The gender pay gap in Biden's White House

[Metaphor]

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.

It's a derail, Toni, and it is dishonest of you to claim otherwise.

My thread title was 'the gender pay gap in Biden's White House', not 'wages at the Biden White House'.

The story I linked to also discussed the total wage bill at the White House--which I had specifically edited out of my quotes--because I was not interested in the total wage bill at the White House and I am still not. If I was interested in it or thought it had a bearing on the gender pay gap I'd have included it. In fact, I went to great pains to not cut and paste the entire story and provide the parts I think are necessary for my own comments to make sense.

The Biden White House has an even greater gender pay gap than the rest of the country, and yet it continues to peddle the narrative and vision of gender equity in wages. Worse, it changed the way it reported its wages (and reported it differently to how the gender pay gap is reported as standard practise) in order to (in my opinion) hide its gender pay gap.

Interestingly enough, I heard from various board members various 'excuses' that could 'explain' the gender pay gap--e.g. that the men and women are at different positions of experience and in different occupations. Yet the headline gender pay gap figure is not reported taking into account experience and occupational segregation, and the goal of the gender pay gap activists is equity in pay.

 

[Elixir]

My apology was sincere.

Providing additional information and fuller context is not a derail.

It's a derail, Toni, and it is dishonest of you to claim otherwise.

My thread title was 'the gender pay gap in Biden's White House', not 'wages at the Biden White House'.

The story I linked to also discussed the total wage bill at the White House--which I had specifically edited out of my quotes--because I was not interested in the total wage bill at the White House and I am still not. If I was interested in it or thought it had a bearing on the gender pay gap I'd have included it. In fact, I went to great pains to not cut and paste the entire story and provide the parts I think are necessary for my own comments to make sense.

The Biden White House has an even greater gender pay gap than the rest of the country, and yet it continues to peddle the narrative and vision of gender equity in wages. Worse, it changed the way it reported its wages (and reported it differently to how the gender pay gap is reported as standard practise) in order to (in my opinion) hide its gender pay gap.

Interestingly enough, I heard from various board members various 'excuses' that could 'explain' the gender pay gap--e.g. that the men and women are at different positions of experience and in different occupations. Yet the headline gender pay gap figure is not reported taking into account experience and occupational segregation, and the goal of the gender pay gap activists is equity in pay.

Trump first year: 37% gender wage gap
Australia: 13.4% gender wage gap
Biden first year (to date): 1% wage gap

You should feel embarrassed if you brought this up to criticize Biden.
Sounds like when the facts came out you kinda forgot about it in favor of arguing about what you think Toni thinks...

 

[Toni]

My apology was sincere.

Providing additional information and fuller context is not a derail.

It's a derail, Toni, and it is dishonest of you to claim otherwise.

My thread title was 'the gender pay gap in Biden's White House', not 'wages at the Biden White House'.

The story I linked to also discussed the total wage bill at the White House--which I had specifically edited out of my quotes--because I was not interested in the total wage bill at the White House and I am still not. If I was interested in it or thought it had a bearing on the gender pay gap I'd have included it. In fact, I went to great pains to not cut and paste the entire story and provide the parts I think are necessary for my own comments to make sense.

The Biden White House has an even greater gender pay gap than the rest of the country, and yet it continues to peddle the narrative and vision of gender equity in wages. Worse, it changed the way it reported its wages (and reported it differently to how the gender pay gap is reported as standard practise) in order to (in my opinion) hide its gender pay gap.

Interestingly enough, I heard from various board members various 'excuses' that could 'explain' the gender pay gap--e.g. that the men and women are at different positions of experience and in different occupations. Yet the headline gender pay gap figure is not reported taking into account experience and occupational segregation, and the goal of the gender pay gap activists is equity in pay.

It’s not a derail. As always, you are free to ignore my posts.

 

[Metaphor]

My apology was sincere.

Providing additional information and fuller context is not a derail.

It's a derail, Toni, and it is dishonest of you to claim otherwise.

My thread title was 'the gender pay gap in Biden's White House', not 'wages at the Biden White House'.

The story I linked to also discussed the total wage bill at the White House--which I had specifically edited out of my quotes--because I was not interested in the total wage bill at the White House and I am still not. If I was interested in it or thought it had a bearing on the gender pay gap I'd have included it. In fact, I went to great pains to not cut and paste the entire story and provide the parts I think are necessary for my own comments to make sense.

The Biden White House has an even greater gender pay gap than the rest of the country, and yet it continues to peddle the narrative and vision of gender equity in wages. Worse, it changed the way it reported its wages (and reported it differently to how the gender pay gap is reported as standard practise) in order to (in my opinion) hide its gender pay gap.

Interestingly enough, I heard from various board members various 'excuses' that could 'explain' the gender pay gap--e.g. that the men and women are at different positions of experience and in different occupations. Yet the headline gender pay gap figure is not reported taking into account experience and occupational segregation, and the goal of the gender pay gap activists is equity in pay.

Trump first year: 37% gender wage gap
Australia: 13.4% gender wage gap
Biden first year (to date): 1% wage gap

You should feel embarrassed if you brought this up to criticize Biden.
Sounds like when the facts came out you kinda forgot about it in favor of arguing about what you think Toni thinks...

It's difficult to believe you have read or understood anything in the OP or followed any of the thread in good faith, given your response here. Incredibly, you report the median gender wage gap for the Trump White House (which produces a much larger 'gap' compared to the mean), and you report the mean for the Biden White House (which produces a much smaller gap compared to the median).

 

[Metaphor]

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.

How incredibly dishonest, Elixir. How incredibly fucking dishonest. Are you able to follow the details of any argument at all? You report the median wage gap differential for Trump and Obama--which you must have obtained from the AEI which calculated it--and then you go ahead and report the mean wage gap for the Biden White House, completely missing the fucking point.

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?

It's incredible that you could say something this dense. The gender pay gap isn't a fucking concern to me. The narrative around it is complete fucking bullshit. What is a concern to me is that the Biden White House has continued the idiotic 'equal pay day' narrative, and doing it while it has a 20 per cent wage gap in median earnings.

Get my own house in order? Are you fucking kidding me? If I had the influence, the first thing I would do is push back against the idiotic gender pay gap narrative in the first place, and ask why women's choices are so offensive to the population at large.

 

[Elixir]

Trump first year: 37% gender wage gap
Australia: 13.4% gender wage gap
Biden first year (to date): 1% wage gap

You should feel embarrassed if you brought this up to criticize Biden.
Sounds like when the facts came out you kinda forgot about it in favor of arguing about what you think Toni thinks...

It's difficult to believe you have read or understood anything in the OP or followed any of the thread in good faith, given your response here. Incredibly, you report the median gender wage gap for the Trump White House (which produces a much larger 'gap' compared to the mean), and you report the mean for the Biden White House (which produces a much smaller gap compared to the median).

Let's see the median Biden vs median Trump year one stat, and the mean vs mean for both.
And let's include the stats for Au while we're at it so we can see why you're so upset about the 1% median pay gap in the Biden White House.
Go ahead, Meta. Show us how to handwave away the factor of 37 by which Trump is worse EVEN IF THAT's ONLY IF YOU COMPARE MEAN TO MEDIAN.
Show us with the numbers that it actually means

* Biden's performance is worse than that of his predecessors
* Biden's performance is worse than Australia's, and
* USA today* is making shit up when they say

* Gender wage gap in Biden White House narrower than predecessors Trump, Obama.
* The administration established a pay band system to ensure equal pay regardless of race, gender.
* The Biden administration is also the most racially and ethnically diverse in history.

And when they say

The average salary for a woman in the Biden administration is $93,752 and $94,639 for a man, a difference of about 1%, the White House reported. Approximately 60% of White House staff are female. That's comparable to the average rate of women (56.2%) who participated in the labor force in 2020, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
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.

I don't believe they are comparing apples and oranges just because you say so.
Let's look at your actual numbers and your source for them. Especially if you're gong to call me dishonest after I showed the numbers and where I got them.

Just so we keep the above in perspective and compare apples to apples:
At November 2020, women’s average weekly ordinary full-time earnings across all industries and occupations was $1,562.00 compared to men’s average weekly ordinary full-time earnings of $1,804.20.

That's 13.4% in Au vs 1% in the Biden administration. Why aren't you concerned that your Country is doing 13.4x worse than the Biden administration - apples to apples - if you are genuinely concerned about equality and equity?

* I don't consider USA Today to be the end-all by any means. I wouldn't even put comparing apples to oranges past them. But considering who is accusing them of that, I'd need to see some documentation and numbers.

 

[Metaphor]

Let's see the median Biden vs median Trump year one stat, and the mean vs mean for both.
And let's include the stats for Au while we're at it so we can see why you're so upset about the 1% median pay gap in the Biden White House.

Elixir, there is not a 1% median pay gap in the Biden White House. There is a 20% median pay gap in the Biden White House.

I am not upset about the 1% mean wage gap in the Biden White House. I am upset that the Biden White House continues to peddle the false gender pay gap narrative while having a 20% gender pay gap.

Go ahead, Meta. Show us how to handwave away the factor of 37 by which Trump is worse EVEN IF THAT's ONLY IF YOU COMPARE MEAN TO MEDIAN.

There's no factor of 37. The Biden White House median pay gap is 20% and the Trump White House median pay gap was 37%.

The average salary for a woman in the Biden administration is $93,752 and $94,639 for a man, a difference of about 1%, the White House reported. Approximately 60% of White House staff are female. That's comparable to the average rate of women (56.2%) who participated in the labor force in 2020, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
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.

That reporting is a flat out lie. It is comparing the median wage gap of the Trump and Obama White Houses to the mean wage gap of the Biden White House. It's apples to oranges. It's either deliberate deception or incredibly sloppy reporting motivated by wishful thinking and blind prejudice.

I don't believe they are comparing apples and oranges just because you say so. Let's look at the numbers and your source for them.

If you don't know the difference between a median and a mean, I suggest a first-year statistics lecture (it doesn't have to be mathematical statistics--any discipline that uses statistics ought have one). Many universities offer them online for free.

 

[Metaphor]

That's 13.4% in Au vs 1% in the Biden administration. Why aren't you concerned that your Country is doing 13.4x worse than the Biden administration, if you are genuinely concerned about equality and equity?

Because I'm not concerned about "closing" the gender pay gap, which has a false narrative built around it. The Australian gender pay gap is 'worse' only if you believe in gender pay equity regardless of working circumstances.

 

[Elixir]

That's 13.4% in Au vs 1% in the Biden administration. Why aren't you concerned that your Country is doing 13.4x worse than the Biden administration, if you are genuinely concerned about equality and equity?

Because I'm not concerned about "closing" the gender pay gap, which has a false narrative built around it. The Australian gender pay gap is 'worse' only if you believe in gender pay equity regardless of working circumstances.

Let's see the numbers.
So far you are offering only hot air. Where are your numbers, and where are your sources?
At least I provided numbers and sources.

Even if you had another "premise" to argue, it sounds to me like you're making a collectivist - actually communist - assertion that everyone should be paid the same, or equal numbers of people should be paid more than and less than some arbitrary amount that you can't provide.

 

[Swammerdami]

Researching the statistics of White House salaries is VERY low on my to-Do list, but I do have a question which I hope Metaphor answers.

... The Biden White House median pay gap is 20% and the Trump White House median pay gap was 37%.

I think I understand WHY you are apparently upset at the smallish Biden imbalance but NOT at the much larger Trump imbalance. (But tell me if I have it wrong.) The Biden imbalance is a shocking example of hypocrisy since Biden and the Ds pretend that they strive for race and gender equality. The Trump imbalance, on the other hand, is consistent with Republican values, which celebrate race and gender inequality.

My question is: Where did you come across this story and why does it intrigue you so much? You are based in Australia. What news sources inspire you about U.S. politics? Was it your own research that led you to discover this horrid hypocrisy? If not, was it Sean Hannity or someone else who helped guide your thinking?

 

[Metaphor]

I think I understand WHY you are apparently upset at the smallish Biden imbalance but NOT at the much larger Trump imbalance. (But tell me if I have it wrong.)

I am not upset by the "smallish" Biden White House median gender pay gap (which is larger than the US's and DC's median gender pay gap). I am upset with the Biden White House having a gender pay gap even as it promulgates the false narrative around the gender pay gap and believes gender pay equity is an ideal to strive for.

The Biden imbalance is a shocking example of hypocrisy since Biden and the Ds pretend that they strive for race and gender equality. The Trump imbalance, on the other hand, is consistent with Republican values, which celebrate race and gender inequality.

No, Republicans do not celebrate race and gender inequality, and neither do I. However, I do not believe in gender equity (that the two sexes could or should be the same on every conceivable measure) because I do not believe such a thing is biologically possible or even socially desirable. However, I do recall Ivanka Trump promulgating the same false pay gap narrative that the Biden White House does, and that was hypocrisy, too.

My question is: Where did you come across this story and why does it intrigue you so much? You are based in Australia. What news sources inspire you about U.S. politics?

I have an interest in gender politics, especially gender politics in the West. The false pay gap narrative is as insidious in Australia as it is in America.

However, what I'm not interested in is yet another American with an imperialist attitude, "politely" wondering why I am interested in US politics. I reject this implicit attitude that I should stay in my lane.

Was it your own research that led you to discover this horrid hypocrisy? If not, was it Sean Hannity or someone else who helped guide your thinking?

You know, it's incredible the number of people on the left (on this board and elsewhere) who will accuse anybody on the right (or the perceived right, or the centre) of being mindless automatons and how effortlesslyblasé they are at dropping this insinuation. I listen to and read a variety of sources (including that of people whose ideology is the polar opposite of mine--I read the fucking Guardian for god's sake). But I would never and could never rely on a single figure with whom I agree without question. I have never met somebody else where I agree with all their opinions. Hell, I couldn't ever belong to a political party for the same reason--I can't imagine the hypocrisy of having to claim you believe something when you don't, because your opinion is at odds with the rest of your party.

 

[laughing dog]

I downloaded the fact sheet. It appears that it lists 560 employees. The AEI report claims that there 304 female employees or 58.9%. But 304 is 54% of 560.

So, either my reading is incorrect or the AEI's statistics are suspect.

 

[Swammerdami]

However, what I'm not interested in is yet another American with an imperialist attitude, "politely" wondering why I am interested in US politics. I reject this implicit attitude that I should stay in my lane.

Was it your own research that led you to discover this horrid hypocrisy? If not, was it Sean Hannity or someone else who helped guide your thinking?

... I read the fucking Guardian for god's sake)....

Nobody was suggesting you should "stay in your own lane." You're probably better informed than most American voters — and God knows they could use the help!

I'm not sure you answered my question though. Were you alerted to this huge Biden hypocrisy via the Fucking Guardian For God's Sake or some other source? Can you post a link to where you were first alerted to this scandal?

I see that OP links to Aei.Org. Is this one of your favorite sources? Do you browse there, follow links to that site, or what? Do you regard AEI as a "fair and balanced" source?

 

[Metaphor]

Nobody was suggesting you should "stay in your own lane."

Toni has "politely" asked the question before as well, as if she cannot fathom the interest someone might have in the most powerful country in the world, even if they don't live there.

I'm not sure you answered my question though. Were you alerted to this huge Biden hypocrisy via the Fucking Guardian For God's Sake or some other source? Can you post a link to where you were first alerted to this scandal?

It is in my OP, literally the first line of the OP. I read it by browsing the AEI site and coming across it.

I see that OP links to Aei.Org. Is this one of your favorite sources? Do you browse there, follow links to that site, or what? Do you regard AEI as a "fair and balanced" source?

Good lord, I only came across it last night. I consider the AEI to have a particular political leaning as does every news site that has ever existed.

I am not interested in evaluating whether it is 'fair and balanced' in some abstract journalistic sense. I am interested in whether the claims it makes in any particular article are correct. I do the same thing when I'm browsing The Guardian. I'm not an idiot--I know The Guardian is hard left and has a particular ideological agenda which it obviously pushes. None of that really bothers me if the facts are correct. I am not afraid of reading facts, though I have plenty of eye-rolls when The Guardian couches the facts it reports in its narrative.

 

[Toni]

Toni has "politely" asked the question before as well, as if she cannot fathom the interest someone might have in the most powerful country in the world, even if they don't live there.



It is in my OP, literally the first line of the OP. I read it by browsing the AEI site and coming across it.

I see that OP links to Aei.Org. Is this one of your favorite sources? Do you browse there, follow links to that site, or what? Do you regard AEI as a "fair and balanced" source?

Good lord, I only came across it last night. I consider the AEI to have a particular political leaning as does every news site that has ever existed.

I am not interested in evaluating whether it is 'fair and balanced' in some abstract journalistic sense. I am interested in whether the claims it makes in any particular article are correct. I do the same thing when I'm browsing The Guardian. I'm not an idiot--I know The Guardian is hard left and has a particular ideological agenda which it obviously pushes. None of that really bothers me if the facts are correct. I am not afraid of reading facts, though I have plenty of eye-rolls when The Guardian couches the facts it reports in its narrative.

Not exactly true. I've wondered why you thought you knew/understood things about a country you've never visited better than people who have lived in that country all their lives do when they are trying to tell you you have something wrong. It's not hard to understand why you or anyone else in a different part of the world might get something wrong about life in the US. Certainly we misunderstand or don't understand a lot about other countries, either.

AEI is not a 'news site.'

 

[Metaphor]

Not exactly true. I've wondered why you thought you knew/understood things about a country you've never visited better than people who have lived in that country all their lives do when they are trying to tell you you have something wrong. It's not hard to understand why you or anyone else in a different part of the world might get something wrong about life in the US. Certainly we misunderstand or don't understand a lot about other countries, either.

I never claimed to understand things about America better than Americans in some abstract sense. I simply do not fucking accept your epistemic fucking imperialism, and I am confident in my own numeracy to make claims about the difference between a mean and a median, even if they are means and medians about Americans.

 

[Toni]

Not exactly true. I've wondered why you thought you knew/understood things about a country you've never visited better than people who have lived in that country all their lives do when they are trying to tell you you have something wrong. It's not hard to understand why you or anyone else in a different part of the world might get something wrong about life in the US. Certainly we misunderstand or don't understand a lot about other countries, either.

I never claimed to understand things about America better than Americans in some abstract sense. I simply do not fucking accept your epistemic fucking imperialism, and I am confident in my own numeracy to make claims about the difference between a mean and a median, even if they are means and medians about Americans.

Sure. I realize your confidence in your abilities to understand the differences between a mean and a median. You seem to have completely skipped the part upthread that discussed the usual use of mean and median when discussing earnings and demographic groups.


Your repeated mis-characterization and insult of me is noted. Again.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not exactly true. I've wondered why you thought you knew/understood things about a country you've never visited better than people who have lived in that country all their lives do when they are trying to tell you you have something wrong. It's not hard to understand why you or anyone else in a different part of the world might get something wrong about life in the US. Certainly we misunderstand or don't understand a lot about other countries, either.

I never claimed to understand things about America better than Americans in some abstract sense. I simply do not fucking accept your epistemic fucking imperialism, and I am confident in my own numeracy to make claims about the difference between a mean and a median, even if they are means and medians about Americans.

Sure. I realize your confidence in your abilities to understand the differences between a mean and a median. You seem to have completely skipped the part upthread that discussed the usual use of mean and median when discussing earnings and demographic groups.


Your repeated mis-characterization and insult of me is noted. Again.

So, I'm quite sure that many people have had confidence in their abilities to distinguish the differences between many things, and when they are best applied and so on and so forth.

The thing is, Franz Reichelt was confident too...

 

[Politesse]

I am not upset by the "smallish" Biden White House median gender pay gap (which is larger than the US's and DC's median gender pay gap). I am upset with the Biden White House having a gender pay gap even as it promulgates the false narrative around the gender pay gap and believes gender pay equity is an ideal to strive for.



No, Republicans do not celebrate race and gender inequality, and neither do I. However, I do not believe in gender equity (that the two sexes could or should be the same on every conceivable measure) because I do not believe such a thing is biologically possible or even socially desirable. However, I do recall Ivanka Trump promulgating the same false pay gap narrative that the Biden White House does, and that was hypocrisy, too.

My question is: Where did you come across this story and why does it intrigue you so much? You are based in Australia. What news sources inspire you about U.S. politics?

I have an interest in gender politics, especially gender politics in the West. The false pay gap narrative is as insidious in Australia as it is in America.

However, what I'm not interested in is yet another American with an imperialist attitude, "politely" wondering why I am interested in US politics. I reject this implicit attitude that I should stay in my lane.

Was it your own research that led you to discover this horrid hypocrisy? If not, was it Sean Hannity or someone else who helped guide your thinking?

You know, it's incredible the number of people on the left (on this board and elsewhere) who will accuse anybody on the right (or the perceived right, or the centre) of being mindless automatons and how effortlesslyblasé they are at dropping this insinuation. I listen to and read a variety of sources (including that of people whose ideology is the polar opposite of mine--I read the fucking Guardian for god's sake). But I would never and could never rely on a single figure with whom I agree without question. I have never met somebody else where I agree with all their opinions. Hell, I couldn't ever belong to a political party for the same reason--I can't imagine the hypocrisy of having to claim you believe something when you don't, because your opinion is at odds with the rest of your party.

So you're criticizing Biden for hypocrisy... while pretending to care about gender inequality to score a rhetorical point?

 

[Swammerdami]

Thank you, Metaphor, for answering my question. You were browsing AEI. I'm left with one big question still unanswered though.

... fathom the interest someone might have in the most powerful country in the world, even if they don't live there.

I can certainly understand this! I don't live in the U.S.A. either. And I can't begin to list the many issues in the U.S. that concern me. Topping the list is the high probability that elections beginning in 2022 will be much less democratic than we're used to, and that the U.S. will veer toward a fascist model. Also high on the list are systemic disinformation, climate change, gun violence, dysfunctional government, and growing intolerance and racism.

The tiny male-to-female W.H. salary gap (1% mean, and still smallish when measured by median) is NOT on my list. Nor is it on yours, I guess: it sounds like you oppose use of this statistic (except when you think it shows Ds in a bad light). You are concerned with the "hypocrisy" of Biden to allow any wage gap at all. (Had he hired more male stenographers and a few more female senior aides, you'd accuse him of trickery to fudge the statistic — did I guess right? Was there anything he could have done on this matter to win your approval?)

In a recent post I laughed at Trump's billing Don Jr.'s $7 Boy Scout membership to the Trump Foundation "charity"; I suppose many thought this concern too petty by far. We all have different pet issues that are objectively trivial yet seem important to us. Thanks for sharing yours.