If the job didn’t pay a salary, the only people who could do the job would be the rich who don’t need a salary, or those willing to accept bribes.
If you make the salary too low, it will discourage anybody who can make a better living doing something else. And, if the people doing it don’t think they’re being paid what they’re really worth, they’re more likely to take bribes or “donations” to boost their salary back up to what it should be.
Really, the salary should be high. It should be a job that people who are really qualified will want to do. It should be one where you have no need to take a bribe because you’re already doing so well, and you’d be afraid of throwing away such a well compensated job.
I wouldn’t say it’s so that they can’t be bought, so much as so they don’t have to be bought. It’s part of the reason they haven’t voted for a pay raise and so long. Their owners don’t want them to have other options.
Lawmakers don’t vote for their pay raises, they don’t need to. The increases were made automatic in 1989. Even with the annual increases, their pay is nothing compared to what they can make from insider information and contributions from anonymous PACs. They can be bought, government salary just can’t compete with dark money.
Ah, I’d read they didn’t have to vote to get a pay raise. Didn’t see that they had been actively voting against it. But who needs a raise when you know you’ll get waaay more money from corps and special interest groups? Heck, they’ll even write the bills they want passed for you, so you don’t even have to work hard.
They also carry a hell of a lot more responsibility than the average American worker. Is be in favor of a party raise along with restricting other income streams like stock investments.
I guess the idea of paying them well is that they can’t be bought with bribes. Then again, when has any wealthy person ever been satisfied.
If the job didn’t pay a salary, the only people who could do the job would be the rich who don’t need a salary, or those willing to accept bribes.
If you make the salary too low, it will discourage anybody who can make a better living doing something else. And, if the people doing it don’t think they’re being paid what they’re really worth, they’re more likely to take bribes or “donations” to boost their salary back up to what it should be.
Really, the salary should be high. It should be a job that people who are really qualified will want to do. It should be one where you have no need to take a bribe because you’re already doing so well, and you’d be afraid of throwing away such a well compensated job.
I wouldn’t say it’s so that they can’t be bought, so much as so they don’t have to be bought. It’s part of the reason they haven’t voted for a pay raise and so long. Their owners don’t want them to have other options.
Lawmakers don’t vote for their pay raises, they don’t need to. The increases were made automatic in 1989. Even with the annual increases, their pay is nothing compared to what they can make from insider information and contributions from anonymous PACs. They can be bought, government salary just can’t compete with dark money.
That isn’t quite accurate. Congress hasn’t gotten a pay raise since 2009. Because they vote against giving themselves one.
Ah, I’d read they didn’t have to vote to get a pay raise. Didn’t see that they had been actively voting against it. But who needs a raise when you know you’ll get waaay more money from corps and special interest groups? Heck, they’ll even write the bills they want passed for you, so you don’t even have to work hard.
Ah, that makes sense.
Honestly, there’s a load of satisfied wealthy people - you just don’t hear about them because, well, there’s literally nothing to report about them.
They also carry a hell of a lot more responsibility than the average American worker. Is be in favor of a party raise along with restricting other income streams like stock investments.