this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
214 points (95.0% liked)

politics

19248 readers
2081 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NatakuNox -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 10 points 11 months ago (4 children)

$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 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

$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 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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..?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 11 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 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 11 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.