Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
Social media - Any qualified person who is capable and willing to do the hard work to make the city/province/country better has to contend with making 4-10x less than what they could make in the private sector and given the high profile subject themselves and their families to idiots occasionally showing up on their driveways at their homes, accosting them and potentially family members in public, and all the like for their efforts. Pre-social media it was probably a lot harder to figure out where people live, family connections, and so forth.
At the end of the day we now have leaders and politicians in all parties who look at the compensation and the consequences of the high profile nature of the job and still want to sign up for that. The last people you want running the country/province/city are those who want to seek attention and/or think the compensation is good on a relative basis to what else they could be doing with their lives.
|
This has been an argument for a long time, and I'm not sure that I buy it anymore. There is a thought that being a lawyer, or a successful businessman, makes you 'qualified' for public service, but if anything time has proven this not to be true.
There is a constant demand to be shown credentials, but when it comes right down to it, most of the credentials that people offer hold little or no value for governance.
People will point at Trudeau, and say that the alternative of voting for a teacher is not any better, but he can be explained by simple nepotism.
Really, if all of the options were teachers, and lawyers and businessmen took a seat on the bus out of town, I think that we would all be better off. I couldn't see a drop in value occurring, and it would be a bump in pay for teachers. I could actually see real discussion in parliament instead of childish yelling.