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.

I don't think it will solve the problem.

There's significant attraction to being a politician from a money perspective in the form of lobbying deals after, book agreements, etc., so the salary being lower than what you would normally get while you are in office is not something that's going to be high on the list of considerations. You are massively expanding your income potential by getting elected even if your salary while you are in office is zero.

The people who actually run and staff departments are likely in a similar boat. Running or administering a department sets you up for a significant executive role later on since you were basically the person enforcing or not enforcing against the companies you will later be seeking employment from.

So while I'm not opposed to it, I don't think it's going to do anything and isn't really going to be a significant expense anyway. So whatevs.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 25 2021 04:12pm

Federal Bureaucratic pay should be a function of median household income. This probably wouldn't work though, even 3x or 4x median household income wouldn't be enough to live the Bureaucratic lifestyle in DC.

Conversely i think their pay should be tied to median household income ans various forms of bribery/donations/lobbying should be eliminated. Weekly audits should be conducted on their assets and household possessions and if they have anything too expensive they should be executed publicly.

I'm sure that we'd have the most virtuous representatives, but perhaps not the best.



That is the default compensation scheme right now, but it's a stretch to say that it has to be that way. Most politicians will never get book deals, and most Cabinet secretaries won't either. The real income for most people is in lobbying, but even lobbyists are not, on average, getting paid millions and millions of dollars. That luxury is reserved for the Clintons of the world, and book deals for the Obamas. George W. can afford to paint in retirement because he has never had to worry about money, and Trump clearly hasn't either. The salary for the president, given the luxury and status of the office, is probably irrelevant, but the main focus here is on Cabinet level positions and Congress. If salaries are increased, and rules against lobbying are passed and enforced, the expectation would be that "negative" lobbying would decline. The risks are greater, and the need is less.

I did a brief inflation adjusted comparison of presidential salaries over time, and it appears that the salary for the president is at one, if not the, lowest points in American political history. Does it mean anything that it mirrors a period in which our bureaucracy is becoming increasingly less effective? I don't know, but it's an interesting thought.



It might work, as long as it's a multiple of the median household income. I don't think it's a bad idea, especially if the multiple is high enough. Perhaps there would be an actual incentive to promote economic growth.

Honestly you could get me on board with pretty much anything if it's paired with rules being written and enforced against lobbying as it currently exists.

Who are we talking about? Elected officials? Staffers? Folks in executive agencies?

Honestly, I'm not too concerned about elected officials. The amount of fame that you get from it makes salary largely irrelevant. In addition, you're probably pretty well off to begin with if you're running for office.

I do think we need to pay staffers quite a bit more AND greatly expand congressional staff/clerkships.

Another solution we can have is to make it semi-mandatory to have civil-service at the local, state, and federal level. Obviously making it mandatory would piss a lot of people off, but you could foster a culture where no serious company will hire you without doing 2 years of service first.

This.

Smart rich people don't work for money. Only masochistic people that actually give a shit even run for office in the first place.



🤔

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Jan 25 2021 07:19pm

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".



When we say "only masochists work in government", we should ask why. Talented people don't want to work in government because the pay is garbage.

I am very interested in politics, and I would never dream of working in government. It's just not a productive use of one's time.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Jan 25 2021 07:39pm

I think a far bigger problem than compensation at the high-end (cabinet position, department heads, members of Congress, etc.) level is the fact that you have to be rich to run/reach these positions in the first place. If we're talking about the executive and legislatures missing out on talent, this is the most important factor. Sure, average joe can run for an obscure R/D+30 House district, but all positions of actual decision making power more or less require coming from a monied background to begin with. This is effectively excluding something like 85% of the population, including a fuckton of really talented and civic-minded people.

Excluding non-wealthy people from access to the levers of power is also bad for society since it fosters among our decision-makers a tendency towards groupthink, aloofness and disregard for the issues and concerns of the less privileged. (From the perspective of the powers that be, this is, of course, a feature and not a bug.)

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 25 2021 08:04pm