Salary for Members of Congress: $165,200
Salary for the Average American Worker: $39,795.33
Is this balanced? The men and women representing us in Congress are very qualified (many graduated from Ivy league schools), and they do have a VERY important job. When considering these two things, the Congressional salary may seem just. However, paying Congressmen $125,000 more than the average American has a number of problems.
First, Congressmen will not understand the effects of the taxes that they levy on the American public. A Congressmen making $165,000 can still pay $80,000 and be left with a sufficient salary to live comfortably. However, if someone making $40,000 is forced to pay $10,000, the loss of that $10,000 will force them to make serious life adjustments. Placing Congressmen's salaries so far away from the norm causes them to be completely out of touch with the average American, causing a lack of understanding on how the decisions they make affect us as citizens.
Second, Congressmen vote every year on whether or not they deserve a pay increase. IS THIS NOT ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!?!? NO American citizen gets to decide, on their own, how much they should be paid. The manner in which Congress operates is extremely anti-competitive and anti-capitalistic, the very principles upon which our economy is based.
I have thought of three possible solutions to this problem (feel free to let me know of any others you might think of).
One: Pay Senators and Representatives the average American salary. This would ensure that Congressmen make decisions with regard to the welfare of the average American, rather than the wealthy American. This also gives incentive for Congress to allow the economy to flourish. Increases in the salary of the American worker will yield higher salaries for them. We might see a few tougher laws and tax penalties on corporations outsourcing jobs if this were so.
Two: This is the most plausible option. Each November, have Americans vote on whether or not Congressmen deserve a pay raise. This would be a much more fair option. We, the American citizens, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING THEIR SALARIES, would decide how much we want to pay them. The key point to remember is that Congressmen work for US. We are their bosses, and it is only fair that we decide how much we want to pay them
Third: This option would be the most fun and interesting. Create a "Congressional Salary Cap" of something like 50 million dollars. This will be the sum of all salaries paid to all Congressmen. Have the American people vote in each election how much money should be delegated to each Congressmen. Based on each Congressman's "performance," some could be delegated to recieve a $500,000 salary, with others being given $50,000. While this is obviously completely implausible and ridiculous, I think it would be....well....fun. It would create an environment in Congress similar to that in the NFL or NBA. People could go to Washington and cheer for their favorite Senators and Representatives. CSPAN would become the new ESPN. People would do "The Wave" and everything. It'd be sweet.
In conclusion, I truly feel that something needs to be done to regulate Congressional salaries. We are supposed to have a government for the people by the people, not a government for the wealthy by the wealthy.
-Will
That third option is the most interesting. I like it! But it is never going to happen.
Option one is a terrible idea. Why? Because congressmen and women are (hopefully) bright people. To run for office, they give up an incredible amount of privacy. None of these people would sacrifice this for $40K a year. They can make more being a typical white-collar worker and keep their privacy. So what will happen is you'll get retards running for congress. And you'll get more rich people running for congress (b/c they don't need the extra money)... not a good idea.
Option two is not as bad as one. But what american will vote for raising their salary at taxpayer expense. Put that question in front of the typical voting citizen and he'll think, "WHAT? 165K!!! Hell, no!" And so what will happen is that they will never get raises. Then they'll make initiatives to decrease their pay. Then you're in danger of option 1.
I thought that congress didn't vote on raises anymore. I heard that instead of giving themselves raises every year (because constituents don't like seeing that), they passed a bill that increased their pay automatically every so often. I could be wrong though.
-r
They don't "vote" on pay increases anymore, they have something that annually increases their pay unless they vote against it, so they could technically vote against a pay raise for themselves if they wanted to (yeah right).
Option 1 may not be the best. It might create a situation similar to what we have with trying to recruit qualified teachers. However, congressmen often have many other sources of income other than their congressional salaries (around half are millionaires). But you are correct, option 1 is not the best.
If option 2 was implemented, it would probably be a while before any pay raises were approved by the taxpayers (which I feel is good). It would be probably be around 20 or 30 years before they got another pay raise, and by that time their salary would be much closer to the norm. Most people, naturally, are not going to vote for a pay raise for people already making 165K. I think eventually their salaries would wind up where the majority of the public feels they should be: above the average American salary (because they have a tough job), but not too high (they still have to be in touch with the American people).
My main point is that the salary should be in the hands of the people (with maybe a few restrictions to make sure it doesn't get too low or too high)
Option 3 is growing on me more and more though...
I am going to have to agree with what you've posted. I personally think there needs to be a change here, and I agree with most everything that "The Wealthy American" blog had to say.
If congressmen got paid less, it would allow them to see what we, the normal people, are having to deal with, and what we, the normal people, are paying them to fix. Though they're not doing a real great job at fixing things right now.
As for Option Three, it could be a fun idea. I would almost like to see a college or university try this out, with fake money of course, and see how well it would work. Maybe another Stanford Project, I don't know. But If the American People decided on who gets what amount, then there would be better people in office, and those that were not liked, would know when they see their paycheck. I just think it would be a fun idea.
The pay increases that they recieve are much smaller than you might think. Their salary is increased by maybe two or three percent each year, just to keep up with inflation in the economy (school teachers get a similar increase).
And do you honestly think that your representative is going to vote for something in Congress (like a tax increase) that will make you unhappy? He/she's there because you voted for him/her, and it's going to be you who will decide whether he/she stays in the House or goes (when I say you, I'm assuming you're of age to vote, otherwise, your family and neighbors who can vote). Congressmen want to be reelcted at the end of their two-year term, and in order to do so they have to make their constituents happy and listen to their needs.
It's pretty obvious that they do not accurately represent the American public in terms of salary and pay, but they listen to the needs of their own constituents carefully and care for those needs respectively, because it's their job as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The one thing you neglected to mention is that the average teacher salary is approximately ONE FOURTH of the average congressional salary. Teachers do NOT, I repeat, do NOT get the same percent raise as our congressmen do. At least my mom, a teacher, doesn't.
Due to privately funded elections, each November we are forced to go and essentially vote for the lesser of two evils. So, we DONT get to vote for who we want to vote for. We go and vote for whichever rich, idiotic prick we feel will screw us over the least.
By not giving the citizens a say in how much we want to pay them, they are, in effect, ROBBING us.
I wasn't saying that teacher got a similar percentage increase, just an increase similar to Congressmen in that it's all to keep up with economic inflation, not just because they think they should get a raise.
And as for being forced to vote, I really do not remember reading in the Constitution that voting was a requirement for being a citizen of the United States. If you do not like either of the candidates, don't vote, simple as that.
The difference is that teachers often DO NOT get this raise, and it is not the teachers who decide whether or not they get this raise. Their bosses decide this. However, the Congressmen are the ones in charge of their own salaries, rather than their bosses: us.
When I said "forced," this is what I meant: Assuming we wish to vote, we are forced to choose between two candidates who do not truly have our best interests at heart. A counterargument to this may be "If people really didn't like either of the two candidates, a third party would be elected." I wish it were like this. Unfortunately, human beings are usually reactionary creatures. With only two candidates being given a decent amount of media coverage, most view a vote for a third party as a waste of a vote.
I'm not saying that I agree with how they can influence thier own salaries, but I definitely don't think that they are being paid too much. Being a congressman would be expensive. Think of the travel expenses, thier clothing expenses (since they are always in a suit and tie), thier food expenses - Thier salary is justified by thier positions, education, and expenses.
They have a hard job, no doubt, but consider this fact:
40% of Senators are millionaires. I'm pretty sure that most job-related expenses, such as travel, are covered and they are not required to pay for them, similar to most other jobs.
It does not matter if most of them are millionairs. It works the same way any other job works. Senators are well qualified and it is a difficult job to get therefore the pay should be higher than the adverage job. It is not the adverage job.
Having millionaires in the Senate only truly makes them empathetic to issues relevant to millionaires. Many Senators try and represent the average citizen, but unfortunately, most of them are out of touch with things that effect the average American and how to help them. It's just hard for them to truly understand, that's all. We, as citizens, should have at least SOME direct say in how much they get paid.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Are they too good to eat bologna or Ramen noodles, or wear second hand clothes, or car pool, or to stay in cheaper lodging? And I've often noticed many jobs which call for a specified education could be done much better by people who don't have the degree, but have the knowledge and WISDOM to do the job. I going to college to get my degree in education, but that degree won't make me smarter, the knowledge and my desire and passion to understand my students will take me to where I want to go in my life.
Alright, this is a horrible issue to bring up with me sitting here. In any case, when you make minimum wage and you read every day about people like this getting pay raises, and oil companies raising their rates for their own profit, it gets annoying. They don't deal with the minimum wage worker everyday and they don't show concern for them either. This is a great topic to bring up and stated very well I might add.
Alexa
Where there's a will, there's a way.
I still say that politicians need to live with a family who lives on minimum wage, or even who live just barely above minimum wage. Let them do without enough money for adequate medical care, transportation, clothing, housing, nutrition, and all the other things just to keep afloat. Also, let them observe and enjoy how so many families work to help each other out, when one or more, family member has fallen through the cracks in our system.
They need to fully know how we often juggle the myriad sacrifices in daily life, and hope our illnesses don't get worse, that we don't get caught without car ins, that we don't lose our children because of being poor, that we can somehow eat, that we have running water and electricity, that our car doesn't break down, that it doesn't rain before we can get our roof fixed, that we don't get a traffic ticket. One little slip and our world crashes. Who knows, they may question the subject of voting for pay raises and then focus more on the issues which cause so many of us so damn much stress.
Politicians, doctors, lawyers, teachers, counselors, and other vocations need to be doing their jobs with a higher ideal in mind, not just for a salary. I'm not saying they need to be poor, but their heart is needed in order to do a better job for all of us. Understanding is the key.
The amount that congressmen are getting paid is rediculous. But they are not the only ones, policemen, teachers, baseball players...you name it. They are all being paid too much.
http://www.progressiveu.org/070110-why-is-our-world-so-immature
Just another thought from BenTaylor...
Policemen??? Teachers??? These are the people that keep our society safe and running smoothly. By no means whatsoever are they paid too much! The average teacher salary is around $40,000, which, in my community at least, is not enough to raise a family. Teachers and policemen should definately be paid more than entertainment figures though. Society would do just fine without MLB, but without teachers we would fall apart.
Teachers don't get paid enough... Policemen, however, do (in my opinion).
Starting teachers get paid in the upper 30s to low 40s throughout most of the US. I hear that the starting salary is much higher in some new england states. But for the most parts, teachers get paid very little. (The consequence of ineffective government beaurocracies.)
Starting pay for police in the SF bay area is in the 70s last time I checked. I think that is adequate.
-R
One of the major issues you see here is that a congressmen is pumping out more money than he makes during election time. Yes, of course, he's getting sponsorships and the likes but overall its all up to how hard he's working to get those donations. Also, they are very qualified people in most cases and I think their pay is fine... regardless of how things are, you have to admit that in the current state of things our government are not average americans. I think that its that way simply because of the way we run our campaigns.
A poor man is not going to win the presidency. He can't pump out enough cash, he doesn't know enough rich people... no one is going to know him. They'll shrug their shoulders thinking who is that when they see them on the ballet.
Changing the congressman's salary won't accomplish much, because they've probably got 100x that in the bank anyhow and its only going to damper their abilities to be reelected.
Congressmen's campaigns, with the exception of a view (See Lieberman/Lamont) are funded privately and not by the congressman themselves, but by private donors. This is why we need publicly funded elections. If they have 100x what they make in the bank, then that's just all the MORE reason to lower their salary. They aren't ALL super-rich, but lowering their salary would bring a significant number back down to earth. I'm not saying our Senators and Representatives necessarily should BE the average American, but they should at least be able to adequately REPRESENT the average American.
Politics is definitely a very stressful job, and in most cases the expertese, required education, and STRESS of the job is factored into the salary recieved.
I am sure there are a few congressmen who come from a less than rich background, perhaps hit them up and give them your vote ;)
You can't take an average of salaries, compare them, and call it a statistic. You forget that there are far more people working for minimum wage than there are people working for salary. Why do doctors get paid more than construction workers? Why do lawyers get paid more than auto mechanics?
--Mike
Because lawyers possess a skill that only a small amount of people have.
You don't think it takes skill to be an auto mechanic?
--Mike
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Exactly, Mike. The same goes for a check out clerk, fast-food worker, housekeeper, retail clerk, driver, parent, nurse, file clerk, secretary,chicken plucker and the extensive list goes on. By the way my husband is an auto mechanic, and he is the one who is making it possible for me to continue my education, while being the sole provider of a household of 4-5, living on approximately $400/wk. I had only a $500 scholarship this semester for financial aid, and I pawned the title to our car to get the rest(due to polocies regarding remedial Algebra which I volunteered to take again so I would be able to finally grasp the subject, therefore making me, hopefully, a better qualified educator). Now we are struggling to pay that loan off. It's the first time we've gone into debt since we've been together. I am thankful that I get Pell again Spring semester. But I question a system which makes education so out of reach for so many people. I just hope we can do without student loans, because then there's a risk of something going wrong, illness, etc. Been there and suffered greatly when my daughters were young and I was a very ill single mom.
Skill is not the determining factor. If anything, I would say it is scarcity. Where there is scarcity, there is power.
The epitome of high paying jobs are what??? Doctors, lawyers... underwater welders, alaskan crab fishermen??? To be a doctor or a lawyer requires a lot of schooling and test taking. Not many people want to do that. And most people find the latter jobs too risky.
Though it may take skill to be a mechanic, you can find one anywhere.
-R
Where there's a will, there's a way.
There are risks involved in all jobs. All jobs involve training and education, in order to obtain any given set of skills.
There are risks in all jobs. There are risks in everything anyone of us does. Some are just riskier than others. And it is a simple fact that risk is an aversion. The higher the risk in a field, the less likely people will want to do it. Like somone I knew used to say, "High risk, high yield."
-r
Where there's a will, there's a way.
I've worked at a convenience store to feed my children. I wore an alarm device in case of a robbery attempt. How much was that risk worth? I got paid $6.00/hr, third shift, working alone, sole provider for my two very young daughters, heavy lifting( I weighed less than a 100 lbs, and was very ill), and many duties involved. I've also worked at a hardware store, doing almost everything the much larger males did, cleaned house..the list goes on, all while risking my health. How much is my health worth?
I'm not sure what you're saying.
Finding people that are willing to work for $6 per hour at a convenience store is not that hard. There is no scarcity there. I don't understand what you're getting at.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
I'm speaking about the concept of relative value as regards risk. Another thing, "willing to work" for $6/hr and "scarcity'? The original blog had to do with minimum wage, pros and cons, and why a few people earn so much more than most of us.
The original blog had to do with the delta between a congressman's earnings and an average worker's earnings and how to better align them. Someone implied that just because lawyers have a skill that few have, doesn't mean that they should be getting paid more. Though I believe all of our postings simplify the complex relationship among the many variables that determine wages in the labor market, I stand by my general position that scarcity in the labor market pushes wages up.
I still don't understand what you're getting at with relative value. (Clearly, different people value things differently. And?) Furthermore, I don't understand why every response you make begins with "where there's a will, there's a way."
-R
The point is that everyone is of value. And that we all lose when only a few are paid so well, while so many honest, hard working people go without the basics in life. Where there's a will, there's a way. This is a phrase which my dear grandmother taught me and I value and honor her, even though her main occupation was sharecropper, wife, mother, grandmother and friend of many. She never finished the third grade, took many risks, and saved lives, spread hope and understanding. Have you ever had ONLY will to live on?
I agree that we all have value. Oh, and to answer your question, I've never had only will to live on.
You're talking about how things should be where I'm talking about how things are. (Hence, my confusion).
Adopting socialist or communist values is not something I want to discuss. I didn't know that was where you were headed.
It sounds like your grandmother was a good woman. Thank you for sharing that. I wasn't sure what you meant about where there's a will there's a way...
The point is that everyone is of value. And that we all lose when only a few are paid so well, while so many honest, hard working people go without the basics in life. Where there's a will, there's a way. This is a phrase which my dear grandmother taught me and I value and honor her, even though her main occupation was sharecropper, wife, mother, grandmother and friend of many. She never finished the third grade, took many risks, and saved lives, spread hope and understanding. Have you ever had ONLY will to live on?
the only problem with any of those options, is how they would have to be changed, it would have to go through Congress and it would probably just get killed in committee, so really there is nothing we can do about it
The salary congressmen receive is one of the biggest reasons they will never fix social security. Why should they? It doesn't affect them. I say vote for a different congressman and Senator every 2 years. Don't let these guys stay in office for 20 years.
the only problem with that is you start running into people (and there's a lot of them) that you'd rather not have in office, but the guy that's currently in office, has to go because his 2 year term is up.