The average salary will always include the incomes of the top wealthiest. Which is why those looking at the US from the outside in think the average income should be some 100k+ (Paul Ryan himself recently said he thought most folks made at least 500k a year) when in reality the majority are making 20-50k a year. So basing the income for politicians on an average just makes them do more of what they are doing, making sure that the nation as a whole gets a lot more wealth built up without a care for how well it is distributed. It has become clear that wealth build up in a nation != prosperity for its people, only those who are benefiting from the expanded wealth.
True, that last part wasn't a strong statement, though it is politically easier to elevate the ones that have nothing than to heighten the ones at the top any further, and if the politicians are not among the top they would most likely sympathize more with the bottom than the top. It does however depend a lot on what way it is based on average salary, if those that earn more than e.g. 10 times more than the average is excluded and we then make the calculation again to find the typical salary for a politician then theres a strong incentive for politicians to favour less wage gap in society.
A different argument for the average salary idea would be to change the political career to be something people seek out not for the money and opportunity to mingle with rich folk, but because they actually care about society and want to contribute. It would put them closer (economically) to the people they actually represent and govern (majority).
Are you not even wishing for your ideas to be implemented? Consider if you're right, you would rather just see everything collapse?
Sure, I wish for many of my ideas to be implemented, but you seem to think you know what those ideas are only based on one general philosophical descriptions of an idea that I wrote. My ideas will probably never be implemented as part of my ideas are that political changes must be founded in the opinion of the majority, and the majority will never agree that the status quo is inexcusable the way I do. I can't even convince people that the bombing of the government in Libya was an irrational call today, and even less so the weeks before it happened.
To me it was obvious that bombing an unstable country in a region that has been under the violent threat from extremist religious factions was a bad call from the day it was first proposed, I knew that it would practically erase Libya from the map (it is split into two unstable nations today and there are large areas that are not under the control of any of them), I knew that it would create a safe haven for terrorists (training camps, recruiting, funding), I knew that a lot of Libya's weapons and military equipment would fall into unscrupulous hands, I did not know slavery would occur but it didn't surprise me one bit when it was reported. And what was the argument for causing all this misery, it was that Gaddafi said in a speech, addressing violent demonstrators, that he "would weed out the rats", which of course the west interpret to that he is going to massacre the civilian population. That the majority can accept such irrational arguments as a good foundation for war-acts is beyond me. The aggression war on Iraq is the same story when all is said and done, war was declared based solely on a satellite picture that supposedly proved the UN weapons inspectors, who recently had returned from a lengthy inspection in Iraq reporting there was no indication that Saddam had illegal weapons, wrong. I was only eleven years old at that time and I could not for the life of me understand the logic behind that assessment, it was to me only a picture of two trucks outside a factory and the UN inspectors sounded like they had done a proper job, I still haven't understood why people accepted the argument at the time. It was later proven that there were no weight behind the interpretation of the photo. At the start of that war, Bush said this would be over and done with in a matter of weeks, and many nodded and agreed that that was a very likely scenario. I on the other hand could not see how the war and following violence would not stain the country for at least 20 years. Before a year had passed Bush declared "Mission accomplished in Iraq" and there was much rejoice in the west ("bollocks" I thought), though we all know in hindsight what kind of swamp that war actually was at that point...... I could go on and on and on about this and that example of irrational beliefs ruling the decision making, and rationalization process for most people. The end rationalization here is that the end justify the means, the belief here is, among others, that toppling dictators is worth any and all misery.
Again, what's the effect (intended or unintended), in this case for the politicians? Let's assume, to deal with Tunderbrd's point, that you spoke of the median instead of the average. Now what would happen? At first this leads to a big cut of the salaries of the "public servants". How do they respond? Are they going to work for an increase of salaries in general (and how can they do that)? Or are they going to be more corrupt than before? Of course they would like you to think of the latter option, so that their large salary is perceived as the "lesser evil". But is this cut going to make people corrupt who weren't before? I think that's unlikely. The first option is difficult as well - what influence do they have on the salary level, especially in the private sector? And if an action they could take (enlarge minimum wage) leads to more unemployment, is your system going to respond to that as well?
Main intent would be to change the attitude and culture that is typical in the political environment. I do not think it would noticeably increase corruption if there is a healthy separation of powers with emphasis on the judiciary branch present in the country. To avoid it being changed by the wind it might have to be part of the constitution.
That could indeed be unstable, if it leads to people not working at all any more (and the working force falling below any number you might have wished to retain). It could also lead to increasing population, because people might be able to afford a family at a younger age.
That's an assumption without anything backing it except for belief.
I would argue that most people would want to feel useful and to have more than the bare minimum if given the opportunity. If one could choose to not work and get 19 000 USD a year, or to work and get 19 000 + 64 000 USD a year then I'm pretty sure most folk would take the latter if given the opportunity. We are going towards more and more automation so unemployment will inevitably rise a lot in the next 100 years, so I'm sure citizen salary is going to be unavoidable at one point or another unless we are ready to accept mass poverty in the streets....
While mathematics often insists to be quite absolute, it's not really a religion.
Did I imply that math is a religion, that was not what I meant, I tried to imply that political isms and economical models are often revered and blindly followed in a similar manner as religions. One doesn't need a religion to be a believer, to act on irrationalities without involving critical thought.
It sounds, based on what you replied with and to, like you are saying that socialism as a concept is proven without a doubt, by mathematics, to be a bad mindset.
- obviously I didn't mean to include slaveholder societies when I spoke of free economies - so that's only the free states of the USA before 1861. And in fact France from 1830 to 1848 is an even stronger example of a truly free economy.
