MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don’t think anybody goes into politics for the money. Even people who have political values you hate believe they’re serving the community and making it a better place. That’s the draw. Along with the ego stroke.

For sure.

But when you combine the pay cut, the ridiculous hours, and then stuff like the booing, I can't imagine why anyone does it.

I'm definitely sticking with my regular volunteering for my public service and let the career politicians wrestle in the snake pit. Seems terrible to me.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

For sure.



But when you combine the pay cut, the ridiculous hours, and then stuff like the booing, I can't imagine why anyone does it.



I'm definitely sticking with my regular volunteering for my public service and let the career politicians wrestle in the snake pit. Seems terrible to me.

I know this board seems to skew pretty high income but it's funny when people always say politics is a pay cut. A Calgary councillor makes base pay of $120,000 plus pension plan, good benefits, a transition allowance when they quit or get defeated. Plus a really good annual car allowance, expense account and generous budget for their constituency offices. I don't imagine they pay for too many fancy lunches themselves either.

So, while not huge money, a lot of people would think it's a pretty decent living.

I also don't think their hours of work would be any more than most.

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by chedder

I know this board seems to skew pretty high income but it's funny when people always say politics is a pay cut. A Calgary councillor makes base pay of $120,000 plus pension plan, good benefits, a transition allowance when they quit or get defeated. Plus a really good annual car allowance, expense account and generous budget for their constituency offices. I don't imagine they pay for too many fancy lunches themselves either.

So, while not huge money, a lot of people would think it's a pretty decent living.

I also don't think their hours of work would be any more than most.

The time commitment needed to be an councilperson cannot be understated. It is significantly more than an average job.

Decent municipal councilpersons attend a ton of unpaid weekday evening and weekend community events, and provide representation on at least a half-dozen municipal sub-committees and local associations/boards/commissions in addition to their regular role as councilperson.

Being an councilperson is easy for someone like Sean Chu or Dan McLean who do the bare minimum with no additional sub-committees or community work.

Conversely, councilpersons like Mian, Wong, Demong, and Pootmans are grinding it out all day almost every day.

In addition to all the other crap that councilpersons have to deal with, imagine giving up most of your evenings and a lot of weekends for a piddly $120k/year. It's definitely not worth it unless you're there to grift or you really love the city of Calgary.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by chedder

So, while not huge money, a lot of people would think it's a pretty decent living.

I also don't think their hours of work would be any more than most.

Put it to you this way: For the kinds of caliber of people you would want representing you, that level of pay is awful especially with the elements of being a politician introduces to private life.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Put it to you this way: For the kinds of caliber of people you would want representing you, that level of pay is awful especially with the elements of being a politician introduces to private life.

What calibre of people do you want representing you?

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What calibre of people do you want representing you?

That is true and makes me change my opinion a bit. I do have this assumption that Harvard educated Mckinsey trained, high IQ people are the best but we need all voices. As much as Chu is a complete idiot, devoid of a soul, I like there are different voices. Not a bunch of city planner graduates who are angling to work for rndsqr after they get paid to develop their resume.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Put it to you this way: For the kinds of caliber of people you would want representing you, that level of pay is awful especially with the elements of being a politician introduces to private life.

If you make over $60,000 you are in the 75th percentile for pay in Alberta.

What representation of you is happening and so crucial that a city councillor should be making, what, $250,000?

What number is fair for the job?

I agree it's a tough job. But is it any tougher than, say, an ER or continuing care nurse who makes less? They get crapped on (literally and figuratively) work a physically and mentally draining job and make less than a councillor. And went to school for 4 years.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by chedder

I know this board seems to skew pretty high income but it's funny when people always say politics is a pay cut. A Calgary councillor makes base pay of $120,000 plus pension plan, good benefits, a transition allowance when they quit or get defeated. Plus a really good annual car allowance, expense account and generous budget for their constituency offices. I don't imagine they pay for too many fancy lunches themselves either.

So, while not huge money, a lot of people would think it's a pretty decent living.

I also don't think their hours of work would be any more than most.

Some of that stuff is for MLAs or MPs (constituency offices) and some of that just doesn't exist anymore (transition allowances and pensions have been gone provincially for a decade or so).

But sure...$120k to have people protest Covid measures in front of your house, or boo you at hockey games? Sounds great. Or how about the always popular (that you know she has to deal with) "I pay your salary, so let me tell you how things ought to be!" Sounds amazing.

Honestly, even with all of the perks that people think are there, that's so unappealing.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by chedder

If you make over $60,000 you are in the 75th percentile for pay in Alberta.

What representation of you is happening and so crucial that a city councillor should be making, what, $250,000?

What number is fair for the job?

I agree it's a tough job. But is it any tougher than, say, an ER or continuing care nurse who makes less? They get crapped on (literally and figuratively) work a physically and mentally draining job and make less than a councilor. And went to school for 4 years.

I think people conflate 'representing you' with being an 'everyman' or 'everywoman' and being relatable. The job of elected official is actually not that but rather being a leader and being accountable to make decisions and actually help run/manage a large organization in the best interest of constituents. To actually be competent enough to do that well would also make one capable of making far more than $120/yr + allowances. That was the point I'm making.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I think people conflate 'representing you' with being an everyman or every person and being relatable. The job of elected official is actually not that but rather being a leader and being accountable to make decisions and actually help run/manage a large organization in the best interest of constituents. To actually be competent enough to do that well would also make one capable of making far more than $120/yr + allowances. That was the point I'm making.

Agree but I think you're giving the councilors too much credit. The city bureaucrats likely do more for the running of the organization (city) than the council does. And they most likely make much more than the councilors. Look at smaller municipalities. They hire a CAO, economic, development and whatever else managers and pretty much let them run the show. Yes, council is ultimately accountable but most of those bureaucrats outlast many cycles of elected officials.

My point, that I obviously didn't convey, is that people scoff at $120,000 (which with all the benefits is closer to $150,000+) as a paultry amount of pay.

[PepsiFree]

I don’t think cities, provinces, and countries should be run “like a business” because they are not that, do not have nearly the same objectives as that, and (in my opinion) actually require the rejection of some of the things that make a business a success in the eyes of shareholders. In fact, I think the entire analogy is kind of absurd.

Of course, people who can successfully run a business should be welcome to run for any political position, but if you look at these types of people they’re rarely any better (and sometimes worse, like the kind of people who go golfing when they’re being paid to work) than basically anyone else.

I would trust educators, urban planners, medical professionals, tradespeople, and… yes (it pains me to say) even accountants more than I would trust some CEO of a large organization to make a positive contribution to politics. You want people who actually value and understand what it is that governments provide, not dopes who want to run it like a business.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t think cities, provinces, and countries should be run “like a business” because they are not that, do not have nearly the same objectives as that, and (in my opinion) actually require the rejection of some of the things that make a business a success in the eyes of shareholders. In fact, I think the entire analogy is kind of absurd.

Of course, people who can successfully run a business should be welcome to run for any political position, but if you look at these types of people they’re rarely any better (and sometimes worse, like the kind of people who go golfing when they’re being paid to work) than basically anyone else.

I would trust educators, urban planners, medical professionals, tradespeople, and… yes (it pains me to say) even accountants more than I would trust some CEO of a large organization to make a positive contribution to politics. You want people who actually value and understand what it is that governments provide, not dopes who want to run it like a business.

I don't entirely disagree, but there are also a lot of business decisions to be made by elected officials. To have someone who has handled some of this before isn't the worst idea. But good news! Paying people like $120k a year isn't going to attract a CEO from a large organization, so you have nothing to worry about! What you do get though, are career politicians, which is exactly who we should be avoiding.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I think people conflate 'representing you' with being an 'everyman' or 'everywoman' and being relatable. The job of elected official is actually not that but rather being a leader and being accountable to make decisions and actually help run/manage a large organization in the best interest of constituents. To actually be competent enough to do that well would also make one capable of making far more than $120/yr + allowances. That was the point I'm making.

There are people who make less than that who are perfectly capable of performing the jobs that pay that amount, the problem is there’s only a finite number of actual jobs available.

When it comes to elected officials you’re likely never going to get the absolute best candidate in any election for a number of reasons, but the same can be said when hiring people in the private sector. So what you try to find the best out of the capable number of applicants/nominees.

There’s a lot of capable people making less than what elected officials make who are just as, if not more capable than they are who would probably do that job well if the opportunity was there but I think we all understand why not everyone is able to run just because it’d be a bump in pay.

Just out of curiosity with all the emphasis you put on the experience of being able to run a successful organization, in the next federal election are you currently planning on voting for the lawyer, the drama teacher or the career politician?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t think cities, provinces, and countries should be run “like a business” because they are not that, do not have nearly the same objectives as that, and (in my opinion) actually require the rejection of some of the things that make a business a success in the eyes of shareholders. In fact, I think the entire analogy is kind of absurd.

Of course, people who can successfully run a business should be welcome to run for any political position, but if you look at these types of people they’re rarely any better (and sometimes worse, like the kind of people who go golfing when they’re being paid to work) than basically anyone else.

I would trust educators, urban planners, medical professionals, tradespeople, and… yes (it pains me to say) even accountants more than I would trust some CEO of a large organization to make a positive contribution to politics. You want people who actually value and understand what it is that governments provide, not dopes who want to run it like a business.

Yes.

Governments should not be run like businesses. They have completely different values and goals.

Governments could be more efficient and less wasteful, sure, and thats why Accountants should run the world.

Really all we should want is for our Public Services to be run sustainably, but not at the cost of sacrificing services.

If people want to see a Government run like a Corporation? Thats where you get people like Trump and Smith.

Bad. Fataing. News.

Governments should not be Businesses.

[Torture]

Have you seen how much accountants spend on helicopter fuel tho?

[Julio]

Apparently a couple of petition folks weren't happy when told they could be on private property (Stampede Park & Saddledome) and got turfed before the game tonight.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Torture

Have you seen how much accountants spend on helicopter fuel tho?

Ah yes! Which is why we should run the world!

Because we expense those costs to clients.

See? Technically...Accountants dont spend anything on Helicopter fuel. We make someone else pay for it.

[Torture]

I don't think Gondek has been perfect, but I definitely don't think she's the worst mayor ever or deserves to be recalled. It kind of seems like at times she's walked down the middle and managed to piss off both sides of the political spectrum.

For instance..

The right is mad about the climate emergency, bag tax, taxes going up, etc.
The left is mad that she (and the rest of council) handed out millions for an arena deal.

Yet if she had just acted as most typical right wing politicians without the climate emergency, bag tax on single use, etc, that same right wing base probably would have been just fine with handing out millions for the arena (in fact in previous elections the right wing mayoral candidate was all for an arena)....and taxes probably still would have gone up. Or, if she hadn't done the arena deal, much of the left would probably still be happy with her.

Sometimes when you get a deal and both sides are a little bit upset that's a sign you found some balance.

[Cappy]

My issue is the people willing to take these positions merely as a stepping stone to greater profits down the road. Business contacts, board seats, lobbying jobs etc.

I have an acquaintance working a 80k per year job corporate job, but also higher up in a political party. Chose the right candidate to follow and became a higher up in the Premiers office. After leaving politics, is now making $250k+ as a lobbyist.

#### those people.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Cappy

My issue is the people willing to take these positions merely as a stepping stone to greater profits down the road. Business contacts, board seats, lobbying jobs etc.

I have an acquaintance working a 80k per year job corporate job, but also higher up in a political party. Chose the right candidate to follow and became a higher up in the Premiers office. After leaving politics, is now making $250k+ as a lobbyist.

#### those people.

So...the real money is not in being a politician, it's being a politician's lackey and then have perceived access to power.