Society

Is there systematic gender discrimination in Metro Nashville Employment? Part 1

Using the same municipal employee data from data.nashville.gov as the previous post, here I am looking at whether there is evidence of gender discrimination in the salaries of Metro Nashville government employees. Obviously this is a pretty complicated issue, and I am only really going to scratch the surface of it. Mostly this is just a fun exercise for me.

Okay, so where to begin: First, I think, it makes sense to begin by just comparing mean salaries by gender. If this doesn’t show evidence of discrimination, then there isn’t much merit it going further.

In fact, as the next two figures show, there’s a pretty big difference in mean salaries between men and women.

salary v gender

t test salaries

The mean salary of men among municipal employees is $7,487 higher than for women. Not surprisingly, this is statistically significant, so the observed gap is more than what we would expect due to chance if mean salaries were equal. (It’s not shown but an f-test showed unequal variances between the two groups of salaries, which is why I assumed unequal variances for the t-test).

But wait – maybe men tend to be over-represented in full-time work while women tend to be overrepresented in part-time work. That could explain the observed difference, not discrimination (although I think that could still show evidence of systematic disadvantages [or at least disincentives] for women in employment).

And, indeed, it is the case that there is this kind of difference employment status between these two groups.

women in part time

chisq emply status gender

However, this doesn’t fully explain the difference in salaries. Even within these categories, men are paid more than women.more emply gender

A difference remains. Mean salary is $46,000 for full-time women vs $52,000 for full-time men – a difference of $6,000 or about 80% of the difference we observed without any adjustment. Tangent: why part time wages for women are slightly higher is a puzzle – when I looked at median instead of mean, this went away, and so the median part-time man earns more. This probably means there are outliers distorting the picture for part-time (some part-time women is getting paid much higher than average, perhaps??).

Another important check is difference in job. Using EEOC reported job categories, I can look at whether women and men tend to be working different sorts of jobs, thus explaining the different salaries.eeoc

And indeed, there’s a visually apparent (and statistically significant; Pearson’s X^2 < 0.0001) difference in the frequencies of jobs by gender. A much larger percentage of women are doing “administrative support” ($35,000 annually) and “para-professional” ($26,000) work. A larger percentage of men are doing “Professional work” ($53,000) or “technicians” ($58,000).

So this is another thing to account for, since it could be driving differences in salaries. I think the differential prevalence of women in the professionals category could signal some important inequities but is not per se discrimination in the sense of unequal pay for the same work. To try to give a more comprehensive account of what’s driving salary, I can do a multivariate regression.

I will do this tomorrow! Oh, the suspense.

Advertisements

Playing around with Nashville Open Data – $400 million on government salaries!

I found that the government of Nashville has some open data at https://data.nashville.gov. I messed around with a couple of employment datasheets and made some graphs.

Mean Salary vs Ethnicity

Mean annual salary by ethnicity

Mean Annual Salary by Job Category

mean annual salary by job category

Interestingly, elected officials are not the highest paid category.

Metro Nashville Salaries

metro nashville salaries

In total, annual salaries for Metro Nashville government employees is more than $400 million.

[Featured Image Credit: http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/nashville-skyline-dan-holland.jpg]

Why do so few medical students become Psychiatrists?

Today one of my coworkers and I got in an interesting discussion (or maybe an argument) about why relatively few medical students become psychiatrists. She just finished her first year at a pretty prestigious medical school.

I claimed that it boiled down to stigma against mental illness, while she argued that the difference is explained by other fields of medicine being “cooler,” “more interesting at least to some people,” and “more hands-on” (which I pointed out does not at all contradict the stigma explanation).

 I (like most people I imagine) am not very good at faithfully and fairly recounting how arguments played out, especially when they get a bit heated. So I’ll from here on try to make this objective (by which I mean independent of my conversation with my co-worker) and just flesh out a few interesting points that came up.

Psychiatrists are paid less and research is funded less than for other specialties

As New York Times writes, “Psychiatrists rarely earn enough to compensate for their additional training. Most would have been better off financially choosing other medical specialties.” Psychiatry is among the least paid medical specialties, though it looks like the pay is increasing faster than in most other areas. Interestingly, HIV/Aids specialists receive the lowest salary of all, and they also treat a stigmatized population.

Psychiatrists are least likely to accept insurance plans, possibly because they are systematically under-reimbursed, even for the same procedures  (that article also says that half of counties lack a regular psychiatrist!). Research on mental illness is significantly underfunded relative to the disease burden it creates.

Are other specialties more interesting, hands on?

Surely for some people and not others – like everything else. Maybe some people really like feet or skin or hearts or reading x-rays.  But for this to make sense in explaining the shortage of psychiatrists, it has to take the stronger form that psychiatry is systematically less interesting than other forms of medicine. And that sounds a little difficult to believe to me. (I am also inclined to think that if the average psychiatrist made $340,000 a year like the average orthopedic surgeon, interest wouldn’t matter much).

 The brain is an incredibly complex organ. Mental pathologies are extremely powerful and disruptive forces – they ruin lives and cause all kinds of bizarre behaviors. Additionally, considering that the lifetime prevalence of mental illness is one in two, and depression and substance abuse are higher among medical students than the general population (discussed later), it is fairly likely that a medical student has personally experienced a mental illness or observed its effects. It seems to me that, all else equal, you would be more likely to go into a field of medicine which has affected you or someone you know than not.

Anyhow, psychiatry sounds a lot more interesting to me than Orthopedics, for example (the highest paid specialty by far) or Plastic Surgery (another high payer). Surgery is a lot sexier than psychiatry (in addition to being much better paid) and I think this is a product of the stigma.

Are future doctors too sophisticated for stigma?

The hypothesis for this line of thinking is pretty intuitive: stigma comes from misunderstanding and misperception of mental illness. Medical students and doctors, who know a lot about mental illness, don’t make these mistakes, so they are less likely to stigmatize mental illness.

Unfortunately, it’s not true. Not at all.

According to an Journal of the American Medical Association study (specifically of med students at UMichigan), mental illness stigma may actually be higher among medical students, who, in addition to being more likely to be depressed than average, are more likely to attribute depression to “weak coping skills” and more ashamed about revealing their negative emotions. This sort of makes sense to me, as medical students strike me as the kind of people who endorse a very strong “protestant work ethic”, “internal locus of control” type of outlook. One that says if you want something, work hard and you get it; if you have a problem, work hard and you’ll solve it.

The implication is, unfortunately, that if you can’t solve a problem, you aren’t working hard enough. It’s your fault, something to be ashamed of.  It’s not hard to see how this attitude, coupled with a high-stress, hypercompetitive environment, would be ripe for high levels of depression and self-stigmatization. After graduating, doctors tend to avoid seeking mental health care.

And in the population at large, while more people attribute mental illness to neurobiological factors than in the past, stigma is actually higher, according to an American Journal of Psychiatry report. Being able to attribute illness to neurobiology doesn’t make people more accepting of illness; in fact, it may make it seem intractable, a rigid characteristic about a person that will never go away.

Mental illness stigma deters people from Psychiatry

Furthermore, there are plenty of published anecdotes (eg here, here, here) of psychiatrists describing the stigma they received for choosing their profession. A Columbia Professor of Psychiatry writing for Scientific American describes this comment made by another faculty member: “Tell all students who get low scores on their board exams not to worry, they just need to change their career plans and go into psychiatry.”

Psychiatry is also, as far as I know, the only branch of medicine with a dedicated movement opposed to its existence.  Ever heard of anti-cardiology?