Mixing
What are the reasons for not calculating government officials' wages in terms of minimal wage?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In the context of Russian Federation, a deputy of the Duma (the lower assembly) is said to be earning ~400k rubles per month on average (actual amount doesn't matter, only the order of magnitude), while the minimum and the living wage in the country is ~11k rubles. The deputies are the ones controlling both for most parts, so they could in theory raise their wages bit by bit unchecked.
Why wouldn't a country have a (constitutional?) condition under which government officials' wages would be tied to the minimum wage, and be no higher than, e.g., 10 minimum wages? Wouldn't that work as a motivating factor for the officials, so that they actually work to increase the standard of living of the population, instead of being guaranteed a very high wage irrespective of their achievements? The same could apply to other officials, e.g. ministers, judges, even the president.
government minimum-wage
asked 3 hours ago
Gallifreyan
350139
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In the context of Russian Federation, a deputy of the Duma (the lower assembly) is said to be earning ~400k rubles per month on average (actual amount doesn't matter, only the order of magnitude), while the minimum and the living wage in the country is ~11k rubles. The deputies are the ones controlling both for most parts, so they could in theory raise their wages bit by bit unchecked.
Why wouldn't a country have a (constitutional?) condition under which government officials' wages would be tied to the minimum wage, and be no higher than, e.g., 10 minimum wages? Wouldn't that work as a motivating factor for the officials, so that they actually work to increase the standard of living of the population, instead of being guaranteed a very high wage irrespective of their achievements? The same could apply to other officials, e.g. ministers, judges, even the president.
government minimum-wage
asked 3 hours ago
Gallifreyan
350139
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In the context of Russian Federation, a deputy of the Duma (the lower assembly) is said to be earning ~400k rubles per month on average (actual amount doesn't matter, only the order of magnitude), while the minimum and the living wage in the country is ~11k rubles. The deputies are the ones controlling both for most parts, so they could in theory raise their wages bit by bit unchecked.
Why wouldn't a country have a (constitutional?) condition under which government officials' wages would be tied to the minimum wage, and be no higher than, e.g., 10 minimum wages? Wouldn't that work as a motivating factor for the officials, so that they actually work to increase the standard of living of the population, instead of being guaranteed a very high wage irrespective of their achievements? The same could apply to other officials, e.g. ministers, judges, even the president.
government minimum-wage
asked 3 hours ago
Gallifreyan
350139
In the context of Russian Federation, a deputy of the Duma (the lower assembly) is said to be earning ~400k rubles per month on average (actual amount doesn't matter, only the order of magnitude), while the minimum and the living wage in the country is ~11k rubles. The deputies are the ones controlling both for most parts, so they could in theory raise their wages bit by bit unchecked.
Why wouldn't a country have a (constitutional?) condition under which government officials' wages would be tied to the minimum wage, and be no higher than, e.g., 10 minimum wages? Wouldn't that work as a motivating factor for the officials, so that they actually work to increase the standard of living of the population, instead of being guaranteed a very high wage irrespective of their achievements? The same could apply to other officials, e.g. ministers, judges, even the president.
government minimum-wage
government minimum-wage
asked 3 hours ago
Gallifreyan
350139
asked 3 hours ago
Gallifreyan
350139
asked 3 hours ago
Gallifreyan
350139
asked 3 hours ago
Gallifreyan
350139
asked 3 hours ago
Gallifreyan
350139
350139
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Raising the minimum wage sufficienlty slowly and minimally can arguably increase the wages of low income people accompanied by insignifant increases in unemployment and insignificant disruptions to the path of low skill workers to their first job. The minimum wage is what economists call a price floor. Many economists are against them on principle because of their deep distortions and tendency to cause surpluses. In this case there is a surplus of labor people are willing to supply relative to the demand for jobs at that skill and wage. The the minimum wage in particular is a contentious issue among economists and political groups. So changes to the minimum wage have to be handled very carefully to avoid negative consequences.
Tying legislative salaries to the minimum wage doesn't help legislator optimize the minimum wage to do the most good to low income workers. It does put pressure on them to increase the minimum wage, but increasing it (especially by a very large amount, quickly) could cause unemployment and make it difficult for unskilled, especially first time workers, to get their first job.
A method of tying to legislative salaraies to low income earning people's salaries that would not promote this one dangerous tool is indexing salaries to some sort of median income. This need not be the income of the 50th percentile person, it could be the income of the 75th percentile person or the 95th percentile person (where the 0th percentile person is the richest person and the 100th percentile person is the poorest). This would empower legislatures to use a wide variety of methods for combatting poverty instead of just one.
That being said, politicians already have strong incentive to fight poverty without additional income incentives. Most voters care about poverty reduction, especially the propotion of voters in poverty. Furthermore, if the population doesn't care about poverty reduction, it won't matter much how much fincancial incentive politicians have to help the poor if their voters will vote them out for doing so and replace them with politicians sworn to reduce spending on anti-poverty programs.
answered 1 hour ago
lazarusL
4,92521841
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The political answer is: because turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
The practical answer is that tying wages to any particular metric is an invitation to game the metric. For instance if you tie legislators wages to the minimum wage then they might opt to raise the minimum wage but at the same time defang the enforcement so that everyone can ignore it.
answered 2 hours ago
Paul Johnson
2,6981616
Okay, then what about the living wage, the sum of the expenses that are absolutely necessary to meet one's basic needs? This can't be gamed, unless someone starts producing very cheap basic need products, which would be a win.
– Gallifreyan
2 hours ago
1
@Gallifreyan living wage is quite a debatable and relative number.
– Communisty
2 hours ago
3
@Gallifreyan The minimum wage is a legal figure set by the government, but the living wage is an estimate of the cost of living. What if the living wage goes up? This means people are poorer than they were before. Do the officials get a pay rise?
– Paul Johnson
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Raising the minimum wage sufficienlty slowly and minimally can arguably increase the wages of low income people accompanied by insignifant increases in unemployment and insignificant disruptions to the path of low skill workers to their first job. The minimum wage is what economists call a price floor. Many economists are against them on principle because of their deep distortions and tendency to cause surpluses. In this case there is a surplus of labor people are willing to supply relative to the demand for jobs at that skill and wage. The the minimum wage in particular is a contentious issue among economists and political groups. So changes to the minimum wage have to be handled very carefully to avoid negative consequences.
Tying legislative salaries to the minimum wage doesn't help legislator optimize the minimum wage to do the most good to low income workers. It does put pressure on them to increase the minimum wage, but increasing it (especially by a very large amount, quickly) could cause unemployment and make it difficult for unskilled, especially first time workers, to get their first job.
A method of tying to legislative salaraies to low income earning people's salaries that would not promote this one dangerous tool is indexing salaries to some sort of median income. This need not be the income of the 50th percentile person, it could be the income of the 75th percentile person or the 95th percentile person (where the 0th percentile person is the richest person and the 100th percentile person is the poorest). This would empower legislatures to use a wide variety of methods for combatting poverty instead of just one.
That being said, politicians already have strong incentive to fight poverty without additional income incentives. Most voters care about poverty reduction, especially the propotion of voters in poverty. Furthermore, if the population doesn't care about poverty reduction, it won't matter much how much fincancial incentive politicians have to help the poor if their voters will vote them out for doing so and replace them with politicians sworn to reduce spending on anti-poverty programs.
answered 1 hour ago
lazarusL
4,92521841
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Raising the minimum wage sufficienlty slowly and minimally can arguably increase the wages of low income people accompanied by insignifant increases in unemployment and insignificant disruptions to the path of low skill workers to their first job. The minimum wage is what economists call a price floor. Many economists are against them on principle because of their deep distortions and tendency to cause surpluses. In this case there is a surplus of labor people are willing to supply relative to the demand for jobs at that skill and wage. The the minimum wage in particular is a contentious issue among economists and political groups. So changes to the minimum wage have to be handled very carefully to avoid negative consequences.
Tying legislative salaries to the minimum wage doesn't help legislator optimize the minimum wage to do the most good to low income workers. It does put pressure on them to increase the minimum wage, but increasing it (especially by a very large amount, quickly) could cause unemployment and make it difficult for unskilled, especially first time workers, to get their first job.
A method of tying to legislative salaraies to low income earning people's salaries that would not promote this one dangerous tool is indexing salaries to some sort of median income. This need not be the income of the 50th percentile person, it could be the income of the 75th percentile person or the 95th percentile person (where the 0th percentile person is the richest person and the 100th percentile person is the poorest). This would empower legislatures to use a wide variety of methods for combatting poverty instead of just one.
That being said, politicians already have strong incentive to fight poverty without additional income incentives. Most voters care about poverty reduction, especially the propotion of voters in poverty. Furthermore, if the population doesn't care about poverty reduction, it won't matter much how much fincancial incentive politicians have to help the poor if their voters will vote them out for doing so and replace them with politicians sworn to reduce spending on anti-poverty programs.
answered 1 hour ago
lazarusL
4,92521841
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Raising the minimum wage sufficienlty slowly and minimally can arguably increase the wages of low income people accompanied by insignifant increases in unemployment and insignificant disruptions to the path of low skill workers to their first job. The minimum wage is what economists call a price floor. Many economists are against them on principle because of their deep distortions and tendency to cause surpluses. In this case there is a surplus of labor people are willing to supply relative to the demand for jobs at that skill and wage. The the minimum wage in particular is a contentious issue among economists and political groups. So changes to the minimum wage have to be handled very carefully to avoid negative consequences.
Tying legislative salaries to the minimum wage doesn't help legislator optimize the minimum wage to do the most good to low income workers. It does put pressure on them to increase the minimum wage, but increasing it (especially by a very large amount, quickly) could cause unemployment and make it difficult for unskilled, especially first time workers, to get their first job.
A method of tying to legislative salaraies to low income earning people's salaries that would not promote this one dangerous tool is indexing salaries to some sort of median income. This need not be the income of the 50th percentile person, it could be the income of the 75th percentile person or the 95th percentile person (where the 0th percentile person is the richest person and the 100th percentile person is the poorest). This would empower legislatures to use a wide variety of methods for combatting poverty instead of just one.
That being said, politicians already have strong incentive to fight poverty without additional income incentives. Most voters care about poverty reduction, especially the propotion of voters in poverty. Furthermore, if the population doesn't care about poverty reduction, it won't matter much how much fincancial incentive politicians have to help the poor if their voters will vote them out for doing so and replace them with politicians sworn to reduce spending on anti-poverty programs.
answered 1 hour ago
lazarusL
4,92521841
Raising the minimum wage sufficienlty slowly and minimally can arguably increase the wages of low income people accompanied by insignifant increases in unemployment and insignificant disruptions to the path of low skill workers to their first job. The minimum wage is what economists call a price floor. Many economists are against them on principle because of their deep distortions and tendency to cause surpluses. In this case there is a surplus of labor people are willing to supply relative to the demand for jobs at that skill and wage. The the minimum wage in particular is a contentious issue among economists and political groups. So changes to the minimum wage have to be handled very carefully to avoid negative consequences.
Tying legislative salaries to the minimum wage doesn't help legislator optimize the minimum wage to do the most good to low income workers. It does put pressure on them to increase the minimum wage, but increasing it (especially by a very large amount, quickly) could cause unemployment and make it difficult for unskilled, especially first time workers, to get their first job.
A method of tying to legislative salaraies to low income earning people's salaries that would not promote this one dangerous tool is indexing salaries to some sort of median income. This need not be the income of the 50th percentile person, it could be the income of the 75th percentile person or the 95th percentile person (where the 0th percentile person is the richest person and the 100th percentile person is the poorest). This would empower legislatures to use a wide variety of methods for combatting poverty instead of just one.
That being said, politicians already have strong incentive to fight poverty without additional income incentives. Most voters care about poverty reduction, especially the propotion of voters in poverty. Furthermore, if the population doesn't care about poverty reduction, it won't matter much how much fincancial incentive politicians have to help the poor if their voters will vote them out for doing so and replace them with politicians sworn to reduce spending on anti-poverty programs.
answered 1 hour ago
lazarusL
4,92521841
edited 37 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
lazarusL
4,92521841
answered 1 hour ago
lazarusL
4,92521841
answered 1 hour ago
lazarusL
4,92521841
4,92521841
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The political answer is: because turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
The practical answer is that tying wages to any particular metric is an invitation to game the metric. For instance if you tie legislators wages to the minimum wage then they might opt to raise the minimum wage but at the same time defang the enforcement so that everyone can ignore it.
answered 2 hours ago
Paul Johnson
2,6981616
Okay, then what about the living wage, the sum of the expenses that are absolutely necessary to meet one's basic needs? This can't be gamed, unless someone starts producing very cheap basic need products, which would be a win.
– Gallifreyan
2 hours ago
1
@Gallifreyan living wage is quite a debatable and relative number.
– Communisty
2 hours ago
3
@Gallifreyan The minimum wage is a legal figure set by the government, but the living wage is an estimate of the cost of living. What if the living wage goes up? This means people are poorer than they were before. Do the officials get a pay rise?
– Paul Johnson
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The political answer is: because turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
The practical answer is that tying wages to any particular metric is an invitation to game the metric. For instance if you tie legislators wages to the minimum wage then they might opt to raise the minimum wage but at the same time defang the enforcement so that everyone can ignore it.
answered 2 hours ago
Paul Johnson
2,6981616
Okay, then what about the living wage, the sum of the expenses that are absolutely necessary to meet one's basic needs? This can't be gamed, unless someone starts producing very cheap basic need products, which would be a win.
– Gallifreyan
2 hours ago
1
@Gallifreyan living wage is quite a debatable and relative number.
– Communisty
2 hours ago
3
@Gallifreyan The minimum wage is a legal figure set by the government, but the living wage is an estimate of the cost of living. What if the living wage goes up? This means people are poorer than they were before. Do the officials get a pay rise?
– Paul Johnson
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The political answer is: because turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
The practical answer is that tying wages to any particular metric is an invitation to game the metric. For instance if you tie legislators wages to the minimum wage then they might opt to raise the minimum wage but at the same time defang the enforcement so that everyone can ignore it.
answered 2 hours ago
Paul Johnson
2,6981616
The political answer is: because turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
The practical answer is that tying wages to any particular metric is an invitation to game the metric. For instance if you tie legislators wages to the minimum wage then they might opt to raise the minimum wage but at the same time defang the enforcement so that everyone can ignore it.
answered 2 hours ago
Paul Johnson
2,6981616
answered 2 hours ago
Paul Johnson
2,6981616
answered 2 hours ago
Paul Johnson
2,6981616
answered 2 hours ago
Paul Johnson
2,6981616
2,6981616
Okay, then what about the living wage, the sum of the expenses that are absolutely necessary to meet one's basic needs? This can't be gamed, unless someone starts producing very cheap basic need products, which would be a win.
– Gallifreyan
2 hours ago
1
@Gallifreyan living wage is quite a debatable and relative number.
– Communisty
2 hours ago
3
@Gallifreyan The minimum wage is a legal figure set by the government, but the living wage is an estimate of the cost of living. What if the living wage goes up? This means people are poorer than they were before. Do the officials get a pay rise?
– Paul Johnson
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Okay, then what about the living wage, the sum of the expenses that are absolutely necessary to meet one's basic needs? This can't be gamed, unless someone starts producing very cheap basic need products, which would be a win.
– Gallifreyan
2 hours ago
1
@Gallifreyan living wage is quite a debatable and relative number.
– Communisty
2 hours ago
3
@Gallifreyan The minimum wage is a legal figure set by the government, but the living wage is an estimate of the cost of living. What if the living wage goes up? This means people are poorer than they were before. Do the officials get a pay rise?
– Paul Johnson
2 hours ago
Okay, then what about the living wage, the sum of the expenses that are absolutely necessary to meet one's basic needs? This can't be gamed, unless someone starts producing very cheap basic need products, which would be a win.
– Gallifreyan
2 hours ago
Okay, then what about the living wage, the sum of the expenses that are absolutely necessary to meet one's basic needs? This can't be gamed, unless someone starts producing very cheap basic need products, which would be a win.
– Gallifreyan
2 hours ago
1
1
@Gallifreyan living wage is quite a debatable and relative number.
– Communisty
2 hours ago
@Gallifreyan living wage is quite a debatable and relative number.
– Communisty
2 hours ago
3
3
@Gallifreyan The minimum wage is a legal figure set by the government, but the living wage is an estimate of the cost of living. What if the living wage goes up? This means people are poorer than they were before. Do the officials get a pay rise?
– Paul Johnson
2 hours ago
@Gallifreyan The minimum wage is a legal figure set by the government, but the living wage is an estimate of the cost of living. What if the living wage goes up? This means people are poorer than they were before. Do the officials get a pay rise?
– Paul Johnson
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33821%2fwhat-are-the-reasons-for-not-calculating-government-officials-wages-in-terms-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password