Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.

Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.

In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.

Also, that's admirable for sure.  The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else.  Each member has a specific budget.  So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k.  If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.  

That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.

So I'm not doggin' her out on this one, because it's an interesting mini-economy here.  Smaller staff=fewer jobs.  Good for people who are employed, bad for the people who are on the outside now, who would have had a job had they worked for a different representative.  
The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure.  Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers. 

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.

Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.

In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.

Also, that's admirable for sure.  The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else.  Each member has a specific budget.  So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k.  If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.  

That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.

So I'm not doggin' her out on this one, because it's an interesting mini-economy here.  Smaller staff=fewer jobs.  Good for people who are employed, bad for the people who are on the outside now, who would have had a job had they worked for a different representative.  
The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure.  Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers. 

Give this a read when you get the chance.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-call-living-wage-starts-office

I guess I heard wrong that she would have a smaller staff, the top wage earners will take a pay cut.

AOC top lawyer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D08a_wAC2iY

NOVA resident here, gearing up to welcome Amazon. 

We already complain about traffic. We already have overcrowded schools. Rents are already outrageous. Nothing new here. Absorbing 25,000 additional people isn't really going to be that big a deal, if all of them even come from elsewhere. Amazon already has warehouses in NOVA, we've got a Google headquarters, IBM, AT&T. Bezos himself has lived in DC for a year or so now after buying the WaPo. Highly educated tech people already reside here. Basically it's going to be a restructuring of an already sprawling landscape. People are excited to see what happens. 

They're going into an area near National Airport (aka Reagan) called Crystal City that had been developed decades ago for exactly this kind of thing, but that plan fell flat, never living up to its promise. My understanding is that there's already a lot of empty warehouse space waiting for them. There's a transit line, with a history of malfunction we're used to, but bringing in Amazon has spurred renewed commitment to upgrade it. I imagine the airport itself might feel some strain. Reagan can't really expand much because of the geography, and it's not that big of an airport. So there's that.

Retailers and restaurants can't wait for the increased foot traffic. It's not a high density residential area, so those kinds of businesses in that area generally struggle. There will be a boom for them, for sure, and maybe some new residential building. There aren't really a lot of current residents to displace. In fact, I read an article about a lot of condos and apartments sitting empty.  This will actually vitalize an area that's been waiting for it. I haven't read one single negative piece of press or heard one person gripe. I guess that's how we're different than NY???

I'm neutral about the whole thing. We like welcoming big companies here. We like jobs, even though, yes, the fucking traffic sucks. If you drive the 95 corridor you expect gridlock, but there's already plans to widen south of DC to about halfway to Richmond. There are hardly any more trees to cut down in the process, so that's not a concern. Maybe it will become a slightly bigger pain in the ass to get to the airport, but that's about the extent of how it might impact me personally. I don't have any other reason to head over to that part of the burbs. But who knows? It could become super trendy like all the hipsters remade Brooklyn, and then I'll have hang out there to be cool.

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.

Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.

In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.

Also, that's admirable for sure.  The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else.  Each member has a specific budget.  So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k.  If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.  

That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.

So I'm not doggin' her out on this one, because it's an interesting mini-economy here.  Smaller staff=fewer jobs.  Good for people who are employed, bad for the people who are on the outside now, who would have had a job had they worked for a different representative.  
The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure.  Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers. 

Give this a read when you get the chance.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-call-living-wage-starts-office

I guess I heard wrong that she would have a smaller staff, the top wage earners will take a pay cut.

Those poor 22 years-olds, having to work a side gig to make ends meet as they start their first jobs. I was 40 years old before I made enough to work one job in the DC metro area. Did it suck? Yes. Do I regret the experience of hard work? Absolutely not -- and I'm not willing to take a pay cut now so that some young whipper-snapper can make as much as I do after an entire lifetime of work equal to their current age. "Divide it up," that one guy says in the article. If that's what millenials want -- because it's so unfair that people twice their age earn what their experience is worth -- let them grandfather that shit in, so to speak. They can remake the world after I'm retired and dead, thank you very much, if that's what they call fair. God help us with this entitled narcissistic generation entering the workforce. If this is where the Democratic Party is going, I'm out.

what dreams said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.

Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.

In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.

Also, that's admirable for sure.  The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else.  Each member has a specific budget.  So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k.  If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.  

That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.

So I'm not doggin' her out on this one, because it's an interesting mini-economy here.  Smaller staff=fewer jobs.  Good for people who are employed, bad for the people who are on the outside now, who would have had a job had they worked for a different representative.  
The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure.  Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers. 

Give this a read when you get the chance.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-call-living-wage-starts-office

I guess I heard wrong that she would have a smaller staff, the top wage earners will take a pay cut.

Those poor 22 years-olds, having to work a side gig to make ends meet as they start their first jobs. I was 40 years old before I made enough to work one job in the DC metro area. Did it suck? Yes. Do I regret the experience of hard work? Absolutely not -- and I'm not willing to take a pay cut now so that some young whipper-snapper can make as much as I do after an entire lifetime of work equal to their current age. "Divide it up," that one guy says in the article. If that's what millenials want -- because it's so unfair that people twice their age earn what their experience is worth -- let them grandfather that shit in, so to speak. They can remake the world after I'm retired and dead, thank you very much, if that's what they call fair. God help us with this entitled narcissistic generation entering the workforce. If this is where the Democratic Party is going, I'm out.

Why so angry? If this is the environment that these people choose to work in why do you care so much?

Because "these people" are changing work environments everywhere, in some small subtle ways and in some large obvious ways. I don't happen to believe that their overall social impact is a win for humanity. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Wealth distribution needs to start at the top.

The middle class is already burdened- they walk a fine line between a balanced home budget and a good quality of life.

And I'm not sure why people feel good about watching people struggle? Just because we did doesn't mean everyone else should as well. There might be a better way.

It's getting to the point where only the wealthy can afford jobs like these because they are subsidized by their rich families. That's not a world I want to live in.

benjs said:

what dreams said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.

Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.

In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.

Also, that's admirable for sure.  The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else.  Each member has a specific budget.  So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k.  If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.  

That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.

So I'm not doggin' her out on this one, because it's an interesting mini-economy here.  Smaller staff=fewer jobs.  Good for people who are employed, bad for the people who are on the outside now, who would have had a job had they worked for a different representative.  
The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure.  Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers. 

Give this a read when you get the chance.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-call-living-wage-starts-office

I guess I heard wrong that she would have a smaller staff, the top wage earners will take a pay cut.

Those poor 22 years-olds, having to work a side gig to make ends meet as they start their first jobs. I was 40 years old before I made enough to work one job in the DC metro area. Did it suck? Yes. Do I regret the experience of hard work? Absolutely not -- and I'm not willing to take a pay cut now so that some young whipper-snapper can make as much as I do after an entire lifetime of work equal to their current age. "Divide it up," that one guy says in the article. If that's what millenials want -- because it's so unfair that people twice their age earn what their experience is worth -- let them grandfather that shit in, so to speak. They can remake the world after I'm retired and dead, thank you very much, if that's what they call fair. God help us with this entitled narcissistic generation entering the workforce. If this is where the Democratic Party is going, I'm out.

I can't find sources I like enough yet (http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/income-taxes/med_hhold_income-age.htm, https://www.incomebyzipcode.com/newyork), but it's looking like 2017 household income with householders <25yo made a median of $31,000 annually. Some other sites I found (again, I'll try to find better sources), the average rent was between $2,100-$3,000 a month. That's $25,200 - $36,000 annually in rent alone. If AOC wants young people (along with their youthful tenacity, eagerness to please, and the desire to innovate) on her team, she needs to make sure they can afford to be on her team with their minds sharp - and she likely wants them able to put in extra hours for her team, instead of those hours being dedicated to flipping burgers at McDonald's to make ends meet. 

There's no obligation for a politician to structure her office the way her predecessors did, and the most senior employees who don't want to participate in this will just leave, as there are no locks on the doors.

The ratio between income and cost of living absolutely needs to get better as ages (or at least years of service) increase, but the household incomes must always be larger than the cost of living as a bare minimum (unless you want your team in debt), and AOC wants focused employees clearly. Sorry this is so upsetting to you. Interesting that you call this entitled and narcissistic; I think it's pretty logical. 

Great post. As usual you've done a better job than me explaining this.

The original article went into this but I suspect some here didn't read it.