?
Well ok, first, stop doing fines that way, peg them instead to a % of net income. Not net profits, net income.
If this results in bankruptcy of the corp?
Oh well, too bad.
Ok, then, if a corp is convicted of some massive legal violation, do something like every single C suite level employee in that corp, in its holding company, whatever... yeah they are now all barred from holding any such positions at any kind of organization, in any capacity, for the rest of their lives.
Guilt by association, you were part of a criminal enterprise, get fucked, you asshats obviously will not actually 'organically' create a 'company culture' of anything other than normalizing corruption, so here's a bigger stick to whack you with, to discourage such behavior.
...
Also, its now illegal for an individual to sit on more than one of any kind of corporate, government regulatory body, elected government position, non profit / lobbying board within a 5 year period. Maybe 10 years.
No more incestuous boards of directors where one person sits on 3 to 8 boards all at the same time, and there is now a 5 (maybe 10) year cool down period when you leave one high level board, before you can join another, no more immediate pipeline from industry to regulatory capture.
Maybe the bullet point slogan for this could be 'End the Corporate Deep State'.
Is it technically accurate as a term? I don't care, it feels right, with our current era colloquial lingo.
...
EDIT
Also, the min wage needs to be Federally mandated to be indexed to a State's average median income and actual cost of living.
There is a lot of variance between States economic CoLs and AMIs, but broadly, a bare minimum for a national, all areas averaged together, min wage... is more like $30-$35 literally right now, if you interperet the min wage to be a living wage, as it was set out to be by FDR.
So really, for a broad number, a 2028 platform would need to be at least $30, not $20...
But more specifically, Federally mandate that every State uses an index calculation that takes into account cost of food and utilities, median income, median rent... make it so that its actually possible for annout of high school 18 yo to get a full time job and be able to afford a studio apartment, without going into debt or needing a cosigner.
If they are so skilled, they should be able to raise the median wage in their district. Thus increasing their own wage.
Yes they could but they can also just work a job that actually pays well without waiting for a district wide socioeconomic restructuring because as people tried to explain to you already that pay isn't competitive.
In fact, even if the Median Wage increased vastly they would STILL make more money as a lawyer because they would have more clients willing to pay more.
In every possible way, I don't want skilled professionals as representatives. Even if you get one they are only a skilled professional in ONE, maybe TWO areas - COMPLETELY inadequate for the vast number of areas the government is tasked with managing. That specialized knowledge is what the career bureaucrats the administration is gleefully firing are for.
I want someone who can ASK and LISTEN to skilled professionals, detect and reject bullshit from scam artists, and feels a responsibility to make decisions that benefit their constituents. There are 10 year olds that fit that description.
What you described is critical thinking, a skill extensively taught in higher education. So, you do want experts.
Critical thinking is taught in higher education, but not EXCLUSIVELY so, and unlike specialized knowledge can be obtained in any number of ways.
If I want someone to build me a highway, I'll ask a civil engineer.
If I want someone to figure out a tax impact, I'll ask an economist.
If I want someone to make good decisions, I'll pick someone with a proven track record of making good decisions without letting their own egos or misplaced ideas of their own expertise outside their areas of knowledge get in the way.
That might be a professional.
It might be a bartender.
It might be a scout leader.
It's entirely dependent on the individual person.
It is a skill. You need professionals in that skill
If you truly believe the ability to listen to professionals, ask questions, and make decisions based on direct information is only something highly paid professionals can do, I don't know how to begin to address the massive gap in our premises. I assume you're not a doctor, but when the doctor gives you health information and options, you don't fumble around helplessly. If you hire someone to build you a house and they present you with multiple options, I assume you're not an architect either, but you don't panic and decide to live in a tent instead.
There is a huge difference between deciding for yourself and deciding for a big group of people you don’t really know.
The first can be solved by intuition and emotional thinking (I don’t want to have surgery because I’m more worried about it more than about taking medicines for a much longer time, I want a two story house because it looks good…). While taking care of a nation is wildly different. You are confronted with massive, intertwined systems, in which many people that live life completely different than yours are affected. You have to constantly challenge your assumptions and compare them to a mountain of data. Yes, you have advice, but each advice always relates to a small section of the whole problem.
While such critical thinking skills can be learned in many ways (and they often elude our politicians) it usually require a higher education degree and quite some experience after that to develop. People that have honed this skill are valuable in the job market, and therefore should receive appropriate compensation.
I was right there with you until you started talking about appropriate compensation.
Politics is a service, like military service. The military is compensated well, but you certainly can't argue they're doing better than a professional would with the same skills. The same applies to political office. It is an act of self-sacrifice for the betterment of your constituency. If the fact of serving your constituents is not enough, I don't care about your skillset - I don't want you in the office. This should be a calling - not a career.
As someone that followed that mindset, and got stuck in positions that are much lower payed than the private sector, that refined my skills to an absurd level just to get payed around median level… that’s why I’m looking for jobs outside the public sector, that’s why basically all my colleagues feel burned out and unappreciated. A good read in this aspect: https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/vocational-awe/
A bit of sacrificing is okay, but as a politician you are already sacrificing a lot of your personal life (long, constant trips that make difficult to maintain contracts outside of work, lots of after hours events that affect your social life, often having to full on move for your job…) How far does self sacrifice need to go?
As a side: I also would like all other public sector jobs to be much better payed.
I absolutely won't disagree with you that public sector pay should be higher, particularly for publicly important positions, but let's also be clear that politicians and public employees aren't actually the same thing. A public employee is committing long-term to doing a full-time job in a particular domain as a lifetime career.
Political offices are largely intended to be temporary caretaker positions to be done as a self-sacrifice. Career politicians have become the rule recently, but it is by no means by intent of design.
There is a huge difference between these two roles.
So you are talking about a full overhaul of the system, not just a change on how the politicians are payed.
In your view, who would be a good politician? Because a short-term self sacrificing position works in the context of a “noble” ruling class that has the skills and connections to rise to the occasion at any time. But I doubt that is what you are advocating. So, I don’t see how a middle class could produce enough talented-but-not-career politicians. Would you mind discussing that?
Not at all. The system is already meant to be a part time, limited position. Senate terms are 6 years. Presidential terms are 4 years. Representatives are 2 years. All local and state roles have terms. Most LIMIT the number of terms. It's not a job you're supposed to do forever.
Even Congress' schedule is based on the idea that the members of Congress are doing this part of the year and then going back home to do whatever they did before. I'm not saying people that are good at the job shouldn't get to continue, but it's not DESIGNED to be a full-time, life-time job.
That’s the theory, but we see the practice being different. And I ask how you plan on fixing it. A job with a lot of requirements, very demanding, that you propose to underpay with respect to the private sector and that, after wrecking your life for a couple of years, kicks you out. Other than martyrs and corrupted people, I don’t know who would apply for it. And corruption is more widespread than martyrdom
Congressional representatives have a service of 2 years. This is not onerous. They can come from all walks of life but should probably go back to private life after their term unless they have provided such exemplary service they deserve a second term. However, I feel they should be term limited. If they wish to continue to serve the public, they can run for the Senate or run for office in their state/locality.
Senators have a service of 6 years which is a bit longer but then, their function is more professional... like they have to hold hearings, investigations and approve for executive level agency leadership and judges. They do need more seasoning, education and a higher public service commitment. They should have a clear understanding of the Constitution and high ethical standard for themselves and others. I don't think they should serve for more than one term, 2 terms tops.
That folksy wisdom of applying common sence and do what's right doesn't work when it's about faith of a millions. If I hire shitty builder because he was too convincing, and then chose wrong option because I am indeed not an architect, worst case scenario my house will be a bit fucked. If a politician makes the same mistakes, millions of people will die. So for a regular shmo this skill has small consequences and doesn't have to be this strong.
You're saying "listen to professionals" as if there is always one professional with one opinion and your options is to listen to him or not, but it's almost never the case in complex questions.
I'll say it again...
An expert/professional in one field does not have special knowledge that makes them better at making decisions in another. It just doesn't. And finding the wrong experts is a miss that a professional could JUST as easily make.
And I'm sorry, for the VAST majority of elected offices, the stakes just are not that high. No city council member in a city of a few hundred thousand is making decisions that affect the fate of millions. But it's EXTREMELY easy for someone with greater ambition than that city council to sell out the constituents of that city in exchange for aid to get to a higher office, and it happens ALL THE TIME.
I'll say it again... a reasonable, competent individual with low ambition and good decision making is, all else being equal, a better choice.
See that's where limiting CEO pay comes in.
Completely unreal. Given an opportunity to legally trade on the information available to them people with 6 and 7 figure salaries will act identically to maximize their benefit. At present in many difficult and valuable professions you can obtain the best of the best for less than what congress is paid. There is no reason to believe that lifetime benefits, 174k and the prestige of leading the nation is insufficient to attract excellent candidates.
If the candidates presently in play are often trash it is because other factors select for same not because of insufficient compensation.
When we pay more, we attract vermin. I’d happily serve for a pittance because I want to make the world better, and so would many others. If you want to get rich, don't serve in Congress!
There was a great politician wanna-be in my town. Loved what he had to say, but he couldn't survive on the $6K a year it pays.
We gotta pay for leadership. Otherwise they'll just go to the private sector and get real money. Despite lemmy's loathing of CEOs, they run the show and the entire company culture flows down from them. Ever worked a shit job? Had a sweet job? Ask yourself, how did the CEO act? Same for politicians.
I can counter my own argument by saying that most of their money comes from other sources once elected. Some of that money is fine, much is immoral. So it goes.
Obviously, we should pay congresspeople a living wage. I’m not sure that’s controversial. $6k a year is too low, $150k is too high.
Those CEOs you’re talking about are good right where they are. I want AOC, not Tim Cook.
Ok, but, like, no offense, are you skilled enough to properly analyze and dig through large complicated bills? Are you a skilled enough administrator to manage an office of staffers? Are you a good enough public speaker to campaign?
I’m not saying people should want to serve in congress because it pays well, but, if the same set of skills that make a good representative could earn you 4 million a year in the private sector, then it’s going to be really hard to get qualified professionals. Instead you’ll get incompetent ideologues, independently wealthy aristocrats, or corrupt individuals intending to abuse the position.
It needs to pay competitively or else you create a bunch of perverse incentives.
Are most politicians? They generally use their staff and their chief of staff for those things. The only thing that I'd grant them across the board, generally, is they are decent at public speaking.
There are many people that have specialized training that do their work to serve, not for the money (e.g. teachers, public defenders, MSF, etc…)
Damn bro I need to know what school you got a math degree from if your logical reasoning is that faulty!
I’m fairly sure my “logical reasoning” is spot-on, but feel free to correct me.
A law, philosophy, or poli sci degree from a no name college holds a hell of a lot more weight for politics than a mathematics degree from Harvard. Know your limits.
Online rankings seem to put Harvard pretty high for mathematics! So I wouldn't disregard their opinion just because their degree is from Harvard. I would disregard their opinion because of how faulty the logic is though.
It's not the ranking, it's the being completely out of their field. But y'know, someone should be able to pick up on that if they had gone to Harvard
What do you mean? Harvard has excellent international ranking for math, specifically. How is this "being completely out of their field"?
I appreciate that you like philosophy. If we are interested in intelligence, though, a degree is less important than, say, how well you can do on a test like the LSAT. If we are interested in specialized skills, then a degree and the institution matter an awful lot. Keep in mind, however, that most people with any credentials from any institution are incomprehensibly stupid.
I’m not sure how we would determine whether someone is a good person. That’s significantly more difficult. But certainly nobody motivated by money is a good person.
They can tie it to the minimum wage. Want a pay boost? Raise the minimum wage.
But this is already what we get anyway. Like 90% of our "representatives" behave this way.
I do agree though that maybe 1.5x is a little low especially since they're supposedly "required" to maintain a residence closer to d.c as well and that's super expensive. I'd say the public pay for their housing near d.c and then we can consider lower salaries for them, or at least having them be closer to what their constituents make so they understand what people actually have to go through to get by.
The problem with low salaries is that it makes the job less appealing, so it attracts more corruption. (In theory) if you are payed a lot, you don’t care when someone offers you a little more, while when you are payed little, a little money can make a big difference. Then again, this theory clearly failed, so… who knows
That's a good thing. Private sector executives are wildly more sociopathic than the general public, and literally the enforcers of poverty on most americans. We should be incentivizing that type of person to stay as far the fuck away from politics as possible.
Wow the capitalism is strong in this one.
I like what Singapore does, which is to pay public servants very well, and then heavily punish corruption