Bill Overview
Title: FAIR Act
Description: This bill modifies pay rates for federal employees in 2023. Specifically, the bill increases rates under the statutory pay systems and for prevailing rate employees by 4.1% and increases locality pay by 1%.
Sponsors: Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]
Target Audience
Population: Federal employees in the United States
Estimated Size: 9000000
- The bill specifies changes in pay rates for federal employees.
- Federal employees include a wide range of occupations from administrative staff to technical and management positions across various departments and agencies in the government.
- Increases apply to those under statutory pay systems and prevailing rate employees, indicating it will affect both salaried and hourly federal workers.
- The modification includes increases in locality pay, which may have different impacts depending on the employee's geographic location.
Reasoning
- The target population for the FAIR Act includes nearly all federal employees, approximately 9 million individuals, including civilian and postal workers.
- The budget allows for a moderate pay raise, averaging just under $3,000 per year per employee, though locality rates would vary by location, affecting some workers more significantly.
- Federal employees work in diverse roles and geographic locations, leading to varied impacts on their wellbeing.
- The policy may have minimal impact on those already earning relatively high income or living in low-cost areas, while providing more meaningful benefits to lower earners or those in high-cost areas.
Simulated Interviews
IT Specialist (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The pay raise is a welcome change, especially given the increasing cost of living in D.C.
- It will slightly ease my rent and daily expenses, improving my financial comfort.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Postal Worker (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This boost in pay will help with my long commutes and day-to-day expenses.
- Every dollar counts as my family relies on my income.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Federal Human Resources Manager (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the pay rise is nice, it doesn't significantly change my situation financially.
- High housing costs and taxes mean my expenses remain high.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Civil Engineer (San Antonio, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This increment helps increase my savings for buying a house.
- It's a motivating factor to stay in the job longer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Forest Service Planner (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The pay raise is beneficial as I approach retirement but wouldn’t impact my pension significantly.
- Every increase helps, especially with rising healthcare costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Veteran Benefits Administrator (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This raise helps cover basic needs and provides some stability for my child and I.
- It's an important step towards financial security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Park Ranger (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the extra pay; it’s crucial in a place with such a unique cost of living.
- It will allow me to save more effectively for emergencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Customs and Border Protection Officer (Miami, Florida)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This increase helps ease the pressures from local living costs and my engagement in community work.
- It's motivating to see federal valuing our roles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Public Health Service Nurse (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The pay raise helps acknowledge the hard work faced in public health.
- It makes a difference, especially considering high living costs in Chicago.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Administrative Assistant (St. Louis, Missouri)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A pay increase is much needed for someone just starting out at the federal level.
- It helps cover basics and gradually pays off relocation expenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000000 (Low: $22000000000, High: $28000000000)
Year 2: $25000000000 (Low: $22000000000, High: $28000000000)
Year 3: $25000000000 (Low: $22000000000, High: $28000000000)
Year 5: $25000000000 (Low: $22000000000, High: $28000000000)
Year 10: $25000000000 (Low: $22000000000, High: $28000000000)
Year 100: $25000000000 (Low: $22000000000, High: $28000000000)
Key Considerations
- The significant upfront fiscal cost of implementing the pay increase across a large federal workforce.
- Varied impact on employees depending on their location due to the inclusion of locality pay adjustments.
- Potentially positive impacts on employee morale and retention, which could translate into longer-term efficiency and effectiveness gains in federal operations.