Should the highest officials have very high pay?

[Big Jim P]

Why? American politicians were supposed to be servants of their constituencies, and time in office were supposed to be just, that, service to the country. NOT the careers they have become.

Because it creates a financial incentive to jack up the median income, whether that benefits the people of the constituency or not. Because it would exclude people with high expenses from holding office.

Increasing the income of your constituents is a good thing, and in America, we aren't supposed to be ruled over by the wealthy. Getting more average citizens in government would almost certainly be an improvement.

[Great Minarchistan]

Because it creates a financial incentive to jack up the median income, whether that benefits the people of the constituency or not. Because it would exclude people with high expenses from holding office.

Increasing the income of your constituents is a good thing, and in America, we aren't supposed to be ruled over by the wealthy. Getting more average citizens in government would almost certainly be an improvement.

Two flaws in your argument:
1. Yes it is, but the method may not be. If you un-employ 40% of the citizens and almost double the income of the remaining 60% with the wages of the people that left the workforce, median wages would skyrocket as it samples the group situated in the 50th percentile.
2. Indexing politician's wages to median doesn't mean you'll get median citizens into power, as it is a matter of voting and popularity instead of "pick the job you want".

[Western-Ukraine]

Absolutely not. It's a matter of principle: the public officials are there to serve their fellow countrymen and that's privilege enough. A decent, medium to high salary is enough, considering the responsibilities and the (usually) important work they do. Corruption isn't the issue here, anyway, because someone else always has more to offer in bribes. It's a fight we can't win with extraordinary salaries.

[Neu Leonstein]

You should probably distinguish between elected politicians and public servants. The former are for the most part wealthy people already (remember, the US Congress is basically a millionaire's club) and as people said, the motivation to run for these sorts of offices tend not to be economic.

The question about senior public servants' salaries is probably more interesting. I know one particular branch of public sector institution best, and within that the salaries can vary substantially between countries, both at the top level and below that - and it's got very little do to with the size and wealth of the country and, relatedly, the importance of that person's work to the world more broadly. Again though, at those top levels the motivation to want the job aren't really about wanting to earn a high salary... anyone qualifying for these roles could earn a great deal more elsewhere.

For those with less experience though, i.e. the public service in general, it's an even more interesting question. Should you just come up with one set of public service pay scales, set up with some reference to where those incomes would put someone in the national income distribution and put them somewhere "reasonable" (i.e. probably some way above average, but not too far on the right-hand side of the distribution)? Should the pay scales vary with government department based on some judgement of how important they are? Or should the salaries be directly equivalent to similar private sector jobs, so that the state can compete for the best talent on equal terms? And if so, what if we're talking about a securities regulator competing for finance people with investment banks, or state prosecutors' offices competing with major law firms? Should middle management public servants be raking in million dollar bonuses, just to stop them from just switching over to the other side?

Absolutely not. It's a matter of principle: the public officials are there to serve their fellow countrymen and that's privilege enough. [...]

That sounds an awful lot like you've never held a public service job. Don't get me wrong, doing the right thing to make society a better place is good and can be a good motivator. There's much less of a question about the meaning of what one is doing.

But, like, you still need pay the rent (and really, you'd like to pay off the mortgage). You might still need to put kids through school. Real life comes with its own challenges, ambitions and dreams. Making people choose between those and some nebulously-defined privilege to serve fellow countrymen is not necessarily an optimal strategy - a lot of people will choose to walk away.

[Melvin Reich]

Heh

https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkenendenorm

(Semi) public officials in NL are discouraged from earning more than 130% of a minister's salary.

But that is only in the private sector. a bank ceo can make 10 million a year if he wanted and the bank wants it.

[Western-Ukraine]

Absolutely not. It's a matter of principle: the public officials are there to serve their fellow countrymen and that's privilege enough. [...]

That sounds an awful lot like you've never held a public service job. Don't get me wrong, doing the right thing to make society a better place is good and can be a good motivator. There's much less of a question about the meaning of what one is doing.

But, like, you still need pay the rent (and really, you'd like to pay off the mortgage). You might still need to put kids through school. Real life comes with its own challenges, ambitions and dreams. Making people choose between those and some nebulously-defined privilege to serve fellow countrymen is not necessarily an optimal strategy - a lot of people will choose to walk away.

Sure, I've never held a public service job on this definition. But note what I said as well: "A decent, medium to high salary is enough, considering the responsibilities and the (usually) important work they do." More than the average wage but nothing phenomenal. A fine compensation for the work done, not to mention the privilege of responsibility and public service.

[Mushet]

Cut their pay drastically and have them live in the newly created Capitol Hill housing projects, everything but the extra security maintained by the housing authority, public school education for their kids. etc. Maybe they won't be in as much of a bubble anymore.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Politicians at all levels should not be paid (including benefits) any more than the median income of their constituency.

So, it's OK if people representing the very wealthy areas of a city are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, while those representing very poor areas may be lucky to eke out a bit over the minimum wage?

[Ifreann]

Because it creates a financial incentive to jack up the median income, whether that benefits the people of the constituency or not. Because it would exclude people with high expenses from holding office.

Increasing the income of your constituents is a good thing,

But is increasing the median income of your constituency always a good thing? Attracting a lot of rich people to become tax resident in your constituency could increase the median income without actually improving anything. Forcing poor constituents to become utterly destitute and have no income could increase the median income. Hell, paying the poor to fuck off somewhere else might be profitable, and what does that achieve for anyone?

And that's before we consider that income is not the be all and end all of life. What good is income when the water and air are poison, the bridges have all collapsed, the roads are on fire, and the cops issue tickets for farting in your car?

and in America, we aren't supposed to be ruled over by the wealthy. Getting more average citizens in government would almost certainly be an improvement.

But this excludes a lot of average citizens. People who are making above the median income, but who can't afford a pay cut. You can't go to a bank and tell them you're going to miss four years of mortgage payments because you got elected.

Instead of the situation you have now, where a high salary will realistically cover the expenses of everyone, you'd be creating a situation where a median salary would be fine for a lot of people on low incomes, and would be fine for the very rich, but would exclude a lot of people in the middle from holding office.

[Cekoviu]

They should be given their salary's worth in sauerkraut and raw flounder. Then they'll truly understand the plight of the common man.

[Saiwania]

The point of becoming US president generally speaking, isn't taking on a job "just" worth $400,000 a year. It is to take advantage of whatever happens after the one or two terms are over. To be paid millions to give speeches that normal people won't care about. To get a presidential library, to get paid by lobbyists just to appear at certain events and etc.

[Mushet]

The point of becoming US president generally speaking, isn't taking on a job "just" worth $400,000 a year. It is to take advantage of whatever happens after the one or two terms are over. To be paid millions to give speeches that normal people won't care about. To get a presidential library, to get paid by lobbyists just to appear at certain events and etc.

As cynical as I am I'm pretty sure the people running for president are, in general, primarily motivated by using their leadership role to make what they think is a positive difference.

[The Republic of Fore]

No, politicians are already overpaid as it is. It would be one thing if most of them weren't already millionaires, but they are. Keep the salaries where they are, but also forbid them from giving themselves a raise until they balance the budget.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Public servants of such a level should be there to serve the people, not make money hand over fist. Their pay should be in par with lawyers and other such people.

[Esternial]

Sure, because you want folk's motiviation to lead a country to be (even more) about making money.

[The South Falls]

The problem being when we have Robert Mugabe-living people taking massive salaries, to hold power at all costs, regardless of the people's actual affinity towards them.

[Cekoviu]

Public servants of such a level should be there to serve the people, not make money hand over fist. Their pay should be in par with lawyers and other such people.

You might want to rethink that.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Public servants of such a level should be there to serve the people, not make money hand over fist. Their pay should be in par with lawyers and other such people.

You might want to rethink that.

Nah.

[Neu Leonstein]

Sure, I've never held a public service job on this definition. But note what I said as well: "A decent, medium to high salary is enough, considering the responsibilities and the (usually) important work they do." More than the average wage but nothing phenomenal. A fine compensation for the work done, not to mention the privilege of responsibility and public service.

But the average of what distribution? You look at graduates in federal government institutions (like treasuries or finance ministries, foreign ministries, interior ministries, energy ministries, central banks, etc) and these are people who have very good educations, got good grades and built good CVs. It's not exactly easy to land a job in those sorts of places.

So you get a question of who the relevant cohort to compare to really is. For those people, it's probably people who they went to uni with or whatever. Point being - it's not a representative sample of the population as a whole. It would tend to be people who with similar qualifications do similar work, except in the private sector. Should the public sector people get paid a similar amount, even if that means investment bank or law firm salaries?

I'm not saying I have an answer, but it's clearly an interesting question, because you actually get genuinely different answers in different countries.