Hacker News Reader

Comment by sitzkrieg | Hacker News Reader

thanks for pointing something out that is in the article?!

He's pointing out that people in the neighbourhood are politically influent, that's why they are treated that way, not because they are rich. Which I did not get even after reading it. I'm thankful he pointed it out

> people in the neighbourhood are politically influent, that's why they are treated that way, not because they are rich

When (and where) is there a difference?

What neighborhoods are there where rich people reside who have no more social or political influence than people living in The Projects?

>What neighborhoods are there where rich people reside who have no more social or political influence than people living in The Projects?

Compared to this one? Nearly all of them. The neighborhoods in Mountain View are filled with affluent people that have no connection to federal politicians and no influence over the FBI at all.

Exactly. Surely wealthier people have more political influence all else equal. But busting down the door of a wealthy person in Mountain View is pretty unlikely to get anyone fired at the FBI. Go ahead, shoot their dog for good measure-- no problem.

I understand that you're saying that rich people usually have political influence everywhere, but I believe the only rich people that have direct jobs in Washington, DC are the ones living in DC. The slumlord that went to high school with the mayor isn't the same as the white house official who is employed by the FBI director (hypothetically speaking).

Diplomats and senior government officials have more political influence than their wealth would normally provide.

The highest paid government employees earn around $400k [1], foreign diplomats probably earn considerably less (e.g. £150k for the UK's [former] representative to the EU [2], which is the highest-paid ambassador position) but have perks like paid-for private school for children and tax exemptions.

[1] https://www.federalpay.org/employees/top-100

[2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

An FBI director makes less than 200k, and will be very politically connected and influential; an engineer making that much probably has as much political influence as people living in the projects.

Money can buy political influence, but that's beyond the reach of lower echelon of wealthy.

Not only that, but the FBI director is appointed by the President, which means the President knows who they are and personally wanted them to do that job (or at least the President's trusted staff recommended them).

The same is going to be true of a lot of people living in Kalorama - they're on "personally know the President" level of political influence or they work directly for someone who does.

It's the neighborhood where Obama lived after his term ended. It's where Ivanka Trump and Jared Kuschner lived during Trump's presidency. That kind of thing.

It's a little different than a standard affluent neighborhood of doctors and lawyers and executives that you might find in any random city in the US.

Money is power. That is a truism everybody is aware off. But Liberalism is fundamentally incoherent if that were true. So people have been deluded into forgetting this simple basic fact.

That's jsut not true. A county sheriff has far more power than a software developer, despite being far less wealthy

The median salary for cops in this state is $105k a year. The median salary for software engineers in this state is $89k. Sheriffs make much more than your median cop does.

I think the general point raised by GP stands up pretty well. Even if sheriffs make a little more than devs in some states, it's not that extra bit of money that gives them a lot more political power.

But just for another data point, in California the average salary for a software developer is $139K, while the average for sheriffs is $28/hour.

https://www.indeed.com/career/sheriff/salaries/CA

https://www.indeed.com/career/software-engineer/salaries/CA

what kind of comparison is that?!

https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/police-officer/salary...

anyway median police officer in California is 111.3k.

We could keep pulling up relative salaries from different sources for different states all day, but it wouldn't shed much light on the basic claim that sheriffs tend to have political influence out of proportion to their salaries.

The police exist to protect the property of the wealthy. Of course they have more power than people who make similar money. They have been granted that power by much wealthier, more powerful people. And it is conditional on fulfilling their role.

So, you don't believe that money is the same as power, like you stated up there.

What?

Money is a measure of economic power.

Money can buy some forms of power, but as the Taliban know, money and all the technology it buys aren’t the only form of power.

They briefly mention it, but quickly move on to "the FBI doesn't knock down rich people's doors". In this case it's more likely these particular rich people (i.e. well-connected people in the US government) than a blanket policy of "don't knock down doors in affluent neighborhoods".

Are there many neighborhoods packed with unconnected rich folks?

Not in the DC area, but in plenty of other cities sure.

It's not that they're particularly rich, as far as rich people go, it's that the neighbor is like, the chief of staff for the Senator who's in charge of the committee that sets the FBI's budget. Imagine you're a low to mid level employee of a company, and you go do something that makes all of the CEO's friends, business partners, and investors pissed off at him. Do you think that's going to be good for you?

A bit unsetteling how institutionalized corruption is talked about so casually.

Sure, plenty of rich people choose not to cultivate political connections.

After all, maybe I make $300k a year and think our mayor is, by the standards of politicians, one of the good ones; and getting invited to fundraising dinners and charity galas and rubbing shoulders with influential people makes me feel important and successful. So maybe I'll donate a few thousand dollars every election cycle.

On the other hand, maybe you make $300k a year but think political donations are a grubby embarrassment; that fundraising events are full of fools, the stuck-up and the self-important; and that the two parties produce policies that are barely worthy of your vote, let alone your money. So you don't donate anything.

What’s the difference? What would the implication be of „don’t knock down doors in affluent neighborhoods“?

Presumably if they avoided kicking down doors in a rich part of Dallas Texas or something. This is on that upper 0.01% of politically connected areas at the national/international level and perhaps top 1% of wealthy areas. Describing it as a wealthy area isn’t wrong, but that not why it’s unusual.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com