Councilcritters vote themselves a nice raise (Boston: real estate, salaries, rich)

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Fair enough, but I'll say for myself, and I'm sure many others are like this, when facing high inflation, well over 4% (which this raise basically comes out to), it's not egregious. In fact, it really isn't a raise. When I was in a position where I'd get 3% increases a year (glad that's over), it wasn't a "raise", it was a COLA. In real dollars I wasn't gaining anything. If we look at 2018, and then at 2023 or later, when I think this will go into effect (may be wrong on that), will that 20% actually be a raise, or same or similar real dollar levels? High infation periods are really the time when higher COLAs should make sense. Sure, it can be a feedback loop, but there is only so much you can do there. I think it actually does a disservice to call it a raise if the resulting real dollars stay stable. I'm not sure if that's the case, here, in particular.

I don't disagree with what you're saying here for most jobs in most fields. The numbers make a lot of sense if you're adjusting for cost of living. The raise for the Mayor goes into effect in 2026. If you're starting from 2018, 20% over those 8 years ends up being less than a 3% annual COLA ($250k vs. about $255k). The Council gets their raise in 2024 which would be slightly above a 3% annual COLA over 6 years. In terms of being comparable to other careers (government or not), it's not at all egregious.

But the Mayor and City Council are different from other fields. The optics of this don't look good to many of the people who voted for them. There are people on this forum that clearly don't comprehend the math of one 20% increase after 8 years vs. annual 3% increases over 8 years. There's likely a good percentage of the population that doesn't understand it either (either unwillingly or intentionally). And when you factor in that the mayor's and council's salaries, before the raise, are considerably higher than the average Bostonian's salary the message is understandably not going to be well received.

Inflation or not, there's also the question of how much we should pay elected officials in general. I think it's nuanced, but I don't believe higher salaries equate to better governance. In fact, I think those salaries can lead to complacency. Ideally, voters will remove complacent politicians from office, but we know that's not always reality. Familiarity and saying the right things in convincing ways can keep an inept politician in a seat for decades. I have no problem with politicians who are motivated by more than just a will to serve the public. Future aspirations often help in the present as an ambitious candidate wants to build a portfolio of success. But city council salaries that are nearly 3x the per capita income of Boston seem a bit high, particularly for positions we want to turn over regularly so that the council continues to represent the neighborhoods and the city they serve. For someone not looking to run for higher office than that, there's a lot of incentive to just do the minimum required to keep the seat.

[WestieWhitie]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I don't disagree with what you're saying here for most jobs in most fields. The numbers make a lot of sense if you're adjusting for cost of living. The raise for the Mayor goes into effect in 2026. If you're starting from 2018, 20% over those 8 years ends up being less than a 3% annual COLA ($250k vs. about $255k). The Council gets their raise in 2024 which would be slightly above a 3% annual COLA over 6 years. In terms of being comparable to other careers (government or not), it's not at all egregious.

But the Mayor and City Council are different from other fields. The optics of this don't look good to many of the people who voted for them. There are people on this forum that clearly don't comprehend the math of one 20% increase after 8 years vs. annual 3% increases over 8 years. There's likely a good percentage of the population that doesn't understand it either (either willingly or intentionally). And when you factor in that the mayor's and council's salaries, before the raise, are considerably higher than the average Bostonian's salary the message is understandably not going to be well received.

Inflation or not, there's also the question of how much we should pay elected officials in general. I think it's nuanced, but I don't believe higher salaries equate to better governance. In fact, I think those salaries can lead to complacency. Ideally, voters will remove complacent politicians from office, but we know that's not always reality. Familiarity and saying the right things in convincing ways can keep an inept politician in a seat for decades. I have no problem with politicians who are motivated by more than just a will to serve the public. Future aspirations often help in the present as an ambitious candidate wants to build a portfolio of success. But city council salaries that are nearly 3x the per capita income of Boston seem a bit high, particularly for positions we want to turn over regularly so that the council continues to represent the neighborhoods and the city they serve. For someone not looking to run for higher office than that, there's a lot of incentive to just do the minimum required to keep the seat.

You're talking about councilcritters as if they're actually working but let's be honest, vast majority of them are pocketing those taxpayer dollars for no reason other than having a pulse.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I don't disagree with what you're saying here for most jobs in most fields. The numbers make a lot of sense if you're adjusting for cost of living. The raise for the Mayor goes into effect in 2026. If you're starting from 2018, 20% over those 8 years ends up being less than a 3% annual COLA ($250k vs. about $255k). The Council gets their raise in 2024 which would be slightly above a 3% annual COLA over 6 years. In terms of being comparable to other careers (government or not), it's not at all egregious.

It probably would have cost more to raise it 3% a year with the compounding.

Originally Posted by lrfox

Inflation or not, there's also the question of how much we should pay elected officials in general. I think it's nuanced, but I don't believe higher salaries equate to better governance.

Hmmn, I think perhaps that's true, but I also think its true that lower salaries will result in worse governance. If you're paying squat (and frankly, $120k is what a bunch of scrum masters I know make after a handful of years experience) and there are lots of headaches, you're not going to get good people running. If it's a really low wage, you're either going to get unqualified, low skilled people, or people that have independent money and can afford to work for little. Neither are desirable by me, generally speaking. Some of those may have real public service focus, so its not an across the board view, but generally. I mean, with non-profit C level execs, you aren't going to get the same compensation of C level private for profit corp execs. THat's understood. But you still have to pay respectively to attract talent, even among those who will gladly work for less for a cause.

So, not too much, not too little. I think that's what they're trying to get at here.

[WestieWhitie]

Originally Posted by timberline742

It probably would have cost more to raise it 3% a year with the compounding.





Hmmn, I think perhaps that's true, but I also think its true that lower salaries will result in worse governance. If you're paying squat (and frankly, $120k is what a bunch of scrum masters I know make after a handful of years experience) and there are lots of headaches, you're not going to get good people running. If it's a really low wage, you're either going to get unqualified, low skilled people, or people that have independent money and can afford to work for little. Neither are desirable by me, generally speaking. Some of those may have real public service focus, so its not an across the board view, but generally. I mean, with non-profit C level execs, you aren't going to get the same compensation of C level private for profit corp execs. THat's understood. But you still have to pay respectively to attract talent, even among those who will gladly work for less for a cause.

So, not too much, not too little. I think that's what they're trying to get at here.

Amigo, are you saying the clowns we have on the council right now are “good governance?”

[Urban Peasant]

The system was designed so that city councilors get to vote on their own salary increases. Of course they're going to maximize their raises. The common worker does not. The system should be redesigned so that someone else gets to decide how much of a raise the mayor and city councilor can get. I prefer holding municipal public hearings to let the City residents decide how much they can get, the whole process would take so long that they'd forego a raise each time for fear they won't get one before they're voted out of office. Make asking for wage increases a thorn on their side just as it would for any common worker.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

The system was designed so that city councilors get to vote on their own salary increases. Of course they're going to maximize their raises. The common worker does not. The system should be redesigned so that someone else gets to decide how much of a raise the mayor and city councilor can get. I prefer holding municipal public hearings to let the City residents decide how much they can get, the whole process would take so long that they'd forego a raise each time for fear they won't get one before they're voted out of office. Make asking for wage increases a thorn on their side just as it would for any common worker.

Imagine having raises be determined by performance / merit as in the private sector? And not be uniform across the board? Oh, the horror!

[htfdcolt]

Maybe some sense is gonna prevail after all!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/10/...-are-too-high/

[BostonBornMassMade]

Looks like Wu will end up vetoing the raise but the council will be able to override it with 9 votes- which is likely. They cited the fact that councilors in New York and Chicago make much more. And having not gotten a raise since 2017.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...leaders/?amp=1

[WestieWhitie]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Looks like Wu will end up vetoing the raise but the council will be able to override it with 9 votes- which is likely. They cited the fact that councilors in New York and Chicago make much more. And having not gotten a raise since 2017.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...leaders/?amp=1

You should run homie - just imagine, getting paid $125,000 officially and being able to grift at least ten times that on the side, all for posting an occasional angry tweet about them h*nkeys moving into your hood.

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

These pay increases are higher than those proposed by Wu in August. The mayor suggested raising her annual salary to $230,000 (now $250,000) and the councilors’ annual salary to $115,000 (now $125,000).

Salaries are not particularly high for Boston.