I thought the idea behind high salaries was to attract the best talent. Turns out that it just floods the applicant pool with grifters and it's almost impossible to sort them out.
Also, did anyone notice that the "fixed" election date has been quietly put off for a week? I don't suppose that this has anything to do with the fact that the previous date would have left a bunch of MPs a week short of their 6-year pension eligibility? (Just a little tidbit dropped in the latest Sandy and Nora podcast.)
If the pension is for 6 years of service, and they get voted out at 5.99 years just due to poor election timelines, I don't see a problem with giving them a pension. This is a non-issue for me.
I would wonder whether 6 years is enough for a pension, but that's a separate discussion point. It seems like it was set based on someone serving two terms, with some wiggle room built in for elections being called early or such.
Fair point, and I don't disagree, exactly, but lots of people miss out as a result of similar kinds of rules without the flexibility to just work around it.
In my experience, a salary is interest on some combination of training and invisible social capital. Actual performance only comes up if you're a salesperson or top athlete, and you're very measurably better at what you do than the next guy.
I think you mean median. Mean is the total sum divided by number of data points and is usually what is meant by "average". Median is whichever one is right in the middle. Mean is significantly higher for incomes because of a few high-earners.
I'm also of this mind, I don't think this is particular high for a job that is 24/7, is constantly scrutinized in front of the public, has such important responsibilities, and requires being away from your primary home for long periods of time on a regular basis.
If the rest of Canada was getting healthy raises at the same rate I wouldn't have a problem with it. But they're not leading by example ... it looks more like the elites are grabbing what they want AND making the rules at the same time.
Just over minimum wage? The thing is, it's not the MPs getting 200K who are getting the big chunk of the value you create with your labor. Start with the directors, VPs and walk towards the top in the private corporation you were working for. In case you in particular don't work for one of those, many if not most Canadians are so that's still valid. Why am I going on about it is because we're never gonna get out of this shit where essential labor is paid sub-living wages, among other problems, until we start focusing on where the lion's share of the surplus is going to. And it's not the MPs.
wtf? If you read to the bottom of the article it seems like we’re right in line with everyone else, other than the UK ($144K). They list other countries making $186K - $203K (us) and then there’s the US making $236K. This seems fine to me.