Would Higher Pay for Pols = Better Govt?

[Puppycow]

This thread got me thinking (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=99814)

Say you had a private company and you hired somebody to oversee a very large budget, but you only paid them a middling salary, mightn't they be more prone to corruption than if the job had an excellent high salary?

Well the government controls a budget that is much larger than that of even the largest corporation, and yet those who control its purse strings do not get very high direct pay (higher than average, yes, but not compared to what they could make in the private sector). It seems to me that if higher pay did lead to less corruption, it would be money well spent. If they had higher direct pay, maybe lobbyists and donors would have less leverage over them.

Now, of course, there will probably always be some corruption, but if you could reduce it by a third or a half, that would be pretty good, wouldn't it?

[TragicMonkey]

Only if you expect people to say to themselves "by golly, I'm paid enough money, I don't need to get more by doing evil things even if it's amazingly easy and I'll most likely get away with it."

A better way to prevent government corruption is deterrence. Public execution for the first offense. After all, corruption in office is a betrayal of the nation. It should be incredibly painful, too.

[DavidS]

Say you had a private company and you hired somebody to oversee a very large budget, but you only paid them a middling salary, mightn't they be more prone to corruption than if the job had an excellent high salary?
Depends strongly on the access to, and profitability of, "corruption". A more compelling reason (IMO) to compensate an effective executive well is to keep him doing his thing in your shop rather than your competitor's greener pasture.
Well the government controls a budget that is much larger than that of even the largest corporation, and yet those who control its purse strings do not get very high direct pay (higher than average, yes, but not compared to what they could make in the private sector). It seems to me that if higher pay did lead to less corruption, it would be money well spent. If they had higher direct pay, maybe lobbyists and donors would have less leverage over them.
Unless you make the salaries ridiculously large, the very size of the budget presents a "corruption" target that will still be much larger. Making the salaries ridiculously large doesn't necessarily address the other corruptible compensations of government control -- power, influence, prestige. Making the salaries ridiculously large facilitates using the pay to corrupt others.
Now, of course, there will probably always be some corruption, but if you could reduce it by a third or a half, that would be pretty good, wouldn't it?
Would it? I hadn't really considered it in these terms before, but the "corruption" might be less damaging than the level of compensation required for its prevention. Less of a bad thing may not be a good thing if it requires less of other good things or more of other bad things. Almost equivalently, there may be more cost-effective means to reduce corruption.

[egslim]

Government officials moving into the private sector where they make much more money, in exchange for lobbying with their previously made connections, is a problem. And increased pay for officials would reduce that temptation.

[The Painter]

No, it won't work. How much is enough pay to stop corruption? 1/4 mill, 1/2 a mill, 1 million? No matter how much you pay it still won't be enough for some.

Better people will equal better government. That's the hard part.

[IchabodPlain]

The annual salary of a Congressman is 158,103. That is quite a considerable sum of money. Especially when this does not include other benefits like medical insurance, pensions, travel expenses, etc. 158,000 equates themselves into the the 95th percentile of wage earners in America. They have voted themselves a pay raise every year for the last five years running. Annual salaries cost more than 85 million dollars last year.
How much more can we reasonably pay them?

Now, of course, there will probably always be some corruption, but if you could reduce it by a third or a half, that would be pretty good, wouldn't it?

If we are going to ignore moral or reasonable suggestions why not, as stated in a previous post, consider public executions?

[DavidS]

Government officials moving into the private sector where they make much more money, in exchange for lobbying with their previously made connections, is a problem. And increased pay for officials would reduce that temptation.
I can't see how government officials moving into the private sector where they make much more money is intrinsically a problem. That's one reason I might change employers -- and have. Surely you don't propose holding government office should -- or effectively could -- limit future private compensation?

"in exchange for lobbying with their previously made connections" is too vague for me to decide. I could probably agree that "influence peddling" by government officials (exchanging governmental action for private compensation) is a problem. Lobbying, other than influence purchase, is arguably not such a problem; it's a potentially effective vehicle to inform government officials of the consequences of their governance. Unless one is willing to declare lobbying intrinsically a problem, it's not clear that how an ex-official's use of his previously-made connections is a problem; the whole point is to get the message to those who can address the issue at hand.

I'm still unconvinced that increasing government officials' salaries would reduce that temptation meaningfully.

[Cain]

How much higher in salary? While it is only one example, we doubled the president's salary in 2000, and I do not think that reduced corruption. How many members of Congress were already millionaire lawyers before serving in government? The main self-interested appeal to serving in Congress, I think, is the social status that comes with the title. The temptation to cheat probably stems from the fact that members of Congress are now associating with an elite class that ranges from wealthy to filthy, stinkin' wealthy. Their kids attend the best private schools, they go on the best vacations, and they have the best toys. Even if we double their salary how is that going to compare to people who already make ten times more? Aggregated wealth is still going to be much, much more unequal. Increased salary might work better at a state level where you have some representatives in non-professional houses making crap... but maybe they don't do crap either (Yes, I'm talking about you New Hampshire).

Besides, in the private sector you had people receiving fantastic compensation who still cheated. There's a good book called _The Cheating Culture_ by David Callahan. From figures I saw awhile ago CEO salaries in Europe and Japan do not compare favorably against the United States, and I get the impression there's at least slightly less cheating going on. We have a culture obsessed with materialism and greed, the opposite values of public service. Finally, the people will never go for it. Eight years ago I worked to get measures placed on the California ballot, and the most popular item by far worked to reduce representative compensation: "Yeah, screw those bastards!" I'd bet 95% of the people who signed could not name a single representative.

[egslim]

I can't see how government officials moving into the private sector where they make much more money is intrinsically a problem.
It's not. It depends on what they do there. It only becomes a problem if they continue to deal with their previous relations from their new position.

"in exchange for lobbying with their previously made connections" is too vague for me to decide. I could probably agree that "influence peddling" by government officials (exchanging governmental action for private compensation) is a problem.
I agree about influence peddling, but it's broader than that. For example, an official would be tempted to favour a private company with government contracts in exchange for future higher paying employment there. Not a solid bribe. Wink, wink, nod, nod and precedent are sufficient, and almost impossible to prosecute.
A government official who has built close personal relations with many other officials, perhaps even as a form of patronage, can use those relations to make government officials favour the private company he now works for.

Such constructions favour a specific private company, but by obtaining suboptimal contracts they hurt the government, which means everyone else.

It seems obvious to me that if government were to offer salaries equal to what these people would make with private companies there would be no incentive for them to jump ship. The problem I see is that this would be unaffordable without an increase in taxation.

[fuelair]

Only if you expect people to say to themselves "by golly, I'm paid enough money, I don't need to get more by doing evil things even if it's amazingly easy and I'll most likely get away with it."

A better way to prevent government corruption is deterrence. Public execution for the first offense. After all, corruption in office is a betrayal of the nation. It should be incredibly painful, too.

I like your thinking on this:D!!!

[Beerina]

$10 million a year ain't enough when there are $2.2 trillion per year to be had.

As evidence, almost all presidents are already millionaires. Many, like Bush's Jr. and Sr., and Kennedy, have hundreds of millions.

Yet they still seek the presidency. Answer why and you'll have the answer to why this won't work.

[Puppycow]

Depends strongly on the access to, and profitability of, "corruption". A more compelling reason (IMO) to compensate an effective executive well is to keep him doing his thing in your shop rather than your competitor's greener pasture.
It might also attract some better people.

No, it won't work. How much is enough pay to stop corruption? 1/4 mill, 1/2 a mill, 1 million? No matter how much you pay it still won't be enough for some.

Better people will equal better government. That's the hard part.

That's my point though. I'm not saying it would eliminate all corruption but some people at the margin might be affected. And some better people might choose to go into politics if the direct pay was better. People might have a wider range of good candidates to choose from.

Finally, the people will never go for it. Eight years ago I worked to get measures placed on the California ballot, and the most popular item by far worked to reduce representative compensation: "Yeah, screw those bastards!" I'd bet 95% of the people who signed could not name a single representative. That's true. I don't think most people really understand the reason though. On a gut level, I totally understand, but on a cerebral level I don't think it's very smart. Then only people interested in power and fame itself (and a few ideologues) will go into politics, while smart reasonable pragmatic people will decide that they have better alternatives.

[fishbob]

Say you had a private company and you hired somebody to oversee a very large budget, but you only paid them a middling salary, mightn't they be more prone to corruption than if the job had an excellent high salary?

Well the government controls a budget that is much larger than that of even the largest corporation, and yet those who control its purse strings do not get very high direct pay (higher than average, yes, but not compared to what they could make in the private sector). It seems to me that if higher pay did lead to less corruption, it would be money well spent. If they had higher direct pay, maybe lobbyists and donors would have less leverage over them.

Minor Quibble:

Take a close look at the competency and capabilities of the congressbozo and senatrogs from your district and state. The ones from mine could earn about minimum wage in the private sector. If they could hold a job.

[JonWhite]

Better people will equal better government. That's the hard part.


When so many of our politicians come from primarily self-interest based backgrounds who place personal power and wealth first - such as lawyers or city financiers - we can hardly be suprised that this remains their chief concern.

Perhaps we would be better served if decisions were instead made by those who have at least already demonstrated a commitment for the improvement in wellbeing of others regardless of the lousy financial reward such a choice offers, i.e. nurses, firefighters, zoo keepers...

Just a thought.

[Bluegill]

A better way to prevent government corruption is deterrence. Public execution for the first offense.


...and for the second offence, disinterment and ridicule!

[bjb]

Politicians are in a position where their corrupt behavior has a severe effect on everyone. A similar situation exists for people who have a secret clearance, so perhaps the methods used to ensure compliance by those with a clearance could be used to keep politicians in line.

Part of the clearance procedure involves screening to ensure they don't have drug problems, gambling habits, etc., which can make them desperate for more money. At one time, homosexuals could be denied a clearance but I don't know if that is true any more (the NSA used to ask that question in job interviews!). Depending upon the level of clearance, polygraph tests and drug tests given on a regular basis. There are other measures put in place by the NSA to ensure those with secret clearances maintain security policies but only the NSA knows what they are. Of course, those with a clearance must behave in an ethical and lawful manner, just the same as those who don't have a clearance. Of course, there are long jail

Now suppose politicians were subjected to the same conditions. If they knew that 'Big Brother' really was watching them, perhaps there would be less corruption? Maybe this sounds like a police state but a lot of people are living their lives this way. Why can't politicians be held to the same standards as someone working at Lockheed-Martin or Northrop-Grumman?

[egslim]

Why can't politicians be held to the same standards as someone working at Lockheed-Martin or Northrop-Grumman?
Because whoever monitored the politicians would have too much power for a democratic state. I like the idea of more severe punishment for criminal offenses if you hold a higher public office, though.

[Kerberos]

When so many of our politicians come from primarily self-interest based backgrounds who place personal power and wealth first - such as lawyers or city financiers - we can hardly be suprised that this remains their chief concern.

Perhaps we would be better served if decisions were instead made by those who have at least already demonstrated a commitment for the improvement in wellbeing of others regardless of the lousy financial reward such a choice offers, i.e. nurses, firefighters, zoo keepers...

Just a thought.
I'm not sure that picking people who, for the most part, have no understanding of politics or economics is a good move. There are few things more dangorous than people with a strong sense of justice, and a weak sense of reality. I'll take the lawyers and city financiers over that.

[JonWhite]

I'm not sure that picking people who, for the most part, have no understanding of politics or economics is a good move. There are few things more dangorous than people with a strong sense of justice, and a weak sense of reality. I'll take the lawyers and city financiers over that.

With the appalling combination of self-interest and incompetence that plays such a major part in current politics, I'm far from convinced that the lawyers or financiers really do have any greater understanding. They just employ spin doctors to write their scripts for them and pretend. When finally caught out they move on to their lucrative, titular, old boy network directorships or lecture tours and be replaced by more of the same.

Could the nurses, etc really be any worse? They would of course still need an advisory cabal of lawyers and economists to ensure legality and achievable economic reality, but hopefully the overall policy directions would be a great deal more encompassing than the usual "us and ours" that currently seems prevelant.

Otherwise, first offense public exection gets my vote. :D

[TragicMonkey]

...and for the second offence, disinterment and ridicule!

The Pope Formosus treatment. Always in style.



I have a relative (he married into the family, no blood ties thankfully) who was a high-ranking officer in the Air Force. He then retired and went straight to a vice presidency of a large aircraft manufacturer who does billions of dollars worth of business with the Air Force. There have been numerous scandals about shady deals made by his company with insider military connections. My relative escaped unscathed from the subsequent investigations. He made a lot of money in the military. He made even more at the new job. It would never, ever be enough. Greed knows no limits.

[DavidS]

It's not. It depends on what they do there. It only becomes a problem if they continue to deal with their previous relations from their new position.
Again, the problem is not whether they continue to deal with their previous relations, but how.
I agree about influence peddling, but it's broader than that. For example, an official would be tempted to favour a private company with government contracts in exchange for future higher paying employment there. Not a solid bribe. Wink, wink, nod, nod and precedent are sufficient, and almost impossible to prosecute.
OK. Sounds like influence peddling to me. On a layaway plan. Prosecutable or not, I don't like it either. Unless the government office is secure for life, however -- which I'm guessing is a really bad idea for representative government -- it's not clear to me how higher salary for that office makes any enhancement to later income less attractive. A government official who has built close personal relations with many other officials, perhaps even as a form of patronage, can use those relations to make government officials favour the private company he now works for.
A private individual who has built close personal relations with many government officials.... Again, how do higher government salaries influence this dynamic? Except possibly to raise the bidding further beyond the means of more potential bidders?
It seems obvious to me that if government were to offer salaries equal to what these people would make with private companies there would be no incentive for them to jump ship.
That seems to me to be novel use of the term "obvious". Maybe I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, but that sounds like a good motivation to leave a private company for a temporary stint in the government, with no salary decrease, to establish those lucrative personal relations that will make returning to the private company even more attractive.

Are you asserting that government office should be lifelong commitment? Whether that's a good idea is a whole 'nother argument, methinks.

[DavidS]

If they knew that 'Big Brother' really was watching them, perhaps there would be less corruption?
Wouldn't that depend strongly on Big Brother's corruptibility?

[Puppycow]

Minor Quibble:

Take a close look at the competency and capabilities of the congressbozo and senatrogs from your district and state. The ones from mine could earn about minimum wage in the private sector. If they could hold a job.

LOL.
And what would it take to attract a higher quality of person into public service? If the most competant people don't find public service attractive, then the result is that our leaders will be less competant.

And it would be less attractive for honest people (who would only consider direct pay) than for those who calculate that they can use their position to make money through kickbacks or other dishonest means.

[Puppycow]

The Pope Formosus treatment. Always in style.

I learn something new every day in this forum. :D
Pope Formosus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Formosus)
Formosus (c. 816 in Ostia–896) was Pope of the Roman Catholic Church from 891 to 896. His brief reign as Pope was troubled, and his remains were exhumed and put on trial in the notorious Cadaver Synod.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Jean_Paul_Laurens_Le_Pape_Formose_et_Etienne_VII_1 870.jpg/300px-Jean_Paul_Laurens_Le_Pape_Formose_et_Etienne_VII_1 870.jpg

[bjb]

Wouldn't that depend strongly on Big Brother's corruptibility?

Those who have a clearance are certainly at the mercy of our trusted security forces. Fail a drug test or polygraph test, and you're out of a job. In the case of politicians, they should have a second or third chance to pass their mandatory tests. It shouldn't be impossible to find a 'clean' polygraph machine.

I get where you guys are coming from, but I'm not advocating spying on politicians, like J. Edgar Hoover did. Just a few tests to keep them honest.

[Puppycow]

I want to question this assumption that greed has no bounds and that corrupt politicians will be corrupt no matter how much they are paid. I grant that this may be true for some sociopathic types, but lets consider the case of a fairly normal person of average honesty who goes into politics. A regular human being.

Let's think rationally about human nature.
Maslow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow) proposed the following heirachy of human needs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg/400px-Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg.png
Now, if you think Maslow was wrong about human nature, then this argument may not hold water, but bear with me for a moment.
Look at the top of that pyramid.
Self-actualization: morality, creativity, spontaneity, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts
What happens when people become rich enough that all conceivable material needs are satisfied? Maybe not all of the pols are good enough to "self-actualize," but if even half of them are, maybe we would suddenly have much better leadership?
Consider how many rich tycoons eventually turn into philanthropists. You start to become more philisophical and less materialistic. Your thought turn to history and your place in it. You don't need to spend so much time raising money for the next campaign. This could be a good thing.

[TragicMonkey]

Consider how many rich tycoons eventually turn into philanthropists.

Compare to the number of rich tycoons who do not.

You essentially want to bribe people into being honest. There is not enough money in the world. It would certainly require more money than the nation can actually pay.

And our politicians are not known for their higher natures, are they? We don't have Warren Buffetts, we have Senator "Wide Stance". We don't have Oprahs and Bill Gateses, we have Tom DeLays and the Louisiania guy with the refridgerator full of cash bribes.

The sort of person who is immune to greed is not the sort of person who runs for, or wins, political office. And if they did, they would be the ones you wouldn't need to bribe with a huge salary into being honest.

[Beerina]

Minor Quibble:

Take a close look at the competency and capabilities of the congressbozo and senatrogs from your district and state. The ones from mine could earn about minimum wage in the private sector. If they could hold a job.

I've noticed this, too. The ones at the national level, at least who have a dream of seeking the presidency later, are highly polished people who can think on their feet. Many others, and almost all state-level congress members (i.e. state government) are subgeniuses. Think to local city councils and the buffoonery you often see there. Limited critical thinking ability for analyzing strategy.

[Kerberos]

I want to question this assumption that greed has no bounds and that corrupt politicians will be corrupt no matter how much they are paid. I grant that this may be true for some sociopathic types, but lets consider the case of a fairly normal person of average honesty who goes into politics. A regular human being.

Let's think rationally about human nature.
Maslow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow) proposed the following heirachy of human needs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg/400px-Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg.png
Now, if you think Maslow was wrong about human nature, then this argument may not hold water, but bear with me for a moment.
Look at the top of that pyramid.
Self-actualization: morality, creativity, spontaneity, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts
What happens when people become rich enough that all conceivable material needs are satisfied? Maybe not all of the pols are good enough to "self-actualize," but if even half of them are, maybe we would suddenly have much better leadership?
Consider how many rich tycoons eventually turn into philanthropists. You start to become more philisophical and less materialistic. Your thought turn to history and your place in it. You don't need to spend so much time raising money for the next campaign. This could be a good thing.

I think he's right up until the Self-actualization phase, which IMO doesn't exists (well not as an additional layer of need which one strives for after respect). Respect and similar should be the top of the pyramid, this neatly accounts for Philanthropy as well. Multibillionaires are basically buying respect with generosity.

[fishbob]

I've noticed this, too. The ones at the national level, at least who have a dream of seeking the presidency later, are highly polished people who can think on their feet. Many others, and almost all state-level congress members (i.e. state government) are subgeniuses. Think to local city councils and the buffoonery you often see there. Limited critical thinking ability for analyzing strategy.

You should be ashamed.
You have insulted subgeniuses everywhere.

[Charlie Monoxide]

...and for the second offence, disinterment and ridicule! As someone else points out about Pope Formosus, this was also popular during the Middle Ages. It really galled some Kings when people up and died before he could cast vengeance upon them. I am reminded (IIRC) that this occurred a lot during the aftermath of the British civil war way back in the mid 1650's. Bodies were dug up, given a "fair" trial and usually drawn and quartered afterwards ...

Charlie (bring out your dead) Monoxide

[Puppycow]

As someone else points out about Pope Formosus, this was also popular during the Middle Ages. It really galled some Kings when people up and died before he could cast vengeance upon them. I am reminded (IIRC) that this occurred a lot during the aftermath of the British civil war way back in the mid 1650's. Bodies were dug up, given a "fair" trial and usually drawn and quartered afterwards ...

Charlie (bring out your dead) Monoxide

Gosh. No wonder the enlightenment was so late in coming.

[Puppycow]

I think he's right up until the Self-actualization phase, which IMO doesn't exists (well not as an additional layer of need which one strives for after respect). Respect and similar should be the top of the pyramid, this neatly accounts for Philanthropy as well. Multibillionaires are basically buying respect with generosity.

Maybe. This is an optomistic view of human nature, I think. Maybe some people have that top tier and others do not? I have to admit that when I do good things (and I don't calim to be a saint) it makes me feel better about myself. So, would I still do good things and avoid doing bad things if the former didn't make me feel better and the latter didn't make me feel worse? Then the only remaining reasons, I think, would be either (1) pragmatic (will it profit me somehow) or (2) for appearance sake (what will others think of me).

Maybe that is all that a conscience amounts to.

[Puppycow]

Compare to the number of rich tycoons who do not.

You essentially want to bribe people into being honest. There is not enough money in the world. It would certainly require more money than the nation can actually pay.

And our politicians are not known for their higher natures, are they? We don't have Warren Buffetts, we have Senator "Wide Stance". We don't have Oprahs and Bill Gateses, we have Tom DeLays and the Louisiania guy with the refridgerator full of cash bribes.

As skeptics we should be aware of our own confirmation bias.

In the famous Stanford Prison Experiments (http://www.lucifereffect.org/), normal people assigned the role of prison guard fell into evil behaviour as a result of the situation. It could be that altering the situation and the incentives somehow could result in better behaviour. I don't know exactly what the ideal form of government might be to achieve this, but maybe there are clever ways that would do the trick.

Now, obviously we can't afford to say raise politicians salaries by a factor of 100, but if society can afford to pay a bunch of guys millions of dollars a year to play baseball, football and basketball, maybe we can afford to do the same with pols? Maybe they even get some performance incentives?

[ServiceSoon]

$10 million a year ain't enough when there are $2.2 trillion per year to be had.
As evidence, almost all presidents are already millionaires. Many, like Bush's Jr. and Sr., and Kennedy, have hundreds of millions.
Yet they still seek the presidency. Answer why and you'll have the answer to why this won't work.Rockefellers famous quote goes, How much money is enough? "Just a little bit more." It doesn't matter how much most people make, they will always want more. Besides, eventually getting enough money makes one bored. Then they move onto bigger and better things.

The annual salary of a Congressman is 158,103. That is quite a considerable sum of money. Especially when this does not include other benefits like medical insurance, pensions, travel expenses, etc. 158,000 equates themselves into the the 95th percentile of wage earners in America. They have voted themselves a pay raise every year for the last five years running. Annual salaries cost more than 85 million dollars last year.
How much more can we reasonably pay them?The check and balance in our democratic republic is for the people to vote for trustworthy people. For example: Voting for a presidential candidate that doesn't participate in the pension program for congressmen. I’m sure everybody here agrees this program reeks of dishonesty.

[TragicMonkey]

As skeptics we should be aware of our own confirmation bias.

In the famous Stanford Prison Experiments (http://www.lucifereffect.org/), normal people assigned the role of prison guard fell into evil behaviour as a result of the situation. It could be that altering the situation and the incentives somehow could result in better behaviour. I don't know exactly what the ideal form of government might be to achieve this, but maybe there are clever ways that would do the trick.

Now, obviously we can't afford to say raise politicians salaries by a factor of 100, but if society can afford to pay a bunch of guys millions of dollars a year to play baseball, football and basketball, maybe we can afford to do the same with pols? Maybe they even get some performance incentives?

We don't pay sports players money, their employers do. Their employers make money, in turn, from sports fans and other companies. They sell a product. They take the risk, and they lose money all the time. It's a business.

Government is not a business and cannot be run like one. We can't get rid of an underperforming state. We can't buy Canada if we want to expand. We can't obsess solely over money.

And your own example should show you the folly of expecting greed to have limits. How many sports figures earn millions a year and still get up to illegal schemes to make money? Dog fighting and betting leap to mind.

If you think you can turn someone like Tom DeLay honest by outbribing everyone else, feel free to put up the money. It's going to take a lot of it.