It's actually hilarious how indignant Americans get when you suggest that perhaps a member of congress should earn more in total comp than a 21 year old new grad at Google.
If you're interested in a good analysis of what politicians should earn, a good place to start is Singapore's independent committee review of political salaries: gov.sg/~/sgpcmedia/me…
I particularly love the guiding principle: "The current total annual salary of an entry level Minister is benchmarked to 60% of the median income of the top 1,000 earners who are Singapore Citizens..." (contd.)
"The top 1,000 earners across all professions reflect the calibre of the people Singapore needs for good government, while the 40% discount signifies the ethos of political service."
This results in entry-level minister pay of ~$900,000 USD. Sounds about right to me!
This results in entry-level minister pay of ~$900,000 USD. Sounds about right to me!
A low bar for congressional salaries (if you actually want them to stay in their jobs and not just view it as networking to then cash it out as a lobbyist) would probably be at the Director Level for a tech company?
Consider that personal staff is ~15/rep, committee staff is 70/committee. Amortized, each rep has ~20 staff. And they are crazily understaffed, which is why they outsource so much work to lobbyists! Reasonable staff size is like 40/rep, hence the director title.
Really, just read that Singapore report. I've not even got into the bonus structure for hitting benchmarks, which are based on Real Median Income Growth Rate for Citizens, Real Growth Rate of the Lowest 20th Percentile Income, Unemployment Rate and Real GDP Growth Rate.
