this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
958 points (98.1% liked)
/r/50501 Mirror
1318 readers
1 users here now
Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts
founded 8 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.
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!
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.