Obama screwing over the country (at least the hard workers among us)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Thrombus

Member
Removed
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
725
Reaction score
98
He is going to raise physician income taxes, decrease payments for our services (see Tom Daschle's plan), raise the limits for SS and Medicare and decrease the amounts we can deduct for charitable giving (the programs that actually DO work). Effectively, this will be a 10-20% tax increase on our payroll while SIMULTANEOUSLY decreasing our income through decreased payouts.

This is an absolute travesty and will DECREASE ACCESS to quality care.

And not a peep out of the AMA which has long been sabotaged by leftist idealist minions in their ivory towers.

Hard workers, do not apply anymore to medicine. The days of working hard for your money are OVER.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
yeah this bodes ill for a variety of different reasons. The big shoe that may drop Im waiting for is whether he will actually propose cuts to provider reimbursements.

Regardless, I would advise new physicians to take a very very different approach to work given the new conditions.

These conditions arent incredibly bad, but do require you to plan accordingly:
1.) It makes more sense than ever before to seek out the lowest cost of living location you can possibly stand, be that Fresno/Merced, Biloxi, East St. Louis, Douglas Wyoming, Des Moines, Plano etc etc., your goal to find locations where NICE homes are well within conforming loan limits to embrace all tax incentives you can when you buy property. Other location considerations also include nice places with mad amounts of foreclosures like Florida, Michigan or even parts of Stockton (yeah nice being a relative concept..)
2.) It makes no sense to go all out for income, seek out job sharing positions, part time gigs or positions with mad amounts of vacation, they ARE out there.


Your goal is to get your total income below the Obama "NUT CRUNCHER" limit, which by my estimate is actually much lower than $250000, probably closer to 140K for a husband+wife.

Your standard of living will be incredibly high due to the low cost of living in your "employment zone" and mad amounts of vacation/time off. The time off you can spend outside the country if you choose in places like the UAE pulling income on the side tax free or simply living LA DOLCE VITA.

Regardless the old school formulas of working in the big urban centers and making 600K+ in a salt mine has perished, its deader than those Heaven's Gate fools. Places like NYC and Urban Northeast in general, DC, Urban Northwest, Chicago/Urban IL, Bay Area of Cali and SoCal are really not worth it under these conditions.

-peace out
 
He is going to raise physician income taxes, decrease payments for our services (see Tom Daschle's plan), raise the limits for SS and Medicare and decrease the amounts we can deduct for charitable giving (the programs that actually DO work). Effectively, this will be a 10-20% tax increase on our payroll while SIMULTANEOUSLY decreasing our income through decreased payouts.

This is an absolute travesty and will DECREASE ACCESS to quality care.

And not a peep out of the AMA which has long been sabotaged by leftist idealist minions in their ivory towers.

Hard workers, do not apply anymore to medicine. The days of working hard for your money are OVER.

The funny thing is that all of the above were predicted by his opponents during the campaign/election season, and yet the voters still flocked to elect him. All of this should not even come as a surprise at all. We knew he was going to do all this --- obviously, a lot more Americans thought this was all a good thing. I did not support this guy and did not want him (and Pelosi) to be president...
 
Effectively, this will be a 10-20% tax increase on our payroll

I would like to see your calculations on this.

Perhaps you're too young to remember, but the same argument was made before the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act was passed. Things didn't quite work out the way the naysayers had predicted.

In any case, if you are pissed off about the proposed alterations to the tax code, perhaps you should direct some of your anger at the people who borrowed, spent, and mismanaged our way into this mess, and away from the folks who are attempting to dig us out.

National-Debt-GDP.gif
 
Just for good measure, here is a June, 2008 piece from CNN Money examining the tax proposals of each candidate.

If fully implemented, Obama's campaign plan would raise the average tax bill of those making 227K-603K by $12. The cuts made below 250K offset the increases above 250K for quite a ways.
 
There isn't really a huge alternative to a tax increase, unfortunately. If the last few years of leadership had been a little more forward-thinking perhaps it wouldn't be necessary, but it is. Education in this country sucks. Infrastructure sucks. Access to health care sucks for too many. We can sit here with our thumbs up our butts and keep not spending money on these things, continuing to cutt taxes, and spending more money on other things and running up the deficits. But if we keep doing that the country isn't going to be a great place to live in. Maybe some of you enjoy living in the woods with canned food and a rifle and subsisting on your own, but I prefer not to. If I have to give up an extra 5% I have reached the point where I say fine. But realize that this is not play money to fund your bloated pork barrel projects, it is money to do worthwhile things with.
 
If fully implemented, Obama's campaign plan would raise the average tax bill of those making 227K-603K by $12. The cuts made below 250K offset the increases above 250K for quite a ways.

The best way to improve the tax code would be to stop limiting all these asinine deductions and loopholes that allow the super rich to pay no taxes while forcing the barely-rich to increase their share. Simplify, man. I like my mortgage deduction but I can do without it if the heiresses and hedge fund bozos have to increase their payments too. The tax code is WAY too complex. It doesn't have to be.
 
If fully implemented, Obama's campaign plan would raise the average tax bill of those making 227K-603K by $12. The cuts made below 250K offset the increases above 250K for quite a ways.

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

WOW all that money on just an additional 120 (12 bucks per year times 10 years) bucks per tax payer- a lot of people must make over 250- wake up! If you believe your 12 dollar figure I want you to do my investing- that is a sweet return.
 
WOW all that money on just an additional 120 (12 bucks per year times 10 years) bucks per tax payer- a lot of people must make over 250- wake up! If you believe your 12 dollar figure I want you to do my investing- that is a sweet return.

The $12 average was only for those earning from 227K to 603K. If you click on the link to the CNN Money article you will see that the increases are significantly higher for those making over 603K.

I cannot personally vouch for their math, but I am still waiting for someone to show me otherwise.
 
The best way to improve the tax code would be to stop limiting all these asinine deductions and loopholes that allow the super rich to pay no taxes while forcing the barely-rich to increase their share. Simplify, man. I like my mortgage deduction but I can do without it if the heiresses and hedge fund bozos have to increase their payments too. The tax code is WAY too complex. It doesn't have to be.

Amen to that!!!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
how is obama screwing anyone over, this would have happened whether McCain or anyone else was in office...

What is happening right now is inevitable...I rather have the most intelligent person in office than some schmuck and his alaskan hoebag
 
how is obama screwing anyone over, this would have happened whether McCain or anyone else was in office...

What is happening right now is inevitable...I rather have the most intelligent person in office than some schmuck and his alaskan hoebag


....but wait, Biden's not from Alaska!
 
how is obama screwing anyone over, this would have happened whether McCain or anyone else was in office...

What is happening right now is inevitable...I rather have the most intelligent person in office than some schmuck and his alaskan hoebag

Most intelligent? Why, because he got a Harvard law degree? Affirmative action perhaps? I say charisma, race, and oratorical prowess put him in office. And even then, I guess his supposed brilliance and intelligence have been so helpful in picking non-taxpaying cabinet members one after another, and in signing a bill --- that singlehandedly has doubled this country's debt --- without even reading it (basically letting Pelosi get everything she wanted!).

And oh --- Biden is nothing more than a symbol head. BHO and Pelosi are running this country [down]:thumbdown:thumbdown:thumbdown:! I'd take that Alaskan hoebag any day over Pelosi.
 
Last edited:
how is obama screwing anyone over, this would have happened whether McCain or anyone else was in office...

What is happening right now is inevitable...


No, this would not be happening if somebody else were in office...

And no, what is happening right now is NOT inevitable. People spent money they did not have, and it is SO ironic how this intelligent man's administration is doing exactly the same thing that got this country into this crisis...
 
Education in this country sucks. Infrastructure sucks.

Aren't education and infrastructure local issues? Isn't this why we pay school, city and state taxes?
 
No, this would not be happening if somebody else were in office...

And no, what is happening right now is NOT inevitable. People spent money they did not have, and it is SO ironic how this intelligent man's administration is doing exactly the same thing that got this country into this crisis...

Start the Lexapro now, because it's only going to get worse for you.

We, in medicine, are so insulated from this economic crisis that it's easy to blame the government in that we will see lower revenues. But in the end, it may be the best for us. Look at how the rest of the country is doing. Unemployment is sky-rocketing. The housing market has NOT hit bottom, and certain portions of the country, like the Southwest, West Coast, and other portions are going to be decimated. I'm from AZ, and know the economy in most of the area is run by primarily two factors: 1. Tourism, and 2. retail. With most people's retirement budgets slashed by 1/2 or more, 1 will fail (already started) and 2 will fail (already started). Not to mention AZ has seen the most rapid population growth of probably any other state- all those people will be without an infrastructure to support them.

All those people will still need health care. None will have any money for it. If you don't like working for less, perhaps you would like working for free. Let's be real here- when you see Mexicans running BACK across the border for opportunities you should be reminded of how cats and dogs seem to disappear before a large volcanic eruption.

Perhaps it is best if we try to keep this economy from collapsing. Say what you want about Obama and his plan, but McCain would eventually have done the same thing. The system s crumbling, but because people are always sick and in need of our services it is difficult for us to see it much of the time.
 
Aren't education and infrastructure local issues?

Yes and no. The interstate highway system is a prime example of infrastructure that could not have arisen through fragmented local efforts. I doubt anyone could argue that highways have not been beneficial to the economic growth of the nation.
 
I think it is safe to say that it is over pathologists and most physicians. For those getting ready to practice in the next couple years your lifestyle will be nothing like what you thought it would be when you began this road 10-15 years ago.


Single payer health care could have been good for pathologists. Medicare's overhead is only 2% while a private insurance is 20% and plus private insurance companies pull another 20%-30% in profit. If you eliminate that profit and that overhead that could have been enough to insure the uninsured and keep physician reimbursement like it is now and plus there would have been more paying patients to go around. But it is too late now. Everything is going to be slashed. And the plan could be to just pay a lump sum to the hospital for patient services and let the hospital and doctors fight for it. That would result in hospitals finding pathologists that will do the work for as cheap as possible.

Subsets of physicians will still do well. A group of internists or subspecialists who serve the affluent in places like the Upper East Side, Pacific Heights, Beverly Hills can just opt out of the whole medicare/insurance game and charge fee for service for their affluent patients and give them boutique/personalized care. However, very few pathologists will get a part of that. As affluent patients do not choose pathologists.

It is a good time to consider academics. It is a more interesting and rewarding life and I think the pay gap between private and academics will close.

At least we won't have to worry about this.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/27/magazines/fortune/obama_budget_tax.fortune/index.htm
 
Subsets of physicians will still do well. A group of internists or subspecialists who serve the affluent in places like the Upper East Side, Pacific Heights, Beverly Hills can just opt out of the whole medicare/insurance game and charge fee for service for their affluent patients and give them boutique/personalized care. However, very few pathologists will get a part of that. As affluent patients do not choose pathologists.

It is a good time to consider academics. It is a more interesting and rewarding life and I think the pay gap between private and academics will close.

Or maybe just do dermatology or plastics... Those specialties will become even more competitive...
 
i would challenge anyone to name a candidate who would have been better qualified to handle these economic issues than mitt romney. i agree that some sort of government action was probably inevitable, but nothing even close to what we see with obama's plan. i particularly like the fact that the washington post said romney's plan for a $233 billion stimulus was "way too big". ha ha ha

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/romney.stimulus/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/romney.stimulus/

i don't know about the rest of you, but it makes me sick to my stomach that after 10 years of post-college training and debt accumulation, an increasingly huge chunk of my income (which no doubt will be will be decreasing over the course of my career) will be reallocated to whomever the government decides needs it more than my family does. and i find that other residents/fellows who have no problem with this tend to 1) come from family money and therefore have no student loans, low mortage payments because daddy paid the down payment on their house, etc, or 2) be single without a family, or 3) be married to another physician or a spouse with a similarly high paying job so that these cuts won't have such a dramatic impact on their lifestyle. as the primary bread earner for a family of 4, let me tell you, i'm not optimistic about the future...



No, this would not be happening if somebody else were in office...

And no, what is happening right now is NOT inevitable. People spent money they did not have, and it is SO ironic how this intelligent man's administration is doing exactly the same thing that got this country into this crisis...
 
sorry for double posting the link...technical difficulties
 
Now Im pooping in this thread....

Jesus folks this isnt time to play arm chair politicos, its time to hit the big red panic button. These changes in the tax code are just the opening salvo. This has HUGE implications for people living in higher cost areas like California and New England.

I contemplating a new thread to guide people how best to structure their pathology training to attempt to maximize their chance of landing work in areas set best to benefit from these dramatic changes.
 
and i find that other residents/fellows who have no problem with this tend to 1) come from family money and therefore have no student loans, low mortage payments because daddy paid the down payment on their house, etc, or 2) be single without a family, or 3) be married to another physician or a spouse with a similarly high paying job so that these cuts won't have such a dramatic impact on their lifestyle.

Jesus Christ, get ahold of yourself. You'd think we were reverting to the days of 1951 to 1963, when the top marginal rate was 91-92% of income over $400,000.

Speaking as the son of a lower middle class immigrant, who has 150K in med school debt, zero retirement savings, who is married to a liberal arts graduate student and lives in shoebox rental apartment, here is the deal: all those years of tax cuts and deficit spending have come due. When someone says that deficits are just taxes on our children and grandchildren, they are right. Unfortunately, we are those children and grandchildren.

Now, we can piss and moan about it, or we can buckle down and live our lives as happy and healthy as possible. At least we don't have to go off to war, as that would entail real sacrifice.
 
Last edited:
Doctors praised one aspect of Mr. Obama’s budget. He assumes that Congress will protect doctors from cuts in Medicare payments scheduled to occur under current law — cuts of 21 percent in 2010 and about 5 percent in each of the next few years.

“We are very pleased,” said Dr. Nancy H. Nielsen, president of the American Medical Association. “All previous budgets assumed cuts in doctor payments.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-health.html?_r=1&ref=policy
 
The best way to improve the tax code would be to stop limiting all these asinine deductions and loopholes that allow the super rich to pay no taxes while forcing the barely-rich to increase their share. Simplify, man. I like my mortgage deduction but I can do without it if the heiresses and hedge fund bozos have to increase their payments too. The tax code is WAY too complex. It doesn't have to be.

Three words FAIR TAX NOW!!!
 
In genereal, I'm with the flying fortress avatar. S*** has got to be paid for. I'm willing to pay a big share, but other sectors are going to have to pony-up too.

The reason I'm not panicked is because I can withhold my labor. So can all physicians. I can work for cash only, I can choose which insurance to accept - nobody can make me work for the government (unless they paid for your med school...). The health system will not degrade into forced labor, people who say it will are fear mongering. The Obama administration knows physicians can't be forced to see government patients and if government patients can't get a physician to see them, they'll raise a stink.

There is waste in the system. I think a great place to start with cuts is at the Scooter Store:

http://www.thescooterstore.com/mobility/spur/ppc/07/defaultb.aspx

But seriously, removing the Bush era ban on the government negotiating drug prices for Medicare Part D (the perscription drug benefit), is damn fine place to start.

There are some great facts on Medicare spending from a Kaiser site: http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305_03.pdf

Including these two facts: The top 10% most costly beneficiaries in FFS Medicare accounting for nearly two-thirds (63%) of total Medicare spending in 2005. The 4% of FFS beneficiaries who died within the calendar year in 2005 was nearly four times greater than for other beneficiaries ($23,047 vs. $6,351).
 
Last edited:
I contemplating a new thread to guide people how best to structure their pathology training to attempt to maximize their chance of landing work in areas set best to benefit from these dramatic changes.

Yes please.
 
I think it is safe to say that it is over pathologists and most physicians. For those getting ready to practice in the next couple years your lifestyle will be nothing like what you thought it would be when you began this road 10-15 years ago.


Everything is going to be slashed. And the plan could be to just pay a lump sum to the hospital for patient services and let the hospital and doctors fight for it. That would result in hospitals finding pathologists that will do the work for as cheap as possible.

Subsets of physicians will still do well. A group of internists or subspecialists who serve the affluent in places like the Upper East Side, Pacific Heights, Beverly Hills can just opt out of the whole medicare/insurance game and charge fee for service for their affluent patients and give them boutique/personalized care. However, very few pathologists will get a part of that. As affluent patients do not choose pathologists.

It is a good time to consider academics. It is a more interesting and rewarding life and I think the pay gap between private and academics will close.

At least we won't have to worry about this.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/27/magazines/fortune/obama_budget_tax.fortune/index.htm

Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Those few physicians who are able to bypass medicare/insurance scheme and market themselves directly to consumers will be the most successful group.

Dermatology and plastics will remain successful, for obvious reasons. The question remains whether dermpath can jump in on the lifeboat named DERMATOLOGY, or will it go down with Titanic like 95%+ of specialties. What do you think?
 
These conditions arent incredibly bad, but do require you to plan accordingly:

2.) It makes no sense to go all out for income, seek out job sharing positions, part time gigs or positions with mad amounts of vacation, they ARE out there.

Someone posted not too long ago about husband and wife both landing a job in pathology after residency. I remember job sharing was thrown out as an option. I guess with the direction of future health care, this might not seem so undesirable....
 
Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Those few physicians who are able to bypass medicare/insurance scheme and market themselves directly to consumers will be the most successful group.

Dermatology and plastics will remain successful, for obvious reasons. The question remains whether dermpath can jump in on the lifeboat named DERMATOLOGY, or will it go down with Titanic like 95%+ of specialties. What do you think?

I don't think dermpath can be anything like dermatology or plastic surgery in terms of bypassing medicare and insurance schemes, though. They have the out of pocket procedures that dermpath docs can't do.
 
Last edited:
Even with the proposed tax increases, doctors who are claiming incomes in the 200-400 range will likely see no significant change in their taxes paid. They will still pay the alternative minimum tax. I think you probably have to claim around 500k on your W2 to have the 39.6% tax rate be larger than the alternative minimum tax. So, in reality the tax increase will affect very few of us. In addition, if you make 500k and claim 500k on your W2 then you need to get a new accountant. Just sayin' ....

The big tax revenue here is from people making million dollar bonuses on wall street who are currently paying capital gains tax (like 15%) instead of income tax. These bonuses will be taxed as income at 39.6% under the Obama plan. However, what ever rules get put in place savvy business minds will find a way around it.
 
you realize he is mormon right...and they believe in aliens right...and that we are from the planet kolob

i would challenge anyone to name a candidate who would have been better qualified to handle these economic issues than mitt romney. i agree that some sort of government action was probably inevitable, but nothing even close to what we see with obama's plan. i particularly like the fact that the washington post said romney's plan for a $233 billion stimulus was "way too big". ha ha ha

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/romney.stimulus/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/romney.stimulus/

i don't know about the rest of you, but it makes me sick to my stomach that after 10 years of post-college training and debt accumulation, an increasingly huge chunk of my income (which no doubt will be will be decreasing over the course of my career) will be reallocated to whomever the government decides needs it more than my family does. and i find that other residents/fellows who have no problem with this tend to 1) come from family money and therefore have no student loans, low mortage payments because daddy paid the down payment on their house, etc, or 2) be single without a family, or 3) be married to another physician or a spouse with a similarly high paying job so that these cuts won't have such a dramatic impact on their lifestyle. as the primary bread earner for a family of 4, let me tell you, i'm not optimistic about the future...
 
On the bright side we are still so well off. Even if healthcare reform causes physician salaries to be cut in half, an extremely busy private practice pathologist working 60-70 hours a week or a top of the heap academic will still pull 200K-300K, that's not too bad. I know people were expecting a potential of 400K when they were entering residency, but that's not going to happen in this day and age.

Imagine how much worse it would be to be finishing up in journalism school right now or looking for a job in investment banking. Talk about hopeless. There was a NYT article a few months ago about how things changed so abruptly for young people in finance.

Here is the article and it was from back in September. Imagine how much worse it is 6 months later.

DIM LIGHTS, BIG CITY
For Young Financiers, Risk Hits Home
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL OR SAVE THIS
PRINT
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
SHARE

By ALEX WILLIAMS
Published: September 19, 2008
BEFORE Nicole Wong took a job as an analyst at JPMorgan Chase after graduating from Brown University in 2001, she wasn’t exactly sure what one did every day as a junior financier — or, in New York mythology, apprentice master of the universe.

Enlarge This Image

David Ahntholz for The New York Times
HESITANT Steven Song, a mentor to aspiring financiers, said they see less opportunity.

Yana Paskova for The New York Times
“I really entered the industry not knowing what the heck people did,” she recalled. But that hardly seemed to matter.

To her, Wall Street, not law or medicine, was where the action was, she said. Inspired by images of power and prestige from books like “Liar’s Poker” and movies like “Wall Street,” a life scrambling up the rungs of the financial services ladder seemed like an adventure as much as a vocation.

And for a time, that’s just what it was. Days spent surrounded by multimillion-dollar trades were followed by lavish nights spent entertaining clients at hot restaurants like Nobu.

It was a challenging but exhilarating life, “and somebody else was picking up the tab,” said Ms. Wong, 28. “I guess if I came from a wealthier background it wouldn’t have been so dazzling. But to me, this was so glamorous. This is why I moved to New York.”

And, yes, the money was good.

But after the seismic disruptions in the financial sector last week, she is not sure the Wall Street life will be quite the same any time soon, if ever.
21wallstreet-650.jpg

“The business is going to change,” said Ms. Wong, whose position selling mortgage-backed securities for UBS was eliminated in the spring. “There are just going to be far fewer people doing this, and far fewer clients to take out. Even if you do have clients to take out, you’re not going to be spending as much out. This is definitely going to suck the fun out of the industry.”

And perhaps not only the fun.

The most recent generation of strivers on Wall Street — those in their 20s — are too young to remember the last recession and too new to the business world to have experienced the dot-com bust or the post-9/11 gloom. They arrived in a New York boomtown: money was seemingly being minted in the hedge-fund and private-equity sectors; investment banks were paying gigantic bonuses.

For them, Wall Street was mythic terrain. For people with the conqueror gene, its outsized risks and rewards seemed like a personal challenge, a peak to be scaled.

Now, Wall Street is more like “Survivor.” Thousands of layoffs loom as the industry shrinks and consolidates. And even when recovery comes — presuming it does — traders and bankers said profits would most likely be lower, deals fewer, bonuses minuscule and regulation greater.

A result may be a more subdued Wall Street, one where professionals make a comfortable living but where the enormous payouts and outrageous bravado have faded. If so, this cultural shift could change not only the industry, but New York, which has adapted to a quarter-century-long (if occasionally interrupted) financial boom.

“There was so much optimism, so much froth,” said Delilah Rothenberg, 25, who now works at a private equity firm in Manhattan; she was an associate at Bear Stearns until that firm imploded in March. Even recently, she added, investment professionals in their 20s “were buying all kinds of luxuries on credit because they expected the money to keep coming in: watches, cars, apartments, boats.”

In recent years, compensation packages soared “by double-digit rates, which of course created an impression of impregnability,” said Adam Zoia, a managing partner of Glocap Search, a New York-based recruiter.

As recently as last year, a first-year investment banking analyst on Wall Street made $125,000 to $150,000, including bonuses, according to Options Group, a recruiting and consulting firm based in New York. An investment banking associate, which is one rung above that, made $250,000 to $300,000.

“Bonuses will be substantially lower in investment banking as well as many other areas,” said Michael Karp, the company’s chief executive. The people who once browsed Porsche showrooms may simply be happy to have a job, any job.

“The party’s over,” Ms. Rothenberg said.

And so is the compact that young bankers make with themselves: punishing workweeks for huge pay down the road.

“The whole glamour of investment banking is that you’re going to earn so much money that in the end it’s going to be worth it,” said a 22-year-old former JPMorgan Chase analyst who was laid off in May and later found work at a private equity firm, but only after going to nearly 40 interviews. “If you get rid of the bonus, then there’s basically no point.”

Young traders and bankers were willing to endure brutal hours and high stress to taste a rarefied New York life, said Dr. Rosalind S. Dorlen, a clinical psychologist in Summit, N.J., who said she sees a large number of Wall Street workers in her practice.

“There is something nice about being king,” Dr. Dorlen said, describing the mind-set of young Wall Street players. “The sense of power, the sense of omnipotence, the sense of testosterone. What other reason are people attracted to being an investment banker than to flex muscles? It’s ‘Whose wallet is larger?’ ”

Such swagger meant that Wall Street hotshots were never beloved figures on New York’s cultural landscape. It’s no coincidence that the protagonists of books and movies like “The Bonfire of the Vanities” and “American Psycho” tended to be narcissistic jerks, or worse.

But New York’s Gordon Gekkos played a crucial role in reinventing New York in the 1970s, when even the city’s champions wondered if the nearly bankrupt city was going to go the way of Detroit, said Kurt Andersen, the writer and a co-founder Spy magazine at the height of the 1980s Wall Street boom.

“If you look at two things, other than the ineffable spirit of New Yorkers, that made the city better again, you look at police and crime, and prosperity,” Mr. Andersen said. “And in speaking about prosperity, we’re talking about the tremendous sums of money that, despite 1987 and 2000, kept gushing into the city thanks to the people wearing yellow ties.”

Wall Street’s highfliers helped rebrand the city in the eyes of the world, Mr. Andersen said, from a tired postindustrial necropolis to a sleek 21st-century financial dynamo.

And that is the city today. Or it was.

Even before the recent carnage, the city’s financial services sector had shed about 9,200 jobs from September 2007 to June, according to the state comptroller’s office. Industry analysts predict that thousands more may disappear after the meltdowns at Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. And even the leading Wall Street minds seem to have no idea when the industry might rebound; at the depths of the crisis last week 2010 sounded like an optimistic estimate.

And that makes business students very wary. “There’s a certain scary factor that’s come into this,” said Roy C. Smith, a professor at the New York University Stern School of Business and a former general partner of Goldman Sachs. “My students have a stunned look in their eyes.”

Steven Song, 29, who started as an analyst at a Manhattan investment bank in 2001 and recently left a job at a hedge fund, runs a volunteer organization that provides mentoring and guidance to college undergraduates who aspire to work in finance. He said that several students he works with expressed reservations last week about pursuing jobs on Wall Street because of a perceived lack of opportunities.

“There are fewer banks that are out there now, and each one that’s out there remaining is hiring fewer people,” he said.

One top student recently asked him for a “list of smaller, boutique investment banks and brokerage firms instead of going for big-name shops,” he said. “In previous years that would never be the case unless you were a quote-unquote marginal candidate.”

Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers could once be counted on to hire 20 to 30 graduates from the M.B.A. program at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, a spokeswoman for the university said. Those graduates will now have to look elsewhere, said Gautam Tambay, 26, a first-year student in the program, “so there just aren’t as many opportunities anymore.”

Another M.B.A. student said that students were starting to wonder where they would find jobs to pay off their student loans. So, imagine legions of M.B.A.’s pinching pennies to pay off student loans. That will change New York as we know it.

“New York’s going to take a big hit,” said Bryan Gunderson, 28, a former investment banker for Lehman Brothers. “This city is priced for people who work on Wall Street. It’s ridiculous that cocktails cost $15 in New York.”

The 23-year-old Wall Street phenoms who are used to spending $300 or more for a bottle of vodka at a West Chelsea nightclub, he said, are “going to have to tone it back.”

Tom Wolfe, the author of “The Bonfire of the Vanities,” said that “if Wall Street really does take a hard shot, it will diminish the image of New York as capital of the Western world.”

But then, Wall Street — and the fantasyland it helped create in New York — was likely to shrink even without a credit crisis.

“I hate to use the phrase ‘masters of the universe,’ but they’re not in investment banking anymore, they’re in hedge funds,” Mr. Wolfe said. And “hedge funds don’t need glass office towers. They can run $15 billion with 25 people” in the leafy suburban sanctuaries where their directors live.

“The new Wall Street,” he said, “is Greenwich, Conn.”

In a possible indication of night life to come, Mr. Gunderson and his girlfriend invited friends to their West Village apartment last week to “party like it’s 1929.”

“If all the radio stations were playing big band music and this message were headed your way through the main switchboard, I would swear this was the Great Depression,” the invitation read.

“Unless you just lost your job,” the invitation continued, “or your fund is down more than 20 percent, please bring beer or booze.”
 
Most intelligent? Why, because he got a Harvard law degree? Affirmative action perhaps? I say charisma, race, and oratorical prowess put him in office. And even then, I guess his supposed brilliance and intelligence have been so helpful in picking non-taxpaying cabinet members one after another, and in signing a bill --- that singlehandedly has doubled this country's debt --- without even reading it (basically letting Pelosi get everything she wanted!).

And oh --- Biden is nothing more than a symbol head. BHO and Pelosi are running this country [down]:thumbdown:thumbdown:thumbdown:! I'd take that Alaskan hoebag any day over Pelosi.

Really? How does affirmative action get one a Harvard JD, Magna Cum Laude?

Let me break that down for you, since you dont know about all this larnin' stuff. Affirmative action might have gotten someone in the door at Harvard. But, it did not get them out with Honors, and a JD with Dissertation. However he got in, (which until now Ive never heard anything of this sort) he got out on his own merit.
 
On the bright side we are still so well off. Even if healthcare reform causes physician salaries to be cut in half, an extremely busy private practice pathologist working 60-70 hours a week or a top of the heap academic will still pull 200K-300K, that's not too bad. I know people were expecting a potential of 400K when they were entering residency, but that's not going to happen in this day and age.

Imagine how much worse it would be to be finishing up in journalism school right now or looking for a job in investment banking. Talk about hopeless. There was a NYT article a few months ago about how things changed so abruptly for young people in finance.

Boo f'in hoo. I do not feel bad for these people. It's been proven that IB and big-time investing were a scam to use the public to make bankers money. They pump and dumped the entire country.
 
60-70 hrs a week, 200K is not bad?

Am I missing something?
 
60-70 hrs a week, 200K is not bad?

Am I missing something?

Yes, you're missing alot. You're now working twice as hard for half the money (and even that, is not guaranteed). This means you take twice the liability, twice the call, twice the lawsuits.
 
Even with the proposed tax increases, doctors who are claiming incomes in the 200-400 range will likely see no significant change in their taxes paid. They will still pay the alternative minimum tax. I think you probably have to claim around 500k on your W2 to have the 39.6% tax rate be larger than the alternative minimum tax. So, in reality the tax increase will affect very few of us. In addition, if you make 500k and claim 500k on your W2 then you need to get a new accountant. Just sayin' ....

The big tax revenue here is from people making million dollar bonuses on wall street who are currently paying capital gains tax (like 15%) instead of income tax. These bonuses will be taxed as income at 39.6% under the Obama plan. However, what ever rules get put in place savvy business minds will find a way around it.

yea it will, because the new stuff is targeted at deductions people in this range claim, like mortgage.
 
you realize he is mormon right...and they believe in aliens right...and that we are from the planet kolob

Strange. You choose to live in Utah, yet you don't like mormons. Why not leave then? They would possibly, even probably survive without you, though I'm sure the whole state would feel cheated and at a great loss without your superior knowledge and presence nearby.
 
60-70 hrs a week, 200K is not bad?

Am I missing something?

Sure. If this is Great Depression 2, most people would do terrible things to get a job paying 200K/yr for 60-70 hours a week.
 
Sure. If this is Great Depression 2, most people would do terrible things to get a job paying 200K/yr for 60-70 hours a week.

You're saying that an attending with 8+ years of higher education and 3-10 years of on-the-job training has not had to do those terrible things?

Don't consider doctors lucky. We work our damn asses off to get these "cushy jobs" with their "high pay". Being a doctor is not a priviledge, it is earned.
 
yea it will, because the new stuff is targeted at deductions people in this range claim, like mortgage.


Well, my understanding is that when you do your taxes you calculate the regular way (with deductions and whatnot) and then you calculate the alternative minimum tax. You pay the total that is larger. So, in order to pay more in taxes you'd have to have the regular method tax bill be higher than the AMT. Even with certain deductions gone, the AMT will still likely be higher. In other words, while the official "tax rate" may have changed we'll all still be paying the AMT anyway.

Here is a link that explains where I'm coming from...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/your-money/28money.html
 
BEFORE Nicole Wong took a job as an analyst at JPMorgan Chase after graduating from Brown University in 2001, she wasn’t exactly sure what one did every day as a junior financier — or, in New York mythology, apprentice master of the universe.

But after the seismic disruptions in the financial sector last week, she is not sure the Wall Street life will be quite the same any time soon, if ever.
21wallstreet-650.jpg

That's a CHICK???????
 
Top