Check out the salaries members of the Texas legislature get. Sure, the Lege usually meets every 2 years for 140 days, but getting reelected takes up quite a bit of time for many of them. As someone who moved from Houston to Austin in 1980, I've lost count of the number of times a member from the Panhandle or some other area district far from Austin introduces a bill that may not mention Austin by name, but only fits the city. The usual reason for the bill? To destroy attempts by the city to limit growth in the ecologically fragile parts of its ETJ west, southwest, or northwest of town, or to gut environmental initiatives. I wish I was kidding. I call that corruption, because said member is doing it to get campaign contributions or something worse. Salaries? Look below. You can easily find this with a search. Perhaps if they were paid a decent salary (and were in session longer than the usual), the members wouldn't be as tempted. Sure, many are wealthy, but not all. I know quite a bit about the Lege due to my significant other, recently retired, having worked for said body in one capacity or another for 30+ years, the majority as an executive. I've mentioned it here on several occasions. State legislators in Texas make $600 per month, or $7,200 per year, plus a per diem of $190 for every day the Legislature is in session (also including any special sessions). That adds up to $33,800 a year for a regular session (140 days), with the total pay for a two-year term being $41,000. Houses: Senate; House of Representatives
On the latter, I agree wholeheartedly with Biff. Senators and Rep's already make a good living. If they are willing to abuse their position and engage in corruption, I'm guessing a few thousand dollars more per year isn't going to get it done. We aren't talking about people stealing bread to feed their families. Apparently, these are people willing to engage in corruption to enrich themselves.
They are paid a good upper middle class income. But, their pay has been sliding in real dollars since the 27th Amendment passed in 1992. It's not just this go-round. Eyeballing the graph here, it looks like their compensation has slid ~$50k, not just a few thousand. I think $50k/year can change behaviors. The other point I forgot to make yesterday is this. Congresspeople are powerful people. If the free market set their price, it'd be high. And, guess what, the free market does find a price because after they leave office they become lobbyists and get paid significantly more just for what and who they know, even without the power to cast votes. Public office can be for some actually an apprenticeship and a stepping stone to their real career as lobbyists. AOC is already making proposals to cut off that career path, which isn't going to be popular with members for whom that is their strategy. How do you get enough of Congress to vote to limit their own career options? By making their current job more lucrative.
Yeah, I get that. But since 1992, the salaries of Reps have been declining in real dollars because of inflation and it would come up in the House and Reps would vote against giving themselves a cost of living adjustment most of the time because of the bad optics that AOC references. So, yeah, she's supporting this small $4,500 cost of living adjustment now, but it's because she seems to see the dangers that come with this long-term erosion of compensation and how Congress might create systemic problems in order to get the short-term political benefit of grandstanding over a couple of bucks.
Socialists don't know anything about the economy. Millenials who lean this way are a prime example. 8 out of 10 think you need good credit to sell a home lol. That right there says everything about why people like AOC are gaining power. Ignorance about money and the world. Plain and simple. I would gladly support personal finance classes being placed in our high schools as a required course alongside health. That way we don't need to suffer through these idiots.
On the one hand, I agree with you that there are lots of socialist types who don't understand finance, economics, business, etc. I run across them sometimes in my professionally and it's annoying. On the other hand, I'm not much encouraged by the mastery I see of these same subjects by libertarian types either. Even on this bbs, there's an abject refusal by some to think very hard about the implications of capitalism or socialism. Witness how many times you'll see someone say the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Really, there is a good intellectual case to be made for capitalism and a good intellectual case to be made for socialism. Confirmation bias might result in some hearing only the good arguments on one side and only the bad ones on the other. I'm with you on personal finance classes though. Even if it doesn't elevate debate, at least maybe a few more people will plan for their retirements.
I don't agree with the political comments in your post, but I also think at least a semester course in personal finance ought to be a requirement in high school for graduation. Catch them before they go off to college or to learn a trade. Basic financial knowledge is something everyone should know before they go off into the world.
neither do the so-called seasoned capitalists, who supposedly have accumulated decades of real-life experience, egs include, but not limited to, the following supply-side economics promoted by Reagan's Budget Director David Stockman, which operated under the convenient assumptions that the wealth enjoyed by the wealthy will some how flow to the bottom. W and his VP, the evil one, promoted the idea the budget deficits don't matter GOP and Trump Adm, supposed capitalist, passed the tax cut for the uber rich w the lie that the tax cut will pay for themselves. Trump and his sycophants w the mantra that tariffs are not paid by consumers trump, whose business experience supposedly goes back to the late 1960s, have repeated said that the US Treasury collects tariffs from China's Treasury ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I hear you. We can print more But yeah I get that you can argue for some "socialist" aspects. I am a huge proponent of education and healthcare spending. I disagree with people like aoc on how this is done largely, but hey there are good ideas from both ends of it and I think in terms of minimal use of govt spending and power. Some just want to go wild with it. I do get annoyed with an automatic "no to all programs" attitude from people who clearly benefit from such things. I think the mindless stereotype of libertarian is also kind of to blame... libertarians vary a lot. I am close to one I suppose save for the fact that libertarians are so different from each other and there is a lack of guiding principle for many of them.
Check out "The Babylon Bee." It's a poor substitute for Mad Magazine from back in the day. I took a look and most of what I saw looked like things designed to get hits by ticking people off, or making them laugh. Depending on your point of view. Good trolling material.
It's a disturbing trend that a large portion of this country believes that troll news is some sort of intellectual reading material. So many damn people now a days day's believe that comedy means russtling jimmies. Self deprecating humor no longer is popular. It's all about being edgy and rusttling jimmies.
A nice video (first part of the video) on why AOC being loose with her wording on climate change is a problem, also a nice channel on climate change reports, science, misleading publications etc.
Ehhh people will hear hear what they want. She is right, it is a cost of living increase. People can poke fun at her, but a very large portion of people under 35 agree with what she said.