Should Low-Wage Restaurant Workers Be Paid More?

[Socrates]

If you hold crookedness constant it is better to have a person who is more talented than a person who is less talented.

I did not state that making lots of money is a guarantee that someone will be a good legislator. Offering a higher salary is a way to attract more talented people - regardless of the profession. It is basic common sense. All things else being held constant (such as crookedness, "having a good heart" or a "desire to serve the people") - you will attract better people for a job if you pay $100 than if you pay $10. It is basic economics.

I suggest that you check your vision.

He would be more likely to do so for $1M a year than he would for $170K a year.

If someone takes a salary cut by quitting his job as a lawyer, doctor, successful business person, etc. then obviously the person's primary motive in running for Congress is not to make good money. You increase the salary in order to reduce the financial disincentive that such a person faces.

No. It would not only attract losers. But to the extent that you can compensate a priest financially it further enables someone that is considering becoming a priest to be able to do it.

http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/student-loan-debt-may-prevent-many-us-catholics-entering-religious-orders

When choosing a representative in Congress (or a Senator), I primarily want someone with who believes in the right principles of morality and reason, and in the proper constitutional limits, and who has the integrity and guts to stick to them.  

I could care less how much money he (or she) makes in some other area of work.

 

The major problem in Congress is careerism and cronyism, in which people are more attached to Washington interests and getting re-elected, than in doing what is right and serving the people who elected them.  The longer politicians stay in Washington, the more cronyist and crooked they tend to become.

Term limits would do far to help mitigate this problem much more than wasting more taxpayer money to pad their wallets.

 

In the early days of the American republic, congressmen usually served only a few terms at most to represent the people, then went back to their "real jobs" - it was not seen as a life-long career.

Also, their pay was much lower back then (even when adjusted for inflation).  Yet I don't think their increased pay has done anything at all to increase the quality of congressional candidates.

It's also nonsense to say that salaries dissuade successful persons from running for political office - just look at Donald Trump.

And Congressmen have yearly salaries of $174,000.00 , along with lots of additional perks - and they often make a lot more than that in other deals.  They're not starving.

[Peace]

When choosing a representative in Congress (or a Senator), I primarily want someone with who believes in the right principles of morality and reason, and in the proper constitutional limits, and who has the integrity and guts to stick to them.  

I could care less how much money he (or she) makes in some other area of work.

 

The major problem in Congress is careerism and cronyism, in which people are more attached to Washington interests and getting re-elected, than in doing what is right and serving the people who elected them.  The longer politicians stay in Washington, the more cronyist and crooked they tend to become.

Term limits would do far to help mitigate this problem much more than wasting more taxpayer money to pad their wallets.

 

In the early days of the American republic, congressmen usually served only a few terms at most to represent the people, then went back to their "real jobs" - it was not seen as a life-long career.

Also, their pay was much lower back then (even when adjusted for inflation).  Yet I don't think their increased pay has done anything at all to increase the quality of congressional candidates.

You are repeating yourself. Please refer back to my previous responses.

It's also nonsense to say that salaries dissuade successful persons from running for political office - just look at Donald Trump.

It would be nonsense to say that salaries dissuade all successful persons from running for political office.

It would not be nonsense to say that salaries dissuade some successful persons from running for political office. By keeping the salaries so low you are limiting the pool of applicants. You end up with terrible candidates like the one you mentioned above.

And Congressmen have yearly salaries of $174,000.00 , along with lots of additional perks - and they often make a lot more than that in other deals.  They're not starving.

You will attract better candidates if you offer a salary of $174,000 than you will if you offer a salary of $17,400. And you will attract better candidates if you offer a salary of 1M than you will if you offer a salary of $174,000. It is basic economics. When you want higher quality you pay more to get it.

[Anomaly]

You are repeating yourself. Please refer back to my previous responses.

It would be nonsense to say that salaries dissuade all successful persons from running for political office.

It would not be nonsense to say that salaries dissuade some successful persons from running for political office. By keeping the salaries so low you are limiting the pool of applicants. You end up with terrible candidates like the one you mentioned above.

You will attract better candidates if you offer a salary of $174,000 than you will if you offer a salary of $17,400. And you will attract better candidates if you offer a salary of 1M than you will if you offer a salary of $174,000. It is basic economics. When you want higher quality you pay more to get it.

Not so.  If it's about wealth and power, you get applicants that are about wealth and power.  I understand you're a lawyer, so I can appreciate your lack of soul and contempt for the idea of philanthropy and humble desire to serve the community.   I guess most educators, mission doctors, and stay at home parents are just performing to their level of incompetence. 

[Peace]

Not so.  If it's about wealth and power, you get applicants that are about wealth and power.  I understand you're a lawyer, so I can appreciate your lack of soul and contempt for the idea of philanthropy and humble desire to serve the community.   I guess most educators, mission doctors, and stay at home parents are just performing to their level of incompetence. 

Well I am sorry to see that you think I have a lack of soul, which is not true. Instead of responding in like fashion with a personal insult I will just respond to what you wrote.

I did not write anything about contempt for the idea of philanthropy and a humble desire to serve the community. I also did not write anything about most educators, mission doctors, and stay at home parents just performing to their level of incompetence.

What I wrote was this: If you are hiring a person for any job - a lawyer, an educator, a politician, a nanny, or a mission doctor, all other things being held constant, you will attract a better candidate at a higher salary. That holds true even if an individual job seeker's primary motivation is not money. If you disagree with this that is your right of course - but virtually every economist will disagree with you. And I think you can think it through easily enough for yourself. I suggest that you attempt to hire someone for a job (whether it be a crummy lawyer such as myself or a noble educator) and compare the quality of the candidates that you get at salary X and salary 2X. Do you think that you will get better candidates, for the same exact job, at salary X or salary 2X?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that educators and mission doctors are more dedicated to the idea of philanthropy and a humble desire to serve the community. If there is no relationship between salary and the quality of the people that you get for a job - why not reduce the salary of every person in Congress to $20 a year? Would those people who were working as educators and mission doctors then be able to take a job as a politician? How exactly are they going to pay their bills? Or would would one of those greedy lawyers, who likely has loads of cash saved up from years of cheating people, be able to take the job to get his hands on power?

The principles do not change. The only difference is that the salary is $174K a year versus $20 a year.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Peace

[Anomaly]

You amuse me.  

I was being hyperbolic.   Though it is sardonically noted most politicians are lawyers. 

 Running for office or participating in political "as a leader" is not just a job to make a living and amass wealth and power.   A decent wage is reasonable, but at a certain point there is diminishing return on investment.   I have a better opinion of most people's motivation, even leeches, I mean lawyers. (Siri autocorrect)

[Peace]

You amuse me.  

Glad to hear it. I can sleep better now that I have your approval.

I was being hyperbolic.   Though it is sardonically noted most politicians are lawyers. 

You were also being incorrect.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/02/24/the-lawyer-politician-in-congress-is-on-the-decline/

 Running for office or participating in political "as a leader" is not just a job to make a living and amass wealth and power.   A decent wage is reasonable, but at a certain point there is diminishing return on investment.  

But we have not yet reached that point.

I have a better opinion of most people's motivation, even leeches, I mean lawyers. (Siri autocorrect)

A lawyer joke. How original. You did well. Congratulations on your momentous achievement.

Those types of insults and jokes are the types of things that people resort to when they have lost the argument or have nothing of substance to say.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Peace

[Anomaly]

Glad to hear it. I can sleep better now that I have your approval.

You were also being incorrect.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/02/24/the-lawyer-politician-in-congress-is-on-the-decline/

But we have not yet reached that point.

A lawyer joke. How original. You did well. Congratulations on your momentous achievement.

Those types of insults and jokes are the types of things that people resort to when they have lost the argument or have nothing of substance to say.

I was just teasing.   So sue me.  

 

 

 

My bad.  

[Peace]

I was just teasing.   So sue me.  

My bad.  

I actually enjoy lawyer jokes quite a bit. Good ones. Funny ones. Yours was neither, so I suggest that you work on your material.

Is that really the best you can do?

[Socrates]

You are repeating yourself. Please refer back to my previous responses.

It would be nonsense to say that salaries dissuade all successful persons from running for political office.

It would not be nonsense to say that salaries dissuade some successful persons from running for political office. By keeping the salaries so low you are limiting the pool of applicants. You end up with terrible candidates like the one you mentioned above.

You will attract better candidates if you offer a salary of $174,000 than you will if you offer a salary of $17,400. And you will attract better candidates if you offer a salary of 1M than you will if you offer a salary of $174,000. It is basic economics. When you want higher quality you pay more to get it.

And you just keep repeating the same "you get what you pay for" argument, and I still find it entirely unconvincing.

I don't believe the qualities of a good congressional representative can be reduced to basic economics, or be measured by one's salary.

In 1815, a congressman's yearly salary was $1,500 (around $19,085 in today's dollars).  I don't think the quality of congressmen has increased accordingly with salaries over the years, and don't believe it will with future pay increases.

(And I'm afraid I can't even follow your logic with your comment regarding Trump.  Are you saying that only very rich persons who are "terrible candidates" will be willing to take a significant salary cut to take political office, while very rich persons with nobler motives for running for office would be unwilling to take such a pay cut?  Okay, whatever. . .)

But as nothing new's being brought to the table here, and since your idea, fortunately, doesn't seem to be particularly popular (though I'm sure congressmen would love it), I don't see any point in arguing about this further.

[little2add]

 

[Peace]

Are you saying that only very rich persons who are "terrible candidates" will be willing to take a significant salary cut to take political office, while very rich persons with nobler motives for running for office would be unwilling to take such a pay cut?

I am saying that a lower salary will limit the pool of available applicants. The same is true with any job. You will attract a wider pool of applicants at $100 than you will at $10, if all of the other factors are held constant. The next time you need some work done on your house post an advertisement in one paper at $10 an hour and another advertisement in a different newspaper at $100 dollars an hour. See what type of responses you get from each advertisement. It is basic common sense.

I don't believe the qualities of a good congressional representative can be reduced to basic economics, or be measured by one's salary.

In 1815, a congressman's yearly salary was $1,500 (around $19,085 in today's dollars).  I don't think the quality of congressmen has increased accordingly with salaries over the years, and don't believe it will with future pay increases.

Why? If you are going to hire a plumber to fix your toilet - do you expect to be able to hire a better plumber at $10 an hour or $100 an hour? You think that you are going to get the same politician at $10 as you will at $100? The only way you can reach that conclusion is if you believe that financial considerations are not relevant to people who consider running for a political office. And that is clearly not the case.

There are many factors that will affect the quality of politicians. I never suggested that salary is the only factor that matters. But if you hold all of those other factors constant, why would you not expect to get a better person paying $100 dollars than you would at $10? You keep saying that you are unconvinced but you have not given any reason to explain why this would not be the case. Explain that and then maybe we can get somewhere.

I will give you my reason why it is the case - and it should be rather obvious: Political candidates are chosen from among people just like you and me. They have bills to pay. They have children to raise. They are not outside of the economy and economic considerations are relevant to them.

When you decide whether or not to apply for a job, does the salary that is being offered not matter to you? Are you less likely to apply for a job that pays $10,000 a year than you would if the same job paid $100,000 a year? Why should it be any different for people who are considering the job of a politician?

A real example. Let's say there was a middle aged doctor who was making about $300,000 a year. His wife does not work. He has 3 or 4 kids in college. His children certainly aren't getting financial aid at that salary. He has a nice house in the DC suburbs with a $3000 a month mortgage. If he is to take a job as a Congressman at $170,000, his salary will be cut almost in half. Then John and Jane have to transfer to Penn State instead of finishing at Harvard as they had planned. They have to sell the house and move into a smaller place with a lower mortgage. This doctor decides that he does not want to sacrifice his children's education. But he would have decided to run for Congress if the salary were $300,000 a year.

You don't think that these types of things are a significant factor in whether some people decide to run for a political office? Why? Do you think that Congressmen just drop out magically of the sky and don't have bills to pay and other financial considerations?

Does not your real problem with raising Congressional salaries stem from an aversion to having your tax dollars being given to someone else? The problem is - when you are not willing to pay money to get better candidates, you get candidates who will waste and spend much more money than it would have cost you if you had been willing to pay to hire someone good. It is being penny wise and pound foolish.

But as nothing new's being brought to the table here, and since your idea, fortunately, doesn't seem to be particularly popular (though I'm sure congressmen would love it), I don't see any point in arguing about this further.

Well. It is a lot more likely to happen than Marbury v. Madison being reversed.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Peace

[Socrates]

Being a good and wise legislator or representative is not some "skill set" which can be objectively measured with a monetary amount, much less be measured by one's financial success at other areas of work.  And plenty of congressmen are quite successful at winning elections and staying in power - at the expense of the nation.

Your examples are comparing apples and oranges.

If I hire a plumber to fix a leak, I want a good plumber.  I wouldn't go to a dentist, trial lawyer, corporate accountant, or NBA star, and expect them to do a better job fixing the leak simply because they may make more in their respective jobs.  Neither do I think that jacking up plumber's wages or rates to match those, say, of a trial lawyer, will result in better plumbers - just more expensive ones.

And you've provided no evidence that the quality of congressmen improves with higher salaries.  Has the increase in congressional pay in the 20th century actually resulted in superior legislators?

And almost any salary will dissuade some people.  I don't think congressmen are entitled to lives of trouble-free luxury at the expense of taxpayers - especially when many of us face much more serious financial challenges.  

I simply don't think lack of money for congressmen is a major pressing problem.  Careerism and its associated cronyism with its related problems is - creating a permanent Washington "ruling class" with interests at odds with those of the people.  Drastically raising congressional salaries would only exacerbate the problem of careerism by making serving in congress  a more lucrative permanent career path.  Term limits, on the other hand, would actually do something to address the real problems in congress.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Socrates

[Peace]

If I hire a plumber to fix a leak, I want a good plumber.

OK. And how do you get a good plumber? Would you get a better plumber at $10 an hour or at $100 dollars an hour? I have hired cheap people to do plumbing jobs at my house. I have also hired companies that were more expensive. Guess which one did the better job? It is not rocket science.

So if you get a better plumber at $100 an hour than you get at $10 an hour, why is it that you would not get a better politician at $100 an hour than you get at $10 dollars an hour? Do these politicians not have bills to pay? If a person who would make a good politician can make $100 an hour by doing a different job, would that make him more or less inclined to take the job as a politician if the job only pays $10? If a good politician has an option of running for different offices that are substantially similar except that one pays $100 and the other pays $10, which office do you think he will take?

Answer those questions and perhaps we will get somewhere.

And you've provided no evidence that the quality of congressmen improves with higher salaries.  Has the increase in congressional pay in the 20th century actually resulted in superior legislators?

You want empirical evidence? Yes. You are right that I have not done a serious statistical study on the matter. And neither have you. My arguments are based on basic economic theory and common sense. You also have not presented any empiricial evidence that supports your position. If you choose to do so, please keep in mind what the professor of any basic statistics course will tell you on the first day of class: correlation does not equal causation.

And you seem to think that today's legislators are worse than the legislators of the past. That is something that you can also debate until the cows come home. If the legislators of yesteryear were such morally upright citizens, devoted to serving the country, and otherwise superior to the politicans that we have today, as you seem to think, how is it that they allowed men to enslave other men at the founding of this country and for many years thereafter, and allowed the country to fall into a disastrous Civil War? How is it that these so-called great legislators of the past put into place laws that denied African Americans the right to vote, denied them equal access to public accomodations and forced them to attend sub-standard schools? Please.

I don't think congressmen are entitled to lives of trouble-free luxury at the expense of taxpayers - especially when many of us face much more serious financial challenges.  

Exactly. The truth comes out. This is your main issue with it. You have a problem with other people living a nice lifestyle based on money taken out of your paycheck. But when you have bad politicians, much more money is taken out of your paycheck than would have been the case if you had offered salaries that were sufficient to get good people. And how much is taken out of your paycheck because of their harming the economy?

How many Congressmen are there? 500? How much would it cost to pay them each $1M per year? $500M? That is about $1.50 per American per year. How much more money do you think is wasted as a result of having incompetent people in government? Again - you are being penny wise and pound foolish.

I simply don't think lack of money for congressmen is a major pressing problem.  Careerism and its associated cronyism with its related problems is - creating a permanent Washington "ruling class" with interests at odds with those of the people.  Drastically raising congressional salaries would only exacerbate the problem of careerism by making serving in congress  a more lucrative permanent career path.  Term limits, on the other hand, would actually do something to address the real problems in congress.

Term limits might help. If you want to start up a thread on term limits that is fine by me. But that is not what we have been discussing.

Would not opening up the pool of applicants by increasing the salary make it more difficult for a "ruling class" to exist? People still have to get elected. And it is much easier to get elected when there are no qualified candidates running against you.

Peace

[Socrates]

OK. And how do you get a good plumber? Would you get a better plumber at $10 an hour or at $100 dollars an hour? I have hired cheap people to do plumbing jobs at my house. I have also hired companies that were more expensive. Guess which one did the better job? It is not rocket science.

So if you get a better plumber at $100 an hour than you get at $10 an hour, why is it that you would not get a better politician at $100 an hour than you get at $10 dollars an hour? Do these politicians not have bills to pay? If a person who would make a good politician can make $100 an hour by doing a different job, would that make him more or less inclined to take the job as a politician if the job only pays $10? If a good politician has an option of running for different offices that are substantially similar except that one pays $100 and the other pays $10, which office do you think he will take?

Answer those questions and perhaps we will get somewhere.

You want empirical evidence? Yes. You are right that I have not done a serious statistical study on the matter. And neither have you. My arguments are based on basic economic theory and common sense. You also have not presented any empiricial evidence that supports your position. If you choose to do so, please keep in mind what the professor of any basic statistics course will tell you on the first day of class: correlation does not equal causation.

And you seem to think that today's legislators are worse than the legislators of the past. That is something that you can also debate until the cows come home. If the legislators of yesteryear were such morally upright citizens, devoted to serving the country, and otherwise superior to the politicans that we have today, as you seem to think, how is it that they allowed men to enslave other men at the founding of this country and for many years thereafter, and allowed the country to fall into a disastrous Civil War? How is it that these so-called great legislators of the past put into place laws that denied African Americans the right to vote, denied them equal access to public accomodations and forced them to attend sub-standard schools? Please.

Exactly. The truth comes out. This is your main issue with it. You have a problem with other people living a nice lifestyle based on money taken out of your paycheck. But when you have bad politicians, much more money is taken out of your paycheck than would have been the case if you had offered salaries that were sufficient to get good people. And how much is taken out of your paycheck because of their harming the economy?

How many Congressmen are there? 500? How much would it cost to pay them each $1M per year? $500M? That is about $1.50 per American per year. How much more money do you think is wasted as a result of having incompetent people in government? Again - you are being penny wise and pound foolish.

Term limits might help. If you want to start up a thread on term limits that is fine by me. But that is not what we have been discussing.

Would not opening up the pool of applicants by increasing the salary make it more difficult for a "ruling class" to exist? People still have to get elected. And it is much easier to get elected when there are no qualified candidates running against you.

Peace

Well, now that you've repeated your point at least a dozen times, I'll finally have to concede that you are, of course, 100% correct.

Choosing representatives or Senators in Congress is exactly like hiring a plumber (or maybe a roofer).  How silly of me that I hadn't realized that before.

 

And no doubt Congress would have swiftly outlawed slavery without a bloody war, if only congressmen had received higher salaries back then.  

And no doubt for a few extra million dollars/congressman, abortion will be quickly outlawed too (at least if we also jack up the salaries of Supreme Court justices accordingly).  The problem's just cheap public officials.

(Maybe money can't buy you love, but who said it can't buy virtue and moral principle!)

The only quibble I still have with your brilliant proposal is your timidity in demanding congressional salaries of a paltry few million; I say increase the yearly salaries of all politicians and government officials to a minimum of at least . . . One Billion Dollars!  That will ensure that our candidates will be the best of the best of the best!

It's a small price to invest, knowing that our fair nation will be governed by the best, wisest, and most moral money can buy; it will be almost like being governed by angels from heaven, and we'll be living in a veritable earthly paradise, and our troubles and woes will be ended.  

It's just basic economics.

[Peace]

Well, now that you've repeated your point at least a dozen times, I'll finally have to concede that you are, of course, 100% correct.

Choosing representatives or Senators in Congress is exactly like hiring a plumber (or maybe a roofer).  How silly of me that I hadn't realized that before.

 

And no doubt Congress would have swiftly outlawed slavery without a bloody war, if only congressmen had received higher salaries back then.  

And no doubt for a few extra million dollars/congressman, abortion will be quickly outlawed too (at least if we also jack up the salaries of Supreme Court justices accordingly).  The problem's just cheap public officials.

(Maybe money can't buy you love, but who said it can't buy virtue and moral principle!)

The only quibble I still have with your brilliant proposal is your timidity in demanding congressional salaries of a paltry few million; I say increase the yearly salaries of all politicians and government officials to a minimum of at least . . . One Billion Dollars!  That will ensure that our candidates will be the best of the best of the best!

It's a small price to invest, knowing that our fair nation will be governed by the best, wisest, and most moral money can buy; it will be almost like being governed by angels from heaven, and we'll be living in a veritable earthly paradise, and our troubles and woes will be ended.  

It's just basic economics.

Funny. Bravo.