The Glass is Half-Full Thread

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

A few more Qs.

>I was hired to replace the guy that opened in the location I wanted.

I'm not following. I thought you said he opened a practice. How did you replace him?
Edit: Actually - so I'm guessing you replaced him at the place that he left.


>When I sent the letters seeking a position mentioned above, some of the OD’s replied with negative remarks.

What kind of negative remarks are you referring to? Why were they insulting you for looking for work?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
The idea that an annual income of 600K is necessary to make serious money is just totally untrue.

I never suggested any such thing. I went back and looked at my first post in this part of the discussion. It ends with the following: "If you never become that, your potential for serious wealth through your work is basically non existent."

So as you see, I qualify it. Your 100K WORK will never get you great wealth. Sure, you can take that money and invest it in $10 bitcoin, which if it rises to 18K then you're flying jets, but your 100K WORK in itself, will not have you rolling in coin.

The point that also needs to be said is, yes 100K can lead to "serious money" (as defined by some in this thread), but that OD must invest it correctly for them to realize such wealth. It's not obvious to me why the average OD would know how to do that.
 
Life is too short to respond to people that don’t own their own posts.Enjoyed the thread
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Life is too short to respond to people that don’t own their own posts.Enjoyed the thread

Can you give an example? Or is all that you do is speak in platitudes?
 
Thanks for all your posts. Very eye-opening. Situation isn't nearly as bad up in maple land.

Edit: Can you share what happened to your friend after he was turfed? That must've been horrible trying to "restart" after doing a job in one place for 8 years.

He found a job at a competing chain. He was working 4 1/2 days per week earning 150k and a student loan repayment agreement. The 4 1/2 days would have been 50 hours but since he was paired up with another doctor he was able to come in late or leave early making it more like 40 hours. He is now working 5 days a week earning 100k driving between mulitiple locations. Basically, right where he was about 10 years ago.

It was a good thing he followed Dave Ramsey’s type of financial planning. He stretched that 100k and eventually 150k as far as it would go. I’m sure he is fine financially and only lost a piece of his discretionary income.

He is the same friend that spent about a year working for an OD towards an ownership agreement. He did the work but never got the ownership agreement hammered out. Learn from his mistake and never work towards ownership without a solid agreement that has been attorney reviewed.

A different co-worker told me of an OD that had an agreement, worked for and owned a portion of a practice, say 20% and the majority owner fired him. What would you do? Are you going to show up for work at that office? Sue the guy?

It would cost at least $10,000+ before you even got to court. Then all the owner would need to do is “close” and open under a new company. It may not be a winning strategy but enough for it to cost the minority owner even more in legal fees. The minority owner moved on without compensation.

If you own less than 50% You really don’t have anything. Don’t buy in (or work your way into ownership) until you know you want to be there and don’t buy less than 50%. If the old owner needs more compensation work it out as a them getting a bigger share of the profit. Better yet, don’t take advice from a forum. Get a broker or other professional that has experience and have them help you hammer it out.
 
A person can use their annual income to invest, gain assets...

This is why the discussion has to remain specific to optometric income only. Because what you say here is applicable to money earned from ANY job. $10 earned from flipping burgers at McDonald's has the same investing power as $10 earned from optometry. So when you say optometric 100K is loads of cash, then you are saying McDonald's earned 100K is loads, as well as panhandling 100K is loads. All 100K is potentially loads. But your argument is that it's potentially great money because of its investment potential. Since investment potential is accessible to all sources of money, then if we're going to talk specifically about optometrist salary being a great thing, we can only refer to money earned through the practice of optometry, and not via various investing mechanisms, because money earned from other professions have the same "pros" going for them. No point specifying a "pro" for optometrist salary that is common to all salaries. That isn't a pro at all. Its a fact of money that you can invest it.

I finish by saying 100K a year isn't oodles of money.
 
A few more Qs.

>I was hired to replace the guy that opened in the location I wanted.

I'm not following. I thought you said he opened a practice. How did you replace him?
Edit: Actually - so I'm guessing you replaced him at the place that he left.


>When I sent the letters seeking a position mentioned above, some of the OD’s replied with negative remarks.

What kind of negative remarks are you referring to? Why were they insulting you for looking for work?

Your edit is correct. I was hired at the optical that he quit to open a practice.

It’s been about 10 years so the details are hazy. There were a few response that were genuinely nice. Lunch invitations and such. Those that were negative were telling me there wasn’t room for me in Nashville and new doctors are the biggest problem in optometry.

Well, I found one of the emails from a decade ago. I mailed letters and some responded via email. I’m sure the paper responses were tossed long ago. There were at least 3 negative replies. Notice how he stresses, it’s a career not a job and made the email subject job. I’ve heard this comment so many times but I really don’t get the wisdom it’s supposed to convey. Does it mean that I should not worry about a single job because it’s only a piece of my career (string of jobs in a given field)?

The response and exchange is pasted below. It’s not as bad as I remember. Maybe others were more harsh or maybe I was sensitive as a new grad.



On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:51 PM, wrote:



--- On Thu, 4/23/09,

> From:
> Subject: Job
> To:
> Date: Thursday, April 23, 2009, 10:45 AM

> Dear :
>
> I received your resume today, and on paper you look
> like a very qualified individual. As you begin this next
> phase in your career, I would encourage you to not pick one
> or two cities to move, and that becomes your goal. There
> are many huge opportunities in private practice in rural
> areas not that far from metro areas. The Nashville area
> currently has a huge glut of OD's and MD's....even
> in the chains. I suspect this year's grads may be the
> first to maybe not even find jobs in optometry, as we are
> graduating too many, and the economy is taking its toll.
> Also consider residencies, as that may get you through this
> recession before you have to get into the real world. The
> bottomline....keep an open mind, identify those places you
> will not absolutely live and investigate all
> opportunities. You will have a very difficult time coming
> to Nashville, as I am aware of 10 - 15 new grads
> looking.
>
>
> Regards,

MY REPLY

>
Thanks for the advice. I would love to work in any rural town between Bowling Green and Nashville. My fiance and I grew up in a small town directly North of Nashville. Getting back home is important for us to start a family. If you hear of anything please keep me in mind.


REPLY


Will do....I still encourage you to open your mind to all options. I had an extern last year from St. Louis who followed my advice, and rather than move to a city....( she had planned to come to Nashville after working with me )....she was patient and landed a great position with a group practice in Decatur, Alabama....I grew up in Missisippi...thought I was coming " home " and moved here....you get the picture. It is, after all is said and done, a career...not a job
 
A somewhat related point to the above is that 340K is a greater salary and in general will result in more wealth than 100K. I know it seems some people want to use any means to demonstrate how someone earning 100K may end up worse off than someone earning 340K (through investing etc), but those are the exceptions. By and large, someone earning 340K will be more wealthy than someone earning less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well yes. The 100K earner who spends 99K has more money than the 340K earner who spends 341K. He would be tied in money with the 1K earner who spends nothing. (please recognize this remark is made tongue-in-cheek)

This post reminds me of “Brewster’s Millions.” I like talking about money so I’ll make yet another comment related to all these about wealth, lavish spending, and optometry.
It’s been mentioned that high earners may waste their money and end up less wealthy than an OD. Although this is true, every OMD I’ve ever heard discuss finances is far more savy than the OD’s. OD’s mostly talk about paying down debt. OMD’s talk about investment strategies and how to avoid taxes.

Although you may see what looks like crazy spending a person making 360/year can spend 100k and it has about the same effect as a salaried OD spending 10k. They can’t do it every day but it’s not a big deal. When you consider the investment income of these high earners the 100k becomes even less important.

I guess the point to this is, get rich and spending money isn’t a big deal.

Just kidding, I’m trying to say high earners aren’t stupid. Many are better with money than lower earning individuals. That’s part of why they maneuvered there way into a higher paid position. Don’t think because you see them spending money that they are going broke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
OD’s mostly talk about paying down debt. OMD’s talk about investment strategies and how to avoid taxes.

I'll make two points.

1. I made a big fuss earlier about some people, primary you, writing negative stuff in this thread that was intended to be an optimistic one. It has since occurred to me that it seems the profession doesn't have enough going for it for people to talk about the good of this profession without the bad creeping into posts. Now that you're shared your experiences, I understand why you were so negative in your earlier posts. If your recent posts don't scare off potential students, I don't know what will. Your post about the chain turfing all their senioritied ODs in favor of new grads is terrifying. Send that post to preopt friends on the fence and see what they have to say. I can't imagine how anyone wouldn't choose to bail.

2. I always think it's easier and more logical to argue the rule as opposed to the exception. As a rule, a higher salary beats a lower salary. Why do some people insist on making the case for the opposite? Sure it exists but arguing that position is not intuitive. Why the effort to argue the exception when the point is to come to generalities? Specific to this discussion, 100K isn't oodles. It doesn't provide a lavish lifestyle. The 100k will go to pay bills. Now if you tell me that 100K can be invested and turned into 250K, and that you can do a lot with 250K, well then that's fine. But that's saying 250K is a lot of money. That isn't actually saying 100K is a lot of money. That's saying 100K plus 150K of investment income is a lot of money. Ok, if that's your position I won't dispute that. But you haven't proven that 100K itself is a lot of money, it's always in the context of how it can be invested further and made to be more. That's not an argument for the strength of a 100k salary at all. Why not just "have" a 250k salary and you are where you want to be, no conditions attached. I'll also mention that it is possible to invest and not make wild gains on your investment. And in most cases, that's the rule and not the exception.
 
Last edited:
First I am going to lead off with this. Wealth is not built over night. It is something that you have to work toward, put in the hours and sweat for. In addition, not everyone dreams of living in an extravagant home, owning the most expensive cars, and wearing the latest fashions. For those that are, and wish to pursue optometry it is a possibility but will require work. On the other hand, some people simply strive to make an income that will keep a roof over their family's head, put food on the table and have an emergency fund. For those that want to live the simple life optometry can certainly provide for such.

Also, people who think any profession will provide a life of lavishness and luxuriance without hard work and dedication are simply wrong. If you want money to just fall into your lap I guess then you should play the lottery or something. Ask any person that you view as "wealthy" (if that is what you yearn for) how they came to be what they are now. Most of them probably have a long story that included many long and restless nights, lots of overtime, and much due diligence.

The common misconception is that people expect to be living like a king/queen right out of optometry school. So to this the answer is no; optometry will not provide for a life of high-style living directly out of school. But, if you are willing to work for it optometry can provide a path to such a life.
 
I did not follow Dave Ramsey’s (though I respect his message) advice at all. I pushed all in and had to fight huge debt for 10 years but private practice has been wonderful. So I did it again several years back and now looks like a third time is in the works.

Today’s students face far more college debt than I did. That very reason was the impetus for my posting to this thread. Please take the time to work the math as we are in a time where ANY college degree at ANY price may not be your best opportunity


Work hard,give back to the profession,learn money and don’t miss the opportunity to invest EARLY in your practice life.

White Coat Investor is a pretty good website that helps to get young professionals on board with an early start on money matters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I did not follow Dave Ramsey’s (though I respect his message) advice at all. I pushed all in and had to fight huge debt for 10 years but private practice has been wonderful. So I did it again several years back and now looks like a third time is in the works.

Today’s students face far more college debt than I did. That very reason was the impetus for my posting to this thread. Please take the time to work the math as we are in a time where ANY college degree at ANY price may not be your best opportunity


Work hard,give back to the profession,learn money and don’t miss the opportunity to invest EARLY in your practice life.

White Coat Investor is a pretty good website that helps to get young professionals on board with an early start on money matter .

I skimmed this website and it’s seems like pretty good overview of pay, debt, and repayment strategies.
https://www.studentloanplanner.com/optometry-student-loans/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
There is this. Worth reading.

Low Income Doctor In A High Cost of Living Area | The White Coat Investor - Investing And Personal Finance for Doctors

Things You Cannot Do
There are a few things that you simply cannot do if you are making <$200K and living in a high cost of living area.
  1. You cannot send your kids to private K-12 schools. You just can’t. The math doesn’t work. You need to live in a school district where the schools are at least okay. That might mean renting. So what. Do it.
  2. You cannot buy a 7-figure house, even if the bank says they will loan you the money and you have a down payment.
  3. You cannot save nothing for retirement. Even if you have to start out at only 5% of your income and try to “save the raises” over the years, you cannot just neglect this. Maybe you can put it off for 5 years while you pay off the student loans, but that’s it. No longer than that.
  4. You cannot drive a fancy car. The difference between a fancy car and a reliable 7-10 year old car is about $6K per year. That $6K per year, invested at 8% over 35 years, grows to a million dollars. For a low earning doc in a HCOL area, that’s the difference between retiring with nothing and retiring a millionaire.
  5. You cannot vacation big. You can vacation frequently, but you cannot do it expensively. No heli-skiing. No European trips. Renting a motorhome for a week is a big splurge you can’t do every year. I hope you like road trips to Aunt Sally’s and camping.
  6. You cannot pay for your childrens’ college. You can probably help a little, but they need to understand that college is going to be primarily on them. They need guidance to choose an inexpensive school, maximize available scholarships, and work their way through their undergraduate educations.
  7. You cannot provide support for lots of extended family members. I once had a family practice colleague who had 5 or 6 other adults in the house (and a number of children), but she was the only one working. Doesn’t work with the math above. You’re not even going to get back to broke until you’re 35 or 40; how can you support 5 other adults?
  8. You cannot skimp on budgeting. Things are going to be tight, and they’re going to stay that way for a long time. A real budget, whether done on paper or using one of the handy new apps, is a necessity.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'll make two points.

1. I made a big fuss earlier about some people, primary you, writing negative stuff in this thread that was intended to be an optimistic one. It has since occurred to me that it seems the profession doesn't have enough going for it for people to talk about the good of this profession without the bad creeping into posts. Now that you're shared your experiences, I understand why you were so negative in your earlier posts. If your recent posts don't scare off potential students, I don't know what will. Your post about the chain turfing all their senioritied ODs in favor of new grads is terrifying. Send that post to preopt friends on the fence and see what they have to say. I can't imagine how anyone wouldn't choose to bail.

2. I always think it's easier and more logical to argue the rule as opposed to the exception. As a rule, a higher salary beats a lower salary. Why do some people insist on making the case for the opposite? Sure it exists but arguing that position is not intuitive. Why the effort to argue the exception when the point is to come to generalities? Specific to this discussion, 100K isn't oodles. It doesn't provide a lavish lifestyle. The 100k will go to pay bills. Now if you tell me that 100K can be invested and turned into 250K, and that you can do a lot with 250K, well then that's fine. But that's saying 250K is a lot of money. That isn't actually saying 100K is a lot of money. That's saying 100K plus 150K of investment income is a lot of money. Ok, if that's your position I won't dispute that. But you haven't proven that 100K itself is a lot of money, it's always in the context of how it can be invested further and made to be more. That's not an argument for the strength of a 100k salary at all. Why not just "have" a 250k salary and you are where you want to be, no conditions attached. I'll also mention that it is possible to invest and not make wild gains on your investment. And in most cases, that's the rule and not the exception.

1. I also have a friend in NYC that lost a job because a new hire was cheaper. Based on casual conversation, it’s not rare. I do apologize for not remaining positive. I probably should have started a competing thread. I was probably still morning the loss of my job. Although I only worked 1/2 day per week, being an optometrist was part of my identity.

Around the same time I lost that job I was considering starting a practice. It wasn’t until then that I started to comprehend the state of the profession. When I sent all the emails looking for opportunities the reality set in, there isn’t much opportunity.

Someone will likely suggest I start a practice to create my own opportunity, “just take the leap.” Well, I’m an investor, not a gambler. Based on the external variables opening a practice right now is a HUGE gamble. If it fails one could easily lose 500k. Buying an established practice is an investment that may or may not produce wild returns. Based on the asking prices compared to the profit of the practices I've looked at, chances are they will not produce wild returns.

Considering all this, I have come to terms with the fact that I’m fortunate I don’t need the income from optometry and it’s actually a poor use of my time. That’s why I only worked the 1/2 day. I only worked enough to keep up my skills as a backup plan. If I ever needed to use that backup plan the chances of finding a job are low. I’d be an out of practice old OD competeting against thousands of new grads.

2. Agreed. And yes, lots of people lose money investing. It seems every 401k example suggest a good stready return. Even the post pasted has 8% as an example. There is not an investment in the market that guarantees 8%. That is just a hopeful number. Many people like to state average stock market returns. Well, if it’s so easy to average 8% then why doesn’t someone guarantee 6% for investing in their fund and collect the 2% or more as a fee. That’s not done because a lot of people lose money and a lot make more than 8%. Yes, you could do everything conventional wisdom tells us and end up losing money in your 401k year over year or you just might get rich.

As some have pointed out being rich is subjective and also relative. For the subjective aspect, decide what rich is before you get there so that you are happy when you arrive. If not, you may constantly chase the carrot. For the relative aspect, if you don’t feel rich change the person you are comparing yourself to. Compare yourself everyone else that works at your practice not the guy that’s making twice as much working across town.

FYI

According to a 2013 Washington Post survey, people who live in households making less than $50,000 say that an income of $200,000 would make you rich, while people with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 say you'd need $260,000 to be rich.Mar 13, 2015
 
Last edited:
Great points above Optogal and big red. I believe we have reached a consensus that EVERY OD student,resident or graduate needs be be very astute with their money while they are making it.

I love to hear all the investment posts here just gives me faith that a lot of ODs are financially planning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
One thing: Optometrists are not sentenced to 100k earnings. The ones breaking 150 and 200k are usually doing something different from the ones earning 100k, and "rural" is not always the reason.
 
I agree mostly with the points Optogal and others have made above. 10 dollars is better than 5 dollars. A dollar made during an eye exam is worth the same as a dollar made flipping burgers. Someone with a medium amount of money cannot do things that require a very large amount of money. My larger point was to convey the importance of financial planning and life goals when considering Optometry as a profession, or anything else for that matter. I hope those considering Optometry do not only look for opinions that support their currently held view, whether positive or negative. Gather all the information you can, from many different sources. In fact I suggest this in all areas of life.
 
Dang. I've read about negative views about optometry before I applied to schools and unlike most pre-optom students I kept it at the back of my mind and did research and was not overly optimistic. However, this is something i really want and something I believe I could be great at. I told myself, that I would do well in school, make connections, not be an extravagant spender, and try to be an outlier against these negative points. To be honest I am happy with a middle class life, I guess it's because I was happy with the simple middle class life my parents provided for me. But reading this post kinda killed the little confidence I had. What sucks is that I am a Canadian student as well, more of a debt for me thanks to the CAD. If a thread that was supposed to be the positive views concluded that this isn't a good, I dont know what to do. I start optometry school in a month as well.
 
Dang. I've read about negative views about optometry before I applied to schools and unlike most pre-optom students I kept it at the back of my mind and did research and was not overly optimistic. However, this is something i really want and something I believe I could be great at. I told myself, that I would do well in school, make connections, not be an extravagant spender, and try to be an outlier against these negative points. To be honest I am happy with a middle class life, I guess it's because I was happy with the simple middle class life my parents provided for me. But reading this post kinda killed the little confidence I had. What sucks is that I am a Canadian student as well, more of a debt for me thanks to the CAD. If a thread that was supposed to be the positive views concluded that this isn't a good, I dont know what to do. I start optometry school in a month as well.

Shadow ODs in the area(s) you would like to practice. Talk to people who are doing what you would like to do and get their honest opinions. Don't use SDN as your only source. That being said, the negative opinions exist for a reason. My best advice to you is to calculate your return on investment. Just do the math.
 
If a thread that was supposed to be the positive views concluded that this isn't a good,

Yeah the derailment didn't take long. I would've preferred if bigred created a competing thread but it's too late now. I guess what we have is yet another pro and con thread.

I still have a hard time believing optometry will cease to exist in Canada as there's just one English school churning out students, and outside of refraction, optometric scope really has expanded. But I think with ALL the various changes going forward, the job market will become more and more competitive. I guess in one sentence, that's the bottom line as I see it.
 
Well that was a bit eye-opening. I did my semi-annual trek over to the Pharmacy forums. If you want to read about doom/gloom, you should wander over. Pick almost any of the "current" active threads. They are practically all doom/gloom threads.

A tough road after graduation
Read the OP. Further down, someone writes:
"I have applied to more than a hundred positions" This is the new normal. I expect it to take around 300 job interviews to get a job for new grads in 2020. As for your "low" pay I think 25 an hour is an acceptable wage for pharmacists. That is more than 50k a year! but of course if you have loan payments and after taxes it can amount to much less. Have you considered downgrading your lifestyle to save money? I'm talking about getting roomates or maybe eating ramen with tuna a few days a week. I find rent to be the most expensive thing so I live in a trailer behind my car but some people find that to be extreme. There are many ways to cut out expensives in your life. I think you will be fine as long as you are earning at least 15 USD an hour. So I would keep working there to get good job experience unless your boss cuts your wage to below 15 USD / 30,000 USD an hour. Then maybe starting looking for work.

The sad thing is, within the context of the thread, I can't even tell if the post is sarcastic or not.

This thread is pretty bad too.
What Opportunities are there for Graduated Pharmacists in Today's Market?

Anyways - whatever the situation is, it seems finding a job for newly-graduated pharmacists is a real challenge.

Edit: OK - so I'm sensing the person who write the copied text above, has a bit of a "reputation" on their forums. So it was probably tongue in cheek. But the doom/gloom in the thread is definitely there.
 
Well that was a bit eye-opening. I did my semi-annual trek over to the Pharmacy forums. If you want to read about doom/gloom, you should wander over. Pick almost any of the "current" active threads. They are practically all doom/gloom threads.

A tough road after graduation
Read the OP. Further down, someone writes:
"I have applied to more than a hundred positions" This is the new normal. I expect it to take around 300 job interviews to get a job for new grads in 2020. As for your "low" pay I think 25 an hour is an acceptable wage for pharmacists. That is more than 50k a year! but of course if you have loan payments and after taxes it can amount to much less. Have you considered downgrading your lifestyle to save money? I'm talking about getting roomates or maybe eating ramen with tuna a few days a week. I find rent to be the most expensive thing so I live in a trailer behind my car but some people find that to be extreme. There are many ways to cut out expensives in your life. I think you will be fine as long as you are earning at least 15 USD an hour. So I would keep working there to get good job experience unless your boss cuts your wage to below 15 USD / 30,000 USD an hour. Then maybe starting looking for work.

The sad thing is, within the context of the thread, I can't even tell if the post is sarcastic or not.

This thread is pretty bad too.
What Opportunities are there for Graduated Pharmacists in Today's Market?

Anyways - whatever the situation is, it seems finding a job for newly-graduated pharmacists is a real challenge.

Edit: OK - so I'm sensing the person who write the copied text above, has a bit of a "reputation" on their forums. So it was probably tongue in cheek. But the doom/gloom in the thread is definitely there.
Whenever I wan to feel better about Optometry I just head over the Pharmacy forum. It is death over there. Has to be the most overall negative thread on this entire site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Whenever I wan to feel better about Optometry I just head over the Pharmacy forum. It is death over there.

LOL! No kidding! I'm not going to posit which profession is worse off but their doom threads seem so much worse/populated. Of course, their population is at least 5 times what ours is, so they'll have 5 times as many folks singing S.O.L. than us. They have almost 15k graduates a year and some 140 schools, so if they get to a saturation point, either in practitioners or students, the potential for things to feel hopeless for them is that much more severe cause they would be dealing with thousands of people looking for work, not hundreds as in our case. Of course they also have more employers too. But the thought of being one of thousands looking for work, as opposed to hundreds, just seems that much more daunting. They also face concerns with technology and they even have their own 1-800 contacts with Amazon wanting to get into pharmaceutical mail order.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
LOL! No kidding! I'm not going to posit which profession is worse off but their doom threads seem so much worse/populated. Of course, their population is at least 5 times what ours is, so they'll have 5 times as many folks singing S.O.L. than us. They have almost 15k graduates a year and some 140 schools, so if they get to a saturation point, either in practitioners or students, the potential for things to feel hopeless for them is that much more severe cause they would be dealing with thousands of people looking for work, not hundreds as in our case. Of course they also have more employers too. But the thought of being one of thousands looking for work, as opposed to hundreds, just seems that much more daunting. They also face concerns with technology and they even have their own 1-800 contacts with Amazon wanting to get into pharmaceutical mail order.

Although current projections for pharmacists is saying 15,000 more jobs annually. So I'm never entirely sure if they are exaggerating their doom and gloom. Add to the fact that as of now, things aren't that bad for pharmacy yet. Imagine in a few years. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised if their gloom is to deter prospective students.
 
Last edited:
Although current projections for pharmacists is saying 15,000 more jobs annually. So I'm never entirely sure if they are exaggerating their doom and gloom. Add to the fact that as of now, things aren't that bad for pharmacy yet. Imagine in a few years. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised if their gloom is to deter prospective students.
My big question is how do they get 15,000 people to go to Pharmacy school? What are they selling? A $120K salary?

I've asked over there a couple of times but what is it that draws that many people to Pharmacy? They have minimal decision making, they are being eaten alive by retail, work crappy hours. On the phone all day and when they aren't on the phone getting yelled at patients who script went up $2 dollars all of a sudden. I understand that is a broad generalization but why would anyone want to pick Pharmacy over any of the other health care fields.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If your primary interest is making as much money as possible I don't think you should be in the medical field.
 
Given the ubiquity of doom and gloom threads, I thought it fitting to discuss reasons to be or to remain "optimistic" about the future of optometry. There are scattered posts of the such in these forums, but they are often minority reports or anecdotes. Here's an opportunity to compile them together (even if there may not be a lot to compile). I can personally think of two reasons why perhaps we're not all going to be goners in the very near future (I'll say within 20 years).

1. Inertia is a powerful force. I mentioned this elsewhere, but people have been going to the eye doctor and buying glasses throughout the duration of modern medicine. Eye exams do cost money, but the costs aren't so exorbitant that people are in mass numbers trying to circumvent the costs in any way possible. Hence (for instance) online DIY exams, while potentially/eventually cost-free, and may move the needle, probably won't acquire widespread usage in the way that (say) cellphones, or (for now, anyways) Facebook has. I just don't see that happening.

2. As long as "the masses" wear "glasses" to correct their refractive error, society will always require/employ an "expert" in glasses. Period. Think about it. For every function/device/service, there will always be someone who exists who is the most knowledgeable in that area. For glasses/refraction, that is the optometrist. So as long as people are in mass numbers wearing "glasses", there will always be a need/niche for an expert in glasses. That's us. If refractive error one day is correctable in another manner that is accessible to the masses (for instance, in a way that a smart phone is widely accessible), and if the manner isn't in the domain of optometry (imagine Google/Apple finding a way using whatever technology they come up with), then THAT would be the end of us. So as long as glasses appear on the faces of the masses, optometrists will find work.

So that's my personal list of reasons for why we may not be doomed.
As a practicing OD I am very concerned about telemedicine (which current OD laws don't allow) and online refractions
 
I haven't posted on this forum for many years. Let me reintroduce myself by adding some positive thoughts to this "positive" thread.

I am OLD and Optometry is my second career. I have been "treating and caring" for patients since I have been 17 years old, so I have pretty much seen every type of personality, under the stress of health issues, you can think of.

Optometry is a vocation that is clean and interesting. You are providing a much needed service for your fellow man. They probably don't think that, but that is the basic truth.

Think for a second how many people truly understand the eye and its function. How many times do you see TV shows make grossly inaccurate examples of eye maladies? How many of your friends think that if they see well they must have healthy eyes?

We are here to educate and care for the general public and their ignorance of eyecare.......1-800 contacts now doing online vision checks (what crap!!!).

Obviously in this day of edcuation cost gouging, a healthy salary is a must. That being said, Optometry is not about us or the salary. It is about our patients. We are educated to care for them and get rewarded for our efforts.

In my career I have saved lives, saved vision, hopefully made peoples lives better. I have also pissed people off, but it was always for the benefit of their health.

I currently had a lapse in attention to my goal of caring for people. I believed I was going to retire, so I came to work everyday with the perception that I would be leaving my practice to someone else. Things just did not seem as important as they use to. It was a task to perform my job.

Guess what happened? The sale of my practice fell through and I was tossed back into the reality of being a full time doctor again. What a tragedy!

Not really. I actually realized that I have a pretty good life and my vocation is very rewarding. I have learned to care for my patients again and understand that this is what I am meant to do. I am a caregiver.

I see lots of eyes rolling and all you trolls are sharpening your replies, so let me just add that financially I am doing okay. I have travelled all over the world, turned 50 snorkeling over the Great Barrier Reef, have a beach condo and am going home to a loving wife and two spastic chocolate labs. Life is good and Optometry has helped subsidized lots of it.

So that is my addition to the "Positive post".

Thanks for your attention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Hi there, I'm a new guy that's not an Optometrist but will be attending Optometry school in September 2019.

Let me start by saying that I don't know why you guys have decided on Optometry or what your backgrounds are, but for me Optometry is seemingly the natural progression for my career. I originally graduated with a Bachelor of Health Science, and if you want to talk about a useless degree - this is it. If I had branched into nursing, I could at least become an RN, or if I had gone into kinesiology I could go into physiotherapy, massage therapist, etc, but with a Bachelor of Health Science I ended up getting a job as an Ophthalmic technician for 6 years. I worked with some of the biggest names in ophthalmology, and let me tell you the famous people pay terribly. I am proficient in virtually every ophthalmic diagnostic machine from the common OCT/VF/IOLM/AScan/Atlas to the more obscure UBM/Bscan/VEP. I thoroughly enjoyed what I did, but being paid about 33K a year left me with NOTHING. That's why I had no choice but to go back to school.

The reason why I chose Optometry (and after reading all of these threads today it's hard to say that it is the right choice) is because it looked like a stable career with a decent wage while allowing me to live a comfortable life. I was never in it to make 200k+, nor is my idea of a comfortable life vacationing in the Maldives. But at the very least, I did not go for med-school and ophthalmology for 2 main reasons: first, after working for 6 years and going back to school again I'm not young anymore and need a career that I can start quickly after schooling, and second, I did not like what Ophthalmology was doing to some of the doctors I worked with.

I have worked with over 20+ ophthalmologists, and they are all incredibly hard working and dedicated to their careers...to the point where some of them practically live at the clinic. Some of the ophthalmologists I worked with start at 8 in the morning seeing patients all the way until 5-6 in the evening when they finally finish. They then stay behind to go over charts, plan for the next day, or make calls. They do this five days a week (or at least on days they are not doing surgery) with one that I knew working Saturday every other week as well. This is not the life for me. The reason I wanted to go into Optometry is because it is a field I am familiar with, offering a decent salary potential, while still allowing me to live a real life. For the ophthalmologists I worked with, we were booking referrals out as little as 3 months and as far as 1 year for new consults. They were seeing 60 patients a day minimum with the average being closer to 75. They also worked at least 9 hours a day, and on days they had surgery they would have to come back after surgery to see the patients for a same-day post-op, as well as urgent/fit-in cases on top of that. One of the "younger" ophthalmologists I work at certainly does enjoy life (drives two Jaguars, goes on vacations to Maldives, Istanbul, etc), but that's only when he can justify the time off. When he is swamped with patients, he looks tired, burned out, and mutters under his breath "**** my life" dozens of times a day!

I honestly don't know if Optometry is the right field for me to go into, but I decided to walk this path for two main reasons: 1) it is my genuine interest and something I am very familiar and fond with, and 2) because it can give me the lifestyle that I will be happy with. I see a lot of people here talking about 100k, 200k, 500k salaries like it is chump change, but for someone who came from a 33k a year background, I'll take it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Hi there, I'm a new guy that's not an Optometrist but will be attending Optometry school in September 2019.

I also chose Optometry for lifestyle reasons, as well as interest in the field. I entered with no experience in healthcare whatsoever, so you'll have a leg up starting school with that background for sure. I made connections during school with an Optometrist in the area I wanted to practice in, and jumped into private practice with him right after school. I work from 9-5 for a comfortable six figure income doing a job that is rewarding and enjoyable. I never work weekends and will most likely be working only 4 days a week in the near future. My wife and I live comfortably and will pay off my school loans early. Optometry can be a great career path for certain individuals. Results will vary for each personal situation, but my general recommendations are:

1. Limit student loan debt as much as possible.
2. Look for jobs before you graduate.
3. Location, location, location.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Down-post I'll say more about what brought me here... didn't find the information I came looking for, but I found this interesting discussion. Since I now realize I signed up years ago, let me make my contribution to this glass half full thread.

I graduated optometry school a couple of decades ago with about 150K in debt. At the time it was the most in my class.
I got no parental help, hence the debt.
My net worth at graduation was precisely -150K.
I chose to live in one of the most high cost-of-living urban areas in the country, if not the highest. Needless to say it's also saturated with ODs.
I like listening to Dave Ramsey, as some posters allude to, but I think more than half of his advice is rubbish, and I'd be poorer if I followed it.
Same goes for all the practice management advisors in and out of school.
I've usually socked away maybe 15% of my income, but I don't go crazy about it. I don't want to mortgage my future for my present, but I don't want to do the reverse either (like FIRE practitioners advise).
I've visited 4 dozen countries and tried half the Michelin starred restaurants in the Bay Area.
I work 4 day weeks by choice, not because I can't find a job. Balance is key.
I'm most proud of this... I have never made 100K from work in my life (up until last year, when I barely broke that figure).

And... I am also a millionaire.

You might ask, How??? I'll tell you how. It's not rocket science. And it's not one single lucky investment. Though, as an aside, luck always plays some role, and don't let rich people tell you otherwise. In my case, my wife and I have had some reasonably good luck; but we've also had some catastrophic losses along the way -like multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Based on experience and mistakes, I've just developed a few simple rules to live by. In this order.
1. Take care of your health first.
Forget everything else. If you have your health, you can recover from just about every catastrophe. If you don't have your health, your problems just cascade. It creates financial burdens, while impacting your ability to earn money to recover, creating a double whammy. Really, if you don't have your health, you have nothing. So do whatever you need to do to take care of your physical and mental health, even if it means less money in the short term. For example, I could quite easily make 50% more than I do now, but it would be penny wise and pound foolish.
2. Choose your partner wisely.
And I'm not talking about your business partner. One thing I've had going for me, is that my wife and I are both high income professionals. The US is on a long term decline in terms of living standards, and the days when a family can get by on one income are over. It absolutely sux, it's a political choice of a broken system, it doesn't have to be that way at all, but that's the way it is, and I can't do a thing about it except adapt. As such, a homemaker wife would be a dealbreaker for me. Most women, of course, understand this almost intuitively in choosing a husband, but I've seen so many male professionals dig their own graves (in many ways literally) by choosing the wrong partner. Your partner doesn't have to be a financial rock star, and neither of us are -at least not by Bay Area standards. But when one person is carrying the entire burden, it leads to a vicious cycle of financial difficulty, resentment whether you want to admit it or not, and ultimately stress and divorce. Which of course affects your bottom line even more, not to mention your health (see Rule #1 above). By contrast, the amount that two professional people together can accomplish given a bit of diligence, is astounding. Which brings me to...
3. Spend less than you make.
I mean, duh. Sure, you say, easier said than done with your 200K debt and 80K income!
A poster named "PGRG" posted a thread on what optometrists really make (a case study). I can quibble about some of his numbers being slightly pessimistic, but overall it's about right in terms of the lay of the land. Well, so what! Pair up. Pick someone emotionally stable with a good ethic. Now you've got two 80K incomes. Not too hard to find. A teacher can make that. A Muni bus driver in the Bay Area can make that. (which begs a different question, but I'll put in my two cents on that later). So anyway, once you have Rule #1 and Rule #2 down, following Rule #3 becomes mostly a matter of choice. Living on 80K is hard. Living on 160K is pretty easy even in the Bay Area. You don't have to go hog wild with the saving as my own life has demonstrated, to accumulate a crap ton by mid career... which in my case is looking more and more like late career -by choice.

There are other things that mostly come down to common sense. Like a healthy and balanced attitude toward debt. Not fanatical, but balanced.
Like paying off your mortgage for your Bay Area home that's at 4% like Dave Ramsey suggests? Why on earth would you do that??? If you have the cash, like we do, better to put it into another property when the time is right. Of course if you have a second mortgage at 10%, sure, kill that sucker.
But going into massive debt to open a practice cold in a saturated area like one of my colleagues just did? Oh heII no!

But frankly, these are details compared to the 3 rules above. Follow just those 3 rules, and the chances that everything works out become extraordinarily high. Don't follow them, and well... almost every professional I know who's struggling, is struggling because they're not following one or more of those rules.

And notice I've said almost nothing about the practice of optometry as a profession. Because this stuff applies to everyone. It does beg the question, though. Why not just be a teacher or a bus driver? I think there's certainly something to be said for that. Teacher is a very nice profession, IMO. I considered it myself for the longest time. And teachers are, btw, supposedly prodigious accumulators of wealth.

That said, I like being an OD.
It affords me balance and flexibility, which is important because unlike most Americans, I don't define myself by my job, and I don't think it's healthy.
At the same time I'm helping people -I'm not building weapons, or putting non-violent drug users in prison, or ruining the environment by extracting fossil fuels, or designing apps that spy on people's private lives.
My job makes me move rather than sit for hours, while at the same time avoiding the kind of body-destroying injury that comes from manual labor.
For the most part, I don't have to deal with blood and guts (other medical professions), miserable patients who hate being there (dentists), smelly feet (podiatrists), repetitive stress injury (chiropractors), night shifts and infectious disease (nurses).
I don't have to work crazy hours like most people in tech or finance. Or doctors, for example. And unlike techies, my skills aren't obsolete within a decade.
And unlike tech or finance, my work has meaning. I'm not coding or pushing papers around.
When I don't know something, I kick it upstairs to the OMD. Even when I do know something, I still like to kick it upstairs. That's why they pay 100 times more than I do in malpractice insurance. I don't give a rat's behind about scope of practice -I like to sleep well at night not having to worry about whether that iritis will go south on me tomorrow. And I do.
When I leave the office, my work stays at work. And when I go on vacation two or three times a year, because I don't own the practice, I can tell them that I probably can't be reached because I won't have reception in the Swiss Alps or Uzbekistan. And that's what I do.

And they pay me good money to do this??? Somebody pinch me, because some days I think this has to be a dream.

But in case you're still thinking how the grass is greener on the other side, I read this not too long ago. For all their income, doctors have surprisingly low net worths, on average.
8 Ways to Grade How Well You Are Doing Financially as a Physician
I was STUNNED when I read the above! What??? Physicians who retired -i.e., those who were actually able to retire -had an average net worth of $2-3 million? WTF are they doing? I'm much younger than than most retiring physicians, and I'm already there! So I suppose I could retire if I wanted to. Even more staggering... in my age group, turns out, I as an optometrist, would be well in the top 5% of all physicians -across all specialties. Not in the top 1%, but still.

I'm not saying this to brag. The reason I'm saying this is that these people make MUCH more money than I do. And yet they're not so wealthy at all. Someone on these forums (maybe the OP) was saying how tough it is on 100K, and 340K is generally going to be a lot wealthier than 100K even though there are exceptions. Well I am not so sure. I think that the reason their net worths aren't that high, is that they aren't following some combination of my Rule #1, 2, and/or 3. And I have a hunch that there are systemic reasons that make it harder to live by those rules. Maybe they feel they have to spend more to look like they're keeping up with the Jones's if they're "Doctors". Maybe their spouses don't feel they have to contribute so much because their (husband, most likely) is a Doctor. Maybe their work and education demands give them less time to budget. Maybe those same work demands make it harder to even keep up with their health. Working 60 hour weeks will do that, you know.

That's one thing I came here seeking. I would be curious to know what the average NET WORTH of OD's is, compared to MD's. I still haven't found an answer to that question. All I know is that I, for one, would not want to trade places with the MD's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
There is this. Worth reading.

Low Income Doctor In A High Cost of Living Area | The White Coat Investor - Investing And Personal Finance for Doctors

Things You Cannot Do
There are a few things that you simply cannot do if you are making <$200K and living in a high cost of living area.
  1. You cannot send your kids to private K-12 schools. You just can’t. The math doesn’t work. You need to live in a school district where the schools are at least okay. That might mean renting. So what. Do it.
  2. You cannot buy a 7-figure house, even if the bank says they will loan you the money and you have a down payment.
  3. You cannot save nothing for retirement. Even if you have to start out at only 5% of your income and try to “save the raises” over the years, you cannot just neglect this. Maybe you can put it off for 5 years while you pay off the student loans, but that’s it. No longer than that.
  4. You cannot drive a fancy car. The difference between a fancy car and a reliable 7-10 year old car is about $6K per year. That $6K per year, invested at 8% over 35 years, grows to a million dollars. For a low earning doc in a HCOL area, that’s the difference between retiring with nothing and retiring a millionaire.
  5. You cannot vacation big. You can vacation frequently, but you cannot do it expensively. No heli-skiing. No European trips. Renting a motorhome for a week is a big splurge you can’t do every year. I hope you like road trips to Aunt Sally’s and camping.
  6. You cannot pay for your childrens’ college. You can probably help a little, but they need to understand that college is going to be primarily on them. They need guidance to choose an inexpensive school, maximize available scholarships, and work their way through their undergraduate educations.
  7. You cannot provide support for lots of extended family members. I once had a family practice colleague who had 5 or 6 other adults in the house (and a number of children), but she was the only one working. Doesn’t work with the math above. You’re not even going to get back to broke until you’re 35 or 40; how can you support 5 other adults?
  8. You cannot skimp on budgeting. Things are going to be tight, and they’re going to stay that way for a long time. A real budget, whether done on paper or using one of the handy new apps, is a necessity.

Interesting post. As someone who lives in the highest of high cost areas, whose household income has not reached those levels most years (emphasis on household, because personal income has NEVER reached that), I agree with most of these, but not all.

#2... Maaaybe. How much down payment are you talking about? What APR is your mortgage? Two people making 100K can easily carry a 600K mortgage, even on one income if they really tried hard. You'd pay very little in taxes carrying a 600K mortgage on one 100K income, after all the deductions. Add in a 200K down payment, and you're getting close to a seven figure home.
#4... you can if it's used. All our cars have been moderately fancy. They've just been 4-7 years old at purchase. Still just as fancy, but much, much cheaper. You don't need to drive a 10 year old Corolla.
#5... This is the one that I disagree with most. We vacation frequently *and* big. Heli-skiing? Does heli-hiking count? What if it's on a glacier? European trips? Almost every year. Motorhome rental for a week? Ha! That one actually costs MORE than the European vacations, because we do it at a time when prices go through the roof. But we still go nearly every year. Gotta have your priorities right!

Incidentally, regarding #2, the house thing is one reason why I disagree with all the people on this forum who advocate going rural. I happen to live in a high-cost urban area, saturated with ODs.
Downside:
I miss out on making twice as much as make if I had gone to western Nebraska or something like that. I tried that, incidentally. It was eating away at my soul. And as I later realized, it is also penny wise and pound foolish.
Because look at the upsides of living in a high cost urban area:
-More educated professionals to find a mate with. My income is instantly doubled now, and I'm not sure it would have been had I gone rural.
-Double income now allows you to buy property in the high cost area. Not many people can buy into the area where we live, but our two incomes together put us into that small percentage. And the biggest vehicle for building wealth in the US, for most families, is the primary residence.
-But if your house is in rural Arkansas, maybe you'll buy it for 150, and maybe in 20 years it'll be worth 175. Whoop-de-do. We've run up 600K in additional equity alone on just our primary residence. In just a few short years. There is no way we'd build anywhere near that kind of wealth had I gone rural. You can lose that much too, in theory. But it's a safer bet than stocks.

Plus of course there's the intangible upsides -the amenities, but we know that already.

That said, you obviously can't go on fab vacations every year AND buy a house AND buy a boat AND send your kids to private school AND buy a new Range Rover every year AND still have enough money to sock away 15% into retirement. Of course you have to prioritize and find smart life hacks. I'm just saying it's not quite so dire as the post makes it out to be.
 
Interesting post. As someone who lives in the highest of high cost areas, whose household income has not reached those levels most years (emphasis on household, because personal income has NEVER reached that), I agree with most of these, but not all.

#2... Maaaybe. How much down payment are you talking about? What APR is your mortgage? Two people making 100K can easily carry a 600K mortgage, even on one income if they really tried hard. You'd pay very little in taxes carrying a 600K mortgage on one 100K income, after all the deductions. Add in a 200K down payment, and you're getting close to a seven figure home.
#4... you can if it's used. All our cars have been moderately fancy. They've just been 4-7 years old at purchase. Still just as fancy, but much, much cheaper. You don't need to drive a 10 year old Corolla.
#5... This is the one that I disagree with most. We vacation frequently *and* big. Heli-skiing? Does heli-hiking count? What if it's on a glacier? European trips? Almost every year. Motorhome rental for a week? Ha! That one actually costs MORE than the European vacations, because we do it at a time when prices go through the roof. But we still go nearly every year. Gotta have your priorities right!

Incidentally, regarding #2, the house thing is one reason why I disagree with all the people on this forum who advocate going rural. I happen to live in a high-cost urban area, saturated with ODs.
Downside:
I miss out on making twice as much as make if I had gone to western Nebraska or something like that. I tried that, incidentally. It was eating away at my soul. And as I later realized, it is also penny wise and pound foolish.
Because look at the upsides of living in a high cost urban area:
-More educated professionals to find a mate with. My income is instantly doubled now, and I'm not sure it would have been had I gone rural.
-Double income now allows you to buy property in the high cost area. Not many people can buy into the area where we live, but our two incomes together put us into that small percentage. And the biggest vehicle for building wealth in the US, for most families, is the primary residence.
-But if your house is in rural Arkansas, maybe you'll buy it for 150, and maybe in 20 years it'll be worth 175. Whoop-de-do. We've run up 600K in additional equity alone on just our primary residence. In just a few short years. There is no way we'd build anywhere near that kind of wealth had I gone rural. You can lose that much too, in theory. But it's a safer bet than stocks.

Plus of course there's the intangible upsides -the amenities, but we know that already.

That said, you obviously can't go on fab vacations every year AND buy a house AND buy a boat AND send your kids to private school AND buy a new Range Rover every year AND still have enough money to sock away 15% into retirement. Of course you have to prioritize and find smart life hacks. I'm just saying it's not quite so dire as the post makes it out to be.
Thanks for the input here. It is always refreshing to hear other view points. And congrats to anyone hitting over a $million in net worth.

Got a question. Is most of your net worth heavily raised by your primary residence? to be fair anyone who bought a house 20 years ago in the Bay Area and held it is now a millionaire. And $2 Million in the Bay Area is probably just comfortable living on that net worth. Where if someone with a net worth of $2-3 million in rural Arkansas as you said is probably living like a king.

Congrats again
 
@percyeye:
The answer to your question is no, but it wouldn't be such a bad thing even if it was. As it happens, we bought our current residence only a few years ago, which was a good time to buy, so we ran up hundreds of thousands in equity. But we'd still be millionaires even without it; most of our wealth is spread fairly evenly over equity in other real estate and non-real estate investments.

That said, I know of many people around here who have only that, and they're set. I just had a patient the other day who sold her house in the Bay Area and is moving to St. Louis -not even rural. She can get a decent house for cash and live like a queen for the rest of her life. That's the part of the equation that folks forget about when they complain about the high cost of living in the Bay Area. Because of tax advantages for real estate and the benefits of leverage, you can't come close to building wealth at that speed if you don't live in a desirable city (which means a high cost city).

And by the way, the other health professionals some people envy are not that much better off when you think about it. Believe it or not, there may come a point where more money is not all that productive. Take that MD specialist making 350K. If you follow rule #2 above, their household may only be pulling in an extra 150K, because there's a good chance that Mrs. Specialist thinks she doesn't need to work because hubby's pulling in 350K. Well OK, an extra 150K is still a lot... except it's really not 150K. At these lofty levels, 60% of that extra 150K will be eaten up by taxes. So now we're really only talking about an extra 60K in your pocket. And that household will probably be spending more. How much of that 60K will be spent on things that you not only don't need, but don't even increase your living standard that much? (like a new 80K SUV when the exact same model from 5 years ago for 30K is every bit as enjoyable). Are we talking another 20K of spending? 30K? Who knows how much of that extra 150K in household income will be around at the end. But that's not even the half of it. Oh no... for that extra 30K or 40K or 60K of household income, consider the opportunity cost of an extra 4 years of going to school instead of earning real money. And that doesn't even get into tax strategies that aren't open to higher levels of income, further reducing the gap in true take home pay. And lastly, you have to consider that Dr. Specialist is likely working 60 hour weeks! I work 32. With 28 more hours in a week, not only is there more time to enjoy life, but there's more time to research and implement wealth-building strategies. Now my wife does work 45, and correspondingly makes more than I do now, but I keep telling her to stop that :)
But let that sink in for a sec. Income is very important, but there comes a point where you're just spinning your wheels to a very large extent.

But I don't want to be pollyanaish about it either. I won't sit here and wax poetic about the American dream and say that everyone can do it. The median household (not individual) income is 60K, and at that level you're living paycheck to paycheck and on a trajectory to scrape by and maybe never retire. And then life gets in the way -a major health crisis, a lawsuit, a nasty divorce can wipe people out. As a country, we could do so much better. We could smooth over the rough edges of life quite easily for the great majority if only the political will were there. But this is the way it is.The unfortunate truth is that only about 10% of Americans are ever going to retire comfortably. But... that's the kicker -as optometrists, we have an excellent chance to be among that 10%. It does not mean we're rolling in dough. It does not mean it will happen automatically. I'm not sure what people expect, but it still takes planning and wise choices. But to all the young docs who find it so daunting and are so disillusioned fresh out of school, I'm here to say that if you follow the three rules I outlined, you will probably live a very comfortable life where you don't have to worry about financial emergencies, and be able to retire early and comfortably if you choose. That's all you can ask for, and it's more than 90-95% of Americans get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Down-post I'll say more about what brought me here... didn't find the information I came looking for, but I found this interesting discussion. Since I now realize I signed up years ago, let me make my contribution to this glass half full thread.

I graduated optometry school a couple of decades ago with about 150K in debt. At the time it was the most in my class.
I got no parental help, hence the debt.
My net worth at graduation was precisely -150K.
I chose to live in one of the most high cost-of-living urban areas in the country, if not the highest. Needless to say it's also saturated with ODs.
I like listening to Dave Ramsey, as some posters allude to, but I think more than half of his advice is rubbish, and I'd be poorer if I followed it.
Same goes for all the practice management advisors in and out of school.
I've usually socked away maybe 15% of my income, but I don't go crazy about it. I don't want to mortgage my future for my present, but I don't want to do the reverse either (like FIRE practitioners advise).
I've visited 4 dozen countries and tried half the Michelin starred restaurants in the Bay Area.
I work 4 day weeks by choice, not because I can't find a job. Balance is key.
I'm most proud of this... I have never made 100K from work in my life (up until last year, when I barely broke that figure).

And... I am also a millionaire.

You might ask, How??? I'll tell you how. It's not rocket science. And it's not one single lucky investment. Though, as an aside, luck always plays some role, and don't let rich people tell you otherwise. In my case, my wife and I have had some reasonably good luck; but we've also had some catastrophic losses along the way -like multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Based on experience and mistakes, I've just developed a few simple rules to live by. In this order.
1. Take care of your health first.
Forget everything else. If you have your health, you can recover from just about every catastrophe. If you don't have your health, your problems just cascade. It creates financial burdens, while impacting your ability to earn money to recover, creating a double whammy. Really, if you don't have your health, you have nothing. So do whatever you need to do to take care of your physical and mental health, even if it means less money in the short term. For example, I could quite easily make 50% more than I do now, but it would be penny wise and pound foolish.
2. Choose your partner wisely.
And I'm not talking about your business partner. One thing I've had going for me, is that my wife and I are both high income professionals. The US is on a long term decline in terms of living standards, and the days when a family can get by on one income are over. It absolutely sux, it's a political choice of a broken system, it doesn't have to be that way at all, but that's the way it is, and I can't do a thing about it except adapt. As such, a homemaker wife would be a dealbreaker for me. Most women, of course, understand this almost intuitively in choosing a husband, but I've seen so many male professionals dig their own graves (in many ways literally) by choosing the wrong partner. Your partner doesn't have to be a financial rock star, and neither of us are -at least not by Bay Area standards. But when one person is carrying the entire burden, it leads to a vicious cycle of financial difficulty, resentment whether you want to admit it or not, and ultimately stress and divorce. Which of course affects your bottom line even more, not to mention your health (see Rule #1 above). By contrast, the amount that two professional people together can accomplish given a bit of diligence, is astounding. Which brings me to...
3. Spend less than you make.
I mean, duh. Sure, you say, easier said than done with your 200K debt and 80K income!
A poster named "PGRG" posted a thread on what optometrists really make (a case study). I can quibble about some of his numbers being slightly pessimistic, but overall it's about right in terms of the lay of the land. Well, so what! Pair up. Pick someone emotionally stable with a good ethic. Now you've got two 80K incomes. Not too hard to find. A teacher can make that. A Muni bus driver in the Bay Area can make that. (which begs a different question, but I'll put in my two cents on that later). So anyway, once you have Rule #1 and Rule #2 down, following Rule #3 becomes mostly a matter of choice. Living on 80K is hard. Living on 160K is pretty easy even in the Bay Area. You don't have to go hog wild with the saving as my own life has demonstrated, to accumulate a crap ton by mid career... which in my case is looking more and more like late career -by choice.

There are other things that mostly come down to common sense. Like a healthy and balanced attitude toward debt. Not fanatical, but balanced.
Like paying off your mortgage for your Bay Area home that's at 4% like Dave Ramsey suggests? Why on earth would you do that??? If you have the cash, like we do, better to put it into another property when the time is right. Of course if you have a second mortgage at 10%, sure, kill that sucker.
But going into massive debt to open a practice cold in a saturated area like one of my colleagues just did? Oh heII no!

But frankly, these are details compared to the 3 rules above. Follow just those 3 rules, and the chances that everything works out become extraordinarily high. Don't follow them, and well... almost every professional I know who's struggling, is struggling because they're not following one or more of those rules.

And notice I've said almost nothing about the practice of optometry as a profession. Because this stuff applies to everyone. It does beg the question, though. Why not just be a teacher or a bus driver? I think there's certainly something to be said for that. Teacher is a very nice profession, IMO. I considered it myself for the longest time. And teachers are, btw, supposedly prodigious accumulators of wealth.

That said, I like being an OD.
It affords me balance and flexibility, which is important because unlike most Americans, I don't define myself by my job, and I don't think it's healthy.
At the same time I'm helping people -I'm not building weapons, or putting non-violent drug users in prison, or ruining the environment by extracting fossil fuels, or designing apps that spy on people's private lives.
My job makes me move rather than sit for hours, while at the same time avoiding the kind of body-destroying injury that comes from manual labor.
For the most part, I don't have to deal with blood and guts (other medical professions), miserable patients who hate being there (dentists), smelly feet (podiatrists), repetitive stress injury (chiropractors), night shifts and infectious disease (nurses).
I don't have to work crazy hours like most people in tech or finance. Or doctors, for example. And unlike techies, my skills aren't obsolete within a decade.
And unlike tech or finance, my work has meaning. I'm not coding or pushing papers around.
When I don't know something, I kick it upstairs to the OMD. Even when I do know something, I still like to kick it upstairs. That's why they pay 100 times more than I do in malpractice insurance. I don't give a rat's behind about scope of practice -I like to sleep well at night not having to worry about whether that iritis will go south on me tomorrow. And I do.
When I leave the office, my work stays at work. And when I go on vacation two or three times a year, because I don't own the practice, I can tell them that I probably can't be reached because I won't have reception in the Swiss Alps or Uzbekistan. And that's what I do.

And they pay me good money to do this??? Somebody pinch me, because some days I think this has to be a dream.

But in case you're still thinking how the grass is greener on the other side, I read this not too long ago. For all their income, doctors have surprisingly low net worths, on average.
8 Ways to Grade How Well You Are Doing Financially as a Physician
I was STUNNED when I read the above! What??? Physicians who retired -i.e., those who were actually able to retire -had an average net worth of $2-3 million? WTF are they doing? I'm much younger than than most retiring physicians, and I'm already there! So I suppose I could retire if I wanted to. Even more staggering... in my age group, turns out, I as an optometrist, would be well in the top 5% of all physicians -across all specialties. Not in the top 1%, but still.

I'm not saying this to brag. The reason I'm saying this is that these people make MUCH more money than I do. And yet they're not so wealthy at all. Someone on these forums (maybe the OP) was saying how tough it is on 100K, and 340K is generally going to be a lot wealthier than 100K even though there are exceptions. Well I am not so sure. I think that the reason their net worths aren't that high, is that they aren't following some combination of my Rule #1, 2, and/or 3. And I have a hunch that there are systemic reasons that make it harder to live by those rules. Maybe they feel they have to spend more to look like they're keeping up with the Jones's if they're "Doctors". Maybe their spouses don't feel they have to contribute so much because their (husband, most likely) is a Doctor. Maybe their work and education demands give them less time to budget. Maybe those same work demands make it harder to even keep up with their health. Working 60 hour weeks will do that, you know.

That's one thing I came here seeking. I would be curious to know what the average NET WORTH of OD's is, compared to MD's. I still haven't found an answer to that question. All I know is that I, for one, would not want to trade places with the MD's.
Good post. I just want to point out that in cities with favorable medical insurance situations, income can be high despite saturation of optometrists ($250 medical exams all day instead of $40 Eyemed exams).
 
Good post. I just want to point out that in cities with favorable medical insurance situations, income can be high despite saturation of optometrists ($250 medical exams all day instead of $40 Eyemed exams).
Which cities are these? I've never heard of large cities where ODs are killing it on medical exams, especially where they are saturated.
 
Which cities are these? I've never heard of large cities where ODs are killing it on medical exams, especially where they are saturated.
Here is a Medicare utilization dataset. Search "Optometry" and the name of whatever glaucoma drug you want, then sort the data to see who prescribes the most. The location of each provider is listed. You can bet that plenty of exam fees are being generated by these doctors.

 
Here is a Medicare utilization dataset. Search "Optometry" and the name of whatever glaucoma drug you want, then sort the data to see who prescribes the most. The location of each provider is listed. You can bet that plenty of exam fees are being generated by these doctors.

So I searched one of the most used Glaucoma drugs Latanoprost and yes there are ODs in large cities who prescribe a lot of this, but if you look them up and I even knew a couple they are Docs that work for a Glaucoma group or a large Ophthalmology group. Your solo Doc/small group location in a large city is most likely not killing it medically and with glaucoma. I now there are a few for sure, but the large majority or not.

Working rural like I do I guarantee I see as much medical or more than the top producers in a large city who don't work for an Ophthalmology group.
 
So I searched one of the most used Glaucoma drugs Latanoprost and yes there are ODs in large cities who prescribe a lot of this, but if you look them up and I even knew a couple they are Docs that work for a Glaucoma group or a large Ophthalmology group. Your solo Doc/small group location in a large city is most likely not killing it medically and with glaucoma. I now there are a few for sure, but the large majority or not.

Working rural like I do I guarantee I see as much medical or more than the top producers in a large city who don't work for an Ophthalmology group.
You have to consider that a lot of optometrists in cities seek out retail positions whether commercial or private, owned/leased or employed. A lot of optometrists do not want to see or are not comfortable seeing 30 patients per day, most with diabetes or other pathology. The retail option isn’t there for rural.

If you work with a low income or elderly population in a city with favorable Medicare and Medicaid policies, it is possible to bill large amounts and treat glaucoma in house without an ophthalmologist. It’s a city by city and state by state issue.
 
You have to consider that a lot of optometrists in cities seek out retail positions whether commercial or private, owned/leased or employed. A lot of optometrists do not want to see or are not comfortable seeing 30 patients per day, most with diabetes or other pathology. The retail option isn’t there for rural.

If you work with a low income or elderly population in a city with favorable Medicare and Medicaid policies, it is possible to bill large amounts and treat glaucoma in house without an ophthalmologist. It’s a city by city and state by state issue.
I agree if you go to the low income part of a large city you probably will be able to treat a lot of medical. But you average OD probably won't be able to open up shop in a nice city and in the decent part of town and see 30-40 people a day doing a ton of medical even if they wanted to. You have to fight other ODs and usually large OMD groups. There may be a few out there in each city doing that, but majority couldn't even if they wanted to.
 
I agree if you go to the low income part of a large city you probably will be able to treat a lot of medical. But you average OD probably won't be able to open up shop in a nice city and in the decent part of town and see 30-40 people a day doing a ton of medical even if they wanted to. You have to fight other ODs and usually large OMD groups. There may be a few out there in each city doing that, but majority couldn't even if they wanted to.
An OD who specializes in that type of care can negotiate high pay by working in a clinic that can supply that kind of schedule and equipment.
 
An OD who specializes in that type of care can negotiate high pay by working in a clinic that can supply that kind of schedule and equipment.
Specialized in what?
 
Top