Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
I think what hotwired is saying is that if someone is capable of making $100K they probably will. Why wouldn't someone gravitate to the maximum income they are capable of? And at that income level, who the heck would want to be a councillor and put up with all the crap the position brings?
|
That is true, however he is assuming that someone who makes more money would automatically befit the position of city councillor or mayor over someone with an average salary. Personally I would gravitate towards a career that makes me happy over something that pays more. I know many people who feel the same.
Also he is not accounting for the thousands out there who have not yet had an opportunity to make 100 000 a year. There are many individuals who are capable of running a city who don't hold executive positions. And the truth is that the mayor makes 125 000 a year. The chief of police, and the deputy fire chiefs make that salary. And that is after 20 + years of service for each. To suggest that making anything less as being insufficient for the position is evidently false. That is not even including the gold plated pension, or 114 000 in spending (may we assume that even a small percentage is used personally) that comes with the position either.
Also the idea that a candidate would face criticism should be obvious to anyone who runs, and that being said there isn't a public servant position that you could find where daily criticism was not a fact of life. Ask your "everyday bus driver" about the criticism that they receive.