Quote (bogie160 @ Jan 25 2021 05:35pm)

This is part of the underlying problem. The only people who can afford to waste their talents on a political career are those with no scruples or those independently wealthy to begin with. Either you never had to make money, or you are determined to find a way. We are trying to solve both while simultaneously.

I agree that we need to both expand the number of staffers and their pay. The fact that they do (essentially) for free is ridiculous, and not how a modern, professional enterprise should function.

I'm opposed to making civil service mandatory at the lowest levels. I want top talent, not people with no prospects outside of "putting in the work".

Quote (thundercock @ 26 Jan 2021 03:18)

I don't think this is an issue with elected officials. While someone like Adam Schiff does a lot of committee work, he's simply running an office and he has both his congressional staff and his committee staff to assist him with those duties. I don't think people like him are part of the problem. This really isn't a problem we can solve with money. There's no way that someone working for the SEC or a similar organization is going to make similar levels of income in the private sector. In house counsel will pay SUBSTANTIALLY more. What we need is to have a change in culture. Working for certain agencies should be prestigious and that alone should attract top talent. We have that right now for certain agencies/departments. For example, if you have a PhD in international affairs, working for the State Department is much more prestigious than working for a top tier university. We need to expand that to all levels of government.

Quote (thundercock @ Jan 25 2021 09:18pm)

I don't think this is an issue with elected officials. While someone like Adam Schiff does a lot of committee work, he's simply running an office and he has both his congressional staff and his committee staff to assist him with those duties. I don't think people like him are part of the problem. This really isn't a problem we can solve with money. There's no way that someone working for the SEC or a similar organization is going to make similar levels of income in the private sector. In house counsel will pay SUBSTANTIALLY more. What we need is to have a change in culture. Working for certain agencies should be prestigious and that alone should attract top talent. We have that right now for certain agencies/departments. For example, if you have a PhD in international affairs, working for the State Department is much more prestigious than working for a top tier university. We need to expand that to all levels of government.

Quote (bogie160 @ Jan 25 2021 04:56pm)

A cursory review of United States government pay reveals job pay that corresponds to middle age career expectations for a variety of relatively unexceptional white collar professions.

The average salary of a SVP role in the United States is $190k USD. This is a good benchmark for what the market pays senior middle management below the executive level. Executive salaries are often significantly higher. By comparison, your average Congressman and Senator is making $174k USD, a figure that has remained stagnant since 2009. Cabinet level officials are making $197k. The President, the most important position (public or private) in the world today pays out $400k, a figure that can be eclipsed by a host of executives, doctors, lawyers, and other professions which are orders of magnitude less important to the well-being and well-functioning of society.

The result is a bureaucracy starved of talent at the highest levels. Where talent does exist, it usually takes the form of individuals who have already made their fortunes in the private sector, and are driven towards public service, late in life, out of a sense of duty or an old-age desire for social recognition. The vast majority of talent, often across the board and irrespective of profession, is driven towards the private sector. Using back of the table math, the United States government is spending just over $3.5 million on the salaries of the President, Vice-President, and Cabinet officials. The United States is spending another ~$100 million on the salaries of Congress. Given that the United States spent some $4450 bn USD in fiscal year 2019, spending on Congress represents 0.002% of federal outlays. The solution is, at very least, a substantial increase in base pay at these senior levels.

For Congress, the cost of doubling Congressman pay comes in at $75 million. The cost of tripling Senator pay comes in at $35 million. The cost of quadrupling Cabinet pay comes in at less than $9 million. The President's salary is irrelevant financially, but let's ball-park a more reasonable salary at $1.2 million. All federal salaries should be tied to COLA. I am not suggesting these as end figures, but as a starting point for us to rethink how and what we are paying for when we pay individuals with enormous individual and collective power a relative pittance. Over time, I would expect these salaries, especially within the Executive branch, to rise even further.

For reference.

https://www.dcjobsource.com/presidentialsalaries.html

The discussion on assembly pay dates at least as far back as Athens, where the Athenians paid for citizens to attend the Assembly and thus participate in democracy. When the democracy was temporarily overthrown, one of the first measures was to forbid payment for participation, which of course benefited the interests of the, now ruling, oligarchy. Something similar is playing out here. One can hardly wonder how we trend towards oligarchy (and not democracy) when our most powerful public officials are almost universally drawn from independent wealth, or are in the process of creating their own wealth via lobbying. The solution is not to hound lobbyists, who are essential in their own right and impossible to wholly eliminate, but rectify the underlying economic factors that prevent meritocracy in the public sector.

http://www.stoa.org/demos/article_assembly@page=all&greekEncoding=UnicodeC.html#section_5

Question : Yes or no? Or perhaps we should do as the Athenian oligarchs did, and forbid government pay entirely.

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Jan 25 2021 11:46pm)

but which one? rc? coke? pepsi? how do you decide and who gets to do it?

Quote (bogie160 @ Jan 25 2021 08:44pm)

In my opinion, these culture level arguments, sans economic change, are complete fantasy. If we say that we want to fix culture, but we can't be bothered to fix the underlying economic condition, we are delusional.

The goal is not to pay more than the private sector, but to pay enough so that social considerations and other factors have the opportunity to do their part. Singapore is a modern example of a country that pays well, but demands results and punishes failure. Good governance is prioritized and rewarded accordingly. We have a much bigger country, and therefore a bigger challenge, but it starts with prioritizing good governance and fostering true competition.

We need to become more strategic when it comes to identifying our intellectual capital and applying that capital to the issues at hand. Our leaders today are the best of a shallow pool. We need to expand the depth of their competition.

Quote (bogie160 @ Jan 26 2021 12:15am)

This is a serious thread dedicated to the advancement of political thought. I can't believe you would do this.