Why Are We Pessimists?

[Mad Jack]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I would argue there are too many people on earth depleting resources.
And while esp with physicians one income can support the family, it doesn't mean the other spouse doesn't want to work. Taking care of kids is very hard. That's fine in the past people had kids, but that doesn't mean people now want to.

The world is different now that it was then.

I'm One of the 56% of American Mothers Who 'Prefer' to Stay Home

But not for the reason you think

time.com

Growing Number of Dads Home with the Kids

The number of fathers who do not work outside the home has nearly doubled since 1989, rising markedly in recent years. And more of these "stay-at-home" dads say they're home primarily to care for family.

www.pewresearch.org

56% of mothers would prefer to stay at home. 48% of fathers would also prefer to stay at home. Essentially, more than half of parents would prefer to stay at home with children and not work if given the option. As to resource depletion, perhaps the problem isn't the number of people, but the manner in which we use resources. Having a simpler, less consumption-based world would likely result in both less need for work, more time with loved ones, and less resources used overall. We are in a sweet spot right now where we don't need to confront that reality because we haven't reached a tipping point, but perhaps we need to reach that tipping point so that necessary changes happen.

Personally, I'm not doom and gloom about the state of the world, climate change, etc. People have survived far worse, including ice ages and plagues the scale of which we have never experienced. We're resilient, and capable of surviving far more than we give our species credit for. So too it goes for our planet- there will likely be mass extinctions of wildlife, but there have been mass extinctions in the past. We are far too arrogant if we think we can have anything more than a passing impact on the course of life on this planet. As ecological niches opened when species are wiped out, new species will fill them, though on a timescale we likely cannot fathom. To us, today, it looks like a tragedy. But in the scale of geological time, it's just a singular hiccup, to be forgotten about by the Earth and its creatures as if nothing ever happened as both our sins and our achievements all fall to dust in the face of eternity

 

[whopper]

Also these arguments basically saying people shouldn't have kids because they can't afford them/don't have enough time for them, acts like children are the piece of this equation to naturally sacrifice, instead of questioning why the **** as a species would want a society that members who want to reproduce can't even replace themselves in the population?

This is how nature fixed the above.

The unfit were killed. OK maybe not all "killed" but death from disease, famine, what have you.

Before someone goes all ultra-sensitive "WhopperMD is advocating killer people!" No I'm not. I'm saying that's how nature did it.

The problem is what do we do that's better than nature? Cause what we're doing now isn't fixing this.

Things that can reasonably fix this aren't being implemented. So if society isn't going to fix this, nature will rear it's ugly head and step in if we don't, do the job for us, and in the meanwhile a lot of unneeded pain and suffering will happen.

 

[TheRightMedication]

I do enjoy taking a cynical stance for humorous purpose, but in reality am optimistic. Society has always needed witch doctors people who can give well informed advice in how to manage our minds and behavior. As life gets more complex, I am confident we will enjoy steady demand in services.

I am also confident humanity will carry on into the future. Humans are good, more humans are good, and I hope our population grows! There's lots of rational measures to take to provide for more humans without recourse to macabre Malthusian logic.

It's highly unlikely a meteor or nuclear war will totally exterminate us. Even in the worse case scenario, it takes us what, 20,000 years to develop spaceflight. We've got billions of years before the sun goes red giant and burns us up. I assume the math on meteor strikes gives us a similar estimated time frame.

I figure we've got plenty of attempts at civilization in us. Who knows, maybe we'll nail it this time.

And we will be there, space-shrinks, making a decent living doing good work.

 

[bGMx]

I don't quite think a Futurama-esque approach to anticipating civilization's fluctuation is right, but I like your message. I suspect that an event which wipes out humanity's ability to read modern language would plunge us into the dark ages, and with all of the easily accessible resources depleted by humanity, it would take another 100,000,000 years for geological processes to reform any reasonable low hanging fruit regarding high-potency energy (coal) at which point multiple other cataclysms would occur. It doesn't take much for humanity to fall from our peak, and returning to it I doubt would actually be possible. This is similar to fermi's paradox, where if life was abundant and easily replicable, then we should see an abundance of it outside the earth given the universe is billions of years old. We likely have only one shot all the time, with potential missteps being constantly encountered.

 

[G Sheb]

I'm pretty optimistic about the field... for me.

Not sure about yall. Yall are a lost cause 😂

Medicine will continue to change and evolve as it should, and I'm actually excited to see what's round the corner.

I would agree that a big chunk of employed jobs do 'suck', but this has no impact on financial or job security.
If you know what you're doing, you can avoid them.
Overall, it's hard to find another working profession that has it better than we do.

 

[finalpsychyear]

For me personally as I get closer to my FIRE numbers I am more satisfied with my career. Almost feel like once I am where i would like to be i doubt i'll cut back much . It is to a large degree that part and how physicians have become more of a cog in the entire process rather than the main driver controlling care. I'd argue if most docs had 25-30x FIRE numbers in their bank accounts right now they would be feeling MUCH better.

You can simply work part time or not put up with BS and be in control. That is the ultimate key. For some other fields the effect is more dramatic. No more calls, overnights, holidays can be a game changer.

 

[finalpsychyear]

Medicine will continue to change and evolve as it should, and I'm actually excited to see what's round the corner.

I would agree that a big chunk of employed jobs do 'suck', but this has no impact on financial or job security.
If you know what you're doing, you can avoid them.
Overall, it's hard to find another working profession that has it better than we do.

Yes. At least in psych we have at baseline what in most specialties would consider luxury. No night, wknd, holidays for the vast majority with banker hours with a 200-250 min salary is pretty solid.

 

[Merovinge]

I had a conversation with another doctor a few years back who was like, when are you having kids etc. And I was like, well, you know, never, it's not my thing. And he kind of made a point about how people, and particularly intelligent people, overthink having kids. People have had children in prehistory, during wars, during plagues, and in economic circumstances that are unfathomable to us today. And yet these people survived, thrived, and led to us being here today. There isn't really a right or a wrong time to have a child. Even if they make things more challenging, you will survive, and so will they, and more often than not everyone involved will be far more resilient than they would expect. My dad, for instance, worked on the road my entire life. I saw him maybe 30 days a year, but it never harmed our relationship. It taught me the value of hard work and sacrifice, and instilled values that I still hold today that likely let me succeed in medical school and beyond.

People, generally, should probably be having more kids, that's almost undeniable. And this may sound just completely insane, but I believe one full-time income should be able to support a family and it is a failure of our society that it often cannot. It is also at the heart of many of the problems low-income families face, with all the subsequent trauma, crime, and substance use that goes along with it. It is at the heart of the decline in birth rates.

That being said, I have still sided on not having children and contributing to the world in other ways.

Is it? The data on having kids and how that impacts an individuals happiness is not overwhelming. I think men generally do better, women the same and stress levels go up (that is more stress but more highs). I think the calculus on having kids has changed rapidly with later stage capitalism as the decline in birth rates associated with higher national wealth is undeniable at this point.

Now am I absolutely thrilled to be a father? Yes I am, but I am also a CAP, have always liked kids and acknowledge that the increase in stress has been dramatic in our household.

That one point aside, I strongly resonate with your recent posts on this topic. The idea of adding risk to a group of people who are profoundly risk adverse is so obvious in hindsight, but I had not read it written as eloquently as you summarized it.

 

[clausewitz2]

Could it be that *generally* the people who go into medicine were never satisfied previously, and hence are not satisfied when they thought they would be, because they never saw the "problem" as being that they are not ever satisfied?

So, what you're saying is . . . maybe they're just like their mother, maybe they're never satisfied?

 

[randomdoc1]

Can only speak for myself. Grew up in poverty, super harsh environment, family owned business and was pretty much working for much of my life from very early on. Also took up various jobs before starting college. Medicine sure ain't no land of milk and honey. Such a land does not exist. People are gonna people. But first hand I've seen the horrific day to day situations people have had to deal with. Extremely tight incomes, volatile job market, immense competition for a handful of openings for the type of work you've trained for. I remember volunteering on a construction site once and those labor jobs are....I've never sweat so much, felt so disgusting, and been in so much physical pain in my life. Have worked some labor jobs myself, but not as rigorous as construction. It's literally painful. I can't imagine what it must feel like to have limited intellectual capacity and only be qualified for labor jobs. So yes, each day I am so so grateful. Not only do I feel secure in this field but empowered after learning the basics and much more of business management. Not just surviving but thriving, competing, enhancing your market value without having to be a sell out. I agree, I hate that "customer is always right" mentality that is encroaching in healthcare. I say back to them "what is RIGHT is always right" and if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else.

Yes, we spent much time training and have a much more specialized skill set. But others have bit the bullet whether because they made the choice or simply had no choice and had to recreate their path many times. Being flexible, ready to add more skills to our toolbox and try other work settings whether clinical or completely unrelated are to our advantage. Growing up, I've learned anything can fall apart at the drop of a hat. But being versatile is something you have control over. I was super disappointed at what employed jobs looked like as a physician after all that work. And consciously made the decision that it is just not for me...I'll figure it out. And people can. It's not all doom and gloom. I'm not saying it's perfect either. But definitely not doom and gloom. I know at the end of the day if all goes to bust, I can just worked a part time employed psychiatry job. That's way better than the uncertainty other professions/areas face. But...I might try many many other things first before resorting to that lol.

 

[PikminOC]

I'm One of the 56% of American Mothers Who 'Prefer' to Stay Home

But not for the reason you think

time.com

Growing Number of Dads Home with the Kids

The number of fathers who do not work outside the home has nearly doubled since 1989, rising markedly in recent years. And more of these "stay-at-home" dads say they're home primarily to care for family.

www.pewresearch.org

56% of mothers would prefer to stay at home. 48% of fathers would also prefer to stay at home. Essentially, more than half of parents would prefer to stay at home with children and not work if given the option. As to resource depletion, perhaps the problem isn't the number of people, but the manner in which we use resources. Having a simpler, less consumption-based world would likely result in both less need for work, more time with loved ones, and less resources used overall. We are in a sweet spot right now where we don't need to confront that reality because we haven't reached a tipping point, but perhaps we need to reach that tipping point so that necessary changes happen.

Personally, I'm not doom and gloom about the state of the world, climate change, etc. People have survived far worse, including ice ages and plagues the scale of which we have never experienced. We're resilient, and capable of surviving far more than we give our species credit for. So too it goes for our planet- there will likely be mass extinctions of wildlife, but there have been mass extinctions in the past. We are far too arrogant if we think we can have anything more than a passing impact on the course of life on this planet. As ecological niches opened when species are wiped out, new species will fill them, though on a timescale we likely cannot fathom. To us, today, it looks like a tragedy. But in the scale of geological time, it's just a singular hiccup, to be forgotten about by the Earth and its creatures as if nothing ever happened as both our sins and our achievements all fall to dust in the face of eternity

Are the articles saying they prefer to stay at home or have to due to unemployment?

Im not saying due to climate change the world is using resources. But exactly what one poster said, it's a Wall e world of disposable consumerism that I don't think will change

 

[PikminOC]

Can only speak for myself. Grew up in poverty, super harsh environment, family owned business and was pretty much working for much of my life from very early on. Also took up various jobs before starting college. Medicine sure ain't no land of milk and honey. Such a land does not exist. People are gonna people. But first hand I've seen the horrific day to day situations people have had to deal with. Extremely tight incomes, volatile job market, immense competition for a handful of openings for the type of work you've trained for. I remember volunteering on a construction site once and those labor jobs are....I've never sweat so much, felt so disgusting, and been in so much physical pain in my life. I can't imagine what it must feel like to have limited intellectual capacity and only be qualified for labor jobs. So yes, each day I am so so grateful. Not only do I feel secure in this field but empowered after learning the basics and much more of business management. Not just surviving but thriving, competing, enhancing your market value without having to be a sell out. I agree, I hate that "customer is always right" mentality that is encroaching in healthcare. I say back to them "what is RIGHT is always right" and if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else.

Yes, we spent much time training and have a much more specialized skill set. But others have bit the bullet whether because they made the choice or simply had no choice and had to recreate their path many times. Being flexible, ready to add more skills to our toolbox and try other work settings whether clinical or completely unrelated are to our advantage. Growing up, I've learned anything can fall apart at the drop of a hat. But being versatile is something you have control over. I was super disappointed at what employed jobs looked like as a physician after all that work. And consciously made the decision that it is just not for me...I'll figure it out. And people can. It's not all doom and gloom. I'm not saying it's perfect either. But definitely not doom and gloom. I know at the end of the day if all goes to bust, I can just worked a part time employed psychiatry job. That's way better than the uncertainty other professions/areas face. But...I might try many many other things first before resorting to that lol.

Where will the insurance come from?

People also love much longer so they need a lot more retirement money.

And social security may become insolvent due to this

 

[PikminOC]

Psychiatrist hasn't read STAR*D, doesn't know mixing Ibuprofen with Lithium is usually a no-no, ordered Lithium without doing labs, has a patient on Olanzapine for depression (only Olanzapine) and the patient now feels more depressed cause he's sleeping 18 hours a day, diagnoses everyone they see with Bipolar Disorder no matter what is going on. Patient started on starting dose of antidepressant that was never raised (e.g. Escitalopram 5 mg daily for 6 months) and the psychiatrist doesn't know why the patient isn't getting better.

My standards aren't too high. To expect a psychiatrist to at least know that the antidepressant needs to be pushed to a high dosage range (unless side effects, intolerability or remission) is achieved should be a lowest tier level of knowledge in our field, just like I'd expect a surgeon to be at least be able to do a suture or they shouldn't have been allowed to graduate. The bottom line is several residency programs will scrape the bottom of the barrel because psychiatry has several open spots after The Match ends. Most residents from upper tier programs will be good. Below that it's all questionable. Every field has bad people in it, but every place I've seen whether it's Cincinnati, St. Louis, NJ, PA, NYC, all have some place where several doctors are diagnosing everyone with Bipolar Disorder no matter what's going on. These psychiatrists aren't a terrible bad 1%, but more like a double-digits frequency type psychiatrist. While about 1/2 aren't diagnosing everyone with Bipolar Disorder, I see about half doing something that is a clear no-no. (Other examples? Olanzapine-patient gained dozens of lbs of weight but no metabolic follow up, no discussion of the metabolic risks of the meds).

I wouldn't have faulted a psychiatrist, 7 years ago, for not knowing what Benign Ethnic Neutropenia was, because at that time despite it being in studied for decades, it wasn't part of the conventional curriculum. Now it is, but it really should've been part of the curriculum decades ago. Other examples-not teaching the mechanism as to why Clozapine causes agranulocytosis which is a marker for the clear lack of respect our field has for the physiology behind our meds. Any respectable IM doctor wouldn't have accepted to be told a med has an effect without knowing the mechanism. The mechanism has likely been identified (remember lots of this is theory) but as you know this is not part of the teaching curriculum. Our field just accepts this without even questioning it. But to not know how to properly diagnose Bipolar Disorder or prescribe an antidepressant (I'm not talking writing the script, I'm talking understanding the right dosages). This is inexcusable.

Jeffrey Lieberman, former head of psychiatry at Columbia has written similar comments about psychiatry in his book Shrinks the Untold Story of Psychiatry. He described psychiatry as the "red headed" unwanted child of medicine.

Our own forum has an example of what I'm talking about. Tired of this

You work at a hospital that doesn't have an upper tier psych department, expect to work with a colleague diagnosing everyone with Bipolar Disorder, you come to work on the weekend and now have to see all of his patients. So what to do you? Turn your head and pretend this didn't happen? (You're violating your Oath). Try to fix this by changing everyone's meds? Only 9 out of the 12 patients you're seeing that day and patients will be asking WTF. You already talked to the department chair about this who more or less tells you he doesn't care.

Mediocrity is a choice. It's a choice I'd expect anyone calling themselves a doctor to not accept, but that's not reality.

Maybe those mediocre psych have kids and are stretched thin

 

[Mad Jack]

Are the articles saying they prefer to stay at home or have to due to unemployment?

Im not saying due to climate change the world is using resources. But exactly what one poster said, it's a Wall e world of disposable consumerism that I don't think will change

"There are many potential reasons why more fathers with young children are at home these days. A 2012 Pew Research Center survey found that working fathers with children under age 18 are just as likely as working mothers to say that it is difficult for them to balance the responsibilities of their job with the responsibilities of their family. In addition, roughly equal shares of working fathers (48%) and mothers (52%) said they would prefer to be at home raising their children, but they need to work because they need the income."

 

[PikminOC]

"There are many potential reasons why more fathers with young children are at home these days. A 2012 Pew Research Center survey found that working fathers with children under age 18 are just as likely as working mothers to say that it is difficult for them to balance the responsibilities of their job with the responsibilities of their family. In addition, roughly equal shares of working fathers (48%) and mothers (52%) said they would prefer to be at home raising their children, but they need to work because they need the income."

Yep people need more money. And retirement money, money for health insurance, etc. Also wanting to be home and actually wanting to after doing it, are not the same

 

[clausewitz2]

Can only speak for myself. Grew up in poverty, super harsh environment, family owned business and was pretty much working for much of my life from very early on. Also took up various jobs before starting college. Medicine sure ain't no land of milk and honey. Such a land does not exist. People are gonna people. But first hand I've seen the horrific day to day situations people have had to deal with. Extremely tight incomes, volatile job market, immense competition for a handful of openings for the type of work you've trained for. I remember volunteering on a construction site once and those labor jobs are....I've never sweat so much, felt so disgusting, and been in so much physical pain in my life. Have worked some labor jobs myself, but not as rigorous as construction. It's literally painful. I can't imagine what it must feel like to have limited intellectual capacity and only be qualified for labor jobs. So yes, each day I am so so grateful. Not only do I feel secure in this field but empowered after learning the basics and much more of business management. Not just surviving but thriving, competing, enhancing your market value without having to be a sell out. I agree, I hate that "customer is always right" mentality that is encroaching in healthcare. I say back to them "what is RIGHT is always right" and if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else.

Yes, we spent much time training and have a much more specialized skill set. But others have bit the bullet whether because they made the choice or simply had no choice and had to recreate their path many times. Being flexible, ready to add more skills to our toolbox and try other work settings whether clinical or completely unrelated are to our advantage. Growing up, I've learned anything can fall apart at the drop of a hat. But being versatile is something you have control over. I was super disappointed at what employed jobs looked like as a physician after all that work. And consciously made the decision that it is just not for me...I'll figure it out. And people can. It's not all doom and gloom. I'm not saying it's perfect either. But definitely not doom and gloom. I know at the end of the day if all goes to bust, I can just worked a part time employed psychiatry job. That's way better than the uncertainty other professions/areas face. But...I might try many many other things first before resorting to that lol.

So much this. Society doesn't owe us anything just because we got ourselves in a ton of debt and spent ~a decade in post-graduate training. Most highly educated professionals have to deal with vastly more uncertainty than we do. Yes, yes, they go to school a shorter period of time, but just talk to some lawyers about what has happened to their profession over the past 30 years or so. There are almost no involuntarily unemployed psychiatrists who do not also have felonies. Our bad jobs clock in around 200k per year. A good 40-50% of attorneys in the US report salaries that are in the 40-55k range. No job in psychiatry, I'd wager, has quite the same ratio of misery to poor compensation as being a document review attorney who sits in a basement all day and never sees the sun. The lawyers have some better jobs available, but unless you go to a top-tier law school or have connections the biglaw jobs that pay pretty well are just not going to happen for you. Those biglaw jobs are also relentlessly demanding in their hours, and being fired for not meeting billable hours is way more common than being fired for missing RVU requirements.

There are nice part-time psychiatry jobs out there, but you have to really look, and be in the right place at the right time, and accept lower compensation than you could do in private practice.

 

[PikminOC]

So much this. Society doesn't owe us anything just because we got ourselves in a ton of debt and spent ~a decade in post-graduate training. Most highly educated professionals have to deal with vastly more uncertainty than we do. Yes, yes, they go to school a shorter period of time, but just talk to some lawyers about what has happened to their profession over the past 30 years or so. There are almost no involuntarily unemployed psychiatrists who do not also have felonies. Our bad jobs clock in around 200k per year. A good 40-50% of attorneys in the US report salaries that are in the 40-55k range. No job in psychiatry, I'd wager, has quite the same ratio of misery to poor compensation as being a document review attorney who sits in a basement all day and never sees the sun. The lawyers have some better jobs available, but unless you go to a top-tier law school or have connections the biglaw jobs that pay pretty well are just not going to happen for you. Those biglaw jobs are also relentlessly demanding in their hours, and being fired for not meeting billable hours is way more common than being fired for missing RVU requirements.

There are nice part-time psychiatry jobs out there, but you have to really look, and be in the right place at the right time, and accept lower compensation than you could do in private practice.

Alot easier to get into law school. Tons of law schools including online ones. Lawyers are a dime a dozen. And no midlevel encroachment.

 

[clausewitz2]

Alot easier to get into law school. Tons of law schools including online ones. Lawyers are a dime a dozen. And no midlevel encroachment.

Please explain the logically necessary connection between something being academically rigorous and also lucrative. If the answer is gesturing in the direction of there being more lawyers around, that's...sort of the point and this seems totally tangential.

 

[PikminOC]

Please explain the logically necessary connection between something being academically rigorous and also lucrative. If the answer is gesturing in the direction of there being more lawyers around, that's...sort of the point and this seems totally tangential.

Supply and demand

 

[Mad Jack]

Yep people need more money. And retirement money, money for health insurance, etc. Also wanting to be home and actually wanting to after doing it, are not the same

True, that grass is always greener

 

[Splenda88]

Also these arguments basically saying people shouldn't have kids because they can't afford them/don't have enough time for them, acts like children are the piece of this equation to naturally sacrifice, instead of questioning why the **** as a species would want a society that members who want to reproduce can't even replace themselves in the population? I get that some people feel the need not to have kids as they work towards some other purpose, but telling someone because they work as a checkout clerk and they aren't a doctor, oh well guess you don't deserve to breed, is just, I can't even. I get Heist wasn't saying this exactly, but just consider what it says for a first world country to say that a couple working full time in a middle class job can't afford kids.

You want to talk about representation and equity, the differential representation in the gene pool is sort of the ultimate denominator.

This is where we are in the US right now. Most low skilled jobs pay between $10-18/hr these days. A family with 2 people working FT will make ~ 42k-75k/yr. If you are at the lower end of that salary range, there is no way in hell you can raise 2 kids in a decent neighborhood in most place in the US.

 

[Splenda88]

I'm One of the 56% of American Mothers Who 'Prefer' to Stay Home

But not for the reason you think

time.com

Growing Number of Dads Home with the Kids

The number of fathers who do not work outside the home has nearly doubled since 1989, rising markedly in recent years. And more of these "stay-at-home" dads say they're home primarily to care for family.

www.pewresearch.org

56% of mothers would prefer to stay at home. 48% of fathers would also prefer to stay at home. Essentially, more than half of parents would prefer to stay at home with children and not work if given the option. As to resource depletion, perhaps the problem isn't the number of people, but the manner in which we use resources. Having a simpler, less consumption-based world would likely result in both less need for work, more time with loved ones, and less resources used overall. We are in a sweet spot right now where we don't need to confront that reality because we haven't reached a tipping point, but perhaps we need to reach that tipping point so that necessary changes happen.

Personally, I'm not doom and gloom about the state of the world, climate change, etc. People have survived far worse, including ice ages and plagues the scale of which we have never experienced. We're resilient, and capable of surviving far more than we give our species credit for. So too it goes for our planet- there will likely be mass extinctions of wildlife, but there have been mass extinctions in the past. We are far too arrogant if we think we can have anything more than a passing impact on the course of life on this planet. As ecological niches opened when species are wiped out, new species will fill them, though on a timescale we likely cannot fathom. To us, today, it looks like a tragedy. But in the scale of geological time, it's just a singular hiccup, to be forgotten about by the Earth and its creatures as if nothing ever happened as both our sins and our achievements all fall to dust in the face of eternity

I bet the number is more than that. People for the most part go to work because they need the $$$. Once the workplace start having even a little bit of hostility, most people who answered that survey 'saying they prefer to go to work instead of staying home' would quit... assuming they did not REALLY need the extra income. So that number is probably 75%+

 

[finalpsychyear]

I stand by what i say. Work hard and make money now. Relieves pressure and your work isn't as bad as before. I think the money issue is very under rated.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

I bet the number is more than that. People for the most part go to work because they need the $$$. Once the workplace start having even a little bit of hostility, most people who answered that survey 'saying they prefer to go to work instead of staying home would quit'... assuming they did not REALLY need the extra income. So that number is probably 75%+

The fact that more people, including many physicians, would rather work from home is also very telling

 

[PikminOC]

Unlike the old days besides the increased costs of retirement, etc, wages also haven't kept pace with inflation. So their money isn't worth as much.

Just stating what I see as many reasons birth rate in the US is declining

 

[Merovinge]

Unlike the old days besides the increased costs of retirement, etc, wages also haven't kept pace with inflation. So their money isn't worth as much.

Just stating what I see as many reasons birth rate in the US is declining

America as a country has done a remarkable job of transferring wealth from the young to the old (which is no surprise when you look at who "represents" us in politics). As a proportion of GDP, the under 40 year olds have lost 1/3 of their wealth in the past few decades and all of this has been transferred to older individuals. Turns out the people deciding to have kids or not are overwhelmingly under 40...

 

[Sushirolls]

And once those boomers die, that wealth will again be transferred...

 

[sloh]

Unlike the old days besides the increased costs of retirement, etc, wages also haven't kept pace with inflation. So their money isn't worth as much.

Just stating what I see as many reasons birth rate in the US is declining

Word. No one is coming to save us. Get yours asap

 

[PikminOC]

Word. No one is coming to save us. Get yours asapView attachment 371804

Don't these things affect the general public too? Not just physicians?

 

[Mad Jack]

And once those boomers die, that wealth will again be transferred...

...to the children of boomers, who are almost entirely past childbearing age, and thus the power will again be consolidated in the middle-aged and older

 

[Mad Jack]

Word. No one is coming to save us. Get yours asapView attachment 371804

Total inflation over the last 10 years was 30.27%, psychiatry salaries are up 39.8% per Medscape over the same period, so at least our field seems fine. I ran these calculations a while ago for doomer premeds and most specialties had kept pace with inflation through last year on a 10-year rolling basis, with a few small exceptions. Compensation per RVU has dropped though, so like other Americans we're working harder to stay afloat

 

[PikminOC]

Total inflation over the last 10 years was 30.27%, psychiatry salaries are up 39.8% per Medscape over the same period, so at least our field seems fine. I ran these calculations a while ago for doomer premeds and most specialties had kept pace with inflation through last year on a 10-year rolling basis, with a few small exceptions. Compensation per RVU has dropped though, so like other Americans we're working harder to stay afloat

Regular jobs not sure if inflation stayed pace with their jobs. And yes they would also be working harder to stay afloat which may contribute to their not wanting to have kids.

 

[sloh]

Don't these things affect the general public too? Not just physicians?

Of course. But what can we or anyone do about it? The fixes for these things tend to be worse than the problem itself.

 

[Mad Jack]

Regular jobs not sure if inflation stayed pace with their jobs. And yes they would also be working harder to stay afloat which may contribute to their not wanting to have kids.

Oh regular jobs definitely got screwed

 

[Crayola227]

And once those boomers die, that wealth will again be transferred...

I'm sure it will be equitable, won't be concentrated in a small strata, and won't make the issue for low skill workers and the population at large and birth rate worse than it is now. It will fix things.

 

[PikminOC]

Oh regular jobs definitely got screwed

Yes how is inflation keeping up if you have to work more?

 

[Mad Jack]

Yes how is inflation keeping up if you have to work more?

It isn't even keeping up and they're working more