I get the idea behind it, but this very much would backfire in that only the rich could become representation.
Not only the rich but also the corrupt that would then sell their voice to the highest bidder.
Comment on Min wage in most states is so sad
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I get the idea behind it, but this very much would backfire in that only the rich could become representation. Remember they made it a rule that they aren’t allowed to sleep in their office while in D.C., and 60k not only won’t afford a place in D.C, it most definitely won’t allow for someone to have a home their constituents home AND D.C.
So we would end up with just having first or second sons of oligarchs, 1 trained to run the companies, the other trained to represent their families best interests.
Asetru@feddit.org 1 day ago
terminatortwo@piefed.social 1 day ago
Good thing neither of those are the case in the current system!
Steve@communick.news 1 day ago
The point is, these changes wouldn’t help any of those things.
terminatortwo@piefed.social 1 day ago
I agree, and maybe not on their own, but combined with other changes, maybe. Eg. Build dorms and have them stay there when in DC, owned and paid by the state.
I’d like to see draconian controls and transparency on their finances during their time serving and a few years into it.
CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Well that’s easy then. Federally owned dorm housing for congress.
blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
There are easy solutions to that problem. $60k plus cost of living stipends for the two homes, which can’t be spent on anything else, and only modest homes are eligible.
Tiger@sh.itjust.works 23 hours ago
For people complaining about the cost of living to cover in DC, build them some public housing barracks they can stay in so they have that covered.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 hours ago
Agreed, but mostly why would a rep not be able to sleep on their office and return home? That’s rediculous
Serinus@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Some of the poorer reps were doing that and Congress decided they didn’t like it.
discocactus@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That’s BS, you could definitely afford to live there, it’d just be in a shithole. Which is exactly the point.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 hours ago
How many people do you know making $60k per year that maintain two homes in cities a thousand miles apart,and frequently travel between them?
jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Some state legislatures already do stuff like this. Full time job for a few months out of the year that pays like $40k.
The people who run for office are the people who can afford to.
Godnroc@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Or, and hear me out in this one, if the average is not sustainable they would need to raise the average or lower costs until a balance was reached. By forcing them to play by the very rules that are writing, there is an incentive to make them fair.
While this may not be there exact way too achieve that, the goal is still a good one to work towards.
galacticbackhoe@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
You could have just posted the image again, but this was slightly less cheeky. I did enjoy the hear me out.
Devial@lemmy.world 1 day ago
And how is that supposed to work ? You can’t fix the healthcare care system or economy in a day, so non wealthy people would still struggle to live as politicians whilst those changes are being worked on, meaning there’s little motivation for them to join politics, and independently wealthy people who are just in it for the power wouldn’t give a fuck about being badly paid. Look at Trump. He doesn’t even take a salary, because he’s corrupt and wealthy enough to not need it, so his salary being low would matter fuck all to him and other corrupt pieces of crap like him.
Steve@communick.news 1 day ago
The problem is, representatives and senators don’t live an average lifestyles. They need to pay for two residences, one of which is in one of the most expensive metro areas in the country. Then the constant transit costs between the two. They also pay their staff out of their own pocket if I remember correctly.
Truth is they need to be paid much more. With 100% of salary in retirement. And they need to be barred from any kind of employment after.
thejoker954@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Hear me out, maybe we could build some sort of large building/s with a lot of small houses in them for them to live in while in DC. The government could even give them some sort of vouchers that helps them pay the rent or the buildings could just be owned by the government.
Steve@communick.news 20 hours ago
Six of one half dozen the other.
You provide housing directly, or money for them to choose housing themselves. Seems a distinction without a difference.
Serinus@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
There’s also value in it being decentralized.
protist@retrofed.com 19 hours ago
I think you misunderstood what you’re responding to. This would create a situation where being in politics is only not sustainable for people of average means. People who are already independently wealthy would have no trouble at all sustaining themselves on an average salary and have zero (0) incentive to do anything to make life easier for you or I.
The problem isn’t that people in Congress get paid a decent wage. The problem is they have so much money from their families, from their businesses, and/or from lobbyists that they’re more or less totally divorced from what life is like for most people
Serinus@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
We don’t need the entire country to have a second home in DC and to be resistant to bribes.
Congress should make good enough money that they don’t need to invest in the stock market and they don’t care about negligible bribes. Bigger bribes are theoretically easier to catch in the legal system and/or public accountability.