Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

seekingalpha.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 382 posts

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#161

Post by pjbeam »

throwaway_4ever wrote: post #73
nostromo wrote: post #51

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a round…

How does paying a politician MORE than 3x median US pay make them less out of touch with the average American? We don't need politicians 15x out of touch with the median American's lifestyle. In NYC governor's last election, there was a question about how much the median house costs in Brooklyn, and two high level candidates gave absolutely bonkers answers like $90k and $120k, when it's actually $900k. You only want…

I could not afford my life on a senator's pay. Not even close. Couldn't take the job even if it was offered to me on a silver platter.

President's pay comes with housing so my family could probably make that work, would be belt tightening--especially because I'd be on the hook for the food in state dinners and such.

Not that I think anyone wants me to be a senator or the president but rather I couldn't afford to be. I'm too wealthy for it to be an upgrade and too poor to take the pay cuts in stride.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#162

Post by gnaritas99 »

throwaway_4ever wrote: post #73
nostromo wrote: post #51

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a round…

How does paying a politician MORE than 3x median US pay make them less out of touch with the average American? We don't need politicians 15x out of touch with the median American's lifestyle. In NYC governor's last election, there was a question about how much the median house costs in Brooklyn, and two high level candidates gave absolutely bonkers answers like $90k and $120k, when it's actually $900k. You only want…

If you don't pay as well as the market pays, you're not going to get competent people. This notion that good people would do it anyway is naive.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#163

Post by rgbrgb »

deltarholamda wrote: post #134
nostromo wrote: post #51

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a round…

The fix for this was in the founding documents. We just jacked it up over the years. Congress passes laws. They aren't supposed to pass a vague law and then hand over the actual rule-making to unelected government bureaucracies. The House is the people's house. Each Representative represents some relatively equal number of constituents. The Senate is the States' house. The state legislatures sends senators. The Senat…

Trying to get clarification, as a layman here I think I'm missing your point. My understanding is that laws are by their nature kind of vague because the world is full of edge cases and they always require interpretation as they encounter new cases.

> hand over the actual rule-making to unelected government bureaucracies.

Are you referring to the judicial branch? Isn't that the system laid out in the founding docs?

> We jiggered with this

What jiggering are you referring to?

Without understanding your point, I'm all for this legislation as we've seen so many recent US officials enrich themselves with the power they wield.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#164

Post by gnaritas99 »

pessimizer wrote: post #137
vasco wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You only want people as politicians because they feel it's their civic duty to serve their countrymen, not because it's a lucrative career. Why? I mean you just say that as if it's some universal truth. I don't see how focusing on civic duty is any better as a way to find good candidates than optimizing for high achieving people looking for lucrative fields to work on. I don't know which would yield better results…

You don't see how a desire for public service would suit someone in public service better than the desire to get rich?

It might suit them, but it doesn't suit us. The desire for public service is in no way a qualifier for competence.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#165

Post by thebiss »

zeruch wrote: post #93
_8j50 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better Idea: $300k base and a performance bonus up to 100% more based on sponsored laws and an additional 100% for passed laws with an extra 100k for no votes missed or abstained. So a perfectly performing congressperson gets a mil.

I'm not sure about the specifics you outlined, but I do think a comp package that incentivizes grown-ass behavior (read: full attendance, voting, actual participation in the legislative process) is a great idea. I don't think rewarding certain behaviors like sponsoring is good, because its too easily abused. When a KPI becomes a target, its no longer a KPI.

Can you clarify when/how a KPI ever not a target?

Bonuses and promotions always go to those who exceed them, and "improvement plans" or "restructuring" is reserved to those who miss.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#167

Post by dugmartin »

hayst4ck wrote: post #105

Lawrence Lessig (Harvard law professor famous for fighting for sane copyright law) does a great presentation on the root cause of Americas problems. He also ran for president in 2016. It can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE The short version is that to win primaries you need money. Money mainly comes from corporations and rich people. Taking money from corporations and rich people creates…

I'm sure its not an original idea but I always thought a more "fair" system would be all 18+ citizens would automatically be entered in a lottery every year that would fill 1/5 of the seats of a unicameral legislature of 500 seats. The winners would be given something insane, like $1 billion dollars for each member, at the end of 5 years of service with a yearly stipend of $1 million a year during their service. This would get money out of politics the only way I can think of, which is randomly injecting ridiculous amounts to random people.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#168

Post by rgbrgb »

pjbeam wrote: post #161
throwaway_4ever wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does paying a politician MORE than 3x median US pay make them less out of touch with the average American? We don't need politicians 15x out of touch with the median American's lifestyle. In NYC governor's last election, there was a question about how much the median house costs in Brooklyn, and two high level candidates gave absolutely bonkers answers like $90k and $120k, when it's actually $900k. You only want…

I could not afford my life on a senator's pay. Not even close. Couldn't take the job even if it was offered to me on a silver platter. President's pay comes with housing so my family could probably make that work, would be belt tightening--especially because I'd be on the hook for the food in state dinners and such. Not that I think anyone wants me to be a senator or the president but rather I couldn't afford to be.…

I'm betting your first book deal (could be ghostwritten) would more than make up for the discrepancy. You might also invest in a hotel down the street and suggest foreign dignitaries stay there. Or employ your kids who can do the same! So many good ways to more than make up the salary drop.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#169

Post by LordDragonfang »

com2kid wrote: post #128
throwaway_4ever wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does paying a politician MORE than 3x median US pay make them less out of touch with the average American? We don't need politicians 15x out of touch with the median American's lifestyle. In NYC governor's last election, there was a question about how much the median house costs in Brooklyn, and two high level candidates gave absolutely bonkers answers like $90k and $120k, when it's actually $900k. You only want…

You want to pay people in positions of power so much money that they are afraid of losing their salary by being caught up in a corruption scandal. This is how America got rid of large swaths of police corruption. Go back 100 years and bribing police was trivial, they made so little money that taking bribes was how they kept afloat financially. Now days? An officer making $120k a year isn't going to take a $100 bribe…

>Go back 100 years [...] they made so little money that taking bribes was how they kept afloat financially.

Hell, even today that's still the case in many countries with a large number of underpaid public servants - specifically China, where extorting bribes is considered a perk of the job.

Contrast to Singapore, which pays its members of parliament 3x the median household income and is tied for second place on the (lowest) Corruption Perception Index.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBBre3bpvyk

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#170

Post by Alupis »

pjbeam wrote: post #161
throwaway_4ever wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does paying a politician MORE than 3x median US pay make them less out of touch with the average American? We don't need politicians 15x out of touch with the median American's lifestyle. In NYC governor's last election, there was a question about how much the median house costs in Brooklyn, and two high level candidates gave absolutely bonkers answers like $90k and $120k, when it's actually $900k. You only want…

I could not afford my life on a senator's pay. Not even close. Couldn't take the job even if it was offered to me on a silver platter. President's pay comes with housing so my family could probably make that work, would be belt tightening--especially because I'd be on the hook for the food in state dinners and such. Not that I think anyone wants me to be a senator or the president but rather I couldn't afford to be.…

What kind of lifestyle are you imagining couldn't survive on a single-income of $174,000[1] per year. This, of course, doesn't account for spousal income (if any).

When you're a senator, you also receive a lot of "perks" that reduce your overall expenses. Most travel comes out of an office fund, hotels, rental cars... many meals can also be expensed to the same fund, etc. Clothing even in some cases.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_Uni...

Post reply on HN