6
643320
Helping professionals advocating for undeserved populations and social change? How counterintuitive.
How important is the white coat ceremony?
- Thread starter noolsy
- Start date
Helping professionals advocating for undeserved populations and social change? How counterintuitive.
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
"Helping" and "shoving down your throat" are slightly different, I think. I have no interest in social change. And, apparently, if various studies into this problem are to be believed, I as a white male apparently can't help underserved populations.
6
643320
Not sure what prompted you to go that far after I made 1 statement.
Apologies if my post came off as more hostile than I intended. Obviously people disagree with each other. I also never asserted that physicians had to advocate for anything, and many people choose the profession in part because of the helping aspect. Just struck me a little odd that you seem so angry about your medical school administration adopting those principles (which is pretty common, even if just for the PR), especially something as noncontroversial as the need for more rural PCP (and I don't have interests either in primary care or living in a rural area - undergrad in the middle of nowhere is plenty enough - but more power to those that do to help fill that void).
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 80
In the grand scheme of things, the wedding of a very good friend is very important!
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 7,139
- Reaction score
- 11,304
C'mon now. You're going into psychiatry... unless you want your career to involve being little more than a gum ball machine of xanax and sertraline for soccer moms in Frisco, you're going to have to have a working understanding about how social institutions interact with severe mental illness and vice versa. Or I guess you can enjoy doing another ER consult at 3AM that could have been prevented by better access to services for your newly decompensating patient.
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
Of course social factors play a role in medicine - you can extend that logic to just about anything in life and argue not completely illogically that physicians therefore should be interested in such things. I'm going to focus my work on doing the best that I can for the patients under my care. That's how I'm going to express my interest in "social change." I will leave the politicking and policy-making to others. I find the constant push at least in my medical school to be a social justice warrior of sorts because you're going to be a physician ridiculous. Like @Tired, I don't see the two as intertwined. Related and connected? Sure. Does that mean by necessity, though, that it's something I should be spending a significant amount of my time doing? I'm not so sure.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2007
- Messages
- 7,009
- Reaction score
- 4,495
One thing Ive learned about the word "social justice" is that it is rarely used in the context of fairness and equity as reasonable people would define such terms. Much more closely approximates "theft" or at least a version of fairness as defined by some radical leftwing pressure group.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 664
- Reaction score
- 622
Bleeding heart liberal leftist medical crusader, wealth redistributor, and socialist proudly reporting for duty! Just a little to the left of Ghandi! I'm very ready to fight for social justice here and all around the world. Just have to get through medical school and residency, then I'm ready to fight for the underserved.
As far as OP goes, I'm looking forward to my WCC, but I would still see if you can go to your friend's wedding.
As far as OP goes, I'm looking forward to my WCC, but I would still see if you can go to your friend's wedding.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2007
- Messages
- 7,009
- Reaction score
- 4,495
Lol 10/10
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Messages
- 7,983
- Reaction score
- 1,370
You should volunteer to redistribute your wealth first and I'll maybe consider volunteering mine.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 664
- Reaction score
- 622
I'd start with the 1 percent - they're the real vampires. There's nothing wrong with a modest, decent salary. There is a problem with those that will hoard more and more wealth while those that work in their companies are on food stamps.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2014
- Messages
- 4,509
- Reaction score
- 4,134
yeah because saving your money instead of spending it is such a stupid plan
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 664
- Reaction score
- 622
When one has more money than one can even spend, it becomes that way, while there are people in this world, and even in this country, who are food insecure.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2014
- Messages
- 4,509
- Reaction score
- 4,134
by definition that is impossible. GG
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,085
- Reaction score
- 2,948
That doesn't make sense; why not redistribute from the top 30%? That way everyone will have a nice lifestyle. Sounds like you just want to spare doctors, you selfish so and so.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,422
- Reaction score
- 12,688
Percentiles 30 - 5 are really not the problem. You could argue about the 5-2 bracket, but again, looking at a wealth distribution curve, the 1% gets seriously ridiculous.
To those who still believe in trickle-down -- What will a 1%-er do with an extra million dollars? Will it change his/her behavior? Investment patterns even? Not really. What would 1,000 lower income households do with an extra $1,000 each? Spend it! All of it. Quickly. Buying mostly essentials, but probably a few non-essentials as well (tsk, tsk! ?) That money then gets recirculated in the economy several times over (multiplier effect), benefiting small business owners and employees alike.
- Joined
- May 10, 2013
- Messages
- 9,083
- Reaction score
- 8,552
Don't forget the little kiddies starting their BSN and wearing they white coats...........or the MPH students wearing long white coats around the hospital (just saw a pic of this on FB)...
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2007
- Messages
- 7,009
- Reaction score
- 4,495
Lol
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2014
- Messages
- 273
- Reaction score
- 461
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,422
- Reaction score
- 12,688
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 664
- Reaction score
- 622
My point exactly! Always a pleasure!
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 686
Maybe if people realized that not every job out there is meant to be a career. Many jobs are meant to be for students, part time workers, or retirees and or as stepping stones to higher paying jobs in the industry. But when you are 40 and are still serving at McDonalds, who's fault is that that you want to have an easy job and get paid more, because your name is ClairePhillip and you "deserve" it.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,422
- Reaction score
- 12,688
That's the party line -- But I sincerely believe that far more often than not, it's merely an excuse to hire lower-cost part-time workers instead of hiring full-time employees who would be entitled to employment benefits. The currently-widespread employment practice of scheduling multiple part-time employees with unpredictable hours effectively prevents those employees from even getting a second low-paying part-time job to make ends meet because those unpredictable schedules will conflict. And the low pay and lack of benefits traps them in a cycle of poverty that's really hard to break.
Yeah, a career-track full-time position is the answer. If you're college-educated and can find one. But what about for those without a college education? For those with young children? Shouldn't there be a baseline with a modicum of dignity and security?
And @slopes23 what's with the completely unwarranted attack on @clairephillips? She said nothing of entitlement or the desire for "an easy job" (like McDonalds-easy? You've got to be kidding if you think working fast food is 'easy')
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2014
- Messages
- 3,336
- Reaction score
- 5,899
That was JUST what I was planning to wear at my private oath-taking ritual, using the original Oath. Call me a fundamentalist, I guess.
I WILL NOT CUT FOR STONE!
Too crazy, don't read: Go to the wedding.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 686
But where do you stop though? Because the 1% already pays the most taxes by a lot. I am fairly certain you are not just advocating for 1,000,000 extra from a 1%er.
Keep in mind that for whom their taxes is actually 1,000,000 I am sure that that money would in fact make a big difference because that likely means their gross income that years was roughly just under 2,000,000 so you just took half of their hard work and income away. I would venture to say that if they got more of their money back they would in fact spend more, and invest more.
Also, how do you not feel it's a slippery slope? Who determines enough is enough? Oh, DokterMom says you have too much money this year based on her infinite wisdom as a mother. So.... We are going to take all of it away, even though you probably worked hard for it, and hustled your butt of when you were young, I say enough is enough. But wait, keep on working. I want you to continue to work this hard for a lot less. xoxo - DokterMom
When you start capping success you begin the path to de-incentivize people to become successful. Additionally, who do you give that money to? Just the middle class via tax breaks? Ahh. So you want to shift the inequality of the tax system even more. I see. You say no no no, I would give it to the poor. Well how? They don't make enough to where a tax break would help them substantially. Would you do it via welfare benefits? Hmmm.... So what you are in turn telling them is, you are poor, aren't working, or have been working at McDonalds your whole life and although you probably should have not slacked off when you were in school and made something of yourself, and you probably should have used that McDonald's job to become shift manager or work at Olive Garden, or any number of better paying opportunities and continue to rise up the ranks that way, we are going to reward your failure!! As long as you keep on doing what you are doing that is making you poor, we will continue to subsidize your life! Wahoo! Oh, but please do your best to work harder and make better decisions in the future so you can continue to excel. Okay, if I start excelling a little I still get the welfare right? Ummm.... no? Sorry, you only get money from the government of you are poor. Oh okay, got it. I'll make sure I work hard!
By the way... What section of the population contributes most to philanthropic issues? The wealthy.... So your plan would likely see a decline in a lot of important philanthropic issues ranging from poverty, to research, to animal rights and habitat, to ecological disasters and ecological destruction. Just so you can redistribute wealth.
Why would the plan be, ahh the government is spending so much more, we should just take more from its people, instead of cut spending?
How about making a tax system that is less convoluted with no loop holes and improve collection and avoid tax evasion which accounts for a huge amount of money lost.
But no, you just want to take away money from the super successful so you can feel better about your lack of success.
For some reason, it has become a mainstream idea that people should no longer be held accountable for their life's choices and mistakes.
If you want to live in a country where the government actively tries to redistribute wealth from the most successful then move to a different country, like Cuba and see how you like it. But don't try and change the foundation of which this country was build-- people who worked hard and often risked it all to build a future for themselves. Some where successful, others weren't. But they all knew that if they made it, they were set for life. Not, hmm I'm risking everything I have, just to make money and have it mostly taken away from me? Maybe this is not a great plan after all.
Reward success, not failure.
"You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong" -- President Lincoln
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 686
That current practice you speak of, of hiring more part time workers was brought out most recently because of ACA. Regardless, you see many full time workers at mcdonalds who still do not make much, maybe $10/ hr with benefits. That's not a career. People want to slack off and have been rebels in their early life, realize it was a mistake, and not have to pay the consequences. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Is this the case for everyone? Obviously not. Surely there exist some great examples of where people were stuck in bad circumstances. But you will not find a system that is perfect and works for everyone. Poverty will never end so long as people have freedom and independence. Freedom begets great success and great failure for both the same reasons.
And no, I don't think there should be a baseline, the same way I don't think there should be a cap on success. No ceiling, no floor. That's freedom. I worked my ass off my whole life to get where I am. I saw friends who claimed they wanted to make it big but never acted like it. That's totally cool. But don't try and make me pay for their failure.
There exist many jobs out there that pay well without a college degree. A good friend of mine is a plumber, never went to college. But he makes great money. He is buying a new truck this week. He doesn't own the business, he's just a plumber....
Well what if they have kids? Ahh so because someone was irresponsible and got pregnant when they weren't financially ready they should be just given a free pass? Nope. Am I saying they should be relegated to a life of poverty and dispare? No, not at all, I wish them the utmost success. But because of their choices, it's going to be substantially harder now. Perhaps if people knew down to their core that their irresponsibility was going to lead to their life becoming much more difficult and not just live on welfare then they would be less inclined to make those choices. What's wrong with personal responsibility and being held accountable for your life?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,422
- Reaction score
- 12,688
@slopes23 - Clearly you're young - and that's OK. And you're succeeding - which is lovely. Congratulations. And how proud you must be that you accomplished it all on your own, without any help from the government or your parents.
But please familiarize yourself with the US tax code and marginal tax brackets. Currently, the highest tax bracket is 39.6%, which kicks in only after the first $450,000 or so of taxable income. A US taxpayer almost never hits a 50% bracket except for the very highest earners in in CA or NYC who do nothing to mitigate their tax burden. (Show me a rich person who takes no steps to mitigate their tax burden...) And even so -- You seriously believe that the highest earners will decide to stop working because their tax burdens are too high? Because they only get to keep $0.60 of every $1.00 they earn? I can only envision that if they have far more that they can spend anyway. And what type of work are they doing that puts them in the 1%? Unless you're a professional athlete or entertainer, you get incomes like that from things you OWN, not from things you DO. You're suggesting they'll stop owning things? Stop making new investments? OK - And do what with all that money? Hide it in a box under the bed?
You're making a whole lot of unfounded assumptions about what I would do with "all the rich people's money." Have we met? Or are you perhaps making that up? Lots of hyperbole and Fox-spouting rhetoric. But just FYI, what I would in fact do (if I ruled the world - which we all know I don't), is legislate a higher minimum wage and divorce healthcare from employment in favor of a single-payer system. (That way, poor people could get preventative and necessary health care, and their employers would have no influence on their medical care.) I would modify the current welfare system that penalizes poor people nearly dollar-for-dollar for income they earn. (Where's the incentive to work if there's no net gain?) I would also raise the top tax brackets (even though it would mean I pay more taxes), subsidize day care (so adults with small children could earn a living, knowing their children were being well cared for), encourage continuing education (mass transportation from low-income neighborhoods to education and employment centers and subsidized loans for path-to-employable-skills degree programs would help), and invest more in early childhood and primary education, so opportunities for all people are more equal. But enough pipe dreams. Too many 'Red State' Americans think like you, so it's unlikely to ever happen.
The shift to part-time work was happening before the ACA, but yes, the ACA did accelerate it, and that's a big problem. One we need to fix.
And yeah, there's a slippery slope for wealth redistribution, taxation, public services, regulation. Yes, at some point, too much is too much. But too little is also too little - and I'm arguing that we're well into the 'too little' zone. Wealth inequality has become far too extreme. The gap between CEO and hourly-worker pay has become positively obscene.
Yes, of course people should be held accountable for their own choices. But when conservative politicians try to eliminate and circumscribe those choices, I feel they forfeit the moral high ground from which to then criticize those choices. Sure, poor teenagers shouldn't have kids! But apparently, they shouldn't have abortions either. Or ask the government to pay for contraception. Or their employers, because hey, those corporations are people too -- and they're part time anyway. No sex for poor people!
"And no, I don't think there should be a baseline, the same way I don't think there should be a cap on success. No ceiling, no floor. That's freedom."
Ever read any Dickens? The horror that was "free market capitalism" unfettered by any government regulation or (apparently) sense of morality and civic responsibility.
And do investigate a little concept called the "just world theory". It might help you understand why you view the world the way you do --
But please familiarize yourself with the US tax code and marginal tax brackets. Currently, the highest tax bracket is 39.6%, which kicks in only after the first $450,000 or so of taxable income. A US taxpayer almost never hits a 50% bracket except for the very highest earners in in CA or NYC who do nothing to mitigate their tax burden. (Show me a rich person who takes no steps to mitigate their tax burden...) And even so -- You seriously believe that the highest earners will decide to stop working because their tax burdens are too high? Because they only get to keep $0.60 of every $1.00 they earn? I can only envision that if they have far more that they can spend anyway. And what type of work are they doing that puts them in the 1%? Unless you're a professional athlete or entertainer, you get incomes like that from things you OWN, not from things you DO. You're suggesting they'll stop owning things? Stop making new investments? OK - And do what with all that money? Hide it in a box under the bed?
You're making a whole lot of unfounded assumptions about what I would do with "all the rich people's money." Have we met? Or are you perhaps making that up? Lots of hyperbole and Fox-spouting rhetoric. But just FYI, what I would in fact do (if I ruled the world - which we all know I don't), is legislate a higher minimum wage and divorce healthcare from employment in favor of a single-payer system. (That way, poor people could get preventative and necessary health care, and their employers would have no influence on their medical care.) I would modify the current welfare system that penalizes poor people nearly dollar-for-dollar for income they earn. (Where's the incentive to work if there's no net gain?) I would also raise the top tax brackets (even though it would mean I pay more taxes), subsidize day care (so adults with small children could earn a living, knowing their children were being well cared for), encourage continuing education (mass transportation from low-income neighborhoods to education and employment centers and subsidized loans for path-to-employable-skills degree programs would help), and invest more in early childhood and primary education, so opportunities for all people are more equal. But enough pipe dreams. Too many 'Red State' Americans think like you, so it's unlikely to ever happen.
The shift to part-time work was happening before the ACA, but yes, the ACA did accelerate it, and that's a big problem. One we need to fix.
And yeah, there's a slippery slope for wealth redistribution, taxation, public services, regulation. Yes, at some point, too much is too much. But too little is also too little - and I'm arguing that we're well into the 'too little' zone. Wealth inequality has become far too extreme. The gap between CEO and hourly-worker pay has become positively obscene.
Yes, of course people should be held accountable for their own choices. But when conservative politicians try to eliminate and circumscribe those choices, I feel they forfeit the moral high ground from which to then criticize those choices. Sure, poor teenagers shouldn't have kids! But apparently, they shouldn't have abortions either. Or ask the government to pay for contraception. Or their employers, because hey, those corporations are people too -- and they're part time anyway. No sex for poor people!
"And no, I don't think there should be a baseline, the same way I don't think there should be a cap on success. No ceiling, no floor. That's freedom."
Ever read any Dickens? The horror that was "free market capitalism" unfettered by any government regulation or (apparently) sense of morality and civic responsibility.
And do investigate a little concept called the "just world theory". It might help you understand why you view the world the way you do --
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 686
For someone who is trying to "teach" others about our tax code you sure conveniently leave out a lot of important information, for one the 450,000 number is if you are married, if single the number drops to around 410k. But that's not a huge deal. The more important issue that you left out is that there are two sets of taxes that everyone pays. Federal & State. 39.6% is only the federal income tax. Here is a list of some states income taxes which would clearly put people over the 50% mark or close to it.
- California 13.3%
- Hawaii 11.0%
- Oregon 9.9%
- Minnesota 9.85%
- Iowa 8.98%
- New Jersey 8.97%
- Vermont 8.95%
- District of Columbia 8.95%
16.7% + 39.6 = 56.3%
But of course, classic Straw Man argument, just become I am young, must in fact mean I am un-informed about our US tax-code, and by implication naive.
Let me make another thing clear, I don't identify myself as being conservative or liberal. I think both republicans and democrats have good ideas in different areas, but they both are also filled with silly polarizing people who cloud the space with ideas that either don't make sense or are pie in the sky. For simplicity sake lets say I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal.
But I digress, were where we? Do I think that the highest earners will just stop working? Hmm, no. I think if you had it your way the highest earners would likely either move somewhere else where people aren't trying to suck away their money like vampires or would find ways to keep their money sheltered offshore, like Apple already does via Ireland. So you suggest that most people who make >1MM only do so because they own things? What about small business owners? They "own" the business, but they also built it usually from nothing, and work in it. You should be allowed to just come in and say hey I am uncle sam, and because of that, I deserve half of your income? Sounds like a great place to live.
Also, you act like it is such a far fetched idea that people will just stop owning things or making new investments. But it's really not. The wealthy have the potential to make investments and own things all over the world. If you had it your way, you would be essentially telling them that they should take their money to different countries and invest there, be it properties, businesses, stocks, utilities, anything really. It may be foreign to you, but it is not difficult to take your money elsewhere especially in this day an age where the world is interconnected through the internet of things. That's not an assumption. That's the way it is.
Higher minimum wage: I can get behind that. To an extent. I think it should keep up with inflation. Okay, that's fine. But you seem to be someone that would advocate for a $15 minimum wage, which is silly (and if not, then please say higher minimum wage by how much). Increasing the minimum wage past inflation only increases the cost of doing business. Most business owners cannot tolerate this type of cost increase, and would in turn resort to increases the prices of their products, so then what is the point. You increase wages by 50%, which in turn increases cost of essential goods by 50% in reaction. It's a net neutral. Except it's not because in turn you are also increasing the barriers to enter the industry which reduces competition, new businesses, and in turn innovation. This in turn raises cost of normal goods even more because businesses don't have as much competition. ... Results of what happens when you take an idea that sounds nice, but don't think through all of the consequences and all of the possible un-intended ones.
You say ACA is bad. ...Now. But I am sure before it was enacted you were all for it. (Or maybe you weren't, if not then excuse that one assumption). Sorry if I don't think the government and the bureaucracy that comes with it is the solution to all things. You cannot subsidize everything.
Next issue you take: Slippery slope and CEO to worker hourly wage gap. So since we established that when evaluating tax rates one must also account for state income tax, you agree that wealth redistribution is a slippery slope. But, proceed to then say we are in the "too little zone" tax-wise. Again, with taxes in many places across the nation (often times where the highest earners live) over 50%, you think that a situation where more of your earned money goes to the government then it does to you is "well into the 'too little' zone" then wow. Someone is making more money for the government then they are even for themselves, and its still well into the too little zone. Additionally, going back to the slippery slope, while you acknowledge it is a potential issue you imply that your ideas are equipped to avoid sliding down said slope, and taken to the proper scale that the government and all of its bureaucracy and politics is well equipped to keep us from going down this slope. It's an oxymoron by definition.
You say you would modify the welfare system because of the penalizing structure in place now. But please explain how exactly you would modify it? How would you prevent people from gaming the system, and incentivize people to go to work? Single payer system hmm? So increase the capacity the health care system can care for at the expense of the quality for which it is able to provide care? Goes back to the belief that the government knows best. The government is not an all knowing entity. It is run by humans, and the policies are created and enforced by humans. This means that the policies are entitled to failure just like any human idea is. The issue is that a single payer system is not nimble. So to promote change becomes very difficult because of the scale and complexity this typically involves. Additionally, just like any human, depending on who is in office/government, there will exist different ideas on how to run a single payer system, so changes will always be on the radar, but as we just talked about, these changes are inherently difficult to implement, and often come with unforeseen consequences including long period of limbo during back and forth changes. Would it not stand to reason that a better system would be to have smaller more nimble market makers. Where there is competition, and people can join the health care system that suits their needs and their beliefs the best? The ones with good ideas and service thrive, the ones that don't fail? Perhaps, one idea would be to have subsidized catastrophic life insurance as a requirement and anything below that threshold is covered by an HSA? Tons of different ideas all with weaknesses and strengths, but single payer is certainly (in my opinion) not the best option of the bunch.
Personal Accountability: Like I mentioned at the beginning of this reply, I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Teenagers shouldn't have babies. Not just poor teenagers, but any teenagers. Until you have a partner who is equipped to support you both financially and emotionally, or you yourself are equipped to do so independently no-one should have a baby. It's still your own choice to go ahead and do it (read freedom) but you also receive whatever consequences come with it, for better or worse. Did I ever say that I am against abortion? No. More over, I am not against abortion. I think it's an idiotic principle that the same people who tout freedom and independence for all, try to limit the freedoms of women and their body. If someone doesn't want to have an abortion because it goes against their beliefs. Fine, cool. But don't shove those beliefs down other peoples throat. Women deserve the choice to choose what happens to their body.
Dickens: I also never said I believe in an unregulated market. I am in no way shape or form proposing an anarchy, a society without government. I just believe government has gotten too big for it's own good, and it is in such debt because people believe they are entitled to to many things in their life instead of making things happen for themselves and accepting responsibility for their actions when they fail to do so. There are many areas where government is not only helpful and useful, but is required to ensure fair play. But do not mistake fair play as everybody wins, and everybody is special. Sorry, but to win someone must lose by definition. Equally true, everybody cannot be special, by definition.
For someone who doesn't want assumptions to be made about her, you certainly made your fair share of assumptions about me in your response, and conveniently so I might add.
It's amazing to me that people who want to create new programs often times want to siphon away more money for these things. They see 19 trillion in debt and say, well what a few billion more. How about you cut spending, and create a net savings in the government budget, get your debt under control so you aren't drowning in it, and then, when you don't owe anyone anything and the government has money to spare you can say hey maybe we can subsidize this or that.
If the government could be trusted to do everything properly, we wouldn't be 109% in debt relative to our GDP. Meaning we could use the GDP money for an entire year paying down nothing but our debt, and we still wouldn't be done paying. Not a dollar spent on anything more. Not one dollar. Still you would be 1.5 trillion in debt. And you think creating more programs and subsidies is the way to go?
Remind me not to lend you my credit card, ever.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2015
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 39
So I guess saving money for generations to come is against the rules? To make sure generations after yours have it easier than you did? Your grandchildren's children? Idk seems like even if you had more money than you could spend your hard work would still be put to good use. Even if you did live cheaply and didn't spend it all on yourself.
Hey if the Rockefeller's are living good it's because that one man spent his entire life building up wealth, indirectly allowing his children to pursue their dreams financially unburdened.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2012
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 661
Today I saw a guy in the hospital wearing a white coat with the title "Interpreter coordinator". I totally lost it, now I have seen everything.
I find it amazing that every time I see this argument develop it only converges on numerical inequity as if that is the final answer. Strangely, as physicians we are trained to evaluate human behavior as a common cause of many morbidities, such as diabeetus, obesity, trauma, etc. Somehow when it comes to fiscal matters we suddenly forget that human behavior can be a vital component to a person's financial standing. If you "redistribute" wealth to a compulsive gambler, chances are he will still be poor a week later. Other people are compulsive shoppers, compulsive credit card users, compulsive alcoholics, and some spend all their money on pot. There are many reasons why people are poor, that isn't necessarily related to their socioeconomic background, education or skin color.
This problem is multi-factorial and people keep disingenuously reducing it to a binary function. Are there social injustice and inequities? Sure there are, but they are a subset of the problem at large, and that overall problem is where your statistics are being generated from which is just conflating the numbers to artificially prop up the argument.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 2,408
I always find this McDonald's example baffling. It reminds me of Paul Ryan's whole "I used to work in fast-food, but it was just a job not a career. Now look at me!" comment when he was asked about minimum wage laws. Sure, unskilled laborers without higher education or advanced training aren't entitled to middle class lifestyles, but are you really insisting that they're not deserving of livable wages after 40 hours a week? Is your only defense of this "find a real career"? Corporate America systematically ****s over the little guy and everyone is always so nonchalant about it until it happens to them. *cough cough* ACA reimbursement models
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 686
How does any of the comments I made after I gave that example imply that I think everyone should enter corporate America? It's a fact that not all jobs are meant to be held for your whole life. If you read what I wrote, or had a desire to have a objective discussion on the topic and leave politics and their stupid politicians behind then you would also include that I said what I think a McDonald's worker should do. Leverage that experience to excel. Be it apply for a shift manager position, and perhaps a GM in the long term. Notice none of the managers at McDonald's are claiming to not be compensated properly. How about taking that entry level experience and using it on your resume to apply to a higher paying server job. For example you could apply to Olive Garden and you would certainly make a more substantial wage. From Olive Garden you can choose to move up from there again either to a better establishment or apply for more managerial positions. I had a friend in college who started out at a Chick' Filet, moved up to a local restaurant, then got a job as a server at a high $$ restaurant. Was making >80k per year according to her.
But to say that every job just because you work 40 hours a week should provide "livable" wages is a joke. If you work at an entry level job your whole life, you should not be surprised or upset that you continue to receive entry level wages. Why would you continue to raise an entry level's wages past a certain point if you can just hire a new employee for a lot less?
Not everything can be kumbaya. It would not be fair to expect business owners to pay more for a reasonably easy job that does not require any significant prior skills or education. Not all jobs are created equal and so not all jobs are reimbursed equally.
tl;dr: Entry level positions are targeted towards people entering the work force, not employees who are looking to work the same job for the rest of their life and support a family.
P.S. - FWIW I only mention McDonalds because they are the most recognized example of low-wage workers asking to raise the minimum wage, notably up to $15 dollars. So it's easier for more people to understand, relate to in real world terms. Do not be so inflammatory and dismissive because you want to bring politics into the mix to try and dismiss me.
P.S.S - Also note that I gave another example of a friend who did not go to college and decded to become an apprentice plumber and is now a plumber for a local plumbing company, no corporate anything. He makes very good money. About $1500-2500/wk. So what was your point again?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2012
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 661
This is how I started out, and by the end of college I paid my entire bachelors degree on a server's wage. Not one student loan was taken out, but then sometimes I forget I am a white male and people usually jump out of their way to hand me everything on an Italian platter. I remember when Goldman Sachs called me out of the blue to recruit me, "We heard you are both white and a male. How about you come work for us as CFO?" I have to admit I was tempted to take the offer, but I had just finished sorting through acceptance letters from every allopathic school in the US. I could have sworn I only applied to 10 schools but whatever, it just seemed like it would be more enjoyable to sip Margaritas for four years waiting for them to give me my medical school diploma. I'd love to write more, but ever since the medical establishment found out I'm a white medical student my phone has been blowing up from program coordinators who want me to apply to their residency programs in three years. GG
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 2,408
I'm reading on my phone in between patients so I haven't gone through the whole thread yet-- I was just commenting on the McDonald's example specifically because it's brought up so often and always makes these underlying assumptions that "these jobs are meant to be transient".
Forgive me if I came off as accusatory or dismissive, that was not my intent. I was trying to illustrate how deluded this situation seems to me. Regardless of the labor skill, it seems ridiculous that you can have a full time job through a major corporation and still not make enough income to afford the basic necessities of life. I don't subscribe to the idea of a nanny state, but I strongly believe that any individual who wants a job (not even a career) should be able to find one regardless of their skill or level of education. I take issue with the idea that the bottom is so low that even with full-time employment, you're unable to support yourself.
I agree that the inner drive for excellence should take you to the top (or at least give you a shot), but those who aspire to a simple life with a meaningless 9-5 should be able to sustain themselves by the sweat of their own brow.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,422
- Reaction score
- 12,688
I described the tax structure with a very broad brush and you climb all over the exceptions that I noted, and note that I did not list them all. You're right. I did not list them all. But you seem to have forgotten a BIG one -- That much (most) of the income of the super-rich comes from sources that are taxes at far lower rates -- capital gains. And that all many of these folks have to do to reduce their tax rates is to move their primary residence from NYC to Jersey or CT... But whatever - None are so blind as those who will not see.
Economics and math... If you increase wages, then yes, the prices of goods will go up. That's a given. But the relationship is not nearly so direct as you imply.
If the minimum wage increases 50%, product costs do NOT go up 50%. At worst, that portion of product costs that minimum-wage employees represent would increase 50%. So a widget costs $10.00 in a retail store. That generally means the 'widget factory' sells it to the store for $5.00, and that it costs the widget factory approximately $2.50 to build. If Labor costs were 60% of total widget-production costs - so $1.50 - (an unusually high %, but whatever), and minimum-wage labor was 50% of total labor - so $0.75 - (again, a high % of total labor since owners and managers are so much more highly compensated). So where were we?... Ah yes, widget production costs increase $0.375 cents. OK, but since we're evil capitalists, let's pass this ALL back to the consumers. Widgets now cost $2.875 to build. The factory passed this to the stores - now $5.75, which, being evil capitalists pass it along to consumers, bringing retail widget prices up to $11.50 -- an increase of 15%. So for every extra dollar the employees get, they have to spend approximately $0.30 more on goods and services -- assuming this whole retail-cost relationship is constant across every sector - which it isn't.
And where on earth did you get the idea that I thought the ACA was bad. I was and am strongly in favor of it -- though I do admit it's imperfect. And encouraging a trend toward part-time work at the expense of full-time work is a problem. (But one I understand in light of high unemployment rates at the time the ACA was passed.) And I certainly never said anything about lowering the standard of care for those who can afford more than baseline.
TL;DR -- Go to the wedding OP 🙂
Economics and math... If you increase wages, then yes, the prices of goods will go up. That's a given. But the relationship is not nearly so direct as you imply.
If the minimum wage increases 50%, product costs do NOT go up 50%. At worst, that portion of product costs that minimum-wage employees represent would increase 50%. So a widget costs $10.00 in a retail store. That generally means the 'widget factory' sells it to the store for $5.00, and that it costs the widget factory approximately $2.50 to build. If Labor costs were 60% of total widget-production costs - so $1.50 - (an unusually high %, but whatever), and minimum-wage labor was 50% of total labor - so $0.75 - (again, a high % of total labor since owners and managers are so much more highly compensated). So where were we?... Ah yes, widget production costs increase $0.375 cents. OK, but since we're evil capitalists, let's pass this ALL back to the consumers. Widgets now cost $2.875 to build. The factory passed this to the stores - now $5.75, which, being evil capitalists pass it along to consumers, bringing retail widget prices up to $11.50 -- an increase of 15%. So for every extra dollar the employees get, they have to spend approximately $0.30 more on goods and services -- assuming this whole retail-cost relationship is constant across every sector - which it isn't.
And where on earth did you get the idea that I thought the ACA was bad. I was and am strongly in favor of it -- though I do admit it's imperfect. And encouraging a trend toward part-time work at the expense of full-time work is a problem. (But one I understand in light of high unemployment rates at the time the ACA was passed.) And I certainly never said anything about lowering the standard of care for those who can afford more than baseline.
TL;DR -- Go to the wedding OP 🙂
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 686
Why should a business owner pay more for something then what the market demands? Just because it's a full-time job doesn't mean really anything. You get paid based on skill, not time put in. If it were based on the later everyone who worked 40hrs a week would be paid the same. ...and yet.
You get paid more as your job requires more skill. If you go to a higher quality establishment you get paid more because it takes more skill to be a server there. Be it skills in customer service, being a team player, being able to work under higher pressure, being more direct-able or any number of things. They dont just pay you more because they feel like it. They pay you more because they expect more.
That major corporation you refer to, exists because of a certain business model. If they were to do what you propose they would have no profit margin and would likely go into major debt due to sky rocketing service costs. Eventually they would run at such a deficit that their business would cease to exist. and then what. So your plan would essentially be to make McDonalds cease to exist? Leaving the thousands they employ with no job, and new workers with less choices as to their entry level jobs?
Saying that someone should be able to live on wages if they work 40 hours regardless of the job is not sustainable. At a certain level, simple life or not, people need to be held accountable for their financial state. If they want to live on the wages that a full-time McDonalad's worker lives, but cannot, then that means their life is not "simple" enough. If they don't want their life to be that simple then they should be held accountable for excelling their career.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 2,408
Haha totally forgot that this was the white coat vs wedding thread. Classic SDN.
Now, how about we talk about those damn CRNAs killing all our surgical patients?
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2012
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 661
We should then close strong by trash-talking osteopathic medicine
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 2,408
That's a bit of a flawed analysis on wages. Theoretically, your wage is equal to your productivity. Realistically, your wage is a factor of the elasticities of supply/demand. The most that you could say about the relationship between skill and labor is that there's usually a positive correlation. The only reason that I bring this up is that the productivity of a McDonald's worker is much greater than his market wage. Each worker adds more value than they cost. McDonald's could afford to change their wage system significantly without facing any market instability. The social justification for why this is acceptable (which is incidentally also the reason why McDonald's was exempt from providing healthcare coverage to their employees) is that these jobs are intended to be low skill and transient, with the latter part largely being untrue. I know that it's rather utopian to address any of this, but even as a fiscal conservative I find it socially inequitable. This is more me publicly ranting about the mass perception of this situation than it is an argument, and I feel that I've ranted enough so I won't comment further on the topic.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 686
To go into the whole production costs and final consumer costs is a much more complex and convoluted equation then even you portray. You left out a lot of things.
For example, all you did was factor 50% wage inflation for the "widget factory", you said nothing about the store that sells the widgets to the consumer. In a lot of industries, especially industries that provide essential goods, the cost of labor is by far and away the highest cost of the business . Additionally, you ignore the fact that if you increase the minimum wage by 50% you must also increase the wages of higher level workers. You think your mid-level who once was making double minimum wage lets say, at 16$ is going to be okay with the minimum wage guy now suddenly making $15, and they are still stuck at $16? Definitely not. So in your "evaluation" you ignore the compounding costs of wage inflation, not just across the produces, middle man, consumer line (and often times there are more degreees of separation then just middle man and producer. Coke for example on the bottom end has suppliers of energy, sugar, water, aluminum, ink, design, etc etc. All of those suppliers have employees to get those products. So increase in costs of good for coke. Increase in costs of labor for coke. Then coke hires distrbutors, which have employees and drivers, those distributors often times sell to smaller more local distributors with drivers and employees, and then finally to the store where you bought the coke. The store that has employees too. All of those employees have to get paid more now. and every business in between not only just raised their cost in terms of employees, but they also each raised their costs of materials because all of the things that they used in their business became more expensive and they have to raise prices to account for this. It's no where near as direct as you imply it to be. Even my example, I didnt account for things, like the distributors having higher costs not just in labor, but the trucks are more expensive to buy, since the truck manufacturer has to pay more for their materials and employees, the trucks cost more to maintain since service is more expensive. There is such a huge ripple effect that you totally ignore and minimize that its astounding. A lot of ideas sound good on the outside, it doesn't mean they are a good idea in reality.
Re:ACA - you may not have said anything about standard of care, but I certainly did. Single payer would limit re-reimbursements, reducing doctors abilities to use utilize expensive cutting edge technologies, and reducing physician pay overall causing the best and brightest physicians and bio-tech companies to go elsewhere. Single payer system greatly reduces the access to the higher end therapies because insurance covers a large portion of things now, so the people that can afford more then baseline would be greatly reduced via your solution and would still result moving the cutting edge of technology and medicine away from the US.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 686
I agree that I was glazing over the true wage and skill relationship, but I'll be fine with just leaving it at positive correlation as you so state.
As per McDonald's issue. Your flaw is that you only see a cost in McDonalds labor cost. But you fail to take into account the increased materials cost associated with increased labor costs. There is a huge ripple effect that raises not just labor costs but material costs from the people McDonald's sources their food products from, and also their own workers in the factories that process this food, and the drivers that deliver it to the stores, and the more expensive maintenance of all their equipment and higher purchasing price of all of their hard goods. Then at the end you factor in the extra cost of labor at the final consumer level. It's really not so straightforward.
As for unskilled and transient; I think the issue arises in that McDonald's sets their pay the way they do because McDonald's intends or expects the job to be transient. i.e. - they expect that at the current wage they are paying the worker is not likely to remain there long term unless they move up the ladder within the business. There is nothing wrong with this. It's their business model. I am sure they recognize the downside to hiring a transient worker. Typically less dependable in showing up to the job, not particularly skilled, more likely to provide poor customer service, less reliable when they do show up, and are more likely to leave at any time with out giving fair notice. Their business model I am sure accounts for this in various ways, and they are okay with these draw back for the benefit of being able to have a lower labor cost. But the proposition is not to increase minimum wage just for fast food workers, it is to increase minimum wage for everyone, which again has huge ripple effects across the economy in terms of the cost of living.
If a worker chooses to work in an entry level job, where the wage is set for transient workers, but they choose not to be transient and instead stay at that job, the consequences should not be with McDonalds. They chose to continue working in that low-paying job. Period. It's like eating at McDonalds every day for the rest of your life, and you have a heart attack at 45 and sue McDonalds and say, well I believe that I should be able to eat anywhere, and anything I am served should be good for my health. Eating McDonalds every day made me obese and very unhealthy, and my doctors assure me this is why I had a MI. A judge wouldn't even hear the case and everyone would think this guy is crazy. Why? Because he chose to eat at McDonalds every day, and it's well known and established that it's not good for your health. If you ignore those realities, the consequences should be and are your own to bear. Why should wages, where people know what they are making now, and can see what their future holds in terms of wage growth be any different?
If people are not okay with those realities long term, then they can opine by either not working there to begin with, or leaving the job asap for better opportunities. If McDonalds does not like the consequences of that, they can then choose on their own how to proceed. i.e. Free Market. But to impose a change like that across the board would render many businesses unprofitable, and result in many jobs lost, and many industries catastrophically diminished.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 11,384
- Reaction score
- 24,027
What is with all these treatises about not the white coat ceremony
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 2,408
Because SDN.
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,699
- Reaction score
- 2,672
Jesus, if I have to spell out to you how the decision between the white coat ceremony or a good friends wedding is an allegorical representation of our countries internal struggle between top favoring, Reagan style trickle down economics and bottom favoring, so-called wealth redistribution, well then I feel bad for your future patients.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,981
- Reaction score
- 3,363
+1.
I would not have gone to any of those ceremonies if it weren't for the parents.
I will take photos on the WCC, ONLY so that my mom can use it as her phone's home screen and they can have the photos to brag about to the large number of relatives.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 11,384
- Reaction score
- 24,027
lol
then they will show your mom their pics of their white coat ceremonies for their nursing, physical therapy, nutrition, pharmacy, optometry school kids because they are doctors too
