If all pharmacy schools closed today and not a single pharmD was given, how many years until pharmacists are in demand?

[mentos]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Just like the title says. If all schools closed right now and not a single new pharmD was given for X amount of years, how long would it take for demand to overtake the current supply? I'm talking when can a pharmacist apply for a full time 40 guaranteed hour job with benefits in a desirable location, $60/hr and actually get it without any nepotism or attractiveness involved? I'm not even asking for a sign on bonus or fancy steak dinner like in 2006.

The older pharmacists may eventually retire, some will die, some may switch professions. But at the same time you have to take into account pharmacies going out of business, cutting hours, eliminating overlap, automation, Amazon, the 15k new grads that just graduated this year, etc.

My first inclination was 10 years, but after reading about Wal-Mart recently I would say 15 years.

 

[PharmDminus]

Just like the title says. If all schools closed right now and not a single new pharmD was given for X amount of years, how long would it take for demand to overtake the current supply? I'm talking when can a pharmacist apply for a full time 40 guaranteed hour job with benefits in a desirable location, $60/hr and actually get it without any nepotism or attractiveness involved? I'm not even asking for a sign on bonus or fancy steak dinner like in 2006.

The older pharmacists may eventually retire, some will die, some may switch professions. But at the same time you have to take into account pharmacies going out of business, cutting hours, eliminating overlap, automation, Amazon.

My first inclination was 10 years, but after reading about Wal-Mart recently I would say 15 years.

i would say closer to 3 years

 

[mentos]

i would say closer to 3 years

An outpatient pharmacy in a Boston area hospital gets over 400 applicants for a Rph job listing, no joke. Are you saying that in 3 years the number of applicants would go from 400+ to double or single digits just cause there's no more new grads? All those 400 other applicants will have found jobs elsewhere desirable areas? In 3 years I doubt the class of 2019 would be fully employed.

 

[PharmDminus]

An outpatient pharmacy in a Boston area hospital gets over 400 applicants for a Rph job listing, no joke. Are you saying that in 3 years the number of applicants would go from 400+ to double or single digits just cause there's no more new grads? All those 400 other applicants will have found jobs elsewhere desirable areas? In 3 years I doubt the class of 2019 would be fully employed.

how many graduates per year currently, 15k? multiply that by 3 years, thats 45k fewer people. Now add on how many will retire in the next 3 years (also a high number due to baby boomer rph’s and stock market highs). Maybe in super saturated areas like east coast it would take longer than 3 years but not in the majority of the US.

 

[mentos]

how many graduates per year currently, 15k? multiply that by 3 years, thats 45k fewer people. Now add on how many will retire in the next 3 years (also a high number due to baby boomer rph’s and stock market highs). Maybe in super saturated areas like east coast it would take longer than 3 years but not in the majority of the US.

You're not taking into account job loss, pharmacy closures, hours cut. Pharmacists are being laid off right now because pharmacies are losing money. They can't afford to retire. Anyone making over $60/hr is at risk of losing their jobs within 3 years.

 

[PharmDminus]

You're not taking into account job loss, pharmacy closures, hours cut. Pharmacists are being laid off right now because pharmacies are losing money. They can't afford to retire. Anyone making over $60/hr is at risk of losing their jobs within 3 years.

would be interesting to know how many pharmd’s are currently unable to find work as a rph (unemployment rates not accurate because there are those forced to accept work in other fields). I imagine that number is about to grow significantly in the next month as 2019 grads obtain licensure.

 

[mentos]

would be interesting to know how many pharmd’s are currently unable to find work as a rph (unemployment rates not accurate because there are those forced to accept work in other fields). I imagine that number is about to grow significantly in the next month as 2019 grads obtain licensure.

Exactly that is why I don't think the class of 2019 will be 100% employed in 3 years. There's threads from unemployed pharmacists here as far back as 2012.

 

[DIPEA]

Well, maybe never.
If amazon aggressively pushes for more automation and let algorithms do most of work, in less than 10 years, you may see fully automated amazon retail stores (Amazon Go) with pharmacies built in.
When that occurs, all retail pharmacists will get laid off. The pharmacy job market may never even rebound before it goes fully automated.

 

[awval999]

You're asking a specific question ---
I'm talking when can a pharmacist apply for a full time 40 guaranteed hour job with benefits in a desirable location, $60/hr and actually get it without any nepotism or attractiveness involved?

Healthcare jobs in fancy cities such as Boston will always be in high demand. In order to get your scenario to come to fruition, the rural areas of Massachusetts for example would have to be in ultra high demand. The pharmacists that previously worked in the rural areas, that want to move back to the city, would then take the city jobs. The rural areas would open up first. So in your example it may take several years of no new graduates to affect the city job markets. However, I would believe the rural area markets would be devastated with just one or two classes with no graduates.

 

[Pharmacy is a Scam]

I believe around 30 years (pretty much the entire working career of the last class graduated) because there has been 15,000 new grads for 1,500 jobs for not just 1 year but several years now, so at any given time there is probably closer to 50,000 “new grads” looking for a job. This doesn’t take into account fresh residency grads who can’t find jobs and international PharmDs seeking a license reciprocation (which will still grow even if the U.S. shuts down all their pharmacy schools). One other note is that it is not just new grads fighting for full time jobs but all the part time/per diem/floater staff from retail chains as well as health systems that want more hours so even if the new grad entry to workforce disappears there will still be plenty of demand for full time jobs for years to come.

 

[BidingMyTime]

Just like the title says. If all schools closed right now and not a single new pharmD was given for X amount of years, how long would it take for demand to overtake the current supply? I'm talking when can a pharmacist apply for a full time 40 guaranteed hour job with benefits in a desirable location, $60/hr and actually get it without any nepotism or attractiveness involved? I'm not even asking for a sign on bonus or fancy steak dinner like in 2006.
The older pharmacists may eventually retire, some will die, some may switch professions. But at the same time you have to take into account pharmacies going out of business, cutting hours, eliminating overlap, automation, Amazon, the 15k new grads that just graduated this year, etc.
My first inclination was 10 years, but after reading about Wal-Mart recently I would say 15 years.

This will never happen, because it has never happened. "Desirable" (by popularity) areas have always had a plethora of pharmacists and lower pay than outlying areas because of that. Places like NYC, Chicago, LA, etc. are never going to have a guaranteed 40-hr job for pharmacists (or for anyone for that matter!)

Now if you want to take out the location bit....then it's harder to say. Personally, I think a lot of new grads aren't up the actual job of being a pharmacist, and will voluntarily seek non-pharmacist jobs. And there will always be many people who choose to forego a pharmacist job, in order to stay in their "desired" location.

On the other hand, pharmacies are closing left and right from lack of reimbursement and red tape with government regulations and insurance contracts. Hospitals and community pharmacies both are cutting back to the bare bones. And nobody is retiring, baby boomers are still holding on to their jobs. Reciprocal licensing is miniscule, companies are not sponsoring J1 visas anymore, so any reciprocal licensing would be from someone who was already a permanent resident in the US.

Now I'm no Math Surgeon (haha, stolen joke,) but I'd estimate 10 -15 years to get back to a fairly steady state (say just slightly more pharmacists looking for jobs, then actual jobs.)

 

[Mambo#5]

Just like the title says. If all schools closed right now and not a single new pharmD was given for X amount of years, how long would it take for demand to overtake the current supply? I'm talking when can a pharmacist apply for a full time 40 guaranteed hour job with benefits in a desirable location, $60/hr and actually get it without any nepotism or attractiveness involved? I'm not even asking for a sign on bonus or fancy steak dinner like in 2006.

The older pharmacists may eventually retire, some will die, some may switch professions. But at the same time you have to take into account pharmacies going out of business, cutting hours, eliminating overlap, automation, Amazon, the 15k new grads that just graduated this year, etc.

My first inclination was 10 years, but after reading about Wal-Mart recently I would say 15 years.

30 years

 

[Sine Cura]

Those who are going to argue that the job market for pharmacists will just undergo ups and downs like the financial "markets" or the global economy are delusional. There may be a steady state but you definitely won't see 60/hr in 2018 dollars ever again.

 

[confettiflyer]

States would amend laws allowing techs to do final verification of drug.

Look at fields with chronic/severe supply shortages - anesthesia and taxi drivers - it spurred the expansion of CRNAs and drove demand for Uber/Lyft. The physician shortage itself is causing expansion attempts of NP/PAs with liberalization of laws leading to more autonomous practices.

So the answer is...never, as each successive year passes and the pharmacist supply shrinks, companies will press for, and obtain, laws favorable to not utilizing pharmacists and frame it as a public safety/access issue.

You’d see an Advanced Certified Pharmacy Dispensing Technican in short order.

 

[mentos]

States would amend laws allowing techs to do final verification of drug.

Look at fields with chronic/severe supply shortages - anesthesia and taxi drivers - it spurred the expansion of CRNAs and drove demand for Uber/Lyft. The physician shortage itself is causing expansion attempts of NP/PAs with liberalization of laws leading to more autonomous practices.

So the answer is...never, as each successive year passes and the pharmacist supply shrinks, companies will press for, and obtain, laws favorable to not utilizing pharmacists and frame it as a public safety/access issue.

You’d see an Advanced Certified Pharmacy Dispensing Technican in short order.

But the point is there is no shortage. Did companies do those things in 2004-2006? In people's opinions above, there is enough supply to last 10-30 years.

 

[Lubeckd]

So new grads become pharmacy consultants?

 

[awval999]

States would amend laws allowing techs to do final verification of drug.

Look at fields with chronic/severe supply shortages - anesthesia and taxi drivers - it spurred the expansion of CRNAs and drove demand for Uber/Lyft. The physician shortage itself is causing expansion attempts of NP/PAs with liberalization of laws leading to more autonomous practices.

So the answer is...never, as each successive year passes and the pharmacist supply shrinks, companies will press for, and obtain, laws favorable to not utilizing pharmacists and frame it as a public safety/access issue.

You’d see an Advanced Certified Pharmacy Dispensing Technican in short order.

I've said this before, and confetti is spot on here.

We will never know what was behind the other curtain -- if pharmacy schools never expanded -- but you better believe that there would have been a point where CVS/Wags would never pay $90-$100/hr+. They would have cried "patient care" and gotten mid-level technician licensure passed.

 

[BidingMyTime]

But the point is there is no shortage. Did companies do those things in 2004-2006?

They went a different route by increasing the pharmacist supply. I remember at the height of the shortage thinking something had to give. If the pharmacist supply hadn't increased, then as Confetti said, most (maybe even all) of the pharmacist duties would have been delegated to less educated people. Increasing supply was the better way to go, of these 2 options, but what was happening in 2004-2006 was not sustainable, something had to give.

 

[Lubeckd]

They went a different route by increasing the pharmacist supply. I remember at the height of the shortage thinking something had to give. If the pharmacist supply hadn't increased, then as Confetti said, most (maybe even all) of the pharmacist duties would have been delegated to less educated people. Increasing supply was the better way to go, of these 2 options, but what was happening in 2004-2006 was not sustainable, something had to give.

I think pharmacist may become mid level providers at this rate then

 

[olabrador23]

Just like the title says. If all schools closed right now and not a single new pharmD was given for X amount of years, how long would it take for demand to overtake the current supply? I'm talking when can a pharmacist apply for a full time 40 guaranteed hour job with benefits in a desirable location, $60/hr and actually get it without any nepotism or attractiveness involved? I'm not even asking for a sign on bonus or fancy steak dinner like in 2006.

The older pharmacists may eventually retire, some will die, some may switch professions. But at the same time you have to take into account pharmacies going out of business, cutting hours, eliminating overlap, automation, Amazon, the 15k new grads that just graduated this year, etc.

My first inclination was 10 years, but after reading about Wal-Mart recently I would say 15 years.

if ALL schools closed now and no more PharmD is given staring 2019, all employed pharmacists are working full time now (nobody is underemployed), and nobody who already is employed would get fired in 2019 and after,

Years it would take for demand to catch up (=) supply is

[(# of unemployed pharmacists in 2019) + (# of new pharmacy grads in 2019)] / [(# of pharmacists job opening / year) + (# pharmacists retiring or deads / year)]

or (A + B) / (C + D)
where A = # of unemployed pharmacists in 2019
B = # of new pharmacy grads in 2019
C = # of pharmacists job opening / year
D = # pharmacists retiring / year




C = 1,740 jobs / year (2016 - 2026 projection by BLS: 329,900 projected employment in 2026 - 312,500 employment in 2016 divided by 2026 - 2016 or 10 years. That is 17,400 new jobs projected for 10 years or approximately 1,740 jobs per year at assumed linear rate. Pharmacists : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)

D = I could not find a reliable data on the # of retiring pharmacists for 2019 or any year. Mostly I saw many articles about many pharmacists are living and working well into their 70-80s. So, basically not many people are retiring.

--> (C + D) ≈ C ≈ 1,740 ≈ 1,800 new jobs / year


B = 14,905 (Academic Pharmacy's Vital Statistics | AACP, 2017-2018) ≈ 15K

A =
(assuming 90% employment rate or 10% unemployment rate for new grads every year since 2016, i.e., 2016 + 2017 + 2018, until 2019 where the numbers of pharmacy schools is about the same (130-140s) as 2019 (> 140s) Employment Trends for Doctor of Pharmacy Graduates of Research-Intensive Institutions, 2013-2017, https://www.pharmacytoday.org/article/S1042-0991(17)30252-9/fulltext)
A = 10% x 15,000 x 3 years (2016 to 2019) = 4,500 unemployed (from 2016, 2017, 2018 assuming 90% employment rate for those years)

--> (A + B) ≈ 4,500 + 15,000 = 22,500 ≈ 23,000



Thus,
(A + B) / (C + D) ≈ (A + B) / C ≈ 23,000 unemployed pharmacist in 2019 / 1,800 new jobs per year = 12.78 years ≈ 13 years !!!

Very rough estimate with many assumptions, but at least this would give us some ideas, I hope 🙂

*Note: the OP was very close (15 years) to this silly estimate of mine 👍 👍

 

[TheBlaah]

D = I could not find a reliable data on the # of retiring pharmacists for 2019 or any year. Mostly I saw many articles about many pharmacists are living and working well into their 70-80s. So, basically not many people are retiring.

--> (C + D) ≈ C ≈ 1,740 ≈ 1,800 new jobs / year

You did some good work. But I'll tell you now, your number for retiring/pharmacists who make a major occupation change is way off base. You can use Short Term - Projections Central which is what the BLS numbers are based off. It would be average annual opening minus change in employment /2 (since the change is over 2 years).

Basically, C+D is around 15k.

I agree with other posters though. A full time 40-hour position in a desirable location at $60/hr? The average pharmacist makes $60/hr, so at least 50% don't meet that as it is. The question is a bit skewed.

 

[VictorOfHungerGames]

Just like the title says. If all schools closed right now and not a single new pharmD was given for X amount of years, how long would it take for demand to overtake the current supply? I'm talking when can a pharmacist apply for a full time 40 guaranteed hour job with benefits in a desirable location, $60/hr and actually get it without any nepotism or attractiveness involved? I'm not even asking for a sign on bonus or fancy steak dinner like in 2006.

The older pharmacists may eventually retire, some will die, some may switch professions. But at the same time you have to take into account pharmacies going out of business, cutting hours, eliminating overlap, automation, Amazon, the 15k new grads that just graduated this year, etc.

My first inclination was 10 years, but after reading about Wal-Mart recently I would say 15 years.

This is a legitimate question that schools and organizations such as APhA will dodge as much as they can to answer. In fact, asking this type of question which will prompt investigation and research will make "leaders" of our profession very nervous and may even affect OP in the future lol Stop asking these questions!!! Moon landing was flawless, JFK was shot by ONE man, WTCs fell on their own! no need to ask questions and investigate lol

Realistically speaking, if we could close down schools that have below 90% naplex passing rate, we should be good haha

Also, this may take some time but as pharmacy school standards are lowered (to open new school and older schools to stay competitive), they'll start producing subpar pharmacists which will lead to alarming rate of misfills. Big companies such as CVS and Wags will take the biggest hit on this since they're the ones who will hire these new grads to save money on payroll. Once they get sued left and right, they're gonna have to rethink their strategy on funneling and lobbying money to schools or hiring new grads from crappy schools with low standards, leading to drying up funding and closing of school. So... maybe 10 years? lol

 

[firework]

if ALL schools closed now and no more PharmD is given staring 2019, all employed pharmacists are working full time now (nobody is underemployed), and nobody who already is employed would get fired in 2019 and after,

Years it would take for demand to catch up (=) supply is

[(# of unemployed pharmacists in 2019) + (# of new pharmacy grads in 2019)] / [(# of pharmacists job opening / year) + (# pharmacists retiring or deads / year)]

or (A + B) / (C + D)
where A = # of unemployed pharmacists in 2019
B = # of new pharmacy grads in 2019
C = # of pharmacists job opening / year
D = # pharmacists retiring / year




C = 1,740 jobs / year (2016 - 2026 projection by BLS: 329,900 projected employment in 2026 - 312,500 employment in 2016 divided by 2026 - 2016 or 10 years. That is 17,400 new jobs projected for 10 years or approximately 1,740 jobs per year at assumed linear rate. Pharmacists : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)

D = I could not find a reliable data on the # of retiring pharmacists for 2019 or any year. Mostly I saw many articles about many pharmacists are living and working well into their 70-80s. So, basically not many people are retiring.

--> (C + D) ≈ C ≈ 1,740 ≈ 1,800 new jobs / year


B = 14,905 (Academic Pharmacy's Vital Statistics | AACP, 2017-2018) ≈ 15K

A =
(assuming 90% employment rate or 10% unemployment rate for new grads every year since 2016, i.e., 2016 + 2017 + 2018, until 2019 where the numbers of pharmacy schools is about the same (130-140s) as 2019 (> 140s) Employment Trends for Doctor of Pharmacy Graduates of Research-Intensive Institutions, 2013-2017, https://www.pharmacytoday.org/article/S1042-0991(17)30252-9/fulltext)
A = 10% x 15,000 x 3 years (2016 to 2019) = 4,500 unemployed (from 2016, 2017, 2018 assuming 90% employment rate for those years)

--> (A + B) ≈ 4,500 + 15,000 = 22,500 ≈ 23,000



Thus,
(A + B) / (C + D) ≈ (A + B) / C ≈ 23,000 unemployed pharmacist in 2019 / 1,800 new jobs per year = 12.78 years ≈ 13 years !!!

Very rough estimate with many assumptions, but at least this would give us some ideas, I hope 🙂

*Note: the OP was very close (15 years) to this silly estimate of mine 👍 👍

We are assuming that people are not taking more medications than before. In areas such as oncology, patients are living much longer, but they are not cured, there's a huge emerging cancer population who's daily medication has to be manually counted by real person, not to say all the counselling, pharmacovigilance, etc. HIV is another promising field. So, let's hope, we'll make breakthroughs nobody ever dies except for maybe old pharmacists.

 

[olabrador23]

We are assuming that people are not taking more medications than before. In areas such as oncology, patients are living much longer, but they are not cured, there's a huge emerging cancer population who's daily medication has to be manually counted by real person, not to say all the counselling, pharmacovigilance, etc. HIV is another promising field. So, let's hope, we'll make breakthroughs nobody ever dies except for maybe old pharmacists.

lol 🙂

You did some good work. But I'll tell you now, your number for retiring/pharmacists who make a major occupation change is way off base. You can use Short Term - Projections Central which is what the BLS numbers are based off. It would be average annual opening minus change in employment /2 (since the change is over 2 years).

Basically, C+D is around 15k.

I agree with other posters though. A full time 40-hour position in a desirable location at $60/hr? The average pharmacist makes $60/hr, so at least 50% don't meet that as it is. The question is a bit skewed.

From Short Term - Projections Central, C + D ≈ 15K new jobs per year (average annual opening 2018-2020).
Plug that in my formula above, it is 23K / 15K per years = 1.53 years.

From Pharmacists : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 17,400 new jobs over 10 years (2016-2026) or 1,740 new job jobs / year.

If we go with this 1,740 new jobs per year, the formula gives 13 years as the answer.

Clearly, Short Term - Projections Central and Pharmacists : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics do not agree. Something is off. 15K new jobs per year? You guys are practicing pharmacists. Tell me if that figure sounds right?

I tried to look for the methodology for both sites and could not find anything. Looking at the numbers, I do not think the BLS numbers are based on Projections Central or the other way around. In fact, I rechecked the BLS page and did not see anything saying that its numbers were based on data or calculations from Projections Central or vice versa.

Call me pessimistic, but I doubt it would take only 1.53 years for demand to catch up with supply of PharmDs with the assumption that all pharmacy schools are closed and no more PharmD degree is given starting 2019. Because the numbers, 1.53 years, sounds just too good to be true 🙂

Anyway, pre-pharmers please do not jump up and down in joy! Schools are not closing and new schools keep opening. As it is right now, 15K new grads are still being pumped out every year. Unless you believe there are 15K new jobs waiting every year for new grads per Projections Central 's. Basically it matches perfectly the numbers of new grads-every new grads will get a job. No problem, yeah???

 

[TheBlaah]

They state they get their data here: Pharmacists : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


You're still interpreting the data wrong. BLS says there's ~1740 new jobs annually for the next 10 years. Projections says the literally the same thing for its 10-year estimation, though for short term (2 years), it's 2255 jobs annually.

What you, and seemingly everybody else, seem to be forgetting about is the number of retirees. Around 10-13k pharmacists either retire, die, or quit the workforce every year (which is around 3% of the pharmacist workforce per year which is the case for most professions).

 

[olabrador23]

They state they get their data here: Pharmacists : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


You're still interpreting the data wrong. BLS says there's ~1740 new jobs annually for the next 10 years. Projections says the literally the same thing for its 10-year estimation, though for short term (2 years), it's 2255 jobs annually.

What you, and seemingly everybody else, seem to be forgetting about is the number of retirees. Around 10-13k pharmacists either retire, die, or quit the workforce every year (which is around 3% of the pharmacist workforce per year which is the case for most professions).

I did not interpret the data wrong, at least for the BLS. I got 1,740 job per year, didn't I?? 🙂

For Projections Central, look at the table where it says "Average Annual Openings". When I totaled up the numbers for all 50 states, It did come out ~ 15K per annum (2018-2020), not 2255. (If you could show how you get that 2,255 figure, please).

*from Projections Central.

"Average Annual Openings

Average annual openings represent the number of openings, per year, expected for a respective occupation or sum of occupations. Annual average openings are the sum of two employment calculations, the average annual numeric employment change (the increase or decrease in the number of jobs associated with the occupation), and average annual separations. Here, separations represent the number of workers who either leave the labor force or make a significant occupational change. An example of a non-significant occupational change would a move from Teachers Assistant (25-9041) to Secondary Teacher (25-2031). A significant change would be to move from Secondary Teacher (25-2031) to Lawyer (23-1011)."

<

About

>

If you could also point out or give a link to where you get that 3% figure of the total of pharmacists who are retired / dead annually?

But looking from a bigger angle, 15K new grads meet with 15K new jobs according to your numbers. Basically, this is just perfect. No problem at all. You believe that is right?

 

[TheBlaah]

I did not interpreting the data wrong, at least for the BLS. I got 1,740 job per year, didn't I?? 🙂

For Projections Central, look at the table where it says "average annual opening". When I totaled up the numbers for all 50 states, It did come out ~ 15K (2018-2020), not 2255. (If you could show how you get that 2,255 figure, please).


If you could also point out or give a link to where you get that 3% figure of the total of pharmacists who are retired / dead annually?

But looking it from a bigger angle, 15K new grads meet with 15K new jobs according to your numbers. Basically, this is just perfect. No problem at all. You believe that is right?

2255 comes from the sum of the change (which is equivalent to the 1740 figure for the longterm analysis), divided by 2 since it's over 2 years.
As for the 3%, if ~12k people retire, and there's ~310k pharmacists in the workforce according to BLS, 12k/310k is ~3.8% (I rounded down to be conservative). Like I said before, 3% is pretty normal for most occupations.

As for the 15k new grads to 15k new jobs, I would say it's actually an indication of a major problem. I believe that, generally, there should always be more jobs than there are new job "applicants". I get the feeling you believe that I think it's fine, but I don't.

 

[olabrador23]

2255 comes from the sum of the change (which is equivalent to the 1740 figure for the longterm analysis), divided by 2 since it's over 2 years.

The sum of the change is ~15K from the total of the average annual openings of all 50 states when I did the math 🙂. (You really need to walk me through the steps that you did there, please)

I only go by what Projections Central says there,

*from Projections Central.

"Average Annual Openings

Average annual openings represent the number of openings, per year, expected for a respective occupation or sum of occupations. Annual average openings are the sum of two employment calculations, the average annual numeric employment change (the increase or decrease in the number of jobs associated with the occupation), and average annual separations. Here, separations represent the number of workers who either leave the labor force or make a significant occupational change. An example of a non-significant occupational change would a move from Teachers Assistant (25-9041) to Secondary Teacher (25-2031). A significant change would be to move from Secondary Teacher (25-2031) to Lawyer (23-1011)."

<

About

>

As for the 3%, if ~12k people retire, and there's ~310k pharmacists in the workforce according to BLS, 12k/310k is ~3.8% (I rounded down to be conservative). Like I said before, 3% is pretty normal for most occupations.

As for the 15k new grads to 15k new jobs, I would say it's actually an indication of a major problem. I believe that, generally, there should always be more jobs than there are new job "applicants". I get the feeling you believe that I think it's fine, but I don't.

I meant, if you could give references / sources where you got that 3% figures to use in your calculations... If it was your own assumption, please tell why you think that 3% figure is a normal / good estimate.

 

[confettiflyer]

But the point is there is no shortage. Did companies do those things in 2004-2006? In people's opinions above, there is enough supply to last 10-30 years.

It was a weird hypothetical question, but in 2004-2006 it was well known that the delay would only be one year while programs changed up. In this hypothetical scenario, even if the time period is fixed, known, and agreed upon by companies, IMO you would see lobbying pressures for any period of time > 1 year.

The line of thinking for a company breaks two ways:

1) lobby for reforms as a hedge for future “purges” (ie “if it’s only X years this time, what prevents Y years happening in Z time?”)
2) A shrinking labor pool represents a real cost for any company, so it would be seen as cost effective anyway to look into legislative changes

If framed from a patient access perspective, it could prove powerful and resonate with lawmakers (donations help too)

 

[confettiflyer]

I get that it’s a mathematical question, but that one is relatively easy to solve (attrition rate x number of years to reduce rph #’s to last known period of time there was balance, subject to much discussion about when that point was, adjusted for current population)

The down line consequences are much more interesting!

 

[Raryn]

D = I could not find a reliable data on the # of retiring pharmacists for 2019 or any year. Mostly I saw many articles about many pharmacists are living and working well into their 70-80s. So, basically not many people are retiring.

--> (C + D) ≈ C ≈ 1,740 ≈ 1,800 new jobs / year

There's >300k pharmacists in the US. No way only 60 of them die or retire in any given year. Even if they all worked until death, if ALL of them were 24 years old, 300+ would die in any given year. (Per social security, the death rate for a 24 year old man is 0.001572 and for a 24 year old woman is 0.000568 - assuming 50/50, that's still 300 deaths a year). Given that the median pharmacist is certainly above age 24 (google brings up age 42 as the median) AND that there's plenty of older pharmacists around, you probably have several thousand deaths in that population each year. Add retirements to that and yeah, there's probably >10k and likely >15k job openings a year between new jobs, retirements, and deaths.

 

[Pharmacy Kid]

Crunch the numbers all you want, but there are two groups of people who have a pulse on what the job market is like

1. people who are applying
2. people doing the hiring

 

[confettiflyer]

Crunch the numbers all you want, but there are two groups of people who have a pulse on what the job market is like

1. people who are applying
2. people doing the hiring

I love this job market. We don’t have garbage hires anymore because “that’s all who applied.” Our automated screening does its job and we still have a healthy pool to interview.

 

[APN-59 rph]

I love this job market. We don’t have garbage hires anymore because “that’s all who applied.” Our automated screening does its job and we still have a healthy pool to interview.

Whatever...The smartest ones are the dudes/dudettes who aren't in a position to apply at all....."Phi Beta Kappa looking for position involving high speed drudgery"

 

[olabrador23]

2255 comes from the sum of the change (which is equivalent to the 1740 figure for the longterm analysis), divided by 2 since it's over 2 years.
As for the 3%, if ~12k people retire, and there's ~310k pharmacists in the workforce according to BLS, 12k/310k is ~3.8% (I rounded down to be conservative). Like I said before, 3% is pretty normal for most occupations.

As for the 15k new grads to 15k new jobs, I would say it's actually an indication of a major problem. I believe that, generally, there should always be more jobs than there are new job "applicants". I get the feeling you believe that I think it's fine, but I don't.

There's >300k pharmacists in the US. No way only 60 of them die or retire in any given year. Even if they all worked until death, if ALL of them were 24 years old, 300+ would die in any given year. (Per social security, the death rate for a 24 year old man is 0.001572 and for a 24 year old woman is 0.000568 - assuming 50/50, that's still 300 deaths a year). Given that the median pharmacist is certainly above age 24 (google brings up age 42 as the median) AND that there's plenty of older pharmacists around, you probably have several thousand deaths in that population each year. Add retirements to that and yeah, there's probably >10k and likely >15k job openings a year between new jobs, retirements, and deaths.

your reasoning / logic / math is sound and you could be right. The demand might be at equilibrium with supply now (15K new grads per year to match with 15K new jobs due to new opening + retirement / deaths). The fact is that we do not any good data for our estimate. I do not like that we have too many assumptions for our math there. I do not even like BLS numbers there as there is not really transparency in their published data collection and methodology.

Regional demand and supply is also another important consideration for the equation imho. Not everyone will / can move to middle of nowhere to take a job (maldistribution). Most people want to live in major metro area or at least rural area with a big population. This would create regional surplus and decline in wage / salary, or even underemployment / unemployment.

In this case, I agree with @TheBlaah above that the equilibrium of demand / supply is "actually an indication of a major problem". At the rate of new pharm school openings and pharm schools producing new grads in the current climate that is seeing more and more corporation consolidation, reduced insurance reimbursement, automatic / technonogy advancement, etc., we are probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg that is going to hit the pharmacy profession very soon.

 

[MountainPharmD]

Just like the title says. If all schools closed right now and not a single new pharmD was given for X amount of years, how long would it take for demand to overtake the current supply? I'm talking when can a pharmacist apply for a full time 40 guaranteed hour job with benefits in a desirable location, $60/hr and actually get it without any nepotism or attractiveness involved? I'm not even asking for a sign on bonus or fancy steak dinner like in 2006.

The older pharmacists may eventually retire, some will die, some may switch professions. But at the same time you have to take into account pharmacies going out of business, cutting hours, eliminating overlap, automation, Amazon, the 15k new grads that just graduated this year, etc.

My first inclination was 10 years, but after reading about Wal-Mart recently I would say 15 years.

About the same amount of time it took us to get to an over supply. 10 years.

 

[mentos]

About the same amount of time it took us to get to an over supply. 10 years.

I don't think it works like that. The supply happened at an exponential rate. To reverse that would mean that the current supply of pharmacists would have to decrease at an exponential rate. There are way more young or recent pharmDs than retiring pharmacists. The recent pharmDs will stay in the profession as long as they can unless they're unemployed already.

 

[Sparda29]

You're not taking into account job loss, pharmacy closures, hours cut. Pharmacists are being laid off right now because pharmacies are losing money. They can't afford to retire. Anyone making over $60/hr is at risk of losing their jobs within 3 years.

****, I'm in a hospital making $74/hr.

 

[Sparda29]

What if all pharmacists above the age of 50 retired?

 

[Pharmacy is a Scam]

I don't think it works like that. The supply happened at an exponential rate. To reverse that would mean that the current supply of pharmacists would have to decrease at an exponential rate. There are way more young or recent pharmDs than retiring pharmacists. The recent pharmDs will stay in the profession as long as they can unless they're unemployed already.

New grads will change careers at an exponential rate once they spend 2 years looking for a job and can’t find anything.

 

[Sparda29]

I love this job market. We don’t have garbage hires anymore because “that’s all who applied.” Our automated screening does its job and we still have a healthy pool to interview.

How many do you typically interview for staff pharmacist position? I was told that only 4 people interviewed for the job I got and only 15 people applied. (Apparently, not many people are interested in 7 on/7 off overnight shift, even in an affluent/ghetto NYC suburb, hospital is in the affluent part of town, but the ghetto is like a 10 minute walk)

 

[confettiflyer]

How many do you typically interview for staff pharmacist position? I was told that only 4 people interviewed for the job I got and only 15 people applied. (Apparently, not many people are interested in 7 on/7 off overnight shift, even in an affluent/ghetto NYC suburb, hospital is in the affluent part of town, but the ghetto is like a 10 minute walk)

I think we average about 4-5 people for a mixed-day-shift position. We’re picky and usually included in that pool are our internal residents who opted not to do a PGY-2 (some years that is zero, some years it is both) and returning interns who completed PGY-1 elsewhere.

Our starting pay and benefits package is average for the area (new grads start at ~$75/hr for days, experienced candidates (clin specs) can probably negotiate up to $90 to start.

Night shift is always difficult to find good candidates (lots of retail escapees apply, though

Also...LOL to people who think dropping salary by $20/hr makes a huge difference in total compensation to an employee. Lol and rofl

 

[BidingMyTime]

What if all pharmacists above the age of 50 retired?

That will never happen. We can't even get pharmacists over the age of 70 to retire. Nobody can afford to retire. The baby boomers didn't bother to save for their retirements, and many of them didn't even bother to pay off their houses. GenX is stuck taking care of their baby boomer parents who didn't bother to fund their own retirement, and supporting their children who can't get a job or who are underemployed with huge college loans. Of course, the Millenials with their 6 digit college loans are never going to be able to retire. GenY is always forgotten about, but I'm sure they can't afford to retire either. So it's a false hope thinking any pharmacists are going to retire, we will all work until we die.

 

[mentos]

That will never happen. We can't even get pharmacists over the age of 70 to retire. Nobody can afford to retire. The baby boomers didn't bother to save for their retirements, and many of them didn't even bother to pay off their houses. GenX is stuck taking care of their baby boomer parents who didn't bother to fund their own retirement, and supporting their children who can't get a job or who are underemployed with huge college loans. Of course, the Millenials with their 6 digit college loans are never going to be able to retire. GenY is always forgotten about, but I'm sure they can't afford to retire either. So it's a false hope thinking any pharmacists are going to retire, we will all work until we die.

Agreed. Baby boomers also won't move out of their houses which is why it costs 600k for a starter home in many metro areas. The majority of homes in America are owned by old people. There used to be neighborhoods full of kids playing in the street. Now all of the kids are grown and moved out of the house. Young couples have to move in the outer suburbs for an affordable home.

 

[mentos]

How many do you typically interview for staff pharmacist position? I was told that only 4 people interviewed for the job I got and only 15 people applied. (Apparently, not many people are interested in 7 on/7 off overnight shift, even in an affluent/ghetto NYC suburb, hospital is in the affluent part of town, but the ghetto is like a 10 minute walk)

For my overnight 7on7off position I heard 6 people were interviewed and many applied. I beat out people who did a residency lol.

 

[confettiflyer]

For my overnight 7on7off position I heard 6 people were interviewed and many applied. I beat out people who did a residency lol.

Newly graduated resident? I wouldn’t hire them either, lol....EXCEPT:

1) if they’re a known candidate,
2) six months of day shift training is feasible
3) reasonable assurances they won’t bounce to the next job or gun for day shift position in a year or two

We once waited 8 months for an intern to graduate because we liked him so much...a good night shifter reduces headaches for day shift, so all the days people rotated to cover nights until he was licensed.

 

[mentos]

Wow, really? That has to include shift differential

He seems to always get unicorn jobs, definitely the outlier not the norm.

 

[nextyearrx]

15

 

[Mambo#5]

30

 

[confettiflyer]

God those salary numbers sound so freaking high. I know it's Cali but damn

Well when the poverty level is like $105k/yr and median home price is 750k...you don’t feel so rich.

Those that do really well use inherited property with an inherited tax basis. Not exactly fair for a newcomer but such is life :/