this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2026
1319 points (96.9% liked)

Work Reform

17772 readers
1137 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] answersplease77@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just make inside trading and taking corporate and foreign Pac bribes illegal for them.
Currently these two rules alone are why they rig laws for corportations and big pharma and insurance and oil companies, weapon manufaturers, banks, israel... they work for everyone but the citizens... And that some fucking how is legal and practiced in the open by both Democrats and Conservatives alike

[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is where the real money is, and this is the real source of corruption; their salary is not the problem. In fact, I think the salary should be high enough that normal people will still be interested in the difficult and ugly game of politics. I wouldn't run for office for less money than I make at my job - I have bills to pay.

I think they should be barred altogether from making stock trades while in office. Maybe their portfolios could go into a blind trusts (or index funds or something) so that they cannot make insider trades. Likewise for their partners and close family.

Manipulating the stock market is the principal motivation behind Trump's trade and foreign policy. The same can probably be said about many Democrat and Republican congresspeople. Allowing this obscenity is the single greatest weakness of the American political system.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have a solution. Come up with actual Qol metrics for the average American, check them every 3 months, if they go down a congressman is selected at random for execution.

[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I like it, but there is a hitch. With climate change, mean QoL is going to fall for the rest of our lives. We can mitigate the suffering and redistribute resources to make things equitable, but the best we can realistically do is improve median QoL.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 3 points 1 day ago

Yeah, I left it vague because I'm certainly not qualified to determine what that should be.

[–] qbus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

They should also have to use the VA for health insurance

[–] DoctorWhoDMC@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Sounds good on paper, until you notice this means... only the wealthy would ever bother running for office.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'm sure many low wage workers would jump at the chance to actually make a difference.

Why do we think only people who have become career politicians should be politicians? They're the last people who should do it.

A room of 600 plumbers, nurses, and bin men would make far better decisions than them.

[–] DoctorWhoDMC@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Yes, but in that case adopting Sortition and abolishing career politicians makes way more sense.

[–] ProdigiousInsanity@lemmus.org 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tazeycrazy@feddit.uk 4 points 1 day ago

That's the theory behind pensions for most public offices and the police. To remove the temptation for corruption in office... not that it works

[–] KulunkelBoom@lemmus.org 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

No perks - they pay for their own insurance and take what's offered just like the rest of us.

No two-three months vacation. Or more. NO insider trading - trump has jacked up the price of petroleum and made a literal killing from it. No vested retirement just for showing up for a couple of years. No more travel allowances. No more fucking perks. No more lobbyists. They want lobbyists then go to their fucking home town and listen to the people who hired them. No more rich corporate daddies. And speaking of which - all those fuckers need a 90% tax on ASSETS, real or imagined.

And their whole superstructure of interns and slaves and ne'erdowell hangers on - these fuckers need to start reading writing their OWN goddam bills based on their OWN goddam constituent's needs.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Might be unpopular be politicians should actually be paid a lot. You want to attract actually skilled and capable people after all

But it should also be there only source of income, no speaking gigs, no stock trades, no side business

[–] veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

One of the reasons a lot of government positions track if you have debts is that propensity to financial burdens make politicians more suceptible to corruption.

If you pay them less, they are actually going to be more easily bribed.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] roboflop@feddit.uk 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Early retirement, absolutely.

With regards to politicians wages, I think they should be commensurate with the responsibilities of the job. But they should have no other means of income during their term, and potentially for a period afterwards. There would need to be much more stringent auditing and enforcement to ensure this.

Politicians engaging I'm outside employment seems crazy to me, and is clearly a route to corruption.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Better yet, bring back the ancient Greek lottery for state office.

[–] Tomato666@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yes, but a competency test is essential. 50% of the population are below average intelligence.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sounds like an improvement over the current US congress already.

[–] Tomato666@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think most countries would benefit from a competency test for public office, maybe even a morality assessment...

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 5 points 1 day ago

The more serious answer to that is that someone then needs to decide what "competent" means. Should a human rights activist be disqualified from office if they're terrible at math?

Morality tests are even harder to make apolitically. It's another avenue of attack that could be used maliciously.

I don't think so. That just creates another way to gatekeep, and that can be corrupted. I'd rather focus on improving education in the first place.

[–] devedeset@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If members of Congress earn the average or median wage, that will ensure that only the rich can actually hold that position. Very, very few non-rich people would take that risk.

[–] nullroot@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

And it will only encourage lobbying, insider trader, and every other corrupt money making bullshit they still do with what they earn.

[–] turdas@suppo.fi 116 points 2 days ago (24 children)

The usual argument against this is that the less politicians earn, the easier they are to bribe.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 172 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Politicians will be happy to take bribes regardless of what they earn.

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 78 points 2 days ago

At least until campaign finance is fixed. Citizens United has fully instituted political bribery as a matter of course

[–] binarytobis@lemmy.world 43 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I’ll never get over how cheap it is to buy politicians. They make so much money, then they can be made to vote for a genocide for $3000.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago

And a wealth cap. If you have 20 million networth but want to give it all up save under 200k (current median networth) to be a public servant then by all means. They made Jimmy Carter give up his peanut farm, which was the right thing, we should do the same for politicians today.

[–] 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."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

And no money from lobbyists, no insider trading and no ability to award contracts to private entities

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 50 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (6 children)

Median is a better choice as its less affected by outliers.

The mean average is the amount you compute by putting all the money that is earned in a big pot and dividing it up evenly amongst everyone.

Median is where you find the single most average person and ask them how much they make.

Median gives them an incentive to improve the income of the average American. Mean average gives an incentive to increase national wealth regardless of who's hands its in, and an incentive to decrease the population. That is not a good incentive.

But also keep in mind congress members are local representatives. They need to be in DC while in session, and in their state or district at other times to be available to their constituents. The job requires maintaining two households, so they should earn enough for that. Unless we provide them college dorm level mandatory housing in the capital. Then median alone is enough.

load more comments (6 replies)

MEDIAN wage. No rich to skew things.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

My thoughts on that was they got paid the average pay for the state the live in. Down here in the south they would have to get food stamps.

load more comments
view more: next ›