> It's kind of annoying to get "Source?" followed by a quote of the data it's based on.

But your link doesn't answer your statement which was that you wouldn't find people more willing to serve if you were to lower the salary.

Your link lists congressional representatives net worths which is a biased dataset which only looks at the type of people that currently run for Congress but also the money they managed to accumulate in sometimes illegal ways during their tenure (in Congress or other political appointments).

> Does it matter? You don't get that kind of wealth from $174,000/year. Either you came into the job with it and thus are in category 4, or you didn't and you managed to build that wealth despite not having a salary that would produce it, meaning you're in category 3.

Or you made that money through insider trading which is the topic at hand.

> I don't understand how you envision moving for the job would work.

You sell your house or rent it out and then you buy a train / plane ticket.

> You think a member of Congress from, say, Oregon should live full-time in DC?

Sure, that's where the votes take place.

Congress representatives have reimbursements of up to $367 per day which is enough for them to pay for travel, lodging and food costs while back in their state.

> That certainly doesn't sound like a "serve the people" situation

This is already the case right now: https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2020/05/house-candid...

> that sounds like a "completely insulated from your constituents and always surrounded by insiders" situation

Well you do have to be elected first so that means you still need to be known and liked in that district.