On the flip side, why wouldn't he just volunteer, given his stated true intentions?
On the flip side, why wouldn't he just volunteer, given his stated true intentions?
The second is because that looks very weird and improper. It's a government job and the person who works gets compensated. Not taking a salary would make his tenure and situation even more abnormal. It also sets a bad precedent for potential future holders of the job.
The better option would be to accept the salary and donate it alongside the fortune he has vowed to give away.
Interestingly, that's part of the reasoning why Singapore pays ministers millions per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Singapore
630k ought to be enough for anybody.
And this exactly what Trump did, for example. He considered he was rich enough, so every trimester he donates his salary to a different ministry, once it was the General Surgeon, another time it was the DHS, or the Department of Agriculture. The list is here: https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/12/13/president-trump-salar...
A man can do the best action possible and still be told it didn’t matter.
"To be clear, this list documents announcements — not receipts — of Trump’s donations."
"We contacted the Department of Treasury to find out if documentation for any such deposits is publicly available and have yet to hear back."
What astonishes me is that anyone would want run this fund for a long period of time who isn't already very wealthy. When your boss of a two pizza team is earning more than the head of a 1tn fund, you know things are fucked up.
Compensation should be in the tens of millions, at the very least. Unless of course some egalitarian image is more important than the money that the entire country depends on.
I think it's fair anyway. This guy is already loaded, he doesn't need the extra millions. The prestige and power that comes with the position should be motivation enough.
He seems very capable and is ready to work for that (still good) money. Do you think paying someone tens of millions would improve results for the fund? Why should it?
Think about the logical conclusion of your assumptions. It doesn't make any sense.
Or unless that is your opinion being tacked onto a whole country which values things differently than you.
So far the fund has done fine without needing to inject an ultracapitalist in their ranks to pump up a US$ 1tn fund even faster. For the Norwegian people it's better to have stability and some semblance of morality while administering these funds than pure and sheer cash. Your values are just different than what the Norwegian sovereign fund is about...
Would you yourself not switch a job because they offered more money? What you're saying doesn't make any sense.
Maybe not as applicable in this case as it's a position where one expects someone to be used to handle lots of money. But expecting someone to do government leading work for peanuts can have the unintended side effect of only having upper class pursue it. Like unpaid internships where only the already well-off can afford to do it.
If the guy really wants to work for free, he can just donate his salary back to the government or some charity.
Eg in the US you can use https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.h...
In Germany https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsverschuldung_Deutschland... tells you how to contribute.
I imagine Norway has a similar mechanism, but I don't speak enough Norwegian to figure that out quickly.