Based on median salaries, gender pay gap at Trump White House is almost 2X (37%) what the media are reporting (20%)
AEIdeas
As required by Congress since 1995, the White House annually delivers a report to Congress on July 1 listing the title and salary of every White House Office employee. Here’s the latest 2017 salary report from the Trump White House, which was released to the public last Friday. Based on the 2017 White House salaries, several media outlets have reported that there is about a 20% gender pay gap at the Trump White House, based on the difference in average salaries: $84,500 average for female staffers compared to a $105,000 average for male staffers. See reports here from Roll Call and CNN.
But the gender pay gap at the Trump White House is actually much, much larger by a factor of almost 2X greater than the 20% reported by Roll Call and CNN when median salaries by gender are compared. The top chart above shows that the gender pay gap based on the median salary for women ($72,650) working at the White House and the median salary for male staffers ($115,000) is almost twice as large as what the media is reporting using mean salaries – it’s nearly 37% using median salaries vs. slightly less than 20% using the average salaries.
To be as statistically accurate as possible, almost all reports on pay differences by gender compare median wages, income, or salaries and not differences in average (mean) pay (the same statistical approach applies when home prices are reported). For example, the Roll Call article cites the “Pew Research Center’s most recent statistics on gender pay disparity in the American workforce, where women earn 83% of men’s median hourly earnings.” The CNN report cites a “national average [gender pay gap] of 82 cents on the dollar, according to the Labor Department,” and that gender pay gap is based on gender differences in median weekly earnings. The Census Bureau also reports gender differences in earnings based on differences in median annual earnings.
Therefore, the media reports from Roll Call and CNN correctly report gender differences in pay at the national level using median earnings, but then incorrectly report the gender pay gap at the Trump White House using mean earnings instead of the median salaries. And in the process, both Roll Call and CNN under-estimate the gender pay gap at the White House by almost 50%: 19.6% based on average salaries versus 36.8% based on median salaries.
Here is a summary below of my analysis of White House salaries. Note that the White House only provides names, salaries and position titles for each employee. The gender of each employee then has to be determined from each employee’s name using Internet research, e.g., Facebook, news reports, image searches, Linkedin, Twitter, etc. Based on that research:
1. There are 374 staffers at the Trump White House who are paid employees: 176 women (47.1%) and 198 men (52.9%).
2. The average (mean) salaries are $84,676 for women and $105,373 for men (these figures are almost identical to those reported by Roll Call).
3. The median salaries are $72,648 for women and $115,000 for men. That is, of the 176 women working at the Trump White House, half of them (88) make more than about $72,650 and half (88) make less than that median salary. For men, half of them (99 out of 198) make less than $115,000 and the other half (99) make more than $115,000. From a statistical standpoint, it’s those median salaries that would most accurately reflect what a typical female staffer at the White House is paid compared to what a typical male staffer is paid.
4. The table above helps to illustrate the significant gender pay gap at the Trump White House by graphically displaying the gender disparities in the highest-paid top positions at the White House and the lowest-paid positions. Of the top 101 highest-paid employees at the White House, nearly three out of four (73.3%) are men, and that percentage holds pretty closely for the top 23 (74% male), top 48 (77% male) and top 60 highest-paid staffers (73%). In contrast, of the 102 lowest-paid White House employees, nearly six out of ten (59.2%) are female. It’s those gender disparities, especially for the top 100 highest-paid staffers, that help explain the 37% overall gender pay gap in favor of men.
Bottom Line: Unlike Obama, Trump has not made the gender pay gap an issue and he has never made outrageous (and false) claims like Obama did that “Women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” Further, Trump ignored Equal Pay Day in April this year and didn’t follow in Obama’s eight-year tradition of bringing attention annually to that bogus feminist holiday with a presidential proclamation. So I can’t criticize Trump this year like I have called out Obama in past years for hypocrisy about the gender pay gap, see last year’s CD post here when there was about an 11% gender pay gap at the Obama White House (based on median salaries).
But Trump’s daughter Ivanka has been vocal about Equal Pay Day and the gender pay gap (see her Tweet here and below), as both Roll Call and CNN pointed out.
For Ivanka Trump: If you are going to promote the statistical falsehood behind Equal Pay Day — that gender discrimination is the main explanatory factor for any aggregate, unadjusted gender differences in earnings — then you might want to investigate the whopping 37% (and $42,350) gender pay gap at your father’s White House. If gender differences in median earnings at the national level reflect “unequal pay for equal work,” then wouldn’t that also be the case at the Trump White House? If so, Ivanka should be working really hard to help her father “close the gender pay gap” at the White House, like she pledged in her Tweet above.
For the media: If you report gender differences in median earnings at the national level, then shouldn’t you report differences in median earnings at the Trump White House?
Donald Trump is working for no salary. Only $1.00 as required by law … this should also be factored in.
If it’s not already, it won’t make much of a difference. Median minimizes the effects outliers like that has on the data.
No salary? Not really. Salary is just a token event for this office.
What is the true economic value of being president of the U.S. especially considering Trump’s numerous business interests? I’m guessing there are many people looking into this for impeachment purposes.
Walt,
“What is the true economic value of being president of the U.S?”
Apparently, it is quite high for ex-Presidents unable to successfully run a business. The Clintons and the Obamas have made $250,000 to $400,000 for a 40 minute speech.
“I’m guessing there are many people looking into this for impeachment purposes.”
They are just playing political games. If Clinton could not be convicted on obstruction of justice charges for lying to a federal grand jury, then Trump does not deserve to be convicted for turning over successful businesses to his sons. Duh.
Greg, I don’t know what you mean by “just playing political games.”Everything in Washington D.C., and many other places, is political.
Walt,
Political games are when you know that what you are advocating is wrong, but you advocate it simply because it is what a special interest group wants to hear.
John
“Donald Trump is working for no salary. Only $1.00 as required by law … this should also be factored in.”
The Annual Report on white House Personnel lists 377 employees. It’s not likely that adding one more male employee at either $400k/yr or $0/yr would change either the median, the mean, or the male/female ratio by any meaningful amount.
“For Ivanka Trump: If you are going to promote the statistical falsehood behind Equal Pay Day . . . ”
I believe she has a degree from the University of Pennsylvania where she majored in economics. I wonder if she knows better and is just playing the politics or does she just not really know. My guess is the former, which is worse.
It’s not an economics issue in the sense it’s not something you’d necessarily learn going thru an economic program. It’s more of a statistical issue
Every good economics programs requires at least the basic statistics course. That, plus the focus of economics on the unseen effects of proposed governmental polices, should have been more than enough for her to figure it out.
The wage gap is not really an unseen effect of government, though. Again, it’s a statistical matter. It’s a matter of controlling for variables.
The causes of the wage gap are unseen. And the study of economics does require the study of statistics.
Jon, btw, I expect anyone to be able to figure out the politics from the reality of the wage gap. I know high school kids who, just thinking through the issue, understand some of the main reasons for the wage gap and it isn’t discrimination they are talking about. I merely used her degree, which, to me, means she has the ability to think through such issues and distinguish between reality and politics as well. I am not questioning her ability or her degree. I am questioning whether she is merely playing politics or if she is just not thinking through the issue. I think it is the former, not the later. And, I think that is true of most people who want to abuse the power of government to “achieve great things.”
And the study of economics does require the study of statistics.
Nonsense. You can learn an awful lot of economics without the need of statistics. Smith, Ricardo, Bastiat, etc has no statistical training.
I merely used her degree, which, to me, means she has the ability to think through such issues and distinguish between reality and politics as well.
That assumes a lot lol.
I know what your point was. I just think you’re making it wrong. You won’t, as a matter of course, learn specifically about the wage gap in economics. It may be used as an example, it may not. I went through my entire undergrad without it ever being mentioned. Indeed, one probably won’t study it unless one takes a labor econ class. You’d learn tools for thinking about things that can be applied to a wide range of issues, like the wage gap, but to say that majoring in economics necessarily leads to knowledge about the wage gap is incorrect as a matter of course.
Jon,
“You can learn an awful lot of economics without the need of statistics.”
Sure you can. Does George Mason University offer a degree with a major in economics where statistics is not a required course?
“That assumes a lot.”
Not really. No one should be able to graduate with a college degree who cannot think critically.
“I know what your point was.”
Good. Then why are we wasting time arguing?
“Yfou’d learn tools for thinking about things that can be applied to a wide range of issues, like the wage gap . . . ”
Exactly!
“. . . but to say that majoring in economics necessarily leads to knowledge about the wage gap is incorrect as a matter of course.”
I did not say that. Here is what I said:
“I believe she has a degree from the University of Pennsylvania where she majored in economics. I wonder if she knows better and is just playing the politics or does she just not really know. My guess is the former, which is worse.”
The point: Ivanka was able to earn a bachelor’s degree from a university. She should be able to critically reason through the wage gap issue without specifically doing a research project on it. I never did a research project on this issue. Did you? And, if you didn’t, how do you know that the wage gap issue is not about blatant gender discrimination?
Recently, Jon, you wrote that you appreciated your instructors at George Mason because they emphasized reading carefully to catch the subtlety of some of the issues presented in the materials that you are reading. It is also important not to read things into comments where they do not exist.
“ It is also important not to read things into comments where they do not exist.”
But it’s allowable to read things into comments when they are blatantly implied.
I see that as is your custom when you are cornered, you are beginning to obfuscate, and trying to walk back some of your previous assertions about what Ivanka should know, and why you believe she should know it. But you’re not fooling anyone.
You made a clear connection between Ivanka’s economics education and your evidence free belief that that should qualify her to address the issue of Gender Wage Gap, and then, when corrected, doubled down with your statistics comments.
Finally, after abandoning what you recognized as a losing argument, you suggested – again without any evidence, and despite what we all know to be false – that higher education somehow equates to skill at critical thinking.
Where will you go next with this loser? Just admit that you weren’t clear, and we can move on.
Ron H.,
I can see why you disparage the public secondary education you received. It is also obvious that you did not attend the university.
Ron H.,
“But it’s allowable to read things into comments when they are blatantly implied.”
No. It is never allowable to make stuff up. And, that is a common tactic that you use to start fights that you inevitably lose.
” . . . we all know to be false – that higher education somehow equates to skill at critical thinking.”
Why do you feel that I am implying that you have no skill at critical thinking because you do not have a university degree? I did not imply that. But, you did by getting offended by something I did not say.
BTW, Ron H., it is hilarious that a guy who keeps promising to ignore my comments obviously reads all of them.
Let me put it this way: is it possible that, after doing all kinds of research, one might determine a wage gap exists?
Jon, a wage gap exists. The issue is the cause of the wage gap.
Then you cannot say, without more evidence, that she is simply pandering or that an economics education should have prevented her from tweeting what she did.
Jon, true, but I can say, as I did, the following:
” I wonder if she knows better and is just playing the politics or does she just not really know. My guess is the former, which is worse.”
The fact that she is educated, and likely took a statistics course, is simply evidence supporting “my guess” that she is just playing politics.
Well, would you look at that! I’ve generated four (4) fact free responses to my comment. Apparently I’ve struck a nerve.
Well, would you look at that! Ron H still reads all my comments (without comprehension as usual) despite saying he was ignoring me. Apparently, not graduating from a university means Ron H does not understand the meaning of the word “ignore.”
“Apparently I’ve struck a nerve.”
No. It is just fun to toy with the ignorant and the uneducated.
You do learn in economics, though, that like items tend to be priced the same. If they don’t seem to be, they’re either not “like” or there are some other variables at play that you can’t readily see.
Yep.
You do learn in economics, though, that like items tend to be priced the same.
All else held equal, yes. But that in and of itself doesn’t rule out discrimination.
“But that in and of itself doesn’t rule out discrimination.”
No. And, even studies on the gender wage gap do not fully rule out the possibility of gender discrimination.
Correct. Thus, there is nothing prima facie strange about her tweet.
True. There is nothing strange about a politician pandering to special interest groups.
“True. There is nothing strange about a politician pandering to special interest groups.”
Greg Webb to self: “Gee, I hope nobody notices I’m trying to change the subject again.”
Ron H to self: “Gee, I wonder what the word “ignore” means? Oh well, I went to public schools so I have no idea.”
Well geez! I’m not likely to ignore comments directed to me, and chances are good I’ll respond to blatant bullshit, but as long as you just flood this blog with your normal drivel you might escape my notice.
Ron H said, “chances are good I’ll respond with blatant bullshit”
I fixed it for you! It seems that the meaning of words mean less to you than your disingenuous statist friend.
I can do this longer than you can.
Yep. You win being disingenuous hands down.
I would bet that many of the women in the WH are more junior, are secretarial, etc. I am surprised that Mark didn’t note this.
If you read the post, and pay attention to the table below the graph, you’ll see I noted that point in great detail.
Here’s a ‘gap’ for ya.
Working women work about 20% few hours per day than male workers do (put another way, men work 25% more per day than women). This is from a June 28,2017 report in the WSJ from the Labor Dept.
That’s for all workers. For full-time workers (the group of workers used to calculate the gender pay gap), women worked 7.8 hours per day on average in 2016 vs. 8.4 hours per day for men working full-time. That is a 7% “gender work gap.” Source: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf
Who cares a whit about median or average? How about comparing by experience, resume, and job responsibilities? Isn’t that what really matters? If a female employee with comparable background and job responsibility is paid less than a comparable male, that’s an issue. Any other measurement is BS.
Dan, it is simply about creating a political issue by using aggregate statistics. As you noted, to really understand whether there is discrimination, you have to look at each specific case.
When one only looks at each individual case, they are unable to see the forest for the trees.
When one only looks at the aggregate, they never have a winnable case in a court of law. Duh.
Dan
Add comparable job performance to that list and I will agree with you.
Dan,
Add comparable job qualifications, like a university education, to that list as well.
Left out (I believe) in the commentary and comments is the fact that although the White House wage gap narrowed considerably during the Obama era, it’s gone back up under Trump. Not a desirable trend. And, not at all surprising.
Perhaps that “fact” is left out because it is irrelevant. You would have to know the reasons for the wage gaps to make blanket inferences like you have done, otherwise you’re just blowing smoke.
The point of this post and others like it is not to point out that a wage gap exists, but to point out, first of all, the hypocrisy of those who cry loudly about wage gaps before looking much closer to home, and then to point out that there are legitimate reasons for men and women to have different earnings.
If we assume that the President of the United States has pretty much complete control over who works at the White House, we can also assume that he has control over any wage differences due to discrimination. The “fact” that a pay differential existed between men and women in the Obama White House for all eight years of his administration must mean that either there were legitimate reasons, or he just didn’t care about discrimination. Which do you think it was?
Gotta bash Trump, but when even this blogs limited ethics does not allow that – go after his family instead.
Is this AEI / Carpe Deim or CNN?
Also nice to use Median income to point out to others how to make Trump’s stats look worse. Excellent job!
marque2
“Also nice to use Median income to point out to others how to make Trump’s stats look worse. Excellent job!
How would that make Trump look worse? Every article on gender wage gap ever posted at CD has compared median pay.
Why didn’t you complain previously when Dr. Perry criticized the Obama White House?
Trump’s “family” has put herself in a public position, in the public spotlight, and is making public statements about public issues. She is not some innocent victim of unfair scrutiny.
When she tweets stupid stuff, as she did, she will be treated like anyone else in her position. This blog provides equal opportunity abuse.
“This blog provides equal opportunity abuse.”
No. This blog is about intelligent discussion of economic and political issues. You and Greg G bring the comment section down to merely unintelligent abuse. That is why you are trolls.
Well, there’s still intelligent discussion on the very few posts Greg Webb doesn’t flood with his narcissistic need to prattle on about what others have already written as if he could share the credit by saying “Yeah, me too”, his bland platitudes, and his refusal to admit when he’s wrong.
There Ron H goes again! I see Ron H uses his public school education to prevaricate as he trolls his way through life.
Oops! I must have pulled the wrong string.
I got the “public school” response when I had hoped for “making stuff up”.
There are a limited number of available responses, so I’ll just keep practicing until I get them sorted out.
It is not my fault that your repertoire is so short. Perhaps it is your limited education.
My “repertoire” relies on the number of repetitive responses you can produce when I operate your strings, you dumb puppet. That’s what’s limiting the repertoire.
Ah, your limited repertoire is due to your limited education after all.
Quelle surprise.
I got it! That’s the “limited education” string.
Do that again, puppet.
Ah, there he goes again.
Pathetic.
How’s is getting ruled by your HOA working out for you, anarchist?