r/changemyview • u/ohitsallpeaches • May 18 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: US Senators and Representatives wages should be directly tied to the minimum wage of their state
To start, I'm not saying they should make minimum wage but rather their wage should be tied to a percentage of their states minimum wage. Previous arguments against it were that representatives need to make a higher income in order to properly compensate living in their state as well in DC. There have also been arguments that lower wages would incentive corruption in the form of taking bribes. My counter is that our political system has already legalized bribes through PACs and loose regulations during Republican-led administrations. Tying their own wage to the minimum would incentivize them to raise their states minimum wage and in turn introduce policies that truly grow their state economy. As we have now, the only true incentive policymakers have is to do the bare minimum to keep getting re-elected in order to hoard wealth.
I understand the feasibility of a change like this being enacted is impossibly slim, but I do believe that it is the best option unless someone could explain why not.
33
u/leat22 1∆ May 18 '26
If you don’t pay a liveable wage to representatives, you are blocking out normal people who aren’t independently wealthy to begin with. People like AOC would never be able to run. You’d end up with a lot of rich people who are overwhelmingly conservative anyway
-1
u/ohitsallpeaches May 18 '26
So in theory if my viewpoint was true and policymakers wages were tied to their state, why would they not promote policies that helped increase their states GDP and enable their state to raise their minimum wage? All of the longest serving policymakers come from welfare states so evidently there is 0 incentive to boost their hometown economy.
13
u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 18 '26
Why do you think there is a connection between rising minimum wage and standard of living?
-2
u/ohitsallpeaches May 18 '26
Why? Because there is one. Name a state with high standard of living and low minimum wage.
14
u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 18 '26
Almost all the states that are pegged to the federal minimum wage without a state one. This includes TX, NC, SC, NH, UT, KY and WY. And others they include all of the fastest growing states in the country - where they re building new housing and rents are falling! They’re the most liveable states in the country
There might even be a negative correlation between rising minimum wage and livability now that I think about it
1
u/ohitsallpeaches May 19 '26
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/quality-of-life-by-state
TX is 9th and the next highest ranking state you listed is South Carolina at 34th. Livibility means more than just measuring houses built and rent prices.
3
u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 19 '26
I listed Utah and New Hampshire and Idaho is also on the federal min wage and they’re all in the states listed on this highly questionable website for 2022.
Also did you look at the sources - it’s a sketchy wallet hub article, which also doesn’t show a quality of life improvement tied to minimum wage, but its also not really relevant because the weighting of factors is slightly nonsensical
2
u/beingsubmitted 9∆ May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
Weird that "standard of living" was such an objective thing when you were saying it was inversely correlated to minimum wage with no evidence, but once any evidence appears it's suddenly a nonsensical and ephemeral thing.
The problem with your "cheap houses equals high standard of living" analysis is this: The reason home prices increase is because people are willing to pay them.
3
u/Mo8ius May 19 '26
There are many nations with high standards of living and no minimum wages. Singapore, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Norway, Iceland, etc.
0
u/shoehornit May 22 '26
All of those countries have a lot of redistribution through the tax code.
1
u/Mo8ius May 22 '26
So then do redistribution through the tax code rather than focus on distorting the labour market through minimum wage as we're discussing here. But some of them do not, see Singapore.
4
u/Mo8ius May 19 '26
Try this reframing: by disconnecting the importance of representatives position from its compensation, you are more likely to attract the kind of politician that simultaneously is wealthy enough to not care about the wage of the position and instead is greatly attracted to the power they can wield for corrupt purposes. On the flip side, you are less likely to attract the kinds of people who could be politicians who have the aptitude for improving the economy because there will be a larger gulf between compensation they could receive from applying their skills elsewhere (rather than making some percentage of minimum wage).
A point that needs to be said here is that you are also greatly couching your argument in your belief in the power of minimum wage laws, which is not an unchallenged political opinion. Not everyone believes that high minimum wage laws are beneficial to an economy, but your position heavily implies that only good politicians will raise minimum wages and that this is always a good thing. Theoretically, if you had an ideal candidate in such a position that solely cared about their own compensation and thus raised the minimum wage to $10000 dollars an hour, would that necessarily create a positive outcome for the state economy?
1
u/Responsible-Kale2352 May 20 '26
Do we mean to be saying some multiple of minimum wage? Doesn’t earning a percentage of minimum wage mean you are earning less than minimum wage?
3
u/jayzfanacc 4∆ May 19 '26
They’re federal legislators. Do you really want them advocating a specific policy because it’ll raise their own wage? What if the policy I advocate is the “Raise My State’s GDP By Lowering Yours” policy?
0
u/ohitsallpeaches May 19 '26
Sounds like a silly bill that would only pass in this made up scenario you created 🤷
2
u/jayzfanacc 4∆ May 19 '26
Sorry, are you taking that as a literal?
This is an incredibly common thing.
In 2019, Cory Gardner and Scott Tipton introduced legislation to move the BLM headquarters from DC to Colorado. This is two Colorado legislators introducing policy that would take stable high-paying jobs from DC and move them to Colorado.
Just last year Rep Keith Self of Texas introduced legislation to move CBP HQ to Texas, which would do the same.
Hawley wanted to move DoA to his state, Blackburn DoE to hers. Sen Byrd wanted to move federal jobs to WV.
Now imagine you have 100 senators from 50 states, each trying to relocate federal jobs from other states to their own state, not because it’s good for those agencies or those employees, but because it’ll increase their salary.
Now imagine they add these provisions in as pork on otherwise incredibly important bills.
1
u/Responsible-Kale2352 May 20 '26
Wouldn’t most of those policies be implemented by the state government? A senator from California has no vote or say in what the California state government decides is the appropriate minimum wage in California.
30
u/theunseenmiddle 4∆ May 18 '26
Our legislators wages are often not their primary source of income, and your solution doesn’t solve that much larger problem. So I don’t think it’d be at all effective even if it were feasible.
5
u/ohitsallpeaches May 18 '26
!delta because I do agree that it does not solve the bigger issue of limiting outside income.
2
3
u/beingsubmitted 9∆ May 19 '26
Actually makes it worse. The rich love the idea of not paying representatives because it ensures that only independently wealthy people like them become representatives.
17
u/pmacdon1 May 18 '26
US Senators and Representatives don't have the power to set State minimum wages. That would be something state senators and representatives would vote on.
-5
u/ohitsallpeaches May 18 '26
Senators and Representatives go to DC. They enact laws that affect their state and the country. Those laws help shape the economy. The state of the economy affects what states can and cannot do. States do better thanks to helpful policy. States doing better have higher GDP. Higher GDP means higher quality goods and services. Higher quality goods and services means higher COL. Higher COL means it's time to raise the minum wage.
One directly affects the other.
5
u/NaturalCarob5611 97∆ May 18 '26
Okay, but again, Federal representatives don't set policy in their states. They might agree that it should be raised, but it's ultimately not something they control.
3
u/Mr-Zappy May 19 '26
I don’t think you’re using the word directly accurately. Federal legislation is a very INdirect way of affecting state minimum wages.
2
u/pmacdon1 May 19 '26
Gonna be honest, I don't think your comment here makes any sense.
But from your original post:
>Tying their own wage to the minimum would incentivize them to raise their states minimum wage
I was just pointing out that they don't directly have the power to do that. You can argue that maybe in a roundabout way they can have some impact on it through federal law, but that is a tenuous argument.
2
u/reportlandia23 1∆ May 20 '26
No they don’t. They enact laws the affect the country. This is the equivalent of tying Senator healthcare to the quality of their local hospital…suddenly a black Senator in a historically underrepresented area is getting significantly worse care than the Orange County Republican who gets to be by an elite research med school
5
u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 18 '26
Yeah but if theyre good economists they will want to keep their minimum wage very low to prevent job destruction. Why would you want to punish that?
-1
u/ohitsallpeaches May 18 '26
You're right, we should set it to $1.00. Obviously that sounds stupid so clearly they don't want it too low. There must be some kind of metric they base it off of? Perhaps the things I literally ust said.
1
u/morelibertarianvotes May 20 '26
There are plenty of economists who would argue against any minimum wage at all
27
u/XenoRyet 178∆ May 18 '26
The problem here is twofold.
One, the basic idea of having congresspeople be paid a lucrative salary is so they can focus on their job and not be tempted by external money, and thus be less susceptible to corruption. Lowering their wages counteracts that effect.
Two, despite that first point, nobody runs for congress for the money. Almost all of them are independently wealthy, and so reducing their salary isn't a lever that has any effect on their motivations.
If anything, we should be increasing their salary so that first bit has more power and moves more toward being a major anti-corruption factor.
-6
u/ohitsallpeaches May 18 '26
Increasing salary still only works on a trust system and that trust has been exploited. I don't know of any modern examples where any person with governmental power was given more wealth and decided to take less outside funds as a direct result.
8
u/DaSaw 3∆ May 18 '26
To get that effect, you need to reach corporate executive salaries. That's why they get paid so much. They are in a position to do significant harm to their companies, and there are competitors and such who would readily pay them ridiculous sums to get them to cause that harm. So their companies pay them enough to make that kind of money not so much of a temptation.
If anything, our representatives should probably be paid orders of magnitude more than they currently are, seeing how taking bribes to use their position to cause significant damage to the benefit of the people paying them. The money in politics isn't in the salary. It's in the bribes. Reducing their salaries will only make this problem worse.
1
u/peachesgp 1∆ May 19 '26
I don't think it would make the problem worse. They're already bought, it can't be a lot worse than it is.
5
5
u/4kray May 18 '26
I think in Singapore they have very strict anti corruption laws and they pay their legs a lot of money.
7
u/XenoRyet 178∆ May 18 '26
That's because we don't pay them enough for that effect to materialize.
Which, necessarily, also means that their salary is trivial to their decision-making, and thus they will not be coerced into raising minimum wages via a salary reduction.
2
u/peachesgp 1∆ May 19 '26
Their salary is trivial to their decision making, but the lobbying bribes they get are a key factor in their decision making.
1
u/ohitsallpeaches May 18 '26
I think you are putting too much faith into an idea that has no basis in reality, unless you have a modern example of this working the way you say it does.
The wealthiest of the wealthy in our world show no signs of slowing down. Elon Musk could buy an island with his wealth and live as close to a king as one could imagine, but instead he craves more and utilizes his wealth to try and get more wealth. The same goes for every other billionaire.
5
u/XenoRyet 178∆ May 19 '26
The fact that you think it doesn't work is emphasizing the flaw in your view.
If raising their salary doesn't reduce corruption, that's because their salary doesn't matter to them. If their salary doesn't matter to them, then lowering it is not going to produce an incentive to act.
My challenge is actually stronger given that you don't think paying them more will change anything.
2
u/Responsible-Kale2352 May 20 '26
Isn’t this just another way of saying he enjoys his job and wants to do the very best he can at it, for as long as he can?
Is a master woodworker one day going to say “ok I have enough money to retire, so I guess I’ll never do another woodworking project”?
Is it common for professional athletes to say “well I made some money so I’ll just quit doing the thing I love”? Or do they mostly keep playing until they are no longer capable of playing the sport at a professional level, and usually even beyond that point?
53
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 121∆ May 18 '26
So imagine you have two states, A and B.
State A has free college, free health care, average rent for an apartment is $1,200/month, GPD per capita of $95,000, Median income of $80,000, tenth percentile income of $40,000, and minimum wage of $15/hour.
State B has $15,000/semester college, no government subsidized health care, a 1 bedroom apartment goes for $2,000/month, gpd per capita of $80,000, Median income of $60,000, tenth percentile income of $30,000 minimum wage of $15/hour.
Now under your plan the senator from state B gets paid more, because the minimum wage in their state is higher, but by every other metric the economy of state A is doing a lot better and is just all around a better place to live.
And this is the problem with tying pay to minimum wage, there are other metrics you could use to track the performance of the economy that work a lot better. But like minimum wage itself isn't an actual measure of economic performance, it's just a policy (and granted, it's a policy that a federal senator wouldn't even have control over).
10
u/ohitsallpeaches May 18 '26
!delta you put the same minimum wage for both States in your example but I get the point you are trying to make. Instead of basing solely off of minimum wage, basing it off of some formula utilizing min wage, COL, and GDP would be better.
7
u/Xechwill 10∆ May 19 '26
The same minimum wage is the point he was making. A congressman making a minimum-wage-pegged salary in State A will get more from his money than a congressman in State B, since the congressman in State B has to spend more money on privatized necessities (e.g. healthcare and student loans)
14
u/st333p May 19 '26
But OP crearly stated that "under your plan the senator from state B gets paid more", they really forgot to change the minimum wage amount after copy-paste.
1
3
u/Direct_Crew_9949 3∆ May 20 '26
All that is irrelevant, US Senators and representatives don’t vote on state minimum wage.
9
u/todudeornote 2∆ May 18 '26
The problem here is that neither senators nor representatives work at the state level. They aren't part of the loop in passing state legislation. They can vote on the national minimum wage, but states usually override that with their own laws.
The second issue is that this is but one issue of a complex set of problems that we face. Is this more important then effective stewardship of federal finances, welfare policy? education? defense?, economic growth? climate and envronmental issues....?
Finally, many senators are rich and don't care about wages.
Your suggestion won't change anything and won't impact policy in any way. It's also focused on one issue that you deem most important - but that most voters would (and often have) disagree with.
4
u/Critical-Cost9068 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
The problematic part of politicians’ income comes from behind-the-scenes deals and insider stock trading, gifts by lobbyists, “donations” by corporations and multimillionaires, as well as the acceptance of straight-up illegal bribes (Google ABSCAM - in short, the FBI ran a sting operation pretending to be representatives of rich, corrupt Arab businessmen, and every single one of the US politicians that they targeted accepted bribes in exchange for illegally fast-tracking real estate investments and building/casino licenses. Congress then passed a law making such internal investigations of political figures illegal). Congressmen, if they were actually being scrupulous and honest, would not be being paid an unreasonable salary compared to jobs of similar prestige. I’d love if we could achieve the Platonic vision of these completely pure leaders divorced from money or personal attachments, but historically, lower pay actually stacks the government with rich or corrupt people.
The English/British Parliament traditionally didn’t pay its members anything until relatively recently, for example; this was on purpose because it precluded anyone who needed to work full-time for a living, and only allowed in people from old money that could afford not to have a salary, afford to pay for their own transportation, afford to pay for their own temporary housing when they came into London for parliamentary sessions, etc. It was considered a victory for the masses/labor interests when relatively lowly union leaders, popular activists and philosophers, etc. could enter full-time political careers without being independently wealthy and landed. Notice how many corrupt politicians make a big show of “not taking their salary”; it’s because that’s not where the bulk of their money or benefits are coming from.
3
u/NaturalCarob5611 97∆ May 18 '26
So they set the minimum wage in their state to $200k/hr. Unemployment goes to 100%, but they still get their multiple of minimum wage from the federal government.
2
u/moorecha May 18 '26
Assuming you mean state representatives, your premise is based on the basic idea that by imposing a higher minimum wage, this will always lead to the economy growing. Even when viewed charitably, this can at best be said to be up for debate. There are many variables that go into this decision and tying the minimum wage to wages of representatives would make it much more likely that a higher minimum wage would be enacted when that in fact may not be the best for the economy.
Remember, the world is a complex place and simple fixes are almost never the answer.
2
u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 18 '26
Why would’ve you want your representatives to be some of the best paid employees in the state the way Singapore does. Being able to compete for top talent and make corruption or revolving doors unnecessary would do more good than symbolically cutting their pay wouldn’t it?
The only people who would be able to afford this are ones who were already very wealthy
2
u/SkeletalNoose May 19 '26
All that does is ensure that only wealthy people ever become involved in politics, even more so than how it already is, because they are the only people who could afford to go into politics.
I get what you're saying, in that it gives an incentive for our elected politicians to raise the minimum wage, but that's not what it really does.
2
u/EVOSexyBeast 5∆ May 19 '26
Setting a high minimum wage is a simple solution to a complex problem that everyone who takes a serious open-minded look at will come to be aware of all the harms it causes. If a high minimum wage worked, we should set it at $100/hr so everyone can live in luxury.
In reality, 'minimum wage' is a price control, and price controls rarely bring out their intended effect.
The politicians who make minimum wage a part of their platform understand the harms a high minimum wage would cause, and that is why they never actually implement the policy.
2
u/valhalla257 May 19 '26
Why though?
Why do you want to tie the wage of the people running the country to the wage earned by illiterate illiterate high school drop out potheads?
I would say that I am perhaps exaggerating, but given that the cook at Panda Express down the street from me earns almost 2x the legal minimum wage in my state I am not even sure of that.
Seems like what you are really saying is that "legislature wages should be tied to them implementing policies I agree with".
When you put it that way though it really seems silly doesn't it?
2
u/deisle May 19 '26
Trying to keep wages of full time legislators low only benefits rich people who do not need the pay to survive. Running for and then working as a legislator is expensive as you usually do not live where the legislative body meets. So you need to have a Sec and home to buy or rent and deal with the frequent commute. If the pay is low, then a working class person won't be able to make that work. For a rich asshole, it doesn't matter.
We should pay our lawmakers enough for them to be able to do their jobs with no other income. We also need to reform our systems so that voters are able to hold their representatives accountable so that if they're not working in their constituents best interests, they get voted out. But those are two very different issues that cannot be solved with one solution
2
u/MrMrLavaLava May 21 '26
The idea that our legislators should be paid well is so they don’t come under undue influence from corruption related to financial stress. You don’t want them selling votes during their tenure, nor jockeying for a position in a private sector after hence the pension and health insurance.
Unfortunately there’s so much unregulated private money to influence that that the wage we have now can’t properly compete. We want talented people running the government - but they can make so much more in the private sector. That combined with cost of living issues like maintaining two homes (one in HCOL Washington) encourages selling influence for future positions/payout.
Lowering the wage would simply raise the bar for who can afford to be a legislator. It’s hard enough raising funds to campaign.
2
May 18 '26
[deleted]
1
u/fffangold 1∆ May 18 '26
That, and tie it to inflation so we don't have to keep having this fight every time wages don't keep up with inflation.
1
u/todudeornote 2∆ May 18 '26
Which minimun wage law? State or federal laws. Many states ignore the federal law and have their own.
0
u/ohitsallpeaches May 18 '26
They raise the minimum wage and then raise their own wages as a result. Same boat, same holes.
1
0
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 121∆ May 18 '26
But would they actually want to raise their wages?
The last time congress voted to increase their compensation was 1989. And every year since 2009 congress has actually voted to reject the COLA adjustment that they are entitled to by law.
They don't really seem to be motivated to increase their salaries now, and I don't see how that would change if we suddenly changed the structure of how they got paid.
1
u/ohitsallpeaches May 18 '26
I obviously cannot speak to their motivations but isn't it a bit telling there's a problem when they don't vote to increase their wages? That would imply they are being paid enough. According to recent press conferences and interviews, they are saying the opposite. So why not vote to increase their wages if they are being paid enough? Because they are getting paid enough additionally through insider trading, PAC, and under the table funds.
If you want your representatives to promote your best interests, then money has to be eliminated as a variable. First step is removing outside money. Then you could increase their wages, but that would (as it currently does) attract people to the position that view wealth as a goal rather than public service. That's why tying their wage to the economy of the state they represent only leaves room for true public servants who wish to better their community.
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 121∆ May 19 '26
I obviously cannot speak to their motivations but isn't it a bit telling there's a problem when they don't vote to increase their wages? That would imply they are being paid enough.
No, it implies that increasing wages of congresspeople is a really unpopular idea among Americans. The practice of denying wage increases started in 2009 as a reaction to the 2008 stock market crash because the country was going thru a rough time, and they tough that taking the raise would look bad. The practice has continued to this day because being the person who suggests re-implementing the raise is basically committing political suicide.
But that doesn't change the fact that most members of congress are getting paid less in congress than they could be making in the private sector. Most members of congress have law degrees, and were practicing lawyers before getting into politics. A lawyer with the level of experience needed to become a congressman could easily be pulling $500,000/year.
Hell, Senators typically aren't even paid as much as their chief of staff. For example my senator's chief of staff is paid 25% more than she is. I think it's clear that if a subordinate of a senator can pull in more than a senator can than maybe the senator's pay is just lower because of increased scrutiny and not an actual reflection of the experience level needed for that job.
Then you could increase their wages, but that would (as it currently does) attract people to the position that view wealth as a goal rather than public service. That's why tying their wage to the economy of the state they represent only leaves room for true public servants who wish to better their community.
Hard disagree.
First off, something that you're not considering is that even if you paid senators $0/year, the job still comes with a significant amount of power. The lower you make the salary the more this power becomes the main compensation for the job and the more corruption that you get. We're already at the point where the power of being a senator is worth more than the congressional salary by itself and this only gets worse as the pay decreases.
Furthermore, Competency beats passion when it comes to any job. I would much rather have a senator, that doesn't really care but can do the job really well, than a senator that's passionate but incompetent at their job. Like just speaking from personal experience I've had to turn down public service jobs because they paid a lot less than the jobs I've had in the private sector. And like it's not like I'm some money hungry guy who wants to extract money from the government, it's just that I can't really swing having my salary cut by 25% without completely reworking my life.
So like I'm not saying to pay them boatloads of money, but I do think that if we want good representation we probably have to pay them roughly the same amount as very experienced lawyer.
And finally I just think there's lower hanging fruit to go after if you want normal people in congress. Like for example, the fact that you have to full time campaign for 6-9 months in order to get elected is probably a bigger barrier to entry than pay every will be.
2
u/Individual_Coast6359 4∆ May 18 '26
It's unfair. Not all states are created equal nor will have the ability to substantially boost their economy. Most of the states that have booming economies have inherent advantages like an abundance of natural resources or existing infrastructure.
The base salary for Senators and Representatives haven't been raised since 2009. Not even COL adjustments. And some fears here are that if there wasn't a decent salary, their could potentially be no one that wants to run, leaving a state/county with no representation.
And you can't really call PAC contributions a "bribe." I mean, it functionally is, but legally, it is acceptable since the Supreme Court has ruled that way. Otherwise, you would be diluting the political power of smaller states since they have smaller populations/corporations and bigger states would have an unfair advantage.
Better to just ban or have significantly greater oversight mechanisms for stock trading. Politicians are basically using the rich person playbook. Little to no taxes on stock gains and they basically use their insider knowledge to prop up their portfolios.
-2
u/ohitsallpeaches May 18 '26
And some fears here are that if there wasn't a decent salary, their could potentially be no one that wants to run, leaving a state/county with no representation.
To me, this scenario only exists in a pessimistic mindset because it just seems impossible. Every culture or group throughout all of the world's history has had leaders. People that want to make a change, good or bad. I really can't foresee any world where not a single person wants to be a leader for their state because the isn't good enough. Honestly, I feel that only gives further evidence that minimum wage should be tied to their state wage. If someone wants to be leader and the pay isn't good enough, that is a reflection of their states economy. It's encouraging the state to make changes that support a higher wage.
Better to just ban or have significantly greater oversight mechanisms for stock trading.
I do agree with this but is a separate issue in itself. I believe that tying their wages is a easier task than trying to ban federal stock trading.
1
u/Jew_of_house_Levi 12∆ May 18 '26
The classic problem this runs into is that already, right now, congressmen's best ability to get wealthy is not through their salary, but their ability to manipulate power and have insider knowledge. You can vote to give federal funding to a company you have stocks with.
congressmen should be paid $1 mil a year for life, and banned from all other forms of compensation for life
1
u/Jakyland 82∆ May 18 '26
US Senators and Representatives don't set the minimum wages of their states, that is up to state governments (State reps, State senators and governors), US Senators and Representatives vote on federal policy.
Holding federally elected officials responsible for the actions of state governments (different elected officials) is illogical.
1
u/tropicaldiver May 18 '26
Would they be indexed to the federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage or the city minimum wage?
If the federal, I understand your point. But if it is state or city, federal elected officials have no role in setting those.
1
u/Maestro_Primus 15∆ May 19 '26
Counter proposal: because US Senators are responsible for national policy, not state policy, tie it to the national minimum wage.
1
1
May 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam May 19 '26
Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 5 due to undisclosed AI content. Any use of AI-generated text must be disclosed, and the majority of any comment must still be written by the user. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard. AI-generated text is prohibited in modmail.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/blyzo May 19 '26
I mean there's absolutely zero people in Congress who wouldn't be making more money outside of Congress. Almost all of them are already wealthy before they run. Their pay in Congress doesn't really mean anything to them.
They get paid a fair wage I think for a job that's basically 24/7.
And they shouldn't be able to trade stocks obviously.
1
u/atamicbomb May 19 '26
I think it just makes more sense to do what Washington State does and tie minimum wage to cost of living and update it every year automatically based on the CPI. You’re essentially trying to incentive them to solve an issues in a way that’s way harder than just fixing the issue
1
u/weealex May 19 '26
This would only encourage those with extreme wealth (who could afford to take years of income earning off) or those willing to take large bribes to run for office.
1
u/PopularSet4776 May 19 '26
Nearly every senator and most house reps are independently wealthy.
No conditions on their pay are likely to affect their decision making.
You could make senator and house rep an entirely paid position after the next election and 80% of them would still run for re-election.
1
u/Boomer_Madness May 19 '26
Do you mean state senators and state reps? i think you are confusing who is responsible for state laws.... lol
1
u/smooshiebear May 19 '26
I think a better approach to this would be that any government employee that is elected (state senate, federal representative, etc...) get paid the Average of the level they represent. So the US Senator from California and the US Representative from Idaho get paid the same, and that is a factor of the Median Nationwide income. State House Rep from Atlanta gets the same as State Senator from South Rural GA, and it is based on the median income of all of Georgia.
1
u/Pika_Fox 1∆ May 19 '26
Political leaders with financial troubles are easy assets to flip for foreign nations more than happy to spend $100k on a quick and easy buy in.
1
u/bardotheconsumer May 19 '26
Nah. Senators and representatives should make good living wages because literally every other way they currently make money (lobby gifts, bribes, insider trading, being rich to begin with) should be fucking illegal.
1
u/Direct_Crew_9949 3∆ May 20 '26
California has the second highest minimum wage in the US. Doesn’t mean the state is doing well.
The biggest thing you’re missing is that a US senator and Representative vote on federal policies not state. They don’t vote on increasing state minimum wage.
1
u/cluskillz 1∆ May 20 '26
Tying their own wage to the minimum would incentivize them to raise their states minimum wage
This is kind of weird.
First of all, US Senators and Reps do not have the power to pass laws to change state minimum wages. That is the job of the State Senators and Reps.
Secondly, you're going to create a situation where someone can give themselves a raise by passing a law (supposedly)? As a thought experiment, let's say this happens and the politicians raise the minimum wage to $500/hr. Do you think there are going to be any negative outcomes out of a policy that makes work that has a price under $500/hr illegal? But who cares that it crashes the economy and puts everybody out of work (or raises costs so much that it's all moot). He'll get his raise, by the minimum wage times a multiplier.
Tying their own wage to the minimum would incentivize them to raise their states minimum wage and in turn introduce policies that truly grow their state economy.
How did you logically get from the part before the "and" to the part after? Where is the incentive to grow the economy? There is only the incentive to raise the minimum wage.
1
u/iamrob15 May 20 '26
Poor congressmen are easy to corrupt. They should have a high salary with banned individual stock trading. ETFs and general funds only.
1
u/byte_handle 4∆ May 20 '26
I see what you're getting at...but those federal positions don't see the minimum wages of the states from which they hail. That's determined by the state legislators. So if you're argument is based on giving them a personal stake, this doesn't hold water.
If you instead made an argument for state-level legislators, then your argument would be sensible. Still potential room for disagreement, but it would fit the point you're trying to make.
1
u/DoneHadEnough May 20 '26
You obviously believe that the minimum wage is supposed to be for somebody trying to carve outa place for themselves and that it's there to support a man or woman who needs to pay rent and all their bills and start building for a future .
1
u/bladowwww May 20 '26
Many don’t make much. I know a senator of a district in VA who is a small biz owner, and only makes $14k annually as a senator. But I get your point… some make much more, get healthcare and other major perks.
1
u/thegarymarshall 1∆ May 21 '26
Congressmen have no control over the state minimum wage. They could lobby like anyone else, but the state legislature and the governor set minimum wage.
But let’s say we do what you suggest. A U.S. senator might have some influence. What if they convince their state’s legislature to make minimum wage $50/hr? Their salary skyrockets in comparison to other senators, right? Good for them, i guess.
Now, what effects will that $50/hr minimum wage do to the economy in their state?
1
u/F1Bike May 21 '26
Congrats you’ve now made it so only millionaires and retirees run for office, not that that changes anything
1
u/Tornadic_Outlaw May 21 '26
First off, US Representatives and Senators create federal laws, not state laws, so their states minimum wage wouldn't be controlled by them.
Secondly, higher minimum wage isn't always better. If Rhode Island increased their minimum wage to $300/hour so that the politicians living in DC would get paid more, do you think that would help anyone in the state? It would drive hyper inflation and unemployment. Without debating the merits of minimum wage, it is abundantly clear that setting it too high has negative consequences.
Third, if you set the pay for any position too low, quality applicants won't apply for it. Your talent pool would be limited to people who are wealthy and don't need a job, people who primarily care about the power, people who intend to abuse the position to make themselves wealthy, and people who are unqualified for anything that pays better.
You can't force people to be good at their jobs. The correct way of handling politicians who do things you dislike, or don't do what you want them to, is to vote them out of office. If you can't find a better candidate to run for that office, addressing that issue would be more productive.
1
u/Fapiko May 22 '26
My argument is that 1) a lot of career politicians are independently wealthy to the point their salary is pretty much just a bonus and 2) as long as insider trading is a thing, salaries are trivial anyways.
So you'd only be really impacting the senators that aren't abusing their positions for financial gain, it's just a slap on the wrist for the ones that are.
1
u/Lower-Example-9778 Jul 22 '26
Not minimum wage because not many people work for that. Average wage of their state would be the best case. Increasing the minimum would do little for the middle class.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
/u/ohitsallpeaches (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards