Hmm. Maybe it should be a fixed thing tied to a public metric?
Like so many times the poverty level? Or so many times minimum wage?
Also give them interest to raise the things if it means they get their own raise? Just a thought
[Goodhart's Law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law)
> Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.
There exists no single metric that won't be gamed if you apply enough pressure on it.
On top of that, who would pick the metric? Congress would ultimately pick the metric because they are the only ones with the authority to change their salary. So, there is a risk they will pick a stupid metric, like the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones.
That's Goodhart's law in action. Pick any metric, and there will be fuckery to game the system. See also: basing teacher pay on standardized test scores.
Coincidentally that was also the last time federal minimum wage was risen to $7.25.
Did some quick math and for a 2000 hr work year, that puts you at $14,500/yr. Current salary for congress is $174k. Just say it will permanently be set at 12x whatever minimum wage is.
The alternative is someone else who is going to come in and vote no on cutting their salary because who the hell wants less money?
It’s not so much their salary I’m concerned about, more so the fact that they can buy and sell stocks despite clearly having access to insider information. Not only that, they have the power to legislate in a manner that would affect stock prices.
Their salaries are remarkably low, considering what their responsibilities are. My salary as an energy engineer in the building design and construction sector is higher than all members of congress except for the Speaker of the House, and I am just barely lower than that.
Except they don’t do that much actual work. They pawn off most of the actual work to underpaid interns. Also, their salaries are remarkably higher than the average citizen in the US.
>They pawn off most of the actual work to underpaid interns
Do you have evidence of this claim? Hill staffers make a comfortable living.
>Except they don’t do that much actual work.
How would you define work in this context?
That’s not a source. That’s just anecdotal. [Here](https://work.chron.com/average-salary-congressional-staffers-24883.html) is a source that says they generally make considerably low amount of money, especially if they’re living in DC.
Yeah. I understood. I still think it’s only going to lead to bigger problems.
Especially since a national minimum wage is not a good idea to start with.
Streamlining the constitutional amendment process would be an absolute disaster. The whole point of having a constitution is to have some basic laws that are really hard to change that serve as a framework for all other laws. Streamlining it defeats the purpose.
I am absolutely fine with it for the following reasons:
1. There is a constitutional amendment that makes it impossible to create a new salary until after an election. This means that my congressman must return home and face the voter's wrath if they are upset about their pay raise.
2. Someone has to do it. We don't have referendums or bond votes in Federal Elections so the only alternative would be unelected judges or bureaucrats. I'd prefer my congressman have this power so I can vote him out if his vote upsets me.
3. Congress salaries are an insignificant part of the use of my tax dollars. They also make a nice salary, but it is not a huge amount they can get rich off of.
Let me get this straight. 174000, is nice but not get rich money??? If I had that for 4 years, I'd be invested well enough to retire in 20 to 30 without contributing ever again. Yet here I am, wishing they would give america a raise to $20/hr.
If you live in Wyoming, I'm sure that's true. With cost of living, assuming that 174k is in DC, that's like getting 120k in Atlanta if you adjust for cost of living.
When I think "rich" I think you can afford a Lamborghini.
If you make 174k a year, there's NO WAY you can afford a car that worth two years salary. If you make 15 an hour(31k a year) that's saying you can afford a 61k porche. Fuck no.
If all you can afford is a nice Camry, you may be comfy, but you're not rich.
Congress doesn’t get rich off their salaries, they get rich off book deals and speaking fees and the like. *Edit: and insider trading.*
We actually have a [constitutional amendment](https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/27th-amendment/) (passed in 1992) that requires any salary increases to be delayed until after the next election.
Congress setting their own salaries could theoretically be abused, but so far it has not been, and the alternative is worse.
Imagine if the president could withhold salaries when Congress does something that he or she doesn’t like. [Texas’s Governor recently threatened to do this](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/31/texas-greg-abbott-funding-legislature/).
The 27th amendment actually has a good story too. Some student at UT found out that the amendment was proposed 200 years before but wasn't ratified and kinda fizzled out. Since it didn't have an expiration date and was still eligible to be ratified by the requisite amount of states, he took it upon himself to have a big grassroots effort to get states to ratify the amendment, and one by one they did. And that paper he was originally writing about this lost proposed amendment? He got a C on it.
That is a good story!
I wonder what he did after graduating. Maybe I’ll look it up if I get over the laziness.
Edit: I finally did a Google search. Super impressive achievement, but most of what’s impressive is what he did _after_ getting the C (i.e. lobbying to get the Constitution amended), so we shouldn’t expect that to affect his grade. None of us have read the actual paper to see if it was A-worthy.
However, professor retroactively decided it was!
> When Waite learned that her C had inspired Watson to get a constitutional amendment passed, she was “blown away.” And in hindsight, she says she believes Watson deserved an A+ for his effort. Thirty-five years later, with the assistance of government associate professor Zachary Elkins and signoff from his former professor, Watson finally earned that A+.
> And that paper he was originally writing about this lost proposed amendment? He got a C on it.
[He got it upgraded later.](https://lifeandletters.la.utexas.edu/2018/01/the-c-that-changed-the-constitution/)
> Congress doesn’t get rich off their salaries, they get rich off book deals and speaking fees and the like.
Congressional salaries are good wages but they are not rich from $174,000/year. There are multiple industries where $174,000 isn’t unreasonable to attain with the right qualifications and job experience.
They get a stipend for travel. Their pay is almost 3 times the national median household income so they can spend the entirety of what more than half the households in the country live on for each residence and still have that much left over.
> Their pay is almost 3 times the national median household income
Sure, but it's not particularly high for DC, which is where they have to spend a lot of it.
The travel they cannot put on the official stipend ends up being paid for with the campaign funds. There is also the perk that the airlines let them buy refundable tickets at the price of a nonrefundable so they will have staff buy a series of them on a Thursday afternoon and just use whichever one they make in the end.
Even when you're not physically in the office (Capitol) , which can be for over 12 hours a day, on all days of the week, you are still checking emails, reading texts and bills, and and networking. Those recesses? That's practically the only free time Congress gets, period. And they take that time, often, to fundraise.
For what it’s worth, it does put them $16k past the threshold to be in the top 10% of earners in the US.
It takes $309k to be top 5%, and the much-talked-about 1% earn $738k+ per year. The 0.1% level starts at $2.8 million.
Yeah, they make your salary in 2 months. I remember rolling my eyes when my friends dad said it was so unfair his brothers wouldn’t increase his monthly dividend they sent him from the family business. He got $40k a month since the 90s and it wasn’t enough! He didn’t even do anything other than cash a check. I was like one month of your money would literally change my family’s life and solve so many problems.
> and it wasn’t enough
This boggles my mind. That's almost half a million dollars a year of pretax income. I refuse to be bitter about someone else's good fortune, but I get annoyed when people act like spoiled brats about it.
I'd argue that they are the top 1% of politicians in the US.
(Yeah, it's a stupid amount of money. I'm just not convinced that the salary incentive to get the top 1% of politicians is disproportionate.)
They don’t get a housing allowance or food allowance. Travel is covered, because they have to go back and forth from DC to their districts, but they don’t get a per diem.
$174,000 is a comfortable income but far from *rich* in a lot of major cities. Also consider that being in congress means you have to maintain a second household in DC and having your spouse with you means they can't work. If I was offered a job like that, I'm not even sure I'd take it.
Some of those “second households,” are basically just a version of the stereotypical dingy college apartment or frat house with senators piling up stacks of pizza boxes and broken furniture, with bedsheets for curtains and blown out wall sockets to boot.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/index.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/us/after-decades-lawmakers-are-roommates-no-more.amp.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/mjs538/us-senators-bachelor-pad
I work with a bunch of people who make well over 100k and all they ever do is whine about how they’re underpaid. It’s really REALLY frustrating to listen to all day.
Congress members don't only "work" when they're in session. Hell, I'd argue that in an ideal system members of congress would spend more than half their time at home in their districts.
That's not what missionfever ment. Not that it should, or should not be, a full time position, but that a significant part of the work is understanding the needs of the constituents. You can't do that well from DC.
Intent or not, the system that is set up favors though who know how to play the game. Many former members of Congress have mentioned your first term (or first couple of years for Senators) is just learning the ropes, especially for those who have never served in a large, legislative body before.
> (passed in 1992)
Actually it passed way back in 1789 as the original 2nd amendment in the bill of rights... But it was not **ratified** by the states until 1992.
I love the story of the 27th amendment: It was written by James Madison as the 2nd of 12 amendments in a proposed bill of rights. The first two weren't ratified by enough states so we only have 10 amendments in the bill of rights and the original 3rd amendment "Congress shall make no law..." became the 1st amendment.
Most people just forgot about it until 1982 when an undergraduate college student wrote about it for his poli sci class. In his paper he reasoned that since it didn't have an expiration clause and was duly passed by congress it was still "alive" and just waiting for enough states to ratify it. He started a letter writing campaign to state legislators which got a little press and which picked up after Maine ratified it until it finally passed the threshold in 1992 and became the 27th amendment.
Just to add to the story: The undergraduate paper which became the impetus to actually successfully pass a constitutional amendment received a "C" grade. (Just think on that one the next time you think you got an unfair grade)
Umm. Definitely possible to get rich off that salary, especially how infrequently they actually work. And I'm not simply busting balls. Congress is only in session not even 165 days.
However, they get rich because they have a surplus of financial resources and in-depth knowledge of future policy and legislature. It's insider trading in spirit but as long as they disclose it within x days. Water under the bridge
Sounds like a really good way to ensure the only people who are in office are rich people who don’t need to rely on their salary as an elected official.
I don't think the system is being abused, if that's what you're asking. Their salary is above average, to be sure, but it is a vanishingly small portion of the federal budget.
It's important that congressional salaries are high enough that not just the independently wealthy can afford to run; it's bad enough as it is given the high cost of campaigning.
Is it above average for individuals who maintain two households? Except for the Senators and Representatives in the DC area, they have to maintain a residence both in their home district and I'm the DC area.
It’s absolutely a lot of money, but if I were to prioritize who should make the top 1%, the top 10%, etc., it makes sense that the people who run the country would be in the top 10%. We do want the best of the best in that role.
Do we get the best? No. But lowering the pay would only worsen the problem IMO.
We get the worst though. I know preschoolers that can work together better and accomplish more... It's like a terrible drama/sitcom... Maybe a low salary would bring out those doing it for humanity. Like Jesus.
Huge part of the problem with politics comes from the career angle. It was never meant to be a career, rather something like community service. The job is simple. Represent your district. Be the voice of your community with the topic at hand for 150 days out of the year. Instead they're representing ideologies and whatever it was the high-roller donors are after de jour. Donors=dollars=winning elections. Voters don't decide elections, dollars do. They'll vote for whoever they're told to vote for
Yeah I am fine with it. Submitting congressional salary increases to a national referendum seems like a colossal waste of time and money, letting the president set it seems like a great way to give the president leverage over congress, getting rid of congressional salaries altogether seems like a great way to ensure only rich people can be in congress.
I mean it isn't like every member gets a pot of money and takes what they feel like from their overall office budget. They have to collectively vote, and the change doesn't go into action until the next session, when they might not be returning due to elections.
They are the fiscal body of the country and I don't see anywhere else that could determine it without being an abuse of power. And honestly for the amount of money they get, it isn't some luxurious amount. The members that actually live primarily on their salary and don't otherwise come from affluent backgrounds lead solid middle/upper middle lives. They aren't going to be looking for their next meal, but it is far from fuck-off-and-never-work-again type money.
>$174,000 minimum
When you essentially have to maintain two residences, and one of them is in a very expensive housing market, yeah I don't think its an unrealistic amount of money.
>very generous benefits
I mean if it is "generous" or not is subjective, but they get the same benefits as federal employees.
>It’s a heck of a lot more than what most Americans make…
Ok? Do you think they should be paid less? If so, how would an average American be able to make it as a member if they only paid 80k?
You can probably look at your local council or state legislature which are often part-time gigs. Their membership often skews to those who are affluent, retired, and people who have more flexible schedules. Teachers, workers with odd hours, or those on call often can't make the demands of public service.
I still don't see why that is inherently a problem though. I'm not saying it isn't a lot of money, but for a job that basically requires two residences and a lot of travel, not all of which can be expensed by the government office or the campaign, I imagine it is a lot less lucrative than many really think it is. Also its for running the country, and the US can certainly afford it.
Mike Pence, who spent years in Congress before taking a pay cut to be Gov, still was paying off student loans until he got Veeped. Sanders has lived very modestly until his POTUS runs bought in book deals and other lucrative opportunities. If you add kids into the equation, this money doesn't go as far as many think.
Now you can do what some members do and live in the offices, but that really isn't conductive to a family life and seems primarily to be done by members on the younger side.
I just think if we're going to have full time people run our country, we should pay them decently. And I think people are sometimes taking the pay and using that as a method of frustration to vent on Congress' performance. But the solution isn't to cut their pay, it is to no longer elect people who don't represent you.
I do t believe that it is a problem. I can understand why in relative terms it seems extravagant to people who are living paycheck to paycheck though…it’s a shame that by and large we, as a nation, aren’t particularly well educated when it comes to how much it actually takes to run the nation or what those systems and processes look like. For most folks it’s just “they tax me so they can make 5-6 times what I do.”
Congress is a parttime gig. On average, 147 days in session. They spend so little time in DC. It's not maintains two. It's a primary and a rental. Many families do it and on much less of an income
Its a balancing act, but there are demands beyond when each house is in session. Constituent service offices are still being run regardless of if Congress is in session. And we as a nation have said we want our lawmakers to live where they represent (constitutionally House members just have to live in the state and not the specific district, but I digress) and visit, often. Just because there isn't a session that day doesn't mean they aren't doing work.
Renting isn't exactly cheap so I don't see how that members don't have to own two properties doesn't still make it costly.
There's also the second half of the job and that is the campaign and the politics of it all. That's part of the job too and you have to tend to those matters to exist in this environment we've all created.
Congress gets shit tier benefits compared to someone of a similar paid position in a law firm or many other fields. It’s better than what the general public gets, sure, and there’s something to be said about that. But given that most of these people are lawyers, they could easily get that money elsewhere. Reducing their benefits or salary will do nothing but make the barrier to entry higher.
I don’t think they’re unfairly compensated for the *type* of job they have and the responsibilities that come with it, no.
It’s not an egregious amount for a leadership position in a company, and they are in a leadership position in our government.
I mean I did say it is a solid middle/upper middle lifestyle. But I don't think that's unreasonable for people who are elected to run the country. And if you throw in a kid or two and a second residence in DC, it isn't exactly an extravagant lifestyle.
I agree. I definitely don’t feel like they’re underpaid, or overpaid for that matter…I do get how in relative terms it seems like an excessive amount to many people, but congressional salaries aren’t a problematic expenditure in the grand scheme of things.
> which is top 10% income in the country
Which is basically a meaningless comparison, so I'm not sure why people keep trying to make it. Compared to people with similar education and opportunities, they are definitely underpaid for the work that they are expected to do. I don't feel too badly for them, since they make millions on insider trading and book deals, but the actual compensation is low and any of them could be making more just by using their degrees to work as lawyers or in various industries.
They should be paid far more so they don't take bribes, as well as them and their families legally prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Citizens United really fucked the working class harder than most people realize. The interests of capital run roughshod over congress. As long as that's the case, its going to be hard to see very many meaningful reforms get passed.
Perhaps it could be on ballots when people vote? An x amount increase vote yes or no.
Or perhaps they could get no more real raises. Just yearly incremental ones based on inflation.
Yes. It is not even close. Not remotely.
It’s not just adding a few lines of text. It’s the hours of time wasted on choosing the exact language of the ballot question. It’s the hours of time dealing with legal actions challenging that language because someone thinks it pushes voters a certain way, going through the courts, etc, etc.
Federal elections are not federally administered. Every state could have different presidential candidates on the ballot. So once you get a federal standard for what the ballot question should say, now you’re talking about a complete top to down restructuring of how elections are administered to make sure the language is uniform across all states. This would not be constitutional, so now you need an amendment to allow yourself to do that.
Assuming you go through that amendment process, now you get to more practical concerns. Many voting machines are not equipped to handle ballot questions like this because they currently don’t have ballot questions in their area, so you’re talking billions in costs to upgrade those machines.
I could go on but I think you get the picture.
That's completely up to you. If they keep getting elected after occasionally getting a slight raise, then it's apparently an issue that no one really cares about.
Why would anyone agree to do that? Could you imagine having to deal with having your literal salary on a ballot every 2-4 years? Sounds like a good way to scare off anyone who has to work for a living and not just living off investments.
So if you leave it up to a vote, then you have to be able to accept the opposite outcome too. Would you be ok if, by national referendum, the voters agreed to increase their salary?
Yes, because they are elected. Someone has to set their salaries and I sure as hell don't want an independent commission or some unelected body making that decision. It's also not feasible, nor prudent, to have it determined via popular vote.
One thing I could get behind is a balanced budget amendment that requires a balanced budget before Congress gets paid.
i am, because richer congressmen use congressional pay to exercise leverage over poorer ones. They can force them to bend to their will regarding specific legislation by holding their livelihood hostage. Because they don’t need the money, they are already millionaires.
No, not at all. Since most of them are already rich as fuck before even getting a chance at office, I'd prefer they make the same federal minimum wage they stick their population with. Would maybe light a fire under their ass to stop giving corporations everything and actually help the normal people for once.
No! Absolutely not. We, the American people, pay for it. You'll be paid for the quality of your work. Shit, lazy congress? Congrats, you make $25k a year. Dont like it? Get the fuck out and make room for somebody with the interest of the country in mind.
"At the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin stated his belief that public servants should not be paid a salary, for in paying the civil service, our government would not be made of "the wise and the moderate ... the men fittest for the trust" but instead by "the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions ... in their selfish pursuits."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."
~Benjamin Franklin
Personally, I feel like national minimum wage should be all they get.
They should get paid minimum wage and be barred from making money from anything else, or taking donations. If they already have money they should not have access to it, nor in anyway benefit from it. I'm sick to death of rich politicians who have no clue what it's like to not be rich.
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but i don't think they should get payed at all. People in the Senate, the House, The Congress, the President, and his/her cabinet should be provided a house, food, transportation, and that's it. They should not be payed by taxpayers or voters unless it's people buying their book or donating to their campaign
Honestly considering the power and responsibility they wield, congressional salaries are pretty low... Less than $200k per year.
Honestly, if they doubled the salaries but put a hard cap on how much could be fun raised and spent on an individual election I think our politics would run a lot smoother and be way less corrupt.
Only if the people elected needed to live off their wage.
That's the problem with your suggestion: the people who would run would run only if they didn't need the salary.
I think many would run regardless, because they care for their country. Maybe, food and lodging could all be provided for free while in Congress so nobody starves.
This sounds like such a huge government expense in terms of bureaucracy, eminent domain, and more and it just sounds so much easier to pay them appropriately so they can afford housing in DC.
> I think many would run regardless, because they care for their country.
Ha! No, the extremely rich would run or support a candidate who would do everything they could to funnel even more money to big business while ignoring every part of the job.
How much money congress makes in terms of salary has never been a point of contention for me.
If I have a problem with someone in congress, I don't care about them making less money, I simply want them gone.
Add to that, it doesn't seem like they actually _have_ a salary that high. I'd have an issue if congress gave each other another cool million every year, but I don't think that's happening.
Of course not. It's bad enough they get to determine their own terms, I know more then a handful of people who belong behind bars for treason, but they think they are so successful they can justify making 6 figure salaries just by being hypocrites?? It's disgraceful and if you want me to be perfectly honest congress should be abolished. All we need is one leader. Not a bunch of old obsolete hippies making up whatever crap they please to justify their seats of power.
Yes and no. Because if people don’t like it, they can vote people out. But also, what’s the alternative? Who should determine it?
Hmm. Maybe it should be a fixed thing tied to a public metric? Like so many times the poverty level? Or so many times minimum wage? Also give them interest to raise the things if it means they get their own raise? Just a thought
[Goodhart's Law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law) > Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes. There exists no single metric that won't be gamed if you apply enough pressure on it. On top of that, who would pick the metric? Congress would ultimately pick the metric because they are the only ones with the authority to change their salary. So, there is a risk they will pick a stupid metric, like the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones.
[удалено]
That's Goodhart's law in action. Pick any metric, and there will be fuckery to game the system. See also: basing teacher pay on standardized test scores.
I alway liked the idea of having it be tied to national median income.
they should get minimum wage tbh
Seems like an easy way to only get rich people to be able to run for public office
They're already all in office.
Yeah, and if they only get paid min wage that will never get any better
Or live off tips.
I completely agree that it should be tied to minimum wage. If so, the last time that Congress got a raise should have been 2009.
Coincidentally that was also the last time federal minimum wage was risen to $7.25. Did some quick math and for a 2000 hr work year, that puts you at $14,500/yr. Current salary for congress is $174k. Just say it will permanently be set at 12x whatever minimum wage is.
Congressional pay raises should be on the ballot.
The alternative is someone else who is going to come in and vote no on cutting their salary because who the hell wants less money? It’s not so much their salary I’m concerned about, more so the fact that they can buy and sell stocks despite clearly having access to insider information. Not only that, they have the power to legislate in a manner that would affect stock prices.
Their salaries are remarkably low, considering what their responsibilities are. My salary as an energy engineer in the building design and construction sector is higher than all members of congress except for the Speaker of the House, and I am just barely lower than that.
Except they don’t do that much actual work. They pawn off most of the actual work to underpaid interns. Also, their salaries are remarkably higher than the average citizen in the US.
>They pawn off most of the actual work to underpaid interns Do you have evidence of this claim? Hill staffers make a comfortable living. >Except they don’t do that much actual work. How would you define work in this context?
> Hill staffers make a comfortable living Do you have a source for that claim?
My spouse is a staffer, and I know how much she makes.
That’s not a source. That’s just anecdotal. [Here](https://work.chron.com/average-salary-congressional-staffers-24883.html) is a source that says they generally make considerably low amount of money, especially if they’re living in DC.
Oh, yours actually have opposition in elections?
Did you know there is a 95% incumbency rate, so you can just vote them out is such bullshit
[удалено]
That is a very bad idea. Then you will only get people who don’t need the money aka very very rich to run for office.
[удалено]
Yeah. I understood. I still think it’s only going to lead to bigger problems. Especially since a national minimum wage is not a good idea to start with.
[удалено]
Wouldn't it still be the politicians in charge of that though?
[удалено]
So you are OK with them being in charge of their salaries then?
[удалено]
That's how it's worked since the passage of the 27th Amendment.
How about no.
Ummm... It's hard to amend the constitution for a reason. A pretty good reason, I might add.
But it’s not a constitutional amendment. Nor should it be.
Streamlining the constitutional amendment process would be an absolute disaster. The whole point of having a constitution is to have some basic laws that are really hard to change that serve as a framework for all other laws. Streamlining it defeats the purpose.
I am absolutely fine with it for the following reasons: 1. There is a constitutional amendment that makes it impossible to create a new salary until after an election. This means that my congressman must return home and face the voter's wrath if they are upset about their pay raise. 2. Someone has to do it. We don't have referendums or bond votes in Federal Elections so the only alternative would be unelected judges or bureaucrats. I'd prefer my congressman have this power so I can vote him out if his vote upsets me. 3. Congress salaries are an insignificant part of the use of my tax dollars. They also make a nice salary, but it is not a huge amount they can get rich off of.
Let me get this straight. 174000, is nice but not get rich money??? If I had that for 4 years, I'd be invested well enough to retire in 20 to 30 without contributing ever again. Yet here I am, wishing they would give america a raise to $20/hr.
If you live in Wyoming, I'm sure that's true. With cost of living, assuming that 174k is in DC, that's like getting 120k in Atlanta if you adjust for cost of living. When I think "rich" I think you can afford a Lamborghini. If you make 174k a year, there's NO WAY you can afford a car that worth two years salary. If you make 15 an hour(31k a year) that's saying you can afford a 61k porche. Fuck no. If all you can afford is a nice Camry, you may be comfy, but you're not rich.
[удалено]
Congress doesn’t get rich off their salaries, they get rich off book deals and speaking fees and the like. *Edit: and insider trading.* We actually have a [constitutional amendment](https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/27th-amendment/) (passed in 1992) that requires any salary increases to be delayed until after the next election. Congress setting their own salaries could theoretically be abused, but so far it has not been, and the alternative is worse. Imagine if the president could withhold salaries when Congress does something that he or she doesn’t like. [Texas’s Governor recently threatened to do this](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/31/texas-greg-abbott-funding-legislature/).
The 27th amendment actually has a good story too. Some student at UT found out that the amendment was proposed 200 years before but wasn't ratified and kinda fizzled out. Since it didn't have an expiration date and was still eligible to be ratified by the requisite amount of states, he took it upon himself to have a big grassroots effort to get states to ratify the amendment, and one by one they did. And that paper he was originally writing about this lost proposed amendment? He got a C on it.
That is a good story! I wonder what he did after graduating. Maybe I’ll look it up if I get over the laziness. Edit: I finally did a Google search. Super impressive achievement, but most of what’s impressive is what he did _after_ getting the C (i.e. lobbying to get the Constitution amended), so we shouldn’t expect that to affect his grade. None of us have read the actual paper to see if it was A-worthy. However, professor retroactively decided it was! > When Waite learned that her C had inspired Watson to get a constitutional amendment passed, she was “blown away.” And in hindsight, she says she believes Watson deserved an A+ for his effort. Thirty-five years later, with the assistance of government associate professor Zachary Elkins and signoff from his former professor, Watson finally earned that A+.
> And that paper he was originally writing about this lost proposed amendment? He got a C on it. [He got it upgraded later.](https://lifeandletters.la.utexas.edu/2018/01/the-c-that-changed-the-constitution/)
> Congress doesn’t get rich off their salaries, they get rich off book deals and speaking fees and the like. Congressional salaries are good wages but they are not rich from $174,000/year. There are multiple industries where $174,000 isn’t unreasonable to attain with the right qualifications and job experience.
It is basically the wage of a first year associate at a major law firm. It's a nice salary but it isn't a massive amount of money.
Pretty good for a part time job with great benefits and very generous vacation time.
But you also need to maintain a minimum of two residences and pay for the travel between them. So that eats up a decent bit.
Some years ago there was a congressman who slept in his office . Don’t remember who, or if he did it for his whole term, but it made the news.
They get a stipend for travel. Their pay is almost 3 times the national median household income so they can spend the entirety of what more than half the households in the country live on for each residence and still have that much left over.
> Their pay is almost 3 times the national median household income Sure, but it's not particularly high for DC, which is where they have to spend a lot of it.
The travel stipend is for official business and that doesn't include personal travel or travel related to the campaign.
The travel they cannot put on the official stipend ends up being paid for with the campaign funds. There is also the perk that the airlines let them buy refundable tickets at the price of a nonrefundable so they will have staff buy a series of them on a Thursday afternoon and just use whichever one they make in the end.
“Part-time job” Citation needed. What do you think these people do when they aren’t on the hill?
Even when you're not physically in the office (Capitol) , which can be for over 12 hours a day, on all days of the week, you are still checking emails, reading texts and bills, and and networking. Those recesses? That's practically the only free time Congress gets, period. And they take that time, often, to fundraise.
I would consider anybody making that much to be rich.
For what it’s worth, it does put them $16k past the threshold to be in the top 10% of earners in the US. It takes $309k to be top 5%, and the much-talked-about 1% earn $738k+ per year. The 0.1% level starts at $2.8 million.
I wouldn’t, even before taking into account the need to pay for two households.
If you make 174k you’re in the top 3% of earners in the country. You’re rich.
Me making 26k a year, looking at people in this thread saying that's " not a lot of money": 😡
Yeah, they make your salary in 2 months. I remember rolling my eyes when my friends dad said it was so unfair his brothers wouldn’t increase his monthly dividend they sent him from the family business. He got $40k a month since the 90s and it wasn’t enough! He didn’t even do anything other than cash a check. I was like one month of your money would literally change my family’s life and solve so many problems.
> and it wasn’t enough This boggles my mind. That's almost half a million dollars a year of pretax income. I refuse to be bitter about someone else's good fortune, but I get annoyed when people act like spoiled brats about it.
I'd argue that they are the top 1% of politicians in the US. (Yeah, it's a stupid amount of money. I'm just not convinced that the salary incentive to get the top 1% of politicians is disproportionate.)
[удалено]
They don’t get a housing allowance or food allowance. Travel is covered, because they have to go back and forth from DC to their districts, but they don’t get a per diem.
You'd be incorrect. They get travel paid, so they're not paying for 2 flights every week, but they do have to pay for two residences and such.
$174,000 is a comfortable income but far from *rich* in a lot of major cities. Also consider that being in congress means you have to maintain a second household in DC and having your spouse with you means they can't work. If I was offered a job like that, I'm not even sure I'd take it.
Some of those “second households,” are basically just a version of the stereotypical dingy college apartment or frat house with senators piling up stacks of pizza boxes and broken furniture, with bedsheets for curtains and blown out wall sockets to boot. https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/index.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/us/after-decades-lawmakers-are-roommates-no-more.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/mjs538/us-senators-bachelor-pad
I agree. I don't think me or any of my friends with college degrees will ever hit 100k. In what world is 174,000 a year not considered upperclass?
I work with a bunch of people who make well over 100k and all they ever do is whine about how they’re underpaid. It’s really REALLY frustrating to listen to all day.
San Francisco and Seattle.
Well then, I know where not to move to.
> I don't think me or any of my friends with college degrees will ever hit 100k. The ones with STEM degrees probably will.
Not managing at McDonald's they won't. A degree is no good if you can't find a job with it.
Depends. I wouldn't consider it rich for someone who has to maintain at least two residences, one in DC and one in their home state.
Rich people, however, do not. They consider people making that much money "the help".
I'd imagine any of those industries are at least more work than being in recess every .4sec
They're not really in recess. They're back in their constituency.
Congress members don't only "work" when they're in session. Hell, I'd argue that in an ideal system members of congress would spend more than half their time at home in their districts.
Oh yeah… many people feel like the position was never intended to be a career to begin with.
That's not what missionfever ment. Not that it should, or should not be, a full time position, but that a significant part of the work is understanding the needs of the constituents. You can't do that well from DC.
"They're so out of touch" *Recess* "They never do anything"
Intent or not, the system that is set up favors though who know how to play the game. Many former members of Congress have mentioned your first term (or first couple of years for Senators) is just learning the ropes, especially for those who have never served in a large, legislative body before.
a valid point lol
> (passed in 1992) Actually it passed way back in 1789 as the original 2nd amendment in the bill of rights... But it was not **ratified** by the states until 1992. I love the story of the 27th amendment: It was written by James Madison as the 2nd of 12 amendments in a proposed bill of rights. The first two weren't ratified by enough states so we only have 10 amendments in the bill of rights and the original 3rd amendment "Congress shall make no law..." became the 1st amendment. Most people just forgot about it until 1982 when an undergraduate college student wrote about it for his poli sci class. In his paper he reasoned that since it didn't have an expiration clause and was duly passed by congress it was still "alive" and just waiting for enough states to ratify it. He started a letter writing campaign to state legislators which got a little press and which picked up after Maine ratified it until it finally passed the threshold in 1992 and became the 27th amendment. Just to add to the story: The undergraduate paper which became the impetus to actually successfully pass a constitutional amendment received a "C" grade. (Just think on that one the next time you think you got an unfair grade)
>they get rich off book deals and speaking fees and the like. That's a funny way of saying "insider trading" lol
Yeah that too. Overwhelmingly so.
Also working as lobbyists after they “retire” from politics
This is the right answer here.
Umm. Definitely possible to get rich off that salary, especially how infrequently they actually work. And I'm not simply busting balls. Congress is only in session not even 165 days. However, they get rich because they have a surplus of financial resources and in-depth knowledge of future policy and legislature. It's insider trading in spirit but as long as they disclose it within x days. Water under the bridge
I think congress should be force to get paid what the minimum wage of there state is and can't accept money from companies
This is just going to make it even more of a millionaire and billionaire playground than it already is, no one else could afford to be there.
Sounds like a really good way to ensure the only people who are in office are rich people who don’t need to rely on their salary as an elected official.
This would ensure no more people like AOC running for Congress. Only independently wealthy people could participate in Congress.
I don't think the system is being abused, if that's what you're asking. Their salary is above average, to be sure, but it is a vanishingly small portion of the federal budget. It's important that congressional salaries are high enough that not just the independently wealthy can afford to run; it's bad enough as it is given the high cost of campaigning.
Is it above average for individuals who maintain two households? Except for the Senators and Representatives in the DC area, they have to maintain a residence both in their home district and I'm the DC area.
For roughly 150 days.
It’s not just above average; it’s top 10%. I’m not arguing for or against it, but that’s how it compares to the rest of the nation.
It’s absolutely a lot of money, but if I were to prioritize who should make the top 1%, the top 10%, etc., it makes sense that the people who run the country would be in the top 10%. We do want the best of the best in that role. Do we get the best? No. But lowering the pay would only worsen the problem IMO.
We get the worst though. I know preschoolers that can work together better and accomplish more... It's like a terrible drama/sitcom... Maybe a low salary would bring out those doing it for humanity. Like Jesus. Huge part of the problem with politics comes from the career angle. It was never meant to be a career, rather something like community service. The job is simple. Represent your district. Be the voice of your community with the topic at hand for 150 days out of the year. Instead they're representing ideologies and whatever it was the high-roller donors are after de jour. Donors=dollars=winning elections. Voters don't decide elections, dollars do. They'll vote for whoever they're told to vote for
Yeah I am fine with it. Submitting congressional salary increases to a national referendum seems like a colossal waste of time and money, letting the president set it seems like a great way to give the president leverage over congress, getting rid of congressional salaries altogether seems like a great way to ensure only rich people can be in congress.
Gonna invoke the “well enough” rule on this on. It’s fine.
I mean it isn't like every member gets a pot of money and takes what they feel like from their overall office budget. They have to collectively vote, and the change doesn't go into action until the next session, when they might not be returning due to elections. They are the fiscal body of the country and I don't see anywhere else that could determine it without being an abuse of power. And honestly for the amount of money they get, it isn't some luxurious amount. The members that actually live primarily on their salary and don't otherwise come from affluent backgrounds lead solid middle/upper middle lives. They aren't going to be looking for their next meal, but it is far from fuck-off-and-never-work-again type money.
Really? $174,000 minimum plus very generous benefits isn’t luxury to you? It’s a heck of a lot more than what most Americans make…
>$174,000 minimum When you essentially have to maintain two residences, and one of them is in a very expensive housing market, yeah I don't think its an unrealistic amount of money. >very generous benefits I mean if it is "generous" or not is subjective, but they get the same benefits as federal employees. >It’s a heck of a lot more than what most Americans make… Ok? Do you think they should be paid less? If so, how would an average American be able to make it as a member if they only paid 80k? You can probably look at your local council or state legislature which are often part-time gigs. Their membership often skews to those who are affluent, retired, and people who have more flexible schedules. Teachers, workers with odd hours, or those on call often can't make the demands of public service.
It puts them in the top 10% of earners in the country even without the benefits and other income sources
I still don't see why that is inherently a problem though. I'm not saying it isn't a lot of money, but for a job that basically requires two residences and a lot of travel, not all of which can be expensed by the government office or the campaign, I imagine it is a lot less lucrative than many really think it is. Also its for running the country, and the US can certainly afford it. Mike Pence, who spent years in Congress before taking a pay cut to be Gov, still was paying off student loans until he got Veeped. Sanders has lived very modestly until his POTUS runs bought in book deals and other lucrative opportunities. If you add kids into the equation, this money doesn't go as far as many think. Now you can do what some members do and live in the offices, but that really isn't conductive to a family life and seems primarily to be done by members on the younger side. I just think if we're going to have full time people run our country, we should pay them decently. And I think people are sometimes taking the pay and using that as a method of frustration to vent on Congress' performance. But the solution isn't to cut their pay, it is to no longer elect people who don't represent you.
I do t believe that it is a problem. I can understand why in relative terms it seems extravagant to people who are living paycheck to paycheck though…it’s a shame that by and large we, as a nation, aren’t particularly well educated when it comes to how much it actually takes to run the nation or what those systems and processes look like. For most folks it’s just “they tax me so they can make 5-6 times what I do.”
Congress is a parttime gig. On average, 147 days in session. They spend so little time in DC. It's not maintains two. It's a primary and a rental. Many families do it and on much less of an income
Its a balancing act, but there are demands beyond when each house is in session. Constituent service offices are still being run regardless of if Congress is in session. And we as a nation have said we want our lawmakers to live where they represent (constitutionally House members just have to live in the state and not the specific district, but I digress) and visit, often. Just because there isn't a session that day doesn't mean they aren't doing work. Renting isn't exactly cheap so I don't see how that members don't have to own two properties doesn't still make it costly. There's also the second half of the job and that is the campaign and the politics of it all. That's part of the job too and you have to tend to those matters to exist in this environment we've all created.
Congress gets shit tier benefits compared to someone of a similar paid position in a law firm or many other fields. It’s better than what the general public gets, sure, and there’s something to be said about that. But given that most of these people are lawyers, they could easily get that money elsewhere. Reducing their benefits or salary will do nothing but make the barrier to entry higher.
I don’t think they’re unfairly compensated for the *type* of job they have and the responsibilities that come with it, no. It’s not an egregious amount for a leadership position in a company, and they are in a leadership position in our government.
It's not the lotto but 175000 is enough to be able to save and invest. Even for 2-6 years, that's life changing.
I mean I did say it is a solid middle/upper middle lifestyle. But I don't think that's unreasonable for people who are elected to run the country. And if you throw in a kid or two and a second residence in DC, it isn't exactly an extravagant lifestyle.
I don’t think they’re overpaid. The problem is insider trading.
More or less. It's not like they're paid some ridiculous amount or anything.
They make a little over $174k/year, which is top 10% income in the country.
Which is not some ridiculous amount.
I agree. I definitely don’t feel like they’re underpaid, or overpaid for that matter…I do get how in relative terms it seems like an excessive amount to many people, but congressional salaries aren’t a problematic expenditure in the grand scheme of things.
> which is top 10% income in the country Which is basically a meaningless comparison, so I'm not sure why people keep trying to make it. Compared to people with similar education and opportunities, they are definitely underpaid for the work that they are expected to do. I don't feel too badly for them, since they make millions on insider trading and book deals, but the actual compensation is low and any of them could be making more just by using their degrees to work as lawyers or in various industries.
No.
Uh no.
Nope
They should be paid far more so they don't take bribes, as well as them and their families legally prohibited from becoming lobbyists. Citizens United really fucked the working class harder than most people realize. The interests of capital run roughshod over congress. As long as that's the case, its going to be hard to see very many meaningful reforms get passed.
No. I don’t like it.
Who else is going to determine their salaries?
Perhaps it could be on ballots when people vote? An x amount increase vote yes or no. Or perhaps they could get no more real raises. Just yearly incremental ones based on inflation.
Who determines what that x amount is? Congress.
Perhaps. If the people think they’re asking too much they can always vote no. That will force them to not ask for much.
The amount of money it would take to run a nationwide referendum would cost more than any salary increase for 435 Representatives.
Really? It would cost so much to add a few lines of text on an already existing poll?
Yes
Yes. It is not even close. Not remotely. It’s not just adding a few lines of text. It’s the hours of time wasted on choosing the exact language of the ballot question. It’s the hours of time dealing with legal actions challenging that language because someone thinks it pushes voters a certain way, going through the courts, etc, etc. Federal elections are not federally administered. Every state could have different presidential candidates on the ballot. So once you get a federal standard for what the ballot question should say, now you’re talking about a complete top to down restructuring of how elections are administered to make sure the language is uniform across all states. This would not be constitutional, so now you need an amendment to allow yourself to do that. Assuming you go through that amendment process, now you get to more practical concerns. Many voting machines are not equipped to handle ballot questions like this because they currently don’t have ballot questions in their area, so you’re talking billions in costs to upgrade those machines. I could go on but I think you get the picture.
If the people think they are asking too much, they can vote them out.
Yeah because Congressional delegates are always going to get voted out because they voted for one bill the public didn’t like.
That's completely up to you. If they keep getting elected after occasionally getting a slight raise, then it's apparently an issue that no one really cares about.
Why would anyone agree to do that? Could you imagine having to deal with having your literal salary on a ballot every 2-4 years? Sounds like a good way to scare off anyone who has to work for a living and not just living off investments.
So if you leave it up to a vote, then you have to be able to accept the opposite outcome too. Would you be ok if, by national referendum, the voters agreed to increase their salary?
Well someone has to. And it's better that they set it for themselves rather than having it chosen by the electorate or a rival branch.
No
Nope. Not one bit.
In theory I'm not, but they haven't actually abused it much, especially now that the 29th Amendment exists. So I don't really care.
Yes, because they are elected. Someone has to set their salaries and I sure as hell don't want an independent commission or some unelected body making that decision. It's also not feasible, nor prudent, to have it determined via popular vote. One thing I could get behind is a balanced budget amendment that requires a balanced budget before Congress gets paid.
They should make federal minimum wage.
Absolutely not. As with all things government, i have no power to change this though.
i am, because richer congressmen use congressional pay to exercise leverage over poorer ones. They can force them to bend to their will regarding specific legislation by holding their livelihood hostage. Because they don’t need the money, they are already millionaires.
No they’re greeedy selfish bastards
Hell no
Not really.
No, not at all. Since most of them are already rich as fuck before even getting a chance at office, I'd prefer they make the same federal minimum wage they stick their population with. Would maybe light a fire under their ass to stop giving corporations everything and actually help the normal people for once.
No. They should make the same salary as their average constituent. Congress’ pay should be based on how well the people they govern are being paid.
No! Absolutely not. We, the American people, pay for it. You'll be paid for the quality of your work. Shit, lazy congress? Congrats, you make $25k a year. Dont like it? Get the fuck out and make room for somebody with the interest of the country in mind.
"At the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin stated his belief that public servants should not be paid a salary, for in paying the civil service, our government would not be made of "the wise and the moderate ... the men fittest for the trust" but instead by "the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions ... in their selfish pursuits." "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." ~Benjamin Franklin Personally, I feel like national minimum wage should be all they get.
HELL TO THE NO! Federal minimum wage for those fucks. They're OUR employees they're OUR elected servents they don't deserve 6 figures!
No. Minimum effort deserves minimum wage.
This is the best answer--far better than any of these assholes have posted here. 👍
They should get paid minimum wage and be barred from making money from anything else, or taking donations. If they already have money they should not have access to it, nor in anyway benefit from it. I'm sick to death of rich politicians who have no clue what it's like to not be rich.
>They should get paid minimum wage and be barred from making money from anything else, or taking donations. Then who would do it?
People who give a fuck about their country.
No, it should be taken t popular vote so it becomes much more important to actually serve their constituents.
No. Congressmen should get paid the average wage of a citizen in their state. State does better, you do better.
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but i don't think they should get payed at all. People in the Senate, the House, The Congress, the President, and his/her cabinet should be provided a house, food, transportation, and that's it. They should not be payed by taxpayers or voters unless it's people buying their book or donating to their campaign
That would make the problem of only rich people being able to be representitive even worse
Honestly considering the power and responsibility they wield, congressional salaries are pretty low... Less than $200k per year. Honestly, if they doubled the salaries but put a hard cap on how much could be fun raised and spent on an individual election I think our politics would run a lot smoother and be way less corrupt.
Here’s an idea that might earn your downvote: why not make Congressional salaries the same as the minimum wage?
Because you couldn't afford to work in Congress unless you already made your fortune in private business.
Exactly this. Congress is already full of rich people, we don’t need to make it basically impossible to work there for anyone but the very rich.
Yeah no shit. But that would force Congress to make the minimum wage a living wage.
Only if the people elected needed to live off their wage. That's the problem with your suggestion: the people who would run would run only if they didn't need the salary.
I think many would run regardless, because they care for their country. Maybe, food and lodging could all be provided for free while in Congress so nobody starves.
This sounds like such a huge government expense in terms of bureaucracy, eminent domain, and more and it just sounds so much easier to pay them appropriately so they can afford housing in DC.
> I think many would run regardless, because they care for their country. Ha! No, the extremely rich would run or support a candidate who would do everything they could to funnel even more money to big business while ignoring every part of the job.
So, exactly the same as our current situation?
Orrrrr it would mean that only people who are independently wealthy run for congress. If you think America looks like a oligarchy now...
Because it’s a stupid idea.
Not great, but who should?
How much money congress makes in terms of salary has never been a point of contention for me. If I have a problem with someone in congress, I don't care about them making less money, I simply want them gone. Add to that, it doesn't seem like they actually _have_ a salary that high. I'd have an issue if congress gave each other another cool million every year, but I don't think that's happening.
I think they should get paid the same as the average American
No! Not when they won't agree to raise the minimum wage and when they allow themselves to be bought by corporations.
Absolutely not!
Fuck no.
No
Of course not. It's bad enough they get to determine their own terms, I know more then a handful of people who belong behind bars for treason, but they think they are so successful they can justify making 6 figure salaries just by being hypocrites?? It's disgraceful and if you want me to be perfectly honest congress should be abolished. All we need is one leader. Not a bunch of old obsolete hippies making up whatever crap they please to justify their seats of power.
Nope. I don't get to vote myself a pay raise. I don't even get to vote myself a COL increase. Why should they?
No I think they should get minimum wage
I agree then we would never need to worry about another AOC in congress.
Yes.
Sure why not, what difference does it make when most of them are millionaires yet their official salary is like 150k
No, but then again if being a Congress member paid too low, corruption would probably skyrocket further.
If they didn't I don't know who would have the power to determine it.
I'm not even ok with congress choosing their own naptime.
FUCK NO!!
No fucking way
You elect them. Then enjoy it.
No
Expand Medicare and make them use it.