Bill Overview
Title: Staff Salary Schedule Improvement Act
Description: This bill permits the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, if directed by the House Administration Committee, to pay salaries in or under the House twice per month, or on the basis of such other schedule, as the Committee may promulgate by regulation.
Sponsors: Rep. Kilmer, Derek [D-WA-6]
Target Audience
Population: House of Representatives Staff and their Households
Estimated Size: 10000
- The bill directly affects staff members working in the House of Representatives, as it involves changing the pay schedule.
- Since the bill relates to pay schedule changes, it will impact the financial planning and cash flow of the House staff.
- It may also indirectly affect family members and dependents of the House staff, as changes to pay schedules can affect household budgeting and financial stability.
Reasoning
- The target population directly impacted by this policy is the staff members of the House of Representatives.
- Within this group, individuals will experience varying degrees of impact based on their financial situation, personal preferences for pay scheduling, and existing financial planning systems.
- Factors like salary level, financial literacy, number of dependents, and current financial obligations can all influence how this change affects them.
- The policy may not have a direct impact on people outside this group, but it could indirectly impact their families and close dependents.
Simulated Interviews
Legislative Assistant (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Receiving my paycheck twice a month will help me better plan my monthly budget.
- I currently feel stressed about my finances, especially since I'm supporting my child on one income.
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 | 5 |
Chief of Staff (Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The change in pay schedule doesn't impact me significantly since I have a robust financial plan.
- It's a nice change, but not essential for me.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Press Secretary (Maryland)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A more frequent pay schedule could benefit my spouse and me as we adjust to joint finances.
- However, we already have a system in place, so it's not a drastic change.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (D.C.)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't foresee any major impact from the changed pay schedule.
- As long as my compensation remains the same, my lifestyle won't change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Legislative Director (California)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having more regular cash flow could help me manage my expenses, especially with children.
- I'm cautiously optimistic about the change.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Administrative Staff (Texas)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A bi-monthly payment might help with my student loans and other monthly bills.
- It feels like a positive change overall.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Senior Advisor (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm close to retirement; this scheduling change won't affect me much.
- My financial obligations are quite fixed and predictable now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Staff Assistant (New York)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I find managing finances in New York challenging; more frequent paydays are welcome.
- This might help me save a bit more consistently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Human Resources Specialist (Illinois)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Switching to bi-monthly might help me better manage support payments and personal expenses.
- It's not a game-changer, but helpful.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
House Clerk (D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change in pay schedule doesn't concern me since I'm nearing retirement.
- My main focus is on transitioning out.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Year 2: $200000 (Low: $100000, High: $300000)
Year 3: $200000 (Low: $100000, High: $300000)
Year 5: $200000 (Low: $100000, High: $300000)
Year 10: $200000 (Low: $100000, High: $300000)
Year 100: $200000 (Low: $100000, High: $300000)
Key Considerations
- Initial costs may include software upgrades and process changes required to implement the new payroll schedule.
- Potential benefits to staff in terms of financial planning and cash flow management could be considered as positive externalities.
- The long-term administrative cost impact is minimal as ongoing payroll process changes are minor.