Bill Overview
Title: FAIR Act
Description: This bill modifies pay rates for federal employees in 2022. 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: Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]
Target Audience
Population: Federal employees
Estimated Size: 2100000
- The bill affects federal employees in the United States.
- The legislation outlines a pay increase for federal employees in 2022.
- The pay increase includes both a general increase and a locality-specific increase.
- Federal employees include a wide range of positions across numerous federal agencies.
Reasoning
- The FAIR Act targets federal employees, specifically affecting their pay rates. Among the 2.1 million federal civilian employees, not all may experience significant changes in their well-being due to the pay raise. Staff in high-cost living areas may feel a greater impact due to the locality pay increase.
- Projecting the impact, the cost constraints indicate not all aspects of federal employment can be equally addressed. Thus, the primary impacts would be focused on wage improvements affecting personal financial stability.
- Understanding the distribution helps to simulate varied impacts as affecting about 1% locality pay with a 4.1% general increase mostly enhancing short-term financial relief, minor change to long-term financial planning for certain employees.
- Some roles, particularly those in lower pay grades or residing in expensive areas, might see medium to high impacts on well-being, while others might see less change due to higher initial earnings or low financial stress before the policy. The variance in locality pay means nuanced changes across different regions.
Simulated Interviews
Administrative Assistant (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The pay increase is much needed, especially with the rising cost of living in D.C.
- I think this will help me cover my children's needs more comfortably.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
IT Specialist (Austin, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This increase helps to offset some of my mortgage pressure.
- The locality pay adjustment is beneficial in growing cities like Austin.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Senior Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increase is good but not enough to cope with San Francisco's living costs.
- Grateful for any increase - but hoping more locality adjustments come soon.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Junior Accountant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The locality pay increases make a real difference given the high rent in Seattle.
- This policy shows appreciation for our hard work.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Park Ranger (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though welcome, the pay raise doesn't drastically change my lifestyle.
- Happy for the increase, but my living expenses are pretty stable.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Policy Advisor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This increment aids better retirement savings.
- Not a game-changer, but certainly helpful for budgeting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Health Inspector (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy opens up more savings opportunities.
- I'd like to see continuous enhancements given inflation.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Research Scientist (Denver, CO)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A little more pay helps manage loans and debts.
- Not huge impact, but still a positive step forward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Veterans Affairs Officer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The locality increase barely touches my living expenses.
- More comprehensive reforms are needed for L.A.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Federal Air Marshal (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This raise enhances my ability to plan for the future.
- I appreciate being recognized through financial means.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $8500000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- This pay adjustment impacts federal payroll budgeting across various departments and agencies.
- Certain locations with higher locality pay adjustments might see disproportionate budgetary effects.
- The rise in salary expenses could be offset by nominal increases in federal income taxes collected from higher wages.