The Hill Forum

[sky7]

Understood. I have yet to see any LA's making 40k. I have no idea where they are getting that number.

Hence: False.

[oberlin08]

Understood. I have yet to see any LA's making 40k. I have no idea where they are getting that number.

Hence: False.

I think on the house side, 35 for an LA is on the generous side. 40 on the house side.. ive never heard that.

You know, all the member's staff on both the house and senate side HAVE to publicly post their salaries for each staffer (theyre online)? check it out.

--LinkRemoved--

[baboon309]

Understood. I have yet to see any LA's making 40k. I have no idea where they are getting that number.

Hence: False.

[strike]I think on the house side, 35 for an LA is on the generous side. 40 on the house side.. ive never heard that.

You know, all the member's staff on both the house and senate side HAVE to publicly post their salaries for each staffer (theyre online)? check it out.

--LinkRemoved--

[/strike]

Didnt I post it 20 mins ago

[oberlin08]

Understood. I have yet to see any LA's making 40k. I have no idea where they are getting that number.

Hence: False.

[strike]I think on the house side, 35 for an LA is on the generous side. 40 on the house side.. ive never heard that.

You know, all the member's staff on both the house and senate side HAVE to publicly post their salaries for each staffer (theyre online)? check it out.

--LinkRemoved--

[/strike]

Didnt I post it 20 mins ago

my bad, i wasnt reading the entire thread.

[sky7]

And my simple point is that I have checked the site and have yet to see those claims reflected. I'd rather not post links to name people's salaries, hence the lack of links.

But I've been all over the site, and across the board the salaries are higher than 40K for LA's in both the Senate and House. It may be possible to find a 40K LA, but they are certainly not the average.

[swester]

Here's a totally random find in John Boehner's officer. L.A. hovering around $40k for two years now. And Boehner is a pretty prestigious House office.

--LinkRemoved--

I don't understand why you're so reluctant to accept that there is a range of salaries on the Hill that often stretches lower than you've expected. I'm not trying to knock Hill jobs; I actually think they are quite good, and are light years more exciting than most firm jobs. But you've got to be realistic that your starting salary is not going to be BigLaw....

[sky7]

--LinkRemoved--

LA - 100k

So.... median is....

....probably not 40k, because I don't see many LA's making less that 45-50k (and I do believe your example is an outlier, just as mine is).

[swester]

http://www.legistorm.com/person/Christo ... 19363.html

LA - 100k

So.... median is....

He's been in her office alone for 10 YEARS. You don't even know where he might have come in from before that (there are tons of lateral transfers on the Hill). Do you think you'll be walking in to a $100k/yr job?

[270910]

And by low, just to clarify, I think we're talking in the mid-$30s to low $40k range + gov't benefits for an L.A., and probably closer to mid-$50k starting for an L.D. So yeah, low. It's not a job you're in for the money, that's for sure.

False. At least on the Hill.

It's close though. LD median is 80K, LA median is 40K. Roughly 10% of LAs have law degrees. This data is very easy to look up.

Where did he get those numbers?

If you look at any senators office, the LA's are making 75k+

If you look at any reps office (at least the 6 or 7 I've looked at in my states), they all make 55K+

There are like 8,000,000 hits on google with the exact same data or close to it.

Anyway, here's one of the more clear sources (but hardly the only formulation):

--LinkRemoved--

[sky7]

No - it's an outlier. You showed me random, and I showed you random.

But I also don't think that I'll come in to a job that averages 40k. Average indicates that some LA's make less than 40k. I don't think it's true that many make below 40k, and I don't think that most make 40k.

Beyond the example you cited, the vast majority have been much, much higher.

My sense? I'd say that the average LA would make around 55k. I have no idea where you got the impression that I imagined that the standard LA makes 100k. It is, indeed, an outlier. But if we're talking about averages, it's the foil to your 40k example.

[270910]

No - it's an outlier. You showed me random, and I showed you random.

But I also don't think that I'll come in to a job that averages 40k. Average indicates that some LA's make less than 40k. I don't think it's true that many make below 40k, and I don't think that most make 40k.

Beyond the example you cited, the vast majority have been much, much higher.

My sense? I'd say that the average LA would make around 55k. I have no idea where you got the impression that I imagined that the standard LA makes 100k. It is, indeed, an outlier. But if we're talking about averages, it's the foil to your 40k example.

The average/median/whatever LA makes 43K. HTH.

[sky7]

Notably, those are House stats. And I appreciate the info. It looks as though the states I've been looking in just pay more (fortunately).

Admittedly, I haven't looked at midwestern staff salary, etc.

[270910]

Notably, those are House stats. And I appreciate the info. It looks as though the states I've been looking in just pay more (fortunately).

Admittedly, I haven't looked at midwestern staff salary, etc.

Huh? Senate staff makes more (lower supply, higher demand, MUCH more job security so raises have time to kick in, etc.) than house. True fact.

but midwestern staff salary? I really don't get what difference you think that would make? All congressional staff* work in DC, are paid in DC, etc.

And entry level, you 1) aren't getting an LD job and 2) will be looking at 30-40K as an LA. These data back that assertion up.

*That we are talking about

[swester]

Notably, those are House stats. And I appreciate the info. It looks as though the states I've been looking in just pay more (fortunately).

Admittedly, I haven't looked at midwestern staff salary, etc.

Huh? Senate staff makes more (lower supply, higher demand, MUCH more job security so raises have time to kick in, etc.) than house. True fact.

but midwestern staff salary? I really don't get what difference you think that would make? All congressional staff* work in DC, are paid in DC, etc.

And entry level, you 1) aren't getting an LD job and 2) will be looking at 30-40K as an LA. These data back that assertion up.

*That we are talking about

Oh well, we've tried to explain. When he/she gets her first paycheck, only one of us will be right.

[sky7]

There's a certain level of discretion that going into how much people are paid; who knows, it might not have anything to do with geography. I can only offer the anecdotal evidence of the states (seemingly New England) that tend to pay a bit more. I have no idea why that is, really.

Your point about raises is also well taken. Let's hug.

(Also - my connections are with the Senate, where LC's start at 40K - --LinkRemoved-- ; hence most of my focus there.)

[sky7]

Notably, those are House stats. And I appreciate the info. It looks as though the states I've been looking in just pay more (fortunately).

Admittedly, I haven't looked at midwestern staff salary, etc.

Huh? Senate staff makes more (lower supply, higher demand, MUCH more job security so raises have time to kick in, etc.) than house. True fact.

but midwestern staff salary? I really don't get what difference you think that would make? All congressional staff* work in DC, are paid in DC, etc.

And entry level, you 1) aren't getting an LD job and 2) will be looking at 30-40K as an LA. These data back that assertion up.

*That we are talking about

Oh well, we've tried to explain. When he/she gets her first paycheck, only one of us will be right.

Ha! That's if I can even get a job

[270910]

There's a certain level of discretion that going into how much people are paid; who knows, it might not have anything to do with geography. I can only offer the anecdotal evidence of the states (seemingly New England) that tend to pay a bit more. I have no idea why that is, really.

Your point about raises is also well taken. Let's hug.

(Also - my connections are with the Senate, where LC's start at 40K - --LinkRemoved-- ; hence most of my focus there.)

*hugs it out*

[oberlin08]

with regards to the varying level of pay, i really dont think it has to do with anything except for how each office is run differently. My boss chooses himself who gets paid what. Other offices, the Chief of staff sets up a payscale.

It just varies

[swester]

Notably, those are House stats. And I appreciate the info. It looks as though the states I've been looking in just pay more (fortunately).

Admittedly, I haven't looked at midwestern staff salary, etc.

Huh? Senate staff makes more (lower supply, higher demand, MUCH more job security so raises have time to kick in, etc.) than house. True fact.

but midwestern staff salary? I really don't get what difference you think that would make? All congressional staff* work in DC, are paid in DC, etc.

And entry level, you 1) aren't getting an LD job and 2) will be looking at 30-40K as an LA. These data back that assertion up.

*That we are talking about

Oh well, we've tried to explain. When he/she gets her first paycheck, only one of us will be right.

Ha! That's if I can even get a job

'Tis true. But heck, it's still probably easier than trying to score a firm job these days. And a lot more fun (if you love politics). Good luck when the time comes!

[Anonymous User]

And by low, just to clarify, I think we're talking in the mid-$30s to low $40k range + gov't benefits for an L.A., and probably closer to mid-$50k starting for an L.D. So yeah, low. It's not a job you're in for the money, that's for sure.

oops -- didn't see the conversation that unfolded above. Also, LCs DO NOT start in the 40s. I worked as a LC myself on the Senate side and started out in the upper 20s.

[baboon309]

And by low, just to clarify, I think we're talking in the mid-$30s to low $40k range + gov't benefits for an L.A., and probably closer to mid-$50k starting for an L.D. So yeah, low. It's not a job you're in for the money, that's for sure.

oops -- didn't see the conversation that unfolded above. Also, LCs DO NOT start in the 40s. I worked as a LC myself on the Senate side and started out in the upper 20s.

My frd got 23k from house.

[Anonymous User]

Hey alll, remember the best perk about working here on the hill is that they pay your (federal) loans...

[cheapthrills]

Does one typically have to start at a LA position before a committee job is possible? I mean could a MPV grad with good grades and summer internships start out at a committee or is a LA job the basic starting point no matter your school rank/grades etc....?

[270910]

Does one typically have to start at a LA position before a committee job is possible? I mean could a MPV grad with good grades and summer internships start out at a committee or is a LA job the basic starting point no matter your school rank/grades etc....?

There is only one rule in Congressional hiring: Do you know somebody who is hiring?

If yes, then you should talk to them.

If no, you probably aren't going to get the job.

It's not like COMMITTEE and PERSONAL are two different prestige levels that require different GPAs or schools. MVP is going to be largely meaningless too - although it could be a bump for districts in M, V, or P

Hill hiring is too esoteric and people-centric to generalize the way you can with big firm or federal government hiring.

[Colton]

I'm spending the summer as a policy fellow at a DC law firm. I worked for a Congressman during college. I'm extremely interested in working on The Hill after law school or in a law firm's policy group or in a think tank/PAC. I'm glad to see others are interested in this line of work as well. I was surprised by how few people in law school have any interest in heading into the legislative or policy arena after law school.