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.

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 1 points 2 days ago

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

[–] Lucelu2@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

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.