z31maniac

Politicians should make the avg salary for the district from whence they came.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

FTFY

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

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?

z31maniac

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

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

You are correct. I meant to type median but wasn't really paying attention obviously.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

why?

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

It brings them back to earth with how the people in the "middle" in their districts are actually living. Might motivate them to change that. If they increase the living standards in their district then they reap proportional benefits.

z31maniac

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.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

you guys are funny.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

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.

z31maniac

Because he responds solely to troll this section of the forum?

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

With "Common Core" being implemented, you actually are right. If you would have answered "3, with cheese", you also would have been right.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

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.

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...

Tekel

iTrader: (2)

It doesn't matter how much they make. They have the inside scoop, they pass regulations that will cause a industry to prosper or die. They use all this information and do inside trading. Politicians need to be like the media. You can't invest in what you report (or legislate). And you can't legislate in industries you would benefit from financially.

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.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

It will be easier for him to be influenced when you start paying him the average salary of your unskilled heathins in WV...

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Erat

iTrader: (5)

This is kinda off topic, but it's random video and kinda funny.


Good one for brainey too; "hello, police. Yes, we have a man here with a camera"

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

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.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I never claimed 1, 2, 3, or 4 but I will admit that I pretty much said 5. However, 3 is not really that far from the truth. If you live rich you do lose the ability to fully relate to those who are not rich unless you are spending significant time in the trenches with the them in a non work setting. This is just a fact of life. Even the middle class can't fully relate to how the truly poor live because they are not actually poor and it completely changes your outlook on everything.

This point I can agree with you on. You can adjust the percentage they get paid in relation to the benchmark however you see fit but I still think linking their income to that of their constituents would result in an alignment of interests. If they get paid 200% of the median or 150% isn't really the point.

I am going to address the emphasized section first. Ivy League means absolutely nothing. It means you were a legacy baby or went to the right ritzy high school for the most part. Most Ivy League colleges have been under heavy scrutiny lately for severe grade inflation. I would put the top 10% of students from any major college up against the top 10% in Ivy League school.

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.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

sdf