Nasty comments and learning experiences

First a dietitian propounding on economics, now a geography teacher. SJ editors, staff and apparently college teachers haven't a clue what economics/labor economics is about. ...
Western must be scraping the bottom of the barrel for teachers.

That was a comment to my opinion piece in the Statesman Journal (Sep 25th).
That comment is an example of how NOT to engage in debates and discussions. Such comments are wonderful learning experiences though :-) I often tell my students that in discussions we ought to stay focused on the issues, and should not launch into ad hominem arguments. I can use this as yet another example, I suppose.

So, what was the opinion that attracted such comments? Here it is:

State officials deserve better salaries
I support higher compensation for the governor, legislators, judges and other senior state officials.
The world and the state have significantly changed since Oregon's Constitution was adopted 150 years ago. The dominant economic activities then, for instance, were related to natural resources — farming, fishing, forestry — which also were seasonal. Citizens interested in politics and governance could then set aside time from their professions (if they could afford to, of course).
The issues also were less complicated than they are now. For one, they did not have to be concerned about the problems of most of the population — women and nonwhites, who did not have voting rights until much later. That itself would make the agenda for any government very light indeed.
Further, the much simpler economy meant that it was a limited range of issues that needed any discussion at all. An example will illustrate the point. There was no need
for discussions on a "bottle bill" in the 1870s because, well, there were no soda cans or bottles littered on the beaches and along the highways. Wait, there were no highways then!
In contrast to those simpler "Little House on the Prairie" times, we have a sophisticated economy, and the organization of our economic and personal lives is much more complex than it was even 50 years ago.
So much so that even the successful "bottle bill," which was a landmark legislation hailed all over the world, now needs updating to reflect the contemporary situation.
In a democracy, working on the "bottle bill" and a whole bunch of other issues requires qualified people in all the branches of our government. However, we can't expect, nor require, the legislators, judges or the governor to essentially do this on their time and money, which is what, in effect, low compensation levels imply.
Yes, we need to fix inefficiencies in our government, but the solutions for leaner and more productive government will not automatically happen as a result of low salaries. In fact, it will require higher salaries to attract talented people who can then work toward this important goal.
If compensation is the overriding issue, then perhaps we should watch out for loony proposals to outsource our government (including the governor and legislators) to India, where a few thousand well-qualified Indians will be willing to work for Oregon's minimum wage!
Obviously, higher salaries do not guarantee a better government. We only need to look across at the business world, which is filled with examples such as Enron, whose leaders were highly compensated but failed miserably. But, unlike in the corporate world, we people have the ultimate power after all — the votes to elect or not re-elect officials.
Finally, let us also remember two golden rules. One, the warning that, in a democracy, we get the government we deserve. And second, the marketplace axiom that we get what we pay for.
An outcome when these two rules work together can be disastrous for good government in the 21st century.