Amount of hours to make 100k

[The White Coat Investor]

I personally think that one of the best things a medical school could do would be to integrate practical personal finance classes early in the curriculum. Students should be shown what a monthly mortgage is on a $200k, $400k, and so forth home. They should be shown what $500k buys in a city like NYC, SF, or DC. It just blows my mind. The concept goes the other way too. Not every medical student thinks money grows on trees. Just the opposite for some, especially those who've legitimately grown up on the bottom end of middle class. I just sort of stare in disbelief. I feel like there is such a lack of basic financial literacy that it's incredible. I really ponder if some of my classmates are going to upgrade to attending one day and turn into a hand grenade of bad financial decisions.

Yes, they are. But I'm working on the problem as fast as I an.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[The White Coat Investor]

No, I think that's the national average.

I live in a state with very good tort laws (gross negligence requirement, although this is in the process of being challenged).

I guess I have it really good. $16-18K for a $1M/$3M occurrence policy. Rates have been dropping every year for the last 5. Our tort laws are pretty good, but not the best.

 

[Croooz]

It's simple really. Just work like every other EM physician fresh out of residency but once you make over $100k you just give the rest away. You could sponsor a med student, heck start with a Navy vet postbacc and continue paying my way...um I mean "their" way through med school and residency. You get the best of both worlds in that you are not viewed as a lazy millennial, you can honor your ideal of not requiring more than $100k to live off...plus you help a well deserving Navy vet. It's a win/win/win.

 

[Dre8]

Don't forget, reimbursements are going to collapse at some point. 2 years? 5? 10? So be ready to work more in the future. Or just work a bit more now, and then cut back when the axe falls.

 

[Birdstrike]

Don't forget, reimbursements are going to collapse at some point. 2 years? 5? 10? So be ready to work more in the future. Or just work a bit more now, and then cut back when the axe falls.

For some specialties they already have, precipitously. Cardiology a couple years ago. This year, Path and Pain. Who's next on the chopping block? We'll find out soon enough.

 

[DeadCactus]

Has anyone ever actually gone through with the "I'll just work enough for 100k and be happy!" plan? Makes no sense. You spend an average of $250k in student loans, 4 years of lost income, and another 3 - 4 years of basically lost income to then pretend you will voluntarily make $100k a year? You could have majored in accounting or engineering and been in the same financial situation with a lot less hardship. Never-mind the psychological reality that few people find whatever random hobby they think they enjoy quite as rewarding when it costs them $200+ an hour to enjoy. Physician's seem to price themselves out of this mythical lifestyle of minimal hours...

 

[gman33]

OP, you don't need to buy the golden handcuff items, but you should work a full schedule in the beginning of your career.

If you want to live on $100k, that's great. Work for ten years and put the rest into retirement.
Your learning will not stop at the end of residency, some would say it's just beginning.
You need time to improve your clinical skills.

While EM is a field which makes less hours possible in some cases, it is not a field that lends itself to not being on top of your game.
You will be seeing some very sick patients who depend on you to be able to do the right thing and do it quickly.

If you want to cut back later in your career and you don't need the money, go for it.
I can see this situation at some point in my future.
Just not right out of the gate.

 

[golghiapparatus]

I, for one, plan on coming out of residency and working my butt off for the first 2 years in order to pay my loans off and to mature as an attending. Once that's done, I don't see anything wrong with dialing it back a notch or two. Just out of curiosity, how successful have people been paying off their loans in a short time after finishing residency?

 

[anbuitachi]

seeing as how a ton of SDN members are wayyyyyyyyy above average, i would say take the stated salaries on here and take off 100k to get a better idea of what it really is like out there? yea? how many of us did residency in small community hospitals? surely that affects income

 

[deleted547339]

seeing as how a ton of SDN members are wayyyyyyyyy above average, i would say take the stated salaries on here and take off 100k to get a better idea of what it really is like out there? yea? how many of us did residency in small community hospitals? surely that affects income

Uhhhh...........what?

 

[deleted547339]

I, for one, plan on coming out of residency and working my butt off for the first 2 years in order to pay my loans off and to mature as an attending. Once that's done, I don't see anything wrong with dialing it back a notch or two. Just out of curiosity, how successful have people been paying off their loans in a short time after finishing residency?

One of my mentors told me that when you start working as an attending, you should work the schedule you'd like to work in 5-10 years. He said it's very tough to cut back on your workload once you're 'the go-to guy' for whatever. Also, there's always more that can be done; you can always pick up an extra shift, sit on a committee, etc.

 

[Psai]

seeing as how a ton of SDN members are wayyyyyyyyy above average, i would say take the stated salaries on here and take off 100k to get a better idea of what it really is like out there? yea? how many of us did residency in small community hospitals? surely that affects income

No they're not. It's selection bias where the people who do well report it.

 

[RustedFox]

I, for one, plan on coming out of residency and working my butt off for the first 2 years in order to pay my loans off and to mature as an attending. Once that's done, I don't see anything wrong with dialing it back a notch or two. Just out of curiosity, how successful have people been paying off their loans in a short time after finishing residency?

Hey; word to the wise when it comes down to your plan. There are a lot of folks here on SDN that are doing just that right now (work like a madman, declare war on debt/etc). I thought about it as well, and while I'm 'aggressive' about it, I'm not nearly as gung-ho as I could be.

Remember: Residency isn't easy. You worked your ass off for four years of med-school, and then your reward was 3-4 years of working your ass off even harder... then.... do you really want to work your ass off for 3-4 years AGAIN for the third time round?

I took a year to stop and smell the roses. Best thing I could have done.

 

[RustedFox]

seeing as how a ton of SDN members are wayyyyyyyyy above average, i would say take the stated salaries on here and take off 100k to get a better idea of what it really is like out there? yea? how many of us did residency in small community hospitals? surely that affects income

This post is froot loops.

Hhhuh?

 

[golghiapparatus]

Hey; word to the wise when it comes down to your plan. There are a lot of folks here on SDN that are doing just that right now (work like a madman, declare war on debt/etc). I thought about it as well, and while I'm 'aggressive' about it, I'm not nearly as gung-ho as I could be.

Remember: Residency isn't easy. You worked your ass off for four years of med-school, and then your reward was 3-4 years of working your ass off even harder... then.... do you really want to work your ass off for 3-4 years AGAIN for the third time round?

I took a year to stop and smell the roses. Best thing I could have done.

I can see that logic... For me I know the value of being debt free having had a prior career before saddling med school debt. Right now I think that working 160-180hrs per month for a couple of years at $200+/hr would allow me to get my loans paid off quickly while still being able to enjoy life a little. But ask me in three years and I might be singing a different tune.

 

[Arcan57]

I can see that logic... For me I know the value of being debt free having had a prior career before saddling med school debt. Right now I think that working 160-180hrs per month for a couple of years at $200+/hr would allow me to get my loans paid off quickly while still being able to enjoy life a little. But ask me in three years and I might be singing a different tune.

160-180 hr/month is not a ridiculous amount, BTW.

 

[Birdstrike]

I can see that logic... For me I know the value of being debt free having had a prior career before saddling med school debt. Right now I think that working 160-180hrs per month for a couple of years at $200+/hr would allow me to get my loans paid off quickly while still being able to enjoy life a little. But ask me in three years and I might be singing a different tune.

You're forgetting to apply "Birdstrike's Multiplier."

When converting ER hours to "normal-job hours," you must multiply the number of hours by Birdstrike's Multiplier, or a factor of 1.5

160-180 multiplied by 1.5 = 240-270

Therefore,

160-180 hours per month in the ED = 240-270 hours doing a desk job, which coverts to:

40-45 hours per week in the ED= 60-67 hr per week, every week, in NormalJobVille

This is due to the acuity and pace of work in the ED combined with the rotating shifts and recovery time required between shifts. Don't make any ER hours extrapolations, without using this conversion factor.

 

[golghiapparatus]

Sure,
But as a father of two kids born during med school I am already used to the toddler(squared) formula which implies constant work at all hours of the day except when at work. Fortunately it is a regressive formula with a T minus 18 years till zero.

 

[SoCuteMD]

160-180 hr/month is not a ridiculous amount, BTW.

Really? We have one doc at my community site who picks up shifts left, right, and center and I think he ends up at about 170 hrs/month. Everyone else is much closer to 130-140.

 

[Birdstrike]

Sure,
But as a father of two kids born during med school I am already used to the toddler(squared) formula which implies constant work at all hours of the day except when at work. Fortunately it is a regressive formula with a T minus 18 years till zero.

I know that formula, too. Post nights, trying to get up after 2 hr sleep and trying to be "fun Dad." Those numbers don't compute.

By the way, what the heck does a brother have to do to get a couple little ones to be able to handle their own bodily fluids, secretions and excrement? Baby rabbits learn quicker than this, geez.

It truly is a magical day, when all members of a single household can successfully wipe their own butts cleanly and grab a juice box and open a gallon-sized carton of goldfish crackers sans assistance.

Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

 

[golghiapparatus]

Magic is when your toddler knows to bring you a cold beer on a sunny day.

 

[HarryPlopper]

Magic is when your toddler knows to bring you a cold beer on a sunny day.

I just consider that as good upbringing and manners.

 

[Mad Jack]

Med student. Previous career before going back. The OP's opinion regarding salary is super prevalent in my medical school, at least in my observation of 23-27 year olds with no life experience. They're not all bad people, nor are all of them super privileged (although there is that crowd). They just have no idea of what the purchasing power of $100k is, let alone $250-300k. You know how many times I've heard, "I didn't go into this for the money. I could EASILY live off $100-150k a year." I actually heard one student, gulp, who went so far as to lambast physicians for needing that much money. BUT...

Ask one of them how much money they'd need to retire, how much a typical car payment is, a mortgage, money for their kid's college (this one always gets me, especially considering the number of students whose own parents are forking over cash), disability insurance, life insurance, etc and they'll stare at you like you're someone from a different planet.

I personally think that one of the best things a medical school could do would be to integrate practical personal finance classes early in the curriculum. Students should be shown what a monthly mortgage is on a $200k, $400k, and so forth home. They should be shown what $500k buys in a city like NYC, SF, or DC. It just blows my mind. The concept goes the other way too. Not every medical student thinks money grows on trees. Just the opposite for some, especially those who've legitimately grown up on the bottom end of middle class. I just sort of stare in disbelief. I feel like there is such a lack of basic financial literacy that it's incredible. I really ponder if some of my classmates are going to upgrade to attending one day and turn into a hand grenade of bad financial decisions.

I currently easily live off of around 44k a year pretax, while contributing around 8k to my 403b and setting aside at least 3k a year for vacations. Can't see why being a physician will suddenly make living off 2-3 times as much seem impossible. Don't live in an expensive city, don't send your kid to private school, don't buy a McMansion, don't get a luxury car, and don't buy **** you don't need. If you don't buy into the myth that acquiring stuff will make you happy and don't fall victim to lifestyle inflation, you will likely be not only much wealthier but much happier overall.

The amount you need to retire is -very- dependent upon what your spending level is. You can retire forever on 25 times your planned withdrawal rate, assuming a 4% drawdown on investments that are expected to return 7-8% (yielding 3-4% interest to adjust for inflation). If you keep your spending down to 50k pretax, you're looking at $1,250,000 to quit forever, $2,500,000 for a 100k income, or a whopping $5,000,000 to retire if you expect a 200k income (your nest eggs could actually be substantially smaller for each bracket, but I really don't feel like doing the math to compensate for capital gains tax vs regular income tax right now).

If you live like you are middle class rather than upper-middle class, get a Camry instead of a 7-series, play basketball instead of golfing at the country club, etc, you can put away the money you'd otherwise be blowing on luxury expenses. The average middle class family lives off of a household income of just over 51k a year. At 100k, you are earning nearly double that with your income alone. I dare therefore say that it is perfectly reasonable to survive this salary without a great deal of hardship. Given the downward trajectory of physician salaries, I do not think making 100k a year to start is a great idea. You would be much better off working full time and socking away a nest egg while the getting's good and time is on your side. If you keep those spending levels low and work a bit of overtime, you might even be able to enter partial retirement early while pulling 100k a year for not working at all.

 

[anbuitachi]

I currently easily live off of around 44k a year pretax, while contributing around 8k to my 403b and setting aside at least 3k a year for vacations. Can't see why being a physician will suddenly make living off 2-3 times as much seem impossible. Don't live in an expensive city, don't send your kid to private school, don't buy a McMansion, don't get a luxury car, and don't buy **** you don't need. If you don't buy into the myth that acquiring stuff will make you happy and don't fall victim to lifestyle inflation, you will likely be not only much wealthier but much happier overall.

The amount you need to retire is -very- dependent upon what your spending level is. You can retire forever on 25 times your planned withdrawal rate, assuming a 4% drawdown on investments that are expected to return 7-8% (yielding 3-4% interest to adjust for inflation). If you keep your spending down to 50k pretax, you're looking at $1,250,000 to quit forever, $2,500,000 for a 100k income, or a whopping $5,000,000 to retire if you expect a 200k income (your nest eggs could actually be substantially smaller for each bracket, but I really don't feel like doing the math to compensate for capital gains tax vs regular income tax right now).

If you live like you are middle class rather than upper-middle class, get a Camry instead of a 7-series, play basketball instead of golfing at the country club, etc, you can put away the money you'd otherwise be blowing on luxury expenses. The average middle class family lives off of a household income of just over 51k a year. At 100k, you are earning nearly double that with your income alone. I dare therefore say that it is perfectly reasonable to survive this salary without a great deal of hardship. Given the downward trajectory of physician salaries, I do not think making 100k a year to start is a great idea. You would be much better off working full time and socking away a nest egg while the getting's good and time is on your side. If you keep those spending levels low and work a bit of overtime, you might even be able to enter partial retirement early while pulling 100k a year for not working at all.

thats no fun. you only live once, might as well go crazy. and 7-8% yield?! whut. the only thing that i can think of with 7-8% interest right now are my 6 figure student loans.

No they're not. It's selection bias where the people who do well report it.

thats true, most ppl who post are prob the ones doing well. i look at my attendings salaries and they are terrible. a pedatrician working full time 8 yrs in making 95k, radiologist working 20 yrs now making 220k full time, EM doc making 120k after 5+ yrs, (although this is from a teaching hospital but still) then i come on here on SDN and ppl posting numbers like twice as high. haha

 

[Mad Jack]

thats no fun. you only live once, might as well go crazy. and 7-8% yield?! whut. the only thing that i can think of with 7-8% interest right now are my 6 figure student loans.

First off, working 60 hours a week to have a lot of stuff I can't enjoy is way less appealing than putting in hard work for a few years then retiring to a sandy beach somewhere and doing whatever the hell I want for the next 40 years. Second, the stock market has historically returned much greater than 8% on average. If you are putting your money in an interest bearing account rather than investing, buying rental property, or running a side business that has an excellent income per hour you invest, you are a fool.

Working because I have to instead of because I want to is a miserable future IMO. Financial independence is where the real happiness is at.

 

[anbuitachi]

First off, working 60 hours a week to have a lot of stuff I can't enjoy is way less appealing than putting in hard work for a few years then retiring to a sandy beach somewhere and doing whatever the hell I want for the next 40 years. Second, the stock market has historically returned much greater than 8% on average. If you are putting your money in an interest bearing account rather than investing, buying rental property, or running a side business that has an excellent income per hour you invest, you are a fool.

Working because I have to instead of because I want to is a miserable future IMO. Financial independence is where the real happiness is at.

yea if you look at the entire history of stocks, except the golden era of stocks is probably over. stock lvl of dow in 1998 was the same as 2011. so thats like a 0% gain if you just leave it there. it's only recently that stocks been climbing again, but thats just because we are in the pre crash time period again.

 

[henge]

First off, working 60 hours a week to have a lot of stuff I can't enjoy is way less appealing than putting in hard work for a few years then retiring to a sandy beach somewhere and doing whatever the hell I want for the next 40 years. Second, the stock market has historically returned much greater than 8% on average. If you are putting your money in an interest bearing account rather than investing, buying rental property, or running a side business that has an excellent income per hour you invest, you are a fool.

Working because I have to instead of because I want to is a miserable future IMO. Financial independence is where the real happiness is at.

The nominal rate of return for the US stock market from 1928 to 2013 was 9.55%; inflation over that period was 3.12%, so the real rate of return was 6.43%.
See http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html and http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100&year1=1928&year2=2013

The US stock market has been one of the best performing major markets over the past century. The Russian stock market vastly out performed the US stock market from 1865 to 1913, but then suffered a -100% return as investors lost everything. See http://topforeignstocks.com/2013/02...rns-of-russian-and-u-s-equities-1865-to-1917/ The Japanese stock market (Nikkei 225) hit 38,957 in December 1989; at the end of 2013 it was at 16,291, after going up a whopping 56.7% during 2013. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkei_225 and http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/31/investing/japan-nikkei-stocks/ But of course there's no way American stocks would ever bubble up excessively or plunge precipitously.

 

[TheWeeIceMan]

The amount you need to retire is -very- dependent upon what your spending level is. You can retire forever on 25 times your planned withdrawal rate, assuming a 4% drawdown on investments that are expected to return 7-8% (yielding 3-4% interest to adjust for inflation). If you keep your spending down to 50k pretax, you're looking at $1,250,000 to quit forever, $2,500,000 for a 100k income, or a whopping $5,000,000 to retire if you expect a 200k income (your nest eggs could actually be substantially smaller for each bracket, but I really don't feel like doing the math to compensate for capital gains tax vs regular income tax right now).

I'm by no means a retirement investment expert, but don't most people shift their money to more conservative investment instruments after they retire? My point being, that most retired people aren't going to hit close to 7-8% since they aren't willing to take a big hit if the market turns down. I would think you would need a bit more than 1.25 million to retire safely in this economy, especially with the way SS is looking for our generation.

 

[Mad Jack]

The nominal rate of return for the US stock market from 1928 to 2013 was 9.55%; inflation over that period was 3.12%, so the real rate of return was 6.43%.
See http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html and http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100&year1=1928&year2=2013

The US stock market has been one of the best performing major markets over the past century. The Russian stock market vastly out performed the US stock market from 1865 to 1913, but then suffered a -100% return as investors lost everything. See http://topforeignstocks.com/2013/02...rns-of-russian-and-u-s-equities-1865-to-1917/ The Japanese stock market (Nikkei 225) hit 38,957 in December 1989; at the end of 2013 it was at 16,291, after going up a whopping 56.7% during 2013. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkei_225 and http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/31/investing/japan-nikkei-stocks/ But of course there's no way American stocks would ever bubble up excessively or plunge precipitously.

I would consider an average of 1.55% over 8% for an incredibly long period of time to be significantly greater than 8%. If you're drawing down 4% on an average annual return of 9.55% with 3.12% inflation, you are still gaining an increase in spending power of 2.43% above inflation, meaming that, on average, your lifestyle will continue to improve throughout retirement. There are actually tools online that allow you to calculate the value of nest eggs during given markets and historical periods. The best of these is Firecalc, which will calculate the return on your investments for EVERY given period in stock market history at once, then give you your overall percent chance to end with a positive balance. If you want safety, there is no period of 50 years in market history that would send you into bankruptcy if you spent 50k a year and had 1.5 million saved. Or 100k per year if you have a 3 million dollar nest egg, etc. The majority of non-investors see only short term losses and think, "guess I was right to not invest" but never look at extremely long term goals.

yea if you look at the entire history of stocks, except the golden era of stocks is probably over. stock lvl of dow in 1998 was the same as 2011. so thats like a 0% gain if you just leave it there. it's only recently that stocks been climbing again, but thats just because we are in the pre crash time period again.

There is only one 10 year period in the history of the stock market that had a negative return- 1928-1938. A few periods lose to inflation, but the vast majority beat it. The goal is not to become wealthy from your investments, but to live modestly indefinitely. The stock market is not always going to serve you well, and it is not a get rich quick scheme, but on average, over a multi-decade time span, you should do alright. If you could just stuff your money under a mattress, whatever. I'm sticking with a mix of stock and rental properties myself.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm by no means a retirement investment expert, but don't most people shift their money to more conservative investment instruments after they retire? My point being, that most retired people aren't going to hit close to 7-8% since they aren't willing to take a big hit if the market turns down. I would think you would need a bit more than 1.25 million to retire safely in this economy, especially with the way SS is looking for our generation.

Most traditionally retired people do. When you are younger, you can afford to take more risk because you have a longer horizon for portfolio recovery. Worst case scenario if you are young is you have to get a job to avoid taking a hit to your lifestyle when your portfolio takes a hit, as you should NEVER take more than 4%, even in a bad year. The elderly retired have no such option, so they have to play it safe with bonds, T-bills, and other assets that are extremely predictable and will hopefully not leave them in a difficult situation if most of the market goes sour.

Higher risk portfolios are another reason people looking to retire early should do their best to obtain rental property, as rents go up with inflation and don't depreciate when the market turns south.

 

[Arcan57]

Really? We have one doc at my community site who picks up shifts left, right, and center and I think he ends up at about 170 hrs/month. Everyone else is much closer to 130-140.

8s,10s, or 11s? 170 hrs from 8s is 21.5 shifts/mo which is just plain ugly. 170 hrs from 10s is 17 shifts/mo which is mildly painful but not ultimately debilitating.

 

[Arcan57]

thats true, most ppl who post are prob the ones doing well. i look at my attendings salaries and they are terrible. a pedatrician working full time 8 yrs in making 95k, radiologist working 20 yrs now making 220k full time, EM doc making 120k after 5+ yrs, (although this is from a teaching hospital but still) then i come on here on SDN and ppl posting numbers like twice as high. haha

Academics is not equal to community from a pay perspective. Academic jobs are covering a much higher overhead then community jobs so the take home pay is going to be significantly less in most places.

 

[SoCuteMD]

8s,10s, or 11s? 170 hrs from 8s is 21.5 shifts/mo which is just plain ugly. 170 hrs from 10s is 17 shifts/mo which is mildly painful but not ultimately debilitating.

8s with no overlap, so essentially they end up being 9s. So yes, 22 shifts would be ugly.

10s kind of push my limit as far as what is acceptable on a day-to-day basis. I am compulsively early, so even though I live 15 minutes away I'll leave home no later than 30 minutes before my shift. I'm a new(ish) attending at 8 months out and I'm also compulsive about disposition at the end of my shift, so I'm always a late leaver (usually an hour). That lengthens a 10 hour shift to something very close to 12 hours unless the last hour is for wrap-up.

thats true, most ppl who post are prob the ones doing well. i look at my attendings salaries and they are terrible. a pedatrician working full time 8 yrs in making 95k, radiologist working 20 yrs now making 220k full time, EM doc making 120k after 5+ yrs, (although this is from a teaching hospital but still) then i come on here on SDN and ppl posting numbers like twice as high. haha

Academic EM at 120k? I interviewed in some of the cities with the lowest academic salaries and that is much much lower than the numbers I saw.

 

[The White Coat Investor]

8s with no overlap, so essentially they end up being 9s. So yes, 22 shifts would be ugly.

10s kind of push my limit as far as what is acceptable on a day-to-day basis. I am compulsively early, so even though I live 15 minutes away I'll leave home no later than 30 minutes before my shift. I'm a new(ish) attending at 8 months out and I'm also compulsive about disposition at the end of my shift, so I'm always a late leaver (usually an hour). That lengthens a 10 hour shift to something very close to 12 hours unless the last hour is for wrap-up.



Academic EM at 120k? I interviewed in some of the cities with the lowest academic salaries and that is much much lower than the numbers I saw.

Yes, $120K for EM is a terrible salary. I made that in the military. Academics generally do much better. Look up their salaries. Most of them are public knowledge. At my local university hospital they go from $220-over $400K. The chair made $440 last year, - more than I made in full-time community practice.

http://www.utahsright.com/salaries.php?query=&city=u_of_u&position=&order=&oType=&page=4

 

[anbuitachi]

I live in NYC so that also helps with the low salary

 

[Silent Cool]

yea if you look at the entire history of stocks, except the golden era of stocks is probably over. stock lvl of dow in 1998 was the same as 2011. so thats like a 0% gain if you just leave it there. it's only recently that stocks been climbing again, but thats just because we are in the pre crash time period again.

You have to be kidding me. The golden era of stocks....well, there is no one golden era. Look at the market in the early 1970s. Now look at it again around 1982. You'll notice the same trend--it was effectively flat for about 12-13 years. You know, just like from 2000-March 2013. It's a correction. The past 13 years have been one, gigantic opportunity to accumulate. I hope you did.

Also notice the market ran from 1982 to 2000. Guess what's about to happen from 2014 onward?

Also consider that Carter:Reagan as Obama:?

The market is headed one place: up.

 

[Cerberus]

First off, working 60 hours a week to have a lot of stuff I can't enjoy is way less appealing than putting in hard work for a few years then retiring to a sandy beach somewhere and doing whatever the hell I want for the next 40 years. Second, the stock market has historically returned much greater than 8% on average. If you are putting your money in an interest bearing account rather than investing, buying rental property, or running a side business that has an excellent income per hour you invest, you are a fool.

Working because I have to instead of because I want to is a miserable future IMO. Financial independence is where the real happiness is at.

Working 60 hours as an Attending is so comical to me that I knew you were premed before even looking at your status. 60 hours in the ER as a resident is brutal... try doing it as an Attending where everything is your responsibility... Hah. Look back on this post in a few years when you've actually worked in medicine and laugh at your young, naive self a bit.

 

[henge]

There are actually tools online that allow you to calculate the value of nest eggs during given markets and historical periods. The best of these is Firecalc, which will calculate the return on your investments for EVERY given period in stock market history at once, then give you your overall percent chance to end with a positive balance. If you want safety, there is no period of 50 years in market history that would send you into bankruptcy if you spent 50k a year and had 1.5 million saved. Or 100k per year if you have a 3 million dollar nest egg, etc.

I understand the long-term numbers. My basic point was that US investors tend to look only at US stock market returns and use only those those in their planning. But US stocks have done exceptionally well over the past century, compared to many other major markets. Looking only at US returns skews perception of risk and expectations of performance. You say "there is no period of 50 years in market history that would send you into bankruptcy if you spent 50k a year and had 1.5 million saved." This is plainly false for some "markets"; if in 1913 I invested $1.5M in the Russian stock market--a major market that had five decades of excellent performance--I would have been bankrupt in less than a decade. Other examples are out there, in non-US markets.

Firecalc does not take into account how foreign markets have performed and so does nothing to alter this US bias: "If your investments are in something that doesn't track closely with the US stock market, such as real estate for example, then you can still use FIRECalc, but since there is no way for FIRECalc to know how your investments performed in the past, you'll need to enter your own performance figures." http://www.firecalc.com/intro.php

 

[Mad Jack]

I understand the long-term numbers. My basic point was that US investors tend to look only at US stock market returns and use only those those in their planning. But US stocks have done exceptionally well over the past century, compared to many other major markets. Looking only at US returns skews perception of risk and expectations of performance. You say "there is no period of 50 years in market history that would send you into bankruptcy if you spent 50k a year and had 1.5 million saved." This is plainly false for some "markets"; if in 1913 I invested $1.5M in the Russian stock market--a major market that had five decades of excellent performance--I would have been bankrupt in less than a decade. Other examples are out there, in non-US markets.

Firecalc does not take into account how foreign markets have performed and so does nothing to alter this US bias: "If your investments are in something that doesn't track closely with the US stock market, such as real estate for example, then you can still use FIRECalc, but since there is no way for FIRECalc to know how your investments performed in the past, you'll need to enter your own performance figures." http://www.firecalc.com/intro.php

By that token you are saying that absolutely nothing in any capitalist market can be predicted based on the past performance of that market, from employment levels to productivity. The U.S. system is different than the Russian or Japanese system, with different foundational characteristics that determine its performance.

In any case, this is why people must have a mix of investments, as I stated before.

 

[Mad Jack]

Working 60 hours as an Attending is so comical to me that I knew you were premed before even looking at your status. 60 hours in the ER as a resident is brutal... try doing it as an Attending where everything is your responsibility... Hah. Look back on this post in a few years when you've actually worked in medicine and laugh at your young, naive self a bit.

Plenty of attendings I work with put in 60+ hours. Most are surgeons, but there are exceptions in other specialties. The average hours per week in many specialties is in the mid-50s, an extra 5 or six hours per week to pull in some extra cash is not inconceivable. Hell, even many FP docs put in 6 10 hour days with one day off to keep their practices reasonably profitable.

My post was not in reference to ED physicians, but physicians in general. I forgot this was posted in the EM subforum, as the topic had wandered a bit more into finance.

 

[henge]

By that token you are saying that absolutely nothing in any capitalist market can be predicted based on the past performance of that market, from employment levels to productivity. The U.S. system is different than the Russian or Japanese system, with different foundational characteristics that determine its performance.

In any case, this is why people must have a mix of investments, as I stated before.

Efficient market types would argue that past prices are not predictive of future performance, since current prices reflect everything known about an asset's value, and those prices reflect its discounted future cash flow as well as its riskiness, both across markets as well as within markets. While the US economy/society may be drastically different from that of Japan or Russia, that difference has already been incorporated into the price, which is set by global bidding, and no country's market can be a bargain relative to another. If Goldman Sachs thought the Moscow market or the Nikkei was over or under priced, don't you think they'd be all over that? Thus, because the global markets all compete for the same funds, the experience of other markets is about as relevant as the experience of the US market.

Moreover, the Moscow and Tokyo markets didn't bubble and pop just because of fundamental economic characteristics, they did so because investors had drastically misread the likelihood that those economies would bubble and pop. That is, if investors in 1900 had foreseen WWI and the Bolsheviks, the prices on the Russian market would never have gotten so high in the first place. The fact that lots of investors missed that, and many other instances where assets were systemically mis-priced, suggests that investors should not have too much confidence in their ability to project the future.

I wholeheartedly agree that investors should have a mix of investments (not just the US stock market). I also think that in setting their expectations, investors should consider the returns on all major asset markets, not just those that have done the best (i.e., the US stock market).

 

[Pinner Doc]

Idk, I hope I don't get flamed for this, but I think I have a pretty good gig. Granted, I split my time between a couple of sites (so there's all the credentialing that pertains thereto), but other than that I can't complain.

I work 10 shifts/month at one site and 2/month (mostly a moonlighter at a place that needs some part-timers). There are lots of reasons I'm keeping my foot in the door at the latter site - one being the potential in a few years to work with ED residents. It's an academic-affiliated institution.

Working these 12 shifts/month puts me nominally at about 96 hours/month. It ends up being about 110 hours, give or take, with staying after shifts. That's under 30 hours/week. I do also work as the physician scheduler for my main site, so maybe tack on 5 hours a month for that.

I'd say my take home is somewhere close to 150-175K. I do have student loans, but my husband doesn't. We make enough that we're still comfortable with our mortgage, 1 (maybe 2 soon?) kids and 2 labrador retrievers. My husband has actually been laid off in the past year and we're still saving, albeit not as much as we'd like. My husband does most of our finances and he's pretty thrifty.

About 12 shifts/month seems right to me at this time in my life, with a young child at home. The minuses? Juggling more than one site, all the aforementioned credentialing, and being an IC with no benefits.

 

[golghiapparatus]

Idk, I hope I don't get flamed for this, but I think I have a pretty good gig. Granted, I split my time between a couple of sites (so there's all the credentialing that pertains thereto), but other than that I can't complain.

I work 10 shifts/month at one site and 2/month (mostly a moonlighter at a place that needs some part-timers). There are lots of reasons I'm keeping my foot in the door at the latter site - one being the potential in a few years to work with ED residents. It's an academic-affiliated institution.

Working these 12 shifts/month puts me nominally at about 96 hours/month. It ends up being about 110 hours, give or take, with staying after shifts. That's under 30 hours/week. I do also work as the physician scheduler for my main site, so maybe tack on 5 hours a month for that.

I'd say my take home is somewhere close to 150-175K. I do have student loans, but my husband doesn't. We make enough that we're still comfortable with our mortgage, 1 (maybe 2 soon?) kids and 2 labrador retrievers. My husband has actually been laid off in the past year and we're still saving, albeit not as much as we'd like. My husband does most of our finances and he's pretty thrifty.

About 12 shifts/month seems right to me at this time in my life, with a young child at home. The minuses? Juggling more than one site, all the aforementioned credentialing, and being an IC with no benefits.

I think that with this, as with most things, the best answer depends on each person's priorities. For me, getting back to being debt-free is a big priority. Yeah, I don't doubt that I'll be looking forward to scaling back my hours when I finish residency, but the prospect of getting out from underneath the weight of student debt is a powerful motivator. In my family of 4, we'll be living on 50k for the next 3 years (after living on student loans for the past 5 years.... I did a postbac). At this point I'd go anywhere and work like a dog for a limited time. Yes, EM is hard work, but so is neurosurgery/CT surg/etc. and they spend how long in residency??? I'll gladly trade a couple of years of neurosurgery residency hours and salary for a couple of years of neurosurgery residency hours WITH an EM attending salary.

 

[SoCuteMD]

I live in NYC so that also helps with the low salary

I had several offers in NYC. No one was paying that little - even the place that said they have the lowest salaries in the city.

 

[Silent Cool]

Idk, I hope I don't get flamed for this, but I think I have a pretty good gig. Granted, I split my time between a couple of sites (so there's all the credentialing that pertains thereto), but other than that I can't complain.

I work 10 shifts/month at one site and 2/month (mostly a moonlighter at a place that needs some part-timers). There are lots of reasons I'm keeping my foot in the door at the latter site - one being the potential in a few years to work with ED residents. It's an academic-affiliated institution.

Working these 12 shifts/month puts me nominally at about 96 hours/month. It ends up being about 110 hours, give or take, with staying after shifts. That's under 30 hours/week. I do also work as the physician scheduler for my main site, so maybe tack on 5 hours a month for that.

I'd say my take home is somewhere close to 150-175K. I do have student loans, but my husband doesn't. We make enough that we're still comfortable with our mortgage, 1 (maybe 2 soon?) kids and 2 labrador retrievers. My husband has actually been laid off in the past year and we're still saving, albeit not as much as we'd like. My husband does most of our finances and he's pretty thrifty.

About 12 shifts/month seems right to me at this time in my life, with a young child at home. The minuses? Juggling more than one site, all the aforementioned credentialing, and being an IC with no benefits.

Are you an ER doc and is that pre- or post-tax?

thanx

 

[emergentmd]

Making 100k a year as in ED attending community hospital in texas would be a piece of cake. There are 300/hr jobs available so in theory you could work 2.5shiftsx12hrx12months. Problem is that is not enough experience to keep up your skills and these 300/hr jobs requires a competent doc.

You can fine Freestanding EDS in texas at 200/hr but again, you would loose your skills quickly. So about 4 shifts a month at FSEDs.

 

[Pinner Doc]

Are you an ER doc and is that pre- or post-tax?

thanx

Yes, board certified ER doc. And I think I misspoke earlier - that is pretax.

 

[Silent Cool]

Yes, board certified ER doc. And I think I misspoke earlier - that is pretax.

Pinner,
Is that more of the norm? I always hear about these 250-300/hr ER jobs like they are everywhere.

 

[Arcan57]

Pinner,
Is that more of the norm? I always hear about these 250-300/hr ER jobs like they are everywhere.

$250-300 is high paying. It's common in more rural areas in the south but is rare for the coasts.

 

[WilcoWorld]

Also, I think I recall Piner being in the PacNW area. Seattle had some of the lowest paying jobs I saw during my last job search.