Sleeping in your office?

[theDoctorisIn]

I generally find the many alleged examples of public sector employees getting benefits and perks not available to the average American private sector employee to be unconvincing evidence that public employees are somehow living off the government largess.

But folks sleeping on public property and using public facilities to get out of paying rent is probably the example I'd be most sympathetic towards as illustrating that point. So in a sense it is about what public service "entitles" one to, especially when we're talking about the folks at the top of the pyramid making the rules.

It doesn't cost the taxpayers any more whether they sleep in their office, or get an apartment.

What difference does it make in your life?

It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything to have a bum sleep in a bus station either

Exactly.

I see no reason that bums shouldn't be allowed to sleep at the bus station.

Now you're understanding my point.

 

[JBeukema]

These are the people we are entrusting to solve the financial problems of our nation.

And they sleep on a couch?

Why pay for another apartment if you don't have to?

Fiscal responsibility: if only they took it to work in the morning

Share an apartment with another congressman. Apartments in DC are not that expensive. Beats living like a deadbeat brother in law

Why is it our problem if they live like a deadbeat brother in law when they're not at work?

 

[JBeukema]

To me, saving the congressmen money has nothing to do with it. I don't think they "deserve" to live rent-free, I just don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do it. "Fairness" to the staffers has nothing to do with it - life is unfair.

By that same notion, there is no reason staffers should not also be allowed to do it. There's no reason why any of us should not be allowed to live at their place of work. There's no reason why anyone else should not be allowed to sleep anywhere.

They can ask their boss whether (s)he has a problem with it.

As my congressperson's boss, I don't care if they crash in the office for a few hours each night.

 

[JBeukema]

The sentiment seems to be that public employees doing the people's work should be able to sleep on public property to avoid paying rent (I don't know what the cost of living is in D.C. but I assume it's like any other major urban area). I'm curious as to whether this principle extends to everyone working out of a particular office.

To me, saving the congressmen money has nothing to do with it. I don't think they "deserve" to live rent-free, I just don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do it. "Fairness" to the staffers has nothing to do with it - life is unfair.

Both are on the taxpayers dime. Neither is entitled to squatters rights on public property

Noone's granting them squatter's rights

Adverse possession is a process by which premises can change ownership. It is a common law concept concerning the title to real property (land and the fixed structures built upon it). By adverse possession, title to another's real property can be acquired without compensation, by holding the property in a manner that conflicts with the true owner's rights for a specified period. For example, "squatter's rights" are a specific form of adverse possession.

Adverse possession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MikeK]

Umm most people move to where their job is.

why should congresspeople be any different from the rest of us?

Because there is no assurance that one will be in Congress for more than two years and the prospect of being repeatedly uprooted and moved about is a factor which understandably would discourage running for the Office. Unless some sort of convenient living quarters are provided for Congress members, or some housing supplement is provided, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect them to maintain two residences. Being separated from family for weeks at a time and enduring long commutes in some cases is in itself a deterrent.

That fact, alone, would discourage any honest individual who lives a considerable distance from DC and who is not a well compensated corporate puppet or a corrupt carpetbagger with plans to sell votes to the highest bidder.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rental rates around DC are not unreasonable. Take a look at the link I provided. After all, there are plenty of people in the DC area who make far less than anyone in Congress. Median household income in D.C. is about 34% that of a Congressperson's or Senator's salary.

What does that have to do with me not wanting to pay rent around there?

The argument was presented that living in their offices was basically a need arising from the amount of their salary, and the allegedly undue burden that would be required to maintain a secondary residence. In sum, it is being argued that they cannot afford to maintain a secondary residence nearby. I say that their housing needs are their own personal problem, and do not have any place in determining whether there is an ethical concern arising here. If they cannot find a balance in fulfilling their job requirements and maintaining their own housing needs, then perhaps they should do what the rest of us would do in such a situation, and re-evaluate their ability to hold their job.

I am not arguing that, I am arguing that they should not be required to maintain two residences, with all the added expenses. They should be living frugally, not traveling at taxpayers expense, and not throwing parties every week. If they live in their office they are avoiding at least two of those things.

Let them bring it. I am more than capable of swatting away any feminist garbage that wants to wax poetic about how it's supposed to be a man's duty to fill a woman's coffers. Don't forget the popcorn.

I popped some up fresh just for this thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What does that have to do with anything? I'm a political staffer by profession - but I don't see what a staffer's living situation has anything to do with where the Congressman sleeps when he's in DC.

Shades of "Eat your vegetables because children in Africa are starving" in your argument.

The sentiment seems to be that public employees doing the people's work should be able to sleep on public property to avoid paying rent (I don't know what the cost of living is in D.C. but I assume it's like any other major urban area). I'm curious as to whether this principle extends to everyone working out of a particular office.

What makes you think the staff is not sharing the office?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It doesn't cost the taxpayers any more whether they sleep in their office, or get an apartment.

What difference does it make in your life?

It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything to have a bum sleep in a bus station either

Exactly.

I see no reason that bums shouldn't be allowed to sleep at the bus station.

Now you're understanding my point.

They do in San Francisco.

 

[gekaap]

Yep.

What's your argument here? Because your boss won't let you sleep in your office, they shouldn't be able to either?

No, my argument is that society operates with certain norms and expectations that expect people to provide their own basic needs whenever at all possible, and there's no reason to be less critical of Congressmen and Senators freeloading. For the love of Athena, where is their sense of dignity? I would be ashamed to live at work when I don't have to.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything to have a bum sleep in a bus station either

Exactly.

I see no reason that bums shouldn't be allowed to sleep at the bus station.

Now you're understanding my point.

They do in San Francisco.

I know, I just moved to San Francisco.

There are a LOT of bums here.

 

[gekaap]

What does that have to do with me not wanting to pay rent around there?

Nothing. But the real issue is members of Congress not wanting to pay rent, and the implication that having to pay rent would be somehow unreasonably burdensome.

I am not arguing that, I am arguing that they should not be required to maintain two residences, with all the added expenses. They should be living frugally, not traveling at taxpayers expense, and not throwing parties every week. If they live in their office they are avoiding at least two of those things.

I'm not talking about taxpayer money. They make a very generous salary, which places them in the top 3.2% of income earners in the country. If they want to use their own money to throw a party every week, why is that our concern? I'm not interested in how they spend their personal time or personal expenses. If the only way they can manage to, say, avoid temptation enough to still fulfill their job responsibilities is to live in their office, then obviously they have responsibility issues that probably make them unfit for their job.

 

[gekaap]

Just out of curiosity, anyone care to contribute to an easy tally by stating yourself either "conservative," "liberal," or "centrist," and then whether you're okay or not okay with members of Congress living in their offices?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What does that have to do with me not wanting to pay rent around there?

Nothing. But the real issue is members of Congress not wanting to pay rent, and the implication that having to pay rent would be somehow unreasonably burdensome.

I think the expense of maintaining two households can be unnecessarily burdensome, even if you are making 6 figures.

 

[gekaap]

I think the expense of maintaining two households can be unnecessarily burdensome, even if you are making 6 figures.

How so? What burden is there when you have such means? I've met people who were Reservists who maintained timeshares for their weekends when they drill. Their Reservist pay just covers the cost of their weekend housing costs. Like I pointed out, even if we over-estimate $2000 a month rent and utilities for their secondary housing, that still leaves them with $150,000 of net yearly income, which still leaves them in the top 4% of income earners. If it's a burden at all, then they are not fit for the responsibilities of their job. Maybe a more unnecessarily burdensome expense if their outrageous salaries. Maybe Congressional pay should be reduced to $50k a year, and then we can talk about paying for their own rent being "unnecessarily burdensome."

Second, if providing for their own housing needs is too burdensome, then they need to do what the rest of Americans have to do when faced with the dilemma of having personal needs conflict with their ability to get to work every day. They need to reevaluate their situation and if necessary find another job that works out better for them.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm very liberal, and I have no problem with this at all.

 

[MarcATL]

I'm very liberal and I see the massive problems with this.

Firstly its against zoning laws.

That should be the end of it.

I always see Conservatives falling on the sword of the law with the bs argument..."well is it legal?"

Well in this case...it isn't.

End of story.

 

[DiveCon]

So it's kinda like livin' in a barracks?

Eh,

More like a large corporate complex.

The headquarters for my company has a small gym with exercise rooms and showers, and has a cafeteria as well. A few thousand work there M-F.

Do you get to sleep there if you are too cheap to rent your own place?

if a company sends you to a remote location they generally provide you with some kind of housing
so that analogy FAILS

 

[blu]

what a complete fucking waste of time....

 

[rightwinger]

If it will help our struggling Congressmen...

I can point out some prime dumpsters located near the Capitol Building

 

[DiveCon]

i think this shows fiscal responsibility and that fact they dont plan to become established in the beltway