The gender pay gap in Biden's White House

[Toni]

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.

Of course you know that many workplaces show a strong history of preferring to hire males over females. There are a handful of female dominated professions, notably nursing and elementary school teaching. Aside from that, for the most part, there has been a very strong history of hiring males. This has been discussed many times on this forum, with emphasis on various parts of the employment sectors.

I don't approve of Biden's White House talking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue.

Then you should be very happy with Biden's White House.

Oh, you're not? Why?

Is it because you don't believe posters whose profession happens to be dealing with this sort of data and how it is best used? Is it because you prefer your (strongly right wing) source over other sources? Why?

I took a little time to investigate and while I wasn't able to find a good list of staff/wages for the current and previous two administrations, I was able to find a couple of articles:

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-staffers-make-in-white-house-2019-8

Donald Trump paid his highest staff member ( substantially more than Biden is paying anybody.)
John Czwartacki, "whose official title was official title is senior adviser to the chief of staff for strategy and stakeholder engagement. earned $239,595 annually. That’s roughly $36,000 more than his boss, Mulvaney, and roughly $56,000 more than the top echelon of White House staff whose pay is capped at $183,000 per year, according to the latest release of White House staff salaries." About 19 of Trump's top staffers earn the $180K salary.

According to your link, Biden's top paid staff member is paid $180,000. There are a number of staff members who reach that salary point but none come close to Czartacki's salary which was inflated due to his being 'on loan' from another bureau.

I'm not able to copy it directly here but there is a nice graphic that compares Obama's staffing/costs to Trump's:

https://www.npr.org/2017/06/30/5350...staff-payroll-nearly-36-million-and-top-heavy

When Trump first took office, a great deal was made of his leaner staff and he continued to not fill various staff positions within the White House and elsewhere. This sounds great: saves tax payers' money but the chronic understaffing and unfilled positions throughout the government caused a lot of inefficiency and harm.

 

[Metaphor]

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).

I'm curious: what is it about the context that makes it "insignificant"?

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.

If you are saying "groups are going to be different and it doesn't mean that anybody was discriminated against"---I quite agree.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course you know that many workplaces show a strong history of preferring to hire males over females.

I don't know any such thing, Toni.

There are a handful of female dominated professions, notably nursing and elementary school teaching. Aside from that, for the most part, there has been a very strong history of hiring males. This has been discussed many times on this forum, with emphasis on various parts of the employment sectors.

No, Toni. The unemployment rate for women is lower than for men:
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm

Fewer women choose to be in the labour force compared to men, however, but women are still 47% of the labour force.

Is it because you don't believe posters whose profession happens to be dealing with this sort of data and how it is best used? Is it because you prefer your (strongly right wing) source over other sources? Why?

I'm not happy that Biden's White House promotes gender equity in salaries when it cannot get its own house in order.

I took a little time to investigate and while I wasn't able to find a good list of staff/wages for the current and previous two administrations, I was able to find a couple of articles:

According to your link, Biden's top paid staff member is paid $180,000. There are a number of staff members who reach that salary point but none come close to Czartacki's salary which was inflated due to his being 'on loan' from another bureau.

I'm not able to copy it directly here but there is a nice graphic that compares Obama's staffing/costs to Trump's:

When Trump first took office, a great deal was made of his leaner staff and he continued to not fill various staff positions within the White House and elsewhere. This sounds great: saves tax payers' money but the chronic understaffing and unfilled positions throughout the government caused a lot of inefficiency and harm.

I did not complain about the total wage bill of the White House so if that's a concern to you, start another thread.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not happy that Biden's White House promotes gender equity in salaries when it cannot get its own house in order.

As we all know, the raison d'etre of the POTUS is to make Australian reactionaries happy.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not happy that Biden's White House promotes gender equity in salaries when it cannot get its own house in order.

As we all know, the raison d'etre of the POTUS is to make Australian reactionaries happy.

As we all know, an international freethought message board is here for Americans to discuss American issues with other Americans within the allowed left-leaning parameters.

 

[ZiprHead]

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 remember seeing a photograph of the Trump Whitehouse staff assembled together. Not a black face in the whole bunch.

 

[Toni]

I don't know any such thing, Toni.



No, Toni. The unemployment rate for women is lower than for men:
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm

Fewer women choose to be in the labour force compared to men, however, but women are still 47% of the labour force.

Yes, women participate in the paid labor force at lower levels compared with men. Why?
Women as a group earn less than men, are more likely to work part time hours and/or for lower pay than are men. Why?

In fact there are a number of job categories that predominately employ men. This is by no means an all inclusive list: https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-male-dominated-industries-and-occupations/

Is it because you don't believe posters whose profession happens to be dealing with this sort of data and how it is best used? Is it because you prefer your (strongly right wing) source over other sources? Why?

I'm not happy that Biden's White House promotes gender equity in salaries when it cannot get its own house in order.

Really? Can you demonstrate that Biden's White House pays women less than men for the same level of position?

Biden has hired more staff compared with Trump, who, most experts believed at the time, was understaffed. Indeed, he often had difficulty filling positions. Compared with Trump, Biden seems 'bloated.'

Biden's administration made a point of hiring more women and more minorities than have historically been hired for White House staff positions. It is unsurprising that the less experienced staffers were hired at lower salaries than the more experienced staffers. If more of the less experienced staff were female, that would account for the gasp! 1 percent pay gap between men and women staffers.

It has been explained to you why you are incorrect in your statement that Biden is not keeping his stated intention regarding hiring practices. The fact that you refuse to accept that your belief is ill founded is a reflection of you and not of Biden.

I took a little time to investigate and while I wasn't able to find a good list of staff/wages for the current and previous two administrations, I was able to find a couple of articles:

According to your link, Biden's top paid staff member is paid $180,000. There are a number of staff members who reach that salary point but none come close to Czartacki's salary which was inflated due to his being 'on loan' from another bureau.

I'm not able to copy it directly here but there is a nice graphic that compares Obama's staffing/costs to Trump's:

When Trump first took office, a great deal was made of his leaner staff and he continued to not fill various staff positions within the White House and elsewhere. This sounds great: saves tax payers' money but the chronic understaffing and unfilled positions throughout the government caused a lot of inefficiency and harm.

I did not complain about the total wage bill of the White House so if that's a concern to you, start another thread.

Looking at staffing levels as being adequate or inadequate or bloated is not helpful unless one looks at what prior administrations did with respect to hiring. It is also useful to examine what is the usual and customary salary for different levels of staff. To do so, one needs to compare administrations.

I realize that does not suit your narrative.

 

[Elixir]

As we all know, an international freethought message board is here for Americans to discuss American issues with other Americans within the allowed left-leaning parameters.

What exactly is the punishment for straying outside those left leaning parameters that are so unfairly imposed on right wingers? Having hypocrisy and racism exposed? Awww. So sad.
Maybe if enough reactionary Australians joined, y'all can become predominant in establishing parameters of discussion. You know... make it like Parler used to be or something.
Ah, those were the good old days...

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not happy that Biden's White House promotes gender equity in salaries when it cannot get its own house in order.

As we all know, the raison d'etre of the POTUS is to make Australian reactionaries happy.

As we all know, an international freethought message board is here for Americans to discuss American issues with other Americans within the allowed left-leaning parameters.

As usual, you are mistaken.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, women participate in the paid labor force at lower levels compared with men. Why?

All sorts of reasons, I imagine. But why the "why"? What makes you think that inequity needs explanation but equity is the null hypothesis?

Women as a group earn less than men, are more likely to work part time hours and/or for lower pay than are men. Why?

I can tell you why the women I know, who are not in paid work or are or were in part-time work at one stage chose that. Mostly I'd say that the menu of lifestyle options is broader for women than for men.

In fact there are a number of job categories that predominately employ men. This is by no means an all inclusive list: https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-male-dominated-industries-and-occupations/

So....what? Is this a claim that employers prefer hiring men?

Really? Can you demonstrate that Biden's White House pays women less than men for the same level of position?

If controlling for occupation was legitimate, then the gender pay gap narrative would control for occupation. It doesn't. The headline 'gap' is always the percentage difference in median salaries for full-time males versus full-time females (not that hours are not controlled for, either--men in full time jobs work more hours than women in full time jobs).

Biden has hired more staff compared with Trump, who, most experts believed at the time, was understaffed. Indeed, he often had difficulty filling positions. Compared with Trump, Biden seems 'bloated.'

Okay. I have no comment on the number of staff Biden has hired.

Biden's administration made a point of hiring more women and more minorities than have historically been hired for White House staff positions. It is unsurprising that the less experienced staffers were hired at lower salaries than the more experienced staffers. If more of the less experienced staff were female, that would account for the gasp! 1 percent pay gap between men and women staffers.

So: it is okay to discriminate based on ethnicity and sex, and it is okay to take into account actual occupational role and experience?

So why isn't this taken into account with the pay gap narrative that the Biden White House promulgates?

It has been explained to you why you are incorrect in your statement that Biden is not keeping his stated intention regarding hiring practices. The fact that you refuse to accept that your belief is ill founded is a reflection of you and not of Biden.

You have got it into your head that I complained about Biden's total staffing levels or other things that I did not complain about. Lay it to rest. No: I complained about Biden's White House promulgating a pay gap narrative and being hypocritical about it.

According to your link, Biden's top paid staff member is paid $180,000. There are a number of staff members who reach that salary point but none come close to Czartacki's salary which was inflated due to his being 'on loan' from another bureau.

I'm not able to copy it directly here but there is a nice graphic that compares Obama's staffing/costs to Trump's:

When Trump first took office, a great deal was made of his leaner staff and he continued to not fill various staff positions within the White House and elsewhere. This sounds great: saves tax payers' money but the chronic understaffing and unfilled positions throughout the government caused a lot of inefficiency and harm.

You are now doubling and tripling down on your 'total staffing cost' derail. I have not said anything about the total staffing cost in Biden's White House. Please move on.

Looking at staffing levels as being adequate or inadequate or bloated is not helpful unless one looks at what prior administrations did with respect to hiring. It is also useful to examine what is the usual and customary salary for different levels of staff. To do so, one needs to compare administrations.

I have not said anything about the total staffing cost in Biden's White House. Please move on.

 

[Elixir]

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.

The mining abilities of right wing media are indeed impressive, but not so much so as is the willingness of their rubes to get genuinely upset about nothing, as long as the right wing extremist echo chamber tells them to get upset.
Thousands of trumpsuckers stage a violent-but-inept coup attempt that kills or injures over 150 police while trying to hunt down and kill elected officials - and it's no big deal, just "tourists". But one black or brown person did something wrong years ago, and it's red meat worth recurring headlines, and evidence that white people are the current victims of racist oppression.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I remember seeing a photograph of the Trump Whitehouse staff assembled together. Not a black face in the whole bunch.

Duh! What do you expect? It's the white house!

 

[Toni]

I remember seeing a photograph of the Trump Whitehouse staff assembled together. Not a black face in the whole bunch.

Duh! What do you expect? It's the white house!

Just like Nixon wanted it.

 

[Toni]

All sorts of reasons, I imagine. But why the "why"? What makes you think that inequity needs explanation but equity is the null hypothesis?



I can tell you why the women I know, who are not in paid work or are or were in part-time work at one stage chose that. Mostly I'd say that the menu of lifestyle options is broader for women than for men.

In fact there are a number of job categories that predominately employ men. This is by no means an all inclusive list: https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-male-dominated-industries-and-occupations/

So....what? Is this a claim that employers prefer hiring men?

Really? Can you demonstrate that Biden's White House pays women less than men for the same level of position?

If controlling for occupation was legitimate, then the gender pay gap narrative would control for occupation. It doesn't. The headline 'gap' is always the percentage difference in median salaries for full-time males versus full-time females (not that hours are not controlled for, either--men in full time jobs work more hours than women in full time jobs).

Biden has hired more staff compared with Trump, who, most experts believed at the time, was understaffed. Indeed, he often had difficulty filling positions. Compared with Trump, Biden seems 'bloated.'

Okay. I have no comment on the number of staff Biden has hired.

Biden's administration made a point of hiring more women and more minorities than have historically been hired for White House staff positions. It is unsurprising that the less experienced staffers were hired at lower salaries than the more experienced staffers. If more of the less experienced staff were female, that would account for the gasp! 1 percent pay gap between men and women staffers.

So: it is okay to discriminate based on ethnicity and sex, and it is okay to take into account actual occupational role and experience?

So why isn't this taken into account with the pay gap narrative that the Biden White House promulgates?

It has been explained to you why you are incorrect in your statement that Biden is not keeping his stated intention regarding hiring practices. The fact that you refuse to accept that your belief is ill founded is a reflection of you and not of Biden.

You have got it into your head that I complained about Biden's total staffing levels or other things that I did not complain about. Lay it to rest. No: I complained about Biden's White House promulgating a pay gap narrative and being hypocritical about it.

According to your link, Biden's top paid staff member is paid $180,000. There are a number of staff members who reach that salary point but none come close to Czartacki's salary which was inflated due to his being 'on loan' from another bureau.

I'm not able to copy it directly here but there is a nice graphic that compares Obama's staffing/costs to Trump's:

When Trump first took office, a great deal was made of his leaner staff and he continued to not fill various staff positions within the White House and elsewhere. This sounds great: saves tax payers' money but the chronic understaffing and unfilled positions throughout the government caused a lot of inefficiency and harm.

You are now doubling and tripling down on your 'total staffing cost' derail. I have not said anything about the total staffing cost in Biden's White House. Please move on.

Looking at staffing levels as being adequate or inadequate or bloated is not helpful unless one looks at what prior administrations did with respect to hiring. It is also useful to examine what is the usual and customary salary for different levels of staff. To do so, one needs to compare administrations.

I have not said anything about the total staffing cost in Biden's White House. Please move on.

If you are embarrassed by actually being shown facts that contradict your premise, then that is on you. But seeing as how upset you are by facts, I will not bring it up again.

 

[ZiprHead]

I remember seeing a photograph of the Trump Whitehouse staff assembled together. Not a black face in the whole bunch.

Duh! What do you expect? It's the white house!

Just like Nixon wanted it.

And I don't remember Metaphor or the AEI mentioning it too.

 

[Metaphor]

If you are embarrassed by actually being shown facts that contradict your premise, then that is on you. But seeing as how upset you are by facts, I will not bring it up again.

I'm embarrassed for you, Toni. My premise is that there is a gender pay gap at the Biden White House and none of your derail contradicts that or is even about it.

 

[Toni]

If you are embarrassed by actually being shown facts that contradict your premise, then that is on you. But seeing as how upset you are by facts, I will not bring it up again.

I'm embarrassed for you, Toni. My premise is that there is a gender pay gap at the Biden White House and none of your derail contradicts that or is even about it.

I'm sorry that I over-estimated you, Metaphor. I thought you were interested in a fuller, more complex understanding of White House staffing/pay than what was pre-digested for you in a right wing publication.

My mistake.

 

[Metaphor]

If you are embarrassed by actually being shown facts that contradict your premise, then that is on you. But seeing as how upset you are by facts, I will not bring it up again.

I'm embarrassed for you, Toni. My premise is that there is a gender pay gap at the Biden White House and none of your derail contradicts that or is even about it.

I'm sorry that I over-estimated you, Metaphor. I thought you were interested in a fuller, more complex understanding of White House staffing/pay than what was pre-digested for you in a right wing publication.

My mistake.

Not everyone is you Toni and not everyone has the same interests as you. But thank you for apologising--even insincerely--for your attempted derail.

 

[Toni]

I'm sorry that I over-estimated you, Metaphor. I thought you were interested in a fuller, more complex understanding of White House staffing/pay than what was pre-digested for you in a right wing publication.

My mistake.

Not everyone is you Toni and not everyone has the same interests as you. But thank you for apologising--even insincerely--for your attempted derail.

My apology was sincere.

Providing additional information and fuller context is not a derail.

 

[Elixir]

My premise is that there is a gender pay gap at the Biden White House and none of your derail contradicts that or is even about it.

Your "premise" has been fully acknowledged.
The remaining question is "so what?". Are you ready to congratulate and praise Joe Biden?
You probably should, you know.

Gender wage gap narrowed to 1% in Biden White House
"Women working in the White House under President Joe Biden earn 99 cents for every $1 earned by male employees, according to an annual report released by the Executive Office of the President,
a gap significantly narrower than under both previous administrations and the national average.


So... Biden has done a better job of approaching fully equitable pay than any previous President (President Donald Trump's administration reported a 37% gender pay gap during his first year in office, compared to 16% during President Barack Obama's first year), but you want to criticize him for a remaining 1% imperfection? While your orange avatar was thirty seven times WORSE?
I can only say that the intellectual bankruptcy of reactionary right wingers is at an historic low, and this OP is yet another data point supporting that view.

ETA, BTW, Currently, Australia’s national gender pay gap is 13.4%. Why aren't you looking after your own house if gender wage gap is a real concern of yours, Metaphor?