this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2026
1321 points (96.9% liked)

Work Reform

17772 readers
1443 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] pachrist@lemmy.world 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I have always heard people make this argument, and since it's Great British Bake-off time, I'll use it as the example.

There's no prize, and the pay per episode is fairly minimal. Less than $500/episode for contestants. Plus, they get ~$2000 stipend for ingredients. On the fly converting pounds to dollars, so these are guesstimates.

What that means is that Great British Bake-off does not find the best home baker in Britain, it finds the best baker who can afford to take time off to be on the show. If you can afford to miss school, work, or being a parent for 12 weeks, you can't compete.

Same applies here.

If you can't afford to live on the salary, you'll only get people in office who don't need the salary. We already get that to some extent with campaigning costs. This could make it worse. The barrier of entry is higher.

Instead, we need a performance review with real consequences other than "Guess I don't get re-elected, but I still get a book deal."

[โ€“] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I have always thought it should be twice the average median income of the state they represent.

But you bring up much larger issues. There are so many bars to running for office that make it so much easier for capital holders. I say people who hold capital should be barred from public office. I will leave the exact definition of "holding capital" up to the reader.