but I’m rather doubtful that increasing their pay will increase their
governance quality, as, from what I can gather
Aha, seems nobody read the links scott posted, where they said there
is research saying “studies have shown that higher pay for government
officials can reduce corruption and increase lawmakers’ responsiveness
to constituents.”. But asking for research on a subject is only when you
mistrust others, not about fixing your own biasses.
[Counter argument from a different post here](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/bzs72h/this_is_your_brain_on_neoliberal_ideology/eqwpyot/)
"Do higher government wages reduce corruption? This column argues that they do, but only in relatively poor countries. When a country’s poor, higher government wages reduce bureaucrats’ incentive to extract illegal incomes. However, as income per capita rises, higher government wages gradually lose their effectiveness in combating corruption."
I liked this:
> The Chinese Imperial examination system was never very vocational and selecting the rulers of a huge portion of humanity based on what amounts to essays on literature and philosophy worked wonderfully.
*Did it,* though?
me having a fever dream where high IQ but illiterate peasants had the same chances to pass the chinese exams as the failchildren of the bureaucratic elite
And if you can't tell the difference between any two Chinese dynasties, or any two Chinese ethnic groups, and if you ignore the tens (hundreds?) of millions who died in interminable wars, famines, rebellions, etc., and if you ignore the miserable end of the whole business in de facto colonial subjection, then excuse me but those failchildren did a *pretty bang-up job,* thank you very much!
>and then asked TPO if his take was accurate.
It kills me how that quack gets so much admirattion around there. Especially by the masochist Scott Aaronson types, considering that TPO said that bullying (what he calls memetic eugenics) and virgin shaming are good things being Scott Aaronson a well-known incel intellectual:
https://incels.wiki/w/Scott_Aaronson (CW: Not Safe For Life)
It seems to me that TPO is in his way to become a full-blown DW-dwelling intellectual.
I mean he uses big boy words like Moloch, Teleoplexy, Anti-Praxis Acceleration or Hyperstition (that means that he is too intelligent for Neanderthals like us) and is as ignorant about mainstream philosophy as Jordan B Memerson and Stephan Molymeme (that means that the far-left Academia is after him) so that is something that already makes him a good internet intellectual.
> bullying (what he calls memetic eugenics)
uh wat
Like, I always manage to underestimate how *bad* TPO is.
> Scott Aaronson a well-known incel intellectual
A what now?
> Scott Aaronson is an incelologist
Oh alright I give up.
their thought process is so fucking weird. why even bring english
teachers and programming up? why even engage with an analogy that
literally tells you nothing? is it because it’s an opportunity to talk
IQ nonsense again?
One thing nobody seems to have picked up on quite yet is that the
selection process for candidates in its form as voting is
somewhat orthogonal to traditional ideas about attracting talent with
higher pay.
Yes, beyond a certain level you will have talented people who will
prefer not to take a paycut in order to become a legislator - insofar as
talent is measured by remuneration, which is already a major caveat.
However, on the other side of the equation, talent as measured by
remuneration in industry is a function of experience and proven ability
to rise through several payscales to a higher salary.
While in an election, it is theoretically possible for anybody at any
current salary to become elected and take their legislative
seat with accompanying remuneration.
If you think that current remuneration is a reliable measure
of ability, you should also be concerned that quintupling the salary of
a congressperson presents a strong incentive for some chancer to
bullishly contest and win an election as a get-rich-quick scheme - a big
leap from their current salary - and this incentive will increase as you
increase congressional salaries.
From the article linked in the article linked by Scott:
Do higher government wages reduce corruption? This column argues that
they do, but only in relatively poor countries. When a country’s poor,
higher government wages reduce bureaucrats’ incentive to extract illegal
incomes. However, as income per capita rises, higher government wages
gradually lose their effectiveness in combating corruption.
Are you guys unironically against setting elected official pay at a
threshold priced to provide disincentive toward seeking alternative
income sources? Why would anyone be opposed to that?
There’s plenty of stupid to go around in there on a normal day - it’s idiotic to complain about the things that might actually be good ideas in such a target rich environment.
Searing hot take: there are plenty of interesting ideas discussed in T_M / SSC - they’re just also full of plenty of horrible awful takes, because that’s how every single political/philosophical/sociological “culture” board will be on the internet. Because the internet is awful. The only slightly unique thing the SSC people bring to the table is a nice smorgasbord of 19th century eugenics coated with 100,000 words of techy masturbation.
> Are you guys unironically against setting elected official pay at a threshold priced to provide disincentive toward seeking alternative income sources?
Where did you get this idea? The linked post does not proceed by that logic at all. It just baselessly assumes that by paying legislators more money you’ll get “better” legislators. There is no mention of alternative income seeking.
I mean Singapore uses the strategy and it’s been pretty successful at
preventing explicit corruption. I dislike Rationalists for Racism and
obsession with IQ, but this statement seems pretty reasnable.
Your obvious concern trolling and your spelling mistakes make your argument especially convincing.
>Singapore
Ah yeah, Singapore, the World Capital of sustainable development, long-term economic thinking and human rights enforcement.
Why do you think people go for those jobs in the first place? Because
it puts them close to power, with extra access to more ways of making
money. Throw all the money you want at them – it’s never going to be
enough because they want more, and they want power in addition to
it.
Aha, seems nobody read the links scott posted, where they said there is research saying “studies have shown that higher pay for government officials can reduce corruption and increase lawmakers’ responsiveness to constituents.”. But asking for research on a subject is only when you mistrust others, not about fixing your own biasses.
[deleted]
their thought process is so fucking weird. why even bring english teachers and programming up? why even engage with an analogy that literally tells you nothing? is it because it’s an opportunity to talk IQ nonsense again?
/r/SSC once again struggles with, like, the basics of human resources management.
One thing nobody seems to have picked up on quite yet is that the selection process for candidates in its form as voting is somewhat orthogonal to traditional ideas about attracting talent with higher pay.
Yes, beyond a certain level you will have talented people who will prefer not to take a paycut in order to become a legislator - insofar as talent is measured by remuneration, which is already a major caveat.
However, on the other side of the equation, talent as measured by remuneration in industry is a function of experience and proven ability to rise through several payscales to a higher salary.
While in an election, it is theoretically possible for anybody at any current salary to become elected and take their legislative seat with accompanying remuneration.
If you think that current remuneration is a reliable measure of ability, you should also be concerned that quintupling the salary of a congressperson presents a strong incentive for some chancer to bullishly contest and win an election as a get-rich-quick scheme - a big leap from their current salary - and this incentive will increase as you increase congressional salaries.
From the article linked in the article linked by Scott:
Ah yes, the reason our politics is such a mess is that there isn’t enough benefit to being a high ranking politician.
Are you guys unironically against setting elected official pay at a threshold priced to provide disincentive toward seeking alternative income sources? Why would anyone be opposed to that?
I mean Singapore uses the strategy and it’s been pretty successful at preventing explicit corruption. I dislike Rationalists for Racism and obsession with IQ, but this statement seems pretty reasnable.
Why do you think people go for those jobs in the first place? Because it puts them close to power, with extra access to more ways of making money. Throw all the money you want at them – it’s never going to be enough because they want more, and they want power in addition to it.