Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway_4ever | Hacker News Reader

How does paying a politician MORE than 3x median US pay make them less out of touch with the average American? We don't need politicians 15x out of touch with the median American's lifestyle. In NYC governor's last election, there was a question about how much the median house costs in Brooklyn, and two high level candidates gave absolutely bonkers answers like $90k and $120k, when it's actually $900k.

You only want people as politicians because they feel it's their civic duty to serve their countrymen, not because it's a lucrative career.

View on HN

Part of the problem is that if the job doesn’t pay well, it attracts people who are independently wealthy and who are more likely to represent the interests of the wealthy. For most wealthy politicians, the bulk of their wealth comes from a business they own that pays out hundreds of thousands of dollars (or millions of dollars) per year, not their 100K-ish government salary.

The upshot of this is that when “the people” get pissed and start saying things like “Don’t pay congress until they fix the government shutdown!”, it unilaterally screws anyone who was working or middle class prior to election, as they now have no salary and can’t hold out as long as the multi-millionaire politicians who have a law firm back home or a huge stock portfolio paying their rent.

The idea that, under the current system, people are running for congress for the money isn’t exactly in line with how things currently operate.

> Part of the problem is that if the job doesn’t pay well, it attracts people who are independently wealthy and who are more likely to represent the interests of the wealthy.

Just don't elect them. When running for office in most places, being considered wealthy or coming from a wealthy family is a considerable hurdle to overcome (as is being extremely poor).

Trump?

> When running for office in most places, being considered wealthy or coming from a wealthy family is a considerable hurdle to overcome

I wouldn’t call it a major hurdle. Many voters have inconsistent beliefs: They may think wealth is a sign of virtue and hard work during campaign season and then start saying “cut congressional salaries!” when they get angry, not realizing that they voted for people who are insulated from the very tactic they are pushing. It’s not enough to just say “well then don’t elect them”, we need to make sure the system of incentives we’ve created doesn’t funnel towards bad outcomes.

> You only want people as politicians because they feel it's their civic duty to serve their countrymen, not because it's a lucrative career.

We also want successful, competent people to enter politics and we should not be giving them reasons to avoid it, such as forcing them to sacrifice their financial freedom and success.

Also, there is a very clear correlation between low legislator pay and corruption in other countries. Let's not make bribes and kickbacks more attractive by taking away other options politicians have for building wealth.

You want to pay people in positions of power so much money that they are afraid of losing their salary by being caught up in a corruption scandal.

This is how America got rid of large swaths of police corruption. Go back 100 years and bribing police was trivial, they made so little money that taking bribes was how they kept afloat financially.

Now days? An officer making $120k a year isn't going to take a $100 bribe to let a drunk driver go free.

No, but the same officer will use excessive force and make unwarranted arrests, etc. There is real accountability for a cop that is caught accepting a bribe, there is none for violence.

In our current political system a politician has no accountability for accepting favors or campaign funds. There is no accountability for passing bad laws or being corrupt. This behavior will continue regardless of the base salary, or at least until there are repercussions against it. Currently there are none.

>Go back 100 years [...] they made so little money that taking bribes was how they kept afloat financially.

Hell, even today that's still the case in many countries with a large number of underpaid public servants - specifically China, where extorting bribes is considered a perk of the job.

Contrast to Singapore, which pays its members of parliament 3x the median household income and is tied for second place on the (lowest) Corruption Perception Index.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBBre3bpvyk

First you need to make the corruption illegal.

And enforce it with an office that won’t get defunded by someone who can delay their corruption by a year or so. I believe Singapore solved this, but can multi party systems copy them?

Making things illegal, or, rather, enforcing those laws, is an uphill battle if you don't also structure the incentives in such a way that it's easier to follow them than to break them.

Also what does "make corruption illegal" even mean? Corruption takes many forms, and there will always be loopholes through which the most savvy can escape legal repercussions. I would much rather structure things so not being corrupt is just the easier, better, more natural choice. That's also not easy, but sounds more achievable to me.

When you pay people very little you get

1. The selfless (or the insane or crazy activists) 2. The rich 3. The corrupt

When you pay people a lot you also get

4. Competent hard working people who aren't necessarily selfless. (this is most people)

This group of people makes up the vast majority of people in the US, so why not have some of those people represent us.

... and the problem with US politics in particular is that people who are selfless but not rich/corrupt will have a very hard time getting elected, because they don't have the money to run their campaigns, or the ability to raise it.

I'm might be Ok with paying something in line with market rates for comparable positions. I don't know how that works or what positions might be comparable, though.

> You only want people as politicians because they feel it's their civic duty to serve their countrymen, not because it's a lucrative career.

And that's where sortition (vote by lottery) is probably the best system, combined with a way to vote to remove and "Redo lottery".

Whomever is elected by lottery would be provided a "unswayable" amount of money, basically buying corruption away. They would be set for their life.

A lottery of all eligible citizens would also have secondary effects of encouraging high education across the whole populace, so that when Joe or Jane Doe is selected, they do a good job for the citizens.

> You only want people as politicians because they feel it's their civic duty to serve their countrymen, not because it's a lucrative career.

Why? I mean you just say that as if it's some universal truth. I don't see how focusing on civic duty is any better as a way to find good candidates than optimizing for high achieving people looking for lucrative fields to work on. I don't know which would yield better results but none is better by default in my view unless you have some romantic view of what politics should be, rather than what it is, a job.

You don't see how a desire for public service would suit someone in public service better than the desire to get rich?

It might suit them, but it doesn't suit us. The desire for public service is in no way a qualifier for competence.

>How does paying a politician MORE than 3x median US pay make them less out of touch with the average American?

Being dependent on their salary for their lifestyle would make them more in touch than the current "use the power of the office to make money via alternative means" situation.

>You only want people as politicians because they feel it's their civic duty to serve their countrymen, not because it's a lucrative career.

That sounds great. I agree in principle.

However, I believe the parent is asserting that in practice, the kinds of people who are competent and able to effectively manage a large organization are the kinds of people that can make a lot of money in the private sector, and thus only go into public office if it is lucrative anyway.

Should it be lucrative because they can get bought by special interests, or should it be more lucrative simply because they get compensated above board more?

Perhaps someone who makes a million dollars a year would be someone less likely to be corrupted by a few more campaign dollars and kickbacks than someone making $170k.

>I believe the parent is asserting that in practice, the kinds of people who are competent and able to effectively manage a large organization are the kinds of people that can make a lot of money in the private sector, and thus only go into public office if it is lucrative anyway.

So pay them less in the private sector as well. Our willingness to accept people hoarding unlimited wealth and power because "capitalism" while seeking to limit government as much as possible is a perverse incentive that's leading the US to becoming an oligarchy. If we're not willing or able to raise the quality of life for the poor, then bring everyone else down a notch or two.

I could not afford my life on a senator's pay. Not even close. Couldn't take the job even if it was offered to me on a silver platter.

President's pay comes with housing so my family could probably make that work, would be belt tightening--especially because I'd be on the hook for the food in state dinners and such.

Not that I think anyone wants me to be a senator or the president but rather I couldn't afford to be. I'm too wealthy for it to be an upgrade and too poor to take the pay cuts in stride.

I'm betting your first book deal (could be ghostwritten) would more than make up for the discrepancy. You might also invest in a hotel down the street and suggest foreign dignitaries stay there. Or employ your kids who can do the same! So many good ways to more than make up the salary drop.

This is my point--bad pay leads to icky places.

What kind of lifestyle are you imagining couldn't survive on a single-income of $174,000[1] per year. This, of course, doesn't account for spousal income (if any).

When you're a senator, you also receive a lot of "perks" that reduce your overall expenses. Most travel comes out of an office fund, hotels, rental cars... many meals can also be expensed to the same fund, etc. Clothing even in some cases.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_Uni...

Good, because you sound like you couldn't be a representative for anyone.

Also, presidents don't pay for state dinners out of their salaries. The - state - pays for it.

If you don't pay as well as the market pays, you're not going to get competent people. This notion that good people would do it anyway is naive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com