Median Doc Incomes: Males-$140k, Females-$88k

[Lion-O]

Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-15.pdf, pg. 12

Any comments?

EDIT:
To clear up misconceptions:

"This report concentrates on year-round, full-time workers in the civilian
labor force 16 years of age or older. Year-round means an individual
worked 50 or more weeks in 1999 (or is an elementary or secondary
school teacher who worked 37 or more weeks). Full-time means
the individual worked 35 or more hours a week. Workers in the
armed forces are excluded. If this limitation had not been imposed,
occupations where part-time or part-year work is prevalent would
have lower earnings and higher earnings dispersion simply because of
the fewer hours worked by some each year, not because of variation
within the occupation for comparably employed individuals."

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[idq1i]

1 comment: did you read the report before posting it?

directly from it:

Different degrees of specialization
within an occupation and different
choices of industry or business
organization may affect the ratio.
For example, women might choose
more frequently than men to practice
in lower-paid medical specialties
(such as pediatrics) or in lower-paid
institutional settings (such as health
maintenance organizations).

 

[DrMom]

female docs are more likely to go into primary care and more likely to work part time.

 

[Gleevec]

I read somewhere that women are more likely to work parttime while their kids are growing up early on. I wonder if they adjusted for that in the salary comparison.

 

[MacGyver]

I read somewhere that women are more likely to work parttime while their kids are growing up early on. I wonder if they adjusted for that in the salary comparison.

Hell no they didnt adjust for it. They go based only on what the women docs reported to them, which was annual salary alone. They didnt normalize it to working hours or anything else.

Reasons why women make less:

1) choose different specialties, less training than men

2) choose to work part time, thus lowering their income

Of course the liberal feminists insist that ALL income discrepancies are due to outright sex discrimination. Of course you have to look with better eyes than that.

 

[Lion-O]

1 comment: did you read the report before posting it?

directly from it:

Different degrees of specialization
within an occupation and different
choices of industry or business
organization may affect the ratio.
For example, women might choose
more frequently than men to practice
in lower-paid medical specialties
(such as pediatrics) or in lower-paid
institutional settings (such as health
maintenance organizations).

Yes, I read it. Women might choose lower-paid specialties, which may affect the ratio. I'm sure this has a significant impact, but do you think it can account for the entire disparity?

They don't give men vs. women statistics by specialty, so I guess we can't know. None the less, I still think the difference is interesting.

 

[Lion-O]

Hell no they didnt adjust for it.

Actually, they did. From the report:

"This report concentrates on year-round, full-time workers in the civilian
labor force 16 years of age or older. Year-round means an individual
worked 50 or more weeks in 1999 (or is an elementary or secondary
school teacher who worked 37 or more weeks). Full-time means
the individual worked 35 or more hours a week. Workers in the
armed forces are excluded. If this limitation had not been imposed,
occupations where part-time or part-year work is prevalent would
have lower earnings and higher earnings dispersion simply because of
the fewer hours worked by some each year, not because of variation
within the occupation for comparably employed individuals."

I'll edit this into the OP.

 

[hypersting]

Nope they didn't. Part time in medicine is not the same as other professions. The average physician works 55-60 hrs a week and the average part-time woman pediatrician (I comment on pediatrics cause I worked with the AAP), works about 37.5 hrs a week. According to this census, they would be counted as full time, but they would receive less pay than someone working the the full 55-60 hrs. Also, there's a dearth of woman surgeons as compared to men (sans Ob/Gyn), that plays a factor as well. Correcting for these factors there's still a disparity, but not nearly as large as you project.

 

[MacGyver]

Actually, they did. From the report:

"This report concentrates on year-round, full-time workers in the civilian
labor force 16 years of age or older. Year-round means an individual
worked 50 or more weeks in 1999 (or is an elementary or secondary
school teacher who worked 37 or more weeks). Full-time means
the individual worked 35 or more hours a week. Workers in the
armed forces are excluded. If this limitation had not been imposed,
occupations where part-time or part-year work is prevalent would
have lower earnings and higher earnings dispersion simply because of
the fewer hours worked by some each year, not because of variation
within the occupation for comparably employed individuals."

I'll edit this into the OP.

No they didnt account for it. Men working 60 hours a week earn more than women working 35 hours a week.

Women work fewer hours than men, and this report doesnt take that into account.

 

[DrMom]

good point on the hours, hypersting

 

[MacGyver]

Correcting for these factors there's still a disparity, but not nearly as large as you project.

How can you know this? What data are you using and what are the actual numbers?

At any rate, there are 2 primary factors that have to be adjusted for: # of working hours, and specialty choice. Cant get at a real answer until both of those are accounted for, and I dont believe the data in teh link does either of those things.

 

[Chronotropic]

Does this inlcude residents as well? That would certainly bring down the numbres.

 

[Lion-O]

Nope they didn't. Part time in medicine is not the same as other professions. The average physician works 55-60 hrs a week and the average part-time woman pediatrician (I comment on pediatrics cause I worked with the AAP), works about 37.5 hrs a week. According to this census, they would be counted as full time, but they would receive less pay than someone working the the full 55-60 hrs. Also, there's a dearth of woman surgeons as compared to men (sans Ob/Gyn), that plays a factor as well. Correcting for these factors there's still a disparity, but not nearly as large as you project.

Good point, I totally didn't think of that. It's amazing to me that 37.5 hours is part time though.

Hey, don't credit me with projecting the figure, I completely stole it from the census. I saw the women vs. men article on yahoo (not related to medicine), and was curious as to the actual census data. I just by chance saw the doctor thing, and thought it'd be interesting to post. I really don't have a strong opinion on the issue, but I did expect that the majority of the replies would be feminist in nature. To my surprise, it seems to be the opposite.

Alright, I gotta quit replying to my own thread.

 

[xanthines]

My guess is that this is somewhat related to the disparity. Historically, women didn't go into medicine (like a lot of other professions). This would mean that the highest earners would be men in their 30's, 40's and 50's. Although more women are going to college and medical school recently, it hasn't yet translated into income parity.

I work at a medical school and I can tell you that the vast majority of professors are men, especially at the assoc prof and above level. Except for the Vice-Chair(wo)man, my boss is the only woman professor in our department. So yeah, the women residents are "bringing down" the average pay for women MDs. Although, technically the professors are bringing the average up!

-X

Does this inlcude residents as well? That would certainly bring down the numbres.

 

[skypilot]

It must include residents and then the numbers make all kinds of sense since many of the highest earning docs who trained in the 60's are men.

(40K resident salary + 120K new grad salary)/2=80K

 

[msufb16]

1. Professor's don't make much money compared to private practice physicians.
2. Most physicians are paid based on how much they bill and what percentage of that they collect. Not salary!!
3. More women choose specialties that pay less money, better lifestyle.
4. More women choose or must work less for family reasons. Men are less likely to take care of children and their fare share of household responsibilities. Women must pick up slack=less time to work.
5. Women may be more likely to work as single private practice instead of large group practice. This means less leverage when they contract with HMO's, PPO's, Etc.

But!!

If a women in the same specialty with a man works in a similar or same group, and works the same hours, and bills their patients the same (women generally bill less aggressively than men), they will have the same paycheck at the end of the month.

This doesn't happen a majority of the time fore all the reasons above and more. Plus, women tend to spend more time with patients so they can see fewer than men in a given time period. Not because they are lazy or slow or dumb, because they are more compassionate in general.

Think about your own childhood and family. Women are usually more compassionate. This compassion is one of the benefits of more female physicians in medicine, a slight shift in culture and values.

And kids, women didn't just start going to college four years ago. The first generation of the women's physician movement was in the eighties, not when you started college!

 

[greggth]

... Plus, women tend to spend more time with patients ... because they are more compassionate in general.

Think about your own childhood and family. Women are usually more compassionate. This compassion is one of the benefits of more female physicians in medicine, a slight shift in culture and values.

What evidence shows that women are more compassionate than men? Maybe men and women are equally compassionate.

 

[Gleevec]

If a women in the same specialty with a man works in a similar or same group, and works the same hours, and bills their patients the same (women generally bill less aggressively than men), they will have the same paycheck at the end of the month.

This doesn't happen a majority of the time fore all the reasons above and more. Plus, women tend to spend more time with patients so they can see fewer than men in a given time period. Not because they are lazy or slow or dumb, because they are more compassionate in general.

Think about your own childhood and family. Women are usually more compassionate. This compassion is one of the benefits of more female physicians in medicine, a slight shift in culture and values.

You msufb16 are a sexist...

 

[ms2209]

Hell no they didnt adjust for it. They go based only on what the women docs reported to them, which was annual salary alone. They didnt normalize it to working hours or anything else.

Reasons why women make less:

1) choose different specialties, less training than men

2) choose to work part time, thus lowering their income

Of course the liberal feminists insist that ALL income discrepancies are due to outright sex discrimination. Of course you have to look with better eyes than that.

Of course ignorant individuals will assume that liberal feminists always complain about sex discrimination in all circumstances. Of course, if you have any intelligence, you'll know better.

 

[curlycity]

Um, women are NOT more compassionate than men. I sometimes think my husband is a 'nicer' person than I am in certain ways. Any statement that begins with "women..." or "men..." aside from defining them genetically or physiologically is almost certain to be false right out of the gate. I've worked with compassionate men and women, and cutthroat/obnoxious/unfeeling/insensitive men and women. I dislike being lumped into a category defined by physiology that is inexplicably extended to moral traits like compassion.

What we all need is true freedom, being defined by our traits as individuals and treated accordingly, without expectations based on gender, race, age, etc. Some people buy into and support role expectations, because there are positive aspects, but with time you'll see that in order to be free of the negative side of a stereotype you lose your right to the positive side of it as well. I don't expect people to perceive me as less intelligent than a man and I don't expect them to assume I'm a nicer/better/more compassionate person either.

 

[curlycity]

Of course ignorant individuals will assume that liberal feminists always complain about sex discrimination in all circumstances. Of course, if you have any intelligence, you'll know better.

I hear a lot of women/"liberal feminists"? continuously using that "76 cents on the dollar" quote to indicate rampant sex discrimination, making all informed, intelligent, thinking women everywhere who identify with liberalism/feminism look like idiots. Yes WE know the discrepancy is complex, but when "representatives of the cause" parade that worn out data point ad nauseum it drives me crazy. Oversimplify much? Ay caramba.

 

[ms2209]

Um, women are NOT more compassionate than men. I sometimes think my husband is a 'nicer' person than I am in certain ways. Any statement that begins with "women..." or "men..." aside from defining them genetically or physiologically is almost certain to be false right out of the gate. I've worked with compassionate men and women, and cutthroat/obnoxious/unfeeling/insensitive men and women. I dislike being lumped into a category defined by physiology that is inexplicably extended to moral traits like compassion.

What we all need is true freedom, being defined by our traits as individuals and treated accordingly, without expectations based on gender, race, age, etc. Some people buy into and support role expectations, because there are positive aspects, but with time you'll see that in order to be free of the negative side of a stereotype you lose your right to the positive side of it as well. I don't expect people to perceive me as less intelligent than a man and I don't expect them to assume I'm a nicer/better/more compassionate person either.

I completely agree !

 

[ms2209]

I hear a lot of women/"liberal feminists"? continuously using that "76 cents on the dollar" quote to indicate rampant sex discrimination, making all informed, intelligent, thinking women everywhere who identify with liberalism/feminism look like idiots. Yes WE know the discrepancy is complex, but when "representatives of the cause" parade that worn out data point ad nauseum it drives me crazy. Oversimplify much? Ay caramba.

I know! It's so frustrating that because a couple of psychotic but highly vocal "feminists" are always out in the media screaming their heads off about something insane, people are afraid of feminism and draw completely inaccurate assumptions about what being a feminist is all about. So many individuals I know don't want to be considered feminists because they're afraid of the negative connotations that are attached to the word now. It's really pretty sad, but what can you do? It's good to hear that someone else feels the same way, though.

 

[curlycity]

I completely agree !

Magical words ... the way straight to a woman's heart ...

 

[Gleevec]

I think there's a reason the movie was called "Mean Girls" and not "Mean Boys"

 

[curlycity]

I think there's a reason the movie was called "Mean Girls" and not "Mean Boys"

Two words: "relational aggression." Studies of this are fascinating. What we weird-hair/smart/funny-looking/poor chicks have been trying to tell ya all along. They're evil!!!!

 

[TheFlash]

For the people who are bent out of shape about the discrepancy, please please please take an economics class. The world would be so much smarter if people knew more about how and why people make the decisions they do.