this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
1107 points (96.2% liked)

Work Reform

17571 readers
187 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 107 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (12 children)

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 near their constituents 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.

[–] Godnroc@lemmy.world 49 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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.

[–] Devial@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week 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 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The problem is, representatives and senators don't live 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 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Asetru@feddit.org 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] terminatortwo@piefed.social 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Good thing neither of those are the case in the current system!

[–] Steve@communick.news 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The point is, these changes wouldn't help any of those things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

Well that's easy then. Federally owned dorm housing for congress.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] 4grams@awful.systems 61 points 1 week ago (18 children)

I think the government should switch to a random lottery. Every term a random person is selected from all available and eligible citizens. It would be our civic duty, put your regular job on hold for a few years and do your part.

Most would hate it, but that’s kinda the point. If we all had to eat our own dogfood, we’d eventually start making it taste better.

[–] discocactus@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (6 children)

I've said this for years. Live in dorms. Cafeteria food. Minimum wage. All assets put into trust and in a vanilla total market fund for 5-10 years after service. It should be like jury duty. I've not met a single person who disagrees with this system.

[–] TheMightyCat@ani.social 13 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I’ve not met a single person who disagrees with this system.

Well consider me the first.

Then first the plan won't work, those dorms will be run by the very government politicians they are supposed to make miserable. so they won't.

And why must that be a goal in the first place? Instead of improving democracy so that politicians aren't in the pockets of PACs and actually represent the people, you want to just make them both miserable and now unelected.

If you want that random people are in charge instead of politicians a direct democracy system will work far better then this.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 19 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Have you met a random person?

[–] discocactus@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Know any politicians?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 42 points 1 week ago (6 children)

The idea behind a high salary for representatives is that they don't need to take on extra money from lobbyists to survive. Keep the salaries, but make bribery illegal again and things will get better. Make the salaries low AND get the money out of politics and you'll only get rich people becoming politicians. Oh and term limits should be a thing.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] discocactus@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I'm sorry who the fuck has a $1000 deductible??? We have decent insurance for the US and the deductible is $7500 each (family plan thru employment)...

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 30 points 1 week ago (1 children)

OP has no idea what health insurance cost these days.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nor do international members, care to share?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DotEliot@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (8 children)

I guess the idea of paying them well is that they can't be bought with bribes. Then again, when has any wealthy person ever been satisfied.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago

If the job didn't pay a salary, the only people who could do the job would be the rich who don't need a salary, or those willing to accept bribes.

If you make the salary too low, it will discourage anybody who can make a better living doing something else. And, if the people doing it don't think they're being paid what they're really worth, they're more likely to take bribes or "donations" to boost their salary back up to what it should be.

Really, the salary should be high. It should be a job that people who are really qualified will want to do. It should be one where you have no need to take a bribe because you're already doing so well, and you'd be afraid of throwing away such a well compensated job.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Cheebus@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

300 a month and a thousand dollar deductible?!?!

where the fuck is that deal, it’s like 8k deductible and 600 a month

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DemandtheOxfordComma@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And they have to work 40 hours a week every week, or they get no benefits... just..like..us.

[–] discocactus@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Or rather, they only get the benefits guaranteed to all citizens.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (6 children)

I agree on spirit, but in practice this will just make them even easier to be bought.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

As if they aren't already bought. At least you'll have one of your own elevated and not some already rich asshole trying to get richer.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] turdburglar@piefed.social 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

$300/month 😂😭😢😐

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] captain_oni@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How about this:

We pay politicians in "X times the minimum wage"; for the sake of this example I'll say 30x the minimum wage (too much? Too little? I don't know, that's not important rn)

The thing is, they can't change this number, at all. The only way they can increase their salaries is to increase the minimum wage.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ThisUsernameKillsFascists@piefed.social 14 points 1 week ago (5 children)

While this sounds good on the surface, the problem is that requiring legislators to live with the same financial difficulties most of us face would lead to sharp increases in direct bribery and overt corruption. As bad as it is anyway that effectively unlimited campaign/PAC contributions can be used to corrupt them, if their personal finances were significantly more trying, it would be much worse, especially given that most legislators have more personal expenses than the average person, including maintaining resdences in both DC and their home state/district. The much better (but also much, much more difficult) solution would be to raise the incomes of most Americans rather than to reduce the income of the legislators.

[–] BussyGyatt@feddit.org 15 points 1 week ago

yeah i was a hell of a lot more sympathetic to that totally unverified supposition (not argument) when i didn't believe there was rampant corruption in every branch of local state and federal government. it's like those pictures of "LOOK WHAT COMMUNISM WOULD GET YOU" and it's just pictures of homelessness under capitalism.

solution would be to raise the incomes of most Americans rather than to reduce the income of the legislators.

yeah that's the point. if these chucklefucks kicking back on open corruption were forced (forced) to live on the average american salary they'd be more apt to fix the bullshit holding wages down. that's my unverified supposition though. actually, now i've come to think of it, the fact that our government is subject to corruption despite their high compensation (supposedly) buoying up fragile moralities seems to be evidence against your initial supposition. Let's try the other way.

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Lmao they have all ways been taking bribes. Lobbying is legalized bribery…

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

The Great Stink 1858 caused by the combination of everyone dumping their refuse into the river Thames and unusually low water levels, was being mostly ignored by the British parliament until the members were forced to return to work in the parliament building close to the river where the smell was at its worst.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

pretty sure most of them are millionaires, because the billionaire donors are giving them money, in other forms. even with those restrictions, they get millions from the billionaires in thier pockets. Thats why Dinos are fighting just as hard to keep that way.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Also politicians wouldn't exactly be less corruptible if they were poorer.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] teelin134@programming.dev 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I disagree. Low salaries in congress is exactly the kind of thing that gives lobbyists power.

Poor staffers and low paid representatives are more likely to become lobbyists themselves or to take bribes. Congresspeople should be given an ultimatum, they can only serve in congress if they agree to never make income from any other source ever again in their lives… even after one term. In return, they’re guaranteed a modest pension starting when they leave that pays 80% of their current salary (should be a healthy salary), increasing with inflation. They can not trade stocks, accept gifts, or own any form of property except a single residence.

If you want to serve the people, you can only serve the people and not yourself. Congresspeople should be truly selfless individuals.

[–] JiveTurkey@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

I agree that low salary is a losing game but a salary high enough to turn away all of the lobbiest is a losing battle also. Just make itillegal and enforce the rules.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nathan@lem.permisuan.com 10 points 1 week ago

I thought after citizens united they represent corporations not us

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We are long past the point where they represented us.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Marn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 week ago

Pay them 5 million per year for all I care so long as they actually represent the people and not private interest groups, are not currupt, and are some of the best people for the job. And that would be an incredibility good deal.

People can be wealthy and not totally out of touch if they make an effort to listen to people

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)
  • Retire at 70 - Yes
  • Get paid $60k - No

You don't want people in power being easy to bribe. It's bad enough as it is.

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They already are. They never stop being greedy. Just look at Trump - he's in the top seat, and it's still not even close to satisfying his unquenchable thirst.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Agreed, but you don't stop it by paying them less. You have to regulate and enforce it.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Salary will have unintended consequences.

Why would anyone choose that job unless they were already very wealthy?

[–] UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

People who want to enact change. You can find plenty of those they just don't have any visibility because money.

[–] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 7 points 1 week ago

I think everyone wants to "enact change".

The problem is, the people with the requisite skills can earn much more than $60k doing something else.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 7 points 1 week ago

Making politicians even more susceptible to corruption. Great populism. Populism tends to serve the roch after all.

[–] spacegoat@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

In the history books when they discuss the hundreds or thousands of small cuts that eventually killed America, Mike Johnson may very well be one of the most prominent captioned photos.

[–] lemmelemmy@feddit.org 7 points 1 week ago (15 children)

Well then that’s not capitalism.

Tbh idk why people think capitalism is a good thing. It’s just feudalism with corporations.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago

Y'all got a 1k deductible?

load more comments
view more: next ›