• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The gender pay gap in Biden's White House

Metaphor

Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
12,378
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/base...nder-pay-gap-at-the-biden-harris-white-house/
As required by Congress since 1995, the White House delivered its annual payroll report to Congress yesterday listing the title and salary of every White House employee. Here’s a link to the salary report and here’s a White House Fact Sheet that was released ahead of the salary report.

Here are some details of 2021 White House salaries:


...


2. According to my analysis, 58.9% of White House staff is female and 41.1% male, which means there are 143 female staffers for every 100 males. The White House’s Fact Sheet admits that there is a significant gender imbalance for its staff — “women make up approximately 60% of staff — by reporting that “This surpasses the 50.8% share of the national population who are women per the 2019 U.S. Census and the 47.0% share of women within the labor force as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is also the case that across every level of seniority within the White House there are more women than men.”

What are the cultural problems in Biden's White House that has caused women staffers to dominate? Or, is Biden's White House discriminating against men in hiring?

...


4. By gender, the average salary for the 304 female White House employees is $94,047 compared to the $98,091 average for the 214 male staffers, which is a gender pay gap of 4.1% based on average salaries. The White House is reporting slightly different figures of a $93,752 average salary for women and $94,639 for men, a gender pay gap of only 1%, and is taking credit for “narrowing the gender pay gap” according to various media reports here, here and here.


5. But there’s a big problem with the White House’s gender pay gap math that will most likely be ignored and not reported — it’s based on average staff salaries by gender instead of the conventional, widely accepted comparison of median earnings or salaries to calculate gender pay differentials. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics always compares median earnings by gender and reported recently that in 2019 “women who were full-time wage and salary workers had median usual weekly earnings that were 82 percent of those of male full-time wage and salary workers.” From the Census Bureau’s most recent report on the gender pay gap, “The female-to-male earnings ratio compares the median earnings of women working full-time, year-round to the median earnings of men working full-time, year-round. The 2019 female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.823, not statistically different from the 2018 ratio (0.816).” Likewise, the Census Bureau always reports median household income and not average household income.
...

But there might a good reason the White House departed from standard methodology and reported average and not median salaries because the median salary of its 304 female staffers is $80,000 (half make more than $80,000 and half make less) compared to the median male salary of $100,000 (half make more and half make less). Therefore, the typical female staffer in the Biden-Harris White House currently earns only 80 cents for every $1 a male staffer earns, and there is a 20% gender pay gap at the Biden White House. That pay gap is more than two times greater than the average gender pay gap for the Washington, DC labor market of 9.3% according to the most recent data available from the Department of Labor (see Table 3) for 2019. If the White House had been consistent and used the same standard pay gap methodology that it and everybody normally use including government agencies like the BLS and Census, it would have to report that “Women working full-time at the Biden-Harris White House are typically paid just 80 cents for every dollar paid to men.”

Why does Biden's White House pay women less than men? I think it's because society hates women but I was led to understand that Democrats hate women slightly less than wider society.
 
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/base...nder-pay-gap-at-the-biden-harris-white-house/
As required by Congress since 1995, the White House delivered its annual payroll report to Congress yesterday listing the title and salary of every White House employee. Here’s a link to the salary report and here’s a White House Fact Sheet that was released ahead of the salary report.

Here are some details of 2021 White House salaries:


...


2. According to my analysis, 58.9% of White House staff is female and 41.1% male, which means there are 143 female staffers for every 100 males. The White House’s Fact Sheet admits that there is a significant gender imbalance for its staff — “women make up approximately 60% of staff — by reporting that “This surpasses the 50.8% share of the national population who are women per the 2019 U.S. Census and the 47.0% share of women within the labor force as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is also the case that across every level of seniority within the White House there are more women than men.”

What are the cultural problems in Biden's White House that has caused women staffers to dominate? Or, is Biden's White House discriminating against men in hiring?

...


4. By gender, the average salary for the 304 female White House employees is $94,047 compared to the $98,091 average for the 214 male staffers, which is a gender pay gap of 4.1% based on average salaries. The White House is reporting slightly different figures of a $93,752 average salary for women and $94,639 for men, a gender pay gap of only 1%, and is taking credit for “narrowing the gender pay gap” according to various media reports here, here and here.


5. But there’s a big problem with the White House’s gender pay gap math that will most likely be ignored and not reported — it’s based on average staff salaries by gender instead of the conventional, widely accepted comparison of median earnings or salaries to calculate gender pay differentials. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics always compares median earnings by gender and reported recently that in 2019 “women who were full-time wage and salary workers had median usual weekly earnings that were 82 percent of those of male full-time wage and salary workers.” From the Census Bureau’s most recent report on the gender pay gap, “The female-to-male earnings ratio compares the median earnings of women working full-time, year-round to the median earnings of men working full-time, year-round. The 2019 female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.823, not statistically different from the 2018 ratio (0.816).” Likewise, the Census Bureau always reports median household income and not average household income.
...

But there might a good reason the White House departed from standard methodology and reported average and not median salaries because the median salary of its 304 female staffers is $80,000 (half make more than $80,000 and half make less) compared to the median male salary of $100,000 (half make more and half make less). Therefore, the typical female staffer in the Biden-Harris White House currently earns only 80 cents for every $1 a male staffer earns, and there is a 20% gender pay gap at the Biden White House. That pay gap is more than two times greater than the average gender pay gap for the Washington, DC labor market of 9.3% according to the most recent data available from the Department of Labor (see Table 3) for 2019. If the White House had been consistent and used the same standard pay gap methodology that it and everybody normally use including government agencies like the BLS and Census, it would have to report that “Women working full-time at the Biden-Harris White House are typically paid just 80 cents for every dollar paid to men.”

Why does Biden's White House pay women less than men? I think it's because society hates women but I was led to understand that Democrats hate women slightly less than wider society.
And the report from that rightwing thinktank confirms your observation since the gap is only 1% based on average salaries.

BTW, median salaries are better measures when there are lots of observations.
 
What are the cultural problems in Biden's White House that has caused women staffers to dominate? Or, is Biden's White House discriminating against men in hiring?

Maybe Biden's White House is favoring "up and comers" and those tend to be female? I'm not claiming to know. Only pointing out that your simplistic analysis of this stuff is, well, simplistic.

I doubt that hiring women is a cost saving measure. I also doubt that Biden is actually making many hiring decisions.

What is your point, if it isn't Biden is wrong somehow or some way?
Tom
 
Meta said:
What are the cultural problems in Biden's White House that has caused women staffers to dominate?

Why is female staffers dominating a cultural problem?
(Hint: it isn't, any more than a male dominated staff is a far more common problem)
 
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/base...nder-pay-gap-at-the-biden-harris-white-house/


What are the cultural problems in Biden's White House that has caused women staffers to dominate? Or, is Biden's White House discriminating against men in hiring?



Why does Biden's White House pay women less than men? I think it's because society hates women but I was led to understand that Democrats hate women slightly less than wider society.
And the report from that rightwing thinktank confirms your observation since the gap is only 1% based on average salaries.

BTW, median salaries are better measures when there are lots of observations.

Did you read either my quote or the link? The AEI uses the median but the White House did not.
 
What are the cultural problems in Biden's White House that has caused women staffers to dominate? Or, is Biden's White House discriminating against men in hiring?

Maybe Biden's White House is favoring "up and comers" and those tend to be female? I'm not claiming to know. Only pointing out that your simplistic analysis of this stuff is, well, simplistic.

I doubt that hiring women is a cost saving measure. I also doubt that Biden is actually making many hiring decisions.

What is your point, if it isn't Biden is wrong somehow or some way?
Tom

If Biden's White House is favouring "up and comers", and that explains the wage gap, then why couldn't other organisations say the same thing?

The point is that either Biden's White House is discriminating against women (and doing it worse than the average employer in the DC area), or it has non-discrimination reasons for its pay gap. If it's the former, the rhetoric of the Biden regime is hypocritical; if it's the latter, why couldn't every organisation say the same thing about itself?
 
Meta said:
What are the cultural problems in Biden's White House that has caused women staffers to dominate?

Why is female staffers dominating a cultural problem?
(Hint: it isn't, any more than a male dominated staff is a far more common problem)

You may be aware that I actually do not care if an organisation is 100% female or 0% female, as long as the organisation did not discriminate by sex when hiring.

But, the rhetoric around equity and the gender pay gap is that there needs to be equity between the sexes in the workplace.
 
there needs to be equity between the sexes in the workplace.

Yeah. EVERY workplace? What if there's only three employees? One of them has to be a hermaphrodite?
No, every workplace is different. You don't know if Biden's people hire women because they know more women, or more women apply, or to save money by paying them less or any of that.
All you (presumably) know is that staffers are predominantly women. That would make a tiny dent in the vast predominance of males staffing places of power, so it should make you happy.
 
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/base...nder-pay-gap-at-the-biden-harris-white-house/


What are the cultural problems in Biden's White House that has caused women staffers to dominate? Or, is Biden's White House discriminating against men in hiring?



Why does Biden's White House pay women less than men? I think it's because society hates women but I was led to understand that Democrats hate women slightly less than wider society.
And the report from that rightwing thinktank confirms your observation since the gap is only 1% based on average salaries.

BTW, median salaries are better measures when there are lots of observations.

Did you read either my quote or the link? The AEI uses the median but the White House did not.
Yes, I did which is why I made the observation. The White House is not a large sample compared to the Census data. Moreover, if the mean and the median are very similar, there really is no difference.
 
there needs to be equity between the sexes in the workplace.

Yeah. EVERY workplace? What if there's only three employees? One of them has to be a hermaphrodite?
No, every workplace is different. You don't know if Biden's people hire women because they know more women, or more women apply, or to save money by paying them less or any of that.
All you (presumably) know is that staffers are predominantly women. That would make a tiny dent in the vast predominance of males staffing places of power, so it should make you happy.

No, other people's hypocrisy does not make me happy.

But you do not seem to be aware of the rhetoric around gender equality in the workplace. The Australian Workplace Gender Equality Agency can compel organisations with 100 or more employees to report their gender statistics each year, and if the organisations do not, they can be named and shamed on its website, named in Parliament, and prevented from tendering for government contracts. There are individuals, political parties, and companies who believe (or at least say they believe) that
* We should aim for an even gender split in CEO and senior executive positions (even though women make up "only" 38.1% of full time positions)
* There is a problem with industries and occupations that have a gender imbalance
* If we can't get more women to take up full-time work, then we need to encourage more men into part-time work (this is something that is a policy in my own workplace)

You are also naive if you don't think the gender warriors don't target small and micro enterprises for their perceived gender imbalance.
 
Did you read either my quote or the link? The AEI uses the median but the White House did not.
Yes, I did which is why I made the observation. The White House is not a large sample compared to the Census data. Moreover, if the mean and the median are very similar, there really is no difference.

If the sample is large enough that reporting of the mean is sensible, then it's a large enough to use the median, and indeed the White House has reported the median before this year.

Since you are an economics professor, I'm certain you know why the median is generally used when reporting income. The AEI speculates, and I agree with them, that the White House did not, because using the mean instead made a better narrative for the White House.
 
Did you read either my quote or the link? The AEI uses the median but the White House did not.
Yes, I did which is why I made the observation. The White House is not a large sample compared to the Census data. Moreover, if the mean and the median are very similar, there really is no difference.

If the sample is large enough that reporting of the mean is sensible, then it's a large enough to use the median, and indeed the White House has reported the median before this year.

Since you are an economics professor, I'm certain you know why the median is generally used when reporting income. The AEI speculates, and I agree with them, that the White House did not, because using the mean instead made a better narrative for the White House.
It is possible. Of course, the AEI's case would be stronger if it had showed there was a significant difference between the mean and the median for the White House salaries. Since the AEI did not bother to do so, one could speculate that they did not mention it because it made a better narrative for their purposes. The AEI used to be a reputable right of center think tank with integrity that has "evolved" into a predictable disingenuous ideological mouthpiece.
 
there needs to be equity between the sexes in the workplace.

Yeah. EVERY workplace? What if there's only three employees? One of them has to be a hermaphrodite?
No, every workplace is different. You don't know if Biden's people hire women because they know more women, or more women apply, or to save money by paying them less or any of that.
All you (presumably) know is that staffers are predominantly women. That would make a tiny dent in the vast predominance of males staffing places of power, so it should make you happy.

No, other people's hypocrisy does not make me happy.

Oh, but we're talking about something that mitigates that. You should be happy about it.
 
No, other people's hypocrisy does not make me happy.

Oh, but we're talking about something that mitigates that. You should be happy about it.

No, Biden's hypocrisy doesn't "mitigate" anything.

If pressed, I am certain the Biden White House would deny favouring women (when hiring) and they would deny favouring men (with respect to pay). At the same time, they believe that there should be gender equity in the workplace. I doubt the mainstream media is going to push them on any of it.
 
No, other people's hypocrisy does not make me happy.

Oh, but we're talking about something that mitigates that. You should be happy about it.

No, Biden's hypocrisy doesn't "mitigate" anything.

I'm not talking about hypocrisy, Meta. I'm talking about the FACT that his staff more robustly represents females than did those of his predecessors.
You should be so happy. But you don't seem to approve... like you don't seem to approve of women EVER ascending to power.
 
I've noticed a phenomena wherein people contribute to sexism and engage in it in such a way that the reality of their sexism can be hidden as egalitarianism.

It is a fairly straightforward pattern: claim to be for egalitarian and equal treatment, and then bias all examples you present to be presented from a single side of the issue.

By creating this one-sided presentation of the view and never accepting or commenting "on the flip side" or even acknowledging when such incidents are outliers (or even focusing on outliers), you are then being the sexist you oppose.

Or, worse, have a hair trigger on such things. By all accounts by the second post in the thread, someone was pointing out how it was both a mangling of statistics and how the effect in question was actually quite small.

It must really be nice being a man, if this is all that a man has to worry about is being paid a whole 1% less by someone who is ostensibly a "leader" in bringing women forward.

Gripe when a liberal steps 1% across the line and then ignore when the rest of corporate America is still shitty about paying women at all?

Whatever gets your rocks off I guess...
 
I'm not talking about hypocrisy, Meta. I'm talking about the FACT that his staff more robustly represents females than did those of his predecessors.

What? "More robustly represents females"? If Biden selected his staff with a prejudiced preference for females over males, why would I be pleased with that?

It seems to me you must think that I think other workplaces have a prejudiced preference for males over females, and that this is a little bit of 'balance'. I don't believe other workplaces have such a preference.

You should be so happy. But you don't seem to approve... like you don't seem to approve of women EVER ascending to power.

I don't approve of Biden's White House talking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue.
 
I am astounded at what lengths Fox & its Friends will go to to make Democrats look bad. Run the stats on Trump's White House and I'm sure you'd find some bizarrenesses that would dwarf a 1% disparity in wage by gender.

Yeah, yeah, I noticed the attack wasn't about the arithmetic mean wage. It was about the median, where they found a larger disparity (though still smallish, and quite insignificant in context).

And if that hadn't worked, there was always the geometric mean wage to try out. Or a harmonic mean, variance, skew. I'm sure they also split the data by race, education and age, looking for something — anything — that might resemble a scholarish-looking critique.

How about kurtosis? Can Fox, or whoever it is, give us a report on this critical 4th statistical moment? I'll bet there's a big gap in the kurtosis of salaries by ethnic group.
 
I am astounded at what lengths Fox & its Friends will go to to make Democrats look bad. Run the stats on Trump's White House and I'm sure you'd find some bizarrenesses that would dwarf a 1% disparity in wage by gender.

Yeah, yeah, I noticed the attack wasn't about the arithmetic mean wage. It was about the median, where they found a larger disparity (though still smallish, and quite insignificant in context).

And if that hadn't worked, there was always the geometric mean wage to try out. Or a harmonic mean, variance, skew. I'm sure they also split the data by race, education and age, looking for something — anything — that might resemble a scholarish-looking critique.

How about kurtosis? Can Fox, or whoever it is, give us a report on this critical 4th statistical moment? I'll bet there's a big gap in the kurtosis of salaries by ethnic group.

I wonder if Fox News gave a report on wages and workplace hostility conducted by a third party, how THOSE numbers would look on exactly the same metric they report of Biden...

Of course, that would harken back to what I have already said about fake egalitarianism.
 
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/base...nder-pay-gap-at-the-biden-harris-white-house/
As required by Congress since 1995, the White House delivered its annual payroll report to Congress yesterday listing the title and salary of every White House employee. Here’s a link to the salary report and here’s a White House Fact Sheet that was released ahead of the salary report.

Here are some details of 2021 White House salaries:


...


2. According to my analysis, 58.9% of White House staff is female and 41.1% male, which means there are 143 female staffers for every 100 males. The White House’s Fact Sheet admits that there is a significant gender imbalance for its staff — “women make up approximately 60% of staff — by reporting that “This surpasses the 50.8% share of the national population who are women per the 2019 U.S. Census and the 47.0% share of women within the labor force as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is also the case that across every level of seniority within the White House there are more women than men.”

What are the cultural problems in Biden's White House that has caused women staffers to dominate? Or, is Biden's White House discriminating against men in hiring?

...


4. By gender, the average salary for the 304 female White House employees is $94,047 compared to the $98,091 average for the 214 male staffers, which is a gender pay gap of 4.1% based on average salaries. The White House is reporting slightly different figures of a $93,752 average salary for women and $94,639 for men, a gender pay gap of only 1%, and is taking credit for “narrowing the gender pay gap” according to various media reports here, here and here.


5. But there’s a big problem with the White House’s gender pay gap math that will most likely be ignored and not reported — it’s based on average staff salaries by gender instead of the conventional, widely accepted comparison of median earnings or salaries to calculate gender pay differentials. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics always compares median earnings by gender and reported recently that in 2019 “women who were full-time wage and salary workers had median usual weekly earnings that were 82 percent of those of male full-time wage and salary workers.” From the Census Bureau’s most recent report on the gender pay gap, “The female-to-male earnings ratio compares the median earnings of women working full-time, year-round to the median earnings of men working full-time, year-round. The 2019 female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.823, not statistically different from the 2018 ratio (0.816).” Likewise, the Census Bureau always reports median household income and not average household income.
...

But there might a good reason the White House departed from standard methodology and reported average and not median salaries because the median salary of its 304 female staffers is $80,000 (half make more than $80,000 and half make less) compared to the median male salary of $100,000 (half make more and half make less). Therefore, the typical female staffer in the Biden-Harris White House currently earns only 80 cents for every $1 a male staffer earns, and there is a 20% gender pay gap at the Biden White House. That pay gap is more than two times greater than the average gender pay gap for the Washington, DC labor market of 9.3% according to the most recent data available from the Department of Labor (see Table 3) for 2019. If the White House had been consistent and used the same standard pay gap methodology that it and everybody normally use including government agencies like the BLS and Census, it would have to report that “Women working full-time at the Biden-Harris White House are typically paid just 80 cents for every dollar paid to men.”

Why does Biden's White House pay women less than men? I think it's because society hates women but I was led to understand that Democrats hate women slightly less than wider society.

I would like to clarify, before I respond:

1. Are you claiming that any organization or corporation with a gender imbalance of 60%/40% or greater is suffering from "cultural problems" resulting in gender privilege?

2. Are you claiming that if there is a significant gap in pay between male and female workers, this is evidence that an organizaiton or corporation "hates women"?
 
Back
Top Bottom