Someone Who Is Good At The Economy Please Help Me
January 10, 2024 9:42 PM Subscribe
Articles asking us to feel sympathy for families barely scraping by on healthy six-figure incomes may be staples of the financial press, but it’s rare that they come packaged as real-world case studies attached to flesh-and-blood individuals. But that’s what happened just before Christmas... Clarence Thomas and the bottomless self-pity of the upper classes
Maybe Ivy League law professors opining that it’s fine and just for Supreme Court justices to accept bribes should lose their jobs. Call it what you like: cancelled, shunned, ostracized; run out of town. I mean, at what point does holding such a viewpoint become professional malpractice? It’s like a medical school professor suggesting doctors feeling stressed should be able to murder their patients.
If Clarence Thomas wanted to make money, he could walk into a cushy partner job at a private firm. The whole discussion about whether justices should get a raise is missing the point that someone who yearns for billionaire wealth is going to be just as unhappy at $600k as they are at $285k. Maybe a low salary that repels the judges who just want to be rich is a feature, not a bug.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 10:26 PM on January 10 [73 favorites]
If Clarence Thomas wanted to make money, he could walk into a cushy partner job at a private firm. The whole discussion about whether justices should get a raise is missing the point that someone who yearns for billionaire wealth is going to be just as unhappy at $600k as they are at $285k. Maybe a low salary that repels the judges who just want to be rich is a feature, not a bug.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 10:26 PM on January 10 [73 favorites]
The peers of Supreme Court justices are not law school presidents (who are also grossly overpaid), they are other federal judges. The fact that the Supreme Court is mostly made up of people who went to Yale is part of the problem, not itself a justification for paying them obscene salaries.
posted by Just the one swan, actually at 10:32 PM on January 10 [56 favorites]
posted by Just the one swan, actually at 10:32 PM on January 10 [56 favorites]
Singapore has a policy of paying public servants very highly to get people to take Govt jobs over better paying private. I will not comment further except that this is a fiercely debated topic here and makes for interesting reading as a counter example.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 11:14 PM on January 10 [20 favorites]
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 11:14 PM on January 10 [20 favorites]
Like the author, I don't have a lot of patience for anyone justifying Clarence Thomas' corruption. But I also don't have a lot of patience for people who are attacking the notion of paying the people in the highest court in the land enough salary that they can pay for their own vacations with their peers
Come at it from the other side, tax Clarence's friends so hard there's barely a difference anymore.
posted by Dysk at 11:19 PM on January 10 [145 favorites]
Come at it from the other side, tax Clarence's friends so hard there's barely a difference anymore.
posted by Dysk at 11:19 PM on January 10 [145 favorites]
> The peers of Supreme Court justices are not law school presidents (who are also grossly overpaid), they are other federal judges.
This is straight nonsense. It's harder to become a supreme Court justice than to win a nobel prize.
> Come at it from the other side, tax Clarence's friends so hard there's barely a difference anymore.
Now we're talking.
More general comment: Clarence Thomas is making the kind of money that upper middle class white collar professionals make in their late 20s. It's enough for a 3 bed room apartment in a good part of town, and raising a child with a good private school education. Which, like, idk, I feel like that should be our baseline expectation of what's attainable for everyone, not what's attainable for one of the most powerful people in the country.
Why is our society in a position where "things everyone should have" are only the purview of extreme wealth?
posted by constraint at 1:23 AM on January 11 [11 favorites]
This is straight nonsense. It's harder to become a supreme Court justice than to win a nobel prize.
> Come at it from the other side, tax Clarence's friends so hard there's barely a difference anymore.
Now we're talking.
More general comment: Clarence Thomas is making the kind of money that upper middle class white collar professionals make in their late 20s. It's enough for a 3 bed room apartment in a good part of town, and raising a child with a good private school education. Which, like, idk, I feel like that should be our baseline expectation of what's attainable for everyone, not what's attainable for one of the most powerful people in the country.
Why is our society in a position where "things everyone should have" are only the purview of extreme wealth?
posted by constraint at 1:23 AM on January 11 [11 favorites]
This article is exactly about how the salary in question is not actually hard to live on.
$285,400
the kind of money that upper middle class white collar professionals make in their late 20s.
Sometimes you come across a comment that really drives home the different circles people live in.
posted by trig at 2:05 AM on January 11 [177 favorites]
$285,400
the kind of money that upper middle class white collar professionals make in their late 20s.
Sometimes you come across a comment that really drives home the different circles people live in.
posted by trig at 2:05 AM on January 11 [177 favorites]
The really galling thing about this issue with Clarence Thomas is his upbringing was morbidly poor.. Like, sometimes not having electricity poor. The podcast Behind the Bastards did four parts on him, this one tells of his childhood. I don't know what it implies about Thomas' actions since, but it does tell us he knows that true poverty exists in this country.
posted by JHarris at 2:35 AM on January 11 [15 favorites]
posted by JHarris at 2:35 AM on January 11 [15 favorites]
$285,400
(And, as the article points out, justices have no need to save for retirement, which takes care of a line item many people have in their budgets)
posted by trig at 2:41 AM on January 11 [24 favorites]
(And, as the article points out, justices have no need to save for retirement, which takes care of a line item many people have in their budgets)
posted by trig at 2:41 AM on January 11 [24 favorites]
I think the Supreme Court should only get what the Founding Fathers believed was a reasonable wage and it should not be adjusted for inflation because if you're justifying your rulings with selective originalism then so am I.
posted by srboisvert at 3:04 AM on January 11 [99 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 3:04 AM on January 11 [99 favorites]
the kind of money that upper middle class white collar professionals make in their late 20s.According to the US census via Wikipedia, 5.2 million Americans recorded a personal income above 250k in 2022. That's 1.5% of the population.
The age distribution of income suggests the majority of people earning those incomes would be significantly older than their late 20s. Also a lot of people would qualify based at least partially on investment income instead of salary.
I'd make a rough guess that your definition of "upper middle class white collar professionals" describes like 0.1-0.3% of the US population. Tops.
posted by zymil at 3:07 AM on January 11 [54 favorites]
Clarence Thomas is making the kind of money that upper middle class white collar professionals make in their late 20s.
Tell us more about your friends in finance and private equity.
posted by Warren Terra at 3:21 AM on January 11 [44 favorites]
Tell us more about your friends in finance and private equity.
posted by Warren Terra at 3:21 AM on January 11 [44 favorites]
This is a weird (if interesting) article, and a weird subject. On balance, I think it is generally true that public servants are not well compensated in the U.S. There are exceptions, but as a class, public servants are not expected to be able to compete with their private sector compatriots.
Clarence Thomas’ situation is obviously egregious, and this is the very definition of special pleading, but if you want the best people, or you want people to stay happy, you do generally have to pay for them. The U.S., at most levels, doesn’t do that. As has been pointed out on the blue many times, the Supremes have vast power—they are not the peers of the average federal judge. In aggregate, they combine, Voltron-like, into the equivalent of the President, but with lifetime appointments.
Yes, in some other reality where FDR was the model for all subsequent presidents, they might be paid something more like the normative living wage for a U.S. without horrible income inequality, but we don’t live in that world. In this world, I am surprised that what we see as egregious behavior from Thomas isn’t much more common than it is.
posted by cupcakeninja at 3:23 AM on January 11 [5 favorites]
Clarence Thomas’ situation is obviously egregious, and this is the very definition of special pleading, but if you want the best people, or you want people to stay happy, you do generally have to pay for them. The U.S., at most levels, doesn’t do that. As has been pointed out on the blue many times, the Supremes have vast power—they are not the peers of the average federal judge. In aggregate, they combine, Voltron-like, into the equivalent of the President, but with lifetime appointments.
Yes, in some other reality where FDR was the model for all subsequent presidents, they might be paid something more like the normative living wage for a U.S. without horrible income inequality, but we don’t live in that world. In this world, I am surprised that what we see as egregious behavior from Thomas isn’t much more common than it is.
posted by cupcakeninja at 3:23 AM on January 11 [5 favorites]
Also, $285,400 made me laugh. I’m a state employee, am not in my late 20s, and am not paid this amount of money. Just yesterday, LinkedIn sent me a list of private sector jobs it thought I should apply for that are the (algorithically defined, if not actual) equivalent of what I do… and one paid about $285,000. 😂
posted by cupcakeninja at 3:30 AM on January 11 [12 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 3:30 AM on January 11 [12 favorites]
if you want the best people, or you want people to stay happy, you do generally have to pay for them.
My definition of "the best people" does not include people who are driven solely by making as much money as possible. I want Supreme Court justices to be the most ethical people with a dedication to service to our country and their fellow people, which is basically the opposite of wanting to make as much money as possible.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:02 AM on January 11 [26 favorites]
My definition of "the best people" does not include people who are driven solely by making as much money as possible. I want Supreme Court justices to be the most ethical people with a dedication to service to our country and their fellow people, which is basically the opposite of wanting to make as much money as possible.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:02 AM on January 11 [26 favorites]
1. Supreme Court justices have lifetime sinecures (only one has ever been removed through impeachment), a lifetime pension at full pay after retirement, a huge professional bureaucracy to lean on, an annual three-month paid vacation
Not bad. Not bad at all. $280,000 for life? I'd take that gig.
2. I'm going to posit that Thomas' behavior would be modified not one iota by a larger salary, even up $600,000 a year for life. Because, see, he's for sale and does not see any problem with that. (I think it was the "Behind the Bastards" Podcast that talked about his wholly transactional concept of morality. Essentially, "If it's good for me then it's good.")
3. No less than his obvious mercantile view of his role as a Supreme Court Justice, his wife being a part of the group that tried to overthrow the 2020 election certification should lead to his removal from the court without really having to talk about it. To be frank, I don't get how the guy is still there. Actually, I do, but it's depressing.
posted by From Bklyn at 4:04 AM on January 11 [38 favorites]
Not bad. Not bad at all. $280,000 for life? I'd take that gig.
2. I'm going to posit that Thomas' behavior would be modified not one iota by a larger salary, even up $600,000 a year for life. Because, see, he's for sale and does not see any problem with that. (I think it was the "Behind the Bastards" Podcast that talked about his wholly transactional concept of morality. Essentially, "If it's good for me then it's good.")
3. No less than his obvious mercantile view of his role as a Supreme Court Justice, his wife being a part of the group that tried to overthrow the 2020 election certification should lead to his removal from the court without really having to talk about it. To be frank, I don't get how the guy is still there. Actually, I do, but it's depressing.
posted by From Bklyn at 4:04 AM on January 11 [38 favorites]
Since the last thread about this I've also been thinking about what "the best talent" actually means for the Supreme Court. We keep talking about brilliance, and the sharpest legal minds, and so on.
But it's not really enough to know and juggle laws, precedents, and theories, or be able to use language compellingly (it's also not clear that all the current justices are "the best talent" on these fronts).
Ultimately, what a judge, and certainly a Supreme Court justice, needs is sound judgment and discernment. But what does "sound" mean? There's obviously a ton of disagreement about that. But how sound can the judgment be of a justice who has no personal experience of how most people get by, and whose "peers" are exclusively the ultra-rich, in determining what justice means for people who don't belong to that category? More to the point, what sort of judgment does a justice have who fundamentally values wealth, and all the trappings of wealth, over the importance and potential to do good of their position?
There are a lot of people who would choose a mansion in DC over (let's pretend that this is the case) a "3 bed room apartment in a good part of town, and raising a child with a good private school education" plus a position on the Supreme Court. Should any of those people actually have that position on the Supreme Court? If they're possessed of legal brilliance but a wealth-oriented internal compass, are they really "the best talent" for the job?
Give me a good legal mind that sees their role as working for democracy and for all the humans in it, and that feels uncomfortable living better than, and apart from, the vast majority of the population they're here to serve, over some "best talent" obsessed with their personal status, any day.
(on preview, what hydropsyche said much more concisely)
posted by trig at 4:11 AM on January 11 [17 favorites]
But it's not really enough to know and juggle laws, precedents, and theories, or be able to use language compellingly (it's also not clear that all the current justices are "the best talent" on these fronts).
Ultimately, what a judge, and certainly a Supreme Court justice, needs is sound judgment and discernment. But what does "sound" mean? There's obviously a ton of disagreement about that. But how sound can the judgment be of a justice who has no personal experience of how most people get by, and whose "peers" are exclusively the ultra-rich, in determining what justice means for people who don't belong to that category? More to the point, what sort of judgment does a justice have who fundamentally values wealth, and all the trappings of wealth, over the importance and potential to do good of their position?
There are a lot of people who would choose a mansion in DC over (let's pretend that this is the case) a "3 bed room apartment in a good part of town, and raising a child with a good private school education" plus a position on the Supreme Court. Should any of those people actually have that position on the Supreme Court? If they're possessed of legal brilliance but a wealth-oriented internal compass, are they really "the best talent" for the job?
Give me a good legal mind that sees their role as working for democracy and for all the humans in it, and that feels uncomfortable living better than, and apart from, the vast majority of the population they're here to serve, over some "best talent" obsessed with their personal status, any day.
(on preview, what hydropsyche said much more concisely)
posted by trig at 4:11 AM on January 11 [17 favorites]
which is basically the opposite of wanting to make as much money as possible.
This may be your personal philosophy, and it's true that much of history does tend to validate it, but it's neither universal nor true in principle. I hear you on the problems of this line of thinking, truly, but that leads directly to "we don't have to pay social workers or teachers well, and they can buy supplies out of their own pockets, because it's a calling." Consider, also, that getting people to work for modest incomes is an approach that automatically privileges job applicants who already have substantial wealth before they hit the job market.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:26 AM on January 11 [19 favorites]
This may be your personal philosophy, and it's true that much of history does tend to validate it, but it's neither universal nor true in principle. I hear you on the problems of this line of thinking, truly, but that leads directly to "we don't have to pay social workers or teachers well, and they can buy supplies out of their own pockets, because it's a calling." Consider, also, that getting people to work for modest incomes is an approach that automatically privileges job applicants who already have substantial wealth before they hit the job market.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:26 AM on January 11 [19 favorites]
You do not need substantial inherited wealth to live comfortably on the current Supreme Court salary. They literally make 4 times the median household income.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:44 AM on January 11 [23 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 4:44 AM on January 11 [23 favorites]
Again, it's not that justices are not being paid well - they have higher incomes than almost anybody. Theirs is not a modest income by the standards of 99% of the population.
The question is whether someone who is driven by a need to be not simply in the top 1% but in the top .1% or higher is really "the best" fit for this particular job.
posted by trig at 4:45 AM on January 11 [17 favorites]
The question is whether someone who is driven by a need to be not simply in the top 1% but in the top .1% or higher is really "the best" fit for this particular job.
posted by trig at 4:45 AM on January 11 [17 favorites]
Clarence Thomas is making the kind of money that upper middle class white collar professionals make in their late 20s.
posted by constraint
Uh huh.
posted by mhoye at 4:51 AM on January 11 [5 favorites]
posted by constraint
Uh huh.
posted by mhoye at 4:51 AM on January 11 [5 favorites]
The amount of Thomas' salary and whether or not he and other justices are being paid fairly for their services is a distraction.
The 'bottomless self-pity of the upper classes' refers to the actual argument being put forth that Thomas' corruption is a result of being paid so little, and maybe if he had been paid more he wouldn't have resorted to compromising his impartiality by accepting so many gifts. Even though he's a justice sitting on the highest court of the land, he's being presented as a victim of circumstance and we're being asked to excuse his behavior in much the same way we might excuse someone for stealing bread to feed their hungry family.
This is a common thread in a lot of hand wringing over the plight of the upper classes. "Oh, you can't fault him for voting for the fascist candidate promising tax cuts--He only makes $300k/year and that's barely enough to support the lifestyle of an upper-middle-class family living in the city!". The issue isn't that some people are experiencing hardship relative to their class, it's that these arguments excusing them for their actions are usually put forward by people who would in the same breath demand imprisonment for actual bread thieves.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:13 AM on January 11 [54 favorites]
The 'bottomless self-pity of the upper classes' refers to the actual argument being put forth that Thomas' corruption is a result of being paid so little, and maybe if he had been paid more he wouldn't have resorted to compromising his impartiality by accepting so many gifts. Even though he's a justice sitting on the highest court of the land, he's being presented as a victim of circumstance and we're being asked to excuse his behavior in much the same way we might excuse someone for stealing bread to feed their hungry family.
This is a common thread in a lot of hand wringing over the plight of the upper classes. "Oh, you can't fault him for voting for the fascist candidate promising tax cuts--He only makes $300k/year and that's barely enough to support the lifestyle of an upper-middle-class family living in the city!". The issue isn't that some people are experiencing hardship relative to their class, it's that these arguments excusing them for their actions are usually put forward by people who would in the same breath demand imprisonment for actual bread thieves.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:13 AM on January 11 [54 favorites]
You can't dismiss the behavior of rich people as an inevitable outcome of socioeconomic forces without also acknowledging that those same forces affect the behavior of poor people.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:22 AM on January 11 [28 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:22 AM on January 11 [28 favorites]
I mean, you CAN. It just makes you a bad person when you do.
posted by rikschell at 5:30 AM on January 11 [13 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 5:30 AM on January 11 [13 favorites]
Clarence Thomas is making the kind of money that upper middle class white collar professionals make in their late 20s.
There's a lot of flak being given to this comment, but I think it's accurate given what I know of salaries for things like fancy doctors, lawyers, people in finance, etc. (For example, that's a BigLaw salary with seven years on the job). What stings, and why there is pushback, is the reality that what we often reference as the "upper middle class" is based on social metrics from the 1800s, and actually measures, as said above, only about 5% of the population.
America is a country whose people are desperate to think they are better off than they are, and they term various people "upper middle class" instead of "rich" in part because it makes it feel more attainable, that if they just stretched a little bit that they could get there. But allowing a lottery few to get to the top doesn't make the actual middle class any less pinched, much less the working class, who largely need two incomes or a roommate just to survive.
And I think that the broader context of the comment is missed: that everyone should be able to afford a three bedroom apartment in a good neighborhood. (I believe this should be accomplished by investing in neighborhoods and making them all good, but that's my rabble rousing hat on), or to have what is essentially the understood standard of a good life, that seemed possible 70 or so years ago, and now is beyond the reach of all but a very few.
But I join my peers in noting that those issues are also a distraction from the real issue of bribery. Whether or not Clarence Thomas is being under or overpaid, or the issue of the economy, doesn't force Clarence Thomas to take bribes.Today I'll go into an office of state-funded attorneys that I promise make SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than Clarence Thomas, and I can be 100% sure that none of them are on the take - because they believe in what they do and think it's important. If Clarence Thomas is willing to compromise his ethics, that's on nobody but Clarence Thomas.
posted by corb at 5:51 AM on January 11 [52 favorites]
There's a lot of flak being given to this comment, but I think it's accurate given what I know of salaries for things like fancy doctors, lawyers, people in finance, etc. (For example, that's a BigLaw salary with seven years on the job). What stings, and why there is pushback, is the reality that what we often reference as the "upper middle class" is based on social metrics from the 1800s, and actually measures, as said above, only about 5% of the population.
America is a country whose people are desperate to think they are better off than they are, and they term various people "upper middle class" instead of "rich" in part because it makes it feel more attainable, that if they just stretched a little bit that they could get there. But allowing a lottery few to get to the top doesn't make the actual middle class any less pinched, much less the working class, who largely need two incomes or a roommate just to survive.
And I think that the broader context of the comment is missed: that everyone should be able to afford a three bedroom apartment in a good neighborhood. (I believe this should be accomplished by investing in neighborhoods and making them all good, but that's my rabble rousing hat on), or to have what is essentially the understood standard of a good life, that seemed possible 70 or so years ago, and now is beyond the reach of all but a very few.
But I join my peers in noting that those issues are also a distraction from the real issue of bribery. Whether or not Clarence Thomas is being under or overpaid, or the issue of the economy, doesn't force Clarence Thomas to take bribes.Today I'll go into an office of state-funded attorneys that I promise make SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than Clarence Thomas, and I can be 100% sure that none of them are on the take - because they believe in what they do and think it's important. If Clarence Thomas is willing to compromise his ethics, that's on nobody but Clarence Thomas.
posted by corb at 5:51 AM on January 11 [52 favorites]
I just want to remind everyone of the hilarious fact that this is covering up not just for Clarence Thomas taking bribes, it's covering up for the fact that at least some of these bribes were the result of Clarence Thomas extorting the Republican Party with the threat of vacating his seat when they weren't in power. He told them he was considering resigning because he wasn't making the kind of money he could make in the private sector, sure would be awful if he had to leave... and they brought on the grift.
They're covering for a guy who was basically all 'nice Supreme court seat you got here, it'd be a shame if something happened to it.' And they're using his exact rationale for extorting them as a cover story.
posted by MrVisible at 6:06 AM on January 11 [42 favorites]
They're covering for a guy who was basically all 'nice Supreme court seat you got here, it'd be a shame if something happened to it.' And they're using his exact rationale for extorting them as a cover story.
posted by MrVisible at 6:06 AM on January 11 [42 favorites]
I did not look at TFA because I already know more than I want to about Clarence Thomas and his "friends."
Also:
Metafilter: making the kind of money that upper middle class white collar professionals make in their late 20s.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 6:19 AM on January 11 [4 favorites]
Also:
Metafilter: making the kind of money that upper middle class white collar professionals make in their late 20s.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 6:19 AM on January 11 [4 favorites]
Y'all, I think that "is $285,000 a real living wage" is a completely and wholly separate issue from "should a Supreme Court Justice accept gifts from well-placed persons who could influence his cases."
The answer to the first question is "it kinda depends on a whole lot of factors", but the answer to the second question is always, across the board, "aw HELL no".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:42 AM on January 11 [26 favorites]
The answer to the first question is "it kinda depends on a whole lot of factors", but the answer to the second question is always, across the board, "aw HELL no".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:42 AM on January 11 [26 favorites]
There are two bits of populist sentiment:
-- that $285,000 is so much that anyone earning it (especially from our tax coffers) should be ridiculed for their greed and economic ineptitude
and
-- that the high earners are so special and obviously genius that they should not be touched, questioned, or taxed like the commoners
I've always found hard to reconcile.
posted by Dashy at 6:53 AM on January 11 [10 favorites]
-- that $285,000 is so much that anyone earning it (especially from our tax coffers) should be ridiculed for their greed and economic ineptitude
and
-- that the high earners are so special and obviously genius that they should not be touched, questioned, or taxed like the commoners
I've always found hard to reconcile.
posted by Dashy at 6:53 AM on January 11 [10 favorites]
The answer to the first question is "it kinda depends on a whole lot of factors", but the answer to the second question is always, across the board, "aw HELL no".
Yeah, even if we paid the justices $25k/year, that wouldn't justify accepting bribes. The open corruption of Thomas is a completely separate issue from the question of what is a fair and appropriate salary for the position.
I'm personally not sure what the right dollar amount is, but just like for senators, I think you want to set the number high enough that it opens the door to people who don't have family money. It's not that you have to pay at the same level as a CEO or a partner at Big Law, just that it should be enough to not be a barrier for someone who didn't inherit, didn't marry wealth, and took out student loans for school.
For me, earning $285k would be life-changing and far above my actual needs. But I also live in a very different social world than a SC justice or a senator, so I don't know how comparable it really is.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:56 AM on January 11 [5 favorites]
Yeah, even if we paid the justices $25k/year, that wouldn't justify accepting bribes. The open corruption of Thomas is a completely separate issue from the question of what is a fair and appropriate salary for the position.
I'm personally not sure what the right dollar amount is, but just like for senators, I think you want to set the number high enough that it opens the door to people who don't have family money. It's not that you have to pay at the same level as a CEO or a partner at Big Law, just that it should be enough to not be a barrier for someone who didn't inherit, didn't marry wealth, and took out student loans for school.
For me, earning $285k would be life-changing and far above my actual needs. But I also live in a very different social world than a SC justice or a senator, so I don't know how comparable it really is.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:56 AM on January 11 [5 favorites]
I think I might know two people who make more than the amount we are discussing, and they’re a pharmacist married to another pharmacist who until recently owned two pharmacies. They both complain about money constantly. Their most recent complaint is that they can’t sell their house and downsize for retirement because it’s the biggest house in their small town and nobody wants to buy it.
$285,000. I make more money than I ever thought I would and it’s well under half that. I’ll never see $285,000 in my life. I guess I didn’t make it to the middle class after all.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 7:04 AM on January 11 [20 favorites]
$285,000. I make more money than I ever thought I would and it’s well under half that. I’ll never see $285,000 in my life. I guess I didn’t make it to the middle class after all.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 7:04 AM on January 11 [20 favorites]
I think I might know two people who make more than the amount we are discussing, and they’re a pharmacist married to another pharmacist who until recently owned two pharmacies. They both complain about money constantly. Their most recent complaint is that they can’t sell their house and downsize for retirement because it’s the biggest house in their small town and nobody wants to buy it.
It's all kept opaque so I don't know the exact amounts, but I work for a private company and I'm pretty sure that people two levels above me in the company are probably earning close to that between base pay, bonus, and stock gifts. But the pyramid shrinks down significantly above my worker-bee level, so that's a very small pool of people in a large company. I used to know one person who was a senior VP at a big, high profile company that everyone would recognize, and they earned WAY more than that number. But again, in a vast company, there was just a handful of the executive team who were earning those salaries.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:11 AM on January 11
It's all kept opaque so I don't know the exact amounts, but I work for a private company and I'm pretty sure that people two levels above me in the company are probably earning close to that between base pay, bonus, and stock gifts. But the pyramid shrinks down significantly above my worker-bee level, so that's a very small pool of people in a large company. I used to know one person who was a senior VP at a big, high profile company that everyone would recognize, and they earned WAY more than that number. But again, in a vast company, there was just a handful of the executive team who were earning those salaries.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:11 AM on January 11
Also agree that the general principle of making all fields economically accessible to folks from all socioeconomic backgrounds is good. Unpaid internships as required professional stage need to be outlawed in the US, for example, and the minimum wage needs to be raised to be a living wage. However, as someone who does not have family money, yet who went through a similarly long training process for my white collar professional job that pays less than half of what Clarence Thomas is making, $285,000 a year for life including retirement and total job security is so far above the door-opening level that seeing this argument applied in this context makes me think I’m reading The Onion, not the Metafilter comments.
posted by eviemath at 7:17 AM on January 11 [14 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 7:17 AM on January 11 [14 favorites]
Salaries for judges and elected politicians should be tied to the median wage. You can argue over the multiple, but it means that their lot is intrinsically bound with the lot of the people they have been appointed/elected to serve.
posted by plonkee at 7:18 AM on January 11 [16 favorites]
posted by plonkee at 7:18 AM on January 11 [16 favorites]
My wife and I both are getting by on less than one tenth of Thomas' salary. I cannot begin to feel the mildest bit of pity because he can't go on the calibre of vacation his buddies do. And his response to this problem is to take bribes to make my life and the lives of those around me worse.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:29 AM on January 11 [21 favorites]
posted by The Manwich Horror at 7:29 AM on January 11 [21 favorites]
Clarence Thomas would be corrupt and take bribes no matter how high or low his salary was.
I feel like people in these comments don't understand the mentality of the wealthy. They don't leave money on the table. They always want more.
I also feel like people in these comments didn't read the last paragraph of the article:
How much more would we have to pay Clarence Thomas to get him to stop taking free yacht voyages and private flights to private clubs from rich “friends”? Sadly, to ask the question is to answer it.
posted by AlSweigart at 7:50 AM on January 11 [23 favorites]
I feel like people in these comments don't understand the mentality of the wealthy. They don't leave money on the table. They always want more.
I also feel like people in these comments didn't read the last paragraph of the article:
How much more would we have to pay Clarence Thomas to get him to stop taking free yacht voyages and private flights to private clubs from rich “friends”? Sadly, to ask the question is to answer it.
posted by AlSweigart at 7:50 AM on January 11 [23 favorites]
There's a lot of flak being given to this comment, but I think it's accurate given what I know of salaries for things like fancy doctors, lawyers, people in finance, etc.
Well, to add some additional color, for all the people complaining about Federal salaries, Washington DC metro has the 4th highest "2 earner with kids median income" at $170k (which is a smaller subset of US median household income), only $1k behind Boston, which is a comparable sized metro, and far behind Santa Clara/Sunnyvale CA, at $224k, which is 1/3 the metro size, and a bit behind SF, which is only 2/3s the size. So both SF & Santa Clara would combine to be the same size as the DC metro.
And SF/Santa Clara is basically an exclusive enclave, with poverty levels below 10%. DC's is in the 15% range.
So unless almost every Federal worker who is married is earning far below the median, then they are protesting a bit much.
numbers
here
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:58 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]
Well, to add some additional color, for all the people complaining about Federal salaries, Washington DC metro has the 4th highest "2 earner with kids median income" at $170k (which is a smaller subset of US median household income), only $1k behind Boston, which is a comparable sized metro, and far behind Santa Clara/Sunnyvale CA, at $224k, which is 1/3 the metro size, and a bit behind SF, which is only 2/3s the size. So both SF & Santa Clara would combine to be the same size as the DC metro.
And SF/Santa Clara is basically an exclusive enclave, with poverty levels below 10%. DC's is in the 15% range.
So unless almost every Federal worker who is married is earning far below the median, then they are protesting a bit much.
numbers
here
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:58 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]
If we believe in good government, then we should believe in paying a fair wage to those in government service. And we aren't paying anywhere near market rate for our Supreme Court justices.
Fuck that so hard. It's public service. I've worked in city, state, and federal government, and in each case I could've gotten a private sector job making considerably more money. Sacrificing that is part of the deal.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:17 AM on January 11 [7 favorites]
Fuck that so hard. It's public service. I've worked in city, state, and federal government, and in each case I could've gotten a private sector job making considerably more money. Sacrificing that is part of the deal.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:17 AM on January 11 [7 favorites]
So unless almost every Federal worker who is married is earning far below the median, then they are protesting a bit much.
Forgot to add: for the top, their numbers are way higher: the US median is $120k, mega cities like LA is right around the median and NYC only slightly higher, in case anyone wants to call this a coastal or cost of living thing.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:25 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]
Forgot to add: for the top, their numbers are way higher: the US median is $120k, mega cities like LA is right around the median and NYC only slightly higher, in case anyone wants to call this a coastal or cost of living thing.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:25 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]
The stories I've heard about Thomas lead me to imagine that he's perfectly comfortable, so comfortable that he's long been motivated by, broadly speaking, flattery, not by money. The main thing he stands accused of accepting -- fancy vacations with plutocrats, and all the prestige, scene-setting and connection-making that goes along with that -- isn't the sort of thing you could buy with money.
I am under the impression that corruption and bribery are often about psychological weaknesses, not anything like real financial desperation.
posted by Western Infidels at 8:38 AM on January 11 [21 favorites]
I am under the impression that corruption and bribery are often about psychological weaknesses, not anything like real financial desperation.
posted by Western Infidels at 8:38 AM on January 11 [21 favorites]
I'd make a rough guess that your definition of "upper middle class white collar professionals" describes like 0.1-0.3% of the US population. Tops
I guess all those people took the 280 into work this morning. Or, perhaps, $285k might be a lot of money where you live, but in others it just means you can afford to live within 45 mins of work, instead of 60+.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 9:03 AM on January 11
I guess all those people took the 280 into work this morning. Or, perhaps, $285k might be a lot of money where you live, but in others it just means you can afford to live within 45 mins of work, instead of 60+.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 9:03 AM on January 11
You do not need substantial inherited wealth to live comfortably on the current Supreme Court salary. They literally make 4 times the median household income.
Living in upper NW D.C., I can tell you that there are many people here (and even more in ritzier neighborhoods nearby) that have been so spoiled for so long that they're no longer able to distinguish luxury from necessity, and whose sense of self will shrivel and die if they can't afford an unremitting wallow in the former.
It's insane, and often (almost) sad when seen up close for any length of time, but from here it's very easy to see where Thomas' delusions come from.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:25 AM on January 11 [19 favorites]
Living in upper NW D.C., I can tell you that there are many people here (and even more in ritzier neighborhoods nearby) that have been so spoiled for so long that they're no longer able to distinguish luxury from necessity, and whose sense of self will shrivel and die if they can't afford an unremitting wallow in the former.
It's insane, and often (almost) sad when seen up close for any length of time, but from here it's very easy to see where Thomas' delusions come from.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:25 AM on January 11 [19 favorites]
Clarence Thomas is motivated by the desire to be the patriarch he feels he's entitled to be, so much so that he hangs out with people who obviously have the n-word in their vocabulary and just think of him as "one of the good ones" (if that--oh, to be able to hear people like Crow's thoughts during a joint vacation). Proximity to whiteness is a hell of a drug. That includes as much money as he can get his hands on; it also includes hobnobbing with the truly rich and powerful. No amount of money could make someone with that degree of psychological damage and weak character act right. Even without his peculiar circumstances, for some people, the more money you make, the more you're entitled to. I think SCT salaries, especially with the generous benefits, are past the point where you would see corruption out of desperation. (Lawyers are among the professions where you can routinely associate with people much wealthier than you, which can seriously erode your character if you don't keep an eye on yourself, but a few $100K here and there isn't going to change that.)
This is a separate issue from whether we should pay public servants better, for which the answer is generally "yes," for practical reasons rather than because they're extra-deserving. I'm going to talk about lawyers here, because it's the job I've had the chance to observe personally in both private and public sector/public interest ("public service") jobs, and also because the disparity is higher for certain professions with high market demand (for a young person without an advanced degree starting out with the desire to be, e.g., an admin assistant, a government job still can be a fairly decent option, although the housing crisis has wreaked havoc there, too). You all get angry because the SEC or DOJ doesn't do its job on white collar crime? It can't happen by magic. Defendants/investigative targets bring in three or four lawyers, all from great schools and some of them very skilled and experienced, for every one staffing a government investigation. And they have the skilled data analysts and economists they need, plus proper logistical and IT support. It's one thing to tell someone who's put themselves through several years of expensive graduate education that if they work in public service they're not going to be able to afford a house in the Hamptons; it's quite another to say that unless your household has another income coming in you won't be able to afford both middle-class-level rental housing and a dog. Government lawyers generally don't take bribes; they just move on in five years, taking their skills and experience with them, when they feel they've done their duty (and I'm guessing the number of people posting here who've done even three years of full-time public service is fairly low) and want to buy a house. People who are hard-headed and don't have dependents like me are great for public service, but we are not enough, and you shouldn't have to live like me (no car, no IRS-recognized dependents, lucky enough to have independently gotten my hands on decent rent-stabilized housing) to work in public service. (Alternatively, we could go back to reinvesting in public goods like public housing and social services so people wouldn't need...hahahahaha, sorry, just a little pie-in-the-sky dreaming!)
This is still another separate issue from whether it is tacky as fuck to refer to yourself as "upper middle class" while making $300K a year, even if you do happen to live in a place, like NYC, where that doesn't come close to buying the lifestyle most people would associate with being "upper class." I mean: $285k might be a lot of money where you live...those of us denominating our salaries in USD generally live in the United States, and it's a lot of money in the United States, and if you talk like this in forums where they can hear you, you shouldn't be surprised if the 95% of the country that doesn't make that much busts out the guillotines. If you have any retirement savings at all outside of your Social Security entitlement, you are ahead of 50% of the country, and feeling pinched after maxing out your 401(k) is not the same as actually being pinched.
posted by praemunire at 9:37 AM on January 11 [29 favorites]
This is a separate issue from whether we should pay public servants better, for which the answer is generally "yes," for practical reasons rather than because they're extra-deserving. I'm going to talk about lawyers here, because it's the job I've had the chance to observe personally in both private and public sector/public interest ("public service") jobs, and also because the disparity is higher for certain professions with high market demand (for a young person without an advanced degree starting out with the desire to be, e.g., an admin assistant, a government job still can be a fairly decent option, although the housing crisis has wreaked havoc there, too). You all get angry because the SEC or DOJ doesn't do its job on white collar crime? It can't happen by magic. Defendants/investigative targets bring in three or four lawyers, all from great schools and some of them very skilled and experienced, for every one staffing a government investigation. And they have the skilled data analysts and economists they need, plus proper logistical and IT support. It's one thing to tell someone who's put themselves through several years of expensive graduate education that if they work in public service they're not going to be able to afford a house in the Hamptons; it's quite another to say that unless your household has another income coming in you won't be able to afford both middle-class-level rental housing and a dog. Government lawyers generally don't take bribes; they just move on in five years, taking their skills and experience with them, when they feel they've done their duty (and I'm guessing the number of people posting here who've done even three years of full-time public service is fairly low) and want to buy a house. People who are hard-headed and don't have dependents like me are great for public service, but we are not enough, and you shouldn't have to live like me (no car, no IRS-recognized dependents, lucky enough to have independently gotten my hands on decent rent-stabilized housing) to work in public service. (Alternatively, we could go back to reinvesting in public goods like public housing and social services so people wouldn't need...hahahahaha, sorry, just a little pie-in-the-sky dreaming!)
This is still another separate issue from whether it is tacky as fuck to refer to yourself as "upper middle class" while making $300K a year, even if you do happen to live in a place, like NYC, where that doesn't come close to buying the lifestyle most people would associate with being "upper class." I mean: $285k might be a lot of money where you live...those of us denominating our salaries in USD generally live in the United States, and it's a lot of money in the United States, and if you talk like this in forums where they can hear you, you shouldn't be surprised if the 95% of the country that doesn't make that much busts out the guillotines. If you have any retirement savings at all outside of your Social Security entitlement, you are ahead of 50% of the country, and feeling pinched after maxing out your 401(k) is not the same as actually being pinched.
posted by praemunire at 9:37 AM on January 11 [29 favorites]
All of the people being discussed here, at any income level, remind me of Mr. Burns: "I'd trade it all for a little more."
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:40 AM on January 11 [3 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:40 AM on January 11 [3 favorites]
I think it’s strange how compelled many rich people seem to compare themselves to richer people and feel shame, or something like shame. My shame comes out when I compare myself to poorer people. When I think about richer people it’s more like “well thank god I’m not THAT bad.”
posted by eirias at 9:40 AM on January 11 [8 favorites]
posted by eirias at 9:40 AM on January 11 [8 favorites]
It's harder to become a supreme Court justice than to win a nobel prize.
I thought becoming a US supreme court justice was trivially easy and sometimes almost unavoidable? (assuming you have the rwhite friends to push you through, of course)
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 9:55 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]
I thought becoming a US supreme court justice was trivially easy and sometimes almost unavoidable? (assuming you have the rwhite friends to push you through, of course)
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 9:55 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]
It's not that federal judges need to be paid more, it's that their peers need to be paid less.
The wage disparity between the rich and the average worker has gotten out of hand. How can they dispense justice when they have no idea of how the overwhelming majority of our society exists? The rich believe only those in their class deserve their consideration and favor. Tut tut, boys. Here's your slap on the wrist, your wink and a nod. The rest of us--off to jail you go.
posted by BlueHorse at 9:58 AM on January 11 [15 favorites]
The wage disparity between the rich and the average worker has gotten out of hand. How can they dispense justice when they have no idea of how the overwhelming majority of our society exists? The rich believe only those in their class deserve their consideration and favor. Tut tut, boys. Here's your slap on the wrist, your wink and a nod. The rest of us--off to jail you go.
posted by BlueHorse at 9:58 AM on January 11 [15 favorites]
Obviously there is a whole lot of normative disagreement about what kind of remuneration criteria are appropriate for civil servants.
Once upon a time, it was the case that all of these jobs were more or less reserved for the class of people who didn't really need to be paid to do them. That turned out to not be a sustainable way of doing things and so they started to get paid. It turns out also that there are dynamics where, if you are a public servant close to the seats of power, you can always increase your income by defecting to a private interest who wants Government business/wants to evade costs of Government oversight or regulation. So public servant jobs have to be made attractive in other ways, like for instance job security and guaranteed retirement benefits. Used to be pretty gold-plated medical benefits with that but I understand those are long gone.
Anyway comparisons between civil servant salaries and those of similar private sector workers are always going to have this kind of asymmetry. And also the asymmetry between the job security and retirement benefits in favor of civil servants over their private sector counterparts. If you want to bitch about either of those things, you should know you're basically advocating for Socialism, that being the way to square that particular circle. Or I suppose you could argue in favor of going really old school, like the early Chinese dynasties, and keeping a corps of enslaved technical specialists. I'm going to call your sense of norms pretty fucked up if you try that though.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 10:11 AM on January 11 [2 favorites]
Once upon a time, it was the case that all of these jobs were more or less reserved for the class of people who didn't really need to be paid to do them. That turned out to not be a sustainable way of doing things and so they started to get paid. It turns out also that there are dynamics where, if you are a public servant close to the seats of power, you can always increase your income by defecting to a private interest who wants Government business/wants to evade costs of Government oversight or regulation. So public servant jobs have to be made attractive in other ways, like for instance job security and guaranteed retirement benefits. Used to be pretty gold-plated medical benefits with that but I understand those are long gone.
Anyway comparisons between civil servant salaries and those of similar private sector workers are always going to have this kind of asymmetry. And also the asymmetry between the job security and retirement benefits in favor of civil servants over their private sector counterparts. If you want to bitch about either of those things, you should know you're basically advocating for Socialism, that being the way to square that particular circle. Or I suppose you could argue in favor of going really old school, like the early Chinese dynasties, and keeping a corps of enslaved technical specialists. I'm going to call your sense of norms pretty fucked up if you try that though.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 10:11 AM on January 11 [2 favorites]
I think you want to set the number high enough that it opens the door to people who don't have family money.
This notion has never made a whole lot of sense to me. The idea is that if these jobs are so low paid... only the children of the rich will want to take them? That by raising the salary we open them up to the non-rich?
posted by Saxon Kane at 10:44 AM on January 11 [3 favorites]
This notion has never made a whole lot of sense to me. The idea is that if these jobs are so low paid... only the children of the rich will want to take them? That by raising the salary we open them up to the non-rich?
posted by Saxon Kane at 10:44 AM on January 11 [3 favorites]
This notion has never made a whole lot of sense to me. The idea is that if these jobs are so low paid... only the children of the rich will want to take them? That by raising the salary we open them up to the non-rich?
Yes, exactly. Think of fields where unpaid internships and very low starting salaries have traditionally been the entry path (like publishing). That's great if your parents can subsidize your unpaid year or years living in New York, but not so great if you have student loans and need to support yourself, much less if you are supporting others.
That said, personally I think $285k is more than adequate (especially if it comes with a lifetime pension) since that is far more than I'll ever earn. But I also don't have law school loans, and I don't have to deal with housing costs in DC either.
And, if you are comparing government and private sector salaries, there are other components in the mix, like job security, having power and influence, and so on that can make a lower government salary still perfectly attractive to good applicants.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:02 AM on January 11 [4 favorites]
Yes, exactly. Think of fields where unpaid internships and very low starting salaries have traditionally been the entry path (like publishing). That's great if your parents can subsidize your unpaid year or years living in New York, but not so great if you have student loans and need to support yourself, much less if you are supporting others.
That said, personally I think $285k is more than adequate (especially if it comes with a lifetime pension) since that is far more than I'll ever earn. But I also don't have law school loans, and I don't have to deal with housing costs in DC either.
And, if you are comparing government and private sector salaries, there are other components in the mix, like job security, having power and influence, and so on that can make a lower government salary still perfectly attractive to good applicants.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:02 AM on January 11 [4 favorites]
The idea is that if these jobs are so low paid... only the children of the rich will want to take them? That by raising the salary we open them up to the non-rich?
The classic example is local government. There are a ton of positions in local government that carry some authority and decision-making but have zero or next to zero pay. The logic goes that since these jobs don't provide enough to support someone, only people who have some other means of support (i.e. independent wealth) are able to hold them, thereby making those positions and the policies of those who hold them unrepresentative of the community at large. The idea is that by paying a living wage, you open up the position to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to hold it.
But logic which applies to a seat on the city's zoning board of appeals or parks department may not necessarily apply to a seat on the Supreme Court.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:03 AM on January 11 [5 favorites]
The classic example is local government. There are a ton of positions in local government that carry some authority and decision-making but have zero or next to zero pay. The logic goes that since these jobs don't provide enough to support someone, only people who have some other means of support (i.e. independent wealth) are able to hold them, thereby making those positions and the policies of those who hold them unrepresentative of the community at large. The idea is that by paying a living wage, you open up the position to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to hold it.
But logic which applies to a seat on the city's zoning board of appeals or parks department may not necessarily apply to a seat on the Supreme Court.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:03 AM on January 11 [5 favorites]
So unless almost every Federal worker who is married is earning far below the median, then they are protesting a bit much.
I'm not quite following the steps of your reasoning here, but *if* your the conclusion is that DC-area Federal workers (in general, not Justices) are over-paid, then I believe there is a flaw in your logic. That's lobbyist salaries skewing the median (& big tech money in Northern Virginia), not tax-payer funded rank-and-file Feds.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 11:18 AM on January 11 [2 favorites]
I'm not quite following the steps of your reasoning here, but *if* your the conclusion is that DC-area Federal workers (in general, not Justices) are over-paid, then I believe there is a flaw in your logic. That's lobbyist salaries skewing the median (& big tech money in Northern Virginia), not tax-payer funded rank-and-file Feds.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 11:18 AM on January 11 [2 favorites]
Let me rephrase: I understand the concept behind the idea, but when has that ever held up in practice, beyond the most local of local offices (and even then)?
posted by Saxon Kane at 11:24 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]
posted by Saxon Kane at 11:24 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]
120 income based payments as public service employee* and your law school (and/or any other higher Ed) govt loans are forgiven. They are gone.
My wife did this as a teacher making between 10-20% of a justices income, after deciding that being a lawyer was not for her by the time she graduated and passed the bar. She then had to go back to school and take out more loans for Ed school/masters. She had zero family support and came from a very poor and rural background. Also had no billionaire friends. She’s not a superhero. Many Americans can do this, if they decide to serve the public rather than accumulate wealth. Shit, you could serve for ten years and then go and try to strike it rich.
I can’t believe I’m reading multiple arguments that $285k is not enough to live a great life (let alone a livable wage) or attract viable candidates who won’t take bribes. Thomas can retire today and move wherever he wants while collecting his full salary with a fully paid office and law clerk. That’s a dream available to an elite few. Soooooo many “great minds” out there would jump at the opportunity and do a much better job if they got it.
Love you mefites. Thanks for finally pushing me hard enough to comment instead of lurk.
*I’m not sure which public sector jobs qualify, but it is fairly expansive from my understanding.
posted by dark matter at 11:31 AM on January 11 [19 favorites]
My wife did this as a teacher making between 10-20% of a justices income, after deciding that being a lawyer was not for her by the time she graduated and passed the bar. She then had to go back to school and take out more loans for Ed school/masters. She had zero family support and came from a very poor and rural background. Also had no billionaire friends. She’s not a superhero. Many Americans can do this, if they decide to serve the public rather than accumulate wealth. Shit, you could serve for ten years and then go and try to strike it rich.
I can’t believe I’m reading multiple arguments that $285k is not enough to live a great life (let alone a livable wage) or attract viable candidates who won’t take bribes. Thomas can retire today and move wherever he wants while collecting his full salary with a fully paid office and law clerk. That’s a dream available to an elite few. Soooooo many “great minds” out there would jump at the opportunity and do a much better job if they got it.
Love you mefites. Thanks for finally pushing me hard enough to comment instead of lurk.
*I’m not sure which public sector jobs qualify, but it is fairly expansive from my understanding.
posted by dark matter at 11:31 AM on January 11 [19 favorites]
Let me rephrase: I understand the concept behind the idea, but when has that ever held up in practice, beyond the most local of local offices (and even then)?
This Marketplace article, " In rural states’ “citizen” legislatures, ordinary citizens can’t afford to serve," gives an overview of a pretty classic example of low (or no) pay being a barrier:
“Nobody expects to make money [as a state lawmaker], but you can’t afford to go destitute legislating,” Zwonitzer said.
And as the legislative workload increased over the years, “many of my colleagues have had to say, ‘It’s just not worth what it costs to serve,’” he said.
That leaves a legislature that skews older, wealthier and more conservative than the state it represents. A local advocacy group has pointed out there are frequently more bolo ties than women on the Capitol floor.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:52 AM on January 11 [4 favorites]
This Marketplace article, " In rural states’ “citizen” legislatures, ordinary citizens can’t afford to serve," gives an overview of a pretty classic example of low (or no) pay being a barrier:
“Nobody expects to make money [as a state lawmaker], but you can’t afford to go destitute legislating,” Zwonitzer said.
And as the legislative workload increased over the years, “many of my colleagues have had to say, ‘It’s just not worth what it costs to serve,’” he said.
That leaves a legislature that skews older, wealthier and more conservative than the state it represents. A local advocacy group has pointed out there are frequently more bolo ties than women on the Capitol floor.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:52 AM on January 11 [4 favorites]
I can’t believe I’m reading multiple arguments that $285k is not enough to live a great life (let alone a livable wage) or attract viable candidates who won’t take bribes.
This is kind of getting into why I was separating the two arguments about finance and taking bribes - because they are kind of two different things.
Whether or not "$285K is enough to live a great life" depends on a WHOLE lot of variables - what your standard for "a great life" actually is, whether you care for any long-term dependents, and so on. I'd personally be in like Flynn with $285K - but I am also single and childless, and in pretty good health. However, if I were financially supporting a parent or a sibling who had lifelong chronic health issues - say, if my younger brother had ALS and was confined to a care facility, or I was the single parent of a child with a rare chronic disease - maybe it wouldn't quite be enough. These kinds of problems come to people at all income levels, of course, and for people facing these kinds of problems who make only $20K, it's even harder. But my point is that based on the dollar amount alone, you can't know for certain whether "is this a comfortable living wage for a given person", because the definition for "a comfortable living wage" depends on a lot of variables.
However - whether or not someone accepts bribes is not really dependent on how much money someone makes anyway; rather, it's a moral failing. I'm sure there are people who make TWICE what Clarence Thomas makes who've also been approached with a bribe, and have accepted it; but I'm also sure there are people who make a fraction of what he makes who've been approached with bribes, and have turned it down. Because whether or not you accept a bribe doesn't have anything to do with how much money you're making - it has everything to do with your ethics, and whether you're comfortable sacrificing your own moral conduct for financial gain. And there are plenty of people making minimum wage who nevertheless would say "fuck no" if someone tried to bribe them, because their own sense of morality would forbid it.
So that was my own point - that rather than getting into an argument about "is $295K enough for someone to live on", we should be asking "why is this guy even arguing that refusing bribes is only something the wealthy can afford to do".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:11 PM on January 11 [8 favorites]
This is kind of getting into why I was separating the two arguments about finance and taking bribes - because they are kind of two different things.
Whether or not "$285K is enough to live a great life" depends on a WHOLE lot of variables - what your standard for "a great life" actually is, whether you care for any long-term dependents, and so on. I'd personally be in like Flynn with $285K - but I am also single and childless, and in pretty good health. However, if I were financially supporting a parent or a sibling who had lifelong chronic health issues - say, if my younger brother had ALS and was confined to a care facility, or I was the single parent of a child with a rare chronic disease - maybe it wouldn't quite be enough. These kinds of problems come to people at all income levels, of course, and for people facing these kinds of problems who make only $20K, it's even harder. But my point is that based on the dollar amount alone, you can't know for certain whether "is this a comfortable living wage for a given person", because the definition for "a comfortable living wage" depends on a lot of variables.
However - whether or not someone accepts bribes is not really dependent on how much money someone makes anyway; rather, it's a moral failing. I'm sure there are people who make TWICE what Clarence Thomas makes who've also been approached with a bribe, and have accepted it; but I'm also sure there are people who make a fraction of what he makes who've been approached with bribes, and have turned it down. Because whether or not you accept a bribe doesn't have anything to do with how much money you're making - it has everything to do with your ethics, and whether you're comfortable sacrificing your own moral conduct for financial gain. And there are plenty of people making minimum wage who nevertheless would say "fuck no" if someone tried to bribe them, because their own sense of morality would forbid it.
So that was my own point - that rather than getting into an argument about "is $295K enough for someone to live on", we should be asking "why is this guy even arguing that refusing bribes is only something the wealthy can afford to do".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:11 PM on January 11 [8 favorites]
Let me rephrase: I understand the concept behind the idea, but when has that ever held up in practice, beyond the most local of local offices (and even then)?
Until 1911, MPs in the British Parliament were unpaid.
posted by plonkee at 12:16 PM on January 11 [1 favorite]
Until 1911, MPs in the British Parliament were unpaid.
posted by plonkee at 12:16 PM on January 11 [1 favorite]
This article is a critique of someone who made the following claim...
This article is also a critique of the same someone who made the claim that Thomas is “the best and most incorruptible Supreme Court justice in U.S. history.”
1. We don't have to entertain bad-faith arguments by conservatives.
2. Public servants should be well-compensated, yes. But SC justices are hardly the most pertinent example of this. Why not focus on schoolteachers, scientists, forest service, bus drivers, social workers, or the many occupations which have been downgraded from full employee with benefits to poorly paid and treated private contractors. Or even if we are talking about leaders of government, why not focus on legislators rather than appointed-for-life SC justices? Trickle-down is a myth; state university football coach salaries rise while adjunct benefits fall.
3. MeFites who say that a salary of several standard deviations above the median is barely enough to scrape by: you are not self-aware. There are literally people dying on the streets in America. Nobody deserves a cookie for merely being rich instead of super-rich.
posted by splitpeasoup at 12:17 PM on January 11 [19 favorites]
This article is also a critique of the same someone who made the claim that Thomas is “the best and most incorruptible Supreme Court justice in U.S. history.”
1. We don't have to entertain bad-faith arguments by conservatives.
2. Public servants should be well-compensated, yes. But SC justices are hardly the most pertinent example of this. Why not focus on schoolteachers, scientists, forest service, bus drivers, social workers, or the many occupations which have been downgraded from full employee with benefits to poorly paid and treated private contractors. Or even if we are talking about leaders of government, why not focus on legislators rather than appointed-for-life SC justices? Trickle-down is a myth; state university football coach salaries rise while adjunct benefits fall.
3. MeFites who say that a salary of several standard deviations above the median is barely enough to scrape by: you are not self-aware. There are literally people dying on the streets in America. Nobody deserves a cookie for merely being rich instead of super-rich.
posted by splitpeasoup at 12:17 PM on January 11 [19 favorites]
Yes, ultimately EC puts it well. Thomas's corruption is not the result of his "measly" $285K salary. It's a result of who he is, and what he thinks he's due, and in a way it's really quite a sad story, or would be if he weren't such a sanctimonious prig about it all.
Just a note, though:
120 income based payments as public service employee* and your law school (and/or any other higher Ed) govt loans are forgiven. They are gone.
Putting aside the issue of private loans (when I graduated, it was about a 50/50 split), you should understand that this has not been even semi-reliably true until a couple of years ago. Part of what forced the government to finally start honoring this promise was a whole bunch of underpaid public service people spending their time litigating against the federal government and/or the government-hired servicers to make them do so. You're welcome! But, when it comes to the litigation aspect of such a campaign (there are many others), do you want to rely on idiosyncratic people like me to happen to exist to walk away from private practice and be good enough to make headway against whole teams of opposing counsel, or would you like your interests--the country's interests--looked after the way that well-off people get their interests looked after? I always say that the one thing that could reliably get me back into private practice would be (god forbid) my mom developing Alzheimer's.
posted by praemunire at 2:34 PM on January 11 [15 favorites]
Just a note, though:
120 income based payments as public service employee* and your law school (and/or any other higher Ed) govt loans are forgiven. They are gone.
Putting aside the issue of private loans (when I graduated, it was about a 50/50 split), you should understand that this has not been even semi-reliably true until a couple of years ago. Part of what forced the government to finally start honoring this promise was a whole bunch of underpaid public service people spending their time litigating against the federal government and/or the government-hired servicers to make them do so. You're welcome! But, when it comes to the litigation aspect of such a campaign (there are many others), do you want to rely on idiosyncratic people like me to happen to exist to walk away from private practice and be good enough to make headway against whole teams of opposing counsel, or would you like your interests--the country's interests--looked after the way that well-off people get their interests looked after? I always say that the one thing that could reliably get me back into private practice would be (god forbid) my mom developing Alzheimer's.
posted by praemunire at 2:34 PM on January 11 [15 favorites]
(And, as others have pointed out, SCT justices get tons of intangible benefits...great power and huge deference within the profession. I don't think there's been a modern case of a nominee turning down the job because it didn't pay enough, which speaks for itself. Your average DOJ line attorney...not so much.)
posted by praemunire at 2:37 PM on January 11 [5 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 2:37 PM on January 11 [5 favorites]
I thought that the original article defending Clarence Thomas made a very good point that his right-wing worldview was pretty much set in stone before he became a Supreme Court justice and so the idea that billionaires are buying his vote is kind of silly. Billionaires already have Thomas's vote. They're rewarding him for being who he is rather than bribing him to rule in their favor.
Not letting Thomas accept gifts is good policy and good justice (it's not right for him to get rewards from billionaires for his worldview), but it's not gonna effect his votes and his opinions.
posted by straight at 2:40 PM on January 11 [1 favorite]
Not letting Thomas accept gifts is good policy and good justice (it's not right for him to get rewards from billionaires for his worldview), but it's not gonna effect his votes and his opinions.
posted by straight at 2:40 PM on January 11 [1 favorite]
Billionaires already have Thomas's vote. They're rewarding him for being who he is rather than bribing him to rule in their favor.
They're rewarding him for staying in place. He was threatening to retire.
posted by praemunire at 2:44 PM on January 11 [16 favorites]
They're rewarding him for staying in place. He was threatening to retire.
posted by praemunire at 2:44 PM on January 11 [16 favorites]
This article is also a critique of the same someone who made the claim that Thomas is “the best and most incorruptible Supreme Court justice in U.S. history.”
I think he's one of the worst Supreme Court justices and one of the most incorruptible. I don't think there's any bribe that would get him to vote in favor of affirmative action policy or voting rights legislation.
posted by straight at 2:45 PM on January 11 [2 favorites]
I think he's one of the worst Supreme Court justices and one of the most incorruptible. I don't think there's any bribe that would get him to vote in favor of affirmative action policy or voting rights legislation.
posted by straight at 2:45 PM on January 11 [2 favorites]
PS: my list of public servants who should be better paid missed the most obvious (since we are in the context of legal workers): public defenders.
posted by splitpeasoup at 2:47 PM on January 11 [11 favorites]
posted by splitpeasoup at 2:47 PM on January 11 [11 favorites]
my list of public servants who should be better paid missed the most obvious (since we are in the context of legal workers): public defenders.
Yes. Like, I currently intern in a public defender's office and like, the guy in charge of the office brings in lunch from home. I think another way to fix the legal pay issue would be to start funding legal scholarships for people who commit to work in public defense for even five years. I also think our world would be a lot different if more lawyers had to work in public defense for even five minutes. I legally and ethically can't describe to you my day but I am tearing up just thinking about it. The conditions we keep imprisoned people under, the lack of due process we afford them, and the massive underfunding we give to public defense offices, is insane and honestly probably violates a lot of fucking bar ethics rules if we really think about it.
posted by corb at 4:26 PM on January 11 [18 favorites]
Yes. Like, I currently intern in a public defender's office and like, the guy in charge of the office brings in lunch from home. I think another way to fix the legal pay issue would be to start funding legal scholarships for people who commit to work in public defense for even five years. I also think our world would be a lot different if more lawyers had to work in public defense for even five minutes. I legally and ethically can't describe to you my day but I am tearing up just thinking about it. The conditions we keep imprisoned people under, the lack of due process we afford them, and the massive underfunding we give to public defense offices, is insane and honestly probably violates a lot of fucking bar ethics rules if we really think about it.
posted by corb at 4:26 PM on January 11 [18 favorites]
Clarence knew what the gig paid when he accepted the appointment. He could have turned it down. The thing we ought to be discussing is why he didn't, but the answer to that is already pretty obvious.
This entire issue is really an updated retelling of an old joke: "we've already agreed that you're a whore, now we're just haggling over the price. "
posted by klanawa at 6:53 PM on January 11 [5 favorites]
This entire issue is really an updated retelling of an old joke: "we've already agreed that you're a whore, now we're just haggling over the price. "
posted by klanawa at 6:53 PM on January 11 [5 favorites]
Nah. Sex work is honorable; judicial corruption is not.
posted by splitpeasoup at 7:12 PM on January 11 [16 favorites]
posted by splitpeasoup at 7:12 PM on January 11 [16 favorites]
I mean, the word "whore" is so freighted with negative implications, I don't think I'd ever stoop so low as to slander a sex worker with it.
posted by klanawa at 11:04 PM on January 11 [2 favorites]
posted by klanawa at 11:04 PM on January 11 [2 favorites]
I think he's one of the worst Supreme Court justices and one of the most incorruptible. I don't think there's any bribe that would get him to vote in favor of affirmative action policy or voting rights legislation.
I would not use that word to describe someone given such lavish gifts by people with a vested interest in keeping him in office. It doesn't just matter if it would directly change his vote, corruption has many causes and many results. He knows which side his bread is buttered on. He knows whose interests he serves, and as one vote on a incredibly important body of only nine people, his presence is vastly destructive.
posted by JHarris at 4:53 AM on January 12 [3 favorites]
I would not use that word to describe someone given such lavish gifts by people with a vested interest in keeping him in office. It doesn't just matter if it would directly change his vote, corruption has many causes and many results. He knows which side his bread is buttered on. He knows whose interests he serves, and as one vote on a incredibly important body of only nine people, his presence is vastly destructive.
posted by JHarris at 4:53 AM on January 12 [3 favorites]
I'm not quite following the steps of your reasoning here, but *if* your the conclusion is that DC-area Federal workers (in general, not Justices) are over-paid, then I believe there is a flaw in your logic. That's lobbyist salaries skewing the median (& big tech money in Northern Virginia), not tax-payer funded rank-and-file Feds.
I'm not saying they are overpaid, I'm saying they are fairly paid, and I'm not sure I agree you can 'skew the median' with lobbyist salaries. The average - yes. They are not the same. Are you suggesting there are more lobbists than federal employees? There are over 200,000 Federal employees in the DC metro vs about 15,000 lobbyist employment jobs. And even if you meant 'federal contractor' (ie: people who work for like defense firms) rather than actual lobbyists, those jobs are also no more consolidated in DC than in any other major metro.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:29 AM on January 12
I'm not saying they are overpaid, I'm saying they are fairly paid, and I'm not sure I agree you can 'skew the median' with lobbyist salaries. The average - yes. They are not the same. Are you suggesting there are more lobbists than federal employees? There are over 200,000 Federal employees in the DC metro vs about 15,000 lobbyist employment jobs. And even if you meant 'federal contractor' (ie: people who work for like defense firms) rather than actual lobbyists, those jobs are also no more consolidated in DC than in any other major metro.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:29 AM on January 12
CEOs make far too much; the equity gap is gross. Thomas has a lifetime position that is hard to eject him from. I have to sympathy. He has abused his position wildly and should be booted.
posted by theora55 at 2:03 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]
posted by theora55 at 2:03 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]
Billionaires already have Thomas's vote. They're rewarding him for being who he is rather than bribing him to rule in their favor.
They're rewarding him for staying in place. He was threatening to retire.
Historically Supreme Court justices have drifted left as they aged. They are also rewarding for staying in his ideological place and letting others know via him what's on offer for the same from them.
posted by srboisvert at 6:39 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]
They're rewarding him for staying in place. He was threatening to retire.
Historically Supreme Court justices have drifted left as they aged. They are also rewarding for staying in his ideological place and letting others know via him what's on offer for the same from them.
posted by srboisvert at 6:39 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]
« Older Sydney funnel-web spider Hercules sets record for... | Comics were real good last year Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Like the author, I don't have a lot of patience for anyone justifying Clarence Thomas' corruption. But I also don't have a lot of patience for people who are attacking the notion of paying the people in the highest court in the land enough salary that they can pay for their own vacations with their peers (who are definitely making far more than $500k a year if they aren't in public service).
If we believe in good government, then we should believe in paying a fair wage to those in government service. And we aren't paying anywhere near market rate for our Supreme Court justices. The same goes for our representatives and senators. This work shouldn't be a playground for the independently wealthy.
posted by billjings at 10:24 PM on January 10 [30 favorites]