this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
949 points (98.1% liked)

/r/50501 Mirror

1219 readers
950 users here now


Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts


founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Originally Posted By u/q0_0p At 2025-08-10 08:00:14 PM | Source


you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

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.

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 2 points 3 days ago

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