Assorted Afflatuses

Tonight's mildly absurd CNN + YouTube Democratic presidential debate really underlined how ignorant most of America is. Forget the candidates' inability to truly differentiate themselves in any way, despite what they asserted. In fact, I would go so far as to pardon or forgive their facile responses. The questions posed by these uninformed YouTube activists were, with some exceptions, dreadful.

For the sake and health of my fingers, I will stick with one such example of just how misinformed the American public is. An indication, perhaps, of the urgent need not only to improve education in this country, but also a sign that we must foster a culture that loves to learn. Because, after all, what purpose would we serve by simply spending a fortune on education if the children fail to engage themselves?

But back to the idiotic video. In some meaningless jibber-jabber about the minimum wage, two young women asked the assembled panel of Democratic presidential hopefuls whether or not they would be willing to work for minimum wage.

In theory, this could prove a useful exercise to show the candidates how difficult it is to support one's self or one's family on such a meager income. I know, for instance, that upper management at Burger King in the United Kingdom greatly improved business after they spent a week working the front lines at a Burger King restaurant.

But in reality, making — or even permitting — these people to work for what, relative to their current salaries, amounts to very little, has terrible consequences. Firstly, such a move would further cement the stranglehold of the wealthy on such political offices. As anyone who knows anything about history ought to know, the Romans had the same problem. Office holders were, in that case, paid absolutely nothing, which, despite the fact that the members of the lower Plebeian caste could run and hold office, effectively barred the Plebeians from taking such positions and cemented power in the hands of the old-money Patrician families.

Secondly, forcing members of Congress or the executive branch to work for minimum wage would drive smart, intelligent people away from public service. It has been shown that countries which pay their civil servants wages comparable, or even better, than the wages they might earn with a similar skill set in the private sector, generally have better civil servants. Japan does just that with its teachers. In fact, teachers are paid so much more that the competition to become a teacher in Japan is incredibly fierce. The Japanese, then, can choose the very best teachers to educate their children. And, as a result, the Japanese have stupendous teachers.

Singapore too pays its civil servants well to great effect. The Singaporean Prime Minister's salary comes in at just over 3 million American dollars. Compare that with our president's current salary of just $400,000. Granted, the Singaporean government can be brutal and immoral, but one cannot deny that it is extremely well run.

Just as people generally would not want to work their entire life as a gas station attendant making minimum wage, very few people would see public office as a viable career choice unless they either had money or they had no other choices. That would, effectively, put either very wealthy or very stupid people in office. While the former option might work, the latter is undesirable.

It is a noble notion that public servants should sacrifice a good wage in order to serve their nation. But, as both history and modern economics demonstrate, it is, at best, a chimera. The people who posted this question should probably keep their day jobs.