this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
688 points (98.5% liked)

Work Reform

17199 readers
2769 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
kat_angstrom@lemmy.world
688
It's great to see a politician that's progressive and Not a Millionaire. (lemmy.today)
submitted 19 hours ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/workreform@lemmy.world
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Anyone have a link to the actual disclosure document? I can't seem to find any way to actually view it. This just doesn't seem to pass the smell test. She's making a salary of $174k per year and has been in Congress for 7 years. I wonder if this excludes retirement accounts like 401ks and IRAs. That would make sense. But I would expect her to have at least $100k in a retirement account by now. I mean she did go from working as a bartender to being a member of Congress. That kind of jump in pay usually lets one really up their retirement savings at least.

[–] King_Bob_IV@startrek.website 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I mean, congress has a really nice retirement package if I recall correctly. Maybe she is just banking on that

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 26 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.

Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but trillionaires should be forced to transition into billionaires, and billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.

[–] Stonewyvvern@lemmy.world 13 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

"Financial Obesity" should be more of a common term when talking about those who should have a date with a guillotine.

I approve

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 hours ago

A blunt edge with guardrails at 9.8m•s^-2^.

[–] rayyy@piefed.social 53 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

The Republican and Democratic parties have placed targets on AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Mamdani because they aren't on the oligarchs side.

[–] leavemealone@sh.itjust.works 6 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

"That these dead shall have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom to oppress the people—and that government of the oligarchs, by the oligarchs, for the oligarchs, shall not perish from the earth."

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 13 points 13 hours ago

"She doesn't have the mountain of ill-gotten personal wealth required to understand the commoners and their struggles."

[–] SoloCritical@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Just imagine how much more money she could have if she just took AIPAC money!

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Or did obscene insider trading like Dan Crenshaw, who took office the same year and now has a net worth in the tens of millions

[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 56 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I wish I had $66k. Could squash my wife’s student loans with that.

[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 65 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

AOC has argued for student loan cancellation for all and free college education for all. She and Bernie Sanders have put forth proposals to do just that. They're just fighting an uphill battle.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 15 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Didn't Biden start implememting that? Or am i misremembering

[–] brandon@piefed.social 32 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

The Biden administration eventually lost in court. A major campaign promise was to forgive $10k in student loan debt (for those making less than X dollars in income, iirc). Congress couldn't get a bill for that through, so he tried to use an executive action to order the Department of Education to do it, but a number of (red) states fought it and won in the Supreme Court.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 16 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

He also tried to restructure existing loan forgiveness programs, like the public service loan forgiveness program that I am in, to make them have shorter terms. This also lost in court eventually. My loans are still in forbearance due that that litigation, but only for a few more weeks.

I still don’t understand why the paycheck loans could be forgiven but not student loans.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 10 points 14 hours ago

Because the paycheck loans were being abused by members of congress and wealthy business owners...

[–] Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Mohela. Missouri argued theyd disproportionately lose out on profits

[–] onlyhalfminotaur@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

That case was so fucking dumb and proved the SCOTUS majority is completely partisan. Missouri had zero standing to sue. The loan forgiveness order was probably illegal but they didn't even wait for a case that made sense.

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

Biden also was the one who made loan non-forgiveness his signature piece of legislation in the 2000s. Maybe realized the folly of his ways but his offset was a drop in the fucking ocean.

[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 7 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Another commenter explained how it was stopped, but he was only going to forgive some for people below a threshold. AOC and Sanders are trying to forgive all for everyone and make it free moving forward. AOC was very vocal about Biden not taking it far enough

[–] FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago

She's right -- He didn't take it far enough. By him saying he would forgive $10k for those earning less than blank, meant he believed he had the power to forgive student debt. With that power, he was like, "nah fuck most of 'em. Drown in your debt." I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Biden was a huge disappointment.

[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

I hope she gets that golden email, I really do.

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 17 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

I seem to recall this was from a few years ago. At this point, I wouldn't hold it against her if she's made more money. Big name politicians can make extra money through things like speaking fees and book deals. Honestly, I'd be surprised if any famous politicians aren't taking speaking fees. Plus, her salary is $174,000/year according to Wikipedia.

I like to at least pretend in my head that I'd be an ethical politician were I ever elected (a job I would never actually want), and if somebody offered me a speaking fee that was sort of the average amount a politician might get, I think I'd still be able to convince myself it wasn't a bribe.

[–] onlyhalfminotaur@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

Yeah I remember during one of Bernie's presidential runs it was some sort of "gotcha" from the right that he made about $1M in a year. Like.... okay? He'd be pretty fucking dumb if he didn't make that at a bare minimum from his popularity.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

She's one book deal away from joining Obama on Martha's Vineyard

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 17 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Most elected positions don't pay enough in the U.S. today. This is expecially true in state legislature where most politicians start before attempting a national run. The only people who can afford to run for underpaid positions are either independently wealthy or corrupt. For example let's look at some of the most corrupt states in the U.S.

Texas - state senators & representatives $7,200 salary and $221/per diem when in session.

Louisiana- senator and representatives $16,800 + $178/per diem and $6000 slush fund.

Utah - state senators and representatives $0 salary and $301/per diem.

Nevada - State senators and representatives $0 salary and $130/per diem.

This lack of pay for positions is deliberate to keep "working class" out of government. It lead to open corruption and conflict of interest being normalized.

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 9 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

Initially politician wasn't supposed to be a career. It was a side hustle you did after planting and after harvest. Which exains some of the session schedules you see today that seem odd.

I'd argue that we need to get these offices back to being what you do outside your day job again. Whatever that means in modern society. However, if were going to make the mistake of letting it remain a career path. We do need to pay accordingly. While codifying actual laws against graft. Not just unenforceable "norms".

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

It was designed so that wealthy landowners could attend sessions more easily. Just like the u.s. senate does not represent the population, but the land area. The writers of the national and state constitutions were almost all wealthy landowners.

In my opinion, given the size of the population and the complexity of the economy, full time politicians who are paid very well combined with draconian anti-graft laws are needed.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The difference is that in ye olden days there was simply much less need for full time legislators. In an era where 90% of the population lived on largely self-sufficient family farms, and large scale economic regulation wasn't widespread, part time legislators made a lot more sense.

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Is it that different today? I'd argue a lot of the legislation getting done that isn't just naming things. Or approving reoccurring spending isn't just useless, but harmful. At least here in a red state where I live.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

All I'm saying is government at all levels today does a hell of a lot more than governments did in the 19th century. We simply ask more from our governments than we used to. And the more a government does, the more legislation will be necessary.

[–] NathanDerWeise@feddit.org 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Most Americans get two weeks off a year, if they're lucky. There's no way to make this "outside your day job."

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 3 points 10 hours ago

They're 100% is. But it 100% requires addressing what you just talked about. There needs to be a new labor movement. Where terms are renegotiated again.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Did you mean after your slaves plantate and harvest?

[–] chisel@piefed.social 2 points 13 hours ago

And then they like to put up measures to increase their salary from $5k to $25k, as if that'll let your average Joe run and isn't just a handout to the already wealthy scum currently in office. Bonus points when they also try to increase the term limit at the same time.

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 12 points 16 hours ago

She’s not perfect, but she is at least coming from a place where she is aware of the challenges facing regular people. If everyone in congress was like that we’d be in a much better situation.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 12 points 17 hours ago

She... she has 66k in bank accounts? I hope they're at least in CDs or high yield savings; although I guess she gets a pension.

[–] manxu@piefed.social 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Sooo... Big fan of AOC and Hogg, but the original tweet (I know, I am showing my age here) doesn't value-judge the holdings, just lists them.

I would have been horrified if she'd had the numbers of a Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi. The current Congress and Administration show very clearly why having people with lots of money run the country is a terrible idea.

[–] luokaton@lemmy.zip 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

maybe the response was addressing comments to, and not the original tweet?

[–] manxu@piefed.social 1 points 17 hours ago

Fair enough

[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

Also did you get your phone out of the toilet yet? Should prolly do that soon.

load more comments
view more: next ›