How much did docs in the 70s and 80s make, really?

[abcxyz0123]

Anyone have a parent/relative/family friend who worked in the 70s-80s as a doc (in any specialty) that knows what their salary was (before or after adjusting for inflation)? A fraction of every post on SDN includes the fact that doctors just dont make as much as they used to. Well...i want to know...what kinda $$ are we really talkin about?

I read a NYtimes piece on a doc who said he made over 300k a year as an internist in the early 90s (Not adjusting for inflation...i believe after inflation it came out to 450k or so in 2008 dollars). Any other figures?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Law2Doc]

Anyone have a parent/relative/family friend who worked in the 70s-80s as a doc (in any specialty) that knows what their salary was (before or after adjusting for inflation)? A fraction of every post on SDN includes the fact that doctors just dont make as much as they used to. Well...i want to know...what kinda $$ are we talkin about?

The number itself is going to be meaningless unless you adjust it for inflation and then take into account what student loans and tuition were then compared to now, what taxes were, etc. so asking for "before" inflation adjusted dollars is asking for a false figure. Considering that the medical profession has lost ground on inflation over the past decade, while tuition has outstripped inflation, it's pretty safe to say that in real dollars folks are worse off. But pure unadjusted numbers are going to be meaningless, and it's a bit of a sophisticated calculation to make the adjustments necessary to 1970 dollars to compare them head to head with today's dollars.. (People don't tend to share their salary info with their friends, kids or relatives anyhow).

 

[GeraldMonroe]

And finally, anecdotal accounts don't give us a good idea of whether the average doctor is doing better or worse. I'm sure someone knows an FP in today's climate who is somehow making 1 mil/year by owning a multi-doc cosmetics practice or something.

 

[Law2Doc]

And finally, anecdotal accounts don't give us a good idea of whether the average doctor is doing better or worse. I'm sure someone knows an FP in today's climate who is somehow making 1 mil/year by owning a multi-doc cosmetics practice or something.

Exactly. I do think, going along the anecdotal path, however that folks can recall days when the richest folks in the biggest houses in the upper class neighborhoods and a disproportionate number of members of the fancy country clubs were doctors. At least that's the way it seemed to play out when I was a kid. These days you don't see the newer doctors making that jump. Lots more renters, condo livers, compact American cars.

 

[THP]

Come on people - anecdotes are fun sometimes. Not everything has to be analyzed to the depths that are done on these boards.

My dad is a neurologist and was making $375k in the late 1980s. Now he works more hours and makes $175k in 2009 dollars. Talk about a pay cut. He also runs a solo practice and a lot of the lost revenue has to do with practice management issues and the way laws have changed over the years. He does routinely get job offers for more money but has spent nearly 30 years building his practice and doesn't want to give up the autonimy.

 

[abcxyz0123]

The number itself is going to be meaningless unless you adjust it for inflation and then take into account what student loans and tuition were then compared to now, what taxes were, etc. so asking for "before" inflation adjusted dollars is asking for a false figure. Considering that the medical profession has lost ground on inflation over the past decade, while tuition has outstripped inflation, it's pretty safe to say that in real dollars folks are worse off. But pure unadjusted numbers are going to be meaningless, and it's a bit of a sophisticated calculation to make the adjustments necessary to 1970 dollars to compare them head to head with today's dollars.. (People don't tend to share their salary info with their friends, kids or relatives anyhow).

Uhhh...no. I noted that because I want to make sure if someone posts numbers on here, they let me know whether they adjusted it for inflation or not, so that if they did not, I can put it in an inflation calculator and get an accurate number, which takes about 3 seconds. Tuition/taxes/etc is irrelevant. I'm not looking for exact comparisons to make a statistical analysis for a PhD disseration. All i want is the basic numbers, like the above poster gave me. He gets it.

Thanks!

 

[abcxyz0123]

Come on people - anecdotes are fun sometimes. Not everything has to be analyzed to the depths that are done on these boards.

My dad is a neurologist and was making $375k in the late 1980s. Now he works more hours and makes $175k in 2009 dollars. Talk about a pay cut. He also runs a solo practice and a lot of the lost revenue has to do with practice management issues and the way laws have changed over the years. He does routinely get job offers for more money but has spent nearly 30 years building his practice and doesn't want to give up the autonimy.

Question: when you say 375k in the late 1980s...that is not adjusting for inflation correct? Becuase if you put 375k in an inflation calculator for about 1987, and put that in 2007 dollars, it comes out to 676k. So if that first figure is not adjusted to inflation...........thats like a half million pay cut. Damn!

 

[abcxyz0123]

And finally, anecdotal accounts don't give us a good idea of whether the average doctor is doing better or worse. I'm sure someone knows an FP in today's climate who is somehow making 1 mil/year by owning a multi-doc cosmetics practice or something.

Uhh...yes they do if you compare one doc's salary difference between now and 20 years ago. The poster who gave his dad as an example gets it.

 

[Law2Doc]

Uhhh...no. I noted that because I want to make sure if someone posts numbers on here, they let me know whether they adjusted it for inflation or not, so that if they did not, I can put it in an inflation calculator and get an accurate number, which takes about 3 seconds. Tuition/taxes/etc is irrelevant. I'm not looking for exact comparisons to make a statistical analysis for a PhD disseration. All i want is the basic numbers, like the above poster gave me. He gets it.

Thanks!

I kind of doubt taxes and tuition debt is irrelevant if you are looking to compare physicians of the 70s to today. Those "minor" things result in big differences in lifestyle -- probably as much as inflation in your equation.

And no, anecdotal info gives you very little useful info, because you don't know if that person is the norm or an outlier.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

Uhh...yes they do if you compare one doc's salary difference between now and 20 years ago. The poster who gave his dad as an example gets it.

But we don't know if the average or median doctor 20 years ago made ~700k as a neurologist or not. As far as I know, only spine surgeons make more than 700k on average today.

 

[turkeyjerky]

I found this from an article written in 1992 on trends in physician pay. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/11/1/181.pdf

"Average real physician income grew by a strong 24 percent from 1982
($125,500 in 1989 dollars) to 1989 ($155,800) (Exhibit 1)."

In today's dollars, that amounts to an average pay of $256,000 for physicians in 1989.

But you have to consider that the average surgeon earned 220,000 (364,000 in today's dollars) and the average gp earned 96,000 (158,000 in today's dollars).

So it looks like most docs weren't exactly pulling in a mil a year while playing golf a few times a week.

 

[turkeyjerky]

The number itself is going to be meaningless unless you adjust it for inflation and then take into account what student loans and tuition were then compared to now, what taxes were, etc. so asking for "before" inflation adjusted dollars is asking for a false figure. Considering that the medical profession has lost ground on inflation over the past decade, while tuition has outstripped inflation, it's pretty safe to say that in real dollars folks are worse off. But pure unadjusted numbers are going to be meaningless, and it's a bit of a sophisticated calculation to make the adjustments necessary to 1970 dollars to compare them head to head with today's dollars.. (People don't tend to share their salary info with their friends, kids or relatives anyhow).

Dude, what is it, exactly, that appeals to you about coming onto these boards and posting about how terrible (at least financially) it is to be a doctor?

I don't get it. The OP asks a simple question (b/c you're always hearing about how much bank doctors used to make, but nobody ever backs it up w/ hard data) and you come on here to lecture him about how big of a '**** he is for even asking the question.

 

[Ashers]

I don't know all the exact numbers, but my dad said his first year out of residency (ortho) 80/81, he made $50,000 working with 2 or 3 other doctors and making a lot less than the partners did. His residency pay as a chief was about $9,000.

Anecdotally, I grew up thinking it was normal to have a Ferrari since we had one and a few other doctors in the neighborhood had one; we were members of the country club, and we lived in an "Equestrian Community," but we were the only family without horses.

After leaving the area, I just thought no one else had that stuff since it wasn't Orange County, and people wouldn't drive Ferraris in Hawaii. After we moved he talked to his friends in CA who were working more hours and their pay went down by $100,000-200,000 (honestly,I forget). My dad's stayed the same over about 15 years, and he ended up working more hours and call.

 

[Danbo1957]

I have copies of some of my cancelled payroll checks:

In my Chief resident year (1988-89) I earned $26,400 for the year. In 1989, I signed a five-year contract for $66,000 with a local well-established medium-sized IM practice. I got a $5,000 per-year raise each of the next five years. I received no profit sharing or bonuses until 1994 when I was made a partner, that year I earned ~$185,000 in total pay. (In 2000, I became a managing partner, one of the owners of the practice.)

 

[abcxyz0123]

I kind of doubt taxes and tuition debt is irrelevant if you are looking to compare physicians of the 70s to today. Those "minor" things result in big differences in lifestyle -- probably as much as inflation in your equation.

And no, anecdotal info gives you very little useful info, because you don't know if that person is the norm or an outlier.

I am comparing raw, anecdotal salary info. The fact that you find that unuseful is irrelevant to me and the people who want the answer to this question. Why you would write that, among other things, is beyond me. I am not comparing "differences in lifestyle". I am just getting an idea of the numbers. Nobody else on this board found it so hard to understand. Read the question.

To everyone else above, thank you so much for providing the info...its interesting to hear.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

Danbo made $118k in 2007 dollars in 1992.

He made $255,000 in 2007 dollars as partner in 1994.

I would assume only a small number of IM physicians were partners making 255k in 1994.

Overall point : it doesn't look like doctors were necessarily immensely richer in the late 80s and early 90s.

 

[THP]

My dad was making $375k in 1989 dollars. Again, he was a solo practitioner and ran his own business. He was also the only neurologist in several surrounding counties. Its pretty staggering to consider how much his salary has gone down. He has told me if he were starting out now he would not open a solo practice.

 

[Slack3r]

All I know is all my "rich" friends usually have at least one doctor parent. One of wealthiest kids I know has a mother who is an anesthesiologist and a dad who is a lawyer/doctor (forget the specialty).

My gf's dad, a gastroenterologist, makes about $400k (according to her at least, I think this from a few years ago). According to him, his pay has been cut about 40% recently. He lives in LA.

 

[gudog]

Father in law told me he was making $350K in the '70s.

He was a solo practitioner with one year of post graduate training, delivering babies, doing surgery, etc.

Kind of the old time GP.

He worked all the time tho, on call 24/7, would take the family on vacation for 2 weeks in the summer(which was essentially the only time off he took).

 

[dragonfly99]

All I know is all my "rich" friends usually have at least one doctor parent.

I agree with this. Growing up, most of the wealthy folks in my little town in the Midwest were physicians...most had stay at home wives and pretty big houses, etc. Most physicians still do pretty well financially, but I think the income of some private practice docs has really gone down in recent years, due to downward pressure on reimbursements by insurance companies and the gov't. Many primary care docs are now employed by hospitals and other entitities, some of which are willing to absorb a loss to have primary docs due to the fact that they generate referrals to specialists, hospital admissions, lab work and imaging for their hospital, etc. A good number of these primary docs probably are not billing enough to really clear a salary of 140k, or whatever it is they are being paid....the hospital is just eating the loss because they indirectly generate income in the ways mentioned above. There are still places in the country where you can do pretty well as a pediatrician or internist in private practice, but in the places with high HMO penetration, like % Medicaid patients, etc. I don't think private practice primary care is a very profitable enterprise any more. I don't know about neuro and some other specialties...

 

[Slack3r]

I have a friend who's dad does primary care in PP. He's pretty picky about patients since he already has a pretty well established patient base. No lawyers, no pilots (dunno why), very few Medicare patients, he tries to weed out the "sue happy" type people. I guess he's a good judge of character, never been sued and he's still making >$200k per year. It's down in recent years from closer to $300k, but I'd say that's still pretty good for primary care.

Oh yea...he's a (gasp!) DO.

 

[Terpskins99]

Dude, what is it, exactly, that appeals to you about coming onto these boards and posting about how terrible (at least financially) it is to be a doctor?

I don't get it. The OP asks a simple question (b/c you're always hearing about how much bank doctors used to make, but nobody ever backs it up w/ hard data) and you come on here to lecture him about how big of a '**** he is for even asking the question.

Because he's a lawyer. And lawyers argue. 😀

It annoys me too.

 

[maceo]

i know several people who say in the late 70s they were making between 300-400k per year. can you imagine making that 30 years ago. You would be super lucky to make that NOW. thats like 800k in todays dollars

 

[GeraldMonroe]

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Compared to the other careers available, and compensating for the extra training time and the student loans, 200k-300k or so in today's dollars does seem like fair compensation. As a few posters will be quick to point out, it's not the fast track to being rich, but it seems ample compensation for a professional with near guaranteed employment.

If you do the work in undergrad, you'll probably get into med school somewhere, assuming a calamity doesn't strike. If you do the work in medical school, and have a smidgen of test taking talent, you'll probably be able to match to a specialty where the average pay is over 200k, or get a fellowship later.

 

[Winged Scapula]

If you don't want to see reimbursement cut 40%, everyone should send a copy of the letter below (edited for your own use as necessary) to your representative:

Dear....

As you know, Medicare physician payments are scheduled to be cut 21.5 percent in 2010 and by more than 40 percent over the next decade. These cuts are a result of the flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula used to calculate Medicare physician reimbursement. In 2002, the SGR led to a 5.4 percent reduction in Medicare physician payments, and only Congressional action has prevented further reductions in the following years.

It is critical that Congress take action this year to stop the 21.5 percent cut and to initiate reform of Medicare’s physician payment system. Unfortunately, some have proposed Medicare reforms that would finance increased Medicare payments for some physicians and services by cutting payments to other physician specialties, including surgeons. With Medicare payments already not keeping pace with the rising practice costs, such proposals would take the dangerous step of trying to promote one type of care while potentially threatening patient access to the life-saving care provided by other physician specialties. While Congress must work together to help Americans better manage their care, Congress must also ensure that a new reimbursement structure not threaten patients’ access to the life-saving care provided by surgeons and other physicians.

Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) are sending a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) that urges them take action this year to increase Medicare physician physicians in 2010, to initiate much-needed Medicare payment reform, and to oppose any effort to cut payments to some physicians to pay for payment increases for other physicians.

Please demonstrate your support for preserving Americans’ access to the full-range of physician care by contacting Rep. Berkley or Rep. Kirk today telling them that you will sign onto the Berkley-Kirk letter.

Thank you,

 

[abcxyz0123]

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Compared to the other careers available, and compensating for the extra training time and the student loans, 200k-300k or so in today's dollars does seem like fair compensation. As a few posters will be quick to point out, it's not the fast track to being rich, but it seems ample compensation for a professional with near guaranteed employment.

If you do the work in undergrad, you'll probably get into med school somewhere, assuming a calamity doesn't strike. If you do the work in medical school, and have a smidgen of test taking talent, you'll probably be able to match to a specialty where the average pay is over 200k, or get a fellowship later.

I loathe people with your kind of attitude toward this issue.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

I loathe people with your kind of attitude toward this issue.

I don't understand what you loathe. I'm not at all for medicare pay cuts, because medicare should pay enough that doctors aren't losing money on medicare patients.

However, I'm not seeing how a return to the supposedly larger salaries of the 80s is at all practical or even ideal.

 

[THP]

I don't understand what you loathe. I'm not at all for medicare pay cuts, because medicare should pay enough that doctors aren't losing money on medicare patients.

However, I'm not seeing how a return to the supposedly larger salaries of the 80s is at all practical or even ideal.

So as long as you get paid enough that you are not losing money that is OK?

I just don't understand how so many people can undervalue their work so much in a single profession. Even socialist hollywood types don't argue that they should be paid less when they make a movie.

Part of the problem I think is so many women in medicine who aren't as aggressive at defending their turf when it comes to pay.

 

[dragonfly99]

Part of the problem I think is so many women in medicine who aren't as aggressive at defending their turf when it comes to pay.

Oh goody, blame it on us girls...holy crap.

 

[THP]

Oh goody, blame it on us girls...holy crap.

Obviously its a complex issue with multiple levels involved, but I do think it does play a role.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

I don't think the average doctor is worth $500k a year. Sorry, but it's true. What doctors do is hard, and tough to get in to, but it's not $500k/year hard. If prices rose to that level, it would be from a monopoly like the AMA is always accused of being.

I think an exceptionally good doctor, even one in primary care, should be paid that much, just from his or her direct efforts. However, the current model of insurance pays everyone the same, which is akin to socialism.

 

[Slack3r]

What doctors do is hard, and tough to get in to, but it's not $500k/year hard. If prices rose to that level, it would be from a monopoly like the AMA is always accused of being.

So in your expert opinion, how many $$$/year is a physician worth exactly? Senior level/partner accountants can make about that much after being with a company for a while (akin to our med school/residency period) and all they do is simple algebra and statistics. I'm not sure basic math calculations are $500k/year hard either. ****, by your standards I don't think anyone works $500k/year hard if doctors don't...we should probably lower salaries across the board since nobody really has a difficult enough job to merit the salary. 🙄

 

[GeraldMonroe]

I said average. A senior level accountant is not an average accountant, he or she is one that rose up the ranks. Hopefully, the accountant rose to that level through talent and hard work. The average accountant makes $57,020 according to BLS.gov

Let me restate : if the average physician is paid 500k a year in 2009 dollars, it would be due to monopoly forces, not merit. Are you disputing this point?

 

[dragonfly99]

Obviously its a complex issue with multiple levels involved, but I do think it does play a role.

I don't really think you can blame the women in medicine for the lower salaries. The insurance companies and the gov't (Medicaid, Medicare, etc.) are going to pay as little as they think they can. So far, doctors have threatened to cut hours, quit, etc. but there has not been any widespread rebellion. Also, most patients haven't chosen to ditch their private insurance and go for medical savings accounts and concierge medicine/retainer medicine. None of that is the fault of female physicians.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I don't really think you can blame the women in medicine for the lower salaries. The insurance companies and the gov't (Medicaid, Medicare, etc.) are going to pay as little as they think they can. So far, doctors have threatened to cut hours, quit, etc. but there has not been any widespread rebellion. Also, most patients haven't chosen to ditch their private insurance and go for medical savings accounts and concierge medicine/retainer medicine. None of that is the fault of female physicians.

If anything, female physicians have likely provided pressure to make medical training and practice more humane. They have forced, so to speak, "the family," into medicine via pregnancy and child care. What that would tend to do is reduce hours worked by the average physician, both by the women doctors themselves and by male colleagues working in a job environment that has inevitably needed to adjust to the needs of women/mothers. In a fixed-physician (i.e. the current system with tight control of MS spots and residency spots), fee-labile (i.e. fees not set by government/insurance) system, reduction in hours worked should raise compensation due to increased demand by a growing population. That's not happening, because the fees are set.

Physicians have historically enjoyed 1.) great security and 2.) great income. Right now income is being slowly eroded while slots are not being greatly expanded. The real "tragedy" of our profession will happen when the security is lost - that may happen via expansion of med school/residency spots, new DO/MD schools, midlevels, FMGs, etc.

 

[maceo]

I said average. A senior level accountant is not an average accountant, he or she is one that rose up the ranks. Hopefully, the accountant rose to that level through talent and hard work. The average accountant makes $57,020 according to BLS.gov

Let me restate : if the average physician is paid 500k a year in 2009 dollars, it would be due to monopoly forces, not merit. Are you disputing this point?

is francisco rodriquez worth 12 mil per year to be a relieve for the mets?

 

[GeraldMonroe]

Does the average college athlete end up making 12 million a year?

 

[abcxyz0123]

is francisco rodriquez worth 12 mil per year to be a relieve for the mets?

Uhh..according to all the advertisers who pay for commercials within the games, sponsors, fans who attend the games, I would say yes. I hate when people bring athletes into the argument, as if they are getting paid unfair amounts. They were lucky enough to have the genes and the drive to become the top 0.00001% of their field...so they deserve every penny that comes along with that.


If this does not sound fair to you, then why don't you do the same job he does? Exactly.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

Also, there are orthopedic surgeons who fix athletes and enable them to continue their careers, who have decades of experience performing those joint repair surgeries and are well known for their skill. There's cardiothoracic surgeons who are known to be world experts in repairing AAAs. There are primary care doctors that make people feel they are in good hands. (sorry, couldn't think of how a 'world class' primary care doctor would be better)

In any case, all those exceptional doctors should make a million a year or whatever people are willing to pay. But not the average one, because people will go to med school and get through residency for a lot less than that.

 

[Tigerz_Fan]

So as long as you get paid enough that you are not losing money that is OK?

I just don't understand how so many people can undervalue their work so much in a single profession. Even socialist hollywood types don't argue that they should be paid less when they make a movie.

Part of the problem I think is so many women in medicine who aren't as aggressive at defending their turf when it comes to pay.

This is probably one of the worst sexist comments I have seen on the forums.

Are you sure the problem you have with women is that you may feel that we are butting in on your turf?

I promise you I will defend my turf. As the only female in my fellowship program, you can bet I will defend it against people who think like you.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Funny how the only person here who admits to sending their state legislature a letter about the MediCare cuts is a female.🙄

 

[Impromptu]

Double Post.

 

[Impromptu]

You're worth what others are willing to pay you for your services. That is capitalism (I fully understand that our profession has some government protection, I still call it capitalism). If I can make $500,000, then that is what I'm worth. If societal changes occur and I can only make $90,000, then that is what I'm worth. If making a lot of money is my goal, it is up to me to get the proper training and put myself in the right opportunities to make that money.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

You're worth what others are willing to pay you for your services. That is capitalism (I fully understand that our profession has some government protection, I still call it capitalism). If I can make $500,000, then that is what I'm worth. If societal changes occur and I can only make $90,000, then that is what I'm worth. If making a lot of money is my goal, it is up to me to get the proper training and put myself in the right opportunities to make that money.

Not true in the case of an artificial monopoly.

 

[Law2Doc]

Dude, what is it, exactly, that appeals to you about coming onto these boards and posting about how terrible (at least financially) it is to be a doctor?

I don't get it. The OP asks a simple question (b/c you're always hearing about how much bank doctors used to make, but nobody ever backs it up w/ hard data) and you come on here to lecture him about how big of a '**** he is for even asking the question.

No, I didn't say he was foolish for asking the question, I said he was foolish for defining the question in a way that the answer wouldn't be accurate. If you say give me numbers but without the tax and debt context, then you are asking for half the picture. Inflation is important, but not all important here. There are other variables in the equation you need to look at or you can simply never come to the conclusion that folks are doing the same, better or worse than in years past. I assume from OP's posts that he is clearly trying to come to one of these conclusions. Or he already has the result he wants and is trying to define the question in a way that ensures the answer he wants (by making sure he doesn't get the full picture).

I think you don't understand my point in posting. I am not saying that physicians do terribly, financially. They tend to live comfortably, albeit not as much as they did in years past. (I generally use the phrase, "comfortable, but not rich", which I still think is a good way to put it). I am simply trying to give a dose of reality to the folks who look at physician's salaries and somehow think they are going to be living like something they see on MTV cribs. (While the OP didn't quite do this here, you should see some of the older posts people used to post on SDN before people like myself started giving some counterweight to the issue -- there were many threads on SDN by folks planning on living in mansions and having summer homes and fancy sports cars, private jets, and trophy wives, all on their physician salary, just like some rich older uncle who was a doctor (or other earlier generation physician) managed to do). People on SDN don't seem to get that a six digit income received a decade from now, and burdened with a six digit debt is simply not what people in other fields consider financially shrewd, or the road to that kind of wealth.

So no, I don't think being a physician is terrible financially. You can live comfortably and do what you enjoy doing (practice medicine, work with people etc). Lots of career paths don't allow you to do both, so if it's what you enjoy it's a fantastic career choice. But I do think it's a terrible way to get rich. And I do think that perhaps wasn't always the case and that things have changed, in the age of declining reimbursements, high tuition debt, and salaries not keeping pace with inflation. But I also think OP (and others on this thread) won't be able to make that conclusion if he willfully ignores things like skyrocketing tuition debt and changing tax burdens.

 

[Excelsius]

No, I didn't say he was foolish for asking the question, I said he was foolish for defining the question in a way that the answer wouldn't be accurate. If you say give me numbers but without the tax and debt context, then you are asking for half the picture. Inflation is important, but not all important here. There are other variables in the equation you need to look at or you can simply never come to the conclusion that folks are doing the same, better or worse than in years past. I assume from OP's posts that he is clearly trying to come to one of these conclusions. Or he already has the result he wants and is trying to define the question in a way that ensures the answer he wants (by making sure he doesn't get the full picture).

I think you don't understand my point in posting. I am not saying that physicians do terribly, financially. They tend to live comfortably, albeit not as much as they did in years past. (I generally use the phrase, "comfortable, but not rich", which I still think is a good way to put it). I am simply trying to give a dose of reality to the folks who look at physician's salaries and somehow think they are going to be living like something they see on MTV cribs. (While the OP didn't quite do this here, you should see some of the older posts people used to post on SDN before people like myself started giving some counterweight to the issue -- there were many threads on SDN by folks planning on living in mansions and having summer homes and fancy sports cars, private jets, and trophy wives, all on their physician salary, just like some rich older uncle who was a doctor (or other earlier generation physician) managed to do). People on SDN don't seem to get that a six digit income received a decade from now, and burdened with a six digit debt is simply not what people in other fields consider financially shrewd, or the road to that kind of wealth.

So no, I don't think being a physician is terrible financially. You can live comfortably and do what you enjoy doing (practice medicine, work with people etc). Lots of career paths don't allow you to do both, so if it's what you enjoy it's a fantastic career choice. But I do think it's a terrible way to get rich. And I do think that perhaps wasn't always the case and that things have changed, in the age of declining reimbursements, high tuition debt, and salaries not keeping pace with inflation. But I also think OP (and others on this thread) won't be able to make that conclusion if he willfully ignores things like skyrocketing tuition debt and changing tax burdens.

As far as I am concerned, there is just way too much pessimism sometimes. The OP's question is very valid. Many medstudents say how doctor's salaries have taken a terrible hit. To come out now and claim that it is not so easy to "quantify" the doctor's salaries in the past is not very encouraging. If one claims that doctor's salaries have significantly decreased, then one should be able to provide proof for that. Claiming any sort of difficulty in this process calls to question the entire validity of the claim that doctor's salaries have decreased. It is NOT hard to adjust salaries with inflation. Nor is it hard to find out the taxes for any given period of time and school tuition. So why evade the question? Anyone who claims doctor's salaries have decreased should be able to provide ample evidence to that end. This thread was the opportunity to do it. The failure to satisfy the question only raises doubts about the people who claim salaries have decreased.

Q: How are doctor's salaries?
A1: Oh, they have decreased a lot over the years compared to inflation
Q: What were the salaries in the past?
A2: Too difficult to say.

Conclusion: Oxymoron; A2 says that A1 has no basis.

 

[THP]

I don't really think you can blame the women in medicine for the lower salaries. The insurance companies and the gov't (Medicaid, Medicare, etc.) are going to pay as little as they think they can. So far, doctors have threatened to cut hours, quit, etc. but there has not been any widespread rebellion. Also, most patients haven't chosen to ditch their private insurance and go for medical savings accounts and concierge medicine/retainer medicine. None of that is the fault of female physicians.

Of course I am not laying blame to lower salaries on female physicians. Its very complex and there are multiple forces working to lower our salaries. If you look at any industry in the US women tend to be paid less. I think this creates downward pressure on our salaries when there are more women. I think, in general, women don't fight as hard for higher salaries.

 

[THP]

This is probably one of the worst sexist comments I have seen on the forums.

Are you sure the problem you have with women is that you may feel that we are butting in on your turf?

I promise you I will defend my turf. As the only female in my fellowship program, you can bet I will defend it against people who think like you.

Actually, if anything I am butting in on women's turf. I'm an OB/GYN resident. Believe me I am not sexist and do not harbor any ill-will towards women.

 

[abcxyz0123]

No, I didn't say he was foolish for asking the question, I said he was foolish for defining the question in a way that the answer wouldn't be accurate. If you say give me numbers but without the tax and debt context, then you are asking for half the picture. Inflation is important, but not all important here. There are other variables in the equation you need to look at or you can simply never come to the conclusion that folks are doing the same, better or worse than in years past. I assume from OP's posts that he is clearly trying to come to one of these conclusions. Or he already has the result he wants and is trying to define the question in a way that ensures the answer he wants (by making sure he doesn't get the full picture).

Ok there is so much I want to say to this gigantic post but you just seem way too stupid to understand any of the responses on this board, so im going to try to keep it short. All I have to say is that 40+ Attendings, residents, medstudents, etc have responded to this question in a straightforward manner and not one, except you, thought it was a "foolish" question. Not one person agreed with your ******ed viewpoint. Everyone here understands that what I am asking pretty much gives the full picture. How you think tuition rates have anything to do with someones salary is beyond me. How taxes are relevant...is beyond me. If anything, placing those into the equation would just mess things up even more. Its not like RVUs have changed according to increasing tuition rates, or have changed according to changing tax laws. Thats the basic idea im trying to get after...how reimbursements have changed....and they seemed to have changed quite drastically given the salary differences.

You do not understand my question...and I dont think you ever will. I am asking a question about salary. You seem to think I am trying to figure out differences in lifestyle...which if I was...then tuition and taxes would have a role to play. In this question they do not. You are only making people dumber by your posts on this thread.

 

[Excelsius]

Ok there is so much I want to say to this gigantic post but you just seem way too stupid to understand any of the responses on this board, so im going to try to keep it short. All I have to say is that 40+ Attendings, residents, medstudents, etc have responded to this question in a straightforward manner and not one, except you, thought it was a "foolish" question. Not one person agreed with your ******ed viewpoint. Everyone here understands that what I am asking pretty much gives the full picture. How you think tuition rates have anything to do with someones salary is beyond me. How taxes are relevant...is beyond me. If anything, placing those into the equation would just mess things up even more. Its not like RVUs have changed according to increasing tuition rates, or have changed according to changing tax laws. Thats the basic idea im trying to get after...how reimbursements have changed....and they seemed to have changed quite drastically given the salary differences.

You do not understand my question...and I dont think you ever will. I am asking a question about salary. You seem to think I am trying to figure out differences in lifestyle...which if I was...then tuition and taxes would have a role to play. In this question they do not. You are only making people dumber by your posts on this thread.

Woah, ok. L2D can be overly pessimistic at times and make arguments for the sake of argument, but I wouldn't call him dumb. I think he's intelligent, just too pessimistic and likes to disagree with everyone, not just you. Sometimes he actually gives pretty good advice, other times those two qualities mentioned above get in the way .