I've slept in my office before - most notably for a week after 9/11. Our facility had a gym with a shower and a kitchen so I had all of those amenities and I had a reasonably comfortable cot. It wasn't fun. I can't imagine loving doing that 5 days a week every week for a couple of years.
Pelosi et. al. really bolster my point. They are rich and can afford to work for free. Given that the average house member has a net worth of less than a million I'd say most of them don't own businesses that continue to pay them when they're not around but are more typically lawyers in private practice who actually need their salaries to pay their bills. My sense is that not paying Congressmen would preclude accomplished but not wealthy people - your typical doctor, lawyer, college professor etc - from holding office and leave the business of governing to only the wealthy and given that Pelosi has a net worth of 120,000,000 she'd certainly be considered wealthy by most standards.
I'm not opposed to wealthy people in office, they are certainly accomplished though I'd argue that amassing wealth alone, assuming it was amassed and not married into or inherited, is not an indicator of fitness for public service, but a Congress, the House more so than the Senate, comprised wholly of rich people would not be representative of the people.
Green:
Did you bother to read the content to which I linked in the post to which your above remarks are a reply? Members of Congress are in DC 83 days a year, per Rep. Mike Quigley.
Red:
Pelosi is wealthy; however, even if she weren't, she has sources of income that "pay" regardless of whether she works in DC/Congress or works back home in the business. As I noted, should one, prior to one's election, lack independent income sources, members of Congress have (non-shady) income producing opportunities. I noted one that is readily available to every member of Congress simply because they are members of Congress.
Blue:
I don't know the average but given what the median is, don't you think you're splitting hairs there?
Brown:
Yes, they're accomplished (I glean you and I have differing notions of what that term means), but, in general, high performing ("accomplished," as opposed to folks who do their jobs well, but who don't stand out in their field) professionals are also wealthy.
Note:
It's very hard to generalize accurately about professors' wealth because a fair share of their income may come from outside sources such as
consulting, expert testimony, summer grants, speaking fees, patent royalties, appointments, etc. rather than from their college/university. There is also a big gap between the salary of
adjuncts (essentially part-time college teachers) and research professors. Then there are
B-school professors, who, along with other profs who consult for and research topics that "hit the bottom line" of corporate America and venture capitalists (econ, math, psych, engineering, natural sciences, and a few others), in general, are in a professorial pay league all their own. Put another way, "publish or perish" applies to academics' income without regard to their tenure prospects.
Pink:
I don't think so.
Teal:
Accomplished folks generally are wealthy. Their accomplishment, not their wealth, is what qualifies them for public service; however, neither makes them fit to be elected office holders and policy makers. Fitness for such positions has everything to do with one's character, which is about how one does the stuff one does. One's accomplishments and how one made them together demonstrate one's comprehension of and facility with doing what it takes -- and what's possible, probable and unlikely -- to thrive in the US given extant (and not) opportunities, culture, standards, laws and policies, the "rules of the game," as it were.
Such folks are the people whom I'd have legislating for the US because, frankly, I don't want a bunch of low to mediocre achievers setting the bar and defining the "rules of the game." I had rather leaders implement policy and inspire the citizenry to "step up," not coast or worse.
A pauper has plenty to share about what not to do if one aims to get rich, but he is of no use in learning what to do to get rich.
-- Xelor informing my kids that everyone has something useful to share, but the usefulness of what they have to share varies.
