61
Members of Congress may be about to get a pay raise for the first time since 2009
(www.businessinsider.com)
They really haven't earned it
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
61 points (90.7% liked)
News
23622 readers
3475 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Congressional pay, and all federal positions, should be a function of the minimum wage. The job pays the minimum wage times some number. If they want a raise, the only way to get it is to raise the minimum wage.
And c-suite pay should be capped at a multiple of a company's median employee pay, I'm not going to pretend to know what the multiple should be but there should be a tie in somewhere. Varying industries make it hard to set an overall standard, but even seeing it to whatever today's highest ratio in the s&p 500 would be a start.
And it should be illegal to gamble privately in the stock market. Instead, ALL citizens should be made equal shareholders in the entire economy, and all companies should be made to pay a portion of the profits to be invested into a general fund, and the gains paid out to every single member of the public.
That sounds like taxes with extra steps.
Why?
They can't pass a budget though.
I think political offices should come with a reasonable wage. Otherwise it becomes impossible for non-rich people to fill the roles. (This is more applicable to local, smaller offices)
I propose a simple solution. Take the median salary of their constituency and make that the pay. It should make it livable at least, and give incentive to get that number up.
For offices such as Senate/Congress where they need a second house because of the frequent travel between DC and their constituency a housing stipend is in order.
Seems totally reasonable to me.
I propose a simple solution. Take the median salary of their constituency and make that the pay. It should make it livable at least, and give incentive to get that number up.
I disagree. That would make reps of the poorest districts at a disadvantage while reps of the rich districts will live the high life and have more money to invest and grow their wealth using the usual ways the rich get richer.
So they get a raise while shutting down the government right before Christmas. Effectively putting thousands of federal workers without pay. I see where their priority are.
Make it an inverse function based on their wealth and the wealth of their spouse.
Yep. It also leads to corruption if you're not making a living wage. You'll need to supplement your income somewhere, so why not do it while on the job and kill two birds with one stone?
If they're looking for a pay raise they should have gone into a different major in college.
This is not a bad thing in general. Making the pay higher makes it easier for working class people to rely on the pay (especially since you might need a place in DC and your home state). If you keep the pay low, only the richest people with external sources of income can afford to stay in
Edit: to clarify, it is certainly still frustrating that most of the people who will benifit really don't need that pay,
I don't know why the hell people are downvoting this. AOC is quoted in the article talking about why this exact sort of thing is necessary.
- Washington, D.C. has a 50% higher cost of living compared to the rest of the US. Even just for the rent, you're already down a considerable amount for something that's strictly extraneous and only done for your job.
- Generally speaking, you'll maintain a residence in your home district as well. There are plenty of practical reasons for this. Maybe you have a family which doesn't want to upend their lives to live in DC. Maybe you want to run for re-election, in which case the US Constitution is extremely clear that you must reside in the state at the time you're elected. Maybe you want to be able to go home when Congress isn't in session. Maybe you want something to fall back on if you get voted out. This isn't bourgie; it's pragmatic and makes your job at least somewhat bearable. This sets you back a fair bit as well.
- As a politician in a national legislature, you should at least ideally have attained higher education (looking at you, Boebert and MTG). There isn't technically a requirement for this, but most members do, and furthermore, members should be encouraged to be highly educated. That is, you should seek to attract highly qualified candidates, even if the US right now is backsliding on that. The job of a national politician, done right, is extremely tiring, stressful, complicated, high-profile, and thankless, so you want to at least be competitive in a way that doesn't make taking this job feel like a sacrifice. (Done wrong, of course, and we end up with fascist Republicans and neoliberal dinosaurs pocketing millions. But that's not a problem of the salaries being ineffective; that's the result of things like Citizens United, failing to disallow stock trading, defunding public education, etc.)
- If you have a family that lives back home, you'll have a situation where your spouse is functionally a single parent, and thus costs for childcare etc. will be astronomically higher.
- The job is inherently unstable, thus not giving most members a reliable long-term financial plan unlike what you might have, say, in a highly skilled position at a company.
Yup. I remember the whole "Bernie Sanders owns three homes!" story. One is his primary home in Burlington, VT, one is in DC (probably a condo), and one is a cabin in VT. For a senator, that's probably on the low end.
Due to the cost of living in DC, some reps are roommates with other reps, or sleep on cots in their office: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/dc-rent-is-too-high-how-members-of-congress-make-it-work/54969/
I appreciate the nuance and detail of your comment. I wanted to make sure I started with that so you don't think I'm just here to shit on your comment. I'm upset that we're here and slapping bandaids on this shit instead of actually thinking about solutions.
Congress can't pass a budget, but they can raise their own pay. They haven't passed any meaningful legislation in two years, but they can raise their own pay. They can't raise our minimum wage, but they can raise their own pay. Idk about you, but I've never gotten a raise for pisspoor performance at any job I've ever held. I'll be receiving a 3.5% raise in a couple weeks, and I've very much earned that, and it's thankfully a bit higher than the ~2.8% inflation over the past year so it's an actual raise. Not everybody has been so lucky. I'm completely on board with paying Congress well so that it's not gated off for only the wealthy elite to have access to, but let's not pretend that passing a raise for themselves right now is eradicating all semblance of corruption once and for all.
Why does Congress actually need to be in DC anymore anyway? Why not have an office in their district and securely remote vote? Having them in DC maintaining two residences is costing them more, keeping them physically distanced from their actual constituents, and making corporate lobbying significantly easier since they can easily talk face to face with dozens of reps/senators in a single afternoon. We could also raise the cap on the House since it's been undersized for proper representation for decades; no need to cap it to a number that can regularly gather in the chambers anymore. I'd rather they just stay in their district and lock their pay to their local inflation rate. If they want better raises, then they need to actually help their district.
Classified material, for one. If they're having a sensitive meeting, they're not doing it over Zoom, they're doing it in a certified secure room in person.
And there's a lot to be said for just being in proximity. When you're there, you can physically see and hear what's going on that you might not have known about otherwise.
Money bad. Congress bad. Double bad. Oo.
$164k seems like enough to me.
That’s above the table before all the bribes and pocket lining. 🤑 Yay, money! 🇺🇸 /satire
It's all about the insider trading for the big bucks.
Until it stays that way forever. By law it's supposed to adjust every year for inflation, but it hasn't since 2009 as the inflation adjustment gets shot down every year mostly because of the obvious optics of raising pay
Low pay is a real problem and barrier in local and state government, we shouldn't want the US congress to add another barrier for people with lower income. There's already enough barriers already
They can fuck right off. No leader’s pay should automatically adjust for inflation unless everyone else’s does too.
They are nowhere near being paid too little.
And surely that's all they're getting right?? No one becomes millionaires in there
Very good point, the perks are immense.
I guess they didn't delay deny or depose any time scraping more cash off the American people.
Would be cool if these dips did a damn thing. Just so happy they get a living wage and good insurance (lmao fuck these cretins).
I thought they just voted themselves pay raises when they wanted one.
Is this in addition to the salary they get ever after?
(Maybe that's just the senate, I didn't remember, but) Why the fuck do they get a salary for the rest of their lives??
Congress participates in FERS, the same pension system as the rest of the federal government. You can look up how the pension payments are calculated; they're not exorbitant.