First Thomas Sowell and now James Joyner are arguing in favor of substantial pay raises for Congressmen:
To those, I would add Significantly raises congressional salaries. While many Members are independently wealthy through inheritance or prior success in the business world, others rely exclusively on their salary. While $162,100 a year is good money, it’s not a lot when you consider the need to maintain a home in their state or District, one near Capitol Hill, and the expense of flying back and forth every weekend. Free meals and vacations are pretty good perk.
Mr. Joyner’s comments are made in the context of a post on lobbying reform.
I couldn’t disagree more and, I must say, what seems to me the increasing detachment of both political scientists and economists from how real people actually behave is beginning to concern me. My limited understanding is that political science and economics are both studies of human behavior, political science in the sphere of government and economics in the sphere of commerce.
Every fisherman knows that you use the bait that will attract the kind of fish you’re going after: crawdads for catfish, shiners or shad for bass. Human beings are too much different in this respect: the incentive you use will attract people who are motivated by that incentive. The larger the amount of money we use as a lure the greater the likelihood that we’ll get Congressmen who are motivated by financial gain.
If there’s one thing that the recent business scandals—Enron, Tyco, and Adelphia just to name three—should have taught us it’s that the unimaginably vast sums of money raked in by the CEO’s were not enough to keep them from wanting more. That’s the nature of avarice and why it’s one of the Seven Deadly Sins: it is not self-limiting. Greedy people always want more.
Concerned about the living conditions of poor Congressmen? Build a dormitory. Their families should be back in their districts. Let’s not kid ourselves: when the real homes of our Congressmen—where they live and send their kids to school—are in Virginia and Washington DC and Maryland those are the places they’ll inevitably represent.
The real question is what kind of bait we should be using to attract the sort of Congressmen we really want.
We pay brain surgeons, professional athletes, and others gobs of money and attract the very best people to those industries. We pay people in the service industries incredibly low wages and attact mostly those with few other opportunities. With a handful of exceptions, you get what you pay for.
I don’t buy it, James. I believe you are reasoning from premise (high pay attracts the best people) to unsupported conclusion (the people we have are the best available). I think that the more proper conclusion we can draw is that we have the best people who are motivated by higher pay (not necessarily the best people period).
I remember reading a book by Peter Drucker many years ago in which he noted something very interesting: after the basics (food, housing, etc.) are taken care of other motivations assume a higher importance. These include working with other highly competent people, work environment, location, etc.
I’d certainly like to see some proof of your claim. “Look how good the people we’ve got are—and they’re highly compensated” begs the question.
To a certain extent, the huge salaries paid to professional athletes aren’t wealth but a point score, a source of bragging rights. That phenomena doesn’t translate into other fields of endeavor.
HEY I LOVE FISHING