# Higher Salaries, Better People

A mayor or a city council wants to raise the salary for their position. Generally speaking, it's a good thing.

Of course, people get mad about that. They look at all the problems that still exist and are like, "well, fix those problems first, and then we'll talk."

But there's a better way of looking at it:

If we want better, full-time civil servants then we have to pay offer a good, competitive salary.

If you offer a low salary for an elected position, then of course there's going to be a very small pool of people who are going to actually try to campaign for it. The smaller the pool, the harder it is to get a competent leader.

So when things suck, it's a sign that you need to *raise* the salary in order to attract higher-quality candidates.

### Singapore

["If this salary formula can draw out higher quality men into politics, whatever their motivations, I say, let us have them. It is better than the Opposition we now have."](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/in-his-own-words-higher-pay-will-attract-most-talented-team-so-country-can-prosper)

### Quotes

From [Matt C.](https://nextdoor.com/profile/01cnMpx6nsr3Ww8yF/) on NextDoor:

> It needs to be understood that the "mayor" is two things; one is the PERSON and the other is the OFFICE.

> The mayor the PERSON is terrible at his job [...]

> The mayor as an OFFICE still needs to be maintained, and one aspect of that is having a consistent mechanism for determining competitive compensation.

> Similar to the military concept of "saluting the rank" as opposed to the person occupying said rank, so too must we acknowledge that the mayor is an office, and that office shouldn't be defunded because one of its occupants sucked at his job. And if you factor in inflation, this isn't even a raise, it's a COL adjustment at best.

> [...] Someone with the qualifications to run an entire city also has options in the private sector. A city is in competition with the private sector for quality candidates, and the salary of high level government officials must remain competitive. An annual salary of 200k per year is not a lot of money for the CEO of a city. [...]

> [...] 200k is not a lot of money for the CEO of a city; not compared to the private sector, not compared to the public sector, and not even based on the increase “most workers get’ per year [...]