(MN) Constitutional Amendment - ballot initiative

[Willihammer]

So there's an amendment to the state constitution on this year's ballot. Read about it here: https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/09/theres-amendment-state-constitution-ballot-year-heres-what-you-need-know-abo

 

The exact language is

 

Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to remove state lawmakers' power to set their own salaries, and instead establish an independent, citizens-only council to prescribe salaries of lawmakers?

Yes .....

No .....

 

[Willihammer]

I'll be voting a hard "yes."

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'll be voting a hard "yes."

You may want to reconsider. This happened somewhere else - I forgot where it was, I only briefly scanned the article - and lawmakers' pay skyrocketed over the following few years.

 

And they were completely guilt-free while it happened.

 

I'll try to dig up a link.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Ah, they didn't get big raises, but they got raises.

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-state-panel-approves-raises-fo-1464803518-htmlstory.html

 

And more on how lawmakers are paid in general:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-should-state-legislators-get-paid/

 

Interestingly enough, my wife (a lawyer) has another friend who is a lawmaker and he wants this to pass because, by comparison, Minnesota's lawmakers are underpaid compared to the median household income and he believes this will help lawmakers get regular raises without a fuss.

 

It's an interesting law and one that may be needed but I think people are looking at it from the wrong angle. Lawmakers, like everyone else, deserve to be paid and it's not like they're living the high life on a $40,000 yearly salary.

[Willihammer]

Yeah I'm hoping for raises- the bigger the batter. Because I want the best people in those jobs.

[Willihammer]

This is what $31k gets you for a R choice in my house district.

 

http://www.rileyhoran.org/

 

21 / M / loves JJ Abrams movies etc. 

[TheLeviathan]

Legislators making more money might reduce the appeal of outside money.  I'm in favor of legislator salaries doubling along with more strict guidelines about compensation and their work.  

[Mr. Brooks]

Ah, they didn't get big raises, but they got raises.

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-state-panel-approves-raises-fo-1464803518-htmlstory.html

 

And more on how lawmakers are paid in general:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-should-state-legislators-get-paid/

 

Interestingly enough, my wife (a lawyer) has another friend who is a lawmaker and he wants this to pass because, by comparison, Minnesota's lawmakers are underpaid compared to the median household income and he believes this will help lawmakers get regular raises without a fuss.

 

It's an interesting law and one that may be needed but I think people are looking at it from the wrong angle. Lawmakers, like everyone else, deserve to be paid and it's not like they're living the high life on a $40,000 yearly salary.

Isn't it a side job though? How many days of the year are they in session?

 

If I could bring in 40k on the side, I think I could live some variation of a high life.

No, we aren't talking 200ft yacht money, but 40k buys couple pretty extravagant vacations per year.

[Mr. Brooks]

FYI, meant to include in that last post.

I'm not railing against lawmakers salaries. I'd need to do more research to know if what they make is fair or not.

I'm just saying, 40k on the side isn't chump change.

[TheLeviathan]

 

FYI, meant to include in that last post.
I'm not railing against lawmakers salaries. I'd need to do more research to know if what they make is fair or not.
I'm just saying, 40k on the side isn't chump change.

 

The problem is that it's a very taxing "side job".  The hours aren't exactly flexible.

[Mr. Brooks]

The problem is that it's a very taxing "side job". The hours aren't exactly flexible.

That isn't a job I'd describe as taxing. I'd go as far as to call it pretty much the opposite of taxing.

Now campaigning could be pretty taxing, but a lot of these state lawmakers go basically unopposed most of the time.

[TheLeviathan]

 

That isn't a job I'd describe as taxing. I'd go as far as to call it pretty much the opposite of taxing.
Now campaigning could be pretty taxing, but a lot of these state lawmakers go basically unopposed most of the time.

 

Well, yeah, it's not physically taxing.  It's taxing on your time and your mental stamina.

[Willihammer]

 

Isn't it a side job though? How many days of the year are they in session?

If I could bring in 40k on the side, I think I could live some variation of a high life.
No, we aren't talking 200ft yacht money, but 40k buys couple pretty extravagant vacations per year.

As an example, the last legislature, the 89th, worked the following days:

https://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/timecapsule/session

 

And this was the committee schedule in the Senate. The House would be similar:

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committees/cmte_meeting_schedule.php?ls=

 

Just from an attendance perspective, you have committee, party, and legislative obligations. Meetings with constituents, lobbyists, interest groups, other politicians, answering and sending out mail, preparing committee materials, laying out agendas, writing bills, etc. They are long days.

 

I would set the pay at whatever a good lawyer makes for half a year's work. Maybe $100k. If they pared down to a unicameral body like Jesse wanted then we could make it cost neutral or close to it. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I would set the pay at whatever a good lawyer makes for half a year's work. Maybe $100k. If they pared down to a unicameral body like Jesse wanted then we could make it cost neutral or close to it. 

I agree that they probably need a raise but I wouldn't compare them to lawyers:

 

1. Lawyers make less than you think. There are only a handful of firms in the metro area that pay $200k a year and that number generally requires someone well into their career (10+ years). Most lawyers make somewhere at or near $100k and only after they drop the "junior" from their title.

 

2. Lawyers, especially the top echelon, work absurd hours. I mean, ****ing absurd hours. Hours the rest of us consider completely out of line, particularly given the fact most of them don't make huge money.

 

3. Kids, don't become a doctor or lawyer. The professions sound nice but, in actuality, really suck. Were I to go find a "real" job (I'm currently a contractor who works when I want), I'd make as much as my wife, who graduated law school (top 15% of her class) eight years ago and has been a lawyer in a firm for five of those years (she was a clerk before that time). Me? I went to school for illustration and taught myself how to code in my spare time.

[Vanimal46]

Concur. Go into something tech related - Java developers, systems engineer, dev-ops, etc... In very little time you are making great money. 

Or Engineering in any discipline (electrical, mechanical, civil, structural) - companies throughout the country are always on the lookout for quality Engineers. If you're an Engineer with a personality, you have a golden ticket anywhere. 

[Willihammer]

 

I agree that they probably need a raise but I wouldn't compare them to lawyers:

 

1. Lawyers make less than you think. There are only a handful of firms in the metro area that pay $200k a year and that number generally requires someone well into their career (10+ years). Most lawyers make somewhere at or near $100k and only after they drop the "junior" from their title.

 

2. Lawyers, especially the top echelon, work absurd hours. I mean, ****ing absurd hours. Hours the rest of us consider completely out of line, particularly given the fact most of them don't make huge money.

 

3. Kids, don't become a doctor or lawyer. The professions sound nice but, in actuality, really suck. Were I to go find a "real" job (I'm currently a contractor who works when I want), I'd make as much as my wife, who graduated law school (top 15% of her class) eight years ago and has been a lawyer in a firm for five of those years (she was a clerk before that time). Me? I went to school for illustration and taught myself how to code in my spare time.

My thinking is that given the business (writing law), lawyers are generally strong candidates for the job, and pay should be commensurate with that industry to make the job more attractive to good ones.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

My thinking is that given the business (writing law), lawyers are generally strong candidates for the job, and pay should be commensurate with that industry to make the job more attractive to good ones.

That's fair. I'd just be wary about throwing out big numbers re: lawyer pay. It's not as much as you think or expect. There are far more lawyers able to practice than there are jobs for said lawyers. The market is completely saturated.

[Mr. Brooks]

My thinking is that given the business (writing law), lawyers are generally strong candidates for the job, and pay should be commensurate with that industry to make the job more attractive to good ones.

It's supposed to be public service, not a career.

I'm not saying they should do it for free. But they shouldn't make an equivalent to the private sector, how is that public service?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's supposed to be public service, not a career.
I'm not saying they should do it for free. But they shouldn't make an equivalent to the private sector, how is that public service?

Do you want high quality people in the position or not?

 

Sure, a few high quality people will jump into the public sector either for the service aspect or personal satisfaction but when you're well-paid to do a job that consumes a large portion of your time in the private sector, it's really hard to abandon that for five, ten years so you can serve for a pittance in the public sector.

 

There has to be some kind of balance to make it worth the time of the people you want to attract to the job.

 

And that's ignoring that if you pay a pittance to serve publicly, that means you're only drawing from people who are wealthy enough to be able to afford working part-time for several years. You're reducing the qualified candidate pool to people who already have money and, generally, people serve in their own interest first, everyone else second (if at all).

 

Not that I'm accusing you of this but it's really weird how some people tout free market practices on a daily basis but then refuse to apply those same principles to the public sector.

[Willihammer]

Excatly. People object to the term "career politician" but when you do something for 2-4 years and it demands most of your attention and is the primary source of income, that is your de facto career.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Excatly. People object to the term "career politician" but when you do something for 2-4 years and it demands most of your attention and is the primary source of income, that is your de facto career.

I have few problems with career politicians.

 

I have much bigger problems with the money found both in and after serving a national office, particularly in lobbying.

 

Some career politicians might be lazy asshats but that's true of other professions as well. People usually get better at their jobs as they practice said jobs and there's no reason to think politics are an exception.

 

I'm not against term limits, either... But I think they should be longer than most advocates suggest. A limit of 15-20 years seems reasonable to me. If you haven't moved up or out of the position in two decades, it's probably time to shuffle chairs.

[Mr. Brooks]

Do you want high quality people in the position or not?

 

Sure, a few high quality people will jump into the public sector either for the service aspect or personal satisfaction but when you're well-paid to do a job that consumes a large portion of your time in the private sector, it's really hard to abandon that for five, ten years so you can serve for a pittance in the public sector.

 

There has to be some kind of balance to make it worth the time of the people you want to attract to the job.

 

And that's ignoring that if you pay a pittance to serve publicly, that means you're only drawing from people who are wealthy enough to be able to afford working part-time for several years. You're reducing the qualified candidate pool to people who already have money and, generally, people serve in their own interest first, everyone else second (if at all).

 

Not that I'm accusing you of this but it's really weird how some people tout free market practices on a daily basis but then refuse to apply those same principles to the public sector.

I guess I don't know where I said they should be paid a pittance.

I just said they shouldn't get the equivalent of a comparable private sector job.

You don't have to be rich to be willing to take a 40k a year side job. I mean, that's actually kind of insulting to those of us that make similar money working long hours all year.

I want my representatives to represent all walks of life, not just lawyers and such.

Maybe I'm naive, but I like to think that people who truly to serve the public don't need 6 figures to do so.

[TheLeviathan]

Need? No. But might it help politics be more viable and be less obnoxious and money driven? Yes. That's the reason.

[Mike Sixel]

Uh, it's kind of hard to have another good job if you are gone for 4-6 months a year....

 

Also, it's not like they don't meet with constituents, raise money, and do other work when they aren't in session.

 

This reads a lot like "teachers only work 9 months a year, we don't want to pay them for, you know, educating our children, because they can make money the other three months".....

 

Like it or not, you won't get the best and brightest if you don't pay them. Trust me, I've met many of them over the years.....

[Willihammer]

The amendment passed BTW, with 76.6% voting yes

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/minnesota

 

I'd love to see this move paired with a haircut on the # of reps. Go unicameral.

[TheLeviathan]

Good for Minnesota.  I hope they can start a trend.  

 

Being a public servant shouldn't be a part time job.

[Mr. Brooks]

Uh, it's kind of hard to have another good job if you are gone for 4-6 months a year....

 

Also, it's not like they don't meet with constituents, raise money, and do other work when they aren't in session.

 

This reads a lot like "teachers only work 9 months a year, we don't want to pay them for, you know, educating our children, because they can make money the other three months".....

 

Like it or not, you won't get the best and brightest if you don't pay them. Trust me, I've met many of them over the years.....

And nobody is saying they should work for free.

 

Why is it hard to find another job if you are gone 4 months of the year?

Sure, that eliminates some jobs, but there are also lot of fields where you can be an independent contractor and set your own schedule.

 

If the goal is to treat it like any other career and get paid top dollar then just go work in the private sector.

40k per year, plus what you can make in 8 months as an independent contractor in your field, is not peanuts.

Public service is SUPPOSED to involve sacrifice, that's why it's called public service.

 

And I already addressed the campaigning side of it, and like I said, yes in competitive districts that is a big time commitment, but in a lot of these districts these guys practically run unopposed.

[Mr. Brooks]

Uh, it's kind of hard to have another good job if you are gone for 4-6 months a year....

 

Also, it's not like they don't meet with constituents, raise money, and do other work when they aren't in session.

 

This reads a lot like "teachers only work 9 months a year, we don't want to pay them for, you know, educating our children, because they can make money the other three months".....

 

Like it or not, you won't get the best and brightest if you don't pay them. Trust me, I've met many of them over the years.....

Come on Mike, being a teacher is a career, it's not public service. That is a huge difference.

[Squirrel]

 

Come on Mike, being a teacher is a career, it's not public service. That is a huge difference.

I'd say it's both.

[USAFChief]

Why is it hard to find a job where you are free to do something else 4 months per year?

 

Seriously?