this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
198 points (94.2% liked)

politics

19102 readers
4125 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

He's not alone: AOC and others have argued lawmakers should be paid more in order to protect against corruption and make the job more accessible.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] misnina@lemmy.ml 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I have no type of economics experience, but what if representatives of a demographic of people should be paid the median wage of those people, with high punishment for corruption and bribes?

If they would like to earn more, they should lift their states's lowest wages. This goes down to all levels, a mayor of a city only earns the median wage of the city. It is a civil servant job after all, it shouldn't be glamorous.

[–] flipht@kbin.social 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is a good idea in theory, but it doesn't really hold up when you look at what we ask reps to do.

They have to maintain two households, basically, and have a lot of travel expenses.

State legislatures are a great sandbox to review how pay impacts the folks who can afford to hold seats. Turns out, the less they're paid, the more likely they are to be independently wealthy. You will never "show them what it's like" to be poor by paying them less - you'll just ensure that actual normal people can't afford to take the position.

I think it was Maine that had a fully volunteer legislature? And had the richest legislature ever.

Ultimately, this is another problem of America trying to retain an agricultural mindset (part time legislature so that everyone could go home to farm), despite the world having changed.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

So if they have to keep up two household, let them have two average incomes. It would still be less.

[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The average income in Alabama is 49K per year. The average cost of living in DC is 78k per year. Representatives need to have a home in their district while also working in DC.

The best outcome of your change would be to limit being a representative to someone already rich enough to not need their salary

If not, since your proposal heavily prevents corruption and bribes, you'd be forcing the Rep to work a second job or be homeless

[–] eltrain123@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Representatives don’t need to own a home in DC.

The president doesn’t own the White House, it comes with the position and goes to the next person elected after they serve their term.

There is no reason the state can’t own property in DC that comes with use during service.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

But that sounds like communist public housing /s

[–] llamapocalypse@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

That's actually not a bad idea in principal but would you want to live in a place after Matt Gaetz?