• hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They shouldn’t be allowed to vote salary increases for themselves unless they get at least a 70% favorable rating.

    • sin_free_for_00_days
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      I always thought that their salaries should be determined by something like a multiple of the median salary. Country/State/District, whatever.

      • DeanFogg@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Now that’s a fucking great idea. Let’s ban legal bribery while we’re at it

        • sin_free_for_00_days
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          In my mind the multiple would go anywhere from 2.0 - 0.8. Of course in my world voters would hold their reps responsible for their votes and corruption, so I’m just whistling in the wind here.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eh, less salary means only wealthy ppl can be in congress. What we need is for a lifetime forfeiture of all assets other than those provided by the state. You join congress, you get room and board for life, but nothing else.

    • slazer2au@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I say they should be able to, if minimum wage is increased by the same percentage.

      Or cap their wages to inflation.

  • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There’s absolutely no reason to have a mirror of the data but faded.

    The average person can extrapolate that if 25% of people like something, then roughly 75% of people hate it.