I agree on spirit, but in practice this will just make them even easier to be bought.
As if they aren’t already bought. At least you’ll have one of your own elevated and not some already rich asshole trying to get richer.
I didn’t say they aren’t already, just that it would be even easier if they’re paid less.
I honestly believe that AoC’s personal finances are shit.
I think this is overstated. You can’t even run for Congress without being a millionaire, a millionaire’s family, a lawyer, a lobbyist, or a military officer looking to cash out.
You can’t get in the door of Congress without being in hoc to a constellation of private interests. Capping their pay won’t change that.
you got a point. Also I think that they get bought of either way, so why not safe a little on their salary ;)
Because Congress sets its own salary. I don’t. So, I have no say in the matter.
Also because there’s no real “cost savings” in a material sense. Congressional spending has been decoupled from federal taxation since the Great Depression. Pay congressmen $1/term. Pay them $1M/hr. I don’t see any kind of change in my material condition.
Incidentally, the Gingrich Era Contract with America was billed as a legislation package to rein in the capacity for Congresscritters to personally enrich and profiteer off their positions. Similarly, Pelosi’s For The People Act included a number of reforms intended to prevent Congress from double-dealing and insider trading. Despite both Speakers enjoying a bicameral majority and a friendly President during their careers, neither successfully advanced legislation to handcuff members of Congress.
Asking Congress to regulate itself is a fool’s request.
Hey Thanks. I didn’t know any of that.
🫡
While this sounds good on the surface, the problem is that requiring legislators to live with the same financial difficulties most of us face would lead to sharp increases in direct bribery and overt corruption. As bad as it is anyway that effectively unlimited campaign/PAC contributions can be used to corrupt them, if their personal finances were significantly more trying, it would be much worse, especially given that most legislators have more personal expenses than the average person, including maintaining resdences in both DC and their home state/district. The much better (but also much, much more difficult) solution would be to raise the incomes of most Americans rather than to reduce the income of the legislators.
yeah i was a hell of a lot more sympathetic to that totally unverified supposition (not argument) when i didn’t believe there was rampant corruption in every branch of local state and federal government. it’s like those pictures of “LOOK WHAT COMMUNISM WOULD GET YOU” and it’s just pictures of homelessness under capitalism.
solution would be to raise the incomes of most Americans rather than to reduce the income of the legislators.
yeah that’s the point. if these chucklefucks kicking back on open corruption were forced (forced) to live on the average american salary they’d be more apt to fix the bullshit holding wages down. that’s my unverified supposition though. actually, now i’ve come to think of it, the fact that our government is subject to corruption despite their high compensation (supposedly) buoying up fragile moralities seems to be evidence against your initial supposition. Let’s try the other way.
Lmao they have all ways been taking bribes. Lobbying is legalized bribery…
It absolutely is, but there is still a massive motivational difference between needing campaign funds to facilitate getting re-elected and needing personal money to pay for rent/mortgage, food, childcare, etc. The latter opens the door to the kinds of bribes that, if promises made are unfulfilled, come with direct personal consequences, and potentially violent ones. By contrast, if a politician doesn’t make good on a promise made in return for campaign/PAC contributions, they typically are only risking that support being given to their opponent next time around.
“Maintaining residences in both DC and their home state/district” I’ve got that solved: We build a dorm facility in Washington and require them to stay there.
I don’t know. On one hand, I think it’s naive to think that dragging these politicians down to our level is going to make them see things through a different lens, as most of them are multi-millionaires anyway and the pay they get is just the gravy on top, and reducing their salaries isn’t going to fix any kind of budgetary problem all on it’s own - the money that they earn off of taxpayers is nothing compared to the national debt.
On the other hand, this cadre of politicians who exercise the most power and authority is so openly corrupt now that they do not even bother to hide it anymore. I feel like you can’t get much worse than we already are without them resorting to literal mustache twirling acts of villainy.
Now, if we were somehow able to make them give up their wealth, to divest themselves from the financial consequences of their actions and live with the lasting legacy that they themselves wrought for others, that might have some effect, but that would require people to be altruistic and principled enough to understand that taking a job as a public servant shouldn’t make you rich, and you should do it for the good of the people you represent.
Then investigate, have a process, stop treating them as untouchable prima donas
How about this:
We pay politicians in “X times the minimum wage”; for the sake of this example I’ll say 30x the minimum wage (too much? Too little? I don’t know, that’s not important rn)
The thing is, they can’t change this number, at all. The only way they can increase their salaries is to increase the minimum wage.
I love this idea, if they want a raise they’d have to raise the federal minimum wage.
Okay, we need you to throw your hat in the ring and start representin’. I would def vote for you.
That would further incentivize their corruption
Thry should get a massive salary but be strictly banned from all other forms of income.
I disagree. Everyone believes that people are greedy and their only goal in life is money hoarding. But if you ask them what their own goals are, getting filthy rich has very, very low priority.
If politicians are greedy, that’s because 1) to become a politician (in the USA), you already have to be rich, and 2) if politicians are paid lots of money, greedy people want to become politicians.
You don’t want to attract greedy assholes to represent you, but that’s exactly what you’re doing if you pay them too much. The people you do want to be politicians are those who aren’t interested in money.
Politicians aren’t paid lots of money, at least not by the government.
They have legitimate travel expenses and need a place to stay while in session and DC is not cheap. $60k would simply make the temptation to take money greater. You dont want your represetative broke and struggling. Their current pay being too high in not a problem because its not. Their ability to trade with insider knowledge and be corrupted by lobbyists and billionaires is.
Pay them 5 million per year for all I care so long as they actually represent the people and not private interest groups, are not currupt, and are some of the best people for the job. And that would be an incredibility good deal.
People can be wealthy and not totally out of touch if they make an effort to listen to people
They weren’t ever supposed to represent you, they represent rich white men like they were intended. It’s literally designed to favor the rich because literally every single one of the signers of the bill of rights was a wealthy dude, to a man they were middle - upper class and in general criminals at that.
No salary, they should be paid hourly at leas than minimum since most of their income is from gratuities.
Well then that’s not capitalism.
Tbh idk why people think capitalism is a good thing. It’s just feudalism with corporations.
Tbh idk why people think capitalism is a good thing.
Marx wrote a whole book on it that you should check out. The primary appeal, as a system, is that it accelerates property and infrastructure development.
To be honest, I don’t think most people understand what the definitions of capitalism or communism or socialism are any more.
And it cuts both ways, 99% of Lemmy is like Mirror Universe Fox News, where if they see something bad, it’s capitalism’s fault. Someone crashed their car? Capitalism did it. Someone got sick? Capitalism. Fox viewers blame everything on “socialism” and have no idea what it means, either. For Lemmy it seems to be just any system that exists on Earth that isn’t a utopia.
Case in point: capitalism isn’t actually corporate feudalism. That’s not in any way what defines capitalism as an economic system.
Kids, please - humans are shit to each other under every system ever imagined. And they would be shit to each other under any new system we can imagine in the future. As is evidenced by how people are shit to each other and complain about their lives in every other country on Earth. No where is unique in that no one complains about being there.
Kids, please - humans are shit to each other under every system ever imagined.
Kids, please listen to the adult in the room.
That’s a defeatist argument, it set’s the goal post wayy too far, and doesn’t propose a solution or at the very least point to an obstruction without a solution. I get it, I’m tired too. It’s easier to say nothing will work and watch the decline than it is try to make a better future. It reads of “Capitalism is the worst form of economy, except for all the other forms we’ve tried.” A dumb quote wrapped up in a lazy joke to make it more palatable if there ever was one.
Not to mention that saying that the only system that’s worth having is one where no one has a complaint is an absurd thing to say. Be real. Nothing is perfect, but don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough. There are many places in the world where people are happy, usually in the countries with strong support of labor. Most are still capitalist but people live much easier, happier and fulfilling lives. Sure they have complaints but you can’t please everyone.
Look, I’ll admit I didn’t realize I wasn’t in a community I didn’t subscribe to, and accidentally hit it from the front page before I had logged in. That’s on me for throwing an obviously unpopular comment out here. I didn’t mean to show up and stir shit on purpose. For what that’s worth. And, also for what it’s worth, I do support work reform. FFS the minimum wage hasn’t changed for most of my adult life, and things are generally untenable for a lot of people.
With that out of the way, I’m not saying “well, it’s the only system we got! Might as well keep it!” Not at all. What I am saying is to be cautious about a Grass is Greener scenario where you’ve built up an incredibly lofty goal of large-scale economic reforms, as if it’s some panacea. It’s not. Every economic system sucks, and every one is hard work to protect rights and be good to humans. It’s equally possible under pure, unrestrained capitalism to be socially just and rights-respecting as it is under any other system.
For those entirely consumed by the idea that only shifting to full on socialism is the key, and that the only reason things are bad anywhere is due to capitalism, swapping out economic systems will accomplish little more than pain and suffering for the poorest among us during the transition phase. That’s how it always works, and has always worked in the past. We’re not so advanced as to skip that part.
So what? So I’m saying that people’s minds, attitudes, and hearts are the core of the problem. Greed, not limited by governments of any sort, is the problem. Idolizing abusers and sociopaths is a problem. Focus on material wealth is a problem - and one that every single Soviet or socialist government faced as well. A command economy can’t command people to change what their brain stem says.
Again, sorry for showing up here and shitting the bed. I’m just asking people to consider reforms within the system that most people know to see what’s possible. Regardless of what that system is. North Korea should try the same. China did exactly that, and liberalizing their economy is why they’ve seen such success over the last 15-20 years. They adapted within their own system, they didn’t scrap it all, let millions starve, and start from scratch because people alive today remember the last time they did that, and it was miserable.
Anyway, just my opinion. Enjoy your angry downvote and banning me from the community.
To be honest, I don’t think most people understand what the definitions of capitalism or communism or socialism are any more.
It’s all just idpol now. Capitalists are on the “America Good” Team and Socialists/Communists are on the “America Bad” Team. No deeper analysis needed.
People will complain about “capitalism” because they don’t have health care or their in too much debt or their single and lonely or they’re LGBTQ or PoC or obviously poor while getting wailed on by a police officer. And they’ll say “damn this shit sucks, must be the capitalism” when a lot of it just boils down to your neighbors and leaders being bigot pedophile freaks.
Like, you think Communism is so great? Explain Boris Yeltsin. He was a fucking Commie. And look what happened.
humans are shit to each other under every system ever imagined
Humans are a very mixed bag. But Americans are a special breed of narcissistic, consumerist, sociopaths. And not because of some kind of genetics thing, either. The country attracts these freaks like a magnet.
From Ayn Rand to Wernher von Braun to Benjamin Netanyahu to Elon Musk, the world’s worst human beings are drawn to this place. They pilgrimage here and export their awfulness abroad. Or they take root and fester. Either way, America molds them into the worst humans imaginable.
Humans are a very mixed bag. But Americans are a special breed of narcissistic, consumerist, sociopaths. And not because of some kind of genetics thing, either. The country attracts these freaks like a magnet.
Sure, but cultures and nationalities do this all the time. If you’ve never experienced being around some Russian on vacation, I promise, Americans aren’t the only annoying people out there. Or the English in any part of Western Europe that’s a cheap flight away from London. For as self-deprecating as the English seem to be today, there’s centuries of colonialism and exploited wealth behind it that can’t be ignored, mostly due to the cultural exports that remain. For centuries, if an English or Spanish ship showed up somewhere, everyone else was going to have a bad time, and both groups happily only assumed they were the best there ever was. Cold War efforts to spread the Gospel of America around the world through Hollywood were profoundly successful, and a lot of people bought in.
Which isn’t to say that every English or Spanish or Russian or American is bad, more so that under either system, and under every system of government so far, including anarchy, some total shitbags rise to the top. Maybe Spaceballs was right. Maybe Evil will always win, because Good is dumb.
If you’ve never experienced being around some Russian on vacation, I promise, Americans aren’t the only annoying people out there.
The Americanization of Russia in the 90s/00s was a deeply tragic moment in the country’s history.
Or the English in any part of Western Europe that’s a cheap flight away from London.
Ye Olde Amerikkkans
Maybe Spaceballs was right. Maybe Evil will always win, because Good is dumb.
The irony of that line was the bad guy being very dumb and losing a few scenes later.
boils down to your neighbors and leaders being bigot
Exactly my comment on being a feudalic system. Burgoise aristocrats defeated monarchy and came up with a new story for peasants to worship for.
They also reorganized labor in a manner that produced significant improvements to overall quality of life.
I think you need to be a bit open minded why people are thinking instead telling others how they should be thinking your way.
At this point, there’s no way you’d have “power” unless you have inherited immense wealth or provided with powerful connections. I am in favour of if I have to work, so as others. And generation that’s below boomers, physically impossible to have a relaxed life if they don’t have the conditions that I’ve wrote. it’s because capitalism is always set to “grow”. You need to profit even more compared to last period so you’d be considered as “successful”.
In this world nothing ever grows indefinitely. When it does either eruptions or cancer happens. It’s not natural. If you wanna take two seats you need to kick someone off the seat to take that seat. So billionaires hold most of the money which turns into power. Look - turns out they’re the biggest capitalists in entire human history. I really couldn’t be bothered if I don’t see Coca Cola in my supermarket. Heck I don’t even need a fucking fresh starfruit available all week. So I don’t care about global gdp or bla bla. I live in one those so called “first world countries” yet I’m afraid I’m going to die in a damp cold house when I’m old because I never had been in the class of selected people. Mind you - I’ve got my own house and savings etc. worked my ass off. Yet still the future is not safe. Bank taking everything off your hand when you’re in a tight position (for example; getting redundant) and hospitals chucking you out in the street when you don’t have enough money. Holding your baby after giving birth is a “charged service” in US. This is capitalism not people being “evil”. And this can fuck off.
Anyway, hope you done read this with as an offence. I think you need to grow the way you think.
Chill. Looking down at people is the most illiterate thing that you can do to yourself.
Ps. Mind you, I’ve never praised any other “-ism” over capitalism.
I appreciate your perspective here, and to be fair, I’m open minded as to what sorts of reforms the West needs to be more sustainable. For a while there seemed to be both a sense of decorum and maybe even morals, plus regulations, that help back unfettered pursuit of wealth for wealth’s sake. Personally, I think that the tech industry and finance broke that down, and with the bar set to “get it all as fast as you can,” the wheels are off the cart for both a system that used to work OK-ish for many people (certainly not all).
At this point,
Like this - at what point did things work well? It wasn’t a long time, historically speaking. I’m guessing based on mention of a damp, cold house you’re from the UK or Ireland, and it’s really just within our life times that things were working mostly OK for some, and now it’s fallen apart. I’m not challenging you on this, I agree. But I’m also wondering if we’re going to look to some point in the past when things did work, when was that? A decade or so? A few years? Was it when we were kids and didn’t understand the bad stuff going on?
My personal gripe is that “capitalism” simply means that someone with a business takes their profits and re-invests them back into the business. Growth isn’t a requirement - it’s what large businesses focus on. That re-investment could be better wages for workers, or better health insurance, or nicer desks and chairs and table tennis in the break room. Growth as the goal is a choice. Also, a lot of people focus entirely on a handful of large businesses doing this. Most businesses in the UK AND the US are small businesses. Literally 99.9 % of American businesses are employ less than 50 people. Almost half of Americans work at small businesses, and they’re more than half out GDP. So when 0.1% of the businesses are predatory and problematic, but also command 40% of our GDP - it seems like a touchy problem, but a solvable one.
Who needs to understand definitions? Your actions are self-evident and show who you are within the system. In a world where the powerful are scraping coins off of you for more yachts I try my best to help the people and the land. I can do that without knowing economic theory. Even a child can understand that.
Sausage tin angle float turkey sassafras, monkey ancient refractive judgement velocity steamboat.
Which any kid can understand. You’re right - what good are definitions, mongoose!
Damn! I’m always getting kicked out of the exclusive “smart people” clubs.
Critical thinking doesn’t exist on this platform. The mainstream narratives on Lemmy are built on shaky foundations and can’t get past basic scrutiny. It’s why the more ideologically zealous have so much censorship. This isn’t a left, right, whatever issue. It’s an education issue, and it’s impact is reflected by every demographic in the nation.
In the history books when they discuss the hundreds or thousands of small cuts that eventually killed America, Mike Johnson may very well be one of the most prominent captioned photos.
Remember it’s not just the Republicans both sides of the aisle got their pockets loaded with bribe money to not change any of the laws. You get Jeffries on national TV crying about the usual Democratic talking points having everyone shake their head and saying not this shit again. Clearly he does not give a fuck about the $40,000 to $80,000 crowd they can eat cake. He wants to help the poor and there’s nothing wrong with that but the main priority is helping everybody but don’t forget the middle ground which they always do.
70? They shouldnt be electable after 60!
Make it 70, but they have to live off the same pensions as everyone else after 60 years old.
I want to hire someone who will take over vital aspects of my survival. But I want to do it in a punitive sort of way that makes sure the job will only be taken by people without the education, experience, and talent to demand more.
It’s okay to pay politicians. This genuinely is a “pay more, get more” kind of situation, at least up to a reasonable point.
$300/month with a $1,000 deductible
Where are you getting health insurance from? For that price my deductible is closer to $5,000!
Nobody working for government should get rich.
Alternatively, give all workers the same benefits politicians get.
