Well, you'd have to work out how much the pay is on an hourly basis. It doesn't sound like a role that consists of nothing but collecting a stipend.
But more broadly, there's an active debate over whether governmental posts should either (a) pay enough that someone could live off of one; or (b) require the person holding the post to have independent means. This is clearly on the (b) side, often felt to exclude many social classes from being able to hold a post in the government. (And sometimes invoked as a reason to overlook corruption by the officeholder - "how else are they supposed to support themselves?")
This is blatantly false - if you work second or third shift, you cannot hold these titles.
Does that make any e.g. factory worker ineligible for titles? You might say to yourself 'but you don't want factory workers im office' - and then you'd be saying that some classes are worth more than others, that these are 'second class' citizens in the eyes of the law.
And that would be a pretty disgusting viewpoint.
If you can hold a job or make money, perhaps you should make nothing from the position, otherwise there should probably be a living wage stipulation.
The St Louis Fed website also shows census.gov as the source. Perhaps one statistic is including people who do not work such as old people and the other is not?
