An Illogical Argument for Measure C

Retirees will have a better shot? Really?

In Pacific Grove, California, where I live, we are voting on Measure C, a measure to raise the pay of the mayor and the city council members by 135%. I wrote on a similar proposal last year.

I’m voting against it for two reasons. First, I think that while an increase is reasonable, 135% is excessive. Second, I object to the city council putting it on the ballot and spending approximately $63,000 of the city’s budget to do so. It could have waited until November when there will already be ballot measures in Pacific Grove and so, according to the Monterey County Registrar of Voters, Gina Martinez, the incremental cost of putting it on the ballot would have been virtually zero. But no, they had to do it now.

Now to my main point. The pro-C side made an absurd argument for the measure. Yesterday afternoon, when I got home from work, I saw a door hanger from the pro-C side. It made various arguments for the higher pay. One was that higher pay made it possible (I think they meant more likely) for people in various demographic groups to be on the city council.

One group caught my attention: retirees.

Really? Retirees typically don’t need the pay and do have the time because their opportunity cost is typically low. If the pay increases, there will be more people, with higher opportunity costs, competing for the jobs. That will make it less likely, not more likely, for retirees to win seats.

It seems that the pro-C side is throwing various bad arguments at the issue while hoping that people won’t actually think. Let’s hope they’re wrong about voters’ cognitive faculties. This retiree certainly saw through it.