The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
#5043
Who saw this coming?
I think the only city the Democrats have "owned" longer that Chicago is Detroit.
Amazing Graphic Shows Chicago’s Middle Class Disappear Before Your Eyes « CBS Chicago
Who could have predicted this?
Amazing Graphic Shows Chicago’s Middle Class Disappear Before Your Eyes « CBS Chicago
Who could have predicted this?
#5044
Hi there public school graduate.
"So far, so good. But what about average? The average of a set of numbers is the same as its mean; they're synonyms."
mean vs. median vs. average : Choose Your Words : Vocabulary.com
"So far, so good. But what about average? The average of a set of numbers is the same as its mean; they're synonyms."
mean vs. median vs. average : Choose Your Words : Vocabulary.com
#5045
Hi there public school graduate.
"So far, so good. But what about average? The average of a set of numbers is the same as its mean; they're synonyms."
mean vs. median vs. average : Choose Your Words : Vocabulary.com
"So far, so good. But what about average? The average of a set of numbers is the same as its mean; they're synonyms."
mean vs. median vs. average : Choose Your Words : Vocabulary.com
#5048
Perhaps politicians would be inclined to work for their constituents vs figuring out how to stay on the gravy train to becoming a multi-millionaire? (I realize the starting salaries are under $200k/yr, but many increase their net worth by an order of magnitude while in office.)
I realize it would have to go hand-in-hand with eliminating lobbyists as well. Another scenario I'm perfectly fine with.
I realize it would have to go hand-in-hand with eliminating lobbyists as well. Another scenario I'm perfectly fine with.
#5049
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,504
Total Cats: 4,079
Perhaps politicians would be inclined to work for help their constituents vs figuring out how to stay on the gravy train to becoming a multi-millionaire?
I realize it would have to go hand-in-hand with eliminating lobbyists as well. Another scenario I'm perfectly fine with.
I realize it would have to go hand-in-hand with eliminating lobbyists as well. Another scenario I'm perfectly fine with.
#5050
My scenario is structured a lot like normal capitalism and how CEO's are compensated except you are bench-marking their pay to a representative point in relation to who they represent because they are not really generating profits like a normal business. You are aligning their interests with the interests of the district's stakeholders (similar to stockholders). I am not sure why you would disagree with that Mr. Capitalism.
#5051
My scenario is structured a lot like normal capitalism and how CEO's are compensated except you are bench-marking their pay to a representative point in relation to who they represent because they are not really generating profits like a normal business. You are aligning their interests with the interests of the district's stakeholders (similar to stockholders). I am not sure why you would disagree with that Mr. Capitalism.
#5053
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,504
Total Cats: 4,079
My scenario is structured a lot like normal capitalism and how CEO's are compensated except you are bench-marking their pay to a representative point in relation to who they represent because they are not really generating profits like a normal business. You are aligning their interests with the interests of the district's stakeholders (similar to stockholders). I am not sure why you would disagree with that Mr. Capitalism.
1. That all politician's main goal is to get rich because their salary is higher than you want to pay them based on your prejudices.
2. Politicans get rich off their salaries.
3. Salaries detach politicians from humanity.
4. High salaries motivate politicians not to care about constituents.
5. Lowering politicians salaries will make them "care" more.
Your structure is not driven like it would be in a Capitalism, but more like it would be in Communism.
You pay people based on their worth and value, not at the average rate of other's worth. Higher salaries attract talent--it motivates people to enter the field. In a free market, wages are determined by the law of supply and demand.
Oh but Braineack, they are public servants you say.
Well, silly guys, there is no correlation between a better/good politician and his "sacrifice" to the people. Furthermore, whether this particular person is underpaid, fairly paid, or overpaid has nothing to do with what anybody else gets paid. Bloomberg offered to work for a $1 salary, and IMHO, he's still an awful politician.
The Median income in my county is $105,000.
So is it fair to say that all politicians in FFX County should all be paid $105,000?
My "representative" is paid $175,000. If we pay him $70,000 less a year, will he better represent us in the House?
The median level of income in the state of VA is: $63,000
Our Governor of the entire state is paid ~$130,000 a year.
If we pay the Governor $67,000 less a year, will he better represent our state and stop worrying about the "Gravy Train"?
The salaries of politicians are determined by the people who hire them to do big important things while they'll watch Honey boo-boo on their large screen TV in their 300sq ft apt. If you want their pay to be determined in a different manner, change the law of your state.
In your scenario, all states/counties of poorer constituents will have the poorest representation they could possibly get. I guess you hate poor people and want to see them with people in charge that drop out of community college, whereas all the places with higher salaries get all the Ivy League representatives with any actual potential to serve.
But by all means, go on with your unification process...
#5054
My scenario is structured a lot like normal capitalism and how CEO's are compensated except you are bench-marking their pay to a representative point in relation to who they represent because they are not really generating profits like a normal business. You are aligning their interests with the interests of the district's stakeholders (similar to stockholders). I am not sure why you would disagree with that Mr. Capitalism.
Take our wonderful Senator Manchin in WV. He is very lax on enforcing regulations on the coal industry. Guess what business he used to run before handing it down to his son? A coal brokerage that bought and sold coal. Using his influence as governor and now senator, he has made millions.
#5058
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,178
Total Cats: 1,681
The lower the salary for the representative also means the easier they can be bribed. If the average salary in your district is 26k a year and that is what you are making as a representative in congress, I will walk over with 50k cash and buy you.
#5059
No. You guys suggested a few things that make you silly:
1. That all politician's main goal is to get rich because their salary is higher than you want to pay them based on your prejudices.
2. Politicans get rich off their salaries.
3. Salaries detach politicians from humanity.
4. High salaries motivate politicians not to care about constituents.
5. Lowering politicians salaries will make them "care" more.
1. That all politician's main goal is to get rich because their salary is higher than you want to pay them based on your prejudices.
2. Politicans get rich off their salaries.
3. Salaries detach politicians from humanity.
4. High salaries motivate politicians not to care about constituents.
5. Lowering politicians salaries will make them "care" more.
Your structure is not driven like it would be in a Capitalism, but more like it would be in Communism.
You pay people based on their worth and value, not at the average rate of other's worth. Higher salaries attract talent--it motivates people to enter the field. In a free market, wages are determined by the law of supply and demand.
Oh but Braineack, they are public servants you say.
Well, silly guys, there is no correlation between a better/good politician and his "sacrifice" to the people. Furthermore, whether this particular person is underpaid, fairly paid, or overpaid has nothing to do with what anybody else gets paid. Bloomberg offered to work for a $1 salary, and IMHO, he's still an awful politician.
The Median income in my county is $105,000.
So is it fair to say that all politicians in FFX County should all be paid $105,000?
My "representative" is paid $175,000. If we pay him $70,000 less a year, will he better represent us in the House?
The median level of income in the state of VA is: $63,000
Our Governor of the entire state is paid ~$130,000 a year.
If we pay the Governor $67,000 less a year, will he better represent our state and stop worrying about the "Gravy Train"?
You pay people based on their worth and value, not at the average rate of other's worth. Higher salaries attract talent--it motivates people to enter the field. In a free market, wages are determined by the law of supply and demand.
Oh but Braineack, they are public servants you say.
Well, silly guys, there is no correlation between a better/good politician and his "sacrifice" to the people. Furthermore, whether this particular person is underpaid, fairly paid, or overpaid has nothing to do with what anybody else gets paid. Bloomberg offered to work for a $1 salary, and IMHO, he's still an awful politician.
The Median income in my county is $105,000.
So is it fair to say that all politicians in FFX County should all be paid $105,000?
My "representative" is paid $175,000. If we pay him $70,000 less a year, will he better represent us in the House?
The median level of income in the state of VA is: $63,000
Our Governor of the entire state is paid ~$130,000 a year.
If we pay the Governor $67,000 less a year, will he better represent our state and stop worrying about the "Gravy Train"?
The salaries of politicians are determined by the people who hire them to do big important things while they'll watch Honey boo-boo on their large screen TV in their 300sq ft apt. If you want their pay to be determined in a different manner, change the law of your state.
In your scenario, all states/counties of poorer constituents will have the poorest representation they could possibly get. I guess you hate poor people and want to see them with people in charge that drop out of community college, whereas all the places with higher salaries get all the Ivy League representatives with any actual potential to serve.
But by all means, go on with your unification process...
In your scenario, all states/counties of poorer constituents will have the poorest representation they could possibly get. I guess you hate poor people and want to see them with people in charge that drop out of community college, whereas all the places with higher salaries get all the Ivy League representatives with any actual potential to serve.
But by all means, go on with your unification process...
To the overall jist of the second paragraph I think your assumption is incorrect. You would still draw in good candidates. They just wouldn't be the kind that are pat of the political "elite". Schools in the ghetto still get good teachers. Sometimes they get phenomenal teachers that are incredibly passionate and make massive improvements to the schools and the kids they teach. High salaries do not just attract the best talent. They also attract those who just want the high salary and are very good at bullshitting. This is politics we are talking about too so bullshit is the name of the game.