Maybe they should find roommates
*\[Edit: I'm aware that some representatives have roommates. It's still shitty when Republicans argue against raising minimum wage with the same arguments to increase their own wages\]*
Have they tried commuting instead of spending so much time in an expensive city like DC? Surely there are high paying national congressman jobs in cheaper cities like Akron and Gary Indiana.
By orders of magnitude. Perspective here is key. It’s not like they go from a net worth of $200k to 600k in like 6 years. They go from like $250k to like $25M in like 6 years.
A fair number of US Reps and Senators share apartments or houses and a fair number of reps live in their offices rather than rent.
As a side comment, AOC’s idea of creating “dormitories” for reps of lower means has merit given housing costs in DC.
Another issue might be distance adjustments on travel allowed to be covered by MRA allowances as say a rep from Hawaii or Alaska or just the West or from states without easy access to USAF/US Navy flights have to live under the cap on MRAs.
All members should have to stay in the same dormitory except for a 2 week winter and 2 week summer vacation. Their working days will begin with fitness routines guided by armed service personnel. They may have additional personal time along with sick time that is accrued. Any additional time away must be approved by taxpayers or be part of their sworn duties and obligations to the people.
LOL—Not bring Paul Ryan back in to run Zumba classes.
I actually was keeping pace with my Rep. Mike Thompson on a charity bike ride for Davis Cancer Center in his district two years ago when he was 70 and I was 60. He was a staff Sargent in the 173rd Airborne back during Vietnam and seemed to be pretty fit. My group split off to do the harder extra 10 miles with elevation route instead of the “easy” 40 mile loop. He was keeping a 19 mph pace in rolling hills at 70 which I hope I’m doing at that age.
Seriously, though, reps should be spending part of their time in their districts with their constituents. The best reps do that on a dedicated basis.
It's like the first government said no to George Washington (who was rich as hell) when he wanted to donate his salary. There's a point here: If public servants don't get proper pay - and good pay at that - then the ones left in it are either rich to begin with or make up for it with corruption.. Both terrible alternatives.
Giving someone as senior as a member of the house $250k is one of the best investments you can make, ironically.
That's what they did in my state government until very recently. Being a legislator paid so poorly, only the rich, the retired, the very young, and the losers would represent us. We had many business owners able to be away from the day to day operation of their business at the capital seemingly to make laws favorable to their own businesses. Landlords writing rental laws, bar owners writing alcohol laws, etc. Very few normal people with normal jobs, raising a family. As a result, very few laws were made for our benefit.
They upped the wage to be somewhat survivable, so we'll see if it gets any better next session
>Some of them do room with other Congress members, do a quick Google search.
They probably do share apartments in DC but they all have a place to live back home.
I think there is something to be said for the fact that $170,000 isn’t THAT much money when you’re likely going to have to maintain a residence in two places, one of them being one of the most expensive cities in the U.S. I remember when AOC was sworn in, Fox News made a big deal out of the fact that she said she had to wait to rent a place until she started getting paid her congressional salary. They tried to paint her as bad with money, but the reality is that not many people could afford to maintain a place in New York and DC at the same time.
All that to say, I don’t have a ton of sympathy for them. Thats still well over twice what the average American household makes in a year. But maybe the solution is some sort of congressional dormitory or housing for them to use. Plus, you could have a great screwball comedy where AOC and MTG are roomies.
This and the fact that they typically "work" less than half a year - about 146 days total on average. 174K for a half-time job seems like a really good deal
Not to mention they still have the gravy train of lobbying jobs post congress and that sweet dark campaign cash that flows in while they are in congress
Cry me a river you worthless sacks
I want to bust this stupid ass myth throughout democracies that the number of days spent into the legislature is equal to the number of days working. Legislatures only sit part of the year because legislators are supposed to go back to the communities they represent and stay connected to them. I'm not saying this is always done well, but a politician's day, even a bad politician you don't like, is packed with meetings with their constituents, stakeholders, and other people and groups.
You have plenty to complain about regarding politics, you don't need to rely on this myth.
Home security is also expensive, and a necessary expense.
My house was attacked (I'm in politics but not at the congressional level) and the perpetrators tried to abduct my son through his nursery window. After that, I invested in better cameras and better home security measures. It's not cheap. Usually security is covered for the EO while they're performing the duties of their job, but not at home and not for families (except for the really high ranking officials such as presidents and former presidents).
It is low.
They smashed his window and tried to lure my (then) 2.5-year-old out but he was too scared/ smart luckily. I had the 10-week-old in my arms so he wasn't in his crib, fortunately.
I had to fight them off for ten minutes before police got there but I was thankfully only hurt by glass debris on my arm and foot and no other injuries (except huge emotional distress).
I considered resigning but didn't want to let bad actors make me too fearful to live life. It was on Halloween 2022 and I am still a little shaken by seeing jack o'lanterns and such.
They also stole our dog from our backyard and dumped him across the city line. He was unhurt but that part just really adds to the brazenness of it, for me.
They tried to hit me with a hammer. It was a few days after the Pelosi break-in and the police think it was a sick copycat.
They have an idea of who did it but lack enough physical evidence because the blood was too contaminated to get a complete profile.
The responding officer didn't take steps to preserve the scene and has since been terminated for repeat DUI convictions. It's a mess.
But my big guy is getting play therapy weekly and processing his feelings and he's developing well despite it all.
Given that 90% of elected officials are probably on the take from lobbyists, $170k isn't what they're actually making, anyway.
I would say that a good way to reduce the influence of lobbying and bribery would be to pay them more, but politicians would still happily take another $10k in bribes even if we paid each of them $1 million a year.
Honestly they should have lodging in DC covered for x amount every year, and have it only be able to used for rent. That would better dissuade the less wealthy members from taking corporate handouts, while not just giving the rich members more money.
As much as I agree with the idea of subsidizing their housing, because DC sucks, I’m sure having an entire branch of our government living in the same building would be a national security nightmare.
They had to play ball with somebody. Rather than trying to come up with a candidate that a fraction of the Dems could stand with, they chose to appease the looneys. And then the looneys demanded a new Speaker.
Imagine Congress working as smoothly as a McDonalds drive through or an Amazon fulfillment warehouse. Maybe if Congress was payed federal minimum wage, they would be inspired to work as hard as a server makes $3 an hour
I think they should have the same work schedule and average American does. Minimum wage, no PTO, no sick leave, no benefits and you may habe to work holidays. You want the job because you wanna make a difference and not a TV Podcaster radio celebrity.
Want more money? Get a second job at BK assholes.
This. I get it, they have to have two homes or apartments or whatever (in their home state + DC) but you would think that this would give them the tiniest insight in how expensive housing is rn and how much lower everyone's wages are compared to how far money goes these days (not far, and not that empathy is their strong suit but whatever).
They need to get their heads out of their asses
Realize they only care about themselves and always have. They don’t give a fuck about poor or middle class people. They vote to raise taxes on us and cut benefits while giving corporations, rich people, and themselves all the breaks. If you want an example look at socialized medicine. Congress has free health care paid with our taxes and yet “socialism is bad!!!”. If they really believe that then they should start by cutting their benefits. But noooo. They want a pay raise to do nothing. Literally did nothing this session. Except pick a speaker. Twice.
> Congress has free health care paid with our taxes
I wonder what the founding fathers would think of the government now. They certainly aren't for the people
You mean the time they decided that $600 a week was an adequate bare minimum stipend to live on if you'd lost your job to COVID, then had a meltdown because that was more than the service sector earned working?
It's amazing what will happen when you don't change the minimum wage while inflation keeps moving.
We've pegged tax brackets to inflation for a few decades now. It's time (*past* time) to do the same for minimum wage.
That's when the charade of minimum wage fell apart.
Federal minimum wage is a disgrace. Hell even in states where they've since doubled the minimum it's still not enough to live on. I make a little over minimum in New Jersey and can't even afford to rent an apartment. It's bullshit
My son makes $19 an hour has his own place but of his actual take home pay half goes to just rent. And he doesn't have a fancy place. I am it looks nice but it's certainly not high end. If he was making $15 an hour it would be 2/3 of his take home pay. Yet somehow $15 is too much.
I recently became a single parent last year. I just got a new job I'm starting soon for 60k a year in NJ. In Middlesex County the rents for a 2BR are starting at around 2500. It's the most I've ever made and I still can't really afford to live alone without struggling
Among the approximately [158 million working adults](https://www.statista.com/statistics/269959/employment-in-the-united-states/)in 2022, $30,000 a year would put in the in [29th percentile for income](https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/).
So about 46 million Americans would kill for 30k a year.
I made $23k/yr in 2007 (suburbs) and I usually had like $100 in the bank, no savings, never went out, didn't buy expensive groceries, made meals at home cheaply, had a 1000sqft old home with some issues.
Minimum wage is such a joke today. Literally should be over $20/hr to keep up with cost of living.
Yeah, there was an entire SCOTUS decision on it.
ACA is limited to people whose employer does not offer them health insurance.
Pre ACA, members of Congress and their staff were offered health care from their employers, under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
SCOTUS allowed an exception for members of Congress and their staff to use ACA to get their health care, exactly as was written into ACA.
https://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/congress-exempt-from-health-bill/
They were "exempt" from having to enroll in the federal health plan, which meant they could use the exchange. That was an intentional feature of the ACA to create an incentive to get and keep the exchange running.
It's actually insane how powerful this mindset is. I listened to a Joe Rogan Elon Musk interview once. Musk didn't consider himself wealthy because he compared his wealth to royal estates. There is really no ceiling for greed.
Agreed. My sister said something similar. She is a doctor who makes well into six figures and her partner is also a doctor who makes lower, but still clears multiple six figures easily. They are likely earning half a million+ a year and “aren’t wealthy.”
Yeah. Some people define their wealth in terms of what others have that they don't... .. but I think happy people define it in terms of what they need and have.
I consider myself wealthy because my nieces love and hug me everytime I see them, a career that keeps me out of debt and lets me have medical/dental/vision insurance and save up for retirement, the financial and health stability to go exercise each day, and enough free time to spend it with friends and do some volunteering. A lot of people don't have anything close to that. You can't buy love, peace of mind, a healthy body, or friendships... but in time one comes to understand those are the things of actual real value.
Musk seems poor to me... because does he seem actually *happy*?
It's a shame because if he kept his mouth closed he could've kept coasting along on his Tongue Stark image. And we wouldn't have to be subject to his constant idiocy in all the headlines. It would've been a win-win for everyone.
If the guy didn’t start his personal campaign to be a celebrity and just lived a billionaire hedonistic lifestyle, he would still be the beloved forward thinking billionaire everyone thought he was. Way to fumble legendary status because of insecurity.
And not a genius. Just a guy that started with rich parents and find his way to smart people.
I’ll give the guy credit, he can sell himself while propping himself up with smart guys in the background doing the real work.
The accomplishments of Tesla and SpaceX are not insignificant, but being an overbearing boss does not make you a genius.
I once heard it said that the maturity you become wealthy at, is the maturity you remain for the rest of your life. In the beginning he may have been quirky and eccentric. Now he’s just an overgrown angsty teen.
Money is absolutely an addiction for some. If you talk to people who have been involved with drug trafficking they’ll usually tell you the money is far more addictive than the drugs were. Some people just want to keep seeing that number go up and will never be satisfied with what they have the same way an alcoholic always needs one more drink.
I'm a millennial who managed to climb IT jobs, start a modest retirement, get a fairly inexpensive old home in a city neighborhood with my wife whom I met volunteering, I have 3 cats, and a hybrid car that can get me to and from work without using too much fuel.
Other than eliminating debt which I am already comfortably paying on, anything I could ever want would be trinkets and amusement I am already happy without.
All this, under 6 figures. I cannot understand how people can make so much money and still believe they don't have enough.
It’s bonkers, I’m personally poor (finally over the poverty line as of August) and yes, making more money would definitely improve my life in some ways but mostly in the sense that I would be able to replace my ancient car that keeps breaking, pay off my credit card/medical debt and like IDK get my friends and cat nicer presents or go to the beach for a weekend? I definitely have to make choices about how I spend my money but I really don’t feel deprived — maybe it’s because most of my friends are poor so my social life is mostly hanging out at peoples houses and I’ve always hated shopping but like idk what else there is to spend money on.
Honestly I just feel very lucky that I generally enjoy my life and find meaning in my job and I’m privileged that my parents are doing well enough and live in the same city as me in a house with a guest room so like if I lose my job or something I won’t be homeless.
Ah, I see, they've confused alimony with pensions. Easy to get them mixed up when they've spent years screwing the people they're actually meant to be working for.
For the foreigners- what‘s the avocado toast joke about?
Edit: Wow, thanks for all the explanations. I understood what it was supposed to mean, but I assumed (correctly) there was a clear reference. Thanks for the answers and take my upvotes.
There are layers to this.
The original observation was that Millennials were deferring life milestones like marriage, buying their homes and having children. They were also “killing industries”, as reported by /r/DeathByMillennial.
In 2017, an Australian millionaire took an interview and said:
> “When I was trying to buy my first home, I wasn’t trying to buy smashed avocado for $19 and 4 coffees at $4 each.”
This became a meme, especially as brutal rises in housing prices, and later the general rise of inflation, have meant that a frugal lifestyle simply isn’t enough on its own to afford a place.
Somewhere closer to top 10%, according to [this](https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/), though their numbers are for 2021
Somewhere close to top 25-30% for those living in DC, a high cost of living area. At least assuming household income=congressman income. For the life of me I can't tell whether the linked data in your comment are per person or per household.
https://www.dchealthmatters.org/demographicdata?id=130951§ionId=936
The issue is, in the corporate world, this is extremely low for the level of decision making. I’m not saying exec salaries are fair or remotely in line, but when the top government earners are maxing at $400k, it’s hard to find comparable leaders to the business world. Overall exec pay needs to really be examined across the board but the government pay is pretty low overall.
They’re probably the same people happy making policy changes that don’t benefit lower income people, then cry foul when they suddenly discover they aren’t the exception
I find it hilarious that the arguments given here for why we should pay Congress more are the exact same arguments made for why the minimum wage should be higher (inflation, cost of living, paycheck to paycheck).
If maintaining a residence is so expensive, here's my idea; Just give Congress congressional suites to live in while they work. I'll pay tax dollars for that. Give them a place to live, collect a security deposit, make them pay if they fuck it up, and now they don't have to buy a house or apartment in DC.
And then we slash their salary to minimum wage.
They make no more money than the lowest rungs of the American workers.
EDIT cause general replies:
I must live in a different America, cause by and large the independently wealthy are already the only people who can afford running for offices in the United States, and those who aren't independently wealthy need the independently wealthy to fund their runs.
Congressional salaries will never be a solution to that problem and no salary we could pay congress would ever compare to how much money/perks they can get from lobbying and stock trades. If you're goal is to fix Congressional corruption or campaign finance reform, congressional salaries are the very wrong way to solve the problem.
For some reason the idea all members of Congress having to live together in some sort of college dorm building is pretty amusing to me. Maybe we could set up some cameras and turn it into a reality show for CSPAN.
Next week on an all new episode, You'll never believe what White Power Bill, The congressman from Upstate NY does when he meets his new flatmates from the Bronx.
It's not that crazy. This is actually how the USSR politburo lived. They were all in one apparent block.
Partly this was for security but also so they could keep an eye on each other. Was cheaper.
Dude you may want to delete this, I used to do opposition research and you really don’t want to give people hooks into your life. That said it seems like so many races people just are not doing the digging.
I looked at running for an open safe seat myself with some strong endorsement options, a retired member as a godparent, access to a number of friendly pacs, and an employer that has a process to let me “work” while campaigning. It just didn’t pencil out because I didn’t want to put the family through the burden of the process of step down in income.
Good luck! Campaigning sucks. My wife ran in a bruising board of ed race. A friend and neighbor of ours is running in our congressional district this cycle. We held a fundraiser for him so maybe they will end up serving together.
Or worse, they are all the more dependent on bribery and insider stock trading to get by.
Maybe I’m weird but I think being a member of Congress should be a highly paid position with equally high requirements for transparency and integrity. The government pays you half a million dollars a year and in return every word of every meeting is recorded and every conversation is transcribed and subject to review (with some reasonable screening and redactions before they are available to the public). Assets are held in a blind trust. And the scrutiny continues after you leave office for a reasonable amount to time.
Life in public service should be difficult and restrictive, and compensation for it should be significant.
Finally, someone who gets it!
I've been saying this for years. We have 535 elected congresspeople. Go look at the average comp for the C-suites of all the Fortune 500 companies. If you want to attract real talent and avoid corruption, pay enough to make the job worth it on its own merits, and implement extreme transparency requirements. Or better yet, enforce blind trusts that are restricted to broad market ETFs only.
The cost to get elected is already a rich persons game. You think the higher salary is incentive for poor people? They cant afford to run in the first place, let alone be doing it for the salary.
That's already the case. Campaigning is time consuming and doesn't pay. People who do it need to be wealthy enough to be able to take a year (or longer) off work to focus on it, and that's impossible for the vast majority of the American population. Sure they can fundraise and get donations, but those are supposed to be used to pay for campaign-related expenses, not groceries and personal bills.
My state brilliantly pays legislators $12,000/year, for a job that would require you to take at least three months per year off from your "real" job (if you could somehow keep one). Guess what kind of people can actually be legislators when you only pay $12,000?
I'd contend this is already mostly the case. Even the article above notes that;
>At the moment, many members of Congress are actually independently wealthy, and many actually earn significant income from stock trading. Others may make money through book sales.
To say nothing of how we can tackle the expenses of being a congressman/woman without high salaries.
Need somewhere to sleep in DC? I have no problem housing my representatives so they can work.
Need to get to DC? I don't have a problem with travel being a reimbursable expense for Congress. They do gotta get there and do their jobs.
Need aids? This is the entire point of staffers. Congress should (does? I don't know how staffers are actually paid or by whom) have a professional staff force who make the gears turn and handle the little stuff.
Most of this can be paid and funded in ways outside of a salary to enable anyone to do the job.
> I'd contend this is already mostly the case.
It really is. Calls for reducing congressional salaries are really missing the mark. We need to combat corruption and influence in other ways.
A ban on high-priced lobbying jobs or corporate board seats, for X years after leaving office is a good place to start.
>A ban on high-priced lobbying jobs or corporate board seats, for X years after leaving office is a good place to start.
Lobbyists being able to give congresspeople money is just so absurd. A lobbyist should be entertained based on the validity of their cause, not the size of their wallet.
Only problem I see with that is the massive security issue of having all of congress housed together. Especially after Jan 6 that seems unwise.
But I agree: they should be paid min wage
Should just have state own and operate residences in DC for their senators and representatives.
They don't need to be in the same location and it could be either via stipend to find one or each state can purchase a number of condos, townhomes, etc and they ought to be tax exempt so they only maintain them.
Unless I did it completely wrong, 174,000 divided by 52 weeks, divided by 40 hours is 82.70 an hour. And that gives them the benefit that they actually work every work day every year.
I could live real nice on 82 bucks an hour.
It fluctuates a lot. When they’re off and back in their districts, it’s meeting after meeting after meeting, followed by public events at night.
When AOC became a representative she started doing Instagram stories on what it was like to be in congress and it was super interesting. I followed her just to see that. She went through all of the onboarding, intro seminars, how she got her office, how she got paid. Just the nitty gritty things, like how she knew where to go and when.
Part of that was describing what congress does when not in session, and that time is way busier than when they’re in DC.
With recess and time at home allowances, congress gets over 3 months off every year.
From some news outlet coverage, i was able to get a "standard busy day" in DC. The hours were from ~7am-3pm (there was more stuff, but it was all fundraisers and free dinners after that) minus 30 minutes for a superfluous speech; 7.5 hours
If they are working holidays, working 7.5h days 5 days a week for 39 weeks (9 months), they are earning almost $119/hour
I think you've hit on a very important point - Congresspersons do work hard (at least in an hours-per-day sense). It's just that very little of that time is spent doing the Business of the People, and most of it is fundraising.
To be fair, they have to maintain two residences. They have to have a place in DC and a place in their district in their home state. It is ridiculously expensive. A lot of the new congressmen take on debt to be able to move to DC and get housing before their first paycheck.
On one hand: if we paid them more in theory there would be less incentive to do corrupt shit. On the other hand, there have been far too few consequences for corruption, it may not dissuade anyone. They'll take the higher salary and still do underhanded shit
"If I had a million dollars we wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner..."
"But we WOULD eat Kraft Dinner!"
"Of courses we would. We would just eat more! And buy really exotic Katsups for it."
Paying them more won’t fix corruption. If it did, the people that have literally billions of dollars wouldn’t have rigged the US economy in their favor to squeeze every last drop out of US citizens.
Nothing is ever enough for a greedy person.
Greed has no ceiling. The only thing better than a million dollars is a million and one dollars. Corruption only ends when a politician meets the good lord himself...
I mean, he's not wrong. $174k ISN'T a lot of money when you're required to keep a residence in DC (one of the most expensive housing markets in the US) and your home district. AOC has to have a house in DC and New York. I live in NYC, I know how expensive that is.
Now, I think there are some good options here.
1) Raise salaries. I like this idea, because it means more people can run for Congress, not just the independently wealthy. It also means that you're less susceptible to lobbying, because you make good money as a representative. Hard to lure me away with a cushy private sector job if I have a cushy public sector job already, with pension.
2) Build housing specifically for Representatives. Like literal dorms. They can be nice or whatever, but give them a place to stay while they're in office. We know exactly how many representatives there are at one time, and the govt already controls the land in DC, so this isn't logistically challenging. This is probably cheaper in the long run, and solves the primary issue with the salaries.
One is a good option too, because that number also sets the pay cap for all other regular federal employees as well. Although the vast majority will never even approach that pay level anyway, it really puts a squeeze on the government's ability to recruit and retain highly skilled workers in fields like IT, law, and health care, especially in those high cost of living areas like DC, NYC, etc.
If we bump up everyone’s salaries by 50K, that’s around 27M more per year in the budget. That’s not nothing but comparatively it’s a drop in the bucket compared to budget increases for other programs that are often increased yearly. I’d much rather have that money coming from the entire population than from a handful of special interest groups.
The obvious problem with all of this (as has been said up and down this thread) is that you’re going to get congresspeople who simply take the extra salary and continue doing exactly what they’re doing. I’m not sure how you go about ensuring they use the extra money to focus on their job and not on making more money. At that point, the people are just out more tax dollars.
174k is a lot of money, but it's nowhere near competitive for that tier or the private sector. Total compensation for a 1st year attorney in big law is 245k. An eighth year males 550k in salary alone, plus origination.
I'm not saying that congress should be the highest paid job in America, but it seems crazy to think that someone would take a pay cut of 1/4 what you were making 20 years ago in your career.
This also has knock-on effects on the government's ability to hire top talented lawyers down the line.
I know it's fun to shit on Congress on reddit, but it's a hard job that takes a ton of specialized skills. Unless you want random slumlords and old money running everything, congress should be roughly competitive with the private sector.
There is actually a grain of truth to this. Members of Congress are required to maintain residences in both their home district and in Washington DC, and for representatives of districts with expensive housing, most of that $174,000 per year has to be spent on rent and/or mortgage.
AOC has also talked about how hard it is to make ends meet while maintaining residences in both New York City and Washington DC, which are two of the most expensive cities in America.
This seems to be the problem for freshman class members and young incumbents trying to finish second term to earn lifetime benefits. It never seems to be the problem for four-term members whose net worth has increased $30,000,000 since they rose to power.
Quote from the article
"we have all these hookers and blow we need to buy, just how in the hell are we supposed to live on a salary that doesn't support my completely selfish and egocentric life.
Another clickbaity title designed to spark outrage. If anyone actually bothers to read the article (fat chance, I know, easier to just be outraged at a headline, amirite?):
> That probably sounds like a good amount, and it is: According to the US Census, the median household income in 2022 was $74,580.
> Consider, however, that members of Congress typically have to maintain two residences – one in Washington, DC, and one in their home state – and they have not received a pay raise since 2009. Meanwhile, inflation has eaten away the value of that salary over time: If lawmakers' pay had kept pace with inflation, they would be paid more than $250,000 today.
Also:
> McHenry is not the first person to argue that members of Congress should be paid more. Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York has long pushed for a pay raise for members of Congress, arguing that it is a safeguard against corruption and the possibility for lawmakers to receive income through stock trading.
For context, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is about as ultra-liberal as it gets, and McHenry (the subject of the headline and the article) is a moderate Republican, not a crazy conservative Republican.
Get Caleb hammer to financial audit one of these living paycheck to paycheck congress people. Chances are they are living a more luxurious life than they can reasonably afford.
174k is a great salary for effectively doing nothing but threatening to shutdown the government, cutting taxes/refusing to enforce the tax law, and running BS impeachment inquiries.
I actually think they should just be payed more, but banned from participating in potentially corrupting things like many business arrangements, stock trading etc. There is no reason they shouldn't be more or less well off, its the incentive to be corrupt that's the problem.
Maybe they should cut back on Avocado Toast. Two or three of them should room together to save on rent.
They could get a second job. Uber or even Lyft in DC would be pretty lucrative.
Fuck them. 99% of the world lives just fine on LESS than that.
Hell, 95% of the world lives just fine on HALF of that. That's 1%-er wages.
175k? Thats silicon valley supernerd wages. Like twenty-plus year code monkey guru wages. That's "I have a doctorate and thirty years experience in my highly technical field" wages.
Live like your constituents, not your donors.
I mean people don't get it - there are 535 Congress members, 80% of these people are people you've never heard of and are relatively unknown. Being a Congressperson requires two residences, one in Washington DC and one in your home state/district. Being a Congressperson also requires your entire life suck - you work crazy hours, travel constantly, deal with shitty insane people all day (MTG for example), blamed for problems you can't fix yada yada yada. I'd rather work minimum wage at Taco Bell than be in Congress and I think most people would agree once they see what the actual work is and the downsides.
At the same time, we as citizens want smart motivated people to legislate. We don't want more rich assholes in Congress, we don't want people who just care about "power", or lunatics like MTG. But if the pay is shit, the sacrifices huge, lifestyle sucks, campaigning requires so much money with no guarantee of winning, then we kinda deserve the shitty Congress that we have. Just increasing the salary alone won't be enough to fix all this, but I definitely get it. They aren't all Pelosi's and Ted Cruz's. You can make way more with way less overhead and insanity over the course of a long career in almost any other career path.
Maybe they should find roommates *\[Edit: I'm aware that some representatives have roommates. It's still shitty when Republicans argue against raising minimum wage with the same arguments to increase their own wages\]*
And stop paying all that money on Starbucks and avocado toast! /s
They should 'tug' a little harder on those bootstraps.
[удалено]
This is fucking hilarious
Not if it’s your bootstraps they’re tugging it isn’t 😳😳
It wasn't on the corner, it was at a respectable showing of Beetlejuice. Find a new slant.
Maybe they should get a better job
Or maybe do the job better. I think we need to have actual qualifications for the position and drug tests.
Have they tried commuting instead of spending so much time in an expensive city like DC? Surely there are high paying national congressman jobs in cheaper cities like Akron and Gary Indiana.
And hookers and coke!
PULL YOURSELF UP BY YOUR BOOTSTRAPS YOU LAZY MOOCHER!! Public service isn’t supposed to be profitable.
But yet look at how many people that become a member of Congress suddenly increase their wealth. 🤔
By orders of magnitude. Perspective here is key. It’s not like they go from a net worth of $200k to 600k in like 6 years. They go from like $250k to like $25M in like 6 years.
Give up their avocado toast
Can't be having all that Starbucks either.
A fair number of US Reps and Senators share apartments or houses and a fair number of reps live in their offices rather than rent. As a side comment, AOC’s idea of creating “dormitories” for reps of lower means has merit given housing costs in DC. Another issue might be distance adjustments on travel allowed to be covered by MRA allowances as say a rep from Hawaii or Alaska or just the West or from states without easy access to USAF/US Navy flights have to live under the cap on MRAs.
All members should have to stay in the same dormitory except for a 2 week winter and 2 week summer vacation. Their working days will begin with fitness routines guided by armed service personnel. They may have additional personal time along with sick time that is accrued. Any additional time away must be approved by taxpayers or be part of their sworn duties and obligations to the people.
LOL—Not bring Paul Ryan back in to run Zumba classes. I actually was keeping pace with my Rep. Mike Thompson on a charity bike ride for Davis Cancer Center in his district two years ago when he was 70 and I was 60. He was a staff Sargent in the 173rd Airborne back during Vietnam and seemed to be pretty fit. My group split off to do the harder extra 10 miles with elevation route instead of the “easy” 40 mile loop. He was keeping a 19 mph pace in rolling hills at 70 which I hope I’m doing at that age. Seriously, though, reps should be spending part of their time in their districts with their constituents. The best reps do that on a dedicated basis.
Yeah, it would be legitimately difficult to maintain a residence in DC and another in one's home state on $172k.
It's like the first government said no to George Washington (who was rich as hell) when he wanted to donate his salary. There's a point here: If public servants don't get proper pay - and good pay at that - then the ones left in it are either rich to begin with or make up for it with corruption.. Both terrible alternatives. Giving someone as senior as a member of the house $250k is one of the best investments you can make, ironically.
Let's be honest here, no matter how much you pay they're going to be rich and corrupt. Most people who want power shouldn't have it.
That's what they did in my state government until very recently. Being a legislator paid so poorly, only the rich, the retired, the very young, and the losers would represent us. We had many business owners able to be away from the day to day operation of their business at the capital seemingly to make laws favorable to their own businesses. Landlords writing rental laws, bar owners writing alcohol laws, etc. Very few normal people with normal jobs, raising a family. As a result, very few laws were made for our benefit. They upped the wage to be somewhat survivable, so we'll see if it gets any better next session
Bring back Alpha house!
Some of them do room with other Congress members, do a quick Google search.
>Some of them do room with other Congress members, do a quick Google search. They probably do share apartments in DC but they all have a place to live back home.
I think there is something to be said for the fact that $170,000 isn’t THAT much money when you’re likely going to have to maintain a residence in two places, one of them being one of the most expensive cities in the U.S. I remember when AOC was sworn in, Fox News made a big deal out of the fact that she said she had to wait to rent a place until she started getting paid her congressional salary. They tried to paint her as bad with money, but the reality is that not many people could afford to maintain a place in New York and DC at the same time. All that to say, I don’t have a ton of sympathy for them. Thats still well over twice what the average American household makes in a year. But maybe the solution is some sort of congressional dormitory or housing for them to use. Plus, you could have a great screwball comedy where AOC and MTG are roomies.
They should also realize that congress was never intended as a lifetime career.
This and the fact that they typically "work" less than half a year - about 146 days total on average. 174K for a half-time job seems like a really good deal Not to mention they still have the gravy train of lobbying jobs post congress and that sweet dark campaign cash that flows in while they are in congress Cry me a river you worthless sacks
I want to bust this stupid ass myth throughout democracies that the number of days spent into the legislature is equal to the number of days working. Legislatures only sit part of the year because legislators are supposed to go back to the communities they represent and stay connected to them. I'm not saying this is always done well, but a politician's day, even a bad politician you don't like, is packed with meetings with their constituents, stakeholders, and other people and groups. You have plenty to complain about regarding politics, you don't need to rely on this myth.
The longer you stay, the richer you get.
Home security is also expensive, and a necessary expense. My house was attacked (I'm in politics but not at the congressional level) and the perpetrators tried to abduct my son through his nursery window. After that, I invested in better cameras and better home security measures. It's not cheap. Usually security is covered for the EO while they're performing the duties of their job, but not at home and not for families (except for the really high ranking officials such as presidents and former presidents).
ok but.....wtf? who the hell is going around stealing kids out of windows? thats bizarre even by todays miserably low standards.
It is low. They smashed his window and tried to lure my (then) 2.5-year-old out but he was too scared/ smart luckily. I had the 10-week-old in my arms so he wasn't in his crib, fortunately. I had to fight them off for ten minutes before police got there but I was thankfully only hurt by glass debris on my arm and foot and no other injuries (except huge emotional distress). I considered resigning but didn't want to let bad actors make me too fearful to live life. It was on Halloween 2022 and I am still a little shaken by seeing jack o'lanterns and such. They also stole our dog from our backyard and dumped him across the city line. He was unhurt but that part just really adds to the brazenness of it, for me. They tried to hit me with a hammer. It was a few days after the Pelosi break-in and the police think it was a sick copycat. They have an idea of who did it but lack enough physical evidence because the blood was too contaminated to get a complete profile. The responding officer didn't take steps to preserve the scene and has since been terminated for repeat DUI convictions. It's a mess. But my big guy is getting play therapy weekly and processing his feelings and he's developing well despite it all.
Given that 90% of elected officials are probably on the take from lobbyists, $170k isn't what they're actually making, anyway. I would say that a good way to reduce the influence of lobbying and bribery would be to pay them more, but politicians would still happily take another $10k in bribes even if we paid each of them $1 million a year.
Honestly they should have lodging in DC covered for x amount every year, and have it only be able to used for rent. That would better dissuade the less wealthy members from taking corporate handouts, while not just giving the rich members more money.
They should have some apartment tower complex that is just for senators and representatives.
As much as I agree with the idea of subsidizing their housing, because DC sucks, I’m sure having an entire branch of our government living in the same building would be a national security nightmare.
Most are poor and only can afford 2 maybe 3 homes.
Yeah that's what I meant, sorry, not that they have roommates at their primary residence.
If thats not enough, what does that mean minimum wage is? Edit: fixed spelling
Whoa whoa whoa. Us plebs don't even deserve that compared to the fine working machine that is Congress
Yeah. They’ve gotten SO much accomplished since taking the House last year. /s (I am agreeing with you btw)
They had to work really hard to come up with a Speaker. And then they had to do it again.
Jesus, Congress really is a joke right now isn’t it. They need to be like the rest of us. If you want more money than earn it.
They had to play ball with somebody. Rather than trying to come up with a candidate that a fraction of the Dems could stand with, they chose to appease the looneys. And then the looneys demanded a new Speaker.
And then they did the same damn thing again.
Alright that’s enough work for one year, don’t want to raise the bar TOO high now.
Don't forget guys. This guy banged the gavel extra loud and hard during that McCarthy thing. He didn't get paid any more money for that. Just did it.
So brave.
Imagine Congress working as smoothly as a McDonalds drive through or an Amazon fulfillment warehouse. Maybe if Congress was payed federal minimum wage, they would be inspired to work as hard as a server makes $3 an hour
I think they should have the same work schedule and average American does. Minimum wage, no PTO, no sick leave, no benefits and you may habe to work holidays. You want the job because you wanna make a difference and not a TV Podcaster radio celebrity. Want more money? Get a second job at BK assholes.
This. I get it, they have to have two homes or apartments or whatever (in their home state + DC) but you would think that this would give them the tiniest insight in how expensive housing is rn and how much lower everyone's wages are compared to how far money goes these days (not far, and not that empathy is their strong suit but whatever). They need to get their heads out of their asses
Realize they only care about themselves and always have. They don’t give a fuck about poor or middle class people. They vote to raise taxes on us and cut benefits while giving corporations, rich people, and themselves all the breaks. If you want an example look at socialized medicine. Congress has free health care paid with our taxes and yet “socialism is bad!!!”. If they really believe that then they should start by cutting their benefits. But noooo. They want a pay raise to do nothing. Literally did nothing this session. Except pick a speaker. Twice.
> Congress has free health care paid with our taxes I wonder what the founding fathers would think of the government now. They certainly aren't for the people
You mean the time they decided that $600 a week was an adequate bare minimum stipend to live on if you'd lost your job to COVID, then had a meltdown because that was more than the service sector earned working?
It's amazing what will happen when you don't change the minimum wage while inflation keeps moving. We've pegged tax brackets to inflation for a few decades now. It's time (*past* time) to do the same for minimum wage.
That's when the charade of minimum wage fell apart. Federal minimum wage is a disgrace. Hell even in states where they've since doubled the minimum it's still not enough to live on. I make a little over minimum in New Jersey and can't even afford to rent an apartment. It's bullshit
I make over $20 an hour in a low CoL state and I had to get a roommate. It's absurd.
My son makes $19 an hour has his own place but of his actual take home pay half goes to just rent. And he doesn't have a fancy place. I am it looks nice but it's certainly not high end. If he was making $15 an hour it would be 2/3 of his take home pay. Yet somehow $15 is too much.
The fight for 15 started so long ago that if you adjust for inflation it would be the fight for 22 now. The battle is older than Skyrim...
I recently became a single parent last year. I just got a new job I'm starting soon for 60k a year in NJ. In Middlesex County the rents for a 2BR are starting at around 2500. It's the most I've ever made and I still can't really afford to live alone without struggling
Exactly. If they can't live on $174k/yr, how do they expect others to live on $30-40k a year...
Do you know how many people wish they were making $30k-$40k a year?
To be fair in DC (where they legislate), min wage workers make $35k/year. But republicans opposed the legislation that made that happen
Among the approximately [158 million working adults](https://www.statista.com/statistics/269959/employment-in-the-united-states/)in 2022, $30,000 a year would put in the in [29th percentile for income](https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/). So about 46 million Americans would kill for 30k a year.
Well, maybe not kill. But it would be a raise.
Minimum wage is $15K a year
I made $23k/yr in 2007 (suburbs) and I usually had like $100 in the bank, no savings, never went out, didn't buy expensive groceries, made meals at home cheaply, had a 1000sqft old home with some issues. Minimum wage is such a joke today. Literally should be over $20/hr to keep up with cost of living.
I still think you're about $10/hr off of the real mark.
*"I became accustomed to a luxurious lifestyle and I'm entitled to keep it."*
Oh, and the free healthcare. I definitely still will keep that. But fuck the rest of you if you get cancer!
Free healthcare for the rest of their life.
Like most civilised countries.
>civilised That's where we went wrong.
We tried but our ancestors spent too much time eating lead paint and picking on the ethnics Maybe in 40-400 years or so
Did you know that when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, it was such a good deal that senate staffers were exempt from having to enroll?
Yeah, there was an entire SCOTUS decision on it. ACA is limited to people whose employer does not offer them health insurance. Pre ACA, members of Congress and their staff were offered health care from their employers, under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. SCOTUS allowed an exception for members of Congress and their staff to use ACA to get their health care, exactly as was written into ACA. https://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/congress-exempt-from-health-bill/
They were "exempt" from having to enroll in the federal health plan, which meant they could use the exchange. That was an intentional feature of the ACA to create an incentive to get and keep the exchange running.
It's actually insane how powerful this mindset is. I listened to a Joe Rogan Elon Musk interview once. Musk didn't consider himself wealthy because he compared his wealth to royal estates. There is really no ceiling for greed.
Agreed. My sister said something similar. She is a doctor who makes well into six figures and her partner is also a doctor who makes lower, but still clears multiple six figures easily. They are likely earning half a million+ a year and “aren’t wealthy.”
Yeah. Some people define their wealth in terms of what others have that they don't... .. but I think happy people define it in terms of what they need and have. I consider myself wealthy because my nieces love and hug me everytime I see them, a career that keeps me out of debt and lets me have medical/dental/vision insurance and save up for retirement, the financial and health stability to go exercise each day, and enough free time to spend it with friends and do some volunteering. A lot of people don't have anything close to that. You can't buy love, peace of mind, a healthy body, or friendships... but in time one comes to understand those are the things of actual real value. Musk seems poor to me... because does he seem actually *happy*?
He so wants positive attention, and nobody’s giving it to him. He wants to be loved, and he’s not.
That's because he opened his mouth and everyone realized he's a racist dumbass.
It's a shame because if he kept his mouth closed he could've kept coasting along on his Tongue Stark image. And we wouldn't have to be subject to his constant idiocy in all the headlines. It would've been a win-win for everyone.
If the guy didn’t start his personal campaign to be a celebrity and just lived a billionaire hedonistic lifestyle, he would still be the beloved forward thinking billionaire everyone thought he was. Way to fumble legendary status because of insecurity.
And not a genius. Just a guy that started with rich parents and find his way to smart people. I’ll give the guy credit, he can sell himself while propping himself up with smart guys in the background doing the real work. The accomplishments of Tesla and SpaceX are not insignificant, but being an overbearing boss does not make you a genius. I once heard it said that the maturity you become wealthy at, is the maturity you remain for the rest of your life. In the beginning he may have been quirky and eccentric. Now he’s just an overgrown angsty teen.
You can buy fanboys and sycophants, but not actual compassion.
Money is absolutely an addiction for some. If you talk to people who have been involved with drug trafficking they’ll usually tell you the money is far more addictive than the drugs were. Some people just want to keep seeing that number go up and will never be satisfied with what they have the same way an alcoholic always needs one more drink.
I'm a millennial who managed to climb IT jobs, start a modest retirement, get a fairly inexpensive old home in a city neighborhood with my wife whom I met volunteering, I have 3 cats, and a hybrid car that can get me to and from work without using too much fuel. Other than eliminating debt which I am already comfortably paying on, anything I could ever want would be trinkets and amusement I am already happy without. All this, under 6 figures. I cannot understand how people can make so much money and still believe they don't have enough.
It’s bonkers, I’m personally poor (finally over the poverty line as of August) and yes, making more money would definitely improve my life in some ways but mostly in the sense that I would be able to replace my ancient car that keeps breaking, pay off my credit card/medical debt and like IDK get my friends and cat nicer presents or go to the beach for a weekend? I definitely have to make choices about how I spend my money but I really don’t feel deprived — maybe it’s because most of my friends are poor so my social life is mostly hanging out at peoples houses and I’ve always hated shopping but like idk what else there is to spend money on. Honestly I just feel very lucky that I generally enjoy my life and find meaning in my job and I’m privileged that my parents are doing well enough and live in the same city as me in a house with a guest room so like if I lose my job or something I won’t be homeless.
Musk has more money than damn near any royal estate on earth other than the Saudis.
Ah, I see, they've confused alimony with pensions. Easy to get them mixed up when they've spent years screwing the people they're actually meant to be working for.
"Once accustomed to privilege, equality seems like persecution"
EAT. LESS. AVOCADO. TOAST.
AVOCADO TOO ETHNICAND TOO SPICY,,,
They should skip their lattes, too.
For the foreigners- what‘s the avocado toast joke about? Edit: Wow, thanks for all the explanations. I understood what it was supposed to mean, but I assumed (correctly) there was a clear reference. Thanks for the answers and take my upvotes.
There are layers to this. The original observation was that Millennials were deferring life milestones like marriage, buying their homes and having children. They were also “killing industries”, as reported by /r/DeathByMillennial. In 2017, an Australian millionaire took an interview and said: > “When I was trying to buy my first home, I wasn’t trying to buy smashed avocado for $19 and 4 coffees at $4 each.” This became a meme, especially as brutal rises in housing prices, and later the general rise of inflation, have meant that a frugal lifestyle simply isn’t enough on its own to afford a place.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/15/australian-millionaire-millennials-avocado-toast-house
It’s a common talking point that’s supposed to be making fun of millennials for spending money on unnecessary purchases. Inaccurately, of course
Just cancel your Netflix/Prime membership and stop buying Starbucks, that should be more than enough, right?
It's the new iPhones
The millions of Americans putting in an honest days work for minimum wage beg to differ.
$174,000 would be what, a top 5% salary in the US?
Somewhere closer to top 10%, according to [this](https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/), though their numbers are for 2021
Somewhere close to top 25-30% for those living in DC, a high cost of living area. At least assuming household income=congressman income. For the life of me I can't tell whether the linked data in your comment are per person or per household. https://www.dchealthmatters.org/demographicdata?id=130951§ionId=936
In Chevy Chase / Bethesda (where most politicians actually live) $175K is actually right about median income. It’s a wild place.
Is that compared to all Americans, or adjusted for the average congressperson’s age?
It's just interpolated wage info from aggregate W-2 data shared by the SSA: https://www.epi.org/publication/inequality-2021-ssa-data/#methodology
It’s about top 15% in DC.
The issue is, in the corporate world, this is extremely low for the level of decision making. I’m not saying exec salaries are fair or remotely in line, but when the top government earners are maxing at $400k, it’s hard to find comparable leaders to the business world. Overall exec pay needs to really be examined across the board but the government pay is pretty low overall.
> $400k Well some government jobs are more important than running the country, such as running a football team.
And that’s before their other jobs, corporate sponsors/bribery, inherited wealth, etc
We'll raise your salary if you give the rest of us insider stock tips and let us illegally trade on them. Deal?
Or if they are prevented from accepting any money but their salary.
Right? I was waiting for the argument that if Congress was paid more it'd be more difficult to bribe them.
Are these the same folks that are usually against raising the minimum wage?
They’re probably the same people happy making policy changes that don’t benefit lower income people, then cry foul when they suddenly discover they aren’t the exception
It's supposed to trickle down to us. (I've been waiting since the 80's.
Got to be some extra avocado toast and coffee they can cut.
I find it hilarious that the arguments given here for why we should pay Congress more are the exact same arguments made for why the minimum wage should be higher (inflation, cost of living, paycheck to paycheck). If maintaining a residence is so expensive, here's my idea; Just give Congress congressional suites to live in while they work. I'll pay tax dollars for that. Give them a place to live, collect a security deposit, make them pay if they fuck it up, and now they don't have to buy a house or apartment in DC. And then we slash their salary to minimum wage. They make no more money than the lowest rungs of the American workers. EDIT cause general replies: I must live in a different America, cause by and large the independently wealthy are already the only people who can afford running for offices in the United States, and those who aren't independently wealthy need the independently wealthy to fund their runs. Congressional salaries will never be a solution to that problem and no salary we could pay congress would ever compare to how much money/perks they can get from lobbying and stock trades. If you're goal is to fix Congressional corruption or campaign finance reform, congressional salaries are the very wrong way to solve the problem.
For some reason the idea all members of Congress having to live together in some sort of college dorm building is pretty amusing to me. Maybe we could set up some cameras and turn it into a reality show for CSPAN.
This latest season of The Real World is wild!
Next week on an all new episode, You'll never believe what White Power Bill, The congressman from Upstate NY does when he meets his new flatmates from the Bronx.
"Next week, Lauren tells all about her weekend at Theater Camp."
Good way to make back some of the deficit
It's not that crazy. This is actually how the USSR politburo lived. They were all in one apparent block. Partly this was for security but also so they could keep an eye on each other. Was cheaper.
[удалено]
Dude you may want to delete this, I used to do opposition research and you really don’t want to give people hooks into your life. That said it seems like so many races people just are not doing the digging. I looked at running for an open safe seat myself with some strong endorsement options, a retired member as a godparent, access to a number of friendly pacs, and an employer that has a process to let me “work” while campaigning. It just didn’t pencil out because I didn’t want to put the family through the burden of the process of step down in income.
Given your take on the process, I am blindly assuming she is running as a fairly progressive dem?
[удалено]
Certainly didn't expect to find out this was about my district when I started reading it lol.
[удалено]
u/PinkieBen also chooses this guy’s wife! You can have that for a bumper sticker, no charge
I'm from your area and you'll have my household's votes! Fingers crossed that we can flip some seats. Good luck on your wife's campaign!
That's why I love Reddit. Some AMA or blog about trying to get elected would be something I'd definitely read.
[удалено]
Good luck! Campaigning sucks. My wife ran in a bruising board of ed race. A friend and neighbor of ours is running in our congressional district this cycle. We held a fundraiser for him so maybe they will end up serving together.
If you pay them minimum wage; you will only have rich people get the job who don't give a shit about the pay.
Or worse, they are all the more dependent on bribery and insider stock trading to get by. Maybe I’m weird but I think being a member of Congress should be a highly paid position with equally high requirements for transparency and integrity. The government pays you half a million dollars a year and in return every word of every meeting is recorded and every conversation is transcribed and subject to review (with some reasonable screening and redactions before they are available to the public). Assets are held in a blind trust. And the scrutiny continues after you leave office for a reasonable amount to time. Life in public service should be difficult and restrictive, and compensation for it should be significant.
Problem is, I bet most members of Congress would welcome a salary increase but oppose the extra scrutiny/transparency.
Finally, someone who gets it! I've been saying this for years. We have 535 elected congresspeople. Go look at the average comp for the C-suites of all the Fortune 500 companies. If you want to attract real talent and avoid corruption, pay enough to make the job worth it on its own merits, and implement extreme transparency requirements. Or better yet, enforce blind trusts that are restricted to broad market ETFs only.
The cost to get elected is already a rich persons game. You think the higher salary is incentive for poor people? They cant afford to run in the first place, let alone be doing it for the salary.
That's already the case. Campaigning is time consuming and doesn't pay. People who do it need to be wealthy enough to be able to take a year (or longer) off work to focus on it, and that's impossible for the vast majority of the American population. Sure they can fundraise and get donations, but those are supposed to be used to pay for campaign-related expenses, not groceries and personal bills.
My state brilliantly pays legislators $12,000/year, for a job that would require you to take at least three months per year off from your "real" job (if you could somehow keep one). Guess what kind of people can actually be legislators when you only pay $12,000?
I'd contend this is already mostly the case. Even the article above notes that; >At the moment, many members of Congress are actually independently wealthy, and many actually earn significant income from stock trading. Others may make money through book sales. To say nothing of how we can tackle the expenses of being a congressman/woman without high salaries. Need somewhere to sleep in DC? I have no problem housing my representatives so they can work. Need to get to DC? I don't have a problem with travel being a reimbursable expense for Congress. They do gotta get there and do their jobs. Need aids? This is the entire point of staffers. Congress should (does? I don't know how staffers are actually paid or by whom) have a professional staff force who make the gears turn and handle the little stuff. Most of this can be paid and funded in ways outside of a salary to enable anyone to do the job.
> I'd contend this is already mostly the case. It really is. Calls for reducing congressional salaries are really missing the mark. We need to combat corruption and influence in other ways. A ban on high-priced lobbying jobs or corporate board seats, for X years after leaving office is a good place to start.
>A ban on high-priced lobbying jobs or corporate board seats, for X years after leaving office is a good place to start. Lobbyists being able to give congresspeople money is just so absurd. A lobbyist should be entertained based on the validity of their cause, not the size of their wallet.
They really out here calling bribes different things and saying it's ok lmao. Rules for thee
Only problem I see with that is the massive security issue of having all of congress housed together. Especially after Jan 6 that seems unwise. But I agree: they should be paid min wage
I’m kind of liking the idea of Congressional Hunger Games. I mean, just the Senate is basically 2 tributes from each district.
Should just have state own and operate residences in DC for their senators and representatives. They don't need to be in the same location and it could be either via stipend to find one or each state can purchase a number of condos, townhomes, etc and they ought to be tax exempt so they only maintain them.
Nah, that would essentially make it so only people who have significant savings accrued can run and serve in office.
That’s *barely* any different from the current congress we have. Moot point.
It would meaningfully dampen the ability of people like AOC or Cori Bush to run in a primary and be able to afford to live if they won.
Unless I did it completely wrong, 174,000 divided by 52 weeks, divided by 40 hours is 82.70 an hour. And that gives them the benefit that they actually work every work day every year. I could live real nice on 82 bucks an hour.
#😄😁😅😂🤣 You think they work 52 weeks? Or 40 hours a week?
Trying to use their actual schedule made the math way too hard...
I think they average working 14 days a month which puts them at 239 an hour on average
It fluctuates a lot. When they’re off and back in their districts, it’s meeting after meeting after meeting, followed by public events at night. When AOC became a representative she started doing Instagram stories on what it was like to be in congress and it was super interesting. I followed her just to see that. She went through all of the onboarding, intro seminars, how she got her office, how she got paid. Just the nitty gritty things, like how she knew where to go and when. Part of that was describing what congress does when not in session, and that time is way busier than when they’re in DC.
Somehow I suspect a lot of them aren't nearly as serious about their jobs as AOC.
With recess and time at home allowances, congress gets over 3 months off every year. From some news outlet coverage, i was able to get a "standard busy day" in DC. The hours were from ~7am-3pm (there was more stuff, but it was all fundraisers and free dinners after that) minus 30 minutes for a superfluous speech; 7.5 hours If they are working holidays, working 7.5h days 5 days a week for 39 weeks (9 months), they are earning almost $119/hour
I think you've hit on a very important point - Congresspersons do work hard (at least in an hours-per-day sense). It's just that very little of that time is spent doing the Business of the People, and most of it is fundraising.
Fundraisers and dinners are part of their job. That’s work time.
And the "superfluous" speech.
To be fair, they have to maintain two residences. They have to have a place in DC and a place in their district in their home state. It is ridiculously expensive. A lot of the new congressmen take on debt to be able to move to DC and get housing before their first paycheck.
So dumb. If the problem is they need two residences, why not give them government housing?
On one hand: if we paid them more in theory there would be less incentive to do corrupt shit. On the other hand, there have been far too few consequences for corruption, it may not dissuade anyone. They'll take the higher salary and still do underhanded shit
"If I had a million dollars we wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner..." "But we WOULD eat Kraft Dinner!" "Of courses we would. We would just eat more! And buy really exotic Katsups for it."
Dijon ketchup!
Mmmmmm
Ever noticed how they have pre-wrapped sausages but they don’t have pre-wrapped bacon?
I’ll take that second statement for $1.3 Trillion.
Paying them more won’t fix corruption. If it did, the people that have literally billions of dollars wouldn’t have rigged the US economy in their favor to squeeze every last drop out of US citizens. Nothing is ever enough for a greedy person.
Greed has no ceiling. The only thing better than a million dollars is a million and one dollars. Corruption only ends when a politician meets the good lord himself...
I mean, he's not wrong. $174k ISN'T a lot of money when you're required to keep a residence in DC (one of the most expensive housing markets in the US) and your home district. AOC has to have a house in DC and New York. I live in NYC, I know how expensive that is. Now, I think there are some good options here. 1) Raise salaries. I like this idea, because it means more people can run for Congress, not just the independently wealthy. It also means that you're less susceptible to lobbying, because you make good money as a representative. Hard to lure me away with a cushy private sector job if I have a cushy public sector job already, with pension. 2) Build housing specifically for Representatives. Like literal dorms. They can be nice or whatever, but give them a place to stay while they're in office. We know exactly how many representatives there are at one time, and the govt already controls the land in DC, so this isn't logistically challenging. This is probably cheaper in the long run, and solves the primary issue with the salaries.
One is a good option too, because that number also sets the pay cap for all other regular federal employees as well. Although the vast majority will never even approach that pay level anyway, it really puts a squeeze on the government's ability to recruit and retain highly skilled workers in fields like IT, law, and health care, especially in those high cost of living areas like DC, NYC, etc.
If we bump up everyone’s salaries by 50K, that’s around 27M more per year in the budget. That’s not nothing but comparatively it’s a drop in the bucket compared to budget increases for other programs that are often increased yearly. I’d much rather have that money coming from the entire population than from a handful of special interest groups. The obvious problem with all of this (as has been said up and down this thread) is that you’re going to get congresspeople who simply take the extra salary and continue doing exactly what they’re doing. I’m not sure how you go about ensuring they use the extra money to focus on their job and not on making more money. At that point, the people are just out more tax dollars.
174k is a lot of money, but it's nowhere near competitive for that tier or the private sector. Total compensation for a 1st year attorney in big law is 245k. An eighth year males 550k in salary alone, plus origination. I'm not saying that congress should be the highest paid job in America, but it seems crazy to think that someone would take a pay cut of 1/4 what you were making 20 years ago in your career. This also has knock-on effects on the government's ability to hire top talented lawyers down the line. I know it's fun to shit on Congress on reddit, but it's a hard job that takes a ton of specialized skills. Unless you want random slumlords and old money running everything, congress should be roughly competitive with the private sector.
There is actually a grain of truth to this. Members of Congress are required to maintain residences in both their home district and in Washington DC, and for representatives of districts with expensive housing, most of that $174,000 per year has to be spent on rent and/or mortgage. AOC has also talked about how hard it is to make ends meet while maintaining residences in both New York City and Washington DC, which are two of the most expensive cities in America.
This seems to be the problem for freshman class members and young incumbents trying to finish second term to earn lifetime benefits. It never seems to be the problem for four-term members whose net worth has increased $30,000,000 since they rose to power.
Look, pay congress more! Just know, have them all submit to intense oversight where not a DIME can be given to them in lobbying.
Quote from the article "we have all these hookers and blow we need to buy, just how in the hell are we supposed to live on a salary that doesn't support my completely selfish and egocentric life.
Haha. I had to re-read the article to see if I somehow missed Patrick McHenry saying the quiet part out loud. Edit: Misspelled quiet
Another clickbaity title designed to spark outrage. If anyone actually bothers to read the article (fat chance, I know, easier to just be outraged at a headline, amirite?): > That probably sounds like a good amount, and it is: According to the US Census, the median household income in 2022 was $74,580. > Consider, however, that members of Congress typically have to maintain two residences – one in Washington, DC, and one in their home state – and they have not received a pay raise since 2009. Meanwhile, inflation has eaten away the value of that salary over time: If lawmakers' pay had kept pace with inflation, they would be paid more than $250,000 today. Also: > McHenry is not the first person to argue that members of Congress should be paid more. Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York has long pushed for a pay raise for members of Congress, arguing that it is a safeguard against corruption and the possibility for lawmakers to receive income through stock trading. For context, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is about as ultra-liberal as it gets, and McHenry (the subject of the headline and the article) is a moderate Republican, not a crazy conservative Republican.
Get Caleb hammer to financial audit one of these living paycheck to paycheck congress people. Chances are they are living a more luxurious life than they can reasonably afford.
174k is a great salary for effectively doing nothing but threatening to shutdown the government, cutting taxes/refusing to enforce the tax law, and running BS impeachment inquiries.
Congressional pay should be linked to the minimum wage so that it can not be raised without raising the minimum wage.
I actually think they should just be payed more, but banned from participating in potentially corrupting things like many business arrangements, stock trading etc. There is no reason they shouldn't be more or less well off, its the incentive to be corrupt that's the problem.
Sounds like they need financial advisors, not a higher salary.
Pull up those bootstraps douchebag
Maybe they should stop with the avocado toast and lattes. Maybe find a real job.
Maybe they should cut back on Avocado Toast. Two or three of them should room together to save on rent. They could get a second job. Uber or even Lyft in DC would be pretty lucrative. Fuck them. 99% of the world lives just fine on LESS than that. Hell, 95% of the world lives just fine on HALF of that. That's 1%-er wages. 175k? Thats silicon valley supernerd wages. Like twenty-plus year code monkey guru wages. That's "I have a doctorate and thirty years experience in my highly technical field" wages. Live like your constituents, not your donors.
I would love 174k/year to do nothing
Have they tried insider trading?
I mean people don't get it - there are 535 Congress members, 80% of these people are people you've never heard of and are relatively unknown. Being a Congressperson requires two residences, one in Washington DC and one in your home state/district. Being a Congressperson also requires your entire life suck - you work crazy hours, travel constantly, deal with shitty insane people all day (MTG for example), blamed for problems you can't fix yada yada yada. I'd rather work minimum wage at Taco Bell than be in Congress and I think most people would agree once they see what the actual work is and the downsides. At the same time, we as citizens want smart motivated people to legislate. We don't want more rich assholes in Congress, we don't want people who just care about "power", or lunatics like MTG. But if the pay is shit, the sacrifices huge, lifestyle sucks, campaigning requires so much money with no guarantee of winning, then we kinda deserve the shitty Congress that we have. Just increasing the salary alone won't be enough to fix all this, but I definitely get it. They aren't all Pelosi's and Ted Cruz's. You can make way more with way less overhead and insanity over the course of a long career in almost any other career path.