Hacker News Reader

A quick google says:

<<According to Title 3 of the US Code, the US President "shall earn" a salary of $400,000, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment.>>

Where can a mediocre software developer get $450K+?!

Any of the big tech companies, for starters. But, I don't work for any of those companies. You can PM me for details, we're hiring.

Keep in mind this is in SF, and I don't know any senior software engineers here making less than $300k/year, more than everyone in the government except the President!

You should tell Comparably: their email this week said the average for senior devs in San Francisco was $155k.

There's no pm on this site, and no email in your profile sooooo.... :shrugs:

> This is completely stupid and unacceptable.

Why?

> Why does Sundar Pichai make 500x more than the President? Do we, as a society, value running Google well 500x more than running our government well?

Why must the Presidency be the most highly-paid position for the government to run well? That is a ridiculous and silly assumption.

Why must the CEO of Google be the most highly-paid position for Google to run well? The point is that the pay for participating in self-interested capitalist endeavors leads to outsize rewards compared to those dedicated to serving society. (Including thousands of career civil servants, since leadership positions have their own trappings.) If we value those who serve society, perhaps we should pay them commensurate with how much we value them -- and get better results in the bargain.

> Why must the CEO of Google be the most highly-paid position for Google to run well?

That's up to Google, not me. Unlike you, I don't seek to dictate what organizations should pay their managers.

> The point is that the pay for participating in self-interested capitalist endeavors leads to outsize rewards compared to those dedicated to serving society.

You are making two implicit claims here, both highly suspect and probably false:

- Working for Google contributes no value to society.

- Working for the government is synonymous with 'serving society'.

Google's flaws notwithstanding, the government has a terrible track record when it comes to incentives, inefficiency, corruption (particularly graft), accountability, and so on. Equating 'working for government' with 'serving society' is baffling.

> If we value those who serve society, perhaps we should...

Therein lies the problem with your rhetoric. When you say 'we', you pretend to speak for all taxpayers, but you do not. Your claim that higher pay would yield better results is probably true for some sectors and false for others, yet you make no attempt to distinguish between these and speak as if a universal raise would lead to better outcomes rather than more graft.

Presidential pay is not outrageous because those seeking the Presidency should be motivated by public service, not remuneration.

Of course, the President doesn't really have bills. He or she doesn't exactly pay to rent the White House.

> He or she doesn't exactly pay to rent the White House.

Actually the first family does have to pay for many incidentals, like every day food, and it comes in the form of a bill.

It's true that public service is a major part, but another way of thinking about it is if government officials are highly paid, they are less likely to be bribed or act in their own financial self interest and more motivated by what is good for the country. Plus it attracts talent.

Singapore is an extreme example of this (perhaps too extreme) - the Prime Minister earns over $1.5M a year.

This Singapore comment needs to die before someone else ever repeats it again. Lee Hsien Loong (2004-now) is the son of Lee Kuan Yew (1965-1990) -- compensation has nothing to do with it in this case. Past a certain compensation range you are selecting for greed and nothing else -- if you earn in the top 10% and can't make do I seriously doubt you are 'intelligent' or your children must eat a lot and you have my sympathies.

> should be motivated by public service, not remuneration. It's strange that this should be such a widely held belief given that it relates to the top job in the most capitalistic country on earth.

> the Presidency should be motivated by public service

I don't see who this applies to in your last election

The President is billing the secret service to stay in Trump Tower.

millstone was saying that the president doesn't pay many bills. He can generate them, though.

Everyone is motivated by remuneration to some degree - the only question is who is remunerating our government officials: the public, or some other party with its own interests?

In the US, we've chosen the private sector to remunerate our officials after they've left public service, and our lovely government is the result.

Keep in mind that, as a public official earning top wages (~$150k/year) in DC, you can just afford to buy the median home in the area. But if you want a nice house (single-family) in a good neighborhood? Forget it! Whereas if you took your skills to the private sector, finding a place to raise your family would not be a major concern.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-salary-of-Singapores-Prime-...

i'm pretty sure you're being humble about your skills as a developer.

$450k is a lot and rare, even for the bay area