One of the more hotly debated issues in the public forums is that of government pay. Obviously a sensitive issue, the act which legalised and established the paying of government officials passed with only a narrow majority and great opposition.
The argument for government pay:
Government officials on average put in a great deal more time and effort into developing the future of the eUK than the average ctiizen. Although there is prestige from serving the country, many of the ministry and NHS roles are necessary but boring, and take up hours of citizens time. It is only fair that Ministers recieve a small wage in recognition of this, which frees up more of their own money to spend on improving their own eRepublik experience. This is both a reward for existing ministers, an incentive for ambitious potential ministers and an encouragement for experienced and disillusioned ex-ministers to get involved with otherwise repetitive tasks.
The argument against government pay
Being a member of the government is an honour. Congressmen are already compensated in-game with gold. To be then selected to lead a ministry shows trust, and the rewards of the position should be enough without extra financial compensation. The money spent on ministers wages could be spent on more worthy causes, such as the National Health Service (NHS), Transport for London (TFL) or indeed the ministries themselves.
My conclusion: a mixed one
There are both pros and cons to paying government officials. In addition to the negatives already mentioned, paying government officials makes positions such as NHS director, Minister and so on a job rather than a vocation. This creates the danger of candidates opting for election and after winning doing very little, and merely taking their wage.
However, I am of the opinion that things are not so one sided as that. There are some serious advantages to paying Ministers that have not been mentioned thus far:
1. Paying Ministers a competitive wage ensures that the very best of the nation are involved in politics. Without a wage, the greater experience that can be gained from serving in the army or running multiple businesses may become more attractive.
2. Paying Ministers a wage makes them more directly accountable to the House of Commons. If a member is elected in a public vote, but does very little, they can still claim a public mandate for their actions. However, if they are paid then this implies minimum standards of work- and also a potential punishment and reward system of variable pay depending upon activity levels and the number of jobs undertaken.
These arguments in no way defeat those levied against. However this is one debate which will never really be resolved. In Real Life (RL), many ministers who are very wealthy already refuse their wages, or donate them to a worthy cause. The point is that many ordinary congressmen may not have a lot of gold or Great Britain Pounds (GBP), and for those members a career in business may seem to be a far more worthwhile way to spend the no doubt limited amount of time they have to use playing eRepublik.
Hope you enjoyed the article- everything after my conclusion is my own opinion. The two sections before that are the summarised views of HazzN, Malta, Intrepid132, Will Salmon, Christophia, Taytaz, Squiddy, John Forsetti and Stan Wephan for and Ip Lockard, Tommy Tommasino, Sara Droz, Bob Boblo, Rastari, Final Destiny and Shadow against.
What is this?You are reading an article written by a citizen of eRepublik, an immersive multiplayer strategy game based on real life countries. Create your own character and help your country achieve its glory while establishing yourself as a war hero, renowned publisher or finance guru.