Posner on Judicial Salaries:
Posner's views are generally consistent with mine: (1) it's hard to judge the efficiency of government salaries because they are not market-based; (2) there is no reason to believe that, as a rule, federal judges are underpaid; and (3) paying judges the same amount regardless of local cost of living makes little sense.
UPDATE: Whoops, my VC RSS feed doesn't seem to be working, and I didn't notice Ilya's posting on the same topic.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Posner on Judicial Salaries:
- Richard Posner On the Flawed Case for a Judicial Pay Increase:
However, he gave that up for the pay of a Circuit Court Judge in 2001--largely, I am sure, because he recognized the prestige of being a judge on the D.C. Circuit.
I agree that it is ridiculous for first year associates to make more than federal judges--but that is not something that will be solved in the manner Chief Justice Roberts proposes.
Maybe we could impose a 60% marginal tax rate on first-year lawyer income that exceeds $100K, then transfer the money to federal judges.
(For those with a broken humor meter, this is a joke.)
I just hope there's some money left over to redistribute to all of us starving law professors:).
Having spent the entire article making the point that judicial salaries are not too low because there are still plenty of applicants for the bench and few resignations, Posner then undercuts his entire argument with this last point. If the abundance of applicants and the rarity of resignations shows the judicial salaries are fine (and I'm not convinced it shows this) then what does it matter if the salary is the same in North Dakota as it is in New York? It's not like there's a shortage of people willing to accept an appointment to the SDNY.
He doesn't do a very good job against the argument that the current salaries detract from the quality of the bench. The fact that there area lot of applicants doesn't mean you're getting good judges. It may be hard to measure the effect of low salaries on the quality of applicants but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that there are few resignations doesn't mean much either, since a low quality applicant won't resign for the same reason he was happy to be appointed in the first place.
It's kind of like the animal rights activist who claims that the abandoned bear cub needs to be killed in order to save it. Similarly, salary differentials must be implemented to maintain pay parity.
But Roberts doesn't do a very good job of supporting his argument that current salaries detract from the quality of the bench. Since he is the one trying to change the status quo, it's his burden.
I just hope there's some money left over to redistribute to all of us starving law professors:).
Or public attorneys like myself. I also make a lot less than first-year associates--and I bet less than Ilya does too!
I recently heard a federal judge speak about judicial pay. He makes roughly 3x my salary, but complained that the judicial salary would make it difficult to send his kids through college. That really ticked me off. Anyone who lacks the money management skills to pay for college on a guaranteed salary of $165+K a year should not be wearing a robe.
I think it's a good idea to look at the salaries of all government lawyers, and raising the pay of judges would have a trickle down effect on the rest of us. So for personal reasons, I hope they get a raise, but they are making a lousy case for one.
When it comes to raises for government lawyers, judges are way, way back in line. If turnover is a reason for giving raises, money should be first devoted to the offices of local prosecutors, public defenders, and legal aid.
Posner is right about something else, measuring the value of government lawyers is hard. Our office could fill its ranks with a starting pay at 35K, but we would get the same quality of lawyers as if we paid 60K to start? I doubt it. How do we measure that? And how do we justify paying 60K to our funding source or justify a 35K lawyer to someone who's life is on the line? Is failure a sign that we don't have enough resources or that we don't deserve the resources we have?
Finally, Chief Justice Roberts, when my pay is at least half that of a district court judge, I will be a lot more sympathetic to your cause.
I also make a lot less than first-year associates--and I bet less than Ilya does too!
If retirement is generous (FULL PAY at 65 or 70), then I suspect we can determine if Judges are motivated by non-monetary compensation (prestige, interest, shaping the law, altruism, etc.) After meeting retirement criteria, Judges are essentially working for $0. They will be paid their full salary whether they are retired or not. If Judges work past retirement eligibility, then their non-monetary compensation is sufficient to keep them working.
So, here's the question: What proportion of judges retire immediately upon reaching the eligible age?
then
I believe both Ken Starr and Robert Bork resigned from the federal bench in part to earn more money in the private sector. I believe Archibald Cox turned down a federal judgeship of some kind because of the pay--but I could be wrong.
Smallholder,
I can only speak anecdotally based on my judicial district, but in the last decade, only 2 federal district judges completely left the district bench. One was promoted to the Court of Appeals and the other retired. Two other federal judges took senior status and still maintain a caseload.
Who cares about all the state prosecutors and public defenders making in the 30s and 40s?
Actually, not really true. With tuition, room, board, and books exceeding $50,000/year at some schools, most people could not afford to send two kids through college. That's $400,000 in cash, not to mention graduate school. Take out taxes, living expenses, and a reasonable mortgage, and you can see how there's not much left.
Generally, $150,000/year is a bad place to be for financial aid. You make too much to qualify but too little to afford it yourself.
Who cares about all the state prosecutors and public defenders making in the 30s and 40s?
State, not federal. Different issue.
Second, there's the opportunity costs. Most federal judges could be making a million a year in private practice.
This is not to say that I really support a massive pay raise for the judiciary. The problem is really that Congress raises their pay a lot, then does nothing for a decade or two. Effectively, judges' salaries decrease over that time. Psychologically, it's tough, as people accllimate themselves to their paycheck. If Congress were to pass more frequent, but smaller, pay raises, much of that could be avoided.
As for names, Michael Chertoff also resigned from the bench, allegedly for monetary reasons.
If an expensive college costs $50K a year, a federal district court judge can pay all expenses out of current income and still have $115K a year to live on. If the judge had saved some money, the burden will be a lot less. Maybe we should expect judges to plan for their kids' futures, like the rest of us do.
Anyone who can't send their kids to college on $165K a year lacks basic money management skills. Maybe they have to live in a less lavish house, take less lavish vacations, and drive a less lavish car than a partner at a large firm would, but so what?
Statement: Who cares about all the state prosecutors and public defenders making in the 30s and 40s?
Response: State, not federal. Different issue.
Why? It's perfectly fair to compare judges' pay to the pay of other government lawyers. Even if judges deserve more money, there are other priorities for giving raisies.