Amidst the crumbling Economy, Congress gets a raise

T

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
Just to illustrate how out of touch your government is, with record low approval ratings, Congress still gets a raise.

I'm not sure about you, but when in any job I've had, I don't get a raise when my boss doesn't like my work. So why does Congress?

This just further drives home the point just how out of touch our leaders are and how fucked we really are.
 
Most congressmen are under compensated, considering their qualifications. They'd do well to double the salary of all lawmakers -- state and federal. Presidential cabinet positions and supreme court seats should also be better compensated. A graduate from a top law school, even an average student, can make $140k+ straight out of law school. $300k+ after 2 years. Someone like Obama, editor of Harvard Law Review with a great resume, could've easily made more as a first-year associate than he did as a senator. With a year or two experience in the private sector he could've been making more than he will as president. That shit's ridiculous. Why should the top law school graduates choose politics, if they'll be under compensated? If we want more competent politicians, we need to offer to pay them what they're worth.

With that said, doesn't congress get an auto-raise every year unless they vote against it? E.g. if it isn't voted on, they get it? I thought that's how it worked. Doesn't matter though, because politicians are underpaid.
 
That's the thing of it, choice. If someone is aiming for politics they've made that choice and should accept the income that goes along with that choice. I could easily be a very well compensated CPA but I instead chose to spend three years in private accounting and am now making less than I would as a CPA but enjoying my job very much as a CMA and working in analysis instead of a straight credit/debit environment.

One would imagine that just to purchase some political equity, many in congress would vote to give themselves a small cut over the next few years. If we the people are being told to make due with less, perhaps our leaders should lead by example.
 
Yeah, you want people who do it out of civic duty and wanting to make a difference. Not people who do it soley for the salary IMO.

It's just like academia. Professors pretty much never make what they could in the private sector, they (we I guess since I'll be one next year) do it because they want to teach, like the university setting, like having freedom to do their research etc. Thus for the most part you get people who like their jobs and think they are important, and not people just slogging away at it for a good pay check.

Politics is the same way, you want people who are qualified of course, but you want people who truly care, believe in something and want to make a difference. Not people who do it primarily for a good paycheck.

Not every profession benefits by attracting people who want to make the most money possible, so professions like Academia and Politics shouldn't necessarily try to match salaries with the private sector IMO. Some jobs are better done with people who have belief and dedication to the cause as they're driving forcer rather than concern for their own bottom line.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
YES DMAUL EVERYTHING IS JUST LIKE ACADEMIA STFU THX


Congressmen are underpaid, we shouldn't bitch about each American paying them an extra 10 cents a year. End of story.
 
[quote name='Koggit']YES DMAUL EVERYTHING IS JUST LIKE ACADEMIA STFU THX


Congressmen are underpaid, we shouldn't bitch about each American paying them an extra 10 cents a year. End of story.[/quote]

Will you pay the extra 10 cents for me? I'm not too keen on doing it myself. I accept Paypal, check, or money order.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Most congressmen are under compensated, considering their qualifications. They'd do well to double the salary of all lawmakers -- state and federal. Presidential cabinet positions and supreme court seats should also be better compensated. A graduate from a top law school, even an average student, can make $140k+ straight out of law school. $300k+ after 2 years. Someone like Obama, editor of Harvard Law Review with a great resume, could've easily made more as a first-year associate than he did as a senator. With a year or two experience in the private sector he could've been making more than he will as president. That shit's ridiculous. Why should the top law school graduates choose politics, if they'll be under compensated? If we want more competent politicians, we need to offer to pay them what they're worth.

With that said, doesn't congress get an auto-raise every year unless they vote against it? E.g. if it isn't voted on, they get it? I thought that's how it worked. Doesn't matter though, because politicians are underpaid.[/QUOTE]

You seem to completely miss the concept of "Public Servant". Congressional jobs don't have "qualifications", because they don't require them. A strong moral compass is the biggest and most important qualification; and no amount of school or experience ensures that. No piece of paper guarantees that. Only looking a person in the eye, or knowing them, can help gauge that.

Furthermore, if any potential candidate is doing it for the money or not doing it because of the money, that's the first sign they shouldn't be voted for.

And let's not even consider the fact that nearly every Congressman/Senator was a multi-millionaire before they took the job, since in our corrupt system it's the only way you can usually run with any hope to win.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You seem to completely miss the concept of "Public Servant". Congressional jobs don't have "qualifications", because they don't require them. A strong moral compass is the biggest and most important qualification; and no amount of school or experience ensures that.

Furthermore, if any potential candidate is doing it for the money or not doing it because of the money, that's the first sign they shouldn't be voted for.[/QUOTE]

One of the few times we're in total agreement. :applause:
 
Why pay them at all? If they don't do the job for free, despite the fact that they could make millions in the private sector, they shouldn't have the job.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Why pay them at all? If they don't do the job for free, despite the fact that they could make millions in the private sector, they shouldn't have the job.[/quote]
Quite the opposite. They should be paid VASTLY more so that private lobbying efforts and bribes mean less to them.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Quite the opposite. They should be paid VASTLY more so that private lobbying efforts and bribes mean less to them.[/QUOTE]

I think that would back fire. You get people working mainly for the large salary, and you get people that mainly care about money. Such people are likely to be greedy and thus more likely to take bribes etc.

No one is saying they shouldn't be paid, and shouldn't be paid pretty well. The current salaries are pretty reasonable. More than enough to make a comfortable living. If you make it too low, you make it so only people already wealthy can do the job--but make it to high and you attract people who only care about their own checkbooks and just view the job as a pay check.
 
If it were up to me I would only pay on a case by case basis, and I would try to just keep it at paying for moderate living expenses.

Pay for a moderate rent/mortgage, food, and a vehicle or two. Other than that, I don't see why they should have extra from tax payers to invest in stock markets or buy plasma tv's and mercedes benz.

"My businesses were making me enough money to live. But now that I'm in Congress I can get that corvette!"
 
I wouldn't go that far. The salary has to be decent to get qualified people. You want smart, talented people who also have a drive to do public service.

Make the salary too modest and you'll get the latter but not enough of the former IMO. Just have to balance it right so you get well educated and talented people who care about public service, and not talented people who mainly care about their own wallets.

There's something to say for having joe/jane six pack in office--but laws, foreign relations etc. are complicated and I'm not very comfortable with having people lacking a high level of education and/or experience in related areas doing the job.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Most congressmen are under compensated, considering their qualifications. They'd do well to double the salary of all lawmakers -- state and federal. Presidential cabinet positions and supreme court seats should also be better compensated. A graduate from a top law school, even an average student, can make $140k+ straight out of law school. $300k+ after 2 years. Someone like Obama, editor of Harvard Law Review with a great resume, could've easily made more as a first-year associate than he did as a senator. With a year or two experience in the private sector he could've been making more than he will as president. That shit's ridiculous. Why should the top law school graduates choose politics, if they'll be under compensated? If we want more competent politicians, we need to offer to pay them what they're worth.

With that said, doesn't congress get an auto-raise every year unless they vote against it? E.g. if it isn't voted on, they get it? I thought that's how it worked. Doesn't matter though, because politicians are underpaid.[/QUOTE]

But Obama will be making more money giving speeches after his term is over than working for any law firm.
 
They should be happy to make $170k when they don't even work all year. A lot of their shit is comped too. They're not underpaid, it's just that lawyers, etc. are usually overpaid.

I understand that they shouldn't take the job for the money too, and I don't think paying them more will make them take less money from lobbyists (people always want more money, which should be obvious from how much money rich people steal). So I don't know if it really matters unless you want to pay them a ton of money just for the comforting (though probably erroneous) belief that if you do they will be better qualified and do a better job. I think the result will be the same regardless.

That said though, it is an automatic raise that the article says doesn't even match the raise for the cost of living that SS recipients get. So I don't think it's that big of a deal, though they could've voted not to get it just as a symbolic gesture.
 
Some of you want them to be paid MORE? WTF?

Forget their salary. They should be fired en masse, with few exceptions.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Some of you want them to be paid MORE? WTF?

Forget their salary. They should be fired en masse, with few exceptions.[/quote]

I'm KingBroly, and I approve of this message.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Some of you want them to be paid MORE? WTF?

Forget their salary. They should be fired en masse, with few exceptions.[/QUOTE]

That's the job of the American people to do. Unfortunately, the American people are really bad at that job.
 
Sometimes i wish we made our opinions a little more clear in the US. I'm not necessarily advocating violence, but riots are a lot harder to ignore than a few little protests.
 
[quote name='SpazX']lawyers, etc. are usually overpaid.[/QUOTE]

I'd love to hear that justified...


Couldn't disagree more
 
[quote name='Koggit']I'd love to hear that justified...


Couldn't disagree more[/quote]

I don't see how you can really justify anyone's pay in any objective manner. It all depends on what you're comparing. The most objective way I can think of to determine anyone's pay is to measure the market value of a product that they independently produce, but even then the value of the product isn't necessarily grounded in anything itself. But that's not exactly on topic...

I probably didn't word what I was saying quite right anyway. Lawyers aren't usually overpaid - I don't think that lawyers on average are overpaid. I just think that the ones making the kind of money you mentioned are overpaid (300k+ in 2 years, and I'm assuming much much more later).
 
[quote name='Koggit']I'd love to hear that justified...


Couldn't disagree more[/QUOTE]
I can justify it easily. Lawyers are paid far more than their market value because the supply of lawyers is highly controlled and restricted by the government and the ABA.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I can justify it easily. Lawyers are paid far more than their market value because the supply of lawyers is highly controlled and restricted by the government and the ABA.[/QUOTE]

LOL... okay.

Except for the part where it's hard for lawyers to find jobs because there are too many lawyers, from schools opening law colleges just because they're the most profitable type of school.

Many lawyers make less than trade workers with GEDs despite the fact that both work 60hr weeks and the lawyer has 7 years of education (and thus student loans and 7yr loss of income). That is, IF you can find a job... after paying $40k a year for your J.D.

If you can graduate from a top school it's a different story.. but for most lawyers, their job effin sucks and they get paid peanuts.

There's no way I'd even go to law school if I don't get into a T14, it doesn't make financial sense.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I can justify it easily. Lawyers are paid far more than their market value because the supply of lawyers is highly controlled and restricted by the government and the ABA.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. There's totally a dearth of lawyers in the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top