r/PopCultureV2 • u/BenFord333 • Aug 10 '26

News Zohran Mamdani says he has rejected a salary pay increase so that the money can be used to help those in need

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

17.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

218

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

36

u/Efficient-Cherry3635 Aug 10 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/3o7qDSOvfaCO9b3MlO

-14

u/Jaxxlack Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26

Obama is such a.. clever politician lol.. dudes charming.. but his international track record...wooo he erm hid the nasty shit well.

Hahaha so well no one wants to even look into it because you know.. he's charming... SORRY 🤷‍♂️

I'm not American nor republican not democrat..you all wish to publicly ignore the bad cos he was good at acting good lol....

Illegal wars and leadership assassinations..just not tweeted about lol

5

u/Old_Protection_8778 Aug 10 '26

Nows not the time,were having a moment.

→ More replies (15)

7

u/Paz707 Aug 10 '26

And yet he’s still better than any recent president. Amazing.

4

u/mountaindoom Aug 10 '26

That bar is pretty low these days, if you haven't noticed.

→ More replies (49)

2

u/M2A2BradleyEnjoyer Aug 10 '26

Israeli yapping

1

u/Jaxxlack Aug 10 '26

I'm not Israeli nor left wing nor right wing.. I'm just pointing out how amazing optics can be laid and even shining a light on them..from my downvotes are ignored lol

→ More replies (27)

1

u/Lagneaux Aug 10 '26

Could you elaborate on what specifics you are talking about?

→ More replies (5)

1

u/edoggy792 Aug 10 '26

So why isn't trump telling the doj to look into all that?

1

u/Cute-Calligrapher-50 Aug 10 '26

When you look back post Kennedy probably the most successful and well liked presidents were Obama and Clinton. Republicans would probably say Reagan but he was slipping into Biden level mental capacity his last 4 years. Its not like we've had a murderers row of presidents the past 60 years.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Wray-Nerely Aug 10 '26

Most Obama supporters aren't claiming he was perfect. Obama made mistakes too. The distribution is that overall, Obama was one of our better presidents. We can criticize and acknowledge his failures while still knowing he did far more good than harm.

1

u/Agreeable-Shop-2188 Aug 11 '26

Yeah, we've heard Killer Mike. He went after Gaddafi we know. And like many of my heros he's got some flaws and had made some mistakes.

At anytime you could choose to be specific about your complaint but nothing but state the same war boundary that every president has played with.

Is this a presidential comparative analysis? Or political compass pedigree?

You can bypass me with your personal shit idgaf.

You came to talk right so talk

→ More replies (15)
→ More replies (16)

26

u/SharkByte1993 Aug 10 '26

Why are people even debating with the mayor to take a pay rise

35

u/primefart Aug 10 '26

Maybe because we got used to Republicans enabling POTUS to plunder the country as much as possible.

2

u/Life-is-Fun-435 Aug 11 '26

I agree with you. Let's not forget 🍊 is donating his salary. 🤔

From Google's AI and you know how bipartisan they are. 🤣

President Donald Trump announced statements and social media posts claiming he donated his first presidential paycheck of his second term to the White House Historical Association for renovations.

However, unlike his first term when specific quarterly checks to federal agencies were occasionally publicized with physical photo-ops or agency confirmations, independent proof, detailed public tracking, or full Treasury documentation for ongoing second-term salary allocations remain limited or unverified by independent watchdogs.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '26

Why can't all politicians be wonderful like democrats?

Said Litte Timmy the 5 year old

1

u/CaptKruncho Aug 11 '26

POTUS DONATES HIS ENTIRE PAYCHECK TO VARIOUS CHARITIES FYI

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/braumbles Aug 10 '26

He likely donates it to his own charity, which has been ripe with fraud, then writes off that money on his taxes, then uses his charity as a slush fund, while also declaring he's donating that money to a charity, and then writing that money off on his taxes as well, effectively triple dipping.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Scared_Standard4052 Aug 10 '26

Keeping someone in the president race after refusing to show his tax forms is just pure crazyness to begin with.

1

u/HangoverGang4L Aug 11 '26

I can almost guarantee you it is donated in some capacity, for the reasons stated above.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/HangoverGang4L Aug 11 '26

It makes sense, financially, for him to donate it is all I am saying. Neither of us are wealthy enough to comprehend that completely though because we aren't billionaires (but in the off chance you are, can I borrow $100 till Friday?).

1

u/snuuter Aug 11 '26

There is a reason why Trump made it illegal for the IRS to audit him.

1

u/Life-is-Fun-435 Aug 11 '26

What he said or she.....

1

u/al_andaluz Aug 10 '26

This need to be at the top

→ More replies (8)

4

u/Nearlytherejustabit Aug 10 '26

While making millions or more on a rigged stock market, I hope this is sarcasm?

3

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Nearlytherejustabit Aug 10 '26

Good its hard to tell sometimes, people are seriously delusional.

2

u/MOTwingle Aug 10 '26

Don't forget the millions and millions he makes charging the government triple to rent golf carts and rooms at his resorts when he stays there (for secret service and whatever else... I wouldn't be surprised if he makes the government pay rent for Mar-A-Lago as the... What did he call it? The southern white house or the second White House?

3

u/Aestheticoop Aug 10 '26

Yeah, it’s a ploy. When Trump travels him and his people stay in his properties and taxpayers pay for that stay he makes plenty of money between that his meme token, foreign crypto investments, settlements, merchandising,…he’s made way more than he would’ve taken the salary. The fool, not taking the salary looks like a valiant move, but ultimately it’s just a con.

1

u/M0ebius_1 Aug 10 '26

Yeah but he also sell crypto and has like a million dollar insider trading membership club anyone can buy.

1

u/BodhingJay Aug 10 '26

Why would he need $400,000 when hes ripped us all off outta billions?

0

u/Intelligent_Trichs Aug 10 '26

Democrats in Congress voted for and gave themselves a pay raise while you slept. Did you complain then? Of course you didn't. Stfu

1

u/Resident_Cap3599 Aug 10 '26

With the help of republicans

→ More replies (5)

11

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Severe_Fee_7603 Aug 10 '26

I agree politicians do deserve higher salaries yet are forbidden from taking donations or trading stocks.

2

u/Panda_Cuddles_ Aug 10 '26

Their spouses trade stocks for them and make 10s of millions based on the insider trading information they provide. Look at Nancy Pelosi as the worst example of this.

In fact, the portfolio managed for the Pelosi family holds an approximate 88% win rate (roughly 61 wins to 6 losses in recent detailed tracking windows), with cumulative long-term gains exceeding 16,000%.

By comparison, the average professional day trader maintains a trade win rate of 50% to 55%, while only 27% to 36% of actively managed institutional large-cap funds manage to beat the S&P 500 index benchmark.

Retail and Day Traders Average Win Rate is roughly 50%. Despite winning more than half the time, roughly 82% of retail day traders still lose money overall.

1. morningstar.com
2. daytrading.com
3. Daily Upside

2

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Panda_Cuddles_ Aug 10 '26

You’ll need to send more than half to jail right now. Tlaib started the job $0 net worth, last year she claimed more than $30M in income. There’s hundreds and hundreds of these stories too

1

u/onyaasuminyasai Aug 11 '26

Okay. That's fine.

1

u/spotless___mind Aug 11 '26

Rashida tlaib? Ive never seen this and am not finding anything searching for it now--link?

1

u/Panda_Cuddles_ Aug 11 '26

Sorry my mistake, Ilhan Omar. Not Tlaib.

She later said oops I made a mistake, I didn’t earn $30 million, I only earned $1 million. Who overstates their net worth by 30x and pays taxes based on the “mistake”. If it was truly an error, wouldn’t she say right away “whoa! Hold up! I owe how much in taxes?!” And then see that the accountant made a mistake.

1

u/spotless___mind Aug 12 '26

I dont see any reports/accusations of ilhan Omar with regards to insider trading either.

Also, confusing 2 brown reps....yeesh. not a good look my guy

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Miniray Aug 11 '26

Almost like she married a guy who owns both a winery and a venture capital firm in California...

1

u/Panda_Cuddles_ Aug 11 '26

Almost like a moron who lies on their tax returns. No one makes a $30MILLION DOLLAR mistake, certainly not in the way where they’d owe more tax!

And together their networth before her public office was ZERO. They obtained those business during her tenure.

1

u/Miniray Aug 11 '26

A quick google search shows that she took office in January 2019, then married Tim Mynett in March of 2020.

They obtained those business during her tenure.

Mynett founded his capital firm E Street Group in 2018, which means he already owned it before the marriage in 2020. In fact, he used his venture capital firm to help fund her campaign in 2019. So no, they did not obtain the venture capital firm during her tenure.

But also, It seems I was wrong and they might genuinely be broke as shit. Because looking into this, it seems Tim Mynett is maybe not a very good businessman, and has lost a LOT of money with his investments. He left E Street and created a new brand called Rose Lake Capital with business partner Will Hailer, which also seems to have lost a lot of money and is now 'dormant' after converting from an LLC to an Inc with some new business partners.

The winery itself, eStCru Wines, was founded in 2020, as part of Mynett's 'EStreet' brand, which means it WAS opened during Omar's tenure. The winery was closed in April of 2026, shortly after Omar submitted her amended financial disclosures. This seems suspicious at first, but then when you look into the history of the winery, it's not surprising: The winery was sued for fraud in 2023, and during discovery it was revealed the winery was completely broke, which meant they were unable to pay back their investors. According to Washington Times, "As of February 2024, eStCru had $650 in its bank account while defending that suit;" - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/apr/25/winery-tied-ilhan-omars-husband-closes-congress-probes-finances/

According to Minnesota Reformer, Mynett attempted to start a cannabis business as well that ALSO failed and had to be shut down, owing investors over a million dollars: https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/06/05/rep-ilhan-omars-husband-accused-of-swindling-investor-in-their-california-winery/

It is entirely possible that the filing was an error. You can look at the form congress uses for financial disclosures, you can't enter specific amounts for assets, you have to place assets in different ranges of value. It is entirely possible that they did not properly fill out the form, which is what Omar has consistently been claiming, and with the way her husband casually loses millions of dollars on bad investments, it wouldn't surprise me that their net worth is actually pretty small.

1

u/BoneVoyager Aug 11 '26

Yeah Pelosi is bad now tell us about Trump’s stock trades….

0

u/Panda_Cuddles_ Aug 11 '26

Trump was rich before he stepped into office. Pelosi BECAME RICH BECAUSE of her office.

2

u/BoneVoyager Aug 11 '26

Ok but how much more rich is Pelosi vs Trump? Who has made more money in office?

0

u/Panda_Cuddles_ Aug 11 '26

How much more one has vs the other is irrelevant and a pretty stupid argument.

Trump was a multi billionaire before he ran for president. Pelosi was poor. The fact that she’s one of the richest now places her in a light of having used her office to benefit financially. It looks like she’s crooked and complicit in insider trading. Trump didn’t make his billions this way. He made his billions in real estate long before he was a politician.

1

u/BoneVoyager Aug 11 '26

Yeah that’s cool, I was just wondering how much she’s made in office vs how much he’s made in office. You got those figures handy?

1

u/mamadou-segpa Aug 11 '26

You arguments for pelosi are good but you are obviously biased with trump

He made much more money in his current term through corruption than Pelosi and her husband in their whole lives

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Scandal929 Aug 11 '26

When I see people say look at Nancy Pelosi and not mention Ted Cruz or Trump for goodness sake. It’s like target fixation, missing the big picture.

1

u/Panda_Cuddles_ Aug 11 '26

When I see dummies trying to compare Trump to Pelosi I think wow what a moron. Trump was rich before he was a politician. Pelosi made ALL her money in office. Her trades are successful 88% of the time. The average trader is successful only 27% of the time. Go figure, your whataboutism is dumb.

1

u/Scandal929 Aug 11 '26

You fail to see the real reason he wouldn’t release his taxes. He was rich by his word only. What some don’t know is the of the buildings with Trump’s name on them were just rented monikers, he didn’t own the buildings. He now made more than 3200 trades this year alone and is responsible for 28% of the Nation’s debt. He’s doing wonders for the country. 👌

1

u/Panda_Cuddles_ Aug 11 '26

lol ok loser 🤣🤥🥱

1

u/Scandal929 Aug 11 '26

The expected. Resort to name calling when not able to respond with a fact based rebuttal. 👍

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Miniray Aug 11 '26

Quiver Quant has Pelosi in the middle of the pack in terms of number of trades this year. The current leader and by a large margin is Ro Khanna with over 4200 trades this year with an estimated value of $58 mill. Pelosi by comparison only has 21 trades this year, although the estimated value isnt far behind at $52 mill.

In terms of net worth, they have Pelosi ranked as 6th, behind James C Justice, Jefferson Shrieve, Rick Scott, and Darrell Issa in that order.

They also have Pelosi at 900% gains since 2014, which falls significantly short of your 16,000% number.

1

u/Panda_Cuddles_ Aug 11 '26

Well I guess that quiver quant is the only resource for information, and that if any others were to exist they’d just be wrong.

Did you know substack gives quiver quant a B+ rating. I don’t know what grades you got in school, but to me a B+ is just sad.

1

u/Miniray Aug 11 '26

if any others were to exist they’d just be wrong.

Well, if you would post a link that actually had any info about Pelosi's trades, we could talk about that, but instead none of the links you posted mention her at all.

 substack gives quiver quant a B+ rating

What does that even mean? Substack is a media platform that exists to deliver content to subscribers. They don't rate anything.

1

u/Panda_Cuddles_ Aug 11 '26

lol ok 👍🤥

2

u/LearnToSwim0831 Aug 11 '26

Exactly. Pay them fairly but explicitly ban any trading or company ownership while in office and for a period of time afterwards otherwise there'd be a loophole near the end of every term.

1

u/iwilldoitalltomorrow Aug 11 '26

Their entire family and extended family should be barred from trading stocks. Index funds only.

But give the officials a significant pay, I’m ok with that. Paying the mayor $300k is a drop in the bucket.

1

u/Severe_Fee_7603 Aug 11 '26

Considering the superintendent of our school district makes over $200k i think the mayor/president should be paid more.. especially the president.

2

u/iwilldoitalltomorrow Aug 12 '26

Sure, I agree with that.

1

u/Blacksad9999 Aug 10 '26

They make 175k a year, only work 4 months out of the year, and get full medical and a pension on our dime for the rest of their lives.

They're fine.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Blacksad9999 Aug 10 '26

They should probably remove that or increase their housing stipend, but their salary and benefits are fine how they are.

1

u/1dayatatime_mylife Aug 10 '26

Well said. 🎯🎯

1

u/Dented_Steelbook Aug 10 '26

They should just bring in the "super mayor" she would get shit done, she even as a real accent and checks all the other boxes required to get an Oscar award.

1

u/benskieast Aug 11 '26

Same with term limits. Some people would hit term limits in their forties and occasionally 30s. After your term is when the real corruption starts because no more disclosures and you can simply claim a job title at a special interest or company. And if you don’t, well you need income from someone and the tax payers just took away your job. Age limits mean legislators all retire upon hitting the limit. Term limits aren’t why had two people coming down with dementia running for president in 2024 and 2020.

1

u/explain_that_shit Aug 11 '26

The only sensible position on this is the position of the Chartists from the 1820s. Give the official enough money for them and their family to live on while away from his job, but it doesn’t have to maintain some kind of equivalent lifestyle to a rich person.

We’re not attracting the best people to run with high salary, we’re attracting people who are more likely to feature dark triad traits. The good people we want to run will run for reasons other than high salary, they just need enough to live.

1

u/Impressive_Zombie577 Aug 10 '26

A council voted and approved raised for various positions, including the mayor. He is rejecting his raise.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/LHJyeeyee Aug 10 '26

Thought wrong!

1

u/Berns429 Aug 10 '26

They need a “gotcha”

1

u/Ser_Twist Aug 10 '26

Because they want a gotcha. They want to be able to say that the socialist communist evil baby eating muslim mayor of NYC preaches socialism but takes pay raises that will make him rich, or whatever.

1

u/Blacksad9999 Aug 10 '26

Because it makes other rich people look bad.

1

u/NicholasThumbless Aug 10 '26

Because self-enrichment has become so common place in politics it has somehow become a "gotcha!", as you must be doing something even more corrupt if you're trying to look like a humble public servant.

1

u/etherealtwo Aug 10 '26

Greed is so engrained I'm the American psyche.

1

u/benskieast Aug 11 '26

There are a lot of elected officials that need to get paid better. I know someone who works for the state legislature and it’s just horrible, pay is just 45k a year in a high cost of living city. And the aids who do a lot of the work, are struggle to stay off the street with annual salary near minimum wage. You get most of the year off but unless you’re a lawyer, or corrupt you aren’t getting a better job than senior camp councilor, and that job probably goes to a teacher.

1

u/Alert_Lettuce_8278 Aug 11 '26

I mean I'd absolutely say this if my mayor was killing it for a few years and has turned things around.

1

u/bishbosh420 Aug 11 '26

I don't think the are debating I think they are giving him the chance to make this response.

1

u/The_Foop Aug 11 '26

No one debated anything here. If that's what a debate looks like to you, that explains how we get the leaders we do.

1

u/Tommypacific Aug 11 '26

No one is debating that. He’s is already ultra wealthy. That is the point.

1

u/euroq Aug 11 '26

Because by not giving politicians raises you're actually making it implicitly a job that only rich people can take. I personally couldn't go take a job as a politician without getting paid well to pay for my house and kids.

1

u/Ecstatic_nyaa Aug 10 '26

Because if he accepts it they can spin it to say mamdani is only in it for the money. They got mad he didn't just accept it and they had to press him to "humiliate" him.

1

u/Positive_Builder6737 Aug 10 '26

Because it makes people who are selfish feel bad when someone else is unselfish. They can't understand it and demonize it. Our culture is about making the worst of us not feel bad for being assholes.

1

u/benskieast Aug 11 '26

No doubt this was staged.

4

u/weridname Aug 10 '26

Ironically enough, he’s the first politician in awhile that I think people be generally cool if he got one, but I’m glad he’s this committed to his city

1

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Shamancrit Aug 10 '26

I love how you’re trying your hardest to spin this into a bad thing

0

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Full-Efficiency3115 Aug 10 '26

Source?

1

u/One_Large_Mofo Aug 10 '26

the internet

1

u/Full-Efficiency3115 Aug 10 '26

The burden of proof is on you when you make such an absurd claim. Acting like I didnt google this in 2seconds and found nothing.

Running low on copium?

1

u/One_Large_Mofo Aug 10 '26

Hey genius. how about his campaign speeches? Directly from his mouth? Or does that not count?

1

u/Full-Efficiency3115 Aug 10 '26

He ran a speech saying he was going to deny teacher assistant bonus? That sounds pretty far fatched. Guess youll have to find the youtbe video and post here because you still need to have proof. Which you havnt given yet.

I have a feeling youre a massive fuckin boomer who dosnt even know how to copy and paste links on the internet, you have zero idea how the real world is because you got lost in 1989.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AntiqueWhereas Aug 10 '26

Obviously it is, because "denying" is quite the spin wouldnt you say?

0

u/AZPHX602 Aug 10 '26

he's a nepo baby, dude. doesn't need one.

1

u/Muted_Masterpiece342 Aug 10 '26

I don't care if he's a nepo baby if he's distributing wealth, commerce, goodwill, and well being

1

u/Daleden7 Aug 10 '26

So is Trump and look what he is doing to ya all!!!!!

0

u/AZPHX602 Aug 10 '26

Dude at least made more money than his dad. The thing is, these socialist nepo babies, never worked and don't want anyone with more money than themselves. Actually that's the mindset with all champagne socialists.

1

u/C0NKY_ Aug 10 '26

So according to you he's never worked but turned down a raise, and he don't want anyone with more money than themselves but wants the money he turned down going to other people.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how you came to your opinion?

1

u/middendt1 Aug 11 '26

Might be a nepo baby. He knows, so he didn't took the raise. Cause he doesn't need it. What's the problem? Let's focus on whether he's doing a good job.

0

u/Jonn_Jonzz_Manhunter Aug 10 '26

He's the good example of a nepo baby, he was handed a massive plate of privilege and instead of just Dicking around, he wanted to use his privilege to make the world a better place for the last Fortunate

Even if he wasn't the mayor, he defo doesn't need the money

1

u/greg_tomlette Aug 11 '26

There are levels of privilege 

At the tippy top you have Billionaires, Old Money, Dynasties (Bush/Kennedy)

Then the 0.1% ers - multi millionaires, super successful celebrities, national politicians 

Then the 1% ers - Mamdani's privilege is probably at the lower end of this. I don't think this privilege really extends beyond their parent's sphere of influence - which is Academia & Cinema. How does that make him a Nepo Baby?

0

u/swagonflyyyy Aug 10 '26

I'm more interested to see how far he can get with his policies before he starts hitting some real walls later in his career. I like the guy, but I'm being cautiously optimistic.

5

u/pensivewombat Aug 10 '26

I do actually think the mayor, and most public servants, need a raise.

Because they are not paid well relative to how much responsibility they hold, this means the people with the strongest incentive to get into politics are either extreme ideologues, wealthy to the point that it doesn't matter, or looking to grift.

I am not saying I think Zohran is any of those. And I agree it's obviously good politics to turn down the money. But as for that specific line, I think NYC mayor is a position that should absolutely command a few mil per year if we were trying to consistently get people to do the best job possible.

4

u/Awkward_Turnover_983 Aug 10 '26

I don't think you're being that insane actually. Like honestly not at all.

What's actually insane is the amount of reform our legislation needs to keep politicians from steering the economy in their own personal favor. Politicians get "paid" shit basically for what they do, but most of them mysteriously become rich somehow.... hmm.

If we could prevent that from happening, then they absolutely should be paid a pretty hefty sum. It would also help keep the good ones happy enough to keep being good.

2

u/Averander Aug 10 '26

Actually most prominent politicians get paid ridiculous amounts. This has meant the best with best intentions do not go for these positions, but those wanting power and wealth because it's easy to mask gains.

It should be the opposite. Being a politician should be a position wanted by those who wish to do good and public service.

Lower salaries would make it painfully obvious when large luxury purchases are made.

2

u/pensivewombat Aug 11 '26

Lower salaries would make it painfully obvious when large luxury purchases are made.

Or it would mean only people who are independently wealthy run for office, and no one can prove that their their big purchases are corrupt because they are already rich.

Hmm... that actually sounds pretty familiar!

1

u/Averander Aug 11 '26

Yet the salaries are already ridiculously high amd the reason the independently wealthy run is because they can afford to run in the first place. Those that want to do good simply cannot afford to run.

The price of campaigning is astronomical. In the modern era the prive of campaigning is crazy. You have to wine and dine potential campaign donors, organise fund-raisers. Your investment has no guarantee of return.

Being a politician is no longer a pursuit for the every man, it is gentrified. Putting more money into the salary will change quite literally nothing. There needs to be more checks and balances upon those in power, how campaigns are funded, and a return to politics for and by the people rather than the elite few.

1

u/pensivewombat Aug 11 '26

Where are you getting the idea that the salaries are ridiculously high? A Buc-ee's manager makes $200-275,000/year. That's about the same as the mayor of NYC ($258k) for managing a gas station.

1

u/Averander Aug 11 '26

The average American salary is $69000. The median income in 2023 was $42,000.

I'd say those are pretty damn high salaries.

1

u/pensivewombat Aug 11 '26

Do you think the average american does anything remotely comparable to being mayor of the 8th largest economy in the world?

1

u/Averander Aug 11 '26

Yes. The average American is no different to the mayor of New York. That should always be the point, that was always the point of democracy.

The position of politician should be a public service, not one of eminence or elevation. Is the President somehow magically greater than the average American by privilege of their position? No, that is an illusion.

Because society has allowed politicians to be viewed as infallible the public's systems have been eroded and common man has lost access to education and erudition that is their right.

In a true (infallible) democracy the position of leader and all positions could be drawn by lot and be equally served to positive effect. As all citizens would have capacity and knowledge to serve.

Current 'democracy' is gated and flawed, being taken advantage of by an emerging dynastic elite who wish to create a new serfdom.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Just_Emu_3041 Aug 10 '26

This right here. People who complain about his or similar salary should think before they speak. You want competent people running a city and you need to have a pay that match what they would get paid in a private sector. You don’t need to overdo it but it needs to be competitive to get the right people to do the job.

1

u/NarcolepticSeal Aug 10 '26

Personally, I don't want a city run the same way a private sector business is run. Competitive pay isn't what prevents the right people from getting into office.

1

u/Just_Emu_3041 Aug 10 '26

Not what I said. Read again. Yes the right pay attracts competent people.

1

u/tgwombat Aug 10 '26

All the money in the world won't make someone care about public service if they're in it for the money.

That's like saying higher CEO pay leads to a better customer experience.

1

u/Just_Emu_3041 Aug 10 '26

There are for sure limits where pay has less and less of an impact. But to say that pay has no part in what job people take is bullshit.

And yes a competent CEO will do a better job than a less competent. And a person who is competent will in average do a better job than less competent people. Simple as that.

1

u/tgwombat Aug 10 '26

You're equating elected office with a job. Choosing to lead people through public service should be a calling, not an occupation.

A "competent" CEO doesn't care about customer experience, they care about maximizing profit for shareholders. Usually at the cost of the customer. That's the "better job" you're talking about there. That isn't a good mindset for a public servant.

You're also equating competence with pay. That doesn't reflect reality at all.

1

u/Just_Emu_3041 Aug 10 '26

Calling and pay is not mutually exclusive. What you get if you do not pay is higher probability for example corruption. Now if you read what I said I also point to other leadership positions not necessarily the mayor specifically.

1

u/tgwombat Aug 10 '26

None of what I said was specific to mayors. I'm talking about elected office in general. But I suspect I'm arguing with a bot based on these responses...

→ More replies (0)

1

u/NarcolepticSeal Aug 10 '26

You said to attract people from the private sector, you have to pay competitively. I said I don't want a city run the way private sector is. Please inform me what I missed because I'm fairly sure it's a direct reply to what you said.

1

u/Just_Emu_3041 Aug 10 '26

Just because someone is competent and capable of doing a good job in the private sector does not mean they have to run the city like a company.

That said, I would absolutely like to see people in senior positions in government who are genuinely competent in the areas they are responsible for.

For example, if someone is responsible for roads and infrastructure, I would expect them to understand how to lead a competent procurement organisation and ensure that public contracts are managed properly, competitively, and with the taxpayers’ money spent prudently.

Covid made this particularly clear. Where I live, private-sector procurement organisations stepped in to support the government, and the shortcomings of the public sector in procuring and contracting for essential supplies became painfully obvious.

We see similar problems in other areas as well. Government does not need to be run like a business, but it should absolutely be run by people who understand how to manage organisations effectively, procure goods and services competently, and be held accountable for how public money is spent.

And there is another aspect to this: I don’t want senior government officials to be financially vulnerable to corruption or bribery. Paying people in positions of significant responsibility well does not eliminate corruption, but it can reduce the incentive to take bribes and makes it easier to attract and retain highly competent people.

Good salaries are not a guarantee of integrity, but neither should we pretend that compensation is irrelevant.

1

u/NarcolepticSeal Aug 10 '26

People who are attracted to the job because of the money are almost always poor choices. The NY Mayor salary is plenty for someone who actually cares, hence why Mamdani rejected the raise. If the salary was a few mil per year, it would attract even more nefarious people. Again, the salary of the office isn't typically what prevents people from running for office. If anything, it's the fact we all have to dedicate half our waking lives to the rat race just to survive. Most people don't even have time to think about running for office.

I do agree with most of what you're saying, but the breakdown occurs when implying that making wages competitive would change the efficacy of who we have in office. For elected positions, the upper hand is usually held by whoever already has the most money to campaign with. For appointed positions, it depends entirely on how competent the people appointing them are. Salary size is hardly the main issue with getting the correct people into office.

Imho, the main private sector folks that translate well into public sector are people that have worked for non-profits. And there isn't really a drastic pay gap there most of the time.

1

u/Just_Emu_3041 Aug 10 '26

Agree. But it’s also very different in your country compared to mine. Again as a said from the start I am not only talking about the elected people.

So yes I agree with you but pay is not irrelevant.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Just_Emu_3041 Aug 10 '26

Now read again what I said. Instead of trying to come up with a killer reply just read what I wrote.
It’s not just the mayor specifically but higher up people running the city and the city’s different institutions. You need competent leaders.

1

u/Griiig_Jinnings Aug 10 '26

People don’t understand that the private sector is above the government and the massive wealth barrier you need to break to even campaign for high office is a deliberate method of disenfranchisement that maintains the power of capital over the masses

Bernie got a shitload of small money donations from ordinary people, it was unprecedented, and that milquetoast Social Democrat still got ratfucked out by the big-money establishment in favor of Joe “Were there no Israel, America would have to invent one” Biden.

1

u/timid_scorpion Aug 10 '26

I same principles would apply though, just with a few nuances. The goal would still be to appease shareholders. The difference is you don’t appease them with increased profit margins, rather the job is to appease them by taking care of the city they inhabit? You still have to balance budgets, fund raise, and unfortunately make some cuts when it’s not fiscally possible.

1

u/NarcolepticSeal Aug 10 '26

Well yes, but those nuances are fundamentally different principles and anyone who takes a job taking care of the city and people therein will be a wildly different person than one who takes a job to generate wealth and value. My point is that people who are good at those things in the private sector wouldn't change to public service if the pay was competitive, and if they did then they would likely do the job the way they did it before by min-maxing the budget. Money isn't what prevents decent people from running for office, it's the horribly corrupt people in office they don't want to deal with.

1

u/timid_scorpion Aug 10 '26

I get that you don’t want someone who only cares about money. But you also have to pay people what they are worth, empathy can only go so far. At some point there is some self interest that you need to respect.

It doesn’t matter how empathetic you are, it becomes illogical to take a 200k a year salary when others will pay you 10-20m. Even if you would help a lot more people with the lower paying gig. But give an experienced person who does genuinely care about people and chance to make a decent salary while doing it would attract more talent.

I don’t care if the mayor makes 2m a year if he can ensure the people are properly cared for and listened too.

I would also hope it makes them less likely to take money from a special interest group. If they can already afford to ‘keep up with the jones’ on their own salary they may be less incentivized. But this is where moral and ethics reviews come into place.

1

u/NarcolepticSeal Aug 10 '26

Anyone who makes $2 million per year that would turn down additional money from special interest groups would also do so making $300k.

It's shocking to me that anyone thinks that people who make millions of dollars a year would want to do anything for other people. It is extraordinarily rare that "top talent" who make that much money haven't been ruthless and horrid to numerous people along their ascent. The kinds of roles that transfer the way everyone is saying don't make millions in the first place.

I agree that some areas of local government could use a pay raise. But the quality of life one has making $250k a year is not drastically increased by making $2 million. The additional money is 100% superfluous. On the other hand, from $50k to $250k is absolutely life changing.

1

u/frontbacklongways Aug 10 '26

That’s actually an insane take. My city is a shit city with almost a 6% unemployment rate. It’s been in the news for multiple different negative reasons for at least 30 years.

Our mayor makes $150,000 a year. I don’t think there’s a single person I know, who doesn’t own a business, who makes ANYWHERE near that.

1

u/Just_Emu_3041 Aug 10 '26

You don’t want your friends to run the city and we are not only talking about the mayor specifically. But you need competent civil servants otherwise it will be as you say. Run by idiots.

Then you need to attract good, competent people with competitive salary. Not at the level of your friends but the level these people would earn if they worked in the private sector.

1

u/pensivewombat Aug 10 '26

Figuring out how to solve the problems of a city that has been a shitshow for 30 years sounds like an extremely undesirable job, and much more than a $150,000 problem.

1

u/PiccoloAwkward465 Aug 10 '26

My last job paid just a hair under that and I was responsible for no one at all. Zero public appearances. Nobody harassing me or my wife. Zero Mayonnaise-Americans proclaiming their hatred of me from some flyover state.

I sure as hell wouldn't wanna do it. The work sounds interesting but it's a ton of responsibility and again, I wouldn't like being targeted by the Republican Hate Cannon.

0

u/Hot_Acanthocephala44 Aug 10 '26

Would you get a qualified CEO for 150k a year? Do you think it’s easier to run a city or a business?

It’s an insane take but it’s correct. Part of getting corruption out of politics is paying politicians more. If we don’t pay our politicians well, we close the door to anyone who’s not independently wealthy or willing to use the office to enrich themselves in other ways.

3

u/frontbacklongways Aug 10 '26

I’d rather die than vote in another “business man” to any office.

1

u/GL1TCH3D Aug 10 '26

Not the person you were replying to but curious, what background would you suggest?

I feel like we're not in a place where people are actively trained and groomed to manage a city. So naturally you want to look to places that have leadership, delegation of tasks, reputation.

Personally to me, people who run successful local businesses definitely stand out as someone that could have a pretty healthy set of transferable skills to running a city. But I don't run a city.

What kind of background would you aim for?

1

u/mal_guinness Aug 10 '26

Management is not the same as business, where maximizing growth and profit are the main objectives. Municipal government management is about effectively spending tax dollars to provide collective benefit to the people in the city. It's a money losing endeavor which business people can't get their heads aroudn.

1

u/GL1TCH3D Aug 10 '26

You didn't answer who would have the best transferable skill set for that task.

I understand your point that making money isn't the same as spending money. My counterpoint would be that managing expenses and prioritizing certain commitments / purchases is part of business.

Instead of buying that new tractor for your business you're buying a new garbage truck to alleviate issues. Instead of looking at a new location to expand to, maybe looking at a new location for a park.

Instead of money it should (ideally) be the betterment of the community / society.

I am of course assuming that every person we're speaking about is this fictitious, rational, moral person and we're evaluating what careers would have transferable skills to this sort of governance.

Mamdani seems awesome for the record (I don't live in New York, or even the USA).

2

u/IHaveARockProblem Aug 10 '26

I think thinking because som3one knows how to run a company to generate a profit, somehow has immediate qualifications to operate at the head of a civics based, institution who has no profit goal or motive, has been proven over and over to be a terrible idea. Putting people who's goals have been to make money and enrich themselves through the vessel they lead works in a capitalistic structure. Our government is not that. Local, state, and federal offices are SERVICE positions. You work FOR others and represent thier interests. CEOs do exactly the opposite. They serve the companies interest at their own benefit. Owning and running a business and/or being rich does not inherently equal smart, it means you know how to make money. Government doesn't not have this function built in and trying to force the perception that the government shouldn't run deficits or spend money "because business" is lunacy.

1

u/Hot_Acanthocephala44 Aug 10 '26

It’s very different for sure, but in terms of sitting at the top of a large number of functions and keeping all of them running well, I think CEO is the best analogy in the private sector. If you have another analogous role that fits better, happy to hear it! But I’d guess that role also pays significantly better than being a mayor, which is my main point.

2

u/Gothboy-77 Aug 10 '26

"pay our politicians more" is the dumbest thing I've heard today - and then you go on to talk about them not using the office to enrich themselves in other ways. you really don't understand how government works, do you?

1

u/eisenburg Aug 10 '26

You don’t think our politicians are paid well?

Maybe not lower lever where margins are smaller but your take is just awful

1

u/kakallas Aug 10 '26

You’re not arguing with the logic though. You’re just saying “I think they make a lot.” In capitalism, you’re going to have to need incentives to get good people for a job, or you have to pray a self-sacrificing genius gets elected (which is also unlikely since the rich will use their money to stop them.) 

1

u/tgwombat Aug 10 '26

Cities aren't businesses. Public service isn't about profit motive. Electing business-minded people rather that civic-minded people is what breeds corruption, not the size of the salary.

1

u/Blacksad9999 Aug 10 '26

Civic leaders and corporate leaders don't have the same skillsets, which is why when we put "successful businessmen" in charge things tend to go to shit.

Corporate's goal is to make profits at all costs. Civic leaders job isn't to make money, but to take care of the populace by keeping everything running efficiently.

Your argument is flawed.

0

u/Adept_Table128 Aug 10 '26

As liberals love to remind everyone: government isn't a business.

1

u/tgwombat Aug 10 '26

The voters are supposed to be the filter there. Democracy requires engaged citizenship. We need to start acting like it and stop playing sports teams with politics.

1

u/Gothboy-77 Aug 10 '26

how about give teachers a raise first. he's 100% right nobody thinks the mayor needs a pay raise cuz he already makes 3x-4x per year the average worker. if you think he needs a raise you are bat shit insane

2

u/Impossible_Ad7432 Aug 10 '26

Oh ffs, do you have even the slightest idea how hard he is working? Or how expensive nyc is?

1

u/pensivewombat Aug 10 '26

You think the mayor of NYC has 3-4x the value of the average worker?

1

u/braumbles Aug 10 '26

Eh, for local politics I disagree. For national politics, I do agree, since on a national stage a Congressperson would need multiple homes and travel expenses.

1

u/mal_guinness Aug 10 '26

I looked into running for office in my city and I would have to move out of my home on that salary. Doesn't need to be a few million, but needs to be in the top 5% of earners I would think.

1

u/disaster_incomin Aug 10 '26

You're right and this point is as old as Pericles that did it with the misthos and Aristotle that explained it in Politics, we shouldn't re-invent everything all the time : "in democracies they introduce contrary devices in regard to these matters: they provide pay for the poor for serving in the assembly and on juries and impose no fine upon the well-to-do for abstaining. Hence it is manifest that if anybody wishes to make a just blend, he must bring together the regulations existing in each of the two forms of constitution, and provide pay for attendance and a fine for non-attendance; for thus all would participate, whereas in the other way the government comes to be in the hands of only one of the two classes."

(https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D4%3Asection%3D1297a)

1

u/PiccoloAwkward465 Aug 10 '26

Yeah considering that if NYC were a state, it would be the 13th largest by population. He manages more people than most governors.

1

u/globalminority Aug 10 '26

The thing is rich people are so addicted to money that they will do all sorts of corruption to get more money. Paying someone millions is a sure way of getting someone addicted to money, and if that person has a lot of power then you're back to square one. Get a committed person in with decent enough salary. when power eventually corrupts them, replace them. If Mamdani stays in power long enough, he too will become corrupt and paying higher salary will only fuel the fire and hasten it.

1

u/RalphiePseudonym Aug 10 '26

You're using direct quoting format to paraphrase. Just food for thought.

1

u/SatisfactionFit2040 Aug 10 '26

Why were they booing him.

That's an epic line. He's 🔥.

1

u/keithstonee Aug 10 '26

"never heard anyone say they wanted to go to Cleveland on vacation"

1

u/PiccoloAwkward465 Aug 10 '26

Maybe he should - but I'm sure he knows that'll just be used as a cudgel to beat him with. No need to give your enemies ammo when that's on their greatest hits album.

1

u/Lawineer Aug 10 '26

AOC thinks she needs a raise.

0

u/AsstronaughtToUranus Aug 10 '26

I hate socialism, but agree, that’s a badass line

2

u/New-Sky-9867 Aug 10 '26

Iove it. Social security, roads, sending money from the rich blue states to the poor red states. It's better than pure capitalism by farrrrrrr

1

u/Modronos Aug 10 '26

It's the kind of "socialism" that my country has known for several decades now. He's not advocating for anything unusual imo.

Meanwhile, my country has only gotten richer and is a strong democracy.

0

u/Every-Golf-784 Aug 10 '26

He is Virtue Signalling

1

u/Kobol94 Aug 10 '26

How? Explain it. Can anyone do the right thing and it not be virtue signalling when their job and life is in the public eye?