Amount of hours to make 100k

[EM_Rebuilder]

---

Members don't see this ad.

You will most definitely be at risk for acquiring a taste for those naughties you refer to as "nice things." The "mediocre" and it's cousin "the crappiest" of things certainly can lose their luster after too long on the plate or palate. They most certainly have for me.

Wagyu Filet, lightly charred on the outside, warm red center with a side of fresh oysters on the half shell and sparkling water I'll take, over frozen pizza rolls out of a box and "purple drink" any day, my most modest of friends.

Sorry, only genuine Japanese Grade A5 Ribeyes will do for me... Lifestyle Creep.

 

[knovecc]

What would your estimate be for OP's question?

Yes your numbers are way way off the EM reality
First off, EM full time is defined as 14 shifts per month, so 14 x 8 = 112h/month or less than 112x12=1344h/year (less than 12months as docs take vacations right?)
Now, a full time EM earns 250k over, say, 1300 hrs, so 190$/hour would be a safe and conservative estimate
In order to pull 100k pre-tax, the OP needs to work (100000$ / 190$/hr = 520 hrs) for the whole year.
Let's assume he will be working for 11 months and take one month vacation/off, that goes to 520/11 = 47hrs/MONTH = 11 hours per WEEK, which is translated to less than 1.5 eight-hrs-shift per week

 

[deleted109597]

Yes your numbers are way way off the EM reality
First off, EM full time is defined as 14 shifts per month, so 14 x 8 = 112h/month or less than 112x12=1344h/year (less than 12months as docs take vacations right?)
Now, a full time EM earns 250k over, say, 1300 hrs, so 190$/hour would be a safe and conservative estimate
In order to pull 100k pre-tax, the OP needs to work (100000$ / 190$/hr = 520 hrs) for the whole year.
Let's assume he will be working for 11 months and take one month vacation/off, that goes to 520/11 = 47hrs/MONTH = 11 hours per WEEK, which is translated to less than 1.5 eight-hrs-shift per week

So much is wrong with this post I don't have anywhere to begin. Suffice it to say, just no.

 

[knovecc]

So much is wrong with this post I don't have anywhere to begin. Suffice it to say, just no.

you mean so much is wrong with MY post or what...?

 

[Mad Jack]

you mean so much is wrong with MY post or what...?

Full time pay around here is 240k to start for 3 12s/wk, and each shift usually has 1-2 hours of charting at the end that isn't paid. Part timers are 1099 employees though, and have to pay their own malpractice, health insurance, SS taxes etc, so the math is a lot dicier than just "figure out how many hours it would take to make 100k."

 

[Arcan57]

you mean so much is wrong with MY post or what...?

You make a number of assumptions that are invalid. Your numbers for what is considered FT hrs, pay per hour, the idea that we take a month off, and the idea that pay remains linearly related to hours regardless of how few hours are worked are all wrong to at least some extent.

1) Hours to be considered FT - varies by group. My current shop uses 120 hrs/month, my previous gig used 140 hrs/month. In residency, I believe my attendings were FT at around 17 shifts/month.

2) Pay per hour - $190 is free-standing pay where I work, I've moonlit at places that were paying $125-150/hr and know of places that pay $300/hr.

3) Month off- vacation as an attending is not usually scheduled as a month or two-week blocks. The typical pattern is that you work your allotted FT number of shifts, you just group them in such a way as to have a week or two off during the month. Vacation can be a bit of a gamble since it has to be fulfilling enough to be worth having a month's worth of shifts crammed into the 2 1/2 weeks.

4) The designation of FT exists for a reason and that reason is often to monetarily reward docs who are committed to the shop. If you drop below FT, there are typically financial consequences (losing bonus/profit-sharing, loss of benefits, having to cover malpractice, etc.) So you can't just divide a FT doc's salary into $100k to find out the divisor for number of hours needed to make $100k.

 

[KnuxNole]

I didn't know if part-timers make $250/hr or 150 or what so that's why I was asking.

Also, anyone who is 'struggling' while making 6 figures is completely delusional and is trying to live well above their means. Do you realize that most people in this country live happy lives and can pay for kids off 60k/year?

Realize that most successful people don't want to be like the average Joe making 60K...

 

[DCBFan]

I make better food than most restaurants can prepare, and I already drink some damn fine booze on my modest budget. Good food is cheap if you can cook, and good booze isn't that great of an expense unless you're clearing a half bottle of blue label a night. Plus I'm planning on living in a fairly rural area- there's not really a whole lot of places to spend money when you live in the sticks, and having nice things is sort of pointless when there's no one around that really appreciates them.

Don't get me wrong, Mad Jack, I find your post-residency Mustachian lifestyle very appealing and you clearly know your stuff, but it just seems like every pre-med and med student is *planning* to live an extremely frugal life as a young attending. You've run the numbers more than most of them, but I really think it's just a matter of being harder to put into practice than it seems on paper. Probably has something to do with the 7-8 years leading up to attendinghood and the effect that has on people.

 

[Mad Jack]

Don't get me wrong, Mad Jack, I find your post-residency Mustachian lifestyle very appealing and you clearly know your stuff, but it just seems like every pre-med and med student is *planning* to live an extremely frugal life as a young attending. You've run the numbers more than most of them, but I really think it's just a matter of being harder to put into practice than it seems on paper. Probably has something to do with the 7-8 years leading up to attendinghood and the effect that has on people.

I think that has a lot to do with the sort of people that go into medicine though. A lot of them found the status and lifestyle that a physician's income can bring to them to be an attractive part of the doctor package, so they just can't help but spend the money they get, because they've been salivating at the thought of all that consumerism for 7+ years. For someone who doesn't really care for material goods and wasn't really looking forward to the financial payoff of medicine like myself, it just isn't a big deal. I'm definitely in the minority though- people are, for the most part, hard-wired to consume on a primal level. I'm lucky because I just don't have that urge. I don't get a thrill from a new car or cell phone or whatever, it's just a tool to me. Some people, it's like crack the way a new Ipad feels in their hands, or the way a new car smells and feels when you drive it, or how nice a new pair of shoes feels. I have urges and things that make me happy, but money can't buy them.

 

[BoardingDoc]

I have urges and things that make me happy, but money can't buy them.

Yes it can. They're called hookers.

 

[Mad Jack]

Yes it can. They're called hookers.

Not even close to what I was getting at.

 

[da8s0859q]

Not even close to what I was getting at.

Two hookers?

 

[deleted547339]

Two hookers?

The type chick that would double up on a dude like me do.

 

[D P356]

.

 

[RustedFox]

Don't get me wrong, Mad Jack, I find your post-residency Mustachian lifestyle very appealing and you clearly know your stuff, but it just seems like every pre-med and med student is *planning* to live an extremely frugal life as a young attending. You've run the numbers more than most of them, but I really think it's just a matter of being harder to put into practice than it seems on paper. Probably has something to do with the 7-8 years leading up to attendinghood and the effect that has on people.

There's some truth to this. I do live modestly as an attending and am aggressively paying down my debt - but there really is something to saying "Hey, I'm going to splurge on (X), because I've worked long enough and I'm not getting any younger."

 

[Jamers]

The type chick that would double up on a dude like me do.

One of the greatest movies of all time.

 

[@JackShephard]

I think that has a lot to do with the sort of people that go into medicine though. A lot of them found the status and lifestyle that a physician's income can bring to them to be an attractive part of the doctor package, so they just can't help but spend the money they get, because they've been salivating at the thought of all that consumerism for 7+ years. For someone who doesn't really care for material goods and wasn't really looking forward to the financial payoff of medicine like myself, it just isn't a big deal. I'm definitely in the minority though- people are, for the most part, hard-wired to consume on a primal level. I'm lucky because I just don't have that urge. I don't get a thrill from a new car or cell phone or whatever, it's just a tool to me. Some people, it's like crack the way a new Ipad feels in their hands, or the way a new car smells and feels when you drive it, or how nice a new pair of shoes feels. I have urges and things that make me happy, but money can't buy them.

I don't mind the assessment of other's thought processes, I often do it myself.

Yet, it's kind of arrogant to assert that the type of people going into medicine are those that are in to status and lifestyle. I don't know who your classmates are, or if they've told you this, but most of my colleagues aren't in it for money/status.

Sure money and status can be appealing, just like an attractive woman is appealing. But that doesn't mean that's their primary motive.

I would be that many people have slaved and sacrificed for a decade and want to have some fun with an attending salary. Guess what, most human beings spend money when their income increased by 400%.

Also, it's best to talk about how frugal you are with a $250,000 salary when you earn $250,000 and not when you earn 0$ per year. This is like telling everyone how faithful of a husband you will be years before you're married.

 

[Mad Jack]

I don't mind the assessment of other's thought processes, I often do it myself.

Yet, it's kind of arrogant to assert that the type of people going into medicine are those that are in to status and lifestyle. I don't know who your classmates are, or if they've told you this, but most of my colleagues aren't in it for money/status.

Sure money and status can be appealing, just like an attractive woman is appealing. But that doesn't mean that's their primary motive.

I would be that many people have slaved and sacrificed for a decade and want to have some fun with an attending salary. Guess what, most human beings spend money when their income increased by 400%.

Not saying it's everybody, or that the money is their primary motivation. What I am saying is that a high income is a part of the package that many people look forward to for damn near a decade and sometimes longer. If medicine paid the same amount as being a vet, roughly 80k to start, I would bet that the vast majority of people currently interested in it would seek careers elsewhere. They are good people that also want to be paid well, and there is nothing wrong with that, but physicians as a profession have been found to be horrible at managing their money, and the going theory for as long as people have looked at the issue is that they just can't handle delaying their gratification any longer.

 

[@JackShephard]

Not saying it's everybody, or that the money is their primary motivation. What I am saying is that a high income is a part of the package that many people look forward to for damn near a decade and sometimes longer. If medicine paid the same amount as being a vet, roughly 80k to start, I would bet that the vast majority of people currently interested in it would seek careers elsewhere. They are good people that also want to be paid well, and there is nothing wrong with that, but physicians as a profession have been found to be horrible at managing their money, and the going theory for as long as people have looked at the issue is that they just can't handle delaying their gratification any longer.

I guess.

Physicians are known to be horrible at managing their money? I'm not sure if there is any data on that.

I bet their similar to others earning high salaries.

Regardless, it's best to talk big after you've arrived. You've never managed a high income well, you still haven't gone through a residency yet, and obviously you're not an attending.

It's kind of like the pre-med telling everyone how easy Step 1 will be because he's going to pre-study, etc. Save that type of talk for post-Step 1.

 

[The White Coat Investor]

I guess.

Physicians are known to be horrible at managing their money? I'm not sure if there is any data on that.

I bet their similar to others earning high salaries.

Regardless, it's best to talk big after you've arrived. You've never managed a high income well, you still haven't gone through a residency yet, and obviously you're not an attending.

It's kind of like the pre-med telling everyone how easy Step 1 will be because he's going to pre-study, etc. Save that type of talk for post-Step 1.

There actually is data in The Millionaire Next Door, but it has some methodological flaws. Suffice to say, data may not be the plural of anecdote, but I've got an awful lot of anecdote if you're interested, and it does confirm that indeed, doctors as well as entertainers and sport stars and others whose high income did not come as a result of their business prowess, are relatively terrible with money.

 

[BoardingDoc]

If medicine paid the same amount as being a vet, roughly 80k to start, I would bet that the vast majority of people currently interested in it would seek careers elsewhere.

Assuming they're not ******ed, yeah. Who is going to voluntarily take on over a quarter million dollars in debt for a job which pays 80k / year? This isn't a question about "being greedy," this is a question about making rational financial decisions.

 

[Mad Jack]

Assuming they're not ******ed, yeah. Who is going to voluntarily take on over a quarter million dollars in debt for a job which pays 80k / year? This isn't a question about "being greedy," this is a question about making rational financial decisions.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said people were greedy, merely that the financial aspect of a medical career is a large factor that draws people to the profession. Smart people using their intelligence to do good while making as much money as possible isn't greed, it's just the prudent thing to do. But because the money is part of the current draw to the field, it is very hard for many people to not dispose of their income once they reach the attending level, rather than investing it or using it to pay down debt. Even with current debt loads, I'd be willing to bet classes would fill were salaries to drop to 80k, just like vet schools fill for jobs that have an eventual earning potential of 80-95k (starting pay is around 45k for most new grads per the last survey) despite 250-400k debt loads. They would just fill with different applicants that likely have lower stats. But let's say you get rid of all of the debt by making medical school state-sponsored, and curtail malpractice to low payout levels, then make salaries, say, 100k. Most of us still wouldn't have chosen to enter the field, because as much as we say it's about people, we have to take care of ourselves first.

I am in it for the money just as much as the next guy, but not so I can buy shiny consumerist gadgets, living arrangements, and vehicles that provide me with a quick fix but zero added utility. Money isn't a bad thing, nor is the desire for it. I just hate when people bitch about not having enough money when they actually have plenty, they're just allocating it poorly by thinking too short term.

I guess.

Physicians are known to be horrible at managing their money? I'm not sure if there is any data on that.

I bet their similar to others earning high salaries.

Regardless, it's best to talk big after you've arrived. You've never managed a high income well, you still haven't gone through a residency yet, and obviously you're not an attending.

It's kind of like the pre-med telling everyone how easy Step 1 will be because he's going to pre-study, etc. Save that type of talk for post-Step 1.

Spending habits aren't dictated by how much you make, they are dictated by the way in which you view money and finances in general. Take lottery winners. Most of them go broke, and claim the lottery ruined their lives, that having so much money at once changed them. That's BS. They were always the kind of people that were dumb enough to blow money every time they hit up the gas station for a hit of hope in the form of a $2 ticket that has a damn-near zero chance of a big payout. The sort of people that would do well with the kind of money that comes from the lottery don't play the lottery.

Now there's a lot of ways one can look at money. To most people, it represents a way to buy stuff. These are the sorts that do poorly with it, because the only purpose they see in having money is to spend it, and the only reason to save it is so you can spend it later. They work and live to spend. I look at things a bit differently. Money is the only means by which a person can be free to do as they please (aside from being a hobo, basically). When you have more money, you have more freedom. If I wanted to, say, buy a plane ticket to any city in the world, right now, and stay there for two weeks, I could. But in spending it, you reduce your potential future freedom, as every dollar you use puts you further from retirement and financial independence. Back when I was working full time, I made 100k per year working 52 hours a week, but lived the same way I pretty much always have- on about $1500/month- which allowed me to put away tens of thousands for retirement, fully pay off a brand new car, and have enough savings to make my living situation in medical school not be horrible. I doubt the extra 80-120k I make as a physician will suddenly turn around a lifetime of financial responsibility and turn me into some kind of rabid consumer.

And none of this is to say that people spending their income is wrong. You can do whatever the hell you like with your money. I just hate when people don't own up to their financial choices and blame their burgeoning debts on outside factors rather than personal decisions to prioritize a nice lifestyle over paying down what they owe. Unless you are in an extremely high-paying specialty or position, you get one or the other initially. They need to choose wisely and then deal with the ramifications of that decision rather than complain incessantly about not having enough money.

 

[two guys]

I bet there's a significant number of folks who "live" on less than 100k despite making significantly more.

I put 72,000 of my income each year into my "living expenses" which are shared with my wife who puts about 30k in to our expenses (her entire paycheck). For the OP and any other med student or resident, you're partially right - it is not at all hard to live on 100k (net which would probably be 140k pre-tax). I have never traveled more, eaten better or felt more financially secure. I could definitely find use for more money, but these are the numbers we decided on and are a significant improvement from our previous income. Any time we feel the need to live off of more we look at our brother and sisters who all have multiple kids and live on about 30% less. That usually ends any discussion of "needing" any more money.

For us, "living expenses" include food, rent, cars, car insurance, trips, electric, cable, gas, saving for back up fund (at 5 months now) etc.

The rest of my income goes to taxes, my health insurance, my disability insurance, 401k, and loan repayment (I'm paying at a rate of 96k/year). When loan repayment is done (1 more year) then that 96k goes towards buying a house, maybe working a shift less a month, college savings, and more retirement savings (right now just maxing out 401k, no backdoor roths or taxable accounts yet). It's certainly possible that we might give ourselves a little raise when we have kids, but honestly we want to keep our monthly living expenses as low as we can as this is the main thing that effects all of our other decisions (how much disability, how much retirement, how long until retirement, how much life insurance, how much back up savings, how well will we deal with a move or job loss, etc). Plus we're living off PLENTY.

I doubt this is an unlikely situation. Most of my peers are doing about the same. The only difference is probably our decision to hold off on buying a house until loans are cleared. For us, we have been uncomfortable with our student debt for so long that we're not really excited to sign up for more debt. Of course, you could make the argument that we'd be better off buying a house with interest rates being what they are but, for us, we're happy with this plan. I find it much easier to contribute 100k/year to loans and see the debt go down dramatically than to put 50k to loans an 50k to a house and watch them both lower painfully slowly.

I definitely know a few folks who are "living" off much less. Still, none of them are signing up for the part time plan. The extra money above 100k isn't going to luxury cars and hookers. Its going towards security (paying off student loans, buying a house, saving for retirement, having a bigger backup fund, disability and life insurance). It'll take at least 10 yars at this rate to make significant progress toward those goals. Ask me again in 10 years and maybe I will be wanting to work part time so I can have the chance to work for free abroad or something. My hope would be that my living expense is about the same, but I will have better security. That being said, it wouldn't be shocking for there to be some lifestyle creep over a decade. Hopefully not too much because it doesn't look like most EM docs salary rises much over their career.

 

[moisne]

This is an interesting post. I have sometimes thought about going into EM instead of FM, but I really love outpatient setting in FM. However, I think EM docs make about 250k a year, or maybe 200k a year? I'm assuming they work 4 12 hour shifts a week, so 48 hours a week on average? Let's assume an average salary of 220k for an EM doc. 48 hrs/week. That's about $95 per hour.

Also, let's assume that 25% of your salary goes to taxes. So 100/0.75=133.33. How many hours would you need to work to make $133,333.33? (Sorry, I hate rounding). You would need to make 11,111.11 per month. Divide that by 4 wks. $2,777.78 per week. Divide that by $95 (that's how much you make per hr) = 29.23 hours a week. 30 hours a week is probably more on the safe side.


Now, this is considering that you will find a hospital who lets you work just 30 hours a week. Also, you have to realize that in EM, all doctors have to go through night shifts. So keep that in mind! This is honestly the one thing that turned me away from EM, I know that I really will not be able to handle night shifts, and disruptions in a normal sleep schedule. I know med school and residency might be something like this, but I know I won't be able to go through it all my life.

Can I request ONLY night shift? I can't sleep when it is dark out. And I would especially not like to change my schedule too much

Are night paid more?

 

[namethatsmell]

Can I request ONLY night shift? I can't sleep when it is dark out. And I would especially not like to change my schedule too much

Are night paid more?

Yes and (generally) yes. Search this forum and you'll find much more on this.

 

[alpinism]

If medicine paid the same amount as being a vet, roughly 80k to start, I would bet that the vast majority of people currently interested in it would seek careers elsewhere. They are good people that also want to be paid well, and there is nothing wrong with that, but physicians as a profession have been found to be horrible at managing their money, and the going theory for as long as people have looked at the issue is that they just can't handle delaying their gratification any longer.

Agree with this for the most part. However, even if every med school had 20K/yr tuition and doctors salaries started at 80K, I still think most med students would still become a doctor. Would some drop out for more lucrative career? Of course. For most people, their motivation for medicine lies in a combination of money, prestige, scientific interest, and a desire to "help" people. The last 3 (especially prestige/social status) would still be a strong enough motivator for most people to stay in medicine.

 

[Mad Jack]

Agree with this for the most part. However, even if every med school had 20K/yr tuition and doctors salaries started at 80K, I still think most med students would still become a doctor. Would some drop out for more lucrative career? Of course. For most people, their motivation for medicine lies in a combination of money, prestige, scientific interest, and a desire to "help" people. The last 3 (especially prestige/social status) would still be a strong enough motivator for most people to stay in medicine.

I would still become a physician, even though it would be literally the dumbest move I could ever make because I currently have minimal debt and already make >80k a year in allied health. Seats would fill, but I'm betting at least half of them would fill with different people.

 

[exsanguination]

Agree with this for the most part. However, even if every med school had 20K/yr tuition and doctors salaries started at 80K, I still think most med students would still become a doctor. Would some drop out for more lucrative career? Of course. For most people, their motivation for medicine lies in a combination of money, prestige, scientific interest, and a desire to "help" people. The last 3 (especially prestige/social status) would still be a strong enough motivator for most people to stay in medicine.

HAHA!

This is gold!

You're kidding right? There would be SO FEW OF US left if salaries for docs dropped down to 80k if everything else stayed the same (rigor and length of training among other things).

Literally the only thing keeping people in medicine in your scenario would be the scientific interest and the desire to help. With current American culture, absolutely NO prestige or social status would be given to doctors if they only earned 80k/year. In this day and age, if you tell somebody you're an "investment banker" or you "work for google or apple" you get tons of Ooohs and Ahhs! You must be so smart! It must be so awesome doing that!! You must make so much!!

That prestige is there because those professions make out like bandits. Prestige and social status in America are directly related to money made in your profession.

In your scenario doctors would be basically on the perceived level as teachers (way underpaid, way overworked, serve an essential function for society). Do teachers get anywhere near the prestige or social status they deserve? Absolutely not.

 

[alpinism]

HAHA!

This is gold!

You're kidding right? There would be SO FEW OF US left if salaries for docs dropped down to 80k if everything else stayed the same (rigor and length of training among other things).

Literally the only thing keeping people in medicine in your scenario would be the scientific interest and the desire to help. With current American culture, absolutely NO prestige or social status would be given to doctors if they only earned 80k/year. In this day and age, if you tell somebody you're an "investment banker" or you "work for google or apple" you get tons of Ooohs and Ahhs! You must be so smart! It must be so awesome doing that!! You must make so much!!

That prestige is there because those professions make out like bandits. Prestige and social status in America are directly related to money made in your profession.

In your scenario doctors would be basically on the perceived level as teachers (way underpaid, way overworked, serve an essential function for society). Do teachers get anywhere near the prestige or social status they deserve? Absolutely not.

Lol most of the general public doesn't even know what an i banker does (except for med students/physicians who think its the greatest job in the world and that they could have easily done it and made 2x as much money). And while working as a entry level software engineer for google/apple might be an interesting topic for conversation, its not going to impress most people like being a professional athlete, fighter pilot, CEO, or ivy league professor.

With regards to prestige I was mostly being facetious. I agree with you, being a doctor lost most of its social status a long time ago. However, many people (mostly idealistic premeds/med students) going into medicine still have this false belief that they will be "leaders, scholars, and innovators" at the top of the food chain.

There's also much more to prestige than just pure income level. Its about perceived income, influence, and impact on a society.

Maybe I'm just being optimistic though. Maybe 3/4 of all med students would drop out if their future income was <100k even without any debt.

 

[emergentmd]

Agree with this for the most part. However, even if every med school had 20K/yr tuition and doctors salaries started at 80K, I still think most med students would still become a doctor. Would some drop out for more lucrative career? Of course. For most people, their motivation for medicine lies in a combination of money, prestige, scientific interest, and a desire to "help" people. The last 3 (especially prestige/social status) would still be a strong enough motivator for most people to stay in medicine.

In General, prestige is related to income. If you put doctor salaries at 80k, the prestige would plummet b/c the quality of people going into the field would plummet.

If you made doc salaries at 80k and walmart checkers at 300k, guess which job would be more prestigious and have better applicants? You bet I would be a checker rather than a doctor. And most would do the same.

 

[RustedFox]

Yep.

No way would I undergo 11 years of post-secondary education (and sacrifice those wage-earning years) to come out only making 80K. Especially to come out only making 80K in an environment with such a high index of burnout/dissatisfaction/frustration/abuse/whatever.


If you say that you would, you're either 1.) intellectually dishonest, 2.) an idiot, or 3.) both.

This job is tough. Its one of the toughest.

Eff you. Pay me.

 

[Mbekweni]

Most Americans (and doctors too) are just terrible with financial literacy. They think in terms of income and not wealth, debt load, retirement planning etc. 100k can be really comfortable. I grew up with a family income less than that and had a wonderful childhood, especially considering that some of the greatest joys in life don't always come from the expensive physical stuff. That being said, in order to catch up with retirement, pay down debt, I bet that most physician circumstances would make about 140k the real equivalent of the "100k" income that seems to be the gold standard for upper-middle class success. The fact that most doctors will make a bit more than that is great.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/b...racy-beyond-the-classroom.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Birdstrike]

Yep.

No way would I undergo 11 years of post-secondary education (and sacrifice those wage-earning years) to come out only making 80K. Especially to come out only making 80K in an environment with such a high index of burnout/dissatisfaction/frustration/abuse/whatever.


If you say that you would, you're either 1.) intellectually dishonest, 2.) an idiot, or 3.) both.

This job is tough. Its one of the toughest.

Eff you. Pay me.

 

[alpinism]

Yep.

No way would I undergo 11 years of post-secondary education (and sacrifice those wage-earning years) to come out only making 80K. Especially to come out only making 80K in an environment with such a high index of burnout/dissatisfaction/frustration/abuse/whatever.


If you say that you would, you're either 1.) intellectually dishonest, 2.) an idiot, or 3.) both.

This job is tough. Its one of the toughest.

Eff you. Pay me.

Intellectually dishonest?

Probably not (see below)

An idiot?

Maybe (I prefer to think of myself as weird I guess)

No argument with the last sentence.

For me personally, doing something that lets me find some sort of meaning in life is more important than having a high salary.

I never have and probably never will find meaning or happiness from having expensive cars, designer clothes, owning a nice house, going on exotic vacations, or early retirement.

I know I’m in the extreme minority but that’s honestly how I feel.

Let’s put it this way:

I used to spend my off time volunteering as a firefighter/medic at an inner city fire station. We would run into burning buildings at at 3am to try to rescue mostly crack and meth addicts who were squatting in abandoned buildings (occasionally we’d actually get a real house fire and rescue kids or the family dog = the best feeling in the world). I’ve been stabbed, shot at, and had piss, feces, and HIV/Hepatitis infected syringes thrown at me. I’ve watched best friends being burned or hit by a car on the job and I've been to multiple funerals for good friends killed in the line of duty.

And for all of this I wasn’t paid a single dime. In fact, I ended up paying over $2,000 per year for the FF gear, training, and gas money.

So... Do you really think I wouldn’t happily work as an emergency physician for 80K per year?

Not saying I’m right or better than anyone. I’m not and I certainly have my fair share of problems.

But, there are some of us who want something more in life than money.

Then again, maybe I’m just an idiot.

 

[Mad Jack]

If you say that you would, you're either 1.) intellectually dishonest, 2.) an idiot, or 3.) both.

You forgot crazy. I mean, look at vets. They have greater average student loan burdens than physicians, but they're just that crazy about animals that they're willing to take on 300k in debt to make 40-100k per year depending on what kind of practice they operate.

 

[RustedFox]

Intellectually dishonest?

Probably not (see below)

An idiot?

Maybe (I prefer to think of myself as weird I guess)

No argument with the last sentence.

For me personally, doing something that lets me find some sort of meaning in life is more important than having a high salary.

I never have and probably never will find meaning or happiness from having expensive cars, designer clothes, owning a nice house, going on exotic vacations, or early retirement.

I know I’m in the extreme minority but that’s honestly how I feel.

Let’s put it this way:

I used to spend my off time volunteering as a firefighter/medic at an inner city fire station. We would run into burning buildings at at 3am to try to rescue mostly crack and meth addicts who were squatting in abandoned buildings (occasionally we’d actually get a real house fire and rescue kids or the family dog = the best feeling in the world). I’ve been stabbed, shot at, and had piss, feces, and HIV/Hepatitis infected syringes thrown at me. I’ve watched best friends being burned or hit by a car on the job and I've to multiple funerals for good friends killed in the line of duty.

And for all of this I wasn’t paid a single dime. In fact, I ended up paying over $2,000 per year for the FF gear, training, and gas money.

So... Do you really think I wouldn’t happily work as an emergency physician for 80K per year?

Not saying I’m right or better than anyone. I’m not and I certainly have my fair share of problems.

But, there are some of us who want something more in life than money.

Then again, maybe I’m just an idiot.

Good on yah for doing what you did - but lets see if your tune changes once you're paying taxes for the privilege of 'treating' the patients that attempt to sue the shirt off of you.

You may not be intellecually dishonest, or an idiot... but you haven't yet sacrificed all that residency/attendinghood requires of you.

Maybe you just don't know what you're getting into... yet.

 

[da8s0859q]

So... Do you really think I wouldn’t happily work as an emergency physician for 80K per year? Not saying I’m right or better than anyone. I’m not and I certainly have my fair share of problems. But, there are some of us who want something more in life than money. Then again, maybe I’m just an idiot.

Seems to me that wanting more in life than money is precisely the reason why dedicating the better part of your 20s / early 30s, many years of which are spent in high-intensity education and training with many sacrifices as Uncle RustedFox said, is a questionable use of ~10% of your life when you wouldn't even get to keep the financial security that comes with medicine.

 

[Silent Cool]

Who the hell goes into medicine just to make 100K? Seriously? You could be an ICU RN and make that in many places. WTF.

 

[neusu]

Who the hell goes into medicine just to make 100K? Seriously? You could be an ICU RN and make that in many places. WTF.

I want to have the status that comes with being an MD, a career, and be a nanny for my kids. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

[neusu]

So my plan is to avoid burning out and I don't care for putting on the golden handcuffs of a mortgage, luxury car, etc. I'll have no student debt. So, I figure if I can make 100k/year (before taxes) I'll be living my dream life. How many shifts per month will accomplish this is it pretty easy to find such a gig?

Can I discuss the elephant in the room.

(sorry if it has already been broached, I did not read all of the comments)

You, in essence, wasted a position in medical school. This is a valuable resource. Certainly, you paid, or are paying, your tuition, went through the trials and tribulations of earning the degree. I will not deny you that. You also went through the hoops to get there as a pre-med. That being said. You don't deserve it. Someone else. Likely, someone else who was rejected from medical school and had to take a different career because of your decision, deserves your position in life. He or she actually wanted to practice medicine, actually could handle the day to day reality of what it takes. Be it Emergency Medicine or whatever he or she may have pursued. You gamed the system, took the spot, and now are cheating it.

The AAMC/AMA/ACGME does an analysis on the number of doctors needed based on the number of doctors in practice, and the number of doctors in training. While you, as an individual are likely accounted for within their calculations, I can not condone your choices.

 

[gutonc]

Good on yah for doing what you did - but lets see if your tune changes once you're paying taxes for the privilege of 'treating' the patients that attempt to sue the shirt off of you.

You may not be intellecually dishonest, or an idiot... but you haven't yet sacrificed all that residency/attendinghood requires of you.

Maybe you just don't know what you're getting into... yet.

What he said.

It's easy to be idealistic as a pre - med or med student, and sometimes even as a resident.

But it gets a lot harder when you're out in the real world with nobody covering your ass, while you're staring down the barrel of something like a half million dollars in combined student loan debt and list opportunity costs from 7+ years of med school and post grad training.

I'm not saying idealism is a bad thing at the med student stage. Just that you shouldn't judge unless you've walked a mile and all that.

 

[The White Coat Investor]

You, in essence, wasted a position in medical school. This is a valuable resource. Certainly, you paid, or are paying, your tuition, went through the trials and tribulations of earning the degree. I will not deny you that. You also went through the hoops to get there as a pre-med. That being said. You don't deserve it. Someone else. Likely, someone else who was rejected from medical school and had to take a different career because of your decision, deserves your position in life. He or she actually wanted to practice medicine, actually could handle the day to day reality of what it takes. Be it Emergency Medicine or whatever he or she may have pursued. You gamed the system, took the spot, and now are cheating it.

This line of thinking is completely inappropriate. There is no "contract" with a medical school or society about what you choose to do with a degree. They ask you what you think you're going to do, and maybe you even tell them the truth. But that has little to nothing to do with what you actually do. The medical school pipeline is very long. People change in the 10 years it takes to become a doc. Some women who were gung-ho to be a general surgeon at 21 when they applied to medical school would now prefer to be a stay-at-home mom. Some people who thought they wanted to be a doctor now realize they'd rather be a real estate tycoon. Some people who thought they wanted to be a rural family practitioner end up in plastics. Carry your line of thinking to its logical end- anyone who doesn't work and slave 80 hours a week until they're 75 in some way "wasted a position in medical school." Give me a break. Life is what it is. Life happens and people change and shouldn't be made to feel guilty about it. If I want to retire at 50, that's my prerogative. If I want to work less than full-time, it's my business. If I want to do nothing but boob jobs, that's my choice.

And nobody "took a spot." At $82K a year at 6-8% not counting living expenses or opportunity costs, medical students pay dearly for that spot.

 

[neusu]

This line of thinking is completely inappropriate. There is no "contract" with a medical school or society about what you choose to do with a degree. They ask you what you think you're going to do, and maybe you even tell them the truth. But that has little to nothing to do with what you actually do. The medical school pipeline is very long. People change in the 10 years it takes to become a doc. Some women who were gung-ho to be a general surgeon at 21 when they applied to medical school would now prefer to be a stay-at-home mom. Some people who thought they wanted to be a doctor now realize they'd rather be a real estate tycoon. Some people who thought they wanted to be a rural family practitioner end up in plastics. Carry your line of thinking to its logical end- anyone who doesn't work and slave 80 hours a week until they're 75 in some way "wasted a position in medical school." Give me a break. Life is what it is. Life happens and people change and shouldn't be made to feel guilty about it. If I want to retire at 50, that's my prerogative. If I want to work less than full-time, it's my business. If I want to do nothing but boob jobs, that's my choice.

And nobody "took a spot." At $82K a year at 6-8% not counting living expenses or opportunity costs, medical students pay dearly for that spot.

I agree with your sentiment. I went through it as well. I experienced the life change that occurs during medical school.

That being said, and now, starting to be peripherally involved with admissions, if in any way that the thought that the candidate would not use the degree to the fullest ability, we do not take them.

The amount of money paid by the average medical student in no way actually represents the value of their degree. Certainly, for state schools this is true. Even for private schools. Attending physicians take their time, effort, and expertise away from the pursuit making money for the purpose of educating these students. There is an enormous opportunity cost. The real price of a medical education, should it be on the free market, would be something like $100-125k (or more, depending on the field) each year. The schools, states, individual doctors eat this cost.

So yes, your doctor, who changes his or her mind along the way likely costs society upwards of $10 million both in education and lost productivity during his or her career.

 

[Mad Jack]

I agree with your sentiment. I went through it as well. I experienced the life change that occurs during medical school.

That being said, and now, starting to be peripherally involved with admissions, if in any way that the thought that the candidate would not use the degree to the fullest ability, we do not take them.

The amount of money paid by the average medical student in no way actually represents the value of their degree. Certainly, for state schools this is true. Even for private schools. Attending physicians take their time, effort, and expertise away from the pursuit making money for the purpose of educating these students. There is an enormous opportunity cost. The real price of a medical education, should it be on the free market, would be something like $100-125k (or more, depending on the field) each year. The schools, states, individual doctors eat this cost.

So yes, your doctor, who changes his or her mind along the way likely costs society upwards of $10 million both in education and lost productivity during his or her career.

So many things are wrong about your statements I don't even know where to begin. Let me just say that your views are opposed to American ideals, self-determination theory, and some aspects of capitalist market theory as it relates to the motivations of individuals. You are basically exhibiting the same awful mentality that kept women out of medicine for decades- "they would rather focus on their families and practice part time, and thus are a waste of a seat." It isn't right for you to say what one should or shouldn't do with their career, nor whether their motivations are any more or less right than your own. That is up for them to decide.

Maybe the current model is what is broken, not the OP's motivations. In many countries in Europe, for instance, physicians have a 35 hour workweek. Perhaps if enough young physicians decide that the crazy hours of old are not worth working, the culture of medicine will shift, and we'll start training more doctors that work less hours. Anyway, I don't have enough time to elaborate on all of this right now, as I've got to hit the road.

 

[henge]

HAHA!
You're kidding right? ...

That prestige is there because those professions make out like bandits. Prestige and social status in America are directly related to money made in your profession.

Do teachers get anywhere near the prestige or social status they deserve? Absolutely not.

Actually, post-secondary teachers have a lot of prestige, and the pay-prestige link is not as tight as you seem to think.

Highest prestige jobs in America, per NORC survey:
Physician
Lawyer
Computer systems analyst or scientist
Postsecondary teacher
Physicist or astronomer
Chemist (except biochemist)
Chemical engineer
Architects
Biological or life scientist
Physical scientist, not elsewhere classified
Dentist
Judge
Engineer (not classified elsewhere)
Chief executive or general administrator, public administration
Geologist
Psychologist
Manager, medicine and health
Aerospace engineer
Clergy
Civil engineer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_prestige#List_of_occupations_by_prestige

There are a lot of ways to slice up occupations, depending mainly on whether the slicer is a clumper or a divider. Starting with US BLS data, but clumping most physicians together, the 10 best paying occupations are:
1) Physicians/health professionals;
2) CEO;
3) Psychiatrists;
4) Dentists;
5) Engineering managers;
6) Natural sciences managers;
7) Computer and IT managers;
8) Lawyers and judges;
9) Marketing managers; and
10) Air traffic controllers.
See, http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/the-10-highest-paying-jobs-in-america-151994/?singlepage=1 and http://www.bls.gov/ooh/highest-paying.htm

The job descriptions don't match exactly, but it is apparent that while there is a lot of overlap between prestige and pay, the relationship is not lockstep. In fact, post-secondary teachers, non-manager scientists of all sorts, non-manager engineers and clergy have a lot of prestige without much pay. Air traffic controllers and marketing managers (and managers of all sorts) have lots of pay but relatively less prestige. I imagine if investment bankers were broken out as a group, they'd have high salary with little prestige as well.

 

[alpinism]

Good on yah for doing what you did - but lets see if your tune changes once you're paying taxes for the privilege of 'treating' the patients that attempt to sue the shirt off of you.

You may not be intellecually dishonest, or an idiot... but you haven't yet sacrificed all that residency/attendinghood requires of you.

Maybe you just don't know what you're getting into... yet.

True.

Who knows i might change my tune someday...we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[neusu]

So many things are wrong about your statements I don't even know where to begin. Let me just say that your views are opposed to American ideals, self-determination theory, and some aspects of capitalist market theory as it relates to the motivations of individuals. You are basically exhibiting the same awful mentality that kept women out of medicine for decades- "they would rather focus on their families and practice part time, and thus are a waste of a seat." It isn't right for you to say what one should or shouldn't do with their career, nor whether their motivations are any more or less right than your own. That is up for them to decide.

Maybe the current model is what is broken, not the OP's motivations. In many countries in Europe, for instance, physicians have a 35 hour workweek. Perhaps if enough young physicians decide that the crazy hours of old are not worth working, the culture of medicine will shift, and we'll start training more doctors that work less hours. Anyway, I don't have enough time to elaborate on all of this right now, as I've got to hit the road.

Let me just say that your views are entirely opposed to medicine.

Agreeing to go through medical school and being given the privilege of being a doctor you fundamentally agree to the Hippocratic Oath.

By virtue of saying, "gosh, I could work 75% more but I choose not to for my personal lifestyle reasons" you are in essence telling the patients you should have seen, or the doctor who would have seen should you have chosen another path, that they can go to hell. You don't care about their concerns. You are trained to treat them, but your own personal reasons are more important than their needs.

The "market" has little role in medicine. We treat our patients the same whether they can afford our care or whether they are homeless.

No, I am not advocating you be a miser and abdicate personal privilege. Yes, I am saying if your goal is to make $100k/year and work minimum hours you should not have gone to medical school.

 

[alpinism]

Seems to me that wanting more in life than money is precisely the reason why dedicating the better part of your 20s / early 30s, many years of which are spent in high-intensity education and training with many sacrifices as Uncle RustedFox said, is a questionable use of ~10% of your life when you wouldn't even get to keep the financial security that comes with medicine.

FWIW I think physicians deserve to be paid a fair salary (more than 150K) especially after giving up most of your 20s, taking on enormous debt from undergrad and med school, and having a ridiculously low salary as a resident.

I can also understand why most people wouldn't want anything to do with medicine for 80K/yr considering the above 3 factors.

 

[Mad Jack]

1. Let me just say that your views are entirely opposed to medicine.

Agreeing to go through medical school and being given the privilege of being a doctor you fundamentally agree to the Hippocratic Oath.

By virtue of saying, "gosh, I could work 75% more but I choose not to for my personal lifestyle reasons" you are in essence telling the patients you should have seen, or the doctor who would have seen should you have chosen another path, that they can go to hell. You don't care about their concerns. You are trained to treat them, but your own personal reasons are more important than their needs.

The "market" has little role in medicine. We treat our patients the same whether they can afford our care or whether they are homeless.

No, I am not advocating you be a miser and abdicate personal privilege. Yes, I am saying if your goal is to make $100k/year and work minimum hours you should not have gone to medical school.

I agree with your views, honestly. It's more the moral judgments that I take issue with. Medicine is, at the end of the day, a skilled form of labor. It is up to the laborer to determine how much they want to exercise that skill and use their knowledge. If we drew your line of "only people that intend to be full time physicians should go to medical school" then we would have to exclude women that intend to put their families first, those who have significant and time intensive activities outside of medicine that preclude them from practicing as physicians, and really anyone who for any reason might not devote their entire life to the clinical practice of medicine. What about physicians that choose to become executives after school, or those that decide to do research, or people who feel their knowledge might best be utilized evaluating potential investments for a hedge fund? What about those physicians that choose to retire early? Who are you to pass judgement on the life choices of others?

The modern Hippocratic Oath that most medical students take at graduation generally requires that you not harm those you treat, and that you act ethically. It doesn't have an hour requirement, a minimum number of patients to see, or even require you to see patients at all. It is simply a promise that when you are acting clinically as a physician, you first do no harm. Most reasonable people would agree that you are not harming patients by having never been their physician- to argue the opposite would basically declare any physician that had ever turned away a patient for any reason to be acting unethically.

Would I turn away a kid like this if I were on an admission committee? Oh hell yes, I'd rather put a less financially focused kid in that seat. But would I hold any chagrin for a colleague that ended up going down the path described after admission? Certainly not, for it is their life to do with as they wish.

 

[DocEspana]

Im gonna say it. I'm on board with C.R.E.A.M.