Moving Up or Falling Behind? Gender, Promotions, and Wages in Canada

We estimate gender differences in internal promotion experiences for a representative sample of Canadian workers using linked employer-employee data. We find that women in Canada are 3 percentage points less likely to be promoted and have received fewer promotions than similar men, but these differences stem almost entirely from gender differences in industry and occupation. By contrast, women experience an estimated 2.9 percent less wage growth in the year of a promotion than similar men even after controlling for industry, occupation, and firm effects – though a significant "family gap" exists among women as single women and women without children experience essentially the same wage returns to promotion as men

Does public information about school quality lead to flight from low-achieving schools?

We estimate the effect of publicly disseminated information about school-level achievement on students' mobility between elementary schools. We find that students are more likely to leave their school when poor school-level performance is revealed. In general, parents respond to information soon after it becomes available. Once the information is absorbed, they do not respond to subsequent releases, even when it is reframed and given widespread media attention. Parents in low-income neighborhoods and those who speak a non-English language at home respond most strongly. However, non-English speaking parents only respond when information is widely disseminated and discussed in the media

Intra-Firm Upward Mobility and Immigration

We examine how immigrants in Canada fare in terms of promotions relative to their native peers. Using linked employer-employee data and firm effects, we identify the extent to which differences in promotion outcomes result from immigrants sorting into firms offering dead-end jobs versus facing intra-firm barriers to advancement. We find that while white immigrants experience broadly similar promotion outcomes relative to their white native peers, visible minority immigrants - particularly those in their first five years in Canada - are substantially less likely to have been promoted and have been promoted fewer times with their employers than their white native peers. Newly arrived female visible minority immigrants sort into firms offering dead end jobs, but most of the differences in promotion outcomes between immigrants and their native peers result from intra-firm differences in promotion outcomes. The findings imply that policies that do not tackle barriers to advancement within firms may be insufficient to address the difficulties faced by immigrants in the labor force

General versus Spinal Anesthesia: Comparison of Complications and Outcomes in Lumbar Laminectomy Surgery

Background: This study was designed to compare the complications and outcomes of lumbar laminectomy surgery performed by general and spinal anesthesia. Methods: In this prospective study, 110 patients with two common degenerative spinal diseases (lumbar discopathy and spinal canal stenosis) were enrolled. All the patients were operated in Bahonar hospital, Kerman City, Iran, via either spinal or general anesthesia by a unique surgeon. Intraoperative and postoperative complications and outcomes were compared between the two groups using descriptive and analytic statistics methods. Results: Surgeon satisfaction of anesthesia, blood loss, and admission time were not statistically significant between the groups. But, postoperative pain at recovery room, and 1, 2, and 12 hours after the operation was significantly higher in general anesthesia compared to lumbar anesthesia. Morphine request was also significantly higher with general anesthesia (P < 0.001). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that general anesthesia has greater pain in comparison with spinal anesthesia that should be considered in degenerative spinal diseases surgeries. Keywords Laminectomy; Lumbar region; surgery; General anesthesia; Spinal anesthesi

Who Said or What Said? Estimating Ideological Bias in Views Among Economists

There exists a long-standing debate about the influence of ideology in economics. Surprisingly, however, there is no concrete empirical evidence to examine this critical issue. Using an online randomized controlled experiment involving economists in 19 countries, we examine the effect of ideological bias on views among economists. Participants were asked to evaluate statements from prominent economists on different topics, while source attribution for each statement was randomized without participants’ knowledge. For each statement, participants either received a mainstream source, an ideologically different less-/non-mainstream source, or no source. We find that changing source attributions from mainstream to less-/non-mainstream, or removing them, significantly reduces economists’ reported agreement with statements. Using a model of Bayesian updating we examine two competing hypotheses as potential explanations for these results: unbiased Bayesian updating versus ideologically-biased Bayesian updating. While we find no evidence in support of unbiased updating, our results are consistent with biased Bayesian updating. More specifically, we find that changing/removing sources (1) has no impact on economists’ reported confidence with their evaluations; (2) similarly affects experts/non-experts in relevant areas; and (3) affects those at the far right of the political spectrum much more significantly than those at the far left. Finally, we find significant heterogeneity in our results by gender, country, PhD completion country, research area, and undergraduate major, with patterns consistent with the existence of ideological bias

Public attitudes toward immigration – Determinants and unknowns

Public attitudes toward immigration play an important role in influencing immigration policy and immigrants’ integration experience. This highlights the importance of a systematic examination of these public attitudes and their underlying drivers. Evidence increasingly suggests that while a majority of individuals favor restrictive immigration policies, particularly against ethnically different immigrants, there exists significant variation in these public views by country, education, age, and so on. In addition, sociopsychological factors play a significantly more important role than economic concerns in driving these public attitudes and differences