![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
When the Constitution was being debated, there was a lot of discussion about whether Federal elected offices should be paid positions or not. On the one hand, serving one's country as a Congressman or President is an honor, and should be something done as SERVICE, not as a JOB. On the other hand, NOT paying meant that you couldn't serve unless you could afford the time off work. The second position eventually prevailed.
And, today, there are a handful of Senators, and a decent number of Representatives, who probably couldn't afford to serve if they weren't paid. But what about Presidents? I was wondering how many Presidents could have afforded to be a President without being paid.
At the beginning of the country, there's a definite sectional split. The Southern elected officials were generally plantation owners, which meant that they were effectively the CEOs of agribusiness concerns. They had to set policy and direction, and to authorize major capital investments, but their day-to-day operations were largely able to be handled by their subordinates. Washington and Jefferson, for instance, had to decide how much of what crop to grow, whether to put money into malting, fermenting, and distilling operations (Washington's distillery was among his most profitable operations), whether to buy more slaves, and so forth, and to oversee expenditures, but the actual day-to-day work was done by the people they hired or bought.
Adams, on the other hand, DID have a farm, but it was barely more than a subsistence concern. It didn't lose money -- well, most of the time, anyway -- but it wasn't a major income source. Abigail managed it well, but it was never more than a supplementary income, acting more as a seventy-five acre estate than an agribusiness. Besides, they didn't buy Peacefield until 1787. Most of their income came from Adams' work as a lawyer. He would never have been able to afford to serve as President if he hadn't been paid; same with his son John Quincy.
The Adams were rich, but not super-rich. And they didn't start out rich. They went from solidly middle-class to solidly wealthy. In modern terms, they would probably be part of the 1%, but not the 0.1% (and the 0.1% has, like, twenty times as much money as the 1%). Successful professionals with a solid investment portfolio, not hyper-wealthy tycoons.
So I was wondering which Presidents were in which category. Who really needed the salary in order to be able to be President, and who could have done without it and still been fine? It's only partly about how much money they had; it's more about how they got their wealth -- whether they needed constant hands-on involvement in their businesses.
And, today, there are a handful of Senators, and a decent number of Representatives, who probably couldn't afford to serve if they weren't paid. But what about Presidents? I was wondering how many Presidents could have afforded to be a President without being paid.
At the beginning of the country, there's a definite sectional split. The Southern elected officials were generally plantation owners, which meant that they were effectively the CEOs of agribusiness concerns. They had to set policy and direction, and to authorize major capital investments, but their day-to-day operations were largely able to be handled by their subordinates. Washington and Jefferson, for instance, had to decide how much of what crop to grow, whether to put money into malting, fermenting, and distilling operations (Washington's distillery was among his most profitable operations), whether to buy more slaves, and so forth, and to oversee expenditures, but the actual day-to-day work was done by the people they hired or bought.
Adams, on the other hand, DID have a farm, but it was barely more than a subsistence concern. It didn't lose money -- well, most of the time, anyway -- but it wasn't a major income source. Abigail managed it well, but it was never more than a supplementary income, acting more as a seventy-five acre estate than an agribusiness. Besides, they didn't buy Peacefield until 1787. Most of their income came from Adams' work as a lawyer. He would never have been able to afford to serve as President if he hadn't been paid; same with his son John Quincy.
The Adams were rich, but not super-rich. And they didn't start out rich. They went from solidly middle-class to solidly wealthy. In modern terms, they would probably be part of the 1%, but not the 0.1% (and the 0.1% has, like, twenty times as much money as the 1%). Successful professionals with a solid investment portfolio, not hyper-wealthy tycoons.
So I was wondering which Presidents were in which category. Who really needed the salary in order to be able to be President, and who could have done without it and still been fine? It's only partly about how much money they had; it's more about how they got their wealth -- whether they needed constant hands-on involvement in their businesses.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-18 04:26 pm (UTC)Dwight Eisenhower started out poor, but married a wealthy woman.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-18 05:52 pm (UTC)Thinking about other folks: Hillary grew up comfortable, and Michelle grew up solidly middle-class, but Bill and Barack both were from struggling families. But both couples were doing well by the time they ran for President. Still, I don't think either family would have been able to handle the political job without being paid. Not easily, anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-18 06:38 pm (UTC)And I do think any of them would have been at least solidly middle class by the time they were elected.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-18 08:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-19 12:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-18 10:24 pm (UTC)In some ways, presidencies are less expensive, since they come w/ a residence. Senator doesn't... and you have to have a place in DC + Home.
Senator doesn't give you as much of a speaking fee after you finish... whereas President does :)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-22 01:00 am (UTC)So the president doesn't pay for dinner if a head of state is in town, but if a friend is over, well, catering is never cheap, and when your catering has to be able to produce gourmet meals at a moments notice... And the president can't really ask guests to pitch in.
And vacations are complicated, the secret service pays for its own lodging, but the president has to rent a place that will allow for it. And, and, and...
In all, the report implied that the Obama's (remember, 2 very prominent and presumably well paid lawyers) were going into debt personally as a result of the job.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-19 12:17 am (UTC)