Pharmacist Salary Thread

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
FarscapeGirl said:
Having graduated from Davis, it was nice reminiscing by reading this thread. I love Seattle, but it was so easy to ride a bike in Davis, and the warm weather was wonderful.
Click to expand...

Farscape (& passion4sci) these are for you:

RandomDigicam030_upload.jpg
RandomDigicam020_upload.jpg
 
AWESOME pictures!

I am so glad I still live here... and was able to come back after leaving the military. I wish my wife would consider UC Davis law, but 34th apparently is not high enough to not end up chasing ambulances with the saturation of law schools the way it is now =/
 
i thought the average salary for a pharmacist was no less than 80 k (i know quite a few that make over a 100 k a year) and u guys are saying thats its now $40 an hour (whats that like 48 k a year) damn im better off becoming a nurse. with all the walgreens and cvs pharmacies opening up on every corner I kind of find it hard to believe that there is a surplus of pharmacists.
 
Cangri One said:
i thought the average salary for a pharmacist was no less than 80 k (i know quite a few that make over a 100 k a year) and u guys are saying thats its now $40 an hour (whats that like 48 k a year) damn im better off becoming a nurse. with all the walgreens and cvs pharmacies opening up on every corner I kind of find it hard to believe that there is a surplus of pharmacists.
Click to expand...


um...yea. I don't know how you are doing your calculations but $40/hr is significantly more than 48k a year unless you are not working full time. If you would seriously consider switching fields because you are not guaranteed to make 100k when you graduate then yes please do not become a pharmacist. I'm sick of hearing about people who care more about their pocket book than the actual profession.
 
I actually wouldn't mind if the salary for pharmacists dropped, as long as I have a steady job where I can help people and consistently learn about science, I'm cool beans.
 
there are many pharmacists that i have worked with who are obviously in it for the money alone.

the profession would be better off without them.
 
rjk said:
there are many pharmacists that i have worked with who are obviously in it for the money alone.

the profession would be better off without them.
Click to expand...

Let the salary drop a little bit then. Hopefully that will be the natural market force that rids the profession of all of the checkbook-obsessive twatnapkins.

"Oh, but I'm going to have sooooooo much debt, I need 6 figures to pay it all off!" Well, then, don't go to pharmacy school in the first place. Problem solved.
 
I agree, I run into so many students who just want to graduate, get a job and kick their feet up. Although... instead of lowing salaries I think it would be better to do things that would be more likely improve the profession. Such as mandating at least one year residency? or mandatory 4 year degree completion prior to starting your first professional year?
 
yappy said:
I agree, I run into so many students who just want to graduate, get a job and kick their feet up. Although... instead of lowing salaries I think it would be better to do things that would be more likely improve the profession. Such as mandating at least one year residency? or mandatory 4 year degree completion prior to starting your first professional year?
Click to expand...
Why do you think mandating a residency would improve the profession?
 
yappy said:
Such as mandating at least one year residency?
Click to expand...

1) the system can't handle it, not enough residency slots for everyone.
2) what medicalcpa said...why would that make the profession any better? it's just slave labor for the hospitals, you can get that same experience over the course of a few years working at full salary.
 
I feel that by adding a required year of residency to practice pharmacy would increase the skill and knowledge of clinical specialists. For retail? I cannot think of a direct benefit.
As for residencies for hospitals - I don't share your attitude of it being slave labor. To me it seems like a necessary step toward furthering your career in an aspect of pharmacy that interests you. Why is it that a medical student once they graduate cannot simply be an IM or Derm? As a pharmacy graduate you may have a great amount of knowledge - but you'll lack clinical judgement. I guess the question is: should this be gained as on-the-job-training or in a structured residency?
 
A lower salary in a vacuum is no problem.

A lower salary with an increasing number of schools (mostly the upstart stand-alones, like Cal Northstate but even established schools like UoP) charging 40-70k a year for tuition is the problem, and I have addressed this in several of my posts.

Clearly, a motivational factor in our society is money. Possessions, quality of life, prestige are all corollary motivating components to why we choose a particular job. Putting it plainly, would as many people still want to be Pharmacists if the average salary for a Pharmacist in the US was $52,000 instead of $80,000? Well, if they have the same amount of student loan debt @ 52k that they would @ 80k, then there is a serious problem. Becoming a Pharmacist should not equate to a vow of poverty, and so if a Pharmacist's salary is to be decreased then tuition should also decrease. However, this does not occur, and as I have said before, tuition keeps going up and expectant income for newly minted PharmDs either stays the same or goes down (as a function of how many PharmDs are available for work).

Now, a separate issue (which people tend to lump together as one problem with salary) in regards to money is people choosing Pharmacy JUST for the salary benefits and not necessarily because they want to do it, love it, or have the same level of passion for it that many of us do.

The question I leave you with, SDN, on that topic is this: Is it not possible for someone to love the work but be worse at it than someone who is only in it for the money? That is to say... Who are we to judge someone on the basis of their motivation to practice Pharmacy if they are practicing well? And if they are not practicing well, then they should be subject to the same sanctions as would be someone who loves Pharmacy.

In our world, as human beings, we separate people via in-group vs. out-group based on set criteria for whatever we're discussing. So, on SDN, when we talk about someone who "is just in it for the money", we're distancing ourselves from them (I am sure not in it for the money! that says) but really, "just doing it for the money" does NOT pre-dispose them from being any less of an excellent Pharmacist than you loving Pharmacy pre-disposes you to be an excellent Pharmacist!!

People won't agree with me here, but I am comfortable with that. Additionally, people don't agree with me that I think Cal Northstate and Tuoro, along with several other new Pharmacy schools, are going to lead to an extreme dilution in the quality of Pharmacist overall being produced (I.e., expectations will be decreased) which will, over time (OVER TIME), devalue our profession and in turn lead to a decrease in salary.

If we want to preserve our chose profession, we need to put a stop to schools starting up CoPs for pure profit (And henceforth stop admitting people with 2.8 GPAs into Pharmacy schools). I am not a perfect student, nor am I a genius, and I am not saying that I am either. I do not have a 4.0, but conversely, if I had a <2.7 GPA and a 50 PCAT, I would not expect to get into a Pharmacy school.

The sad thing is, schools are starting to take people with those qualifications. Indeed, the exception to the rule would be someone with poor scholastics but who is still an excellent pharmacist. This does occur. But the overall PERCEPTION (Which when it comes to funding, is reality) for the profession is that if it's easy to get into Pharmacy school and graduate from Pharmacy school, then why are Pharmacists paid so much?

It gets back to the University of Phoenix degree, and stuff like Heald Law School. Law is an excellent example of what Pharmacy might end up like in 15 years, or less - Oversaturated and, despite SOME attorneys making excellent money at the top of the field, a low paid profession (With an extremely high debt load, just look at the law student forums or an LJ community).
 
yappy said:
Why is it that a medical student once they graduate cannot simply be an IM or Derm? As a pharmacy graduate you may have a great amount of knowledge - but you'll lack clinical judgement. I guess the question is: should this be gained as on-the-job-training or in a structured residency?
Click to expand...

Pharmacy isn't medicine...in medicine, it's expected you go into residency, or you are essentially nothing.

Residencies are overrated, check the job boards...it's usually "residency OR 1-2 years hospital experience required." If you want to specialize in ID or anything else, then that's the way to go, but you should not need a residency to work outside of a staff pharmacist position. They already added the 1yr of rotations to the end of p-school, now you want to add another at half pay?

The push for residencies are due to the propaganda put forward by academia at large, which more or less is out of touch with reality (not always, I've had individual professors grounded in both). It's the same propaganda that says there's a pharmacy shortage.

There's discussion about this in the pharm board...and from what I'm getting is, due to the looming surplus, I'm now contemplating getting a residency in the interest of self preservation (wording from WVU and PharmDstudent somewhat). Not my preferred method of securing my future because it's crap, but so is school sometimes.
 
-"While the premium that college grads earn over high schoolers has remained relatively constant over the past five years, the cost of acquiring a degree has risen at twice the rate of inflation, dramatically undermining any value a sheepskin adds."

-I went to a Univ of California. In the 4 years I was there, I saw the tuition from my freshman year increase several hundred dollars by the time I graduated.

-recent proposed 10% increase in tuition for CSUs:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/06/BAKJ17F84D.DTL&tsp=1

I don't know if these trends show a 1:1 correlation with increases in pharmacy education costs, but it is scary nonetheless.


It was only a few decades ago where you could graduate from college and receive a high paying and secure job. Do you guys think that obtaining a PharmD will go the way of a college degree with all these new schools that our everyone with a PharmD will be buried in debt with no way out? I'm afraid that pharmacy salaries will not keep up with inflation/rising cost of tuition. This is not an issue of greed or wanting more money, but whether or not we will even be able to live fiscally sound lives.
 
Passion4Sci said:
A lower salary in a vacuum is no problem.

A lower salary with an increasing number of schools (mostly the upstart stand-alones, like Cal Northstate but even established schools like UoP) charging 40-70k a year for tuition is the problem, and I have addressed this in several of my posts.

Clearly, a motivational factor in our society is money. Possessions, quality of life, prestige are all corollary motivating components to why we choose a particular job. Putting it plainly, would as many people still want to be Pharmacists if the average salary for a Pharmacist in the US was $52,000 instead of $80,000? Well, if they have the same amount of student loan debt @ 52k that they would @ 80k, then there is a serious problem. Becoming a Pharmacist should not equate to a vow of poverty, and so if a Pharmacist's salary is to be decreased then tuition should also decrease. However, this does not occur, and as I have said before, tuition keeps going up and expectant income for newly minted PharmDs either stays the same or goes down (as a function of how many PharmDs are available for work).

Now, a separate issue (which people tend to lump together as one problem with salary) in regards to money is people choosing Pharmacy JUST for the salary benefits and not necessarily because they want to do it, love it, or have the same level of passion for it that many of us do.

The question I leave you with, SDN, on that topic is this: Is it not possible for someone to love the work but be worse at it than someone who is only in it for the money? That is to say... Who are we to judge someone on the basis of their motivation to practice Pharmacy if they are practicing well? And if they are not practicing well, then they should be subject to the same sanctions as would be someone who loves Pharmacy.

In our world, as human beings, we separate people via in-group vs. out-group based on set criteria for whatever we're discussing. So, on SDN, when we talk about someone who "is just in it for the money", we're distancing ourselves from them (I am sure not in it for the money! that says) but really, "just doing it for the money" does NOT pre-dispose them from being any less of an excellent Pharmacist than you loving Pharmacy pre-disposes you to be an excellent Pharmacist!!

People won't agree with me here, but I am comfortable with that. Additionally, people don't agree with me that I think Cal Northstate and Tuoro, along with several other new Pharmacy schools, are going to lead to an extreme dilution in the quality of Pharmacist overall being produced (I.e., expectations will be decreased) which will, over time (OVER TIME), devalue our profession and in turn lead to a decrease in salary.

If we want to preserve our chose profession, we need to put a stop to schools starting up CoPs for pure profit (And henceforth stop admitting people with 2.8 GPAs into Pharmacy schools). I am not a perfect student, nor am I a genius, and I am not saying that I am either. I do not have a 4.0, but conversely, if I had a <2.7 GPA and a 50 PCAT, I would not expect to get into a Pharmacy school.

The sad thing is, schools are starting to take people with those qualifications. Indeed, the exception to the rule would be someone with poor scholastics but who is still an excellent pharmacist. This does occur. But the overall PERCEPTION (Which when it comes to funding, is reality) for the profession is that if it's easy to get into Pharmacy school and graduate from Pharmacy school, then why are Pharmacists paid so much?

It gets back to the University of Phoenix degree, and stuff like Heald Law School. Law is an excellent example of what Pharmacy might end up like in 15 years, or less - Oversaturated and, despite SOME attorneys making excellent money at the top of the field, a low paid profession (With an extremely high debt load, just look at the law student forums or an LJ community).
Click to expand...

You hit it right on the spot. Seriously, all these people talking about the love of the profession, etc, etc. What do you "love" about the profession? Helping people? You can seriously help people doing anything, teaching them, mentoring them, etc. Healing them? Well, most of the time pharmacists just dispense and unless you get one of the clinical positions that's mostly what you will do. Even the clinical positions, you're not the doctor so your opinion is taken into consideration and not final. Also, 90% of my class did it for the money but does that mean they all hated pharmacy? NO. However, money was the deciding factor because why should we study our @$$ off (trust me it wasnt easy except for 1st year) to help people and make 50k and be in debt. NO ONE is that generous and if doctors were paid any less, no one would go into med school except a few who likes helping and living with the bare minimum. Trust me, those are few to none.

Also, those that say get rid of them, etc, etc. If there are so many great people that are so in love with the profession, how'd they lose the pharmacy position to the money hungry guy (so really, who has more motivation?) that is somehow supposedly inferior and not as knowlegeable because he/she is in it for the money. Face the facts, at the end of the day you want to feed your family and people choose to do things to get rewarded, be it patient happiness, satisfaction, or money, with the latter playing a huge role. Money makes the world go round. I did it for the money but i do care for my patients/customers and I would be a big fat liar if i said i would pick pharmacy if it paid 50k. I liek helping people, but im not going to lie and say i love them that much to put myself at a loss.
 
I don't think any of the new schools would accept a student with less than a 2.7 GPA and 50 PCAT, I know that Touro is quite competitive and my best friend who had a 3.0 GPA didn't even get an interview. I am not sure where that statistic came from....I know for a fact that UCSF accepts people with GPA's as low as 2.8, would you consider these students diluting the pharmacy workforce as well? I think these schools aren't popping up for profit off of less than qualified students, but are profiting off of very qualified individuals who were not able to get seats at other schools because of the limited number of spots as interest in pharmacy has risen over the years. I don't understand all the negativity associated with the newer schools in California....it's not like these people couldn't get in anywhere else. I know for my situation, I could have applied to out of state or Southern Cali schools and gotten in somewhere at what you deem a "reputable" school, but my heart lies with Northern Cali and I chose to stay close to home and go to Touro. Their program seems pretty good in my opinion and they give you two years of clinical training which is very essential to success as a pharmacist.
 
sprinkle0420 said:
I don't think any of the new schools would accept a student with less than a 2.7 GPA and 50 PCAT, I know that Touro is quite competitive and my best friend who had a 3.0 GPA didn't even get an interview. I am not sure where that statistic came from....I know for a fact that UCSF accepts people with GPA's as low as 2.8, would you consider these students diluting the pharmacy workforce as well? I think these schools aren't popping up for profit off of less than qualified students, but are profiting off of very qualified individuals who were not able to get seats at other schools because of the limited number of spots as interest in pharmacy has risen over the years. I don't understand all the negativity associated with the newer schools in California....it's not like these people couldn't get in anywhere else. I know for my situation, I could have applied to out of state or Southern Cali schools and gotten in somewhere at what you deem a "reputable" school, but my heart lies with Northern Cali and I chose to stay close to home and go to Touro. Their program seems pretty good in my opinion and they give you two years of clinical training which is very essential to success as a pharmacist.
Click to expand...

thats called affirmative action. a topic all on its own. UCSF, UNC etc only accepts the best, but they will have people with below 3.0 and low PCAT due to affirmative action. again a totally different topic.
 
BelowTheMean said:
You hit it right on the spot. Seriously, all these people talking about the love of the profession, etc, etc. What do you "love" about the profession? Helping people? You can seriously help people doing anything, teaching them, mentoring them, etc. Healing them? Well, most of the time pharmacists just dispense and unless you get one of the clinical positions that's mostly what you will do. Even the clinical positions, you're not the doctor so your opinion is taken into consideration and not final. Also, 90% of my class did it for the money but does that mean they all hated pharmacy? NO. However, money was the deciding factor because why should we study our @$$ off (trust me it wasnt easy except for 1st year) to help people and make 50k and be in debt. NO ONE is that generous and if doctors were paid any less, no one would go into med school except a few who likes helping and living with the bare minimum. Trust me, those are few to none.

Also, those that say get rid of them, etc, etc. If there are so many great people that are so in love with the profession, how'd they lose the pharmacy position to the money hungry guy (so really, who has more motivation?) that is somehow supposedly inferior and not as knowlegeable because he/she is in it for the money. Face the facts, at the end of the day you want to feed your family and people choose to do things to get rewarded, be it patient happiness, satisfaction, or money, with the latter playing a huge role. Money makes the world go round. I did it for the money but i do care for my patients/customers and I would be a big fat liar if i said i would pick pharmacy if it paid 50k. I liek helping people, but im not going to lie and say i love them that much to put myself at a loss.
Click to expand...

I totally agree...Pharmacy schools should learn from Dental schools....there are only ~50 dental schools in the United States and very rarely are new dental schools ever opened! Why doesn't Pharmacy schools follow the same trend? It will make the profession a lot more prestigous for sure. I think 50 pharmacy schools in the United States sounds like a good number. 🙂
 
BelowTheMean said:
You hit it right on the spot. Seriously, all these people talking about the love of the profession, etc, etc. What do you "love" about the profession? Helping people? You can seriously help people doing anything, teaching them, mentoring them, etc. Healing them? Well, most of the time pharmacists just dispense and unless you get one of the clinical positions that's mostly what you will do. Even the clinical positions, you're not the doctor so your opinion is taken into consideration and not final. Also, 90% of my class did it for the money but does that mean they all hated pharmacy? NO. However, money was the deciding factor because why should we study our @$$ off (trust me it wasnt easy except for 1st year) to help people and make 50k and be in debt. NO ONE is that generous and if doctors were paid any less, no one would go into med school except a few who likes helping and living with the bare minimum. Trust me, those are few to none.

Also, those that say get rid of them, etc, etc. If there are so many great people that are so in love with the profession, how'd they lose the pharmacy position to the money hungry guy (so really, who has more motivation?) that is somehow supposedly inferior and not as knowlegeable because he/she is in it for the money. Face the facts, at the end of the day you want to feed your family and people choose to do things to get rewarded, be it patient happiness, satisfaction, or money, with the latter playing a huge role. Money makes the world go round. I did it for the money but i do care for my patients/customers and I would be a big fat liar if i said i would pick pharmacy if it paid 50k. I liek helping people, but im not going to lie and say i love them that much to put myself at a loss.
Click to expand...

Okay, you've backed me into a corner on this one. I concur with you to a degree on the money topic. There's nothing wrong with going into a field because you like the money. However, there is something wrong with someone who goes into a field solely because they like the money. Those are the people I take umbrage at.

Much like glory, money is fleeting. If you're a pharmacist going in solely for the money, sure, the six figure checks out of college are nice, but even if you're damn good at your job, how long will it be before the money no longer compensates for the fact that you don't like what you do for a living?

It's like the old saying goes - "Do what you like, like what you do." There's nothing wrong with being appealed by the money, but more should appeal to you than just that. To illustrate this point, I would use the analogy of marrying a girl simply because she's rich. How well do you think that would work out long term?
 
IrishHammer said:
Okay, you've backed me into a corner on this one. I concur with you to a degree on the money topic. There's nothing wrong with going into a field because you like the money. However, there is something wrong with someone who goes into a field solely because they like the money. Those are the people I take umbrage at.

Much like glory, money is fleeting. If you're a pharmacist going in solely for the money, sure, the six figure checks out of college are nice, but even if you're damn good at your job, how long will it be before the money no longer compensates for the fact that you don't like what you do for a living?

It's like the old saying goes - "Do what you like, like what you do." There's nothing wrong with being appealed by the money, but more should appeal to you than just that. To illustrate this point, I would use the analogy of marrying a girl simply because she's rich. How well do you think that would work out long term?
Click to expand...

You are right, you can't HATE the job and do it. I HATE being outdoors, I HATE blood, I HATE touching people....so anything that involves those three things I will not and cannot do. Even for a million dollars a year.

However, I think people can do a job they don't love, but they don't hate either. I think people can marry someone that that don't love, but they don't hate either. I don't think you have to be IN love with a job to do it...most people don't love their jobs...I mean you will be lying to yourself if you tell me now that you would rather be a pharmacist and work your a** off then to win a 50 million dollars in the lottery. Hell anyone will be lying if they tell me now that they love pharmacy so much that they would rather be a pharmacist then to win 50 million dollars and be able to do what they REALLY LOVE doing.
 
SHC1984 said:
thats called affirmative action. a topic all on its own. UCSF, UNC etc only accepts the best, but they will have people with below 3.0 and low PCAT due to affirmative action. again a totally different topic.
Click to expand...
You're making a terrible error in judgment if you assume that all the people who get into top pharmacy schools with sub 3.0 GPA's do so because of affirmative action.
 
SHC1984 said:
thats called affirmative action. a topic all on its own. UCSF, UNC etc only accepts the best, but they will have people with below 3.0 and low PCAT due to affirmative action. again a totally different topic.
Click to expand...

Well I didn't get an interview at UCSF and I have a 3.34, am Mexican, and come from a very economically disadvantaged household (dad has only GED, mom didn't even finish high school), so I find that a little hard ot be true.
 
Whats with the SDN Cali bubble? Every discussion always leads back to California in some way.
 
SHC1984 said:
thats called affirmative action. a topic all on its own. UCSF, UNC etc only accepts the best, but they will have people with below 3.0 and low PCAT due to affirmative action. again a totally different topic.
Click to expand...


insert foot in mouth lol.

what sprinkles said was true. Do you really think there is that big a difference between you who got in and the guy who barely didn't get in? And for the people who say anyone can get in pharm school now due to the number of schools and standards are going down. Right now each school in california is getting about 3k applicants. Most of these are probably of the standard 3.5gpa with extra curriculars. Are you saying all of them got in? no. Ask any adcom, choosing students is getting incredibly difficult due to the sheer number of qualified applicants. So stop dogging the people who are getting in other schools.

and no, I have had a friend who went to UCSF, gpa isn't the only thing they look at, so low gpa doesn't mean that the person got in because of affirmative action. There are plenty of minorities with a 3.7gpa that schools can pick from, trust me, i've seen them all in the UC systems.

get off your high horses.
 
A non-tenure PhD professor at a community college in California can make nearly $90 an hour after 5 years. Also, there is no "publish or perish" involved in community college either AFAIK.

http://www.vcccd.edu/assets/pdf/human_resources/salary_sched_academic.pdf

1. As a Grad student, the cost is usually nothing because you have a fellowship. They pay you to do research, so overall you get paid for getting a PhD. Forget about loans.
2. The hours are very accommodating as a professor. Also, you don't work a full year unless you want summer sessions for extra cash.

My Philosophy professor who was full time at one CC, and part time at 2 others was making over $150,000. He worked 10 months a year.

There is even more money teaching at a CSU or UC. However, as a professor at that level you have to research and publish more than teach.

I also knew a guy who worked an entry-level job at GM and was getting paid about $75/hour.

So, is it fair that a professor at a community college can generally make more than a pharmacist? My point is if you are just in it for the money there are so many other options. (Not trying to make people switch professions; This post mostly applies to California residents)
 
yappy said:
Whats with the SDN Cali bubble? Every discussion always leads back to California in some way.
Click to expand...

Cuz there's just lots of us, haha... and we can tell you're not from CA when you call it "Cali" because no one really calls it that except tourists/people from the midwest/east coast.
 
Pharmpills said:
My prediction is that the pay will continue to slowly rise and approach 125k and then begin to dip to 80-90k as the demand is met and a slight overage occurs. This is sort of occuring already as Walgreen's locations in many underserved areas are being filled in FL and intern positions are becoming more difficult to find. What might occur is that the pharmacist who are making 100k will continue to make that but the new graduates in 201x might have a hard time finding jobs. Just bc an over supply occurs doesn't mean the pay will severely dip bc that can lead to another shortage more worse.
Click to expand...

I dont think pharm salaries will ever drop below 95k. IT will fluctuate btw 95-125k. Also, there is never going to be an over supply anytime soon. An oversupply might only occur a very long time from now. Maybe 2050 but not anytime soon.
 
jasonbourne said:
I dont think pharm salaries will ever drop below 95k. IT will fluctuate btw 95-125k. Also, there is never going to be an over supply anytime soon. An oversupply might only occur a very long time from now. Maybe 2050 but not anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Are you really projecting out 40 years? Because man, 40 years ago, if you told someone travel agents and typewriters would always be in demand, they'd pretty much agree with you.
 
why was this thread bumped, isn't there another one maybe a couple pages back?
 
confettiflyer said:
Are you really projecting out 40 years? Because man, 40 years ago, if you told someone travel agents and typewriters would always be in demand, they'd pretty much agree with you.
Click to expand...

Those are technological advances. We cant compare those to pharmacy. Pharmacists will still be needed to do counselling, and dispense medication. I am pretty sure demand might never even meet supply. Also, pharmacists are lobbying hard daily to make sure that restrictions are placed upon the use of too many techs, or robots.
 
jasonbourne said:
Those are technological advances. We cant compare those to pharmacy. Pharmacists will still be needed to do counselling, and dispense medication. I am pretty sure demand might never even meet supply. Also, pharmacists are lobbying hard daily to make sure that restrictions are placed upon the use of too many techs, or robots.
Click to expand...

There may be unforeseen technological advances rendering Pharmacists obsolete, who the hell knows?

No one can see the future. The only ones left on this planet in 40 years might be cockroaches.
 
the other thread was trying to scare us. this is more realistic
 
Passion4Sci said:
There may be unforeseen technological advances rendering Pharmacists obsolete, who the hell knows?

No one can see the future. The only ones left on this planet in 40 years might be cockroaches.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA, cockroaches in the white house ruling the other cockroaches around the world:laugh:
 
jasonbourne said:
Pharmacists are politicians now lol
Click to expand...

lol, have you seen the crap coming out of washington? we're getting killed up there, it's not looking good. we're coming off as useless/replaceable by automation and nurses. i've yet to see an effective response mounted by any of the impotent pharmacy acronyms.
 
confettiflyer said:
lol, have you seen the crap coming out of washington? we're getting killed up there, it's not looking good. we're coming off as useless/replaceable by automation and nurses. i've yet to see an effective response mounted by any of the impotent pharmacy acronyms.
Click to expand...

Politicians in Washington...referring to pharmacists...as useless and replaceable?

Hi, pot? Kettle. Don't believe we've met.
 
In 40 years, the flimsy law that requires a licensed pharmacist to be present at a pharmacy could be repealed, thereby destroying the entire pharmacy profession. You never know! :laugh:
 
confettiflyer said:
What idiom are you referring to, can't seem to figure this one out.
Click to expand...

Politicians calling anyone else useless and replaceable is the pot calling the kettle black, because US politicians are the most useless and replaceable people on the planet.
 
IrishHammer said:
Politicians calling anyone else useless and replaceable is the pot calling the kettle black, because US politicians are the most useless and replaceable people on the planet.
Click to expand...

ok that makes sense...i never used a kettle, just those dispenser things that you fill up with water and keeps it boiled. 👍
 
clickandsave said:
well, my friend told me a pharmacist he knows got their pays reduced. Several of my friends are signing on with hospitals for mid $40 hr ranges. Whatever happened to the days of high salaries? Also, there is a lot of talk about pharmacy being saturated in a few yrs if it isnt already. Does this worry any of you guys?

http://www.pharmacytimes.com/issue/pharmacy/2009/2009-04/2009-04-10223

It's scary because it is really real when you know someone who experienced this. Try reading the pharmacy student boards. A lot of the new grads this year have posted a lot of problems even getting an interview at retail positions.
Click to expand...
I was worried about this for about 60 seconds and then I realized that I already have an MBA and will clean up in the business side of pharmacy down the road (where all the big $$$ is at) 🙂
 
Classic case of supply and demand. Move to an area with more demand.

I live in a state that is #2 in the country for shortages.

Furthermore, this job isn't all about the money. If it is, you should consider doing something you love instead. The money is just an added bonus.
 
Last edited:
wes011 said:
Classic case of supply and demand. Move to an area with less demand.

I live in a state that is #2 in the country for shortages.

Furthermore, this job isn't all about the money. If it is, you should consider doing something you love instead. The money is just an added bonus.
Click to expand...

Assuming you mean more demand, I completely agree with you. I don't have all that much sympathy for people complaining that there's no jobs around when what they really mean is that there's no jobs downtown in a huge metropolitan area. Granted, my case is probably different than many since I live in Illinois which is made up of a lot of rural area. Even still, I did a quick search on indeed.com (great site by the way), and found literally HUNDREDS of pharmacist openings in the state of Illinois alone. Of course some of them are sure to be duplicates and require quite a bit of experience, but I call BS on people saying there are almost NO jobs left.

It's certainally possible (and probably likely) that salaries will go down somewhat in the near future, but they're not going to be cut in half overnight.
 
wes011 said:
Furthermore, this job isn't all about the money.
Click to expand...

True, but at the end of the day, there are bills to pay and 6 figure loans to pay back. If photographers and travel writers didn't make such crap wages (on average), I'd have gone that route.

I'm a realist, I don't love this field I'm going into...but it'll buy me the lifestyle I want and not drive me crazy 8-12 hours a day while I'm at work.
 
I can't believe some of you are still groaning and moaning about that poorly written article. It references 2 or 3 people he's heard from and blames it on the entire pharmacy school system. I wish I could find the paper I had earlier which was written within the last year and really broke down the numbers to include the pharmacy school openings.

I agree with what confetti and passion have been saying, but also to the op, your pharmacist prob got a cut because the economy sucks right now and most chains are suffering. It's not going to drop nearly 40% in a heartbeat. Geez.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
  • Question Question
Michigan Pharmacist License by Endorsement for Canadian Pharmacist
Replies
0
Views
2K
pharmacist_query
P
B
Informatics Pharmacist
Replies
1
Views
3K
gwarm01
G
B
The Off-Topic Thread
Replies
1
Views
824
sunnyandseventytwo
sunnyandseventytwo
B
Who is the most successful pharmacist you personally know?
Replies
23
Views
4K
RogerWilco
R
O.State
Possible to go back to being a pharmacy tech from Pharmacist
Replies
3
Views
1K
lord999
lord999
Top Bottom