People with dual physician parents - are you rich?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I guess I am a lot more conservative than Dave Ramsey... No way in hell I would buy 700k+ home on a 300k/yr salary. The max would be 500k for me. I also prefer 15-20 yr mortgage instead of 30.

That'll serve you well but yeah that's conservative. Where I'm from it would be extremely bizarre for a physician to live in a 500k house (it'd be more like a condo). If you live somewhere where that's enough for a nice house, that's great

Members don't see this ad.
 
Cars and vacations are an expense. A house is not the same as those things. The money you put into a car or a vacation is gone, you're never getting it back.

So yes, a house is an investment. That isn't to say all investments are good though. People make terrible investments all the time. Have you heard of $GME?

To me you could live a lot of places. You could live in a 2k square foot place or a 6k square foot place. i don't think there's a free lunch - you're paying extra for the privilege of living in the nicer place. Insurance, property taxes, repairs - all those are more expensive with the nicer place and you're never getting those expenses back. Also, for every extra dollar you spend on your mortgage (potentially thousands per month) you could have invested it in liquid index funds that would allow you to cut back or retire early. You ain't retiring as early with an expensive 15 yr (or 30 yr) mortgage - so clearly as an investment it's different. Yes you can always sell the house and recoup the extra money, then you'd have to compare the money you end up with from the house and the money you would have made investing the difference in index funds and we can see what it cost to live in the nicer house.

Of course maybe you bought in SF 30 years ago and that's great... but i just think people generally make worse and more irrational decisions by thinking of housing as an investment and not an expense.
 
That'll serve you well but yeah that's conservative. Where I'm from it would be extremely bizarre for a physician to live in a 500k house (it'd be more like a condo). If you live somewhere where that's enough for a nice house, that's great
I am avoiding the northeast and the west like they are not even part of US (except for vacationing). Any mortgage over $2500/month would give me a headache regardless of how much money I make.


Almost all physicians would be happy to have a house like that in LA/SF/NY/Boston/DC metro etc... because it would cost them 2+ millions to get. However, if they live in a low COL area, that house is not good enough for them. Keeping up with the Jones ruins a lot of people financially.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
To me you could live a lot of places. You could live in a 2k square foot place or a 6k square foot place. i don't think there's a free lunch - you're paying extra for the privilege of living in the nicer place. Insurance, property taxes, repairs - all those are more expensive with the nicer place and you're never getting those expenses back. Also, for every extra dollar you spend on your mortgage (potentially thousands per month) you could have invested it in liquid index funds that would allow you to cut back or retire early. You ain't retiring as early with an expensive 15 yr (or 30 yr) mortgage - so clearly as an investment it's different. Yes you can always sell the house and recoup the extra money, then you'd have to compare the money you end up with from the house and the money you would have made investing the difference in index funds and we can see what it cost to live in the nicer house.

Of course maybe you bought in SF 30 years ago and that's great... but i just think people generally make worse and more irrational decisions by thinking of housing as an investment and not an expense.

I think this is more a reflection that people are generally bad at managing money and not a reflection of owning a home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Most general surgery fellowships, anesthesiology, radiology, heme/onc, GI, cards, critical care, some OBGYN fellowships ...... and I consider all of those fields "average to above average competitiveness" and not "crazy competitive" which was my phrasing.
Your understanding of competitiveness is very different than mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Your understanding of competitiveness is very different than mine.
Yeah... Cardio, GI, Hem-onc, PCCM, MFM are competitive fellowship.

Also the typical salary for Hem/onc and PCCM is 350k-450k
 
Yeah... Cardio, GI, Hem-onc, PCCM, MFM are competitive fellowship.

Also the typical salary for Hem/onc and PCCM is 350k-450k
I can't speak to competitiveness but those private practice chemo infusions....
giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Your understanding of competitiveness is very different than mine.
I didn't say they are uncompetitive...I said "average" competitiveness to "above average," and excluding "crazy competitive."

As long as you are a US MD and get >40th percentile on Step 1 and 2, the match rates for IM, anesthesia, rads, GS, and OBGYN are >99%, 99%, 97%, 94%, 94% respectively. That is not "crazy" competitive in my eyes. These are also all huge specialties which helps for couples match...plenty of programs to apply to and plenty of programs in the same city.

IM and OBGYN fellowships are definitely more competitive than their residencies, but they aren't "crazy" competitive in my opinion. They don't require 2 research years and maybe another fellowship like surg onc or peds surg, and they aren't super niche with like 10 spots per year. For US MD's the match rate into the high paying IM specialties is 90% or greater, except for GI which is 82%. The IM fellowship match rates get massively deflated when you add in IMG's and DO's.
Yeah... Cardio, GI, Hem-onc, PCCM, MFM are competitive fellowship.

Also the typical salary for Hem/onc and PCCM is 350k-450k
Heme/onc median is $496k and 75th percentile is $612K. CCM is $500k 75th percentile which is what I was talking about in my original comment. 75th percentile is not a given or something to expect, but it also isn't "unreasonable" which was my entire point.

Urogyn, reproductive endo, and gyn onc all make >$500k at 75th percentile. Reproductive endo and gyn onc are >$500k at their median as well. MFM isn't the only money maker in OBGYN (which is something I learned this week lol).

And like I said above, cardio, heme/onc and PCCM have good match rates for US MD's (90% or greater) and GI and MFM aren't horrible, 82% and 87% respectively. Of course any fellowship coming out of IM or OBGYN is going to have heavy self-selection, but that goes for basically every specialty in medicine. Self-selection happens at every step along the way, including pre-med, heck probably even high school, but we still have to trust the stats that are left over at least somewhat.

My entire point is that a couple of average to slightly above average medical students at an average MD school can make a combined $1MM/year without either person doing "crazy competitive" specialties or making unusually high salaries within their field. I didn't say it is the average or expected outcome, but the fact that it is at least reasonable proves how much money physician couples can make.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I guess I am a lot more conservative than Dave Ramsey... No way in hell I would buy 700k+ home on a 300k/yr salary. The max would be 500k for me. I also prefer 15-20 yr mortgage instead of 30.
a 15 year mortgage is a terrible decision unless somehow you can't beat 5% yearly growth on investments or refuse to use index funds/etfs
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
a 15 year mortgage is a terrible decision unless somehow you can't beat 5% yearly growth on investments or refuse to use index funds/etfs
I know it's not the best financial decision... I am just someone who hates having to pay bills every month. Even that 15 yrs is a little bit too much for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
a 15 year mortgage is a terrible decision unless somehow you can't beat 5% yearly growth on investments or refuse to use index funds/etfs

Are you saying its a horrible decision because of the opportunity cost? Idk... by that logic should you ever have a paid off house? After a 30 yr mortgage should you take out another mortgage and invest it?

Personal finance is personal. Paying off your mortgage early, paying off your student loans quick might not be the best math-wise but it's good behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
a 15 year mortgage is a terrible decision unless somehow you can't beat 5% yearly growth on investments or refuse to use index funds/etfs
Eh, it is not so black and white. The psychological benefits of completely owning your house in 15 years are hard to quantify. Owning your home brings an immense amount of financial and therefore psychological security to you. Investing and building net worth is not as simple as numbers and equations, as much as I am a stats geek and want to say it is.

Humans are emotional and irrational, even when we try not to be. If all that mattered was maximizing returns like we were computers, everyone should invest in a broad range of ETF's with 1.5 times leverage at a very low interest rate on the margin loan (like IBKR with 1.07% interest on margin loans). The S&P 500 has never had a drawdown of more than 51% since the Great Depression (and back then, the Fed was not committed to pumping money to keep it from crashing). So even if the market drops 60% over time, you will not have your account go to 0...it will just go to 10%. A computer doesn't care if your NW drops down to 10%. As long as you tell it to not liquidate until it gets margin called, it won't. But good luck finding a person with the willpower during a 40-50% market downturn and seeing your life savings go to 10-20% of their peak value.

So, like investing with margin, a 30-year mortgage makes the most mathematical sense, but it is not necessarily the best for your sanity. And I would rather be a little less rich with less stress than the opposite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
a 15 year mortgage is a terrible decision unless somehow you can't beat 5% yearly growth on investments or refuse to use index funds/etfs
Ah, another important point I forgot. You are making a beginner investment mistake which is to only look at annual returns without adjusting for risk. I imagine you fall into the camp of "refinance your student loans to 3%, pay the minimum for 20-30 years, and invest the difference in the market to get an extra 4% in returns" (assuming historical 7% inflation adjusted returns of the S&P 500). The problem with this is that paying your loans off quickly is a guaranteed 3% return on your capital. This gives paying off your loans an infinite/undefined Sharpe ratio (you are dividing by a std. dev. of 0 in the equation so it is technically undefined). You want a Sharpe ratio >1...so infinite is quite good...

Also, if you are a medical student like your flair says, you probably have been earning money and aware of financial stuff starting in the last 10-12 at the longest. The last 10-12 years was one of the strongest and most consistent bull runs ever. Come back and say "unless somehow you can't beat 5% on yearly growth" when the market takes 81 months to recover to all-time highs like it did in 2000-2007 :) or 65 months from 2007-2013 if you are more of an optimist. The troughs were 30 and 17 months during those downturns...so you would also have to wait that long until you even started to see positive returns, let alone a full recovery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
A 15-year mortgage would probably encourage someone to buy less house than they otherwise would, thus saving money, and get them used to spending less every year on other things like vacations, etc. Also, most people who use a 30-year mortgage are probably just blowing the rest on luxuries, not investing the difference, so the fact that index funds have a higher return is irrelevant.

My plan is probably a 15-year mortgage which will coincide nicely with the ability to retire or at least go part-time at that point
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
A 15-year mortgage would probably encourage someone to buy less house than they otherwise would, thus saving money, and get them used to spending less every year on other things like vacations, etc. Also, most people who use a 30-year mortgage are probably just blowing the rest on luxuries, not investing the difference, so the fact that index funds have a higher return is irrelevant.

My plan is probably a 15-year mortgage which will coincide nicely with the ability to retire or at least go part-time at that point
I think people underestimate the benefit of not having a mortgage... It's not only a financial benefit. It just give you some type of stability to the point that it's easier to pursue other adventures...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
At the med student panel at one of my interviews (at a T10 school), someone asked how the students' experiences were with the financial aid at the school. All 3 medical students there responded along the lines of "sorry, both of my parents are doctors, so I don't have experience with need-based aid." It was definitely an eye-opener to me, whose parental income is <$50k/year, and made me wonder how much their privilege helped them in getting to that prestigious position.

Speaking from experience, it helps a LOT. Not worrying about money and bills frees up a lot of bandwidth in your head. For example, we recently had over $20k in vet bills. I didn’t like paying them but it was no sweat. I used money earmarked for a landscaping project which can wait. Life happens and it costs money. To me being rich is being able to handle unexpected bills or a COVID downturn without stressing. Maybe to others that’s middle class.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Speaking from experience, it helps a LOT. Not worrying about money and bills frees up a lot of bandwidth in your head. For example, we recently had over $20k in vet bills. I didn’t like paying them but it was no sweat. I used money earmarked for a landscaping project which can wait. Life happens and it costs money. To me being rich is being able to handle unexpected bills or a COVID downturn without stressing. Maybe to others that’s middle class.
Dang, I really love my dog but I'm not sure I love her $20,000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Speaking from experience, it helps a LOT. Not worrying about money and bills frees up a lot of bandwidth in your head. For example, we recently had over $20k in vet bills. I didn’t like paying them but it was no sweat. I used money earmarked for a landscaping project which can wait. Life happens and it costs money. To me being rich is being able to handle unexpected bills or a COVID downturn without stressing. Maybe to others that’s middle class.
In my opinion, any “rich” country should have its middle class be able to survive 6-12 months of unemployment or a string of unexpected expenses that add up to that many months of salary. I.e. a middle class income should allow the establishment of a 6-12 month emergency fund without a lot of financial struggle. In non-US “rich” countries, your emergency fund can be much smaller because of government assistance during catostriphic life events, such as illness or injury, or non-health related bad luck like getting laid off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
a 15 year mortgage is a terrible decision unless somehow you can't beat 5% yearly growth on investments or refuse to use index funds/etfs
Not really. Get a 30 yr mortgage with a lower interest rate. Then pay extra and pay it off in 15 yrs. If a rough month comes up all you have to do is make the lower regular payment. You pay off in 15 yrs and save lots in interest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I recommend you do some research and look up the definition of what defines being "rich" or upper class in this country. Most doctors do not fall under this categorization, and certainly making $220k or even $500k a year would not put you in this category (especially those living in big cities where cost of living is high). It is obviously subjective, but most sociologists/economists define people in this category to have a majority of their income coming from assets, investments and capital gains rather than wages and salaries.
Simple statistical comparison:
212k is 96 percentile
243k is 97 percentile

"Family physician total compensation averaged $234,000 per year at the start of 2020, according to the latest Medscape Family Medicine Physician Compensation Report."
Family medicine doctors, which arguably make the lowest salary in the nation specialty-wise, make around 96-97 percentile in the nation and likely have amazing benefits (healthcare, pension, etc.) that are not even offered to most Americans in the US.

Furthermore, according to Pew research
"Pew defines the upper class as adults whose annual household income is more than double the national median."
The national median income is roughly 65k, so a physician likely makes 3.6x that (Assuming the lowest-paid specialty and assuming they do not moonlight or make any additional income on the side)

This is what even pisses me off. My parents made roughly 12-20 thousand dollars a year for my entire life. I was born and raised in a low-income household in the US and was raised in a terrible school district. I struggled in undergrad financially due to limited income and had little to no assistance in medical school. I was in the bottom 3% of med students in terms of income. (Yet I scored far, far above the average in med school)

yet here, people are arguing about the "upper class's definition", trying to argue that if physicians save their money "frugally," they can possibly make it to that level. This kind of lack of insight is beyond ridiculous and why many Americans are starting to become infuriated with individuals who lack the ability to understand they are at the top 96-97 percentile (Assuming the LOWEST specialty) and are NOTHING like the middle class or lower class. Yet, here you are arguing like you are some kind of working Joe barely getting by as a physician. (Even though they would even be defined as upper class)

Physicians make ridiculous profits in this nation, and 2 docs in the family put their kids at a ridiculous advantage in this nation. To deny this at all is exactly why the OP made the post. Its an issue that really needs to be fixed and likely will be with years to come.

Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Simple statistical comparison:
212k is 96 percentile
243k is 97 percentile

"Family physician total compensation averaged $234,000 per year at the start of 2020, according to the latest Medscape Family Medicine Physician Compensation Report."
Family medicine doctors, which arguably make the lowest salary in the nation specialty-wise, make around 96-97 percentile in the nation and likely have amazing benefits (healthcare, pension, etc.) that are not even offered to most Americans in the US.

Furthermore, according to Pew research
"Pew defines the upper class as adults whose annual household income is more than double the national median."
The national median income is roughly 65k, so a physician likely makes 3.6x that (Assuming the lowest-paid specialty and assuming they do not moonlight or make any additional income on the side)

This is what even pisses me off. My parents made roughly 12-20 thousand dollars a year for my entire life. I was born and raised in a low-income household in the US and was raised in a terrible school district. I struggled in undergrad financially due to limited income and had little to no assistance in medical school. I was in the bottom 3% of med students in terms of income. (Yet I scored far, far above the average in med school)

yet here, people are arguing about the "upper class's definition", trying to argue that if physicians save their money "frugally," they can possibly make it to that level. This kind of lack of insight is beyond ridiculous and why many Americans are starting to become infuriated with individuals who lack the ability to understand they are at the top 96-97 percentile (Assuming the LOWEST specialty) and are NOTHING like the middle class or lower class. Yet, here you are arguing like you are some kind of working Joe barely getting by as a physician. (Even though they would even be defined as upper class)

Physicians make ridiculous profits in this nation, and 2 docs in the family put their kids at a ridiculous advantage in this nation. To deny this at all is exactly why the OP made the post. Its an issue that really needs to be fixed and likely will be with years to come.

Cheers
Don't be pissed! I remember reading somewhere that med students come from family with average household income of ~130k/yr (top 15%), so it's ok for a bunch of us to be out of touch...
 
I guess it probably won't take that long for both the government and the public to realize that our healthcare expenditure is bloated...

Anyone (PA/NP, RN, RT, PT, MRI tech, CT tech, Respiratory therapist, etc...) in the industry can make 6-figure salary without killing themselves. The people in the executive suits are racking millions. I met a couple of Pharma reps that left their career as NP/PA to work for big Pharma. They all say it is more lucrative than being NP/PA. I am assuming these people are making 150k+/yr... I wonder if this is sustainable in the log run.
 
"Family physician total compensation averaged $234,000 per year at the start of 2020, according to the latest Medscape Family Medicine Physician Compensation Report."
Family medicine doctors, which arguably make the lowest salary in the nation specialty-wise, make around 96-97 percentile in the nation and likely have amazing benefits (healthcare, pension, etc.) that are not even offered to most Americans in the US.
Let me tell you about this thing called academia...

The rest of your post however, I mostly agree with.
 
Simple statistical comparison:
212k is 96 percentile
243k is 97 percentile

"Family physician total compensation averaged $234,000 per year at the start of 2020, according to the latest Medscape Family Medicine Physician Compensation Report."
Family medicine doctors, which arguably make the lowest salary in the nation specialty-wise, make around 96-97 percentile in the nation and likely have amazing benefits (healthcare, pension, etc.) that are not even offered to most Americans in the US.

Furthermore, according to Pew research
"Pew defines the upper class as adults whose annual household income is more than double the national median."
The national median income is roughly 65k, so a physician likely makes 3.6x that (Assuming the lowest-paid specialty and assuming they do not moonlight or make any additional income on the side)

This is what even pisses me off. My parents made roughly 12-20 thousand dollars a year for my entire life. I was born and raised in a low-income household in the US and was raised in a terrible school district. I struggled in undergrad financially due to limited income and had little to no assistance in medical school. I was in the bottom 3% of med students in terms of income. (Yet I scored far, far above the average in med school)

yet here, people are arguing about the "upper class's definition", trying to argue that if physicians save their money "frugally," they can possibly make it to that level. This kind of lack of insight is beyond ridiculous and why many Americans are starting to become infuriated with individuals who lack the ability to understand they are at the top 96-97 percentile (Assuming the LOWEST specialty) and are NOTHING like the middle class or lower class. Yet, here you are arguing like you are some kind of working Joe barely getting by as a physician. (Even though they would even be defined as upper class)

Physicians make ridiculous profits in this nation, and 2 docs in the family put their kids at a ridiculous advantage in this nation. To deny this at all is exactly why the OP made the post. Its an issue that really needs to be fixed and likely will be with years to come.

Cheers

Other than Kaiser I can't really think of why physicians would have amazing healthcare and pensions (lol??)... pensions are long gone for almost all professions and are most common with union jobs which physician jobs are not.

I also absolutely cannot take seriously anyone who says making 100k is "upper class". At 100k you're definitely doing relatively well compared to most Americans but upper class is the highest socioeconomic class; you think that a couple making 100k falls into that?

I'm also confused by what you think needs to be "fixed"... you realize that the reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is not because of physician salaries but the ridiculous insurance bureaucracy we have right? If for someone reason you think docs should make less unrelated to that, I'm curious as to who in society you think are "deserving" of high wages
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Other than Kaiser I can't really think of why physicians would have amazing healthcare and pensions (lol??)... pensions are long gone for almost all professions and are most common with union jobs which physician jobs are not.

I also absolutely cannot take seriously anyone who says making 100k is "upper class". At 100k you're definitely doing relatively well compared to most Americans but upper class is the highest socioeconomic class; you think that a couple making 100k falls into that?

I'm also confused by what you think needs to be "fixed"... you realize that the reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is not because of physician salaries but the ridiculous insurance bureaucracy we have right? If for someone reason you think docs should make less unrelated to that, I'm curious as to who in society you think are "deserving" of high wages
Lots of places still operate as county hospitals and so can get state employee pensions
 
Lots of places still operate as county hospitals and so can get state employee pensions

Interesting... i feel like online in all the various physician finance realms (white coat investor etc) you never hear about pensions
 
Lots of places still operate as county hospitals and so can get state employee pensions
Yeah... Was kind of shocked to see that pension was offered of a hospitalist gig I am trying to get right now...
 
Other than Kaiser I can't really think of why physicians would have amazing healthcare and pensions (lol??)... pensions are long gone for almost all professions and are most common with union jobs which physician jobs are not.

I also absolutely cannot take seriously anyone who says making 100k is "upper class". At 100k you're definitely doing relatively well compared to most Americans but upper class is the highest socioeconomic class; you think that a couple making 100k falls into that?

I'm also confused by what you think needs to be "fixed"... you realize that the reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is not because of physician salaries but the ridiculous insurance bureaucracy we have right? If for someone reason you think docs should make less unrelated to that, I'm curious as to who in society you think are "deserving" of high wages
Wait who said $100k is upper class in the US and in what # post? That is not true in basically every way you could look at it. I hope no one actually said that and you are being hyperbolic
 
Wait who said $100k is upper class in the US and in what # post? That is not true in basically every way you could look at it. I hope no one actually said that and you are being hyperbolic

Simple statistical comparison:
212k is 96 percentile
243k is 97 percentile

"Family physician total compensation averaged $234,000 per year at the start of 2020, according to the latest Medscape Family Medicine Physician Compensation Report."
Family medicine doctors, which arguably make the lowest salary in the nation specialty-wise, make around 96-97 percentile in the nation and likely have amazing benefits (healthcare, pension, etc.) that are not even offered to most Americans in the US.

Furthermore, according to Pew research
"Pew defines the upper class as adults whose annual household income is more than double the national median."
The national median income is roughly 65k, so a physician likely makes 3.6x that (Assuming the lowest-paid specialty and assuming they do not moonlight or make any additional income on the side)

This is what even pisses me off. My parents made roughly 12-20 thousand dollars a year for my entire life. I was born and raised in a low-income household in the US and was raised in a terrible school district. I struggled in undergrad financially due to limited income and had little to no assistance in medical school. I was in the bottom 3% of med students in terms of income. (Yet I scored far, far above the average in med school)

yet here, people are arguing about the "upper class's definition", trying to argue that if physicians save their money "frugally," they can possibly make it to that level. This kind of lack of insight is beyond ridiculous and why many Americans are starting to become infuriated with individuals who lack the ability to understand they are at the top 96-97 percentile (Assuming the LOWEST specialty) and are NOTHING like the middle class or lower class. Yet, here you are arguing like you are some kind of working Joe barely getting by as a physician. (Even though they would even be defined as upper class)

Physicians make ridiculous profits in this nation, and 2 docs in the family put their kids at a ridiculous advantage in this nation. To deny this at all is exactly why the OP made the post. Its an issue that really needs to be fixed and likely will be with years to come.

Cheers
 
Ah thank you. I guess CARS wasn’t very predictive of my actual reading comprehension.

I mean…many physicians are wealthy/“comfortable”/upper class/rich/big ballers, but it ain’t because they make >$100k. It’s because the vast majority make at least $200k and a majority make $250k+. Giant difference in the lifestyle and security you get with $250k versus $100k.

$100k isn’t rich in any state in the US. It’s a good amount of money IF you stay employed and have excellent health insurance, but not rich.

Not sure what Pew is smoking. $100k is 65th percentile household income in the US. If 65th percentile is “upper” anything, Pew would have loved it in a certain Union of Republics that no longer exists…
 
In my opinion, any “rich” country should have its middle class be able to survive 6-12 months of unemployment or a string of unexpected expenses that add up to that many months of salary. I.e. a middle class income should allow the establishment of a 6-12 month emergency fund without a lot of financial struggle. In non-US “rich” countries, your emergency fund can be much smaller because of government assistance during catostriphic life events, such as illness or injury, or non-health related bad luck like getting laid off.
The vast majorit of people, including physicians, couldn’t survive a 12 month of being without a job. It is silly to suggest it. That long without job isn’t that likely in the grand scheme of things. Even with covid, it is utter stupidity to expect people to go without an earned income for so long. You should take a look at consumption and credit in the US. You will notice a few things. People don’t have as much margin as they used to. The average home in the US has nearly doubled in size, the number of cars per household has almost doubled, and business have becomes exceedingly good at extracting money from the public with credit. (Did you that the idea of eating out on A credit Card would have horrified my grand parents when they were my age?)
Not really. Get a 30 yr mortgage with a lower interest rate. Then pay extra and pay it off in 15 yrs. If a rough month comes up all you have to do is make the lower regular payment. You pay off in 15 yrs and save lots in interest.

Interest rates are always cheaper for 15 year than 30. I had a 15 year because it was my intention to pay it off. . . Quickly. I am also of the opinion that if you don’t have enough margin in your life for a 15 year mortgage, you shouldn’t spend so much.

Yeah I honestly had trouble with that ethically. I don’t know if it’s okay to spend that on your dog when people are starving and homeless.

It is his dog and his money. His paying (an exorbitant amount to me) $20k didn’t cause the children to starve. Personally, I wouldn’t ever spend such sums of money on a dog, even if I had the extra money. But Joe, MD can do with his money whatever he pleases. Only politicians and the populist masses feel that have rights to other people’s money.
 
  • Like
  • Dislike
Reactions: 2 users
The vast majorit of people, including physicians, couldn’t survive a 12 month of being without a job. It is silly to suggest it. That long without job isn’t that likely in the grand scheme of things. Even with covid, it is utter stupidity to expect people to go without an earned income for so long.
Every attending physician should have at least a 6 month emergency fund saved and every physician should be able to survive for 12 months without a job, even though it certainly won’t be pleasant. It would majorly suck and is a worst case scenario, but 6 month emergency fund plus 6 months of early withdraw from 401k and liquidating bonds and ETFs (yes, you will pay a penalty on the 401k, that still is better than getting your house foreclosed) makes 12 months. Every physician should be AT LEAST maxing out their 401k from day one of being an attending, and ideally saving at least 15-20% for retirement. Most physicians will also have equity in their house which they could get a reserve mortgage on in a bad situation, as long as the house isn’t underwater.

Again, this would be an absolute nightmare even if it is theoretically survivable without foreclosure/bankruptcy/homelessness, which is why a >6 month emergency fund and super-double-plus-good platinum disability and health insurance is basically required when you are a physician.

Your first 6 months of emergency fund should probably be cash, but I think it’s okay to count your Vanguard/Schwab/etc bond funds as a secondary emergency fund. That should be a pretty sizable amount even if you are investing with 90:10 stocks to bonds ratio. Bond funds and ETFs are extremely liquid and even the most restrictive ones can be sold for cash at the start/end of any trading day at the slowest, which is plenty of time since you should have 6 months of cash saved…

Now, if you get cancer that prevents you from working when you have been an attending for 1-2 years, are still in debt, and don’t have much in terms of savings or investments, you still should have saved an emergency fund in residency, but also see my point above about getting the best disability and health insurance possible. That is such an edge case and also so tragic, that I don’t think any planning could prepare someone for that.

By the way, saying something is “utter stupidity” isn’t a great way to have a discussion with someone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You should put yourself in a position to be financially independent in 10 yrs with dual physicians household income (500k+). House paid off plus 3+ mil in 401k/403b, Roth, HSA, Index funds.

Maybe @VA Hopeful Dr can tell me that I am wrong.
 
You should put yourself in a position to be financially independent in 10 yrs with dual physicians household income (500k+). House paid off plus 3+ mil in 401k/403b, Roth, HSA, Index funds.

Maybe @VA Hopeful Dr can tell me that I am wrong.
He could buy half of SC with $3mm!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You should put yourself in a position to be financially independent in 10 yrs with dual physicians household income (500k+). House paid off plus 3+ mil in 401k/403b, Roth, HSA, Index funds.

Maybe @VA Hopeful Dr can tell me that I am wrong.

I think this is super lofty considering you could easily have 600k in debt starting out
 
I think this is super lofty considering you could easily have 600k in debt starting out
Should be able to pay that in less ~4 yrs...

Net pay after taxes 350k... 150k toward the loan, you're left with 200k. Live on 100k and invest the other 100
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Every attending physician should have at least a 6 month emergency fund saved and every physician should be able to survive for 12 months without a job, even though it certainly won’t be pleasant. It would majorly suck and is a worst case scenario, but 6 month emergency fund plus 6 months of early withdraw from 401k and liquidating bonds and ETFs (yes, you will pay a penalty on the 401k, that still is better than getting your house foreclosed) makes 12 months. Every physician should be AT LEAST maxing out their 401k from day one of being an attending, and ideally saving at least 15-20% for retirement. Most physicians will also have equity in their house which they could get a reserve mortgage on in a bad situation, as long as the house isn’t underwater.

Again, this would be an absolute nightmare even if it is theoretically survivable without foreclosure/bankruptcy/homelessness, which is why a >6 month emergency fund and super-double-plus-good platinum disability and health insurance is basically required when you are a physician.

Your first 6 months of emergency fund should probably be cash, but I think it’s okay to count your Vanguard/Schwab/etc bond funds as a secondary emergency fund. That should be a pretty sizable amount even if you are investing with 90:10 stocks to bonds ratio. Bond funds and ETFs are extremely liquid and even the most restrictive ones can be sold for cash at the start/end of any trading day at the slowest, which is plenty of time since you should have 6 months of cash saved…

Now, if you get cancer that prevents you from working when you have been an attending for 1-2 years, are still in debt, and don’t have much in terms of savings or investments, you still should have saved an emergency fund in residency, but also see my point above about getting the best disability and health insurance possible. That is such an edge case and also so tragic, that I don’t think any planning could prepare someone for that.

By the way, saying something is “utter stupidity” isn’t a great way to have a discussion with someone.
The utter stupidity comment was really geared towards governments who think people in “non-essential“ fields shouldn’t work. I didn’t make that clear. I’m sorry. But there isn’t any way that I’m not working for 12 months when I’m able-bodied.

I mean i guess making your 401k your extended emergency fund could get you there. . . . .

The more you have in liquid cash/money markets, the more you have in underperforming investments. Money markets having been paying pennies the last year. I’m happy with 3-6 months. Because I can get some kind of job in that in that time period. Extended time off due to illness is why you have disability insurance.

I agree with having appropriate insurance. I’m not sure what you mean by “the best”. 10-12 times your income in term life insurance. Disability insurance can be a little tricky, but I have a couple polices which should cover a big chunk of my income. There is such a thing as being over-insured and there is junk insurance.

Realize your student loans that are federally insured are forgiven in the setting of death or disability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Should be able to pay that in less ~4 yrs...

Net pay after taxes 350k... 150k toward the loan, you're left with 200k. Live on 100k and invest the other 100

sure but that doesn’t get you to 3m. Investing 100% in the us stock market 100k every year gets you to 1.7M inflated dollars at the 50th percentile of returns... and this is not including a paid off house...
 
sure but that doesn’t get you to 3m. Investing 100% in the us stock market 100k every year gets you to 1.7M inflated dollars at the 50th percentile of returns... and this is not including a paid off house...
The net pay is after maxing out 401k...Anyway, you can live with ~80k ($6700/month, which is plenty of $$$) and invest 120k/yr.
 
You should put yourself in a position to be financially independent in 10 yrs with dual physicians household income (500k+). House paid off plus 3+ mil in 401k/403b, Roth, HSA, Index funds.

Maybe @VA Hopeful Dr can tell me that I am wrong.
You probably could pull that off if you really wanted to but your QOL would have to be little different than as a resident.

I prefer to enjoy life versus aggressively saving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
The vast majorit of people, including physicians, couldn’t survive a 12 month of being without a job. It is silly to suggest it. That long without job isn’t that likely in the grand scheme of things. Even with covid, it is utter stupidity to expect people to go without an earned income for so long. You should take a look at consumption and credit in the US. You will notice a few things. People don’t have as much margin as they used to. The average home in the US has nearly doubled in size, the number of cars per household has almost doubled, and business have becomes exceedingly good at extracting money from the public with credit. (Did you that the idea of eating out on A credit Card would have horrified my grand parents when they were my age?)


Interest rates are always cheaper for 15 year than 30. I had a 15 year because it was my intention to pay it off. . . Quickly. I am also of the opinion that if you don’t have enough margin in your life for a 15 year mortgage, you shouldn’t spend so much.



It is his dog and his money. His paying (an exorbitant amount to me) $20k didn’t cause the children to starve. Personally, I wouldn’t ever spend such sums of money on a dog, even if I had the extra money. But Joe, MD can do with his money whatever he pleases. Only politicians and the populist masses feel that have rights to other people’s money.
Yep, you are correct. I misspoke. I should have said lower monthly payment.
As for the dog, a hugely personal thing. I have heard of people taking out loans they can't afford to treat their dogs. My one friend runs the OR at a tertiary regional vet hospital. I have 2 labs from the shelter. One with multiple allergies requiring special dog food, the other an insulin dependent diabetic of 4 years now. Insulin costs and needles are around $200 a month. I would never put a companion animal through a major surgery for cancer. I don't consider insulin, allergy meds, or antibiotics excessive. I have learned, the hard way, there is no such thing as a free dog.
 
The net pay is after maxing out 401k...Anyway, you can live with ~80k ($6700/month, which is plenty of $$$) and invest 120k/yr.

You’d need to invest 250k per year to get to 3M inflation-adjusted... and this doesn’t include the paid off house...
 
You’d need to invest 250k per year to get to 3M inflation-adjusted... and this doesn’t include the paid off house...
120k + (max 401k(x2) + match from company), which might total to ~180k. 8% ROI will get you 2.6 mil in 10 yrs and if we extend by 1 more year, it's ~3 mil.
 
Last edited:
120k + (max 401k(x2) + match from company), which might total to ~180k. 8% ROI will get you 2.6 mil in 10 yrs and if we extent for 1 more year, it's ~3 mil.

overall I agree with your point. Reality is 10 years is plenty of time for most physicians (especially dual physician household) to have a good nest egg, whether it’s 3M or not
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The problem with having a house is caring for it, if I bought a house I wouldn't put any money to renovate it or upkeep it tbh
 
  • Hmm
Reactions: 1 user
The utter stupidity comment was really geared towards governments who think people in “non-essential“ fields shouldn’t work. I didn’t make that clear. I’m sorry. But there isn’t any way that I’m not working for 12 months when I’m able-bodied.

I mean i guess making your 401k your extended emergency fund could get you there. . . . .

The more you have in liquid cash/money markets, the more you have in underperforming investments. Money markets having been paying pennies the last year. I’m happy with 3-6 months. Because I can get some kind of job in that in that time period. Extended time off due to illness is why you have disability insurance.

I agree with having appropriate insurance. I’m not sure what you mean by “the best”. 10-12 times your income in term life insurance. Disability insurance can be a little tricky, but I have a couple polices which should cover a big chunk of my income. There is such a thing as being over-insured and there is junk insurance.

Realize your student loans that are federally insured are forgiven in the setting of death or disability.
Ah, that makes more sense. And by the best insurance I mean getting right up to the line of over-insured and avoiding junk insurance (e.g. whole life insurance *clown emoji*). But that is just my personal opinion. I am pretty risk adverse and even I agree >6 months in cash/money market is overkill. The only exception would be if your 6 months expenses are a tiny fraction of your net worth, i.e. you spend about $100k a year but are worth $15mm. Not common numbers for physicians, but having $100k in cash would only be 0.6% of your portfolio in cash.
 
That seems... unwise. What's your rationale there?

It's more like I probably wouldn't take proper care of the house, since I'm not good at that kinda stuff. I have always rented and probably see myself doing that, probably until I die.
 
Top