He’s not alone: AOC and others have argued lawmakers should be paid more in order to protect against corruption and make the job more accessible.

  • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    If you want your politicians to be loyal to a country, you pay them. If you want them to be loyal to corporate interests, you let the corporations pay them. It is obvious the path the US has chosen. Contrast that with Singapore for an example of paying your elite government officials an actual salary and how corruption drops to zero.

      • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        For many people it’s the exact same thing. And you absolutely cannot trust the public to vet candidates as has been proven over and over so only way to improve is to attract better candidates, and for that you need better pay.

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            It’s because the Supreme Court decided “money is speech”, which is so fucking stupid and logically flawed that it makes my head want to cave in.

            “Speaking” is not subject to the rules of scarcity - given a supply of breathable air, water, and food, literally anyone could technically continue speaking indefinitely, both in a literal sense, as well as a written sense across various forms of transmission.

            Using money under the auspices of “speech” IS subject to the rules of scarcity, and is a direct reflection of socioeconomic gaps in our society - that is, Musk or Zuck or Bezos or insert billionaire here have multiple orders of magnitude more “monetary speech” than pretty much anyone in the country - or, for that matter, anyone in the history of the human race.

    • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s the same logic as prople saying we should keep the churches tax free, so they don’t interfere in politics, even thoigh they’re tax free now and already interfering with politics.

      • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not even close. Very poor strawman attempt. Tax the churches. They want to be non profits, take 100% of the profits.

        • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Not even close. Very poor strawman attempt.

          Not really a strawman attempt, I just likened it to a very similar situation.

          But if that’s what it takes to convince yourself that you’re right, sure.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Whereas in America, we could pay them millions and there’d still be constant grift. This country has lost any sense of accountability. Too goddamn individualist.

      • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        The problem is you don’t pay them very much comparatively and so they take bribes and “gifts” to make up for the salary. Just look at Clarance Thomas. He said he needed a raise or he’d go full on corrupt. He did not get a raise. He went full corrupt.

        • Alto@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Or we could, yknow, actually prosecute the corrupt ones. Likely a pipedream, but there is another option besides overpay them or allow blatant corruption.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Likely a pipedream, but there is another option besides overpay them or allow blatant corruption.

            Yeah. We can do what we do now. Overpay them and allow blatant corruption.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          The problem is you don’t pay them very much comparatively and so they take bribes and “gifts” to make up for the salary.

          They do this no matter how much money we waste on them.

          • Windex007@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            I hear your point, and it might be true, but it’s only a hypothesis because, in the grand scheme of things, they aren’t paid well relative to other work with significantly lower amounts of responsibility.

            A young software developer working at Netflix or Amazon would be making more than them. A Congress person in a whole foods in silicon valley could very easily be the poorest customer in the store.

            Scarface said “First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women”. I believe that this is the American dream, at least in the eyes of people who end up in high government.

            Their path is different though, power comes first, THEN the money, THEN the women. If we paid them at least enough to enable sexy affairs, I think they could round out the three without as much incentive to go full on corrupt

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I hear your point, and it might be true, but it’s only a hypothesis because, in the grand scheme of things, they aren’t paid well relative to other work with significantly lower amounts of responsibility.

              “We should pay these corrupt pieces of shit even more money, and maybe they’ll stop taking bribes” is a hypothesis we’ve tested PLENTY of times. The results are conclusive: the people we put into office are overpaid at any price, and are corrupt no matter how much money we waste on them.

              • Windex007@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                When has this hypothesis been tested in the USA?

                Where are these conclusive results you speak of?

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  When has this hypothesis been tested in the USA?

                  Every single time we gave them a raise.

                  Where are these conclusive results you speak of?

                  They’re still corrupt.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              We could enlist a corp of hot young women from all over the world , and bring them to a private island ….

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      They make deer $100k a year and have so many subsidies like for housing and travel. We could pay them millions and they would still take bribes. The problem is our economic model that puts money over people and our social values that puts power over people. And Singapore still has corruption!

      • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        $100k/yr plus benefits is nothing. That’s a junior engineer salary. You want the people guiding the way your entire country runs to be paid less than the UPS driver that hands you cat food in a box. Doesn’t make sense.

        Pay politicians a salary that would make taking bribes useless and you’ll find they won’t. It will also attract better candidates. If you keep trying to elect bottom feeders for the lowest possible salary, you get what you have now.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          $100k/yr plus benefits is nothing.

          Minimum wage is 2.13 an hour plus tips. Don’t insult people who work for a living like that.

          • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Not for anyone in the country since there’s a federal minimum. Don’t be stupid you lose all validity. And absolutely the barista at Starbucks doesn’t deserve the same pay as someone running the whole country. You have to be very stupid to not understand that everyone’s value of work output is not equal. Nobody with the skills to make more is making $5/hr. Not everybody has the skills. No matter how you want to pretend, humans are not all equal in their abilities. Try a fight with The Rock. Go head to head with Ken Jennings in Jeapordy. Go carve a marble statue. If you can do it the same way, cool. Chances are you can’t. And so you won’t be compensated the same way as someone who can. If you can’t find where you shine, you’ll never make much as your skills are mediocre at best.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              And absolutely the barista at Starbucks doesn’t deserve the same pay as someone running the whole country.

              Everyone deserves a living wage. Except the pieces of shit who make sure that doesn’t happen. Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz may be your betters, deserving of greater wages for the work they don’t do. If you think you’re worth less than that ambulatory garbage, I absolutely agree.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          you get what you have now.

          A society designed by and for the sole benefit of the rich? Yeah, adding more money at the top surely is the answer, it must trickle down eventually, right? Right…?

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Politicians aren’t “the top” economically, or even anywhere near the top. If they’re relying in their salary to pay their expenses, they’re working-class. Conflating politicians with actual elites leads to absurd conclusions.

        • Jentu@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          100k/yr with the best health insurance in the country is a ton for how much time they spend working. The house works about 2 days a week and the senate works a little more than that.

          • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            You have zero idea how “work” works not in a service position then. You’re always working. Those dinners, events, and even interactions like getting food at a restaurant is working. That’s literally the point of a representative in a representative Republic going back to when the Romans did it.

            100k/yr is a shitty salary for anyone in 2024 with a modicum of responsibility.

            • Jentu@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              They’re the ones who determine their own salary, so if they think that $100k/yr is enough, it’s almost certainly way more than enough.

              • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                I guarantee you they don’t think it’s enough. But their whole schtick is to appeal to their base class, 75% of which make less than them and don’t understand their jobs. Giving themselves a raise when people feel the economy is poor (statistically it is not, but feelings are what makes politics, not facts) would cost them their job. It’s all a big calculus.

                So you don’t take the raise, but you take the pork spending kickback. Don’t take the raise, but use your closed door information to trade stocks that doesn’t count as insider trading. They’re getting paid one way or the other.

        • TheTetrapod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          You can really tell a lot about Lemmy’s demographics by looking at the upvoye/downvote ratio on these 2 comments. Of course 100k a year isn’t “nothing”, it probably puts you into the 10th percentile in earnings for this country.

          • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            In 2022, $100k/yr puts you in the 77th percentile. Having your ruling class be in the top 23% of earners is very low.