Should We Pay Our Congressmen $5 Million?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Congressional pay 1968 = $30,000
Congressional pay 2015 = $174,000

Minimum wage 1968 = $3,328 (11.1% of Congressional pay)
Minimum wage 2015 = $15,080 (8.7% of Congressional pay)

[assumes the minimum wage worker works 40 hours per week, 52 weeks a year]

So . . . what's a fair multiple of the minimum wage for the people's Reps to get paid?

Should we feel sorry for our Reps? We are told that the average CEO gets 320 times the pay his employees receive. Or more (I've seen numbers in the 500s, too). On that scale, our Reps should get
$4,825,600. Yes, nearly 5 million!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Would we get better Reps if we paid $5 million?

 

[TexMichFan]

Are you talking about the legal pay or the other source of income they have?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Alternatively, if we paid our Reps the median wage, would they work harder to raise the median wage?

Or suppose we paid our Reps 10 times the minimum wage. Would we still have some trying to do away with the MW? Or would we have them trying to raise the MW?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Are you talking about the legal pay or the other source of income they have?

Legal pay.

We should make it a crime to receive anything else for the duration of their public service. Plus other restraints on corruption.

 

[unIowa]

Would we get better Reps if we paid $5 million?

I might throw my hat into the ring at that amount, not may places you can win as an independent through.

 

[The Tradition]

They're not CEOs.

(at least, not in public life).

It also has nothing to do with the minimum wage.

Whether the pay is sufficient or not should depend on the number and quality of the candidates willing to work for that pay.

How do you feel of the quality of candidates for Congress? If you'd like to attract better folks, then yes, raise the pay.

 

[unIowa]

Legal pay.

We should make it a crime to receive anything else for the duration of their public service. Plus other restraints on corruption.

Yes...there shouldn't be legal insider trading for our elected officials. You could even make it so their investments are tied to how well US companies are performing and require they can only be invested in US based index funds...or maybe that would make things worse as they just starting doing even more to help our largest companies while shatting on small businesses.

 

[The Tradition]

Legal pay.

We should make it a crime to receive anything else for the duration of their public service. Plus other restraints on corruption.

Uh, lots of these guys continue to run a business, are partners in law firms, might serve of boards of directors.... You can't expect someone to completely sever all employment or business ownership bonds to run for Congress.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Considering most of them aren't exactly wealthy when they become reps and soon become multi-millionaires, I think they are probably paid well. Especially when we are stuck with their lifetime benefits.

 

[unIowa]

Should we be trying to manage our congressional and senate make-up so that it better represents a wider swath of the US citizen base from a professional standpoint? Meaning should we have less lawyers and more folks from other areas of our working communities? Kind of a affirmative action based on profession to get a desired make-up.

 

[unIowa]

Uh, lots of these guys continue to run a business, are partners in law firms, might serve of boards of directors.... You can't expect someone to completely sever all employment or business ownership bonds to run for Congress.

Then maybe they shouldn't run. If those things are more important to them then the calling to serve for our country (in whatever capacity) then we don't need them. I would rather have someone that is fully vested in the workings of our country vs someone who is distracted part of the time.

 

[thewop]

They should make $60k/year plus have paid housing and an entertainment/transportation allowance. They should be there because they want to serve, not because it's a great gig, and there should be term limits. We should also have special employment resources for exiting congressmen so they can be virtually assured gainful employment after their service to the country.

 

[The Tradition]

Then maybe they shouldn't run. If those things are more important to them then the calling to serve for our country (in whatever capacity) then we don't need them. I would rather have someone that is fully vested in the workings of our country vs someone who is distracted part of the time.

No, Thomas Jefferson still managed Monticello will serving his country. George Washington maintained his estate as well.

Until the 20th century, being a lawmaker was not a full-time position: members of Congress conducted legislative business for half a year, and ethics laws did not bar them from working other jobs.

The legislative calendar reflected that reality, enabling lawmakers to return to their fields or businesses for extended periods of time.

 

[22*43*51]

If it would draw more talented people into politics, I am all for it.

Maybe the past is always rosier, but it sure does feel like there has been a steep decline on competence, character and general leadership in the political ranks over the years.

 

[unIowa]

They should make $60k/year plus have paid housing and an entertainment/transportation allowance. They should be there because they want to serve, not because it's a great gig, and there should be term limits. We should also have special employment resources for exiting congressmen so they can be virtually assured gainful employment after their service to the country.

Please go into further what would be considered approved entertainment?

I think $60k is a little low and it would keep many good people out of even thinking about running, many couldn't afford that sort of pay hit. With that pay running would be even more secluded to the wealthy as they live off their current wealth. I don't think the current pay is all that badly off although I do think they should have to be on Obamacare. Anywhere from $120k - $250k seems about right to me.

On the term limits...absolutely.

Special employment resources sounds even more ripe for corruption. I don't think these folks will have a tough time finding a job.

 

[unIowa]

No, Thomas Jefferson still managed Monticello will serving his country. George Washington maintained his estate as well.

Until the 20th century, being a lawmaker was not a full-time position: members of Congress conducted legislative business for half a year, and ethics laws did not bar them from working other jobs.

The legislative calendar reflected that reality, enabling lawmakers to return to their fields or businesses for extended periods of time.

If we want to shrink the size of our central govt to reflect those previous times and the need for only part time officials I am all ears...that sounds ideal.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Uh, lots of these guys continue to run a business, are partners in law firms, might serve of boards of directors.... You can't expect someone to completely sever all employment or business ownership bonds to run for Congress.

I agree. But we can work around those things. There are already some rules on that, I believe.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

They should make $60k/year plus have paid housing and an entertainment/transportation allowance. They should be there because they want to serve, not because it's a great gig, and there should be term limits. We should also have special employment resources for exiting congressmen so they can be virtually assured gainful employment after their service to the country.

This is pretty similar to the suggestion I've been pushing for a long while. To the extent possible, they should live at the same scale as those they represent. We can quibble about the details, but it seems like a good principle.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

No, Thomas Jefferson still managed Monticello will serving his country. George Washington maintained his estate as well.

Until the 20th century, being a lawmaker was not a full-time position: members of Congress conducted legislative business for half a year, and ethics laws did not bar them from working other jobs.

The legislative calendar reflected that reality, enabling lawmakers to return to their fields or businesses for extended periods of time.

That was then.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Please go into further what would be considered approved entertainment?

I think $60k is a little low and it would keep many good people out of even thinking about running, many couldn't afford that sort of pay hit. With that pay running would be even more secluded to the wealthy as they live off their current wealth. I don't think the current pay is all that badly off although I do think they should have to be on Obamacare. Anywhere from $120k - $250k seems about right to me.

On the term limits...absolutely.

Special employment resources sounds even more ripe for corruption. I don't think these folks will have a tough time finding a job.

Agree that they should be on Obamacare. I suspect that might get a few more leaning toward the single payer approach.

 

[thewop]

Please go into further what would be considered approved entertainment?

I think $60k is a little low and it would keep many good people out of even thinking about running, many couldn't afford that sort of pay hit. With that pay running would be even more secluded to the wealthy as they live off their current wealth. I don't think the current pay is all that badly off although I do think they should have to be on Obamacare. Anywhere from $120k - $250k seems about right to me.

On the term limits...absolutely.

Special employment resources sounds even more ripe for corruption. I don't think these folks will have a tough time finding a job.

RE Entertainment - There are times when congressmen need to do dinners, meet with each other outside the chamber, etc. This would be "entertainment" as it is with any corporate expense account, so they're not stuck with the bill personally. I would also cover their cell phones, car, etc. on the government.

Maybe $60k is a little low, but I think a middle class wage is reasonable, and given the perks, their cost of living would be greatly reduced. Congressmen who make about the same as their constituents would be viewed much more positively by their constituents, and would also think twice before they make laws that favor groups they're currently a part of, and may even be less tempted to exempt themselves from laws.

 

[The Tradition]

That was then.

There are a lot things from "then" that should be brought back.

 

[The Tradition]

A "representative" is just that. Someone from a tiny little district who is one of the constituents, elected by the community to go to Washington and represent the district's interests. They are supposed to be citizens, not elites, and the job isn't supposed to be permanent. It's only a two-year term, so basically, you never stop running for reelection if you want to keep the job.

 

[unIowa]

RE Entertainment - There are times when congressmen need to do dinners, meet with each other outside the chamber, etc. This would be "entertainment" as it is with any corporate expense account, so they're not stuck with the bill personally. I would also cover their cell phones, car, etc. on the government.

Maybe $60k is a little low, but I think a middle class wage is reasonable, and given the perks, their cost of living would be greatly reduced. Congressmen who make about the same as their constituents would be viewed much more positively by their constituents, and would also think twice before they make laws that favor groups they're currently a part of, and may even be less tempted to exempt themselves from laws.

So no prosties???

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I like how WWJD can see the problem of raising minimum wage when discussing his masters, who make $174k a year, but doesn't worry at all about the problems it causes for people making $40k a year.

 

[thewop]

So no prosties???

Sure, but they can't expense them

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

So no prosties???

If prostitution was legal (as it should be) and they are willing to itemize them for the public record, go for it.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Alternatively, if we paid our Reps the median wage, would they work harder to raise the median wage?

Or suppose we paid our Reps 10 times the minimum wage. Would we still have some trying to do away with the MW? Or would we have them trying to raise the MW?

How does a congressional representative increase the value of my job? Why are you looking at Congress to raise median income? What makes being a congressional representative worth $5M a year? I don't mind making it a good gig, but limit the time there. "Good" people aren't going to waste their time trying to run against long standing incumbents. Doesn't matter how good of a rep they might turn out to be, the election process will kill them off against an entrenched pol.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Then maybe they shouldn't run. If those things are more important to them then the calling to serve for our country (in whatever capacity) then we don't need them. I would rather have someone that is fully vested in the workings of our country vs someone who is distracted part of the time.

I wouldn't.

Distraction from legislating is a good thing.

 

[Huey Grey]

Would we get better Reps if we paid $5 million?

In some ways, we might get worse. There have been psychological studies done over performance and pay and they found that past a certain point, higher pay actually results in worse performance. They general idea is that when pay becomes so high, the worker is no longer able to focus solely on their actual job, but instead starts devoting part of their mental energy to meeting the expectations of their pay. The higher pay basically becomes a distraction because in the back of the worker's mind, they are thinking about the money instead of the job.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

In some ways, we might get worse. There have been psychological studies done over performance and pay and they found that past a certain point, higher pay actually results in worse performance. They general idea is that when pay becomes so high, the worker is no longer able to focus solely on their actual job, but instead starts devoting part of their mental energy to meeting the expectations of their pay. The higher pay basically becomes a distraction because in the back of the worker's mind, they are thinking about the money instead of the job.

Cognitive dissonance theory suggests they might do worse unless they are sociopaths. The idea is that if you are making that much more than other competent people, you probably don't feel you deserve it. The guilt impairs performance. But if you are a sociopath, then you have not qualms about making more and you are confident you deserve it.

Which probably explains why sociopaths are well-represented among the very wealthy.