patrick.net

Nomograph says

AdHominem says

Dr. NomogrAss

AdHominem. Plus, Homograph would have been funnier.

perhaps, but then people would use Ad Hominem and call be a gay basher or something.

Honest Abe says

No paper currency has ever held its value. Politicians and central bankers (THE FED) want money they can debase. Gold on the other hand doesn’t cooperate. Gold turns its back on world improver’s, empire builders and do-gooders. Thats why morally corrupt people like paper “money” and hate gold or gold backed real money.

I basically agree with you...so, please don't take this in the wrong way. I am not trying to attack you. Just trying to give you some tips as to how you might better get your points across to others.

Your opinion is phrased in such a black/white type of way, as to generate suspicion of the level of thought behind the comment. That is why your posts are attracting criticism from Nomo and Tat. They aren't attacking your idea, as much as the perceived lack of a logical process.

It is important to note that Kings and governments have always been corrupt, and did find ways to debase gold coins. The most widespread way was via "clipping." There are also stories of governments minting smaller coins, and passing them off as identical to the previous version. Or they would use less pure gold, etc.

Also, if you read about the tulip mania, the dutch had the most healthy and trusted banking system at the time. They were a well regulated, 100% gold standard system. This attracted capital (gold) from around the world, even as far away as Japan. Clearly, a rich Japanese man in the 1600's was not going to be using his gold stash held in Amsterdam very often. It was around this time that the bankers started to figure out they could loan out gold they didn't have, typically to the government that needed to pay operating costs. Fractional reserve banking was born. So, between the new fractional reserve banking system, combined with the massive inflow of gold, the money suppy in 17th century dutch economy exploded, resulting in the tulip bubble.

The irony is that this bubble happened as a consequence of having the most well regulated, trusted, stable banking system in the world.

Also, frankly, HOW IN THE WORLD COULD WE GO BACK TO A GOLD STANDARD TODAY? Everything in our day to day economic lives is a function of a fiat fractional reserve system. Going back to a gold standard, would be like removing a brain tumor. If done haphazardly, the patient could easily die on us completely. I am a huge Ron Paul supporter, and a libertarian to boot. Still, a 100% backed gold standard is almost impossible to fathom in our modern era.

Let's do this thought experiment: If you could get rid of the FED tomorrow, how would you do it? Which organization would regulate the base money supply? Would you go to a gold standard tomorrow as well? What happens when the unemployment rate goes to 30% in 3 months due to the resulting deflationary spiral? How do you convince starving, pitchfork weilding types that they need to take their economic medicine so that things will be better one day?

None of this is by any means a black and white situation.

NomogrAss says

AdHominem says

then people would use Ad Hominem and call be a gay

I don’t care if you are gay. Your personal lifestyle choices are yours and yours alone.

are you coming on to me?

Nomograph says

CBOEtrader says

Also, frankly, HOW IN THE WORLD COULD WE GO BACK TO A GOLD STANDARD TODAY? Everything in our day to day economic lives is a function of a fiat fractional reserve system. Going back to a gold standard, would be like removing a brain tumor. If done haphazardly, the patient could easily die on us completely. I am a huge Ron Paul supporter, and a libertarian to boot. Still, a 100% backed gold standard is almost impossible to fathom in our modern era.

Exactly. I haven’t heard anyone on this site argue against the gold standard. It’s just a waste of time debating because the only way we could ever return to it is via complete monetary destruction, which may or may not happen. Come talk to me then.

I don't think we should move to a gold standard. We should however remove legal tender laws and allow people to refuse to use Federal Reserve notes. If someone wants to demand that they be paid in gold, silver or Doll Hairs, they should have the freedom to do so. Allowing competing currencies is the best way to determine whether or not the dollar is sound. We might even find that people prefer dollars to gold and silver coins.

But more importantly we need to move toward a truly stable money supply. Credit rates need to be set by market forces not a central bank in cahoots with the elites and shrouded in secrecy. And the volume of money cannot be expanded based on decree from Bernanke, it must be based on some standard, whether it be gold reserves, or amount of people involved in gainful employment. Money has to represent a unit of labor, not just a number on a balance sheet.

OK.

I will name some corporations that are according to you "effectively unregulated."

Phillip Morris-
GM-
McDonalds-
Marriot-
AT&T-
Microsoft-

I would like you to start by explaining how these specific corporations are "unregulated."

Second I would like to know how taxes are lower now than in 1945 (including gasoline, unemployment, FICA, Medicare, income, etc..). You are implying that I get more purchasing power for my labor today than my great grandfather did. I find this very hard to believe. Can I buy as many beers, on an hours work as great grand dad? (Yes I know that taxes and purchasing power are two different things. But to argue that taxes are lower now is meaningless if my hours worth of work won't buy what his hours worth of work will buy. That is the real question isn't it?)

Third I would like to know how you know the people who hate corruption don't understand corruption?

Fourth: I would like to know why you claim corruption starts with money?

Fifth, What do you mean by the statement "People who hate corruption don’t understand that corruption STARTS with money, and making the aristocracy 1000% richer over the last 30 years is the CAUSE of corruption."

Finally I wonder if you can make your answer based on evidence and refrain from the sweeping generalizations and insults that are the core of your personality?

Nomograph says

AdHominem says

Sorry, but I disagree. Only an elitist would attack an idea based on a perceived lack of logical process. So that is why Nomo attacks.

Only a victim would feel attacked because his ideas were examined under the light of logic. Unlike yourself, I don’t buy into something just because it sounds neat-o.
If you are unable to provide a logical and rational basis for your ideas, why in the world would you ever expect such ideas to be taken seriously? (HINT: They won’t be).

Burn.

Nomograss.

Nomograph says

Unlike yourself, I don’t buy into something just because it sounds neat-o.

for example, which idea do you claim I buy just because it sounds neato?

AdHominem says

Nomograph says

When women entered the workplace en masse, the currency supply must be adjusted to enable the exchange of this new supply of service.

Yes, that is what I said. It is called INFLATION. (the expansion of the money supply). All of a sudden you have more money chasing goods and services and prices go up. Thank you FEDERAL RESERVE.
Since credit is another form of money, expanding credit is INFLATION too. Hence since the beginning of the 1980’s true inflation (as opposed to the government CPI fabrication) has accelerated.
We have yet to fully realize all of the effects from the creation of all this funny money.

Nomograph says

AdHominem and I are probably in about 99% agreement on most matters.

AdHominem says

In a free market, credit is expensive. Meaning risk is factored in to all credit agreements. We haven’t had a free market in years, in any part of the world, because credit was so cheap it cost you money NOT to borrow.

That is not a free market and you know it. The Federal Reserve and our fraudulent fractional reserve banking system create malinvestment, and socialize risk while privatizing profit (central banks around the world working together did the same thing). That is what the creators of the Creature from Jekyll Island wanted and that is what they got. You can argue till your beak falls off but unless we have sound money we will never have a free market let alone a sound economy.

Nomograph says

AdHominem and I are probably in about 99% agreement on most matters.

AdHominem says

Private property is the foundation of a free society. Private property includes currency. Unless we have a government that protects its currenc(ies) from debasement by the special interests and elites, the average and below average individual (the majority) will continue to lose freedom and his pursuit of happiness will be curtailed.

Nomograph says

AdHominem and I are probably in about 99% agreement on most matters.

AdHominem says

Ok, so American corporations, individuals and the government borrow money from the Chinese to purchase things we can’t afford. The Federal Reserve makes it all possible of course by expanding the money supple to meet “demand.” (where demand is demand for credit) And we need the government to protect us from this? Isn’t it the government that paved the way for this to occur? And isn’t the US Government one of the biggest offenders when it comes to deficit spending?

Nomograph says

AdHominem and I are probably in about 99% agreement on most matters.

AdHominem says

But more importantly we need to move toward a truly stable money supply. Credit rates need to be set by market forces not a central bank in cahoots with the elites and shrouded in secrecy. And the volume of money cannot be expanded based on decree from Bernanke, it must be based on some standard, whether it be gold reserves, or amount of people involved in gainful employment. Money has to represent a unit of labor, not just a number on a balance sheet.

Nomograph says

AdHominem and I are probably in about 99% agreement on most matters.

Nomograph says

...judicious regulation...

I like that phrase. I'm going to borrow that one.

Tatupu...I'm still waiting for you (or Nomograph, or Igwo, or Ellie) to tell the rest of us all the wonderful benefits which THE FED provides. HELLO ???

Abe--

Hope you've got a comfortable chair then, because us freedom hating, communistic tyrants tend not to respond to ridiculous requests...

Tatupu,

Please explain why that is a ridiculous request. Or could it be you don't know what THE FED's stated purpose and alleged "benefits" are? (Hint - its on-line...you could look it up if you don't know).

Abe--

OK, I'm tiring of this already. You are obviously fishing to try and start a discussion on the FED. Which is fine. But do it like everyone else does around here--start a new thread with your beliefs on the FED and let others comment on it. I'll be happy to point out where you are wrong if that's the case, or agree if you've got it right.

Nomograph says

the truth is that unregulated free markets lead to extreme wealth concentration and eventually a feudal system of lords and serfs followed by violent wealth redistribution via revolution or war.

I agree that we do need a measure of regulation in free markets. (By the way I never said "unregulated free markets equal freedom" though this is a true statement. Remember freedom has consequences). There need to be rules in order for a free market to run efficiently. For example, it needs to be illegal to use a scale that is not accurate with penalties for this type of fraud. There needs to be a mechanism for contract enforcement, with penalties for breach of contract. These regulations actually protect the free market.

However, I would counter your statement that unregulated free markets lead to extreme wealth concentration and eventually a feudal system of serfs and lords followed by revolution with the fact that every government and societal system has gone through collapse, revolution or hostile takeover (except maybe for a few remote tribes in Africa, the Middle East or the Amazon). Every system is eventually replaced with another. The new leaders take control, concentrate wealth and power in a few privileged elites and rule until they either collapse or are overthrown. So it is not that free markets fail, it is that EVERYTHING fails.

In other words arguing that "unregulated" free markets fail and therefore they are bad is like arguing that everyone who eats meat dies therefore eating meat is bad.

It does not follow just because a system fails that it is bad. For example, the Native Americans were overtaken by Europeans. Does that mean they are bad? The remote tribes in Afganistan have never been conquered. Does that mean they are good? Not necessarily. USSR failed, so is it bad? Ancient Israel failed, is it bad? Ancient Egypt failed, is it bad? Rome failed so is it bad? A better question to ask is WHY do certain systems fail? I think you would be hard pressed to prove that it was lack of government regulation that is causing our system to fail, when our government is larger today than it ever was. No the problems is not lack of regulation rather the fact that it is essentially controlled by the corporate lobbyists and therefore any regulation we have (and there is a lot of it) exists WITH CORPORATE APPROVAL.

My point being that it doesn't matter how much regulation you have when the people who need to BE regulated are MAKING the regulations.

And that my friends is why government must be small enough that corporations cannot use IT to THEIR advantage. This is what they are doing, and with every expansion of government the corporate lobbyists/elites power grows with it. That is why American Patriots fought the Revolution, to establish a government that would be DIFFERENT than the British Empire. The United States today is more like the British Empire it fought for independence from, than it is like the original American union of independent states.

4X says

I bet you drive a Nissan, Toyota or Honda dont you?…..always talking this arch-conservative nonsense centered around being divisive yet you dont even know how to support America.

You shouldn't bet .... you'd lose.

4X says

3. Next buy only American based computers (HP, IBM, Dell) and stay away from Lenovo products so we dont lose another industry

Too funny. Check and see for yourself where these "American based computers" are made. LOL !!!!

4X says

….lastly, stop blaming President Obama for his efforts to clean up the blowback from your party’s decisions to enter this expensive war.

Another idiotic assumption. I'm an independent. I didn't realize that was a "party."

By definition, independent would be a very lonely party. :)

RayAmerica says

4X says

I bet you drive a Nissan, Toyota or Honda dont you?…..always talking this arch-conservative nonsense centered around being divisive yet you dont even know how to support America.

You shouldn’t bet …. you’d lose.

On another thread, 4x states that his wife drives a Nissan. Pot. Kettle. Black.

RayAmerica says

4X says

….lastly, stop blaming President Obama for his efforts to clean up the blowback from your party’s decisions to enter this expensive war.

Another idiotic assumption. I’m an independent. I didn’t realize that was a “party.”

really--who was the last non-Republican you voted for?

that would not really prove anything more than a lack of choices - would it? I think the assumption that we all vote "against" the worst choice (as personally viewed) is a fair view. But on this point libs have an advantage over conservos bacause libs cling to loose guidlines for conduct and choices - thereby making it very acceptable to a lib to vote for a candidate that is not in-step with their personal view on several key points - on the other hand, when a conservo is forced to make the same stinky choice it allows the liberal left to point at conservos and scream bloody murder because a conservo is not supposed to waver from their ideals while voting ... so, the limited choices we are faced with (R or D) do not fit the template of LIB vs CONSERV at all .. but becasue the very nature of liberal is to allow for variance, they are more successful under the current system. Another GREAT reason for redistricting, eleminating the electorial college, having all voting require a voters license, have ballots be on the back side of tax return with all voting taking place on the third Tuesday in April.

Bap33 says

But on this point libs have an advantage over conservos bacause libs cling to loose guidlines for conduct and choices - thereby making it very acceptable to a lib to vote for a candidate that is not in-step with their personal view on several key points - on the other hand, when a conservo is forced to make the same stinky choice it allows the liberal left to point at conservos and scream bloody murder because a conservo is not supposed to waver from their ideals while voting … so, the limited choices we are faced with (R or D) do not fit the template of LIB vs CONSERV at all .. but becasue the very nature of liberal is to allow for variance, they are more successful under the current system.

Bap Haiku:
One long paragraph
One hundred thirty-two words
Fifteen misspellings

lmao ... guilty as charged

Still snowing?

Nope. 60 degrees, sunny & gorgeous. I miss the weather - last week it rained cats & dogs so hard I stepped in a poodle.

Kevin says

I believe that they’re “Independent” in the way that George Wallace was “Independent”. They vote Republican because they view it as the platform closest to their own. They generally want a return to life the way it was in the early 1800s.

I agree. Very few people agree 100% with either party's platform, but if you end up voting for a Republican every election then you ARE a Republican. You can call yourself whatever you want, but actions speak louder than words.

Last I checked there weren't only two parties on the ballot. Libertarian and Green parties were on ~ 90% of the ballots in the last election. Ross Perot was on all the ballots in the 90s. If you really consider yourself an independent, then you should have voted for someone other than a Republican at some point....

RayAmerica says

4X says

3. Next buy only American based computers (HP, IBM, Dell) and stay away from Lenovo products so we dont lose another industry

Too funny. Check and see for yourself where these “American based computers” are made. LOL !!!!

I know they are made out of the country, yet the we still support the American workers based in our country and not housed in Japan or China counters by purchasing American based products.

Shortly after Lenovo told 1,400 of its US-based employees to politely hop off the payroll, IBM's LEAN plan could call for over 100,000 American workers to be canned in favor of (surprise, surprise) hiring overseas. Already, the firm has laid off 1,300 employees in 2007, but according to a recent report, an ongoing "planning meeting" for how to handle the company's Global Services could eventually axe "up to 150,000 US jobs" while hiring cheaper labor in China and India. Scary times for these Americans and for you and I seeing that we only keep sending jobs to countries that cannot compete with wages here in the US.

I think i will guide my kids in the direction of becoming a doctor or lawyer...those fields cant be offshored nor can they be neglected by American consumers in favor of companies based in Japan, China or anywhere else for that matter.

4X says

RayAmerica says
4X says

3. Next buy only American based computers (HP, IBM, Dell) and stay away from Lenovo products so we dont lose another industry

Too funny. Check and see for yourself where these “American based computers” are made. LOL !!!!
I know they are made out of the country, yet the we still support the American workers based in our country and not housed in Japan or China counters by purchasing American based products.

Have you ever considered a career in politcs?

never, I would probably be labeled an arch-conservative for some of my ideas.

4X says

RayAmerica says

4X says

3. Next buy only American based computers (HP, IBM, Dell) and stay away from Lenovo products so we dont lose another industry

Too funny. Check and see for yourself where these “American based computers” are made. LOL !!!!

I know they are made out of the country, yet the we still support the American workers based in our country and not housed in Japan or China counters by purchasing American based products.
Shortly after Lenovo told 1,400 of its US-based employees to politely hop off the payroll, IBM’s LEAN plan could call for over 100,000 American workers to be canned in favor of (surprise, surprise) hiring overseas. Already, the firm has laid off 1,300 employees in 2007, but according to a recent report, an ongoing “planning meeting” for how to handle the company’s Global Services could eventually axe “up to 150,000 US jobs” while hiring cheaper labor in China and India. Scary times for these Americans and for you and I seeing that we only keep sending jobs to countries that cannot compete with wages here in the US.
I think i will guide my kids in the direction of becoming a doctor or lawyer…those fields cant be offshored nor can they be neglected by American consumers in favor of companies based in Japan, China or anywhere else for that matter.

Becoming a doctor is a losing proposition. My father is a physician in a specialized area. His income has done nothing but plunge the past 10 years. The story is the same for all of his colleagues. I decided against going to Medical School about 7 years ago when I saw the staggering tuition hikes. Since then, I've seen nothing but more hikes for 7 straight years. Any person looking to go to medical school will not get their return on investment. The education is too expensive and doctors are consistently making less money than they used to. All my friends who obtained their M.D. degrees have informed me that the student loans they accumulated through college and medical school prevent them from ever raising their standard of living beyond that of the average American. Hell, I'm making just about as much money as them as a High School Teacher and Graduate Student. The only thing is, I'm not carrying around 300k in student loans to pay off.

If it requires 8 more years of training, and $250,000 more debt, it will take much longer just to come to the break even point with Joe the Plumber. I don't feel sorry for doctors, but when you look at the cost of education it is no wonder the cost of health care is also rising a tenth or more nearly every year.

My point was the break even point is quite a ways down the road. Besides that, doctors are some of the most depressed and depressing people I know.

For example, Nomograss

SF ace says

The person that chose teaching over doctor and try to justify that as a great financial decision is a …

guy who probably only works half the hours of most doctors in a given year. sounds good to me!

SF ace says

Except the doctor will earn about 7.5M in 25 years @ 300K per year average over joe the plumber will make 2M for 40 years at 50K average. Not many become doctors out of poverty because of the time/money investement, but I say it is worth it.
The person that chose teaching over doctor and try to justify that as a great financial decision is a …

Rofl. Maybe you missed that whole Physicians incomes are heavily declining statement I made. Doctor's incomes are heavily eroding due to the insurance industry and their ridiculous premiums for malpractice insurance. Btw... in case you missed it, I'll have a Ph.D. in Chemistry. And guess what, I got paid to get it. I will graduate with a debt of $0. I have 2 jobs right now. I have 2 incomes. I was also able to save a lot of money while in school while my friends who went to Med School went further into debt. I've done the math. I'm already 100k ahead of them in the savings department and 300k ahead of them in the debt department. They have no chance of catching me.
Like I said, salary wise, we are on about the same level right now. Unfortunately, they pay about 15-20k in interest alone every year on those loans and they have to pay off principal as well. They might be lucky to catch up to me by the time they are in the late sixties. That's only because, by that time, I'll be retired.

AdHominem says

My point was the break even point is quite a ways down the road. Besides that, doctors are some of the most depressed and depressing people I know.
For example, Nomograss

You may have driven him right over the edge. I can imagine him now, crying in front of his Atari computer hooked to his console teevee, wishing that he was as smart as you...

This is very unscientific, but I can only offer my personal experience. When I was at the hospital recently I noticed there were a lot of Lexus, BMW, Mercedes-Benz's in the Drs. parking lot as compared to when I went to the elementary school parking lot. Mostly Fords, Hyundais, Chevys, etc. there.
Like I said, for what it's worth...

SF ace says

“Maybe you missed that whole Physicians incomes are heavily declining statement I made.”
That is your word, where’s the proof, I don’t find that possible because my aunt is a nurse, a friend is pharmacist and their wages were way ahead and continue to be so for the forseeable future.
“Doctor’s incomes are heavily eroding due to the insurance industry and their ridiculous premiums for malpractice insurance.”

Where's the proof? Have you spoken to any doctors the past 10 years. Like I said, my father is a physician. His income has drastically gone down. So have his colleagues.

But if you really want evidence, be my guest. Here.

It says physicians salaries fell 7% from 1995 to 2003 adjusted for inflation. The trend is still intact. Oh btw, that means their salaries fell by way more since "adjusted for inflation" uses the government's phony CPI.

If salaried, that is covered. In private practice, that is a pass-thru cost and considering the med bill is $195 for really a 5-10 min face time with the actual phsycian, i don’t believe their income are eroding.
“Btw… in case you missed it, I’ll have a Ph.D. in Chemistry. And guess what, I got paid to get it. I will graduate with a debt of $0. I have 2 jobs right now. I have 2 incomes. I was also able to save a lot of money while in school while my friends who went to Med School went further into debt.”
congrats on that point, if you manage to get a PH D having someone else pay for it. You should write a book on it, that will surely be a best seller now. “How I manage to get a PH.D and got paid for it!”

I have news for you. Anyone that gets a PhD in sciences gets paid for it. The point was, I'm not relegated to being a high school teacher for 30 years if I don't want to be. Maybe you want to look up what a PhD Chemist commands in salary.

” I’ve done the math. I’m already 100k ahead of them in the savings department and 300k ahead of them in the debt department. They have no chance of catching me.”
Of course, you made the assumption that a physician doesn’t make more over a teacher long term as per youre next comment.

Actually, I didn't make that assumption at all. I said that most physicians don't stand a change of making more money than I will over the long term. I didn't say anything about teachers in general. You did.

“Like I said, salary wise, we are on about the same level right now.”
Exacty what does a high school teacher and a physician make?

Lets see, you pegged a physicians starting salary at about 85K right? Well, my starting salary as a high school teacher is about 60k. You can add 30k to that for my Research Grant Stipend. I'm at 90k now. Any questions? The point of my post was that I (not all teachers) am making just as much as my physician friends right now. I didn't need to go 300k in the hole to do it. This has nothing to do with being a teacher.

” Unfortunately, they pay about 15-20k in interest alone every year on those loans and they have to pay off principal as well. They might be lucky to catch up to me by the time they are in the late sixties. That’s only because, by that time, I’ll be retired.”
Physicians can pay off their loan easily over the course of ten years and still be saving more money on family, retirement and the likes than even professionals earning 100K a year.

I suggest go you go look up the average physicians salary over 10 years and look at cost of Medical School for 4 years. Like I said, none of my peers in their late 20s or early 30s are on that track

If you want to start something as saying teachers are more financially well off then physicians, you just have to provide more than these fuzzy facts and math.

Once again, you are focusing on teachers. I didn't say teachers are more financially well off than physicians. I said I was more financially well off than most physicians my age. I just happen to be a teacher. The point of my post was to bring light to the fact that becoming a physician has become a complete crapshoot for the young American. The cost of medical school is swiftly approaching 50k a year for several medical schools. Meanwhile, the interest on a student's Undergraduate loans continue to accrue. They also tend to go into debt while in Medical School just to feed themselves. The AMA has shown that in recent years that many students can graduate with an accumulated debt North of 300k. In fact, 4 out of 5 Medical School students, according to their surveys, graduate with well over 150k in debt. Given the recent trend of both undergraduate and medical school tuition, you can expect that debt number to consistently increase. Furthermore, once out of Medical School, residents work essentially as slave labor for a minimum of 3 years. Physicians salaries have consistently been eroded by Insurance Companies rationing & Malpractice insurance. The fact that a large number of Americans can't or refuse to pay their bills doesn't help. Doctor's are feeling the sting from this recession as well. Add it all up and you have a situation where physicians literally do not get their return on investment for their education.

Today's young American does not enjoy the luxury that your current physicians have. They have to pay orders of magnitude more for school and they make significantly less. There are much better career options out there outside of Medicine.

tatupu70 says

This is very unscientific, but I can only offer my personal experience. When I was at the hospital recently I noticed there were a lot of Lexus, BMW, Mercedes-Benz’s in the Drs. parking lot as compared to when I went to the elementary school parking lot. Mostly Fords, Hyundais, Chevys, etc. there.

Like I said, for what it’s worth…

You are talking about middle aged Physicians who did not face the staggering tuition that students face today. The kids in medical school now won't be driving beamers any time soon. I wouldn't ever expect any teachers to be driving luxury vehicles. But now where are getting into how SF "ace" created his own fantasy straw man argument to argue against. No one here claimed teachers make more than doctors.

Rofl, you cited a magazine named "Managed Care Magazine". But anyway, your figures don't account for inflation. So they mean nothing. I did provide data to you but it seems that you conveniently like to ignore it.
It's obvious you have no clue how a PhD program even works. In short, your tuition is free and you get paid a stipend. The "strings" are you probably have to teach on the side and you must do research towards your doctorate. And no, this isn't available for MDs unless they want to stay 3 more years and get a PhD in addition to their MD.
Every person I know that started practicing medicine in the past 3 years has start out with a salary around 90k a year. The highest one I've met recently started out at 130k a year but he lost this job.
"Health care is widely regarded as recession proof?". Are you serious? Tell that to all the hospitals going bankrupt right now.
I'm rationalize anything. Med School is not worth the investment when you can pursue other lucrative careers at a cost of 200k less. And once again, you seem fixated on the salaries of established professionals who have been in the field for decades. I'm referring to those entering the field right now! The kids coming out of Med School aren't commanding the salaries they thought they would and despite what you believe, doctors do not possess the recession proof job security you claim they do.
Btw, ever see what happens to a physicians income when their malpractice insurance jumps to 50k a year? Oh that's right, you won't find that one in the statistics. If you want to ignore it, than don't talk to me about Fuzzy math. I suggest you go talk to some physicians. None of them are happy right now.

theoakman says

I suggest you go talk to some physicians. None of them are happy right now.

Actually, I just saw my kid's ped today and he was very happy.

SF ace says

theoakman says

Rofl, you cited a magazine named “Managed Care Magazine”. But anyway, your figures don’t account for inflation. So they mean nothing. I did provide data to you but it seems that you conveniently like to ignore it.

It’s obvious you have no clue how a PhD program even works. In short, your tuition is free and you get paid a stipend. The “strings” are you probably have to teach on the side and you must do research towards your doctorate. And no, this isn’t available for MDs unless they want to stay 3 more years and get a PhD in addition to their MD.

Every person I know that started practicing medicine in the past 3 years has start out with a salary around 90k a year. The highest one I’ve met recently started out at 130k a year but he lost this job.

“Health care is widely regarded as recession proof?”. Are you serious? Tell that to all the hospitals going bankrupt right now.

I’m rationalize anything. Med School is not worth the investment when you can pursue other lucrative careers at a cost of 200k less. And once again, you seem fixated on the salaries of established professionals who have been in the field for decades. I’m referring to those entering the field right now! The kids coming out of Med School aren’t commanding the salaries they thought they would and despite what you believe, doctors do not possess the recession proof job security you claim they do.

seriously, you can fudge whatever you want, but salary is not going down.
If in fact you MD friends make 90K to start and (racking up 300K in debt), that is sad, as a RN already makes 85K to start and easily top 120K with holiday and overtime. Not all MD’s get in to do charity work.
Hospitals going bankrupt, please do tell me which one as the healthcare is the fastest growing industry and will stay so for the next 30 years.. With the aging of the baby boomer and the fact that it takes an MD to practice, this is as sure thing as there is.
An average is just an average, high, low, it works out in the end and an M.D makes below that starting out and much more toward the end. If you are just going to talk about starting salary, you might as well keep that waiter/bartending job for short-sightedness analysis.
There’s more to MD than money, as there are many better options as well, but it is a perfectly fine career path if the desire and interest is there.

Like I said, you are conveniently still ignoring their biggest expense...mal practice insurance. If you are content to consistently resort to defamation of me to try to win an argument, I'd rather not bother with you.