Hacker News Reader

How about they have to live off the lowest provided level of food assistance, with the lowest level of provided health insurance, and they don’t get paid until after they’ve left office and their pay is determined by a public plebiscite?

View on HN

Now this would be something. But who would take a job so disruptive to their daily life. Like you have to go move out of your house, what about your family, do your kids have to switch school and lose healthcare, plus it's wasting resources on someone who doesn't really need it other than to experience it.

The kind of person who would take the job might actually be well-suited to it.

Our current methodology is basically a form of natural selection towards who can promise the most while delivering the least, at the same time they extract maximum reward in exchange for some minimum appearance of competence.

The only people who is going to take it are people who are wealthy and don't give a flying fuck about earning money from it directly.

They’d also have to not give a flying fuck about a healthy diet or medical issues, but even if we assume you’re correct, is that somehow worse than the only people who take the job being wealthy and obviously very intent on earning money from it directly?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com