Doctors are not the only ones complaining about pay?

[dutchman]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Look at what our supreme court judges are compalining about.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01/01/judges.pay.ap/index.html

"Low pay threatens judiciary, Roberts warns ..............
Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100."

Now remember they also get free housing in most cases, bodygaurds and a pension that garauntees them the same pay for the rest of their lives.

I think doctors need a raise too.

 

[OncoCaP]

Look at what our supreme court judges are compalining about.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01/01/judges.pay.ap/index.html

"Low pay threatens judiciary, Roberts warns ..............
Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100."

Now remember they also get free housing in most cases, bodygaurds and a pension that garauntees them the same pay for the rest of their lives.

I think doctors need a raise too.

It's not the absolute pay that Roberts is complaining about ... it's the relative pay. Judges are leaving the federal bench at an accelerating rate: "Thirty-eight judges have left the federal bench in the past six years and 17 in the past two years. The issue of pay, says Roberts, 'has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis.'"

His concern is that lawyers who are qualified to be federal judges would take a significant pay cut compared to being a law professor or private practice. Thus, he laments that only the judges who are very wealthy or otherwise don't care about pay are staying or taking on the federal bench. "'Inadequate compensation directly threatens the viability of life tenure, and if tenure in office is made uncertain, the strength and independence judges need to uphold the rule of law -- even when it is unpopular to do so -- will be seriously eroded,' Roberts wrote."

In medicine there might be a marginally similar situation on physicians choosing between a post at the FDA and teaching medicine or private practice (I seem to remember reading about an issue such as this) ....

 

[crimsonkid85]

why should they get pay hikes? shouldn't you be doing law NOT for the MONEY? hmph.

 

[OncoCaP]

why should they get pay hikes? shouldn't you be doing law NOT for the MONEY? hmph.

I agree. Idealistically speaking, we should have a uniform salary of $50K whether you're a newspaper vendor, neurosurgeon, or Supreme Court justice. However, the problem with such as system is that people tend to take the easiest job for the pay and too few will go to school for 15 years or whatever it takes to become a neurosurgeon. Same thing in law -- who's going to want to go to law school if it pays the same as becoming a musician, which may require no college education at all. Pay is an important incentive even if it's not the only incentive.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

I agree. Idealistically speaking, we should have a uniform salary of $50K whether you're a newspaper vendor, neurosurgeon, or Supreme Court justice.

 

[Tired]

why should they get pay hikes? shouldn't you be doing law NOT for the MONEY? hmph.

The real difference between docs and judges has to do with options. A Federal Judge who leaves the bench can walk into any law firm in the country and double or triple their pay just like that. A doctor who leaves medicine is going to do what? Go become a nurse?

I hate it when the public complains about the salaries in various professions, but then wonders why they're so few of them.

 

[OncoCaP]

Yeah, you nailed me there alright. I guess I'm at a stage in life where I know that as long as your basic needs are taken care of you can be very happy.

 

[OncoCaP]

The real difference between docs and judges has to do with options. A Federal Judge who leaves the bench can walk into any law firm in the country and double or triple their pay just like that. A doctor who leaves medicine is going to do what? Go become a nurse?

I hate it when the public complains about the salaries in various professions, but then wonders why they're so few of them.

No kidding. If you want the best and brightest teaching high school, pay the teachers $150K+ performance bonuses and you'll get some excellent talent teaching your kids.

 

[Tired]

No kidding. If you want the best and brightest teaching high school, pay the teachers $150K+ performance bonuses and you'll get some excellent talent teaching your kids.

Amen.

Unfortunately it seems to require crisis situations to get those controlling the puse strings off their behinds.

Personally, I would perfer adequate teachers paid $60k/year.

 

[OHMAN0125]

The real difference between docs and judges has to do with options. A Federal Judge who leaves the bench can walk into any law firm in the country and double or triple their pay just like that. A doctor who leaves medicine is going to do what? Go become a nurse?

I hate it when the public complains about the salaries in various professions, but then wonders why they're so few of them.

Double or triple that easily?? Are you for real??? Dammit, I knew I shoulda been a lawyer.. #*%*#*@!!!!!

 

[Tired]

Double or triple that easily?? Are you for real??? Dammit, I knew I shoulda been a lawyer.. #*%*#*@!!!!!

My understanding (and I'm only basing this off what my lawyer friends have told me, so I suppose I could be wrong) is that Federal Judges are in very high demand by the large law firms. Because of their contacts with other judges, experience on the bench, and generally excellent legal qualifications, they are recruited heavily.

Partners in large firms make a ton of cash. Granted, there are a lot more lawyers and law students than there are available partnerships. However, I am told that judges have the inside track to these positions if they want them.

 

[Law2Doc]

Double or triple that easily?? Are you for real??? Dammit, I knew I shoulda been a lawyer.. #*%*#*@!!!!!

I think this is pretty accurate. It is very cache for a major law firm to be able to tout to its clients that it now has in its ranks a former federal judge, or former attorney general, or former mayor, or other major administrative player. All of these people take very nice revolving door trips through their government stints into very cushy private practice spots.

 

[Law2Doc]

It's not the absolute pay that Roberts is complaining about ... it's the relative pay. Judges are leaving the federal bench at an accelerating rate: "Thirty-eight judges have left the federal bench in the past six years and 17 in the past two years. The issue of pay, says Roberts, 'has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis.'"

I wouldn't put too much stock into this though - it's an example of someone whining about a raise for himself, more than a crisis in the field. There will always be smart ambitious people happy to take the kind of lifestyle friendly and prestigious positions that federal judges occupy. Literally tens to hundreds of thousands of qualified people to choose from who would be happy to take any federal judge job with salary as is. Hours are very short, work is interesting, vacations are very significant (probably comparable to professors), and prestige is very high. And as mentioned above, if you do a decent stint at that job you can always cash in in private practice down the road, something that has to be considered when looking at the perqs of that position. So the listed salary isn't going to be considered unreasonable to most for this, even if it's less than such person could get in private practice (which it is).

 

[8744]

I agree. Idealistically speaking, we should have a uniform salary of $50K whether you're a newspaper vendor, neurosurgeon, or Supreme Court justice. However, the problem with such as system is that people tend to take the easiest job for the pay and too few will go to school for 15 years or whatever it takes to become a neurosurgeon. Same thing in law -- who's going to want to go to law school if it pays the same as becoming a musician, which may require no college education at all. Pay is an important incentive even if it's not the only incentive.

You have strange ideals. Why not have as an ideal that people are paid what they are worth as determined by market forces?

There is hope for you, however.

 

[sirus_virus]

Look at what our supreme court judges are compalining about.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01/01/judges.pay.ap/index.html

"Low pay threatens judiciary, Roberts warns ..............
Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100."

Now remember they also get free housing in most cases, bodygaurds and a pension that garauntees them the same pay for the rest of their lives.

I think doctors need a raise too.

This is clear evidence that this society is now all about money. Even our judiciary cannot do their job without bringing money into the equation.

BTW if someone in the medical field says "money" they will get crucified for "being in it for the money".

 

[8744]

Amen.

Unfortunately it seems to require crisis situations to get those controlling the puse strings off their behinds.

Personally, I would perfer adequate teachers paid $60k/year.

I understand that New Jersey spends something in the neighbohood of 10,000 bucks per kid per year on education and they still have crappy schools. With a typical class of 30 that's $300,000 per class. Where does the money go? For 300K you could hire a full-time Harvard professor, a degreed teacher as an assistant, and rent a conference room at a decent hotel for the entire school year. Hell, you could pay the professor and buy a small house and still have money for free lunches and breakfasts.

The amount of waste in the public schools is staggering and the people running the show, the NEA for example, cannot be trusted to solve the problem.

 

[OncoCaP]

You have strange ideals. Why not have as an ideal that people are paid what they are worth as determined by market forces?

There is hope for you, however.

I think if we removed pay as an incentive, idealistically thinking about what people's motivations are, people would take on jobs for other reasons, such as taking on a job that they liked and hopefully were talented at. Also, without pay as an attactant, fields like medicine need to change, perhaps becoming more similar to accounting and engineering in that more of the subject matter is taught as an undergrad with a few years of graduate school and lots of on-the-job training, making the field more accessible.

That's idealistic about what motivates people, of course. The reality, of course, is that without pay differences, too many people will chose the easiest job they can find and do the least amount of work they can get away with. While we would still have a lot of physicians, we probably would not have enough.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I wouldn't put too much stock into this though - it's an example of someone whining about a raise for himself, more than a crisis in the field. There will always be smart ambitious people happy to take the kind of lifestyle friendly and prestigious positions that federal judges occupy. Literally tens to hundreds of thousands of qualified people to choose from who would be happy to take any federal judge job with salary as is. Hours are very short, work is interesting, vacations are very significant (probably comparable to professors), and prestige is very high. And as mentioned above, if you do a decent stint at that job you can always cash in in private practice down the road, something that has to be considered when looking at the perqs of that position. So the listed salary isn't going to be considered unreasonable to most for this, even if it's less than such person could get in private practice (which it is).

Exactly. The job has so many perks coupled with a pretty decent salary that people are always going to want to do it. I'm guessing federal judges work about 40 hours a week. Their job is intellectually challenging, and they get their butts kissed on a regular basis. It's a myth about work that people make decisions about jobs based solely on pay.

 

[OncoCaP]

Exactly. The job has so many perks coupled with a pretty decent salary that people are always going to want to do it. I'm guessing federal judges work about 40 hours a week. Their job is intellectually challenging, and they get their butts kissed on a regular basis. It's a myth about work that people make decisions about jobs based solely on pay.

You're right, but that isn't the issue that Roberts is concerned with. Also to ignore cash incentives on a system-wide basis would be pretty radical. Not everyone is worried about cash, but we do live in a materialistic society, so the problem of pay comes up. He's not worried about filling in seats (benches). He's worried that judges will make a decision that, for example, makes a particular company $1 billion because they can cash in on their decisions by leaving and taking a lucrative position after making a few "helpful" decisions. Put another way, he's worried about turnover, not % of positions filled. He wants the judges paid to stay and support a system that incents them to stay on the bench lifetime instead of cashing and leaving. Whether this is a practical idea or not is of course a good question to ask. Perhaps bringing the judges more in line with academia would make sense. Given that judges are leaving the bench at an accelerating rate, it might be something to take a look at.

 

[Law2Doc]

You're right, but that isn't the issue that Roberts is concerned with. Also to ignore cash incentives on a system-wide basis would be pretty radical. Not everyone is worried about cash, but we do live in a materialistic society, so the problem of pay comes up. He's not worried about filling in seats (benches). He's worried that judges will make a decision that, for example, makes a particular company $1 billion because they can cash in on their decisions by leaving and taking a lucrative position after making a few "helpful" decisions. Put another way, he's worried about turnover, not % of positions filled. He wants the judges paid to stay and support a system that incents them to stay on the bench lifetime instead of cashing and leaving. Whether this is a practical idea or not is of course a good question to ask. Perhaps bringing the judges more in line with academia would make sense. Given that judges are leaving the bench at an accelerating rate, it might be something to take a look at.

Turnover doesn't matter. This has been the same issue since the origination of big lawfirms, many eons ago. People could always leave the judgeship for more money in private practice, even in our grandparents day. A relatively modest handful of people leaving in the last six years does not suggest a broken system or an "accelerating rate". If Roberts doesn't like it, let him leave. There are others who would be happy to serve.
And FWIW, I tend to get suspicious when people make their cutoff of consideration the last "6 years" rather than a round number, as it hints at massaging the numbers in their favor.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

You're right, but that isn't the issue that Roberts is concerned with. Also to ignore cash incentives on a system-wide basis would be pretty radical. Not everyone is worried about cash, but we do live in a materialistic society, so the problem of pay comes up. He's not worried about filling in seats (benches). He's worried that judges will make a decision that, for example, makes a particular company $1 billion because they can cash in on their decisions by leaving and taking a lucrative position after making a few "helpful" decisions. Put another way, he's worried about turnover, not % of positions filled. He wants the judges paid to stay and support a system that incents them to stay on the bench lifetime instead of cashing and leaving. Whether this is a practical idea or not is of course a good question to ask. Perhaps bringing the judges more in line with academia would make sense. Given that judges are leaving the bench at an accelerating rate, it might be something to take a look at.

The argument still seems really self-serving to me. If this really were a potential constitutional crisis, I suspect people other than federal judges wanting raises would be bringing it up, too. As for the concern about judges making bad rulings in order to curry favor with firms, I think it's currently a little far-fetched. For one, if you got caught, you'd probably be disbarred, so the risk is way higher than the incentive.

Secondly, these firms are already paying big bucks to lure these federal judges -- why would you have to make a few biased decisions to get a firm to court you?

Third, even if firms and judges were behaving this way, where would you stop? These firms have huge pockets, so it would be impossible for the federal government to pay any judge enough to get rid of the risk of judges being enticed by firms to behave unethically.

 

[OncoCaP]

Turnover doesn't matter. This has been the same issue since the origination of big lawfirms, many eons ago. People could always leave the judgeship for more money in private practice, even in our grandparents day. A relatively modest handful of people leaving in the last six years does not suggest a broken system or an "accelerating rate". If Roberts doesn't like it, let him leave. There are others who would be happy to serve.
And FWIW, I tend to get suspicious when people make their cutoff of consideration the last "6 years" rather than a round number, as it hints at massaging the numbers in their favor.

So, I take it you don't believe the accelerating rate of judges leaving the bench? I get the impression that Roberts could have taken a lot better paying positions than what he has now, so pay was far, far from his priority. I know very little beyond the headlines about Roberts. Even so, my guess is that he's thought about the issue and probably has a well reasoned idea. Whether it's the best idea is certainly a very debatable point. Maybe restricting judges from ever taking a position with a firm or company that they heard case for might be a more effective way to achieve what Roberts is trying to do (I'm really unsure) -- such an idea would meet a lot of resistance from the most powerful people around and would never make it in my opinion. Increasing pay for federal judges might be the only lever we have if this is an actual issue. If this is a real issue, perhaps the down side of leaving things as they are is that judgments might be less fair in a way that affects all of us. I'm not pretending I have any inside information here. You raise valid points.

 

[sirus_virus]

Turnover doesn't matter. This has been the same issue since the origination of big lawfirms, many eons ago. People could always leave the judgeship for more money in private practice, even in our grandparents day. A relatively modest handful of people leaving in the last six years does not suggest a broken system or an "accelerating rate". If Roberts doesn't like it, let him leave. There are others who would be happy to serve.
And FWIW, I tend to get suspicious when people make their cutoff of consideration the last "6 years" rather than a round number, as it hints at massaging the numbers in their favor.

Thank you very much. The bastard wants to maintain a certain political makeup in the judiciary.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I think if we removed pay as an incentive, idealistically thinking about what people's motivations are, people would take on jobs for other reasons, such as taking on a job that they liked and hopefully were talented at. Also, without pay as an attactant, fields like medicine need to change, perhaps becoming more similar to accounting and engineering in that more of the subject matter is taught as an undergrad with a few years of graduate school and lots of on-the-job training, making the field more accessible.

That's idealistic about what motivates people, of course. The reality, of course, is that without pay differences, too many people will chose the easiest job they can find and do the least amount of work they can get away with. While we would still have a lot of physicians, we probably would not have enough.

But what about the Office Space dilemma of janitors? If everybody did what they wanted or were talented at, no one would be a janitor, maid, assembly line worker, etc.

 

[OncoCaP]

But what about the Office Space dilemma of janitors? If everybody did what they wanted or were talented at, no one would be a janitor, maid, assembly line worker, etc.

I never saw Office Space, so sorry to be out of touch on that. As far as everyone doing what they want or are talented at, some people are really good janitors, maids, assembly line workers and enjoy it. There would still be competition for any position. Thus, if you aren't qualified for medicine, you still can't practice. However, pay would not longer be a reason to go into medicine instead of say, teaching high school. Incidentally, when I lived in Germany, a high school teacher was as respected as doctor (that was many years ago, so things might be different now). If I have my facts straight, high school teachers were well paid and that was part of the reason for their respect.

 

[8744]

I think if we removed pay as an incentive, idealistically thinking about what people's motivations are, people would take on jobs for other reasons, such as taking on a job that they liked and hopefully were talented at. Also, without pay as an attactant, fields like medicine need to change, perhaps becoming more similar to accounting and engineering in that more of the subject matter is taught as an undergrad with a few years of graduate school and lots of on-the-job training, making the field more accessible.

That's idealistic about what motivates people, of course. The reality, of course, is that without pay differences, too many people will chose the easiest job they can find and do the least amount of work they can get away with. While we would still have a lot of physicians, we probably would not have enough.

You know, idealism has to be grounded in reality a little. that's why so many college professors are so comical. They can flit around in the sheltered groves of academia living lives of pure, unfettered idealism without ever worrying about how their ideas would crash and burn in the World As it Is no matter how nice it sounds in the World How I Want it to Be.

I see the PAs have got to you. You are already under-valuing your medical education and are willing to sacrifice some of it on the hopes that medicine will become more accessible. That's why we have PAs, NPs, nurses, Respiratory Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Paramedics, EMTs, LPNs, and a whole range of other medical careers of varying complexity...that is, so those who desire to work in medicine without sacrificing a decade of their life (or more) to training can have access.

I was an engineer. And a good one with a PE license n' everything. Medicine is a lot more complicated than engineering. Now, you know that your Uncle Panda is not the biggest booster of the medical profession but let's give it some credit.

 

[Law2Doc]

So, I take it you don't believe the accelerating rate of judges leaving the bench? I get the impression that Roberts could have taken a lot better paying positions than what he has now, so pay was far, far from his priority. I know very little beyond the headlines about Roberts. Even so, my guess is that he's thought about the issue and probably has a well reasoned idea.

He took the job for the prestige and power. That he now is suggesting the salary is so low it is causing a crisis just means he wants to have his cake and eat it too. If he wants more money, there are numerous routes open to him. But I doubt he will leave.

If he did actually leave for private practice, then I'd say maybe he might have been onto something. But as it stands now, it's just whining that his pay is too low.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Thank you very much. The bastard wants to maintain a certain political makeup in the judiciary.

Maybe -- especially since Roberts is bemoaning the fact that more judges are coming from the public sector instead of the private sector. Public sectors lawyers tend to be more liberal than private sector lawyers. His argument there holds little merit for me, too, because why do we necessarily care that the courts are comprised of more judges who formerly worked in the public sector? Is that necessarily a bad thing? Sure, it's an historical change, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of being a "constitutional crisis" -- at least, I'm not seeing the crisis yet.

His idea about lower pay essentially destroying the value of life tenure has the most merit, I think, of any of his arguments. However, as we've seen, judges are still making plenty of money and still have lots of incentives to keep their jobs. If they were to give up the protection of their tenured job, it wouldn't be out of desperation or poverty.

 

[Law2Doc]

His idea about lower pay essentially destroying the value of life tenure has the most merit, I think, of any of his arguments.

The easiest remedy for this is to just appoint older people to these roles. If you want a judge for life, political loyalties aside, a Ginsburg is a better choice than a Roberts.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I never saw Office Space, so sorry to be out of touch on that. As far as everyone doing what they want or are talented at, some people are really good janitors, maids, assembly line workers and enjoy it. There would still be competition for any position. Thus, if you aren't qualified for medicine, you still can't practice. However, pay would not longer be a reason to go into medicine instead of say, teaching high school. Incidentally, when I lived in Germany, a high school teacher was as respected as doctor (that was many years ago, so things might be different now). If I have my facts straight, high school teachers were well paid and that was part of the reason for their respect.

Somehow, I doubt that enough people would actually want to be a janitor or an assembly line worker that we wouldn't run into a shortage. Of course, it's not great that we have enough janitors because we have enough people who face either being a janitor or being homeless -- that's a depressing life that none of us have probably experienced.

Personally, I don't think there will ever be so utopian a society that we'll all love our work. However, I would like to see people with the truly miserable jobs get better compensation. As it is, some of our worst jobs are also the lowest paid -- think out the people who work in chicken plants. 😱

BTW, you seem to be focusing on jobs that require education and skill to make your argument. Teachers and people who cut dead chickens all day are worlds apart.

 

[8744]

Somehow, I doubt that enough people would actually want to be a janitor or an assembly line worker that we wouldn't run into a shortage. Of course, it's not great that we have enough janitors because we have enough people who face either being a janitor or being homeless -- that's a depressing life that none of us have probably experienced.
Personally, I don't think there will ever be so utopian a society that we'll all love our work. However, I would like to see people with the truly miserable jobs get better compensation. As it is, some of our worst jobs are also the lowest paid -- think out the people who work in chicken plants. 😱

BTW, you seem to be focusing on jobs that require education and skill to make your argument. Teachers and people who cut dead chickens all day are worlds apart.

You guys obviously don't know too many janitors and assembly line workers. This kind of job is all some people want out of life. Obviously everybody wants more money (witness the popularity of the lottery) but not everyone is willing to do what it takes to get a better job. My Daughter's Godfather works at Frymaster in lovely Shreveport, Louisiana as a fork truck operator. He makes about 12 bucks an hour with benefits and paid overtime and he is ****ting in high cotton, if you will pardon the expression. It's enough to fuel his boat, paint his deer stand, and the job doesn't tax his patience either. His children even qualify for LaCHiPs (free medicaid health insurance for low income families). He smokes, drinks, eats way too much boudin and fried catfish, and is a fine fellow who will pobably die at age 65 of the MI he is making payments on today.

Sure, you would be depressed throwing veneer on a plywood lay-up line for eight bucks and hour but that's because you look at things through the angst-ridden prism of aspiring physicians. This is the ideal job, however, for a lot of people. Set hours. No responsibility. Steady employment. And you can drink beer and forget about it on the weekends.

Don't worry about other people. They are free agents, for the most part.

 

[OncoCaP]

You know, idealism has to be grounded in reality a little. that's why so many college professors are so comical. They can flit around in the sheltered groves of academia living lives of pure, unfettered idealism without ever worrying about how their ideas would crash and burn in the World As it Is no matter how nice it sounds in the World How I Want it to Be.

It's great to have a balance of idealists and realists. If we had too many realists, people would probably be too negative and infrequently stretch beyond the here and now and what we can do today. I started out as a hopeless idealist and, after being slammed to the mat at appropriate times in my life, become more realistic quickly. I haven't given up on idealism entirely tho.

That being said, there are economies (various European ones) that are more socialist than ours and some people like that and it makes them happy. Pay differentials aren't as big as here and everyone can get by, so to speak. The downside with the more socialistic economy is that you have many more unemployed people on public assistance. It's a matter of picking your poison, I suppose. Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy here with our capitalistic system ... if anything, I feel somewhat guilty about my nice lot in life and am very pampered right now, which probably is probably ok for now considering that I'm getting ready to be kicked in the tail by medical school.

I see the PAs have got to you. You are already under-valuing your medical education and are willing to sacrifice some of it on the hopes that medicine will become more accessible. That's why we have PAs, NPs, nurses, Respiratory Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Paramedics, EMTs, LPNs, and a whole range of other medical careers of varying complexity...that is, so those who desire to work in medicine without sacrificing a decade of their life (or more) to training can have access.

I was an engineer. And a good one with a PE license n' everything. Medicine is a lot more complicated than engineering. Now, you know that your Uncle Panda is not the biggest booster of the medical profession but let's give it some credit.

I'm very anti-elitist. Maybe I have been around too many millionaires and people of power (and even engineers) that took advantage of their situation at the expense of pretty much everyone around them. My opinion of physicians probably went down a few notches (but I still have a very high opinion) when my friends started having medical issues and were unable to get them resolved in a way that made any sense. One of several examples is a situation where my best friend's wife (they have great insurance) started feeling numbness in her legs. The neurologist couldn't figure it out, the radiologists were scratching their heads, and finally a highly respected neurosurgeon, supposedly near the top of the food chain steps in. He argues with the radiologists and neurologists that a spot on an MRI image indicates an infection and tells my friend that they must go into surgery immediately or she risks losing her ability to walk. So they go into surgery, and an 8" incision and 6 hours of surgery later ... it was nothing ... no one knows what the spot was. She still has numbness and no one knows what it is a year later. If this was an isolated incident, I would just dismiss it, but I could go on and on about this. I realize physicians are very smart and hardworking human beings who are doing the best they can on a very complex system. Often they can make a big difference, but I really scratch my head about some of the no-so-great cases.

As far as PA's go (prior discussion on PA's), I actually agree with you. My wife says that my experience with PA's is a total outlier -- they are usually horrible in her experience and she deals with them often. Maybe the fact that one of my smartest study-buddies in pre-med decided to go the PA route so that she could do the kid and family thing also biases me as well as my positive experience with one (yes, only one experience with a PA). I would prefer to be treated by a physician when given the opportunity. As far as a career goes, I'm still of the opinion that if you want a leadership role in healthcare, the MD route offers the most opportunities.

I'm very excited about medicine. I know there are downsides and its pay is well-deserved.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

You guys obviously don't know too many janitors and assembly line workers. This kind of job is all some people want out of life. Obviously everybody wants more money (witness the popularity of the lottery) but not everyone is willing to do what it takes to get a better job. My Daughter's Godfather works at Frymaster in lovely Shreveport, Louisiana as a fork truck operator. He makes about 12 bucks an hour with benefits and paid overtime and he is ****ting in high cotton, if you will pardon the expression. It's enough to fuel his boat, paint his deer stand, and the job doesn't tax his patience either. His children even qualify for LaCHiPs (free medicaid health insurance for low income families). He smokes, drinks, eats way too much boudin and fried catfish, and is a fine fellow who will pobably die at age 65 of the MI he is making payments on today.

Sure, you would be depressed throwing veneer on a plywood lay-up line for eight bucks and hour but that's because you look at things through the angst-ridden prism of aspiring physicians. This is the ideal job, however, for a lot of people. Set hours. No responsibility. Steady employment. And you can drink beer and forget about it on the weekends.

Don't worry about other people. They are free agents, for the most part.

Yeah, I've met people like that before. Hell, I can see the appeal of having a stress free job and making enough money to have fun. But, your friend's job pays $12/hour, which is actually good pay, especially when you add in overtime. It also sounds like a somewhat but not horribly taxing job. What about people who make $6/hour working in the chicken factory? I'd be surprised if anyone was happy with that job.

 

[OncoCaP]

... What about people who make $6/hour working in the chicken factory? I'd be surprised if anyone was happy with that job.

One of my collegues worked on the controls of the fryers for a well-known chicken nugget retailer. The stench was so horrific he never eats chicken to this day.

 

[8744]

...My wife says that my experience with PA's is a total outlier -- they are usually horrible in her experience and she deals with them often...

I am so not going to get sucked into bashing PAs. But a medical degree with the required residency is a lot more involved and makes you several orders of magnitude more capable than a PA.

Apples to Apples here, folks. A PA who has been working for twenty years knows a thing or two. But you need to compare him to his attending, not to a fresh, wet behind the ears intern.

And for the record, I'm glad I got to sit through classes describing how RNA reads and translates DNA to make proteins. I'm glad they were given in excruciating detail over the course of a week until I was sick of it. I'm also glad I learned enough embryology to speak intelligently about it, enough biochemsistry to be able to read about it without scratching my head in puzzlement, and enough physiology to explain things to my patients in simple but concise terms.

It is a sad day on SDN when your disgruntled Uncle Panda is the one sticking up for the medical profession.

 

[8744]

Yeah, I've met people like that before. Hell, I can see the appeal of having a stress free job and making enough money to have fun. But, your friend's job pays $12/hour, which is actually good pay, especially when you add in overtime. It also sounds like a somewhat but not horribly taxing job. What about people who make $6/hour working in the chicken factory? I'd be surprised if anyone was happy with that job.

**** 'em.

 

[p9142]

My dad is one of those federal judges and he never complains about salary. He works 9-3:30 and gets a million days vacation. He gets plenty of money and has a pension that pays him 85% of his final salary for the rest of his life and is tax free (he will make more the year he retires than he did the year before due.)

When I was a kid he was one of those private attorneys and his lifestyle sucked. Work all the time, make tons of money, have no time to spend it.

 

[helpfuldoc2b]

He took the job for the prestige and power. That he now is suggesting the salary is so low it is causing a crisis just means he wants to have his cake and eat it too. If he wants more money, there are numerous routes open to him. But I doubt he will leave.

If he did actually leave for private practice, then I'd say maybe he might have been onto something. But as it stands now, it's just whining that his pay is too low.

But dont most politicians decide on their career choice based on power? Its like you give humans money, they b*tch and want more money, you give them so much money they dont know what the hell to do with it anymore, then they want power, you give them power they want more power, you give them too much power and money and they f*ck everything up because those with no real problems tend to make their own problems and eventually screw up their lives.

ts hard to remember too many poor presidents in recent years who came from a poor or disadvantaged background. It seems like those who are Senators, in Congress, etc... do it for the prestige and power. Now we know for example Arnold Schwarzenegger did not want to be governor for the money and he is not complaining about a pay raise. As a matter of fact most Senators and Congressmen and politicians in general attack each other about how high their salaries are so they can look good and get re-elected. What most people dont know is that most of these politicians dont give a crap about the salary they get from taxes, they are already sitting on millions or will soon be making millions once they write a book like Obama or retire and do consulting, teaching, or work in private later on in their careers. You guys get the point.

 

[Law2Doc]

But dont most politicians decide on their career choice based on power?

A federal appellate judge is not a politician. The whole point of a lifetime appointment is to insullate judges from the need to cater to public opinion once appointed -- to make sure they are not politicians.
If Roberts wants more money, he can always leave his position and go to any number of prominent lawfirms that will make him partner. That, in and of itself, is one of the perqs of a federal judgeship. Roberts and all federal judiciary were aware of the salary when they took the job. Most federal judges don't have a problem with it, most stay on, and the hours cannot be beat in private practice anyhow. I don't see any crisis.

 

[deuist]

I don't see any crisis.

Especially since there must hundreds of people willing to take his place.

 

[OncoCaP]

 

[Doctor Bagel]

**** 'em.

You just confirmed my assessment of your character.

 

[8744]

You just confirmed my assessment of your character.

Why? You make it sound as if people are helpless victims of society stuck making six bucks an hour. This is not the case. There are many, many opportunities to better yourself in our country. You only have to reach for them and work a little. Granted, most people will never become rich but the effort required to go from six bucks an hour to, say, twelve is not a Herculean task that requires a 35 on the MCAT. With some community college or some trade school who knows if you might find yourself in the mid 30Ks?

Everyone must make their own way in the world and secure their own happiness. If all you can do is Taco Bell then that's the way it has to be. We need Taco jockeys too, you know.

 

[8744]

Your sympathy for minimum wage earners is inversly proportional to how many minimum wage jobs you have worked.

By show of hands, how many of you have worked fast food, labor, or retail sales?

(One panda paw raised in the air. Crickets chirp in the background.)

 

[deuist]

I never worked any of the jobs you mention, but I was a certified nursing assistant in college (close to minimum wage). For the bleeding hearts on this board: there is a reason why differences in pay exist. I saw people who barely graduated high school get jobs as CNA's that they would hold for easily 20 years. If they complained about salary, my solution was that they should go to nursing school. No one ever followed my suggestion. The sad reality is that some people don't want to be responsible.

 

[indo]

Your sympathy for minimum wage earners is inversly proportional to how many minimum wage jobs you have worked.

By show of hands, how many of you have worked fast food, labor, or retail sales?

(One panda paw raised in the air. Crickets chirp in the background.)

Where I'm from minimum wage is called "el minimum wago" because if you speak english you don't work a job that pays minimum wage. But, in 9 years of road construction I noticed certain types of people don't move up in jobs and they seem to be perfectly content with paying rent with 1/2 of their paycheck and drinking or snorting the other.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Nah, I've have cr@ppy minimum wage jobs before. The chicken factory example was actually my mil who had to do that after dh's dad left, except it was a turkey factory. I just don't get my kicks from hating poor people.

Hey, indo, I see you're taking me on with the long signature. Thanks 'cause even though I watch Aqua Teens every night, I never knew what the hell Frylock was saying in the intro. 😉

 

[Wizard of Oz]

For what it's worth, I recall that Roberts' salary in the private sector prior to his appointment was about a million a year.

I'll confess that I know nothing about law, but as to physician salaries, I think that the vast majority of docs go into medicine for altruistic reasons. In the process of the training, however, it becomes obvious that certain types of docs make significantly more than others, and insurance companies don't reimburse you very well to take care of kids. Furthermore, the student often doesn't realize the sort of time commitment that the profession requires, so easier lifestyle and higher paying specialties become highly competative. The media gives a lot of attention to the Hippocratic Oath, however, I fished up this quote because I didn't feel like googling:

Hippocrates also makes the pledge to greek gods and goddesses, forbids surgery, all forms of abortion (including in instances of danger to the health of the mother), medical school tuition, public medical education. And tells u to treat ur teachers as ur brothers and give them money if they ever need any and to teach their kids medicine.

(err...let's not get into the abortion debate. please. it's not my point. I actually agree w/ 2 of those things i listed. it's just a list of stuff in the classic hippocratic oath that are at odds with modern medicine in most countries. the free medical tuition does exist in some countries, though. ).

Really the only part of the oath that matters much is the "do no harm" part. Free medical tuition? As if! I have actually seen a disproportionately high number of my classmates with first-degree relatives who are docs, but back when they were swearing to Gods, I think that women were excluded.

I want to say that a few decades back, U.S. doctors HAD to serve in the military upon their graduation. I only know this because one of my friends has a urologist father who said so, so please update me on this if you know something I don't.

The point is that the model in which medicine is a service occupation has evolved into one which is really just a fee-for-service job like fixing cars, only there are no free estimates, transparent prices, or refunds if you are unhappy. Yeah you can say that you one day yearn to run a free clinic through your church or whatever, but the fact remains that as long as people think that doctors have money, they will find a reason to sue you regardless of whether or not you are actually at fault. So you're forced to charge something for your services if for no other reason than to cover your malpractice liability.

The dean of my school recently commented that doctors deserve to live comfortably yet seemed to advocate more of a shift toward socialized medicine. Yeah the guy's salary is 331K out of the state budget for his administrative duties alone.

 

[deuist]

Somehow people in this country got into the mindset the everyone deserves free health care. It's as if the Declaration of Independence should be rewritten to "...life, liberty, and access to heath care." I fail to see how medication is some kind of inalienable right. Further, I don't see why doctors are made out to be some kind of public servant. Just because we have a higher education doesn't mean that we are required to provide for everyone with a complaint. If that were the case, everyone with a professional degree should be just as giving. I want my free lawyer and CPA.

 

[8744]

Nah, I've have cr@ppy minimum wage jobs before. The chicken factory example was actually my mil who had to do that after dh's dad left, except it was a turkey factory. I just don't get my kicks from hating poor people.

Hey, indo, I see you're taking me on with the long signature. Thanks 'cause even though I watch Aqua Teens every night, I never knew what the hell Frylock was saying in the intro. 😉

Who says I hate poor people? Just because I say "**** 'em" doesn't mean I don't like them, it just means that we need to, as a society, mind our own business and let other people mind there's. I don't think it's necessary to structure society to guarantee everybody a comfortable, effortless living. Not only is this impossible but there is no way to even define your goal. What is considered poor today, for example, would have been considered oppulent 100 years ago and an enviable middle-class lifestyle even when I was a kid.

I think you guys are projecting your own angst on others. Not everybody is going to have a meaningful, rewarding job that's going to allow them to afford the lifestyle they want. If all you can do is fry chickens, then I'm afraid that's all you're going to do and there is no way this is going to morph into some kind of 50,000 dollar per year job. I swear, if driving pizza paid as much as Emergency Medicine I'd probably pick the pizza.