Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Hell no. Who would like to go to school for at least 6 years and get paid 45 ,and on top of that owe at least 120k?
Pharmacist Salary Thread
Started by rutpharm
Hell no. Who would like to go to school for at least 6 years and get paid 45 ,and on top of that owe at least 120k?
Makes one wonder why half of the world has MDs making less than cabdrivers. Have in mind that for each one of you who dont want your 45K, there are a dozen outthere who do. The only reason you getting 100-120K in retail is becouse there is no Bill Gates in pharmacy.
The reason people are getting six figures is because of the shortage of pharmacist while a spike in demand for drugs has taken place. the computer analogy makes no sense. btw there are more people that rather jump in for the 100K plus than those that would for 45K
40k? i don't think so. i think in the future, it will be HARDER to get a job b/c rather than hiring anyone from any school, you have to separate yourself.
i think w/ the expanding role of the pharmacist, the pay will be very good even when supply is saturated, but it won't be as easy getting a job like it is now.
the education to become a pharmacist is very tough now unlike before. so it's very dumb to pay pharmacists 40k
I was exaggerating. I dont think that pharmacists will ever be paid that low, but i wont be surprised if the average income drops , just because the supply will exceed demand eventually, then the competition will lower the salary.40k? i don't think so. i think in the future, it will be HARDER to get a job b/c rather than hiring anyone from any school, you have to separate yourself.
i think w/ the expanding role of the pharmacist, the pay will be very good even when supply is saturated, but it won't be as easy getting a job like it is now.
the education to become a pharmacist is very tough now unlike before. so it's very dumb to pay pharmacists 40k
However iam glad to read that you feel/think optimistically about the future of pharmacists.
but i prefer a higher standard for the graduates. 2 new recent graduates are coming to my pharmacy to train and they are not very good. and i'm talking about counseling patient on their medications.
No way....Very few careers offer the starting salary of a pharmacist...If I wanted to make 40-45 k a year, I could do that w/o a degree ...Why would I want to become educated in a field where I couldn't even afford to support myself after graduation? What a waste of time that is..and so unpractical...even if it was what I truly loved...
Oh yea..and I don't forsee an end to the shortage..especially when Walgreen is opening a store every 19 hours...
Oh yea..and I don't forsee an end to the shortage..especially when Walgreen is opening a store every 19 hours...
No way. I would have been working my last 4 years instead of going to pharmacy school. I applied to pharmacy school because of the money and the lifestyle.
I don't think salaries will decrease. But, if you want to get a job, you may have to move to a more rural area.
I don't think salaries will decrease. But, if you want to get a job, you may have to move to a more rural area.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
again, w/ pharmacists being more involved in patient care, i dont think it will drop back to 60-70k like before. the role of the pharmacist goes beyond dispensing now. if anything, retail pharmacy is where the "small" decrease in salary will happen (maybe u won't see the bonuses that graduates see now or other benefits). that's why it's best to pursue a residency or a dual degree.
but again, w/ more pharmacists, the competition will be higher and will force all pharmacists to really perform their job at the highest level. i don't think that's the case right now.
Ask around. In the two decades that I've been working in pharmacy (which isn't that much I know) there has never been a drop in pharmacist salaries, and I doubt it will ever happen. In fact I've never met a pharmacist who EVER took a pay cut unless they switched jobs and moved to a SLIGHTLY lower paying position. (retail to hospital) SDN1977 where are you? Back me up on this one.
The prospects for pharmacists are looking brighter than ever, and with baby boomers retiring, that many more positions will open. Anyone in healthcare will have a job for years to come.
As for making 45K a year? Most of you are right. Over 100K is a lot to pay for an education if that is what you'll make at the end. But 45K isn't bad! I could live on it quite comfortably and easily. The reason pharmacy schools cost so much to attend is because there is a demand for the PharmD degree. If the salary was 45K coming out of school, there would be thousands fewer people applying to pharmacy school. If the demand for the degree decreases, so does the cost to obtain it. Anyone remember economics? Chances are many private schools would close their pharmacy degree programs because if the demand was low, everyone who was interested would apply to lower tuition state schools. I'd pay 40K for a degree that would give me 40-50K earning potential at the end. Especially if the degree was pharmacy, because I happen to enjoy it.
The prospects for pharmacists are looking brighter than ever, and with baby boomers retiring, that many more positions will open. Anyone in healthcare will have a job for years to come.
As for making 45K a year? Most of you are right. Over 100K is a lot to pay for an education if that is what you'll make at the end. But 45K isn't bad! I could live on it quite comfortably and easily. The reason pharmacy schools cost so much to attend is because there is a demand for the PharmD degree. If the salary was 45K coming out of school, there would be thousands fewer people applying to pharmacy school. If the demand for the degree decreases, so does the cost to obtain it. Anyone remember economics? Chances are many private schools would close their pharmacy degree programs because if the demand was low, everyone who was interested would apply to lower tuition state schools. I'd pay 40K for a degree that would give me 40-50K earning potential at the end. Especially if the degree was pharmacy, because I happen to enjoy it.
At the same time, I think that there's going to be a point where the number of pharmacy schools will level off too. So even if there is an increase in people who want to do pharmacy, we might see the academic standards raised for admission. As long as the pharmacy powers-in-charge cap the number of graduates that can get licensed like medical profession has, then I don't think we should have to worry about a sprawl of new pharmacists who will bring both demand and salaries down. Not everyone can do pharmacy you know.😉
people keep talking about times 10-15 years after they graduate. The years of experience will give an advantage over new graduates. Besides at that point you can be making the larger pay and not have to switch to a job that is going to be a 40K cut if by some chance that happened.
I believe the schools will be limited on their number of graduates to keep the field from being saturated and having the pay drop.
I imagine the way pay would drop is if we went to a universal healthcare system and the profession doesn't fight hard enough to keep their incomes.
I believe the schools will be limited on their number of graduates to keep the field from being saturated and having the pay drop.
I imagine the way pay would drop is if we went to a universal healthcare system and the profession doesn't fight hard enough to keep their incomes.
For the OP, I would become a pharmacist for 40K/yr if the school was 40K/yr. However, it's not. Basic economics dictates an equitable return on my investment.
If our nation adopts a socialist healthcare system and invariably decreases the salaries of trained professionals, you will see the national healthcare crisis become much worse. Good luck on the government attracting and retaining trained professionals. Where's the incentive? The majority of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists will remain in a private sector still regulated by capitalism and outside of government subsidy; thereby, nullifying the general intent of universal healthcare. This creates a larger medical caste system than the one that currently exists. Those that can't afford the "best doctors" will continue to call foul and demand the legislators to force all healthcare providers to acquiesce under the national umbrella, which leads directly into a magnanimous Constitutional debate.
If our nation adopts a socialist healthcare system and invariably decreases the salaries of trained professionals, you will see the national healthcare crisis become much worse. Good luck on the government attracting and retaining trained professionals. Where's the incentive? The majority of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists will remain in a private sector still regulated by capitalism and outside of government subsidy; thereby, nullifying the general intent of universal healthcare. This creates a larger medical caste system than the one that currently exists. Those that can't afford the "best doctors" will continue to call foul and demand the legislators to force all healthcare providers to acquiesce under the national umbrella, which leads directly into a magnanimous Constitutional debate.
That view brings up the argument of which is more important, the patient or those that are the healthcare professional. obviously the system would be totally flawed if the pay was so minute that there ended up being a massive shortage of professionals, on the other hand why should everyone not have the right to receive treatment?
You will never convince any healthcare pro that affordability of healthcare is more important than him/her making 100/200/500K a year.
FYI, there is no shortage in doctors in countries where they make less than national average salary.
Everyone has access to treatment, but please, do not confuse this with a right. Inalienable rights are natural rights. Civil rights are part of citizenship and protected by the government. In both cases, these do not require anyone else to provide anything to or for you. Our Constitution does not vest power within the government allowing them to require me to do anything for you. If it did, a free will contradiction would exist. The only thing the government can do, is stop me from infringing upon your rights.
As someone else on these forums already said, "Simply stated, the government cannot keep you from getting water, but that does not mean that they have to provide it for you. Same idea fits for healthcare."
You DO NOT have a right to healthcare. Welcome to capitalism and regulated democracy.
Salary aside, there is a global shortage of doctors at this moment and it is getting worse.
Are you looking for me?????🙂 I've been wine tasting on the central coast😛 .
I've only got 30 years of experience - so take what I say with a grain of salt 🙄 .....I've never known anyone to take a pay cut in all 30 years.
Over the decades.....sometimes hospital work had better "packages" than retail & vice-versa (remember - you must consider the whole "package" - salary + benefits).....but, no one ever took a pay cut - not even if you just look at the hourly rate.
The closest I ever got to that was going 3 years without a pay raise - so I guess you could say that was a "relative" cut, but I knew I was going to make the same income I did the month before. That was offset by those years my pay increased by 15-18% per year (yeah - staffing has been worse than it is right now!😱 ).
But...to answer the question - yes, I would still do pharmacy. But - when I made that choice, I was young & living in the "hippie" era when we thought we could surmount any problem....and - I never had a career before so I didn't have to compare it to anything. I took it for what it was, what I gave & what it gave me - so I lived with the income it provided.
I recognize that is far different from those folks who make a career change & have to maintain a family in similar circumstances to that which they are living now.
Each one chooses what is important for them at the time....
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I decided to become a pharmacist when I was a sophomore in high school. I wasn't even aware of the amount they make until way after I started working at Walgreens. I was stunned. I've always been fascinated with medications and the way they affect the body. Therefore, I would still be doing what my heart desires... 🙂
heyllll no.
i second that.
No candooo..we have lives and our families to support. If we make so little that we cant even pay off our tuition debts, and afford to provide for our families, then why do we invest to educate ourselves in the first place? I would do it if tuition was $2k/year..and cost of living were hell of alot cheaper
Yes, I'd still do it, because THIS is WHAT I effing WANT TO DO. And all these schools are telling me no or alternate listing me. I have hope still. eff them.
It was either pharmacy or own a Pizza place. I figure pharmacy will keep me happy for many years with good pay and then when I am older I can have my pizza and eat it too!
If pharmacy only paid 40/k I would have just stuck with owning my own restaurant.
If pharmacy only paid 40/k I would have just stuck with owning my own restaurant.
Salary aside, there is a global shortage of doctors at this moment and it is getting worse.
Have you read your own link and my words you quoted? Out of those 57 countries 50 are in Africa, who in the world would want to work there? Thats one. Doctors in Africa make significantly MORE than the average african, so dont quote me there. Thats two
Right! The only right I have is to pay taxes , to nurture future MDs, their professors, pay 300-500K for every resident at hospital, 250-300 billions for medicare, so surgeons can have fun with old people, ets.
Capitalism? What capitalism? Say my name is Bill Gates ( no, wait-- Buffet--he is gonna waiste his money anyway) and I want to help my country to have affordable healthcare. I will build a 100 big schools, I will make them tuition -free as long as you qualify/study well, I will even give students a free housing and $600 a month to have some fun. And I will give USA an MD for every 250-300 citizens, like it is in normal countries instead of present 1 /600 1/700 ratio.
So, question-- can I do that? If no-- this is not a capitalism, PERIOD.
By the way in many countries doctor will be imprisoned for quite awhile if he refuse provide healthcare and a wannabe patient will die
Think what you will, but I think it's only a matter of time before the US has to accept some form of socialized medicine. At the current rate of cost inflation for medical care, the trend is undeniable, it's not sustainable. You already have 40 million uninsured in this country. The cost comparison between private and single-payer programs like medicare is ridiculous. The cost of Administration, not the cost of service, for most private insurance plans is about 25-30%. GAO did a study the cost of medicare administration is about 3%. The GAO in a report thought that the difference could pic up the roughly 40 million uninsured. Everybody talks about lines, in a single payer system, which is true for elective proceedures. There are no lines for emergent care. Funny thing the average life span of a Canadian is 2-3 years longer than that of the average American. Even considering elective CABG has a wait. A study conducted by a US Medical School found no difference in Mortality or Morbidity between those recieving CABG using the Canadian Protocol vs US rates of insured persons. There is no great exodus in their system. Drugs are cheaper and they are just as safe in some cases even manufactured here. The Academy of Surgeons actually was in favor of this because pay for doctors under the canadian system is fee for services based and accounts payable are usually less than 30 days, compared to the average of 90 days in the US. But the problem is all the large insurance management companies with their hands in the cookie jar don't want to give up the cookie and pay millions to PAC and special interest groups to lobby for a no vote from your politicians. But there is a crisis of the uninsured coming if something doesn't change guaranteed. I don't think it will much effect pharmacy salaries though.
Oh and the guy that thinks Doctors will boycot a social system of health care is insane for several reasons. First Doctors have bills and need to eat too, they become accustom to a certain salary and have the bills to match. So quiting for most is out of the Question. Second, no private sector business is going to continue spending money on health care bennefits if they don't have to. And most Americans can't afford the coverage they have now, especially if they had to pick up the full costs, which would sky rocket with a reduced corporate base. So the average american would have to use the system for economic reasons, besides their taxes would go up to pay for it.
So Doctors couldn't have many private insurance patients because most wouldn't have it. Thirdly, very few Americans can afford to pay their own health care costs out of pocket. If they can, they aren't going to go for every little thing like they do now. So where are all these private doctors going to get patients. Unless they are the very best, they will have to take the government plan. Their is no constitutional crisis. The government can tax people and provide programs for health this is well established. They wouldn't make them take it. They would have to for economic reasons which is in a way free market. So your senario is nothing more than fear mongering.
So Doctors couldn't have many private insurance patients because most wouldn't have it. Thirdly, very few Americans can afford to pay their own health care costs out of pocket. If they can, they aren't going to go for every little thing like they do now. So where are all these private doctors going to get patients. Unless they are the very best, they will have to take the government plan. Their is no constitutional crisis. The government can tax people and provide programs for health this is well established. They wouldn't make them take it. They would have to for economic reasons which is in a way free market. So your senario is nothing more than fear mongering.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Preventive, routine healthcare is substantially less expensive than urgent or emergent treatment; it is much, much less expensive to subsidize annual pap smears for women than it is to provide health care for someone with cervical cancer. Our millions of uninsured are unable to obtain routine preventive care, so when they do need care, they access it through the most inefficient and expensive doorway- that of the ER.
I say, provide routine, basic care for free or for very low cost and pay the providers commensurate with their training, education and experience; and let the people who want to become ultra-rich go into cosmetic surgery.
I say, provide routine, basic care for free or for very low cost and pay the providers commensurate with their training, education and experience; and let the people who want to become ultra-rich go into cosmetic surgery.
Are you denying America currently has a medical provider shortage?
Again, you should really read your Constitution. You have a responsibility to pay taxes. The government has a right to collect them. Article 1, Section 8 and the 16th Amendment.
As for your hypothetical, yes Bill or Jimmy can.
You are missing the main point of my slippery slope hypothesis. IF wages decrease, IF! But the rest of your diatribe supports my opinion. Thanks!
You also state the government can tax for health programs...true to some extent (medicaid, medicare, ESRD patients and their dialysis), but we are currently in the middle of a Constitutional debate regarding federal funding for stem cell research. Take the religious debate aside, the Framers' did not include healthcare, space exploration, or alternative fuels into the powers vested to Congress for taxation. Granted, I agree we must weigh contemporary ascendency when discussing these topics, but we must also remember we ARE not a social democracy. If you want one, move to Canada. I don't mean this as a red herring, the linkage is perfectly clear. Your tax dollars fund the CDC. Their mission is to research preventative medicine for infectious and chronic diseases. Yet, stem cell research funding is banned on new lines of cells, even though embryonic tissue is not needed, and viable "life" is not compromised. This is healthcare, this is a Constitutional argument.
If you want to fix the healthcare system attack root cause and quit trying to apply a bandage. Attack pharma advertising. Eliminate it. Do you realize it is illegal to advertise prescription drugs in Canada? How many billions of dollars are spent on advertising in the US? How much of that cost is passed onto the consumer? The answer is all of it. Have you ever wondered why a prescription drug manufactured in the US can be sold in another country at a lower rate? Who do they defray the cost to? Wake up.
the self diagnosing people participate in because of commericals is a major problem.
I do like to point out capitalism etc aside, our government in theory is to elect officials that represent the will of the people. Current polling shows a majority of Americans support an universal healthcare system and are willing to increase their taxes to pay for it. With over 40 million individuals without healthcare and the rising costs etc, I feel people believe the majority see private sector as having failed.
I don't support in kind of slippery slope what I said was that the system would adapt quite readily to a single payer system. As for a shortage of medical professionals blame the AMA, they regulate the supply of doctors to put increased up-ward pressure on Doctor's Salaries. Some schools are more than capable of increasing class size but can't do so. The reason we have DO schools is because of the AMA strangle-hold on Medical Schools. And yeah I understand the philosophical difference. The nursing shortage again a lack of enough schools. There is a 2 year waiting list for the nursing programs in my area. As for salaries perhaps people should do things because they help people not because of an over inflated salary. I think people would still do the job for less. Efficient use of mid-level providers could also ease cost burdens especially in family and urgent care settings.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution allows for the implied powers of the Congress. Otherwise known as the necessary and proper clause or elastic clause. What is the difference between providing health care for the young, infirmed and aged versus just throwing in everyone else. As for the Constitutional issue, there would be none. It would be taking a pig from the trough issue, so someone would try to challenge it. Probably would loose. Especially if they allocated it to the states like they do with medicaid and other programs. A national health care system would not be a major constitutional issue, the majority of Americans favor it.
The stem cell issue is a red-herring it has nothing to do with a national health care system. The issue is one of religous and right to life sensitivities not so much a science issue. The cures for some currently incureable diseases are going to come from that type of research undoubtably. If it isn't done here it will just be done elsewhere, maybe the French or Canadians.
As for the issue of drug advertisement, I agree. As a Physician Assistant, I get tired of telling people "no you don't need plavix". Take your 81 mg aspirin and be happy it isn't a hundred bucks a month. I think advertising to the general public is a waste of funds, but the drug companies don't think so. I think they should do away with the lunches and junkets too. But I don't see anyone calling for that either.
And we agree you should attack the root, over profitting health care insurance companies and certain unscrupulous health care providers. And by that I mean the ones that get kick backs for prescriptions and imaging services, etc. If you don't think that happens you haven't been in health care long enough. A single-payer system is more efficient and reduces costs across the board, it isn't a bandage; it would be a fix. Just expect to pay more in taxes, lol.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution allows for the implied powers of the Congress. Otherwise known as the necessary and proper clause or elastic clause. What is the difference between providing health care for the young, infirmed and aged versus just throwing in everyone else. As for the Constitutional issue, there would be none. It would be taking a pig from the trough issue, so someone would try to challenge it. Probably would loose. Especially if they allocated it to the states like they do with medicaid and other programs. A national health care system would not be a major constitutional issue, the majority of Americans favor it.
The stem cell issue is a red-herring it has nothing to do with a national health care system. The issue is one of religous and right to life sensitivities not so much a science issue. The cures for some currently incureable diseases are going to come from that type of research undoubtably. If it isn't done here it will just be done elsewhere, maybe the French or Canadians.
As for the issue of drug advertisement, I agree. As a Physician Assistant, I get tired of telling people "no you don't need plavix". Take your 81 mg aspirin and be happy it isn't a hundred bucks a month. I think advertising to the general public is a waste of funds, but the drug companies don't think so. I think they should do away with the lunches and junkets too. But I don't see anyone calling for that either.
And we agree you should attack the root, over profitting health care insurance companies and certain unscrupulous health care providers. And by that I mean the ones that get kick backs for prescriptions and imaging services, etc. If you don't think that happens you haven't been in health care long enough. A single-payer system is more efficient and reduces costs across the board, it isn't a bandage; it would be a fix. Just expect to pay more in taxes, lol.
Since it is tax day, I don't have to look very hard to find a prime example of a bureaucratic wasteland.
As you pointed out, we already insure the two most likely groups of healthcare problems, the very young, very poor and the elderly. The jump to taking care of those inbetween by implimenting more preventative medicine etc will happen.
good points and what about taking this even further and providing incentive based plans just as car insurance companies do? In other words if a person smokes, drinks excessively, and is obese cause of poor sleep, excercise, and eating habits then they pay higher rates! If a person maintains a healthy lifestyle then they get a break🙂
I certainly agree that we should try more ideas before we resort to a govt. healthcare system.
Brilliant! Allow the government to regulate your private life even more. Should we include religion in here? What about racial, ethnic, gender, and socio-economic background factors? What about location of residence? What about the distance you drive to work? Kind of car you drive? What about your demeanor? What if your homosexual? What about your profession? Where is the line of behaviors that the morality police can't cross? Who decides what is right and wrong? Society or the government? And how on this freaking Earth can you impose your morality on someone else?
Not quite.
Hypothetical: You must buy a new pair of shoes. Two sets are in front of you. They look exactly the same. They must last you a lifetime. The only difference is one costs $1000 and never wear out, fade, etc. They last forever. The other pair costs $50, but you have to replace them every 6 months. Which do you choose? Do you want to cure disease or treat it? You're the one paying? And isn't treating a chronic disease for the long-term vs. curing it the unethical choice? Stem cell research is directly linked to a national healthcare system.
I do not understand your argument. How do you equate research and what could be/can't be to what is currently available to use at the moment. If you consider medical research part of a national healthcare system, then NASA would be another arm of the national healthcare system due to their partial research in physiology/pharmaceuticals etc.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Nope. I want to make a good living to pay off the crazy student loans I'm going to be incurring, have good health insurance and be able to pay for the rip off that medicine has become/is becoming even more, and be able to buy Pro V1's for Sunday's round.
Sure , but there is noone but AMA to blame there. Its an artificial shortage. There are plenty americans willing and able to pursue medical education and there are hundreds of thousands of highly qualified doctors worldwide who would readily work for a fraction of an american MD charges, even if it will mean go through the residency again.
there is no such thing in the constitution. 16th amendment says about Congress's ability to lay taxes, not about your /mine responsibility to pay them. Plus there are quite a few states which never ratified it.
And for my hypothetical, may be you are right and Bill&Jimmy could do this, but a regular multimillionire, a capitalism's zealot will get grey hairs on his butt way sooner than that permit from AMA to set up a new medical school. Capitalism, right.
Does the CDC do research that impacts the health of our nation, as a whole?
Don't answer. It is a rhetorical question.
I'm going to go back on topic and just say that even IF the tuition was a reasonable amount. I would not do pharmacy over a job that paid the same amount (ie. if both pharmacy and engineering paid 70k.. I would go for engineering). I am only interested in pharmacy because pharms make 2x's what engineer's make starting (or more).
Having said that about pharmacy, Medicine is a different story. Just going to med school brings along a HUGE prestige along with it. I won't mind being Dr. SoandSo pediatric neurosurgeon getting paid 70-80k/year (comparable with other jobs).
Having said that about pharmacy, Medicine is a different story. Just going to med school brings along a HUGE prestige along with it. I won't mind being Dr. SoandSo pediatric neurosurgeon getting paid 70-80k/year (comparable with other jobs).
Then the EPA, Alcohol tobacco firearms, even the national guard (can be used in an epidemic) all fall under the same blanket argument.
Which is exactly why we can't pick and choose what we want to fund with tax dollars based on religious beliefs. Proponents for social medicine should see the utility in stem cell research.
not sure where you are going with your references to "religion" based policy. If someone increases health care costs (increases in cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, etc.) because they live an unhealthly lifestyle how is penalizing them with higher insurance rates a matter of "religion"? It is an issue of prevention just like regular visits to a primary care provider and immunizations are!
I am a proponent of a single payer system like medicare, not technically socialized medicine. The reason being the Doctors and other professionals don't technically work for the government as they would in a socialized system. They still work for themselves, they just get payed fee-for service based on a usual cost just like insurance reimbursement today. The difference is that they usually don't take 90 days to pay you like private insurance. And the cost of administration according to the GAO would be like comperable to medicare at about 3-4 % instead of the current 20-30% of private insurance. And I am a proponent for stem cell research and I am for the most part pro-choice. However, I don't think that choice should extend past a point where the fetus is viable on it's own.
"Capitalism & Socialism suck.
This I know is true.
They both claim to save a buck.
But neither care about you."
- WVUPharm2007
This I know is true.
They both claim to save a buck.
But neither care about you."
- WVUPharm2007
Honestly though, our entire economy is based on the fact that we are floating around a **** ton of money that has no intrinsic value, but gains its value from its high demand. You know, other countries need it to buy oil and ****. Our economy isn't socialist or communist. It's feudalistic. Our serfs are third world labor. We produce nothing and feed of the sweat of outside labor. As long as the dollar has a hegemonous role in the international economy, we could honestly be as socialistic or fascist as we please because we will always be able to exploit everyone else. We could tax the citizenry 90% and we'd still pull in goods from China in exchange for worthless little green pieces of paper with our collective name on them.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
