Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdtsc | Hacker News Reader

It is hard for those in Western countries to imagine what it is like to live in a corrupt state like that.

Eastern Europe is like that as well. Corruption is a way of life. It starts from bribing the doctor who will deliver the baby, to bribing kindergarten teachers, to high school teachers, paying to cheat on a state exam, buying a driver's license etc, until bribing the cemetery to take make an extra spot for the deceased when the person dies.

Pretty much any interaction with a state could involve bribery and corruption. From the most mundane things, like a traffic stop, to paying a bribe to get away with murder.

In school I remember people who did very badly during the year often ended up miraculously get good grades on finals. Cases of judges being paid off to exonerate criminals were common.

One of the lowest of the low scam artist was an acquintance of a neighbor living next door. That person worked for a DNA testing lab. They did criminal testing as well as paternity testing. You can imagine the kind of things they were dealing with and the pain they were causing. They drove a fancy car and had a big house on the outskirts of the city -- all on a lab technician's salary.

Corruption is the reason I cannot tollerate visiting that part of the world anymore. It really angers and gets to me. It is not the poverty, crime, bad infrastructure, I can handle those things, but I can't handle corruption.

View on HN

I too hate corruption. It's the main reason why the south of Europe is doing so badly.

If corruption was lower where I'm from, Portugal, we could easily double our GDP.

Corruption makes people miserable and not only the ones forced to pay the bribes.

It's like an unwritten and arbitrary set of rules that turns simple transactions into negotiations.

This not only saps energy and time but it is also deeply unfair as you are raised in a set of official written rules and moral guidelines that in practice are not observed are useless and can downright hurt you if you follow them naively.

I think corruption is one of the reasons why Southern European countries are so economically conservative and risk averse. It is much more difficult to have a business in these environments.

I hate to put the blame on to any "one" reason for Southern Europe doing badly, but I came across an article that probably gave a better reason why there was so much difference between North and South Europe, and the theory it presents is religious difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. Protestant (read the bible) & Catholic (follow the pope). This gave the north literary rise, and literary history, and advanced them above their southern neighbors.

Corruption could be fallout of illiteracy, or maybe, lack of corruption could be a fallout of advancing literacy.

Sounds like an interesting read, do you have link to the article?

The article was probably based on this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_S...

My introduction to this was:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/the-chosen-few-a-ne...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/jewish-literacy-as-the-r...

If that is the case, Southern European corruption should reduce in the future, because now Catholics are literate too.

India still has terrible public education, so it may take them longer to catch up.

> India still has terrible public education, so it may take them longer to catch up.

India is a _very_ big country; as big as all of Europe, if not bigger. There are parts of India that are highly educated; in fact, the southern Indian state of Kerala has nearly 100% literacy. And corruption is plentiful there too.

India also has to dismantle the social systems and institutions set up by the British, which were designed to make people at the top rich, instead of running for the benefit of society.

Dismantling this is hard work, and you cannot simply destroy a bureaucracy without having a replacement ready (or chaos). WWII was good for Europe in some ways, because it massively destroyed the aristocracy and a lot of bureaucracy along with it. It was effectively a reboot of society, backed by a lot of cheap funding.

Yes, a lot of change cannot be done without massive upheaval - this is the dilemma we face in Africa.

It could go back even further than that - Rome ran on patronage, and maybe the southern states didn't fall as far as the northern ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber#The_Protestant_Ethic...

Italian here. It's not just corruption here but almost every social interaction is built as an exchange of favours. From having a job to not getting screwed from the auto shop, you live off a network of people owing you and you get in their circles by owing them back. It's a very powerful system because everyone understands the honour it's based on, you can't track it because it's immaterial and it's so widespread that you get huge pressure to cave in and become part of the system.

>everyone understands the honour it's based on

That's the terrible thing about corruption. Sometimes it's not based in selfishness, but in honor and generosity.

It's just that old ideas about being honorable, a good provider, putting family and friends first and all that, are actually pretty terrible in modern bureaucracies.

So is it the modern bureaucracies that are terrible?

Or the "old ideas"?

It's the mismatch. Honor and reputation work for small high-trust societies where everyone knows each other, but a nation state (not to mention a global economy) requires more robust enforcement mechanisms.

On honor: It is that you can't really kick someone out of a nation state. In a smaller society, when you are dishonored, you leave the group. In a nation, you can't really do that, so we have made up ways to do so in a half way, namely prison. Honor doesn't really work in a nation state. Brett McKay has a lot to say about honor in the modern world starting here: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/10/01/manly-honor-part-i-...

They took away my family's right to vote in Pakistan. I think you can come up with plenty of ways to kick people out of a nation state short of making them stateless (which I guess isn't kosher after WWII) I suppose another good example would be the Rohingya in Myanmar

Moderately amusing story.

I was born and raised in the USA, but my parents emigrated from Italy.

About 20 years ago, my brother applied to grad school @ MIT (physics department).

Somehow, my father got it in his mind that he would "help out" by contacting the US Congressman in our district (whom he knew somewhat well) so that the Congressman could contact the physics department and facilitate my brother's acceptance.

Predictably, my brother blew a head-gasket. He tried explaining that:

* he would feel incredible shame if he was accepted due to outside meddling.

* the chances of this working to my brother's advantage were approximately zero.

* it might even _reduce_ the likelihood of acceptance.

The funniest part was that my father was bewildered by our reaction. His attitude was _"I don't understand you people. This is how you get things done!"_

I don't think that it is fair to compare corruption in Portugal (and perhaps in any other Southern European countries) with the kind of corruption described in the article.

Yes, you can find corruption over there and especially a lot of influence and favour trading BUT at least people are aware that it is both criminal and wrong, not a way of life or "the way things work".

EDIT: typo

>It's like an unwritten and arbitrary set of rules that turns simple transactions into negotiations.

Generators without internal resistance are fine, but don't short them, if they are high energy.

Having lived in Romania and Vietnam, you learn to appreciate the efficiency of just paying the bribe and getting on with your life. For example, if I get caught speeding I can bribe a cop for like $20 in Eastern Europe or Asia versus losing $1000s in Canada between fines and insurance premium increases.

I personally find it a lot less stressful than living in Canada where every time I see a cop I get a little adrenaline rush of fear.

Anyways, most of the other things on your list exist in Canada too, we just don't call it bribery, we call it "private clinics", "private school", "private motorcycle training academy where your instructor, who's the same person you're paying and reviewing, is the one who gives you your license".

Have you considered not speeding? It also helps avoid the fines.

There are traffic scenarios where it's too dangerous to stick with the legal speed limits.

I was about to downvote you, since I think this statemment is, well, moronic.

Instead I kindly ask you to elaborate on just one situation, where exceeding the speed limit avoids danger.

Edited to add : To be clear: Speeding up upon overtaking doesn't count. If you need to do that you should not have overtaken in the first place, since it was obviously dangerous.

If the posted speed limit is 55 and everyone but you is going 80, then exceeding the speed limit avoids danger. There's your situation.

[Of course, you'd never get a ticket in this situation, and I think there are even legal provisions regarding respecting the "flow of traffic" in some US states.]

Just to be clear, don't try this in the UK. If everyone is going at 80, everyone will get a ticket, thanks to automated speed cameras.

Hypothetically, it it were true that going at 80 is safer because everyone else is going at 80, wouldn't you have to choose between a risk of paying a fine versus a risk of losing your life? That sounds messed up.

> [Of course, you'd never get a ticket in this situation, and I think there are even legal provisions regarding respecting the "flow of traffic" in some US states.]

This is exactly how I got my first ticket. I was moving with the flow of traffic, which was going about 15mph over the 55mph speed limit on a busy four lane divided highway. Highway Patrol flew up out of nowhere, angrily berated me for five minutes, and gave me a speeding ticket.

Now I just go the speed limit. People cuss me out and flip me off, but that's preferable to paying several hundred dollars. (And for me, it turns out not to really be worth it anyway. Most places I go speeding saves me < 5 minutes, and I get much better gas mileage, up to 48mpg, accelerating slowly and not driving faster than 65mph.)

Can you, by the way, cite any state laws explicitly saying it is OK to exceed the posted speed limit if doing so is required to move with the flow of traffic? I have heard this claim a lot but I have never been able to find real proof of it. There are sometimes "flow of traffic" laws applicable if you're driving too far below the posted speed limit, which is assumed (wrongly) to be the maximum "normal and reasonable" speed of normal traffic, and there are laws against driving slowly in the left lanes, and sometimes laws that allow you to speed while passing on a two-lane road, but I have never seen one that was applicable to someone driving at or above the speed limit and would have allowed them to legally speed.

Safety in traffic depends, among other things, on the relative speed between you and the cars around you. When this relative speed gets out of a certain range, you and/or those around you are forced to make dangerous maneuvers increasing the risk of collision.

With this in mind, think about scenarios where the average speed is above the legal limit: highways, rural roads with no known speed cams, etc. Now imagine heavy traffic and only one participant slowing down to the legal limit.

Here's one US citizen's experience driving on highways in Italy, where I live, describing what safe driving looks like here: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-drive-above-the-speed-li...

Rural roads you have to be careful speeding because people walk on them and tractors drive on them, and sometimes there are horses. If you're driving the limit and there's a bunch of people behind you, either (a) they can deal with it or (b) you can pull over and let them pass.

Rural road in northern Italy: https://www.google.it/maps/@45.4014223,8.955495,3a,75y,72.04...

> Speeding up upon overtaking doesn't count. If you need to do that you should not have overtaken in the first place, since it was obviously dangerous.

No matter how fast a truck is driving, I don't want to be anywhere near it while driving my motorcycle. Those tires randomly explode (I've seen it happen multiple times) and when a piece hits you, you're dead. I pass them ASAP, no matter how fast I have to go to do it.

Here's a pointer to a couple of engineering studies I found interesting, personally: https://www.motorists.org/blog/how-should-speed-limits-be-se...

This does not deserve to be downvoted. Driving too slow is as dangerous as driving to fast, or more dangerous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve

I think it has likely been downvoted by people from countries that do not speed.

I have only ever seen Americans and Canadians talking about the necessity to speed to keep up with the flow of traffic (and they have a higher rate of fatal RTAs per 100,000 than most Western European countries – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... – Canada is close to Italy, a country that is well known in Western Europe for terrifying traffic, while America is closer to South American countries)

While driving too slow is as dangerous as driving too fast, it's not as dangerous as the Solomon curve suggests, according to the article you linked:

> Reporting on these results in 1971, academics West and Dunn confirmed the findings of Solomon and Cirillo,[11] but found that crashes involving turning vehicles accounted for 44 percent of all crashes observed in the study and that excluding these crashes from the analysis greatly attenuated the factors that created the U-shape of the Solomon curve.

The topic of this conversation also seems to oddly mirror the course of the story from the original article. Minor acts of breaking a just law, justified on an individual basis, lead to a society in which regularly breaking that law is accepted – and indeed enforced – by the state.

That is probably why people are downvoting your parent comment.

For the record I don't have the ability or the desire to have the ability to downvote.

> Italy, a country that is well known in Western Europe for terrifying traffic

Is it? The death toll is average to low compared to the rest of Europe: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/gis/mapcare_fa...

And it's low compared to the rest of the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

The death toll is definitely low compared to Eastern Europe. It is very very low compared with the rest of the world. However, in much of Western Europe it is still perceived as being a place where people drive dangerously.

The main reason for how people in the West of Europe seem to perceive Italian driving has traditionally been Rome: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/31986...

My personal experience travelling in both Sicily and Rome was that people don't pay attention to lanes and don't care about traffic lights at all, and they're not afraid to drive quickly around tight corners and down narrow streets – this is not unique and is similar to how some areas of the UK drive, for example rural Essex and rural Wales have a lot of this.

Italy may have an unfair reputation as being a dangerous place to drive, but it does have that reputation in Western European countries.

I was going to say that too, but in corrupt countries, you'll get fined for speeding whether you were speeding or not - and expected to bribe the 'officer' regardless. It's not paying a policeman something then and there that's the problem - for you it'd become the fine for speeding - but it's having to pay without having done anything wrong. It's the power abuse associated with it that's wrong.

This happened to me in Vietnam. A police officer pulled over me and a friend as we rode past, then came up with a story about us having 'incorrect papers'. Later found out from the owner of the hostel that the same thing had happened to most of his guests for the entire season!

While I can't say for sure, you probably did have incorrect papers. I drove the whole time there without proper registration or a valid license because it was basically impossible to obtain them as a foreigner. I tried my best and it just wasn't happening and the advice I got was to act dumb and pay off anyone who tried to stop me.

To ride in Vietnam you do need a Vietnamese drivers license, so he was not wrong.

True. But fortunately from that point of view the OP now appears to be in Canada.

Other side of the life is chaos, crime, pollution and insecurity, and not unimportant for the crowd here, low company valuations vs their profits in those countries. Exactly because laws don't work. No startups in the proper sense can exist in such conditions, because contracts can't enforced, intellectual property rights can't be protected, and venture capital is impossible because money can be only loaned for the physical collaterial - everything else like equity is just paper.

Also East Europe is a big place, and it is all different. What works in Russia or Ukraine might work only in a limited way in Hungary and the Baltics, and don't work at all in Slovakia. In Europe, it strongly depends on the fraction of Orthodox population. There is nothing like that in Czech Republic, for example. Interestingly wealth doesn't change that. Cyprus is rich, and Greece used to be rich until recently, and they are ridden with corruption from top to bottom.

>In Europe, it strongly depends on the fraction of Orthodox population.

Wait, what? Mind unpacking that idea a bit?

Just an observation. Orthodox people are prone to corruption because they see every organized structures except church as 'foreign'. For example, theft on the workplace (being it a government or private employer) is culturally OK for them, they don't even try to hide it from the people they know. Any collaboration with the government (even reporting crime not being its direct victim or family member) is a no-no. A cop can't be a friend, they mostly make friends between themselves. etc. etc.

So, do you speed in Canada?

Everyone seems to go 10-20kmh over depending on the road, at least in southern Ontario. On the 407 it's closer to 30 over and if I stayed at 100 it'd be rather uncomfortable (and after being away for a while, I woulda sworn it was 120). At 50 they can roadside impound and suspend license.

The only point the GP has is that corruption is the oil of bureaucracy. In Guatemala, for instance, they started this whole anti-corruption drive a bit ago. Didn't really help; the president and vice president are now in jail for their part in a massive theft of taxes.

But for the regular people? Importing a container? Good luck. Before, you could pay the clerks to work overtime and move you to the top of the pile after 5pm. Now they've got all these annoying receipt systems so you have no way of doing this unless you're a serious player and turn a ton of people. Who wins here?

Most Russians are terrified of the police, because they know that they can ask for a `bribe` even if you haven't done anything wrong.

The problem with corrupt isn't that the rules benefit one party or another, rather that they are unpredictable.

In Canada everybody speeds all the time. In fact, it would be unsafe not to speed on the 401 as you'd be driving considerably slower than everyone else.

So the enforcement randomness is the same, it's just the penalties are stiffer and longer-lasting.

People don't get speeding tickets for going with the flow of traffic.

And no, it really isn't unsafe to go at the speed limit. Driving at 20mph on a highway can cause problems, but going 10-15mph slower than traffic in the rightmost lane is not going to cause any accidents.

Unless you're black, or maybe also a muslim, or a sikh wearing a turban, or a native american. Unless the cop on that stretch has a quota to fill. Unless you're unlucky.

Power is just as capricious, wherever you are in the world. People that select to be in positions of power are rarely the kind of people who can be trusted to always execute that power honestly.

I see where the comment parent is coming from.

Or unless you are driving a fancier car than others, or at wrong time of day, or parked next to the wrong guy. Unless you're unlucky. However:

> People that select to be in positions of power are rarely the kind of people who can be trusted to always execute that power honestly.

I think this is an exaggeration. People that select to be in positions of power are not always the kind of people who can be trusted to always execute that power honestly.

The difference in degree of corruption in a country is roughly the same thing as the trustability of people in positions of power.

Oh yes they do. In Milwaukee, WI at the end of the month, you'll get a ticket for either going with the flow of traffic or driving below the flow of traffic (the speed limit).

The highway will be lined with cars being pulled over.

Ah the 'whatoubout' defence. Don't bother addressing the issue of pervasive, ingrained corruption institutionalised into daily life in country X, 'whatabout' speeding in Canada?

My wife is from a country with ingrained corruption and her sister's husband is a police officer. Her cousin works at a notary's office, an institution who's only purpose is systematic corruption, and her husband narrowly escaped prison in a finance scandal at a company he ran through means that shall we say were less than ethical. Until you experience life in a place like that, you just can't really imagine what it's actually like.

There's a world of difference between a country ruled by laws in which there is some corruption, and a country that is ruled by corruption in which there are some laws.

I don't understand why you're getting downvoted. Speeding is endemic in the US as well, and the penalties are onerous for pretty much everyone but the well-off. Speed limits should be raised to fit the speed everyone actually drives at, obviously it's not that unsafe, but no area has done that.

I think you bring up good points about the relative scariness of Western selective enforcement as compared to developing world systemic corruption. Seems like if you keep your head up, you can escape getting targeted by the corrupt status quo. But in the West, people seem to get caught up in political whirlwinds with frightening randomness. Some dude's carrying cash to complete a seemingly routine business transaction the same way everybody in his town's always done it, and gets targeted for asset forfeiture.

The scale of Western corruption can't rise to the level of the whole society, and that on the whole seems to make it worse rather than better when it actually surfaces.

> Speeding is endemic in the US as well, and the penalties are onerous for pretty much everyone but the well-off.

No, they're not. Perhaps in some states but not on average. I'm in Pennsylvania so can only use those numbers.[0] There is the base fine (which can be doubled if you're in a work zone or an area with posted signs to that effect) and surcharges.

  Fine (25-55mph/40-90km/hr zone): $45-95
  Fine (65 mph/105km/hr zone):     $44.50-102.50

  EMS Surcharge: $10
  JCP Surcharge: $10
  Court costs:   Varies, last ticket I got was in 2010 and I think it was $7.50
  MCARE:         $50 for speeding, additional surcharges for additional offenses (e.g. passing a stopped school bus)

So let's say you're going 100 mph (161 km/hr) through a construction zone. Personally I'd like to see your car impounded if you do this, but you're looking at a $275 ticket plus minimal court costs. Certainly under $300. Every ticket I've ever gotten has given me the option of paying over 12 months with no interest.

I don't mean any of this to minimize your comment regarding selective enforcement. I've passed police who were doing speed enforcement at 15+ over the limit and seen others pulled over; I've been pulled over when there were others readily available going faster than me.

[0] http://www.justdrivepa.org/Resources/TIPP%20Fine%20Card%20JA...

In Ontario going 161 km/h anywhere is automatically considered "stunt driving" and carries a $10,000 fine, roadside vehicle impound, license suspension, and up to 6 months in prison.

Edit: s/street racing/stunt driving/

I've heard of a concept of "criminal speeding" (e.g. going so fast they arrest you instead of give you a ticket) but it doesn't look like my state has such a law. However "Reckless Driving" seems to be much more lax and requires only "willful and wanton" disregard for the safety of others. $200 summary fine (again 2x in construction/posted areas).

Like most enforcement in the US, there seems to be a great deal of discretion in what the police officer can actually do to you, everything from a warning to a large ticket ($475 for my example w/ a reckless driving citation, which will also probably cause you to lose your car insurance).

As it should be. Penalties for speeding are way too lenient, and enforcement far too spotty.

Nah, you can do 100mph safely on the 407 all night. It's just straight, smooth, half-empty toll road.

Until the person in front of you isn't speeding and you rear end them.

It's not the same kind of unpredictability, but sometimes when I look at the West, it seems that we're getting there.

But why people complain, I wonder? Isn't endemic bribery a realization of the libertarian dream? People setting up to collect as much toll as they can from you while you voluntarily try to access a resource - that's literally the free market solution! /s

I congratulate you on your relevant choice of username.

Efficient for you as you can easily (I presume) pay the bribes... but for 99% of people what impact does this have on their life, when they can also end up being forced to pay when they AREN'T breaking the law.

> I personally find it a lot less stressful than living in Canada where every time I see a cop I get a little adrenaline rush of fear.

Well are moving back to Vietnam and Romania to live? Most people living in Canada or US would have that freedom. Most people form Vietnam or Romania can't just pick up and move to Canada if they want to.

In India, I hated interaction with the police because they'd try to shake me down for all sorts of reasons, multiple times a month. In America, I have only ever interacted with a policeman thrice in three years, and on every occasion he or she asked me if I needed help.

One time I set off the fire alarm and they sent emergency services over. They came, investigated the situation, saw that I was just a terrible cook, gave me some advice and left.

If India had the same notifying fire alarms, everyone would have them disabled because the probability of having to pay a bribe would be exactly 1.

I am from a country where corruption is rampant. I don't think corruption is a cause, but an effect. You see certain economic schools of thought believe in the absolute power of the Market to solve issues. Corruption is the Free Market solution to economic inequality. In a society with very little opportunity for economic and social mobility and no faith in The State people will always have a market for alternative solutions to the mobility problem.

As in the article, for every engine, paid for by rich applicants, there was at least one(but probably upto 6 by my estimates) bogie, low paying applicants. Since the investigation will take years, by which time the evidence would be eroded and so would the faith in The State. Since India is growing economy with multitudes of social issues, the economic inequality would further increase inequality, creating more of a market for corruption.

>cause and effect

if it were that seperable

This is why frontiers are so important. Only on a frontier is it possible to basically nuke the past and build a new society that is (relatively speaking) free of this kind of meta-stable eternal corruption.

Once this kind of thing is established, it is game-theoretically very stable (tit for tat, etc.) and is virtually impossible to uproot without some kind of catastrophic purge or apocalyptic collapse.

This is one of the reasons top politicians are paid so well. We can complain about their salary all day long but they make important decisions and a higher salary directly impacts the effectiveness of a bribe.

"This is one of the reasons top politicians are paid so well."

Really? That would be a fine reason, but it may have more to do with the amount of power and influence they wield, even over those who determine their salaries.

To be fair it's only a theory. I was told the same by a friend of mine who is a jurist regarding judges salaries that are high on purpose to prevent corruption. "That's the theory" he said. Western Europe.

I doubt it does much to prevent corruption. You see multi-billionaires working hard to influence tax laws to keep a few more percent of their income despite having more money than they could ever possibly spend.

I am pretty sure no matter how high the salary you can't prevent flattering the ego as a mean to corrupt someone: "It's not about the money, it's about who I am and I am important enough to them they need to corrupt me. They need me. They owe me now.". Or something along those lines.

In Congress and my state, they control their own salary; however (in my state), the pay raise cannot take effect until after the next election, theoretically provided a buffer against last-minute or very large increases. I believe the same rule exists in Congress but I am not sure.

This is exactly what i always thought. Many people always think that lower wages for politicians will solve anything ( because they are mostly jealous)

I don't think it does

I lived in Thailand when the now deposed Thaksin Shinawatras party Thai Rak Thai won the election in 2001. I remember many Thais saying he was the ideal PM because he was the richest man in Thailand and because he was the richest man, he would never be corrupted. Fast-forward five years and the military deposed him because of his corrupt politics.

As long as you have a salary you can support yourself and your family on, I don't think higher salary == less corruption. Au contraire, I believe that once you have a sufficiently high income/wealth it's very easy to start to disassociate with the "people" with an average (or lower) income/wealth. That disassociation can then easily lead to moral superiority, that you are above the law/morals of the common man.

"Corruption" had nothing to do with it, the military deposed Thaksin because his politics threatened the interests of the royalty/army axis that has ruled Thailand since approximately forever.

>Fast-forward five years and the military deposed him because of his corrupt politics.

Bullshit. The military deposed him because they were grabbing power and because they were worried about his close relationship with the crown prince.

Thaksin's power base lies in the rural poverty-stricken north. He was the first politician to actually help them. That's why he was so popular.

They all knew he was corrupt, but their choice was between corrupt who would help them and corrupt who would fuck them.

Thailand turned from a democracy into a dictatorship because of power hungry assholes. It had nothing to do with corruption.

Please, let's keep HN respectful and not devolve into reddit, even if you disagree strongly.

Do not think politicians salaries impact corruption in any big way. As an simple exercise, compare what they spend on campaigns to the entire salary they'll receive on their term.

There are many factors, but the big ones are population acceptance and the risk of getting caught.

The problem is not corrupt politicians - they are for sale everywhere. The problem is acceptance of corrupt bureaucrats.

Are you in the US? Even at the federal levels, politicians' salaries aren't particularly high, relative to what those same people could earn in the private sector.

Congressmen earn $174,000. That's not a huge amount for a group that largely consists of successful lawyers, with a smattering of doctors and other businessmen. Many of them are millionaires before they take office.

The governor of my state (Virginia) is paid $175,000. Again, pretty good money. But, the current governor, Terry McAuliffe, was a successful banker and real estate developer prior to entering politics.

And, as noted in a sibling comment, the real problem isn't corrupt politicians. Corrupt bureaucrats are a much worse problem for an average citizen's day to day life. And those bureaucrats are not paid anywhere near as well as the politicians.

Sorry, the idea of comparing their salaries to what they could supposedly earn outside of government is just wrong. First not all of may have had substantial jobs or education prior to running for office. Lastly, most of them become quite well off after leaving office from speaking fees if not retirement.

They are excessively paid relative to the average American and their salaries should be curtailed to that of average American's so there might be some incentive to improving that. People bemoan golden parachutes of some executives in the private world but would be aghast if they learned just how overpaid many state elected and appointed officials are and some even double dip.

Political office should be service, not a damn lottery winning

The practical outcome of that policy would be to lock out anyone below a certain income bracket from political office. Living as a politician can be expensive and lots of people will find it beyond their means. There is a reason it's forbidden for congressmen to forgo their salaries.

At the congressional & gubernatorial level (and even the mayors of big metros), you're just wrong.

https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php

McAuliffe was as DRC financier before he became a politician himself. He ran for governor for the prestige of the office rather than the money so it's not likely he'd risk the embarrassment a bribe could bring. Someone independently wealthy doesn't have much use for direct bribes (it still happens, but rarely).

In a corrupt system, being independently wealthy just means you require larger bribes. Corrupt officials dont demand bribes corrupt because they absolutely need the money, but because they want it and can get away with it.

There are, in Mexico, 3,277 people employed by the federal government who earn more than 2 million pesos a year. That is well over $100K USD a year. This might not sound like that much in the U.S., but, for comparison, a teacher makes $7,812 USD in average for the whole year in Mexico, and someone making minimum wage would get $1,400 USD or so. We also have the fifth most expensive legislating body in the world.

In the absence of any negative repercussion for being caught, and in a culture that normalizes corruption, higher salaries don't make the majority of these people non-corrupt.

Economic inequality is both a cause and an effect of corruption. But it is not true that high wages for public servants are a vaccine against corruption.

So? The west just plays the euphemism treadmill and calls a bribe a donation. Police is corrupt, too, and they are bribed with a paycheck.

>It is not the ... crime ... I can handle

bs, corruption is a crime fwiw

I don't hate going to work, I don't mind going home either, it's just the time in between that gets me.

> It is hard for those in Western countries to imagine what it is like to live in a corrupt state like that.

Not that hard. Small time corruption might not be so pervasive, but there are judges who take bribes to send kids to private jails.

There is corruption all over the world, including in the US, yes. But the prevalence and severity of it in the US is much lower than in countries like India and Russia. There are some unethical, crooked judges in the US, but there are probably 10x as many in India.

There are. And there is news about them and people talk about.

The places I am talking about it would be national news if there was a judge who doesn't take bribes. So no, it is not even a close comparison.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com