Ok, real talk:
I've known people who have run for congress and lost (which is always the modal outcome for a non-incumbent), and watched the process closely because once upon I time I thought I might want to do it myself. Here's how it really works:
(1/n)
I'll make this party agnostic, becauseehile the parties are definitely not mirror images of each other it's not *that* different, procedurally
First: ex-ante, what are your odds of winning?
There are 4 basic configurations of running as a 1st-timer
1. Open seat, partisan-safe (your team) 2. Open seat, partisan-competive 3. Primary challenge, partisan-safe 4. Primary challenge, partisan-competitive
If you are launching a primary challenge against a same-party incumbent, your odds top out at 1/3 in the best case. Incumbents only lose when they are deeply crippled by scandal or have built up many years of grievance by pissing off local interests
If you are running for an open seat, there will be 10 candidates on paper and at least 3 or 4 serious ones. As one of the serious candidates, again your odds are generically 1/3 or 1/4
The absolute best case is that because your father is a widely liked bigwig or because you've spent 10 years donating, volunteering, and building relationships, you start as the party favorite. Even that best case there's a 50% chance an anti-establishment populist beats you
And as a matter of conditional probability, if the seat is partisan-competitive you then face another 50/50 coin flip in the general
So the starting point is: your expected outcome is losing. You can't ever *admit* that, because then you're a self-fullfilling-prophecy loser, but if you're even in the neighborhood of rational you know it. Outside of exceptional Favorite Son cases, your odds top out at 1/3
What does it look like to lose?
First, depending on your state's filing deadline, you have to publicly announce ~12 months before the general and ~15 months before you'd take office. When you file publicly you have to de-facto quit your job, so your income goes to zero
Second, the first ~$100k of campaign expenses come out of your pocket. Campaign manager, website, data vendors (voter files), graphic design, etc. It's a lot like starting a small business
Now, you can structure this $100k as a loan which you can claw back once you raise enough money, but realistically you can only do that after you win in a general and start building a permanent campaign warchest
Political campaigns are exceptionally terrible credit risks. Most-even winners- end up in the hole and default to a bunch of their vendors. Losing campaigns are *always* broke. You have to assume the first $100k you put in is toast
Third, after you lose, what then? You've been out of your previous job for at least 6 months (lose in primary) and possible 12 (lose in general). In most cases, your old job's been filled, there's no maternity leave rule for loser aspiring politicians
There are a number of exceptions- you working for the family business, you're a lawyer with a pretty established personal practice, etc. But if you're a professional W-2 you gotta find a next job
If you're a competent, experienced professional with specialized skills that takes 4-6 months, and at best you get back to something similar. Running for congress does not make you *more* qualified than you were before for anything. Most likely you take a career step back
So add up the cost-cost, opportunity cost, and likely multi-year career sidetrack, and the personal NPV of filing your candidate paperwork is -$500k at best case, and probably more like -$1-1.5m if you are in a high-achieving career
So, let's say you beat the odds and win. What next?
You start as a backbencher. You are a nobody your first term. You get 1 committee slot in something relevant to your district, maybe 1 in something suited to your personal experience, and then crap like rules or investigations
The job itself is, contra common belief, a ton of work. It's not a 9-5. It's a whole-identity 24/7/365 job. Sure you may only be in DC in committee meetings Tue-Thu, but you are *always* on the clock. Fundraising, meeting various interested groups, staying in touch with your dist
You also have to maintain 2 residences. Constituents-reasonably- expect you to remain a primary resident and live your regular life (such as it is), where you come from
DC is famously a high cost of living town. Your DC apartment is probably an additional 3k/mo, and that's a personal cost. No charging that months campaign. It's expensive enough that somewhere between 10-20% of congress sleeps on cots in their office
(This is technically against the rules of decorum but goes unenforced because the people who do it do so because they can't actually afford the additional cost of a DC 2nd residence)
And then traveling. Back-and-forth from home to DC ~40 weeks of the year. 2x a month is on the taxpayer as a standard congressional expense, and the other 2x you can usually call a campaign expense as long as you do something campaign-ish when you're home, but it's a grind
In your first term, you basically won't *do* anything. Your main jobs are just raising enough money to scare off challengers for the next cycle amd meeting a ton of people. Because you have many, many coworkers
Basic math: there are 435 congressional reps, 200-230 in your party, depending on fortuna's wheel. If you wanted to do a 1-on-1 lunch to meet all the other reps just in your own party while you're in DC, it will take *the entire 2-year term* to get through all of them
So just establishing the light, casual personal knowledge for working relationships with the colleagues with whom you negotiate and collaborate on $3,000,000,000,000 budgets takes a long time to do
And then of course there's your own staff, ~25ish or so, whom you must hire and manage. In practice your chief of staff does a lot of the managing but you have to make time for facetime with all of them, because they worship and fear you like a pagan deity
So, in your first term, if everything goes well you shake down all your friends for more money, meet a bunch of fellow slimy pols, learn a little policy, and if you're lucky and your party is in power you get 1 favor for a key employer & 1 random amendment to put your name on
This is the prize for *winning*
This is what the fulfilment of all your noble aspirations of public service looks like in day to day reality
This is what you lit $1m of NPV on fire for
This is what you are depriving your kids of 2/3 of a parent for
No sane person does this
You have to *really* *really* believe in it to do that sort of thing
Or you have to already have FU money
Or you have to be a complete mediocrity who thinks getting paid $175k for that is a good deal
Apologies, but no politics thread on this platform is allowed to blow up without a cringey grift at the end. I don't make the rules.
Random bit of career advice: one of the things you need to know--really know-- about yourself is how much you expect/want to be rewarded for effort and how much for results
Every job will have its own mix of both, but it will never be structurally changed to align to your preferences
It's on you to pick a path that aligns to your own wants/needs
And if you pick one that is misaligned to what you actually want, you will be unhappy, and you will be deeply, deeply unhappy because you will internalize the misalignment not as a matter of preferences or job necessity but as injustice against both yourself and rationality
Focusing on housing wealth is not the right way to express the real nature of the inequality though ...
One the things that was sociologically new about Millennials is that being the first generation raised after women entered high-achieving professions, it was the first to contain large cadre of people raised in double-professional-income households
I'm never genuinely bearish the s&p bc I'm a born-and-bred rational expectations guy who knows it's always priced so as to produce a positive return in the future
*but*
2 things give me pause:
1. Earnings & FCF multiples are back at ZIRP levels, except we are no longer in a ZIRP world, which is to say that the Equity Risk Premium is just about the lowest it's ever been
2. Inflation really is back to near-target and looks to stay that way for near future
However we've just had 2 years of real productivity growth and real wage declines. That probably can't last, and 2% inflation plus catch-up wage growth only pencils with flat-ish corp earnings
An advice-for-youngins-starting-out thread, which I'll add to sporadically
1. Most industries are cyclical, and because booming industries hire the most aggressively and indiscriminately it is likely you are fated to get your start in an industry at a cyclical peak
2. You are nowhere close to pulling your weight and earning your salary on day 1. Companies set entry level pay for where in the talent distribution they need to hire, not for any connection to initial productivity
3. Therefore, you will start in a race against time in your business cycle. Your first immediate priority in your career should be getting up the learning curve as quickly as possible, because as soon as the cycle turns everyone who isn't pulling their weight will get axed
@EpsilonTheory@FT In the US, the single biggest abuser of ZIRP capital in the 2010s was oil & gas, and in that business labor productivity grew tremendously. At least 5% cagr for the period
@EpsilonTheory@FT The second biggest abuser of ZIRP capital was software, where again labor productivity grew tremendously
@EpsilonTheory@FT So while there may be a relationship to the economy as a whole, it doesn't hold in the micro sense
Since we're all geopolitical strategists now, a stray thought- there will be *tons* of analysis of the events leading up to Russia's invasion, to answer two questions 1) how could we have had more (and earlier) confidence in Russia's intent and 2) what could we have done about it
Question 1) is absolutely something where energy people have some contribution to make
To show what I mean, I'll link two pieces of analysis from earlier in the winter arguing pro- and con- to teh question "will Russia invade?"