If there are so many miserable doctors, why are you guys entering this field?

[allantois]

If you read the article, you would know the income varies by state. In California, that number is $95,000. Because California is an insanely expensive state to live in.

Then I suggest you move to India and live happily thereafter on $500 a month.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Hammer Time]

Then I suggest you move to India and live happily thereafter on $500 a month.

$6,000 a year? Man, you really don't understand the point of my post. The point was that in most states, your happiness won't increase after you reach you make an income somewhere around $75,000 per year (this number varies by state). I suggest you read the attached article, because you sound pretty clueless.

 

[Law2Doc]

What was the something more for you?

I enjoy the job function. I find it interesting and exciting and don't dread pulling long hours doing this stuff. For me it was worth it, a better fit. For someone not similarly interested it would suck.

The income wasn't a draw at all because I was already earning a (better) professional income at my prior career.

 

[Hammer Time]

Man you guys kill me. Allo is for current med students. This thread does not belong in allo because op is not a med student

Actually, it's a Pre-medical allopathic thread. It was placed in this thread, because the question is directed to premed students, asking them why they are choosing this field.

 

[Psai]

Actually, it's a Pre-medical allopathic thread. It was placed in this thread, because the question is directed to premed students, asking them why they are choosing this field.

Yeah no **** but people are suggesting that this be put in allo where it doesnt belong. Your bolding is lame. Also if you wont obtain any more happiness after 75k i will be happy to take your excess income because if someone wrote a paper about it, it must be true right?

 

[Hammer Time]

.

 

[Hammer Time]

Yeah no **** but people are suggesting that this be put in allo where it doesnt belong. Your bolding is lame. Also if you wont obtain any more happiness after 75k i will be happy to take your excess income because if someone wrote a paper about it, it must be true right?

Another more money, more happiness advocate... Keep telling yourself that buddy.

 

[Lucca]

Yeah no **** but people are suggesting that this be put in allo where it doesnt belong. Your bolding is lame. Also if you wont obtain any more happiness after 75k i will be happy to take your excess income because if someone wrote a paper about it, it must be true right?

Psai actually brings up a good point here. You guys have been talking about this whole money-happiness threshold for like 1.5 pages now and the truth is there are a couple of social science studies on this subject....I haven't read the original work but I would be really suspect of their methods. People would be happy on 1$ a year if that meant good food, good education, safety, leisure time, insurance, healthcare etc, an allowance for gadgets and "stuff". People would also be unhappy on 300,000$ a year if they couldn't meet the basic needs for themselves or their family. People could still be unhappy after meeting all of those needs because they lack any actual fulfilling desire so just fill their life up with stuff. I'm just saying it's probably not wise to act like this study is supposed to close the case on how much money people need to be happy. The premise itself is kind of absurd since "money" doesn't actually mean anything. Money is currency. A better way to phrase it would be "What kind of needs to people need to be met to be content after which more resources increase contentment only marginally?" and the more important question is "Other than needs and services what actually contributes to happiness?" since the answer to the second question is probably filled with many things money cannot purchase.

 

[Mad Jack]

Because I'm pretty sure on some level I hate myself.

 

[Womb Raider]

The point was that in most states, your happiness won't increase after you reach you make an income somewhere around $75,000 per year (this number varies by state). I suggest you read the attached article, because you sound pretty clueless.

Lol these studies oversimplify happiness and relies on averages like every other study. Just because they found that anything over x amount of money won't make you happy doesn't mean that this is true for everyone. For some people, the extra money DOES matter, for others, it wouldn't. This is not absolute, and I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. (Furthermore, I would think that even if this highly dubious finding was correct, money after x amount probably still adds happiness just not as much as money building up to that threshold gives).

 

[Mad Jack]

So today a few weeks ago, I went home to my parents house and I went to church with them at the local congregation on Sunday. I hadn't been to their church in about 5 years or so and what I saw was pretty startling. As I was looking around at the people in the audience, I noticed the faces were basically the same. My dad is a doctor and there is about 5 other doctors in the congregation they go to. While everyone else looked basically the same, all the doctors in the congregation looked considerably older (I mean their hair had gotten much whiter, they looked pretty stressed). I was thinking to myself, these guys must be under an insane amount of stress.

I know this is anecdotal evidence, but it made a large impression on me. My honest question to you premeds (with all due respect) is why on earth would you ever want to be a doctor? I've talked to these doctors, my dad's colleagues and none of them have recommended being a doctor to me. I've read a few accounts on here, and it seems that the only thing premed students can see out of the profession is money. Hello... Money does not equate happiness. Studies have been conducted (see here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/map-happiness-benchmark_n_5592194.html) that show that in most states, money equates happiness till about $65,000 a year.

So obviously, anyone who goes into medicine looking for prestige or money will most likely end up miserable. For you guys, do you feel like you have something to prove? Do you feel it's just your calling? What is it?

You do realize that that happiness benchmark study has since been debunked multiple times yet people continue to cite it right? Money continues to increase happiness beyond the 65k mark, but has diminishing returns.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/18/can-money-buy-happiness-after-all

Basically, everything is proportional, so if you make $10,000, you will gain the same amount of happiness from an additional $1,000 that a person who makes $1,000,000 would gain from getting an extra $100,000. All studies conducted after the rather provocative "money doesn't buy happiness" study basically show that there's no level at which happiness stops increasing with more money being earned, ever.

That being said, no amount of money can make doing what doctors do worthwhile, as the nature of the job can sap any of the net happiness one would gain from the additional income away if you're not in it for non-financial reasons. You can't go into medicine for reasons of validation, income, or expectations and expect to be happy- you have to have the internal desire to be a physician and gain something that aids you in self-actualization from the work.

 

[Psai]

Another more money, more happiness advocate... Keep telling yourself that buddy.

Lmao ok
let's talk when you've earned your first paycheck

 

[NeuResurgens]

Psai actually brings up a good point here. You guys have been talking about this whole money-happiness threshold for like 1.5 pages now and the truth is there are a couple of social science studies on this subject....I haven't read the original work but I would be really suspect of their methods. People would be happy on 1$ a year if that meant good food, good education, safety, leisure time, insurance, healthcare etc, an allowance for gadgets and "stuff". People would also be unhappy on 300,000$ a year if they couldn't meet the basic needs for themselves or their family. People could still be unhappy after meeting all of those needs because they lack any actual fulfilling desire so just fill their life up with stuff. I'm just saying it's probably not wise to act like this study is supposed to close the case on how much money people need to be happy. The premise itself is kind of absurd since "money" doesn't actually mean anything. Money is currency. A better way to phrase it would be "What kind of needs to people need to be met to be content after which more resources increase contentment only marginally?" and the more important question is "Other than needs and services what actually contributes to happiness?" since the answer to the second question is probably filled with many things money cannot purchase.

You have to acknowledge that at a certain point, you can find whatever you want to find in statistics. Politicians quote studies and statistics that directly contradict one another all the time.

 

[NeuResurgens]

That being said, no amount of money can make doing what doctors do worthwhile, as the nature of the job can sap any of the net happiness one would gain from the additional income away if you're not in it for non-financial reasons. You can't go into medicine for reasons of validation, income, or expectations and expect to be happy- you have to have the internal desire to be a physician and gain something that aids you in self-actualization from the work.

This. I've always heard things along the lines that people who are smart enough to get through medical school are smart enough to make a lot more money in other fields than they'd make in medicine. There is something in the work of a doctor itself that makes it worth it for those who go into medicine

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Psai actually brings up a good point here. You guys have been talking about this whole money-happiness threshold for like 1.5 pages now and the truth is there are a couple of social science studies on this subject....I haven't read the original work but I would be really suspect of their methods. People would be happy on 1$ a year if that meant good food, good education, safety, leisure time, insurance, healthcare etc, an allowance for gadgets and "stuff". People would also be unhappy on 300,000$ a year if they couldn't meet the basic needs for themselves or their family. People could still be unhappy after meeting all of those needs because they lack any actual fulfilling desire so just fill their life up with stuff. I'm just saying it's probably not wise to act like this study is supposed to close the case on how much money people need to be happy. The premise itself is kind of absurd since "money" doesn't actually mean anything. Money is currency. A better way to phrase it would be "What kind of needs to people need to be met to be content after which more resources increase contentment only marginally?" and the more important question is "Other than needs and services what actually contributes to happiness?" since the answer to the second question is probably filled with many things money cannot purchase.

You missed the point. Of course people can be unhappy with high salaries but the cause of that unhappiness would not be financial stress.

 

[Lucca]

You missed the point. Of course people can be unhappy with high salaries but the cause of that unhappiness would not be financial stress.

Right, but saying that "after this point people incur minimal stress from financial concerns" is different than "people are not significantly happier given X or higher income". To assert the latter is to say that the principal indicator of happiness is financial stress...which is a premise people who quote this study often reject outright.

 

[Lucca]

You have to acknowledge that at a certain point, you can find whatever you want to find in statistics. Politicians quote studies and statistics that directly contradict one another all the time.

Sure, but that doesn't mean statistics are meaningless. I'm just saying it's worth to probe a little deeper into what this study was doing before we start making arguments based on its conclusion.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Right, but saying that "after this point people incur minimal stress from financial concerns" is different than "people are not significantly happier given X or higher income". To assert the latter is to say that the principal indicator of happiness is financial stress...which is a premise people who quote this study often reject outright.

Money and happiness/peace of mind do have a correlation in lower class. These are people who struggle to put food on the table each day and face many other hardships. It's an incredibly stressful life. I'm saying that once you reach a certain point where you are able to find basic necessities including education, from that point on money does have diminishing returns as mad jack pointed out.
So for instance someone who drives a nice car will be happy when they get a Ferrari but that happiness is not long lasting as they were not facing financial struggles before that Ferrari

To be more clear, the people who are unhappy with high salaries would be even more unhappy in poverty as the accompanied stress plays a huge role.

 

[Mad Jack]

Right, but saying that "after this point people incur minimal stress from financial concerns" is different than "people are not significantly happier given X or higher income". To assert the latter is to say that the principal indicator of happiness is financial stress...which is a premise people who quote this study often reject outright.

And the exact point that is brought up in all of the studies that refute the original study. More income may not go to basic necessities, but it certainly can make people continue to be happier, because as people, most like nice and superfluous things.

However, those nice and superfluous thing may not be enough to make up for the things that you have to do to earn them, such as working 60 hours a week in a stressful environment, slowly being crushed by administrative and government bureaucracy and barely having time to help the people that need it because of this wonderful system we have in America.

 

[Lucca]

Money and happiness/peace of mind do have a correlation in lower class. These are people who struggle to put food on the table each day and face many other hardships. It's an incredibly stressful life. I'm saying that once you reach a certain point where you are able to find basic necessities including education, from that point on money does have diminishing returns as mad jack pointed out.
So for instance someone who drives a nice car will be happy when they get a Ferrari but that happiness is not long lasting as they were not facing financial struggles before that Ferrari

And the exact point that is brought up in all of the studies that refute the original study. More income may not go to basic necessities, but it certainly can make people continue to be happier, because as people, most like nice and superfluous things.

However, those nice and superfluous thing may not be enough to make up for the things that you have to do to earn them, such as working 60 hours a week in a stressful environment, slowly being crushed by administrative and government bureaucracy and barely having time to help the people that need it because of this wonderful system we have in America.

This is something I agree with. Intuitively it makes sense and I don't doubt that it is empirically correct. However I doubt the accuracy of a study that pulls a number out of some calculations that is then used to make arguments like "below this you are not as happy as above this". For example, you may make enough to live in a safe neighborhood and afford groceries every month and send your kids to school but perhaps if you were super rich you could send your kids to a good private school instead of public school and that would increase everyone's happiness significantly. While I don't think money equates to happiness past a certain point, as these studies argue, I also believe that there are definite benefits to wealth that do equate to happiness that are not as shallow as buying a Ferrari or vacationing in the French Riviera or a house in the hamptons. Things that require uber amounts of money in this country but are tangibly and credibly worthwhile: a pedigreed education that provides skills and credibility free of debt, private music, sports, etc lessons with a trained master, professional connections, philanthropic capital, the ability to travel freely when possible, access to culture etc. These are premiums that while not necessary to live a good, happy, fulfilled life do indeed enhance it but are absolutely unaffordable for anything other than the super rich.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

This is something I agree with. Intuitively it makes sense and I don't doubt that it is empirically correct. However I doubt the accuracy of a study that pulls a number out of some calculations that is then used to make arguments like "below this you are not as happy as above this". For example, you may make enough to live in a safe neighborhood and afford groceries every month and send your kids to school but perhaps if you were super rich you could send your kids to a good private school instead of public school and that would increase everyone's happiness significantly. While I don't think money equates to happiness past a certain point, as these studies argue, I also believe that there are definite benefits to wealth that do equate to happiness that are not as shallow as buying a Ferrari or vacationing in the French Riviera or a house in the hamptons. Things that require uber amounts of money in this country but are tangibly and credibly worthwhile: a pedigreed education that provides skills and credibility free of debt, private music, sports, etc lessons with a trained master, professional connections, philanthropic capital, the ability to travel freely when possible, access to culture etc. These are premiums that while not necessary to live a good, happy, fulfilled life do indeed enhance it but are absolutely unaffordable for anything other than the super rich.

It's social psych- of course it's a generalization and you will find exceptions. But I don't agree that those who go to private schools or have private music lessons are happier than those who don't, unless there is a study that says otherwise. Again, once the financial stress is minimized, you can live fulfilling lived in different capacities.

 

[Lucca]

It's social psych- of course it's a generalization and you will find exceptions. But I don't agree that those who go to private schools or have private music lessons are happier than those who don't, unless there is a study that says otherwise. Again, once the financial stress is minimized, you can live fulfilling lived in different capacities.

You must be unaware how easy life is for those who know the correct people or go to the correct private schools. I guarantee those people have much less stress on the day to day thanks to their parents income which provides them with their position. We like the bootstrapping underdog story here in America but being surrounded by the best and the brightest every day during your developmental years has just as a profound effect on you as being worried about being invited to the latest party or being in with the kids with the drug hookup in the cases of the middle class or gang violence in the case of the lower class.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

You must be unaware how easy life is for those who know the correct people or go to the correct private schools. I guarantee those people have much less stress on the day to day thanks to their parents income which provides them with their position. We like the bootstrapping underdog story here in America but being surrounded by the best and the brightest every day during your developmental years has just as a profound effect on you as being worried about being invited to the latest party or being in with the kids with the drug hookup in the cases of the middle class or gang violence in the case of the lower class.

Maybe but doesn't it always seem that way, that wealthier people's lives are better. I am sure it's easier but I don't know that they are happier. Honestly I never found myself wishing I went to a private school or had connections due to my parents' positions. Working hard and earning these things myself has been much more gratifying imo. I think the middle class in this country are given plenty of opportunities to achieve what they want in life without those extra privileges. But these are all just personal opinions. Not sure if research says something different.

 

[Mad Jack]

This is something I agree with. Intuitively it makes sense and I don't doubt that it is empirically correct. However I doubt the accuracy of a study that pulls a number out of some calculations that is then used to make arguments like "below this you are not as happy as above this". For example, you may make enough to live in a safe neighborhood and afford groceries every month and send your kids to school but perhaps if you were super rich you could send your kids to a good private school instead of public school and that would increase everyone's happiness significantly. While I don't think money equates to happiness past a certain point, as these studies argue, I also believe that there are definite benefits to wealth that do equate to happiness that are not as shallow as buying a Ferrari or vacationing in the French Riviera or a house in the hamptons. Things that require uber amounts of money in this country but are tangibly and credibly worthwhile: a pedigreed education that provides skills and credibility free of debt, private music, sports, etc lessons with a trained master, professional connections, philanthropic capital, the ability to travel freely when possible, access to culture etc. These are premiums that while not necessary to live a good, happy, fulfilled life do indeed enhance it but are absolutely unaffordable for anything other than the super rich.

There's plenty of utility all along the wealth curve above the supposed 65k max for happiness. For a less well off family family, a vacation might be a cheap cruise or a discount trip to Disneyland. Hit a bit more cash, and you can get the nice rooms in the cruise, or the deluxe package to Disney. A bit higher and, well, you can travel internationally with your whole family to the cheaper spots. Then the more expensive spots, then the nice spots in a given area, etc etc. You can afford better schooling, training, and activities at each graduation of wealth. It's not just a clear cut "you're middle class or ultra wealthy," there's a lot of nice shades of gray. Think of it like wine. Poor people can afford cheap wine, wealthy people can buy vintages on auction, but there are a lot of different options in between, many of which get gradually better with the amount you are willing to spend. Of course, becoming a doctor to buy a nice glass of wine or a slightly better vacation is a horrible idea, because the five minutes you spend enjoying the former and the two weeks you have fun doing the latter will be paid for by 48 weeks of misery throughout the rest of the year if this field isn't your passion.

 

[bc65]

The $75,000 figure cited in the study refers only to day-to-day mood. However, overall life satisfaction increases with income, according to the same studies.

I certainly found that my increased income made life a lot better. I can only speak for myself, but money smooths over many of life's small problems. Right now, I earn a respectable specialists salary, and I'm happy. However, if I had twice the money, my day to day life would be even easier. I could use more rooms in my house so we could spread out more. I would like a separate play room for my children. I would like a bigger back yard for my children, and more storage space. More money would let me hire a full time housekeeper and cook, and maybe a nanny as well. That would free up a lot of free time and eliminate a lot of little problems. More money makes a lot of decisions easier. But I would need to double my salary to have all of those things. Do I need them? No. Would my overall mood be better? No. Would my life be easier? Definitely. Am I willing to work more to get those things? No. But don't trivialize the difference more money can make in your life.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

I rechecked the $75,000 study and I see your point now. But don't you also think an individual's materialistic desires plays a big role in how much satisfaction they can get and whether the value of money is trivialized? Those who want these luxuries like extra rooms, private schooling, etc. even though there is really no need for them as you mentioned..

 

[bc65]

I rechecked the $75,000 study and I see your point now. But don't you also think an individual's materialistic desires plays a big role in how much satisfaction they can get and whether the value of money is trivialized? Those who want these luxuries like extra rooms, private schooling, etc. even though there is really no need for them as you mentioned.

No one "needs" more than enough to eat and basic shelter, but more money can buy more options and more security. Reasonable people will differ about what's a luxury and what isn't. In some parts of the world, indoor plumbing is a luxury; here, it's a necessity. It's all relative, and beyond the scope of this conversation.

What I was trying to say is that in my opinion, based on my experience, I would be able to put more money to good use, despite the fact that my spouse and I are rather frugal, and I already earn a specialist salary.

 

[Hammer Time]

The point, though, is that happiness is based upon many things. One of them being financial security. If you don't have financial security, you probably won't be that happy. But once you have a little bit of money that's no longer a problem, but then there are other things that can cause you grief. So having a lot of money won't solve your other problems. Plus the extra income won't necessarily make you that much happier. Are you really that happy knowing you have a jetski in the garage? Is a boat going to make you happy? No. If you don't have a boat, you'll find another hobby that doesn't cost as much money that could make you just as happy.

 

[medshoes]

I've heard so many times that "there are betters ways to make money than to go into medicine." It's kind of annoying that money would be the motivation. People equate doctor with success and power. I feel it's kind of unethical to go into medicine for the money/prestige, because as a doctor, you're supposed to put helping others above yourself. You gotta really have that motivation to help others lead healthy lives if you want to be happy being a doctor.

 

[Mad Jack]

I rechecked the $75,000 study and I see your point now. But don't you also think an individual's materialistic desires plays a big role in how much satisfaction they can get and whether the value of money is trivialized? Those who want these luxuries like extra rooms, private schooling, etc. even though there is really no need for them as you mentioned..

I'm not a materialistic person and extra money would make me quite happy. Once you've got enough of it, you can save it and no longer have to work. Money isn't just a unit that allows you to buy material goods, it is a unit of power that allows you to have freedom over your own choices- where to go and when, when to work and when, what to do and when, etc. Money is arguably more valuable to a person that lives a rather Spartan existence because it allows them more time and freedom to do the sorts of fulfilling non-materialistic things that they find meaningful. Hence why I want to make bank and gtfo of the workforce as fast as humanly possible.

 

[Mad Jack]

The point, though, is that happiness is based upon many things. One of them being financial security. If you don't have financial security, you probably won't be that happy. But once you have a little bit of money that's no longer a problem, but then there are other things that can cause you grief. So having a lot of money won't solve your other problems. Plus the extra income won't necessarily make you that much happier. Are you really that happy knowing you have a jetski in the garage? Is a boat going to make you happy? No. If you don't have a boat, you'll find another hobby that doesn't cost as much money that could make you just as happy.

Saving the extra money and knowing I can retire 15-20 years sooner than most everyone else I know certainly makes me happy. That's one avenue being a physician affords you if you're frugal.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Saving the extra money and knowing I can retire 15-20 years sooner than most everyone else I know certainly makes me happy. That's one avenue being a physician affords you if you're frugal.

what would you do retiring 20 years early?! I would get bored without work/intellectual stimulation

 

[Mad Jack]

what would you do retiring 20 years early?! I would get bored without work/intellectual stimulation

Retiring doesn't necessarily mean doing nothing. It means doing what you want. I'd probably travel a good amount, open a hostel or brewery outside the country (or maybe the first combined brewery/hostel ), and spend the rest of my time managing my investment properties. I'd probably still do part time work or volunteer to keep my physician skills somewhat intact, but there's a lot of things I'd find much more stimulating to do with my time than filling out paperwork in a hospital. Chances are I'll be more busy during retirement than before, but with things that I'd prefer doing and that I'm doing of my own volition, with no real financial risk, but simply for the joy of doing them. Retirement doesn't mean lack of work to a person like me, it means a lack of needing to work, and the freedom of being able to do or walk away from any venture you're currently involved in if you so choose because you don't need the money.

Being a physician is a good way to get in that sort of position without the risk of being a business owner or trying to work your way up a corporate ladder, but only if you're frugal and know how to manage your money.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Retiring doesn't necessarily mean doing nothing. It means doing what you want. I'd probably travel a good amount, open a hostel or brewery outside the country (or maybe the first combined brewery/hostel ), and spend the rest of my time managing my investment properties. I'd probably still do part time work or volunteer to keep my physician skills somewhat intact, but there's a lot of things I'd find much more stimulating to do with my time than filling out paperwork in a hospital. Chances are I'll be more busy during retirement than before, but with things that I'd prefer doing and that I'm doing of my own volition, with no real financial risk, but simply for the joy of doing them. Retirement doesn't mean lack of work to a person like me, it means a lack of needing to work, and the freedom of being able to do or walk away from any venture you're currently involved in if you so choose because you don't need the money.

Being a physician is a good way to get in that sort of position without the risk of being a business owner or trying to work your way up a corporate ladder, but only if you're frugal and know how to manage your money.

Being a physician is a lot more for me than getting enough money so that I can do what I actually want to do some day, so we can disagree on that. But I understand how this plan would make you happy! Let us know if you open the first brewery/hostel someday lol

 

[jl lin]

what would you do retiring 20 years early?! I would get bored without work/intellectual stimulation

Yea, I think retirement is bogus. I mean if you have a solid plan, with sound goals, well, perhaps. I have just seen too many good people get depressed and kick it too early. Two of my docs are beyond typical retirement, and they still love what they are doing. They still enjoy trips with family. The one tells me how he is good with keeping date night with his wife. I love him. He has a great attitude and is great with people and he is pretty vigilant too. I don't mean to sound prejudicial, b/c I've worked with mostly MDs, and most of them have been great; but this guy is a DO, and he is enjoying his life to the fullest.

 

[jl lin]

Also, I have this deep, down feeling that once you are physician, you are always a physician--retired or not.

 

[Mad Jack]

Being a physician is a lot more for me than getting enough money so that I can do what I actually want to do some day, so we can disagree on that. But I understand how this plan would make you happy! Let us know if you open the first brewery/hostel someday lol

It isn't that it's just about the money- I enjoy working in the medical field, it's something I'm fairly good at, I get to give back to society, and it's something I'm generally not miserable doing. It's at that sweet spot of intersection between "what I'm good at," "what lifestyle can I tolerate," "what makes decent money," and "what I can enjoy doing," with a side of warm fuzzies when things go right. But I've just got so many other interests that hit other peaks in the "what I'm good at," "what I enjoy doing," "lifestyle," and "what makes me happy" categories.

Every job has trade-offs, and I'd like to experiment with some of the others down the line, for while I think medicine is a wonderful career, I do not believe practicing is the thing that will bring me the most happiness in my life. And happiness is what it's all about, so once I'm done putting in my time and giving something to society, I'm going to go do some of the things that I truly love and see how those pan out. Who knows, maybe they'll send me back to medicine, and I'll realize it was what I needed the whole time, because life is ironic like that.

 

[Mad Jack]

Also, I have this deep, down feeling that once you are physician, you are always a physician--retired or not.

This is true. And also a large part of the reason I'll never stop practicing, even if it's only part time. You can't let that part of you die or get neglected, you put too much time in to build it.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

It isn't that it's just about the money- I enjoy working in the medical field, it's something I'm fairly good at, I get to give back to society, and it's something I'm generally not miserable doing. It's at that sweet spot of intersection between "what I'm good at," "what lifestyle can I tolerate," "what makes decent money," and "what I can enjoy doing," with a side of warm fuzzies when things go right. But I've just got so many other interests that hit other peaks in the "what I'm good at," "what I enjoy doing," "lifestyle," and "what makes me happy" categories.

Every job has trade-offs, and I'd like to experiment with some of the others down the line, for while I think medicine is a wonderful career, I do not believe practicing is the thing that will bring me the most happiness in my life. And happiness is what it's all about, so once I'm done putting in my time and giving something to society, I'm going to go do some of the things that I truly love and see how those pan out. Who knows, maybe they'll send me back to medicine, and I'll realize it was what I needed the whole time, because life is ironic like that.

Completely agree!

 

[Holmwood]

what would you do retiring 20 years early?! I would get bored without work/intellectual stimulation

Open a side business matey.

 

[fancymylotus]

One of the reasons why I want to be a dentist lol

GREAT CHOICE. Best choice I ever made. Seriously. I can't state and re-state this enough.


However, if you want to save lives/be a hero/cut off limbs/whatever, do not become a dentist.

 

[fancymylotus]

Also, I have this deep, down feeling that once you are physician, you are always a physician--retired or not.

My almost 65 year old father works a six day week even though we have provider coverage at all our locations most days and he is far from needing to work ever again. Bc work to him is fun.

 

[fancymylotus]

what would you do retiring 20 years early?! I would get bored without work/intellectual stimulation

I would spend all my time doing charity work in the homeland. As long as I could bring my shoe collection :

Edit- I could only do this if I build the business/real estate portfolio I hope to have by age 45 or so, to fund the above

 

[Glazedonutlove]

I would spend all my time doing charity work in the homeland. As long as I could bring my shoe collection :

Edit- I could only do this if I build the business/real estate portfolio I hope to have by age 45 or so, to fund the above

as a physician in rural community?

 

[fancymylotus]

as a physician in rural community?

As a dentist in the village my dad grew up in

 

[Glazedonutlove]

~~

 

[IlDestriero]

Money may not equate to happiness, but I'm doing way way way way better than $65k a year and I'm pretty happy, and I never have to think about money.
That also makes me happy.
As does my boat.
And my euro trash giant engine luxo box.
And the prospect of the big boy horsey car as a retirement present.
And leaving a tangible legacy to my kids.
And taking care of the sick kids ain't so bad either.

 

[IlDestriero]

I guess the happy 65k club can aspire to get a sports car with a horse on the grill too, but it won't look quite like the one I want, and the engine will be in the wrong place.

 

[fancymylotus]

I guess the happy 65k club can aspire to get a sports car with a horse on the grill too, but it won't look quite like the one I want, and the engine will be in the wrong place.

Spoiled brat ><

 

[Salt Salt]

Because they all think they'll be the exceptions.

Just kidding, it's because of the money.