Obvioisly that shoild be 200k not 250
I think is a fairly reasonable argument in principle. In practice, I’m not sure that “average person living in new york” is quite the same as “average person making well more than twice what the average new york household makes”. Plus, factor in the status. “Vice President of Exxon Mobil” is gonna pay a hell of a lot more than “Congressman”, but said VP is a considerably lower-status position, all things considered.
This would not surprise me. Following the Contract with America wave in 1994, several new lawmakers made a show of staying in their offices to save money and to show they were there temporarily. I recall The Washington Post doing several articles on it in 1995.
Look at it a different way. The conventional wisdom is that people should spend in the neighborhood of about 30% of their gross income on housing. If someone is from a more expensive area to live, they are already paying substantially more than that. Then to add another 11% of their income going to housing costs to afford a studio in DC, I think it is fair to ask whether members of Congress are being fairly compensated in line with other Americans who have similar work responsibilities.
Let me also put this another way. Let’s say there is a senior government employee, not a politician, who must travel often for their work. Let’s say that this senior employee makes a salary of $130, maybe even $150, which is in a reasonable range for top bureaucrats. When they are sent on travel, even for extensive periods short of permanently moving somewhere else, they get a per diem to defray the cost of staying wherever it is that they must go. Depending on where they are sent, it can be hundreds of dollars a day for lodging, meals, and miscellaneous expenses.
It’s clear that there is a policy that recognizes that such workers don’t have to pay out of pocket for these work-related expenses, even if they knew in advance that the work would require frequent travel. The “OMG do you know that $150k a year is SOOOOOOOO RICH compared to median incomes!!!” argument is rejected for these people.
So if someone else working for the government literally has to have two homes for their period of service, why shouldn’t they be treated in a fairly similar manner? I think it is a reasonable point.
And again, I’m not in favor of people living in government offices.
Why would you think that people who make more money are “smarter,” “more driven,” or “more politically savvy”? I guess you could argue they are more driven to make money, but that’s exactly the wrong thing we want for a representative. We want people driven by civic causes. We want people who want to help their country and fellow citizen.
I’d actually argue candidates who would turn down the job for making too little money are the last people we’d want actually doing the job. It’s clear their motivation is monetary. The only reason they’d ever want the job is to make money, meaning they’ll do the bear minimum they need to stay in office, and no more. Because that’s how you work smart to make money.
Sure, there is some correlation with money and education, simply because of how our education system works. But that correlation is much more pronounced on the lower end. Nearly all of the intelligent people I know make less than $100,000 a year.
As for “political savvy,” I’m not entirely sure what that is. The good quality I would associate with that is being “friendly, likable, and good at making arguments.” But I again know so many people like that, and none of them make anywhere near what a Congressperson makes.
So, sure, if you define average by “average in intelligence,” I wouldn’t necessary want an average citizen of NYC (or, worse, my area) in office. But “making an average salary”? Not a problem at all.
I mean, we have people so rich in Congress that they think $1000 is the price of a new car. Sure hasn’t made them more intelligent or better at their job. Why not replace them with a smart person who actually knows what real life is like?
I’m all for the government building or buying a couple of apartment buildings in DC so that each Congresscritter can have his/her own 2-bedroom apartment in DC, rent-free. Doesn’t have to be fancy; the more utilitarian, the better, AFAIAC.
But for the past 50+ years (damn, I’m getting old) I’ve been hearing these sob stories from Congresscritters about how expensive it is to maintain two residences. This would say to them: OK, here’s your apartment, now STFU. If you’ve got the money and the inclination, buy yourself a nice house in Cleveland Park. But either way, kwitcherbitchen.
People who run for congress and win are (on the whole) not average people. The vast majority are college graduates. Most of them have more than one college degree. They tend to be the kind of people who wear a suit and tie to work every day. They tend to be very good at public speaking. Those are the kinds of people who tend to find it easy to get voters to vote for them. If you don’t fit that mold, it’s really hard to get voters to vote for you.
Forget about how much the average person makes. Look instead at what the average college graduate with more than one degree who wears a suit and tie to work and is very good at public speaking makes. I’ll bet the median is above $200K. Take one of those people and say, “I’ve got a great idea for you! Give up the job you currently have, take a new job a thousand miles away, only get to see your family on weekends, pay for your own plane tickets back and forth, and pay to rent an apartment in the city where your new job is. And oh, by the way, the new job actually pays a little less than what you’re making now. But hey, you can make it work, right? Maybe you could sell your house where you live now and uproot your family to move to the new job to save money. Too bad it’s in a city with a high cost of living.” See how many are willing to take you up on the offer. Spoiler alert! The ones who ARE willing to take that offer have probably figured out some kind of scam where they can profit from the deal by taking kickbacks or bribes.
The average salary for a lawyer is about $150k in the big cities and maybe $120k in smaller markets.
I’m not trying to be insulting at all, I’m really and truly not. But that just reads to me as being a sweet and naive post.
Politics is a full contact sport. I’d guess it was in the day of Plato and I think it is today. If you don’t think that the most successful people in the country are on the whole “smarter,” “more driven,” or “more politically savvy” than your average person I’d have to disagree.
Most of the intelligent people I know make more than the $100,000 you mention. Part of that is because I live in a city. I think driven people are driven in most aspects of their lives. They want an attractive spouse. They want to make a difference in their community. They want their kids to be successful. They want to be financial successful as well. They want to be at the top of their profession.
Bottom line is that I’d like the so called “best and the brightest” in Congress. And I think we get that by making it somewhat financially inciting, without getting crazy rich.
Entry level salaries for lawyers at top law firms was about $175K as of a few years ago. (I don’t recall if that included bonuses - I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.)
So? I am well aware some lawyers can earn much more money than $170k but sbunny8 is way off guessing the median salary of a good-talking guy with 2 degrees is $200k. If a lawyer in Iowa decides to run for Congress, he’s likely in for a raise if he wins not even counting a nice office budget and other expenses.
As I have noted a congressional salary puts them well into the top 10% highest earners among everyone in the US (top 10% household income…not just individual income). So no, most people with a white collar job do not make that much money. Some small percent make more. Most make less.
Also, there are lots of jobs people work that take them far from home and family on a regular basis. People in the military, people working remote oil platforms, airline pilots and stewardesses, long haul truckers are a few that leap to mind.
Finally, congresscritters have their travel paid for when it is to/from their home district and Washington DC.
They also get a $3,000 write-off on their taxes for living expenses which is not much but they do get a very nice pension so there is that.
Benjamin Franklin wanted congress to not be paid at all but that didn’t happen. They got something like a $6/day per diem till 1855 when they started collecting a salary of $3,000. In today’s terms that is around $81,000. So, they managed with less back then and when travel was much more difficult. They are paid more than twice as much today and get to fly in jets.
Cry me a river.
The lawyer average salaries that you quote includes anyone working as a lawyer, from the best to the worst. sbunny8 is talking about the more talented and ambitious from that group, whose salaries will be much higher than the average.
Do you mean to say that all these professions have no provision whatsoever for per diem when the worker is away from home? The question isn’t whether travel away from home is part of the job or not. The question is whether a person ought to have some sort of compensation for time spent away from home.
The pension is exactly the same as every full time Federal employee. Nice, but just as nice as millions of other Americans are eligible for.
"Look instead at what the average college graduate with more than one degree who wears a suit and tie to work and is very good at public speaking makes. I’ll bet the median is above $200K. "
Median salary for an attorney in the US is about $81,500/year. So, half make more, half make less. Experience on moderately affects salary.
Interestingly this graph shows two big peaks for starting salaries for attorneys. Some few make the BIG bucks and most make decent but relatively modest livings as an attorney. We tend to hear more from the ones making serious bank and assume they are representative of the profession when they are more of an exception.
OK, so suppose that we say that an efficiency apartment in DC costs $20,000 a year, and so we give all Representatives a raise of that amount. That should settle the matter, right? Except then, we’d get Representatives complaining “We only get $194,000 a year, and have to maintain two residences! There’s no way we can possibly make ends meet!”, just as much as they’re complaining right now. Or looking at it the other way, we could just as well say that a Representative’s current compensation is a salary of $154,000 a year, plus a $20,000 housing allowance. Do we say that $154,000 isn’t enough? It’d be plenty more than enough for me.
Oil workers are given a barracks to sleep in. Stewardesses have to pay for crash pads where as many as 30 other flight staff stay and they do so at their own expense (some airlines may pay a housing allowance). Point is not everyone who lives away from home for work is provided with cushy living arrangements at the employer’s expense.
I wish (bolding mine):
So you’d like your average Congressman/woman to be on par with the local oil platform worker and long haul trucker? Good hard working people I’m sure, but that’s about the overall quality your looking for??
Ahh got now. NM.
May I say I feel refreshed at the defense of elitism in some posts, because you do want the members to be top quality people. 
That said, though, the elite in the Upper West Side of Manhattan and the elite in the Idaho Panhandle inhabit different financial, cultural and social worlds. And I don’t get to make the representatives of those districts satisfy me. Part of the point is that not everyone be the same.
Myself I say it’s one thing to overnight in the office if there are late votes or you are snowed in, or for the first few months until you find regular quarters or someone to share with. It’s another to de facto reside there the whole term. You’re a grownup and a federal official, and this is a public office not a hostel. Plus, it’s not as if you don’t know what you’re getting into when you run.
A Congressional Dorm would be a nonstarter with much of the public unless conditions were near penal, plus a potential security hazard. Also, for crying out loud I do want these people to have lives away from Capitol Hill, not reinforce the Bubble.