For comparison- the MP's salary is similar to that of a military OF-4 (Commander, Lieutenant-Colonel or Wing Commander), a secondary school headteacher, or an NHS consultant (specialist doctor with at least 8-10 years experience post qualification).
But military officers, school officials and senior doctors don't generally have to spend thousands of their own money applying for a job, with no guarantee of success, and they don't typically get to take a five- or ten-year year career break and then just stroll back into their old career again afterwards.
MPs who become part of the government often do fairly well out of it, obviously more so the more senior the government position(s) they hold, and there are a lot more members of the government than most people realise. But rank and file MPs often get a pretty raw deal compared to the kinds of alternative options anyone with the attributes to be a good MP would probably have.
There is no educational or qualification or experience requirement to stand for election as a UK MP, all you need is a few hundred quid, the approval of your party and ten voters.
And this means... what exactly? That we should expect MPs to perform their duties with the same diligence that we expect from military commanders, teachers and specialist doctors? Or that military commanders, teachers and specialist doctors should make rash uninformed decisions because they are underpaid?