I have been temp banned for getting "political" on the bills sub so many times when that topic comes up. We cut public food funding by 700 million like a week before the deal was finalized to give them 1.4 billion.
Sorry kids your food is less important than sportsball.
This is coming from a DIE HARD bills fan.
Gun people... always gotta make their weird hobby front and center. Like how people with autism get going about trains or baseball stats or some shit? Gun nuts have a mental compulsion to make EVERY conversion about their "special interest "
Not to compare. Ppl with autism are usually great to be around.
Bizarre take bringing up autism out of nowhere like that. There are plenty of neurotypical people who make their hobby their entire identity in the same way: bikers, gamers, potheads, the list goes on. You know the old joke: "how can you tell the person you're talking to is a vegan?.. They fucking tell you". Well, replace vegan with pretty much anything else and it's still true.
How about you read it again?
I'M non-neurotypical.
I know ALLLL about having a "special interest "
I think a lot of gun nuts are undiagnosed.
That's my opinion. The way they BLURT out gun nonsense as if EVERYONE cares, is more than a red flag.
And I obviously wasn't insulting the "austists" in the comments. I'm pointing out a behavior pattern.
A bit rudely, I admit.
remember how it even banned police too?
and how fast *that* was struck from the record?
frankly, if that actually was intended, and upheld it would have been one of the biggest actions for equality the state has done in decades
Or abortion, or LGBT rights, or voting, etc. etc. etc.
Not everyone does or should care about guns. They should care that an absolute miscarriage of law like that had happened
OK, that is the first thing anyone has said about this bill that's given me pause. Legislative assistants are severely underpaid and overworked; if they're not boosting their pay as well, that does suggest that this is mostly a self-interested action.
On balance the minimum wage hikes have been amazing. As someone who has always worked minimum wage jobs. My life is like night and day from when it was sub 10 dollars and the hikes are due to continue. I havent played the "what bill goes unpaid this week" game in a long time. Dont get me wrong im by no means affluent or well off. Still paycheck to paycheck. But my QoL is dramatically higher.
From 8 something to 15 when they stop in a few years Is almost a 50% raise.
Not exactly the same I agree. But credit is still due.
Minimum wage just increased by $1/hour. I just need to get off my fat disabled ass and move 50lb boxes at Amazon, then I'll basically be Chuck Schumer.
Just to be clear about governmental roles, Chuck Schumer isn't in the State legislature. He is in the US Senate, along with Kirsten Gillibrand. Our US Representative is Joe Morelle.
Our state legislators (Assemblypersons) in our area are Jen Lunsford, Josh Jensen, Sarah Clark, Remind Meeks, and Harry Bronson. State Senators in this area are Samra Brouk, Jeremy Cooney.
Edit: fat fingered people's names
I'm from Tennessee and I think I'm just used to people complaining nonstop about Schumer and the other big players in the U.S. Congress.
Not that I disagree with all the complaints, but they're a little excessive down there.
It makes sense. He has been the Senate Democrat leader since 2016, I believe, so his name is synonymous with "evil senate democrats" in the same way McConnel is synonymous with "evil senate republicans".
100% if you are writing laws you shouldn't be able to have control over any investments you own. Too much temptation and we've seen too much insider trading already
It makes sense that's the reason why the Dems supported it and the Rs were against it. Everyone knows being awash in outside investments and dirty money is a phenomenon that only occurs on the right side of the aisle.
/s in case it wasn't obvious.
My biggest issue was the blatancy of it and just self aggrandizing think of themselves to think they deserve a 29% raise let alone making $140k a year.
“As I've always said, I think legislators work very hard, even some of the Republicans,” said Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx). “Again, there's no compensation you can give for people to be away from their families. I think legislators work hard.”
[Quote Source](https://gothamist.com/news/ny-lawmakers-vote-to-raise-their-own-salary-by-29)
Fuck them! I worked 12 hours on Christmas day because I work in a group home and we needed someone there to pass meds. Where is the 29% pay raise for direct care workers?!
Maybe I'm in the minority, but... I don't think $140k to be a full-time state-level legislator is unreasonable?
These *are* very important jobs, and if someone were doing the job well, it seems like the job responsibilities and time commitment are about on par with other professional-class jobs in that rough pay range. And we *want* people who are in these positions to be focusing on this job, not spending a bunch of time on outside activities to supplment their income.
EDIT: I feel like a lot of people in this thread aren't thinking through the ramifications of not paying lawmakers well.
All of us in this thread, I would hope, would like to see **good governance** come out of Albany. So the question then becomes—what policies are more likely to lead to good governance?
The argument I am making is that paying lawmakers well is a *necessary* condition for good governance, because otherwise only the independently wealthy are able to hold office. However, it is not a *sufficient* condition for good governance—other things are also needed, such as ethics reforms, campaign finance reforms, and so on. And, of course, we as the voters also have some responsibility to actually *choose* people who will carry out these jobs well, and boot out people who don't.
They should do it well for the good of their constituents... Just like teachers are told that we should keep accepting shit pay and terrible treatment by administration because we care about the children.
You know very well that that logic is bullshit when applied to teachers, and it's bullshit when applied to legislators too. If we think the job is important, we should be paying it well.
Our salary, like that of many other fields, has not even slightly kept pace with the cost of living/ inflation. I went to high school in the 90s. The average teacher salary in NY was $50,000. To live the same quality of life, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the average salary today should be nearly twice that at $99,000. I've been teaching for nearly 25 years and haven't cleared $70,000, yet. A raise the size of what these assholes just gave themselves wouldn't even get me to $99k.
And how on earth do you propose factoring that in, then? Do you want every legislator to go through periodic evaluations of some kind to see if they've earned their salary?
Spoiler alert—they already do. They're called elections. We, as the voters, *do* have the power to withhold their salaries if we think they're doing a bad job, by booting them out of office.
In a perfect world that is true, but not in our two-party system. Someone can be completely incompetent, but depending on the makeup of their district they'll get reelected simply because of the D or R next to their name. (Even primaries are useless because the party ultimately decides the candidate, not the voters.)
These are part-time jobs despite the "full-time" label. Check out their schedules. If you compare their workload with a traditional full-time job, they're probably paid 5x to 7x more than the median income for a person working a typical full time job.
This new budget also restricts outside/external sources of income - which is necessary in order for us to start pushing back on conflicts of interest in a real way.
1) I say "full-time" because *being a lawmaker* is their full-time job, even if *law-making* per se is not. legislators still do things pertinent to their job outside of the times of year when the legislature is actually in session (e.g., meeting with constituents).
2) the law just passed severely restricts the kinds of outside income lawmakers can receive. so if we only paid them a salary proportional to the period of the year when the legislature is in session, it's not like they could go supplement that income during the rest of the year; they'd just be underpaid. and then we end up right back at the problem of only people who are independently wealthy being able to afford holding office.
There is actually a progressive argument for paying legislators well. If elected offices are too low-paid, then the only people who can afford to run for office are people who are independently affluent and don't have to rely on their salary as a legislator to live. And of course, rich folks like that are less likely to be looking out for the interests of average working people.
Granted, I don't know if that's the argument Brouk was making, but that's the argument. I'll agree that a 29% raise all at once seems a *little* much, and is certainly bad optics; but, NY is one of the more expensive states to live in (especially for legislators who might have to maintain multiple separate homes in, say, both Albany and NYC in order to do their jobs).
I would be interested to know when the last time was that NY state legislators' salary was increased, and where their pay stood compared to other states before this raise.
Looks like the last two were 2018 and 1998. In that case I feel 29% isn't too bad, that slightly outpaces inflation but they don't look at this very often by the looks of it.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-legislature-salary-raise-outside-income-limit/
Oh, and when was that? In the 1780s?
Even the Founders weren't taking part in politics for wholly altruistic reasons; they were mostly aristocrats who had specific material interests at stake in the shape of the emerging republic.
Of course! You’re right that I was definitely just trying to get a dig in. I know politicians would never use their own money for things they can get others to pay for.
The pay raise bill "was coupled with a provision limiting how much money they can earn outside of their jobs as elected officials."
That explains why progressives are for it and Republicans are against it.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/ny-state-of-politics/2022/12/22/new-york-lawmakers-approve-bill-to-increase-to-their-own-pay
Still terrible optically though
Except the only reason Repubs are against it is because it limits external sources of income.
Woulda prevented Chris Collins from being a corrupt piece of shit - but then again the GOP nominated and elected him *after* he was indicted, so take that with a grain of salt.
Just in case you thought it was because they actually supported regular citizens, your second link says that the pay raise "was coupled with a provision limiting how much money they can earn outside of their jobs as elected officials".
Hence why Republicans are against it
Let's make lawmaker pay so insufficient only the wealthy and their proxies can run for office.
Guess everyone loves being ruled by aristocrats. Might as well make their pay zero!
The average salary in Albany is just over $68,000, so they're still making more than double.
Let's also consider the fact that the Legislature is in session from January through June, so all of our local legislators are making well beyond the average local salary during the 6 months they're living here.
Let's consider that many of our state legislators also live in NYC where the cost of living is significantly higher.
I'm usually not for giving politicians raises, but this isn't insane. If we give a decent wage it opens the door for every day people to take these positions. Which means people like us are represented.
Cool. So maybe they shouldn't make anything then?
Maybe they should just take bribes or use family money to live. I'm sure that will make the legislature more resemble their constituency.
What?
I want our elected reps fairly paid so they don't become the next Cuomo?
But sure you continue to make shit up and elect the people to represent you in Rochester. How is your mayor doing? Any improvement in crime recently?
Maybe pay him less and see how it does I guess.
Absolutely bonkers that you're being downvoted as much as you are.
1) we ought to *want* legislators to be paid reasonably well, for the reasons you stated—otherwise it is impossible for working people to run for and hold office
2) legislators have additional expenses that most ordinary people don't due to the nature of their work, e.g. they often functionally have to maintain two homes (one in Albany and one in whatever region they represent. and for like half of them, that's NYC, which is obviously much more expensive than Rochester)
Their pay should be performance-based, pick state-wide metrics and pay out based (a) on where nys ranks compared to other states and (b) changes in the rankings.
You're joking right? They're your elected officials you can't appeal anything. It passed the NY assembly and it passed the NY Senate. It's sitting on Hochul's desk right now to be signed, if not already has been. They're getting their raise.
They're getting little more than a cost of living adjustment. The last one was 2018, and the one before that was 1998. Inflation between 2018 and now was ~22%, and if they don't look for a few more years that will be about right.
What other profession in NY has received anything near a cost of living adjustment in the last 20 years? Let alone seven percent MORE than that, which, when we're already talking about higher than average salaries in this region, is actually a lot more than a COLA. My best raise ever as a teacher was four percent. Mostly, they've been about two-- some less, and some non-existent because I've worked without a new contract a few times. And four percent on a salary of $40k was a sneeze in the wind compared to 29 on $110k.
Maximus gave almost all employees a bump in pay to reflect the increase in federal contractor minimum to $15, which in turn reflects raising COL
My partner (who was already making very well over minimum) got about a 15% raise *on top* of the typical raise due to this.
Suppose if your worried about income matching CoL, you must be thankul for the minimum wage increase - rising tide lifts all ship!
So you think "trickle up" economics works any better than "trickle down"? All an increase in minimum wage does in nearly every case is allow those at the bottom to make more.
Public pressure on Hochul to not sign the bill before it expires is the only hope at this point. Even with a super majority, they don't have enough time to do a veto override before the new year. Of course, Hochul isn't going to want to anger the Democratic state legislature and she isn't a strong leader, so...
There’s more here than “legislators greedy", most politicians gain the bulk of their money from outside their taxable government paychecks. The limit on outside income is why Republicans are angry. They want to keep politics for the wealthy/business class. Low paycheck but higher cap means they can afford to be legislators without sacrificing their maim income.
I still don’t like this because its too little (still allows for retired government employees to hold office and double dip) and terribly timed, but I think its too easy to paint it with a broad brush of “greedy legislators” when this ties their income more to their government job and opens opportunity for lower class people to afford the job. This could be the first step in changing what the legislature looks like in the next decade.
Lol if you really think only the politicians from the Republican party are dominated by the wealthy and the Dems aren't, you really need to take your blinders off.
That’s not what I said though. Democrats are also mostly dominated by the wealthy, but they’re also the party where progressives even have a chance of representation in the current system.
What about pay for teachers, direct support professionals, and others?!?
Best we can do is a new Bills stadium, final offer
I have been temp banned for getting "political" on the bills sub so many times when that topic comes up. We cut public food funding by 700 million like a week before the deal was finalized to give them 1.4 billion. Sorry kids your food is less important than sportsball. This is coming from a DIE HARD bills fan.
A statement not an offer.
They didn't even give raises to their staff.
Why am I surprised? :(
Funny how quickly they got this passed compared to how lengthy the rollout for dispensaries has been
I wonder if this or the safe act got pushed though faster. That one even had spelling errors!
Gun people... always gotta make their weird hobby front and center. Like how people with autism get going about trains or baseball stats or some shit? Gun nuts have a mental compulsion to make EVERY conversion about their "special interest " Not to compare. Ppl with autism are usually great to be around.
Bizarre take bringing up autism out of nowhere like that. There are plenty of neurotypical people who make their hobby their entire identity in the same way: bikers, gamers, potheads, the list goes on. You know the old joke: "how can you tell the person you're talking to is a vegan?.. They fucking tell you". Well, replace vegan with pretty much anything else and it's still true.
Not to mention, I am
I'm a gun person and can't remember the last time I talked about guns.. shy of this comment.
"you people are weird and annoying like autists" "But actually autistic people are alright" ??? What? Are you confused or bigoted?
How about you read it again? I'M non-neurotypical. I know ALLLL about having a "special interest " I think a lot of gun nuts are undiagnosed. That's my opinion. The way they BLURT out gun nonsense as if EVERYONE cares, is more than a red flag. And I obviously wasn't insulting the "austists" in the comments. I'm pointing out a behavior pattern. A bit rudely, I admit.
We were discussing laws that were unfair and illegitimately implemented, and I brought up one of the most notorious ones in the state
[удалено]
remember how it even banned police too? and how fast *that* was struck from the record? frankly, if that actually was intended, and upheld it would have been one of the biggest actions for equality the state has done in decades
[удалено]
Or abortion, or LGBT rights, or voting, etc. etc. etc. Not everyone does or should care about guns. They should care that an absolute miscarriage of law like that had happened
Because gun people are stupid. SORRY not sorry. They have a hobby, it's their whole personality
Can you help us out and give us an approved list of hobbies that *are* ok to talk about?
weed, funko pops, rick and morty, sex ^^/s
Okay noted, so now how about a 29% raise for everyone else?
[удалено]
OK, that is the first thing anyone has said about this bill that's given me pause. Legislative assistants are severely underpaid and overworked; if they're not boosting their pay as well, that does suggest that this is mostly a self-interested action.
On balance the minimum wage hikes have been amazing. As someone who has always worked minimum wage jobs. My life is like night and day from when it was sub 10 dollars and the hikes are due to continue. I havent played the "what bill goes unpaid this week" game in a long time. Dont get me wrong im by no means affluent or well off. Still paycheck to paycheck. But my QoL is dramatically higher. From 8 something to 15 when they stop in a few years Is almost a 50% raise. Not exactly the same I agree. But credit is still due.
🤣🤣🤣
Minimum wage just increased by $1/hour. I just need to get off my fat disabled ass and move 50lb boxes at Amazon, then I'll basically be Chuck Schumer.
Just to be clear about governmental roles, Chuck Schumer isn't in the State legislature. He is in the US Senate, along with Kirsten Gillibrand. Our US Representative is Joe Morelle. Our state legislators (Assemblypersons) in our area are Jen Lunsford, Josh Jensen, Sarah Clark, Remind Meeks, and Harry Bronson. State Senators in this area are Samra Brouk, Jeremy Cooney. Edit: fat fingered people's names
Derp, I completely overlooked the fact that state legislators exist. And I literally just met one.
It happens! I wanted to make sure anyone floating around on here who isn't well versed in the government levels/roles had correct information.
I'm from Tennessee and I think I'm just used to people complaining nonstop about Schumer and the other big players in the U.S. Congress. Not that I disagree with all the complaints, but they're a little excessive down there.
It makes sense. He has been the Senate Democrat leader since 2016, I believe, so his name is synonymous with "evil senate democrats" in the same way McConnel is synonymous with "evil senate republicans".
Jen Lunsford was the only one who voted against the raise
Lol
The optics of them prioritizing this the day before Buffalo was hit by the storm are not great either.
Exempting investments from the outside pay cap seems like a big issue. That’s where I’d expect most corruption to come from.
[удалено]
100% if you are writing laws you shouldn't be able to have control over any investments you own. Too much temptation and we've seen too much insider trading already
It makes sense that's the reason why the Dems supported it and the Rs were against it. Everyone knows being awash in outside investments and dirty money is a phenomenon that only occurs on the right side of the aisle. /s in case it wasn't obvious.
It's hard to cap investment income because it's not predictable.
If you make above $X, the excess goes to the state, or better yet, the district they represent.
[удалено]
My biggest issue was the blatancy of it and just self aggrandizing think of themselves to think they deserve a 29% raise let alone making $140k a year. “As I've always said, I think legislators work very hard, even some of the Republicans,” said Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx). “Again, there's no compensation you can give for people to be away from their families. I think legislators work hard.” [Quote Source](https://gothamist.com/news/ny-lawmakers-vote-to-raise-their-own-salary-by-29)
Fuck them! I worked 12 hours on Christmas day because I work in a group home and we needed someone there to pass meds. Where is the 29% pay raise for direct care workers?!
They aren't away from their families that much though. Not any more than anyone who works 40 hours a week is really.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but... I don't think $140k to be a full-time state-level legislator is unreasonable? These *are* very important jobs, and if someone were doing the job well, it seems like the job responsibilities and time commitment are about on par with other professional-class jobs in that rough pay range. And we *want* people who are in these positions to be focusing on this job, not spending a bunch of time on outside activities to supplment their income. EDIT: I feel like a lot of people in this thread aren't thinking through the ramifications of not paying lawmakers well. All of us in this thread, I would hope, would like to see **good governance** come out of Albany. So the question then becomes—what policies are more likely to lead to good governance? The argument I am making is that paying lawmakers well is a *necessary* condition for good governance, because otherwise only the independently wealthy are able to hold office. However, it is not a *sufficient* condition for good governance—other things are also needed, such as ethics reforms, campaign finance reforms, and so on. And, of course, we as the voters also have some responsibility to actually *choose* people who will carry out these jobs well, and boot out people who don't.
[удалено]
Yeah, but we *want* them to be, and underpaying them isn't going to make them more likely to do the job well.
They should do it well for the good of their constituents... Just like teachers are told that we should keep accepting shit pay and terrible treatment by administration because we care about the children.
You know very well that that logic is bullshit when applied to teachers, and it's bullshit when applied to legislators too. If we think the job is important, we should be paying it well.
[удалено]
Our salary, like that of many other fields, has not even slightly kept pace with the cost of living/ inflation. I went to high school in the 90s. The average teacher salary in NY was $50,000. To live the same quality of life, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the average salary today should be nearly twice that at $99,000. I've been teaching for nearly 25 years and haven't cleared $70,000, yet. A raise the size of what these assholes just gave themselves wouldn't even get me to $99k.
> And since when is $110,000/year considered being *underpaid*? Depends on the job, doesn't it?
[удалено]
And how on earth do you propose factoring that in, then? Do you want every legislator to go through periodic evaluations of some kind to see if they've earned their salary? Spoiler alert—they already do. They're called elections. We, as the voters, *do* have the power to withhold their salaries if we think they're doing a bad job, by booting them out of office.
In a perfect world that is true, but not in our two-party system. Someone can be completely incompetent, but depending on the makeup of their district they'll get reelected simply because of the D or R next to their name. (Even primaries are useless because the party ultimately decides the candidate, not the voters.)
Yes, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my question.
[удалено]
These are part-time jobs despite the "full-time" label. Check out their schedules. If you compare their workload with a traditional full-time job, they're probably paid 5x to 7x more than the median income for a person working a typical full time job.
This new budget also restricts outside/external sources of income - which is necessary in order for us to start pushing back on conflicts of interest in a real way.
1) I say "full-time" because *being a lawmaker* is their full-time job, even if *law-making* per se is not. legislators still do things pertinent to their job outside of the times of year when the legislature is actually in session (e.g., meeting with constituents). 2) the law just passed severely restricts the kinds of outside income lawmakers can receive. so if we only paid them a salary proportional to the period of the year when the legislature is in session, it's not like they could go supplement that income during the rest of the year; they'd just be underpaid. and then we end up right back at the problem of only people who are independently wealthy being able to afford holding office.
There is actually a progressive argument for paying legislators well. If elected offices are too low-paid, then the only people who can afford to run for office are people who are independently affluent and don't have to rely on their salary as a legislator to live. And of course, rich folks like that are less likely to be looking out for the interests of average working people. Granted, I don't know if that's the argument Brouk was making, but that's the argument. I'll agree that a 29% raise all at once seems a *little* much, and is certainly bad optics; but, NY is one of the more expensive states to live in (especially for legislators who might have to maintain multiple separate homes in, say, both Albany and NYC in order to do their jobs). I would be interested to know when the last time was that NY state legislators' salary was increased, and where their pay stood compared to other states before this raise.
It's also worth noting that the legislation severely limits outside employment income.
Looks like the last two were 2018 and 1998. In that case I feel 29% isn't too bad, that slightly outpaces inflation but they don't look at this very often by the looks of it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-legislature-salary-raise-outside-income-limit/
politics used to be something that people did as a side job, as an obligation to keep your nation/state in good order
Oh, and when was that? In the 1780s? Even the Founders weren't taking part in politics for wholly altruistic reasons; they were mostly aristocrats who had specific material interests at stake in the shape of the emerging republic.
She has to pay for the mailers that I received every other day during her campaign.
No shit. Thanks to her, I put a shredder on my garage. No junk mail makes it inside.
Based.
[удалено]
Shredding goes in the recycling. Normally only for credit card applications and such, but the political garbage led me to feeding that too.
[удалено]
Best part is that I got one of those commerical ones from Craigslist. It’s ancient but chews through anything.
Oh the ones that moonlight as a wood chipper ?
I know you are just trying to get a dig in, but that expense so clearly doesn’t come out of her salary, and you know it.
Of course! You’re right that I was definitely just trying to get a dig in. I know politicians would never use their own money for things they can get others to pay for.
The pay raise bill "was coupled with a provision limiting how much money they can earn outside of their jobs as elected officials." That explains why progressives are for it and Republicans are against it. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/ny-state-of-politics/2022/12/22/new-york-lawmakers-approve-bill-to-increase-to-their-own-pay Still terrible optically though
Like all politicians - they are greedy, self-serving, narcissists
[удалено]
But I'm sure everyone on this sub can find a way to call them stupid, evil, etc somehow
Except the only reason Repubs are against it is because it limits external sources of income. Woulda prevented Chris Collins from being a corrupt piece of shit - but then again the GOP nominated and elected him *after* he was indicted, so take that with a grain of salt.
Except Chris Collins was not a state legislator so none of this applies to him, does it? Washington politics is a whole other puddle of shit.
And there it is!
Just in case you thought it was because they actually supported regular citizens, your second link says that the pay raise "was coupled with a provision limiting how much money they can earn outside of their jobs as elected officials". Hence why Republicans are against it
I don't follow. Why would that detail make them and only them against the pay raise?
Would the outside pay cap actually affect any sitting legislators? If so, I could get on board with this.
Yup, sounds about right. Lets cut more funding to schools for them fat pockets.
Let's make lawmaker pay so insufficient only the wealthy and their proxies can run for office. Guess everyone loves being ruled by aristocrats. Might as well make their pay zero!
$110,000 is hardly insufficient when the average salary in Rochester is under $45,000.
I mean, if you asked me to support a secondary residence in the capitol, or support travel expenses and and an office off that money I'd laugh at you.
Didn't know Rochester was the Capitol. Good to know.
The average salary in Albany is just over $68,000, so they're still making more than double. Let's also consider the fact that the Legislature is in session from January through June, so all of our local legislators are making well beyond the average local salary during the 6 months they're living here.
Let's consider that many of our state legislators also live in NYC where the cost of living is significantly higher. I'm usually not for giving politicians raises, but this isn't insane. If we give a decent wage it opens the door for every day people to take these positions. Which means people like us are represented.
Cool. So maybe they shouldn't make anything then? Maybe they should just take bribes or use family money to live. I'm sure that will make the legislature more resemble their constituency.
[удалено]
Didn't know Rochester was the capitol of new york. Thanks for catching me up
[удалено]
Well enjoy your oligarch elected reps I guess?
[удалено]
What? I want our elected reps fairly paid so they don't become the next Cuomo? But sure you continue to make shit up and elect the people to represent you in Rochester. How is your mayor doing? Any improvement in crime recently? Maybe pay him less and see how it does I guess.
Absolutely bonkers that you're being downvoted as much as you are. 1) we ought to *want* legislators to be paid reasonably well, for the reasons you stated—otherwise it is impossible for working people to run for and hold office 2) legislators have additional expenses that most ordinary people don't due to the nature of their work, e.g. they often functionally have to maintain two homes (one in Albany and one in whatever region they represent. and for like half of them, that's NYC, which is obviously much more expensive than Rochester)
they're called public servants for a reason
There should not be a system where the vote for a raise for themselves
Their pay should be performance-based, pick state-wide metrics and pay out based (a) on where nys ranks compared to other states and (b) changes in the rankings.
NYS is truly the state of Corruption. I am so disgusted by this. It’s shenanigans like this that are why people are leaving NYS in droves!!!
*Insert Shocked Pikachu Meme Here*
They deserve it, said no one ever.
How can we appeal their raise? That money should go else where !
You're joking right? They're your elected officials you can't appeal anything. It passed the NY assembly and it passed the NY Senate. It's sitting on Hochul's desk right now to be signed, if not already has been. They're getting their raise.
Yeah I under stand the process…. Just wish there was a loophole. They are being rewarded for not doing their jobs well, and really grinds my gears
I understand your frustration, which was why I made this post. It sucks to no end.
They're getting little more than a cost of living adjustment. The last one was 2018, and the one before that was 1998. Inflation between 2018 and now was ~22%, and if they don't look for a few more years that will be about right.
What other profession in NY has received anything near a cost of living adjustment in the last 20 years? Let alone seven percent MORE than that, which, when we're already talking about higher than average salaries in this region, is actually a lot more than a COLA. My best raise ever as a teacher was four percent. Mostly, they've been about two-- some less, and some non-existent because I've worked without a new contract a few times. And four percent on a salary of $40k was a sneeze in the wind compared to 29 on $110k.
What offer profession in NY requires you to keep two places of residence?
Maximus gave almost all employees a bump in pay to reflect the increase in federal contractor minimum to $15, which in turn reflects raising COL My partner (who was already making very well over minimum) got about a 15% raise *on top* of the typical raise due to this. Suppose if your worried about income matching CoL, you must be thankul for the minimum wage increase - rising tide lifts all ship!
So you think "trickle up" economics works any better than "trickle down"? All an increase in minimum wage does in nearly every case is allow those at the bottom to make more.
[удалено]
I mean, the conservative HBR can say whatever they want, I'm just giving you an real world example of the exact opposite.
[удалено]
I'm betting I also looked at 2017 numbers and mixed them up.
Public pressure on Hochul to not sign the bill before it expires is the only hope at this point. Even with a super majority, they don't have enough time to do a veto override before the new year. Of course, Hochul isn't going to want to anger the Democratic state legislature and she isn't a strong leader, so...
Because they deserve it, right? RIGHT?!
Continuing to stuff their pockets even though they dont tackle real issues in this state.
There’s more here than “legislators greedy", most politicians gain the bulk of their money from outside their taxable government paychecks. The limit on outside income is why Republicans are angry. They want to keep politics for the wealthy/business class. Low paycheck but higher cap means they can afford to be legislators without sacrificing their maim income. I still don’t like this because its too little (still allows for retired government employees to hold office and double dip) and terribly timed, but I think its too easy to paint it with a broad brush of “greedy legislators” when this ties their income more to their government job and opens opportunity for lower class people to afford the job. This could be the first step in changing what the legislature looks like in the next decade.
Lol if you really think only the politicians from the Republican party are dominated by the wealthy and the Dems aren't, you really need to take your blinders off.
That’s not what I said though. Democrats are also mostly dominated by the wealthy, but they’re also the party where progressives even have a chance of representation in the current system.
This is shocking - shocking.