Should elected officials be earning $250k (or more)?
I've recently read in the voter info pamphlet that the mayor in SF stands to make a salary of over $250k next year, which is almost 5 times the average household income in this country.
This has me infuriated, because I don't think public jobs compete with private sector jobs based on pay. Being mayor is hard work, but I think people take on this work for reasons other than compensation, and therefore we needn't offer them high pay. In fact, I think no candidate should make more than the average salary in their jurisdiction, and I need help understanding why this shouldn't be so.
Arguments I've heard:
-The job is hard, they deserve higher pay. -Higher pay gets us better candidates.
Those two are really the same statement, and apart from saying the job is hard (no argument there), are they really true? They presume there aren't enough candidates at an average salary, and without evidence, that doesn't persuade me. I've never seen evidence (and I don't think it would be appropriate) that someone who was or could be a great politician has looked at the position of mayor (or President, or Congressman) and thought, "I want/don't want that job because of the pay."
Paying the average salary in the jurisdiction governed would deter no one: by definition, it's not poor. If you have a middle-class family of 4 and it feels like average is struggling, then that's good: now you know how your voters feel. You'll make better policies as a result, and you should take the job (and the sacrifice) because of the prestige, the respect, the nobility of serving the public. Poor people could still run and would in fact get a pay raise, and rich people may not have to make a sacrifice at all (nothing unusual there; rich people have all sorts of other advantages, which is a separate issue).
As a short end to a long point, I think leaders should be rewarded for the results they create. In the private sector, we use salaries as a reward, because companies are created to generate profit. It makes sense that we choose money as the reward for for-profit leaders (I may be in favor of offering bonuses to politicians who run surpluses…would have to be careful there).
I don't think we need the same reward in the public sector, because cities (and the country) aren't run for profit. Results are a better administration and policies in the eyes of the voters. Reward is re-election and several non-measurable great things like respect, admiration, congratulations, etc.
Folks who want to earn those things instead of money are the candidates we should want to run, aren't they? So doesn't reducing pay (but not below average salary, so that anyone can run) actually get us better candidates?
Would love to hear thoughts.
Thanks, Russ