General

@shamieekill: I appreciate it. I guess we just have different views. There's no reason to be envious though. Instead of looking at people who bust their ass as "only caring about money", use it as motivation. One thing i've learned is that a year from now, you'll wish you started today.

@aznseal: honestly man. Neither of us wants to admit we're wrong. We can legit argue back and forth forever. You do you man. I hope everything turns out good for you. You seem like a hard working person and, tbh,I'm kinda envious of that

@wontpostmuch: lets just say the years has simultaneously made me more entitled but sympathetic? It's weird. After grueling through so many loop holes, i've started to feel like I "deserve" my rewards more. But at the same time, i've seen some stuff that makes me feel more empathy.

@wontpostmuch: More like the Modesto area, but yeah Stockton is about a one-hour drive away from outer Sacramento. I was actually born there, but moved some five years ago.

@shamieekill: There is nothing wrong with being money-driven. Money-driven and having interest aren't mutually exclusive. When I was in college, I either wanted to do zoology or medicine. I loved zoology, and the lifestyle of being a zoology major was amazing, but I wanted to be able to provide a nice life for my future family. You simply can not afford a nice lifestyle on a zoologist salary. I loved medicine slightly less, but the payoff was much better. So it made sense to do medicine full time. That way, when I'm older and do not have to worry about money, I can travel around the world and see exotic animals. It's like if I really liked starcraft, it wouldn't make financial sense to make it career (unless i was like top 0.001%). It would make much more sense to pick a nice field and play in my free time.

And I don't ignore friends completely. It's just different. Instead of going out every week, maybe my classmates and I go out after every final exam instead. I just don't have the freedom of someone picking a less rigorous field when they say "hmm let me wake up whenever I want and do what I feel like today". Yes, it's important to less-loose once in a while but I don't nearly get to do it as some other people, however it's for the long term. Despite people thinking that money can't buy happiness, finances is always a huge issue on why couples divorce. Money can't "buy happiness", but it can relieve stress and I don't want my future family to worry about that. I also don't want to worry about that in the future and have enough money to pursue some hobbies.

And finally, when you said "You both gain satisfaction from that. However, his accomplishments, in my opinion, are going to be short-term and far less satisfying because they're too materialistic." I still don't understand why wanting money and doing a field I like is mutually exclusive.

just play maplestory... there i never a need to think too much about anything

I'm just amazed that despite how much time has elapsed, you still sound like a whiny little...

Edit: Wow. You sound reasonable and likeable in the comments. Color me impressed. You come off as so obscenely entitled and whiny in your original argument.

@Sezbeth: lol no way. Are you from around the Sac Area?

@sezbeth: (I read your last sentence first, and yeah, you're right about the off topic part haha.
Oh and I remember that thread about the scholars part. I think I made a comment toward that.)

Honestly, I understand where YOU are coming from, but my previous comments were actually focused more towards OP.
I have no problem with the way you think. It's just the OP. The way he worded things. I'm assuming he's not dumb, so he knows what he's writing.

And obviously the OP and you share different goals. His is a more money-oriented goal and yours is, to put it in a TLDR, absorbing knowledge. You both gain satisfaction from that. However, his accomplishments, in my opinion, are going to be short-term and far less satisfying because they're too materialistic.

@shamieekill: I never interpreted the "letting loose" term in that context. I knew what you meant by it.

While I'm not terribly fond of his wording, I do understand the point he's making. Although, I feel that he may have missed the fact that he too, was experience something new. Knowledge gained is always something new; now perhaps he may be a bit cynical about it for other reasons, but it's not like he was throwing his life away. In that, the new "thing" he was experience was part of what ultimately led him to a career that he definitely seems to be satisfied about now; college is every bit for learning about what you don't want to do as it is learning about what you do want to do.

To the next point; challenges for some people are all they've really got; and in a way, they do replace humans, though perhaps not in the way you're thinking. For the past four and a half years, I've done literally nothing but devote my life to learning. I received my AS out of high school, my BS (with multiple minors) at 19, accepted into grad school at 20 later that year and all through this, I've had a minimal social life at best. To add onto this, unlike him, I've simply opted out of the path with the most lucrative financial gain; most people this day in age would consider me insane considering the work I've done and am capable of producing.

Yet, I cannot conceive of a version of my life without these seemingly ridiculous challenges; as I've mentioned in a previous thread, the knowledge I've gained from this is the collective work of scholars in the past and in a way, they have replaced humans in the physical sense. I'm learning from these people and knowing them on a level despite most of them not even being alive to this day. Every time I discover something new, it brings me great satisfaction and every time I make a little contribution to the greater body of academic knowledge, I simply delight in the thought.

These challenges, for me, have replaced humans, but with ideas and foundations that were also created by humans. I wont be rich and I don't think I'll ever have an "easy" day in my life, but I'd rather have it this way instead of rotting away in some retirement community. That thought is bitter as hell. An "easy" day for me is a wasted day.

The real satisfaction of a challenge is the struggle, not the part where you overcome it.

-and wow, I'm rambling a lot tonight and this thread has gotten way off topic.

@sezbeth: I understand what you're saying. And by "letting loosing" I didn't mean partying. I just meant to not work as hard.
Idk it's just the way he put things. Specifically, his second paragraph."While other people were enjoying their youth and experiencing new things, I was in graduate school learning minutiae just to appease a random lecturer's ego." Like, what. This just sounds so....depressing.

Challenges are definitely a mentally satisfying thing when you overcome them, but they're definitely not replacements for humans.

@shamieekill: The idea of a fulfilling career can be interpreted in many ways; some for monetary gain, which leads to stability in a personal life with other freedoms during the times you're not working, some for simply enjoying their career, sometimes for the "betterment of mankind" or other reasons. Most of the time, it's a mixture of both.

If he ends up a moderately successful neurosurgeon and as he says, actually likes his job all the while not having to worry about financial constraints (depending on lifestyle, of course), then it wouldn't be much of a far stretch to speculate that he'd be quite satisfied later in life. Contrary to some belief, having a fulfilling career and life are not always obtained by "letting loose"; some people simply do not care about that type of frivolity.

What if he actually enjoys the challenge his career brings (neurosurgeons aren't exactly known for having a "do-nothing" job)? What if overcoming these challenges and being adept at something most people wouldn't even dream of doing actually gives him a significant source of accomplishment? Can he not be ultimately proud during retirement (which I would imagine would be quite well off with that type of career)? Being driven by monetary gain doesn't necessarily equate to some sort of greed complex. There are numerous advantages to be had with being well-compensated, most of which I personally will not experience in my line of work in academia.

I have difficulty with the idea that he may be neglecting some parts of some "greater schematic to happiness". Happiness is achieved for some much differently than it is for others. Incidentally, I'm quite the opposite of him; I chose a path of similar rigor, but with significantly less pay just because I wanted to do something I was passionate about. He could easily criticize me for not thinking of a more stable financial situation, but this hardly matters to me because my definition of happiness does not necessarily include being as financially well-off.

@aznseal: My personal opinion: Trust me bro, you're going to regret not "letting loose." (even for a little bit)
What's the point of a fulfilling career? Is it truly going to make you happy? When you're 80 years old, are you going to be talking about the "fulfilling career" or are you going to be talking about the people that made it all the way to 80 with you?

If your goal was to make humanity better, then I would be like go for it dude. However, you seem more, like @aerial: said, money-driven and that makes me a little upset.

It's up to you man. I'm assuming you're a mature adult and thought of the repercussions of studying/working ALL the time. But I do think you are neglecting some parts.

@duckymucky: fresh out of college? no. Fresh out of an emergency medicine residency? yes. Doctors have VERY high starting salaries after residency.

@aerial: i'm not money driven to the point of doing something I hate. I would never go into engineering, even if it paid twice as much as medicine. I'm more trying to not sell my skills short, and I want to be compensated fairly. Wanting a high salary is not mutually exclusive with having a job I like.

@shamieekill: My end goal is to have a fulfilling career and to be able to give my children stability. Why do you think wanting to maintain a high salary and happiness are mutually exclusive? I love medicine. Is it strenuous? Yes. Would I rather go out drinking with my friends? Yes. But in no way do I hate it. I'm just lucky that the career I ended up liking pays a lot.

You seem like your end goal is to make a lot of money.
If that's the case, I feel sorry for you. And those "fruits of labor" are not going to be satisfying if you dont have anyone to spend it with.

@duckymucky: tbh no offence to OP but he sounds incredibly money-driven by the way he types and describes his life. i guess if that's what makes him happy, more power to him!

My field is said to start at 70k out of college... I don't even make anything close to that. You make it sound like you are guaranteed to make "250k" from the start. So if a company offered you less than "average" you probably wouldn't take it right?
My friend graduated with a masters and he wouldn't take job offers or even apply to jobs that offered less than "average". It's been two years, guess where he is now? Be a little more realistic and less prideful. Sure, you will eventually have that salary. But I can guarantee I can't think of anyone who made even close to 250k, let alone 200k fresh out of college.

@sezbeth: alright i was just basing it off of where i live so idk much about it D:

@aerial: Actually, this would largely depend on the area; for instance, 250K+ annually would definitely be considered well beyond upper class in a city like Stockton, California (just using this as an example from my personal life) as opposed to say, New York City where the same wage would be roughly upper-middle class, but definitely not solid upper-class. Trying to classify wage earnings on a national level becomes tricky because of nuances in relative living conditions.

@aznseal: but if you make 250k/yr, no one is gonna call you a middle class.. not even upper middle.

not gonna comment on the tax system and bernie sanders because i don't know much about it.

but just a question. if doctors made...let's say... 120k/yr, would you still have tried to become one?

my dad was a lawyer who used to pull in 100k USD/yr in his late 20s and early 30s. (20 years ago so 100k/yr was a lot, especially since he lived in asia)

he realized that money didn't make him happy. he went back to school to get a forestry degree and worked as a professional forester making 90k/yr until he retired recently. he says that he doesn't regret a single bit

@aerial: Living in any country as someone with money is great. That's besides the point. I already agree that people who make more should get taxed more. I was asking how much you think is fair, and why you think that amount is fair. I grudgingly accept that i'm going to be taxed 40%. I don't think it's "fair" but I think it's needed to sustain the country. I can not accept that even with 40% of my future salary going to taxes, Bernie wants to increase it even more.

EDIT: In common language, the (upper) middle class usually refers to professionals. People who make a decent amount more than the national average, but not wealthy enough to live lavishly. Basically people who drive Lexus/Porsche instead of Honda/Toyota, but can't afford Ferrari or Lambos like celebrities. People who live in nice houses in the suburbs but do not live in mansions.

@aznseal: yes it's true that doctors have to put their lives on hold for several more years than most other professions. But that is compensated by the fact that they have an incredibly high average salary. An engineer or a lawyer makes no where close to a doctor on average.

to address your last point: if you were starting out your life again (assuming you have the same ambition to become a doctor), would you start out in a third world country then since you don't need to pay 50k+ a year for medical school and go through as many loopholes? Probably not. why? because living in a first world country as a rich person is great. and if the rich didn't get taxed more heavily than the poor, the economy would go out of control.

but yea, what you said about the truly wealthy people is true though. but I wouldn't say 200k+ is middle class.

@aznseal: I can definitely see that in a field like biology; there's just way too much academic politics involved (and don't get me started on rival authors in high-impact journals). Funding is partly why I've not too long ago decided to take up my offer from the mathematics department over cognitive psychology (you don't exactly needed a huge research grant to do significant work in pure mathematics) after rotations.

Also, if my whole prospective career in academia craps out, mathematics PhDs tend to be fairly marketable in relatively high paying industry fields.

@aerial: And I agree with you. If the people who are truly wealthy gets taxed fairly, the middle class would be taxed less. The professionals (lawyers, doctors, engineers, other 200k+ers) are made into scapegoats. The truly wealthy avoid taxes with loopholes, offshore accounts, money in investments over salaries, etc. If they get taxed fairly, it would be better for everyone. But yes, taxes are needed but how much is "fair"? 40%? 50%? Because right now, it's like if I see 3 patients, I have to see 2 "for free" because 40% would go to taxes. That's a lot.

A doctor in America makes more than a doctor in india sure; but a doctor in india doesn't need to pay 50k+ a year for medical school. Doctors in india also don't have to go through as many loopholes as doctors in the states. Part of why physicians make so much is because of how damn expensive it is. It's expensive in actual $ because well, school is expensive. And it's expensive in time because they put their lives on hold for 10+ years, and you can't really put an accurate price on someone's 20s.

Government needs money to run the country. Let's be realistic. You wouldn't be making 200k/yr if America was a third world county. Rich people have crap loads of money rotting away in the bank, which is a huge waste from an economic standpoint. By taxing the rich more, the government can redirect that wasted money towards improving the economy. Or it gives the rich people an incentive to reinvest that money by not claiming it as income and putting it back to the economy. Better economy is why a doctor in America can make a crap load more than a doctor in India. Sure, a doctor did 10x more work than an average janitor to get to where they are, but they wouldn't have been able to do what they did if they lived in a country with crappy living standards. Who benefits more from living in a first-world country? A janitor or a doctor? Obviously it's the doctor. The rich benefit more from having a prosperous economy, so they gotta pay for it.

The marginal utility per dollar is insanely low for someone who makes a crap load of money. That dollar is better spent when redistributed to the economy. Even then, income tax still hits people with lower income WAY harder.

Fun fact: Studies have shown that once a person makes 80k/yr, earning more money does nothing to someone's level of happiness. Salary becomes irrelevant to job satisfaction after it passes 80k.

@sezbeth: That's actually why I decided on the medicine route over PhD. Zoology and microbiology was my number 1 passion but I couldn't justify it when going through risk/reward. It seems like a lot of biological sciences funding comes from connections and if you're not part of the "old boys club", you're basically out of luck.

@platypeoples: ahahahaha, that's probably what almost every Bernie supporter would say, and I'm not surprised they haven't even thought of something so simple.

@bleute: I never said already. Although it's heavily implied because in the US, almost everyone graduating from an American MD school is guaranteed to get a good job because the amount of medical school acceptances is heavily controlled. Basically if you graduate and aren't crazy in interviews, you can be assured 150k+ minimum (before taxes).

And medscape is commonly accepted as the most accurate source in the medical community. gov or edu sites aren't really used as much for physician salaries.

@aznseal: Tell me about it; and you're not even guaranteed a tenure-track position through your postdoc and assistant professorship. There's a whole thing about how scandalous the academic ivory tower can be at times. What's worse, is if you're denied tenure at the end of all this, you end up having to just pack your bags and ultimately leaving. It's extremely daunting to think about.

@bleute: It's a bit of a pain to find medians in statistics used by popular domains; it's a common misconception that the average is worth more than the median in terms of qualitative interpretation of data; that said, the site does make note of the range, which is helpful. I already expressed my criticism of the domain and how much of a pain it was to try and dig up something completely specific regarding specific medical fields.

@sezbeth: I suppose since we're talking about America specifically, and not most other first world countries, I could be wrong about that particular point, although I'm somewhat skeptical of any source other than a .gov or .edu since the semantics behind "average" could vary depending on the source of the statistics, if not specified. With that aside, the other professions I mentioned, though, most definitely don't even come close on average, based on official government sources. I'm just confused that the OP apparently keeps jumping between claiming to "already make at least 250k+ per year" to "going into a field that pays 250k+ per year". I'd like to know which one it is.

@sezbeth: Yep, another way to cut corners and make money Force a bunch of recent grads to slave away for nothing haha

@aznseal: The residency factor is definitely one of the reasons why I expressed my initial skepticism of payscale's data; there doesn't seem to be any sort of specification (though you could probably argue that the 0-8 years experience numbers would very likely fall into this).

That said, it should go without saying that I'm aware of what residency entails; it's not much unlike stipend compensation during grad school and postdocs.

@sezbeth: I can safely say that there are probably 0 practicing neurosurgeons who make less than 250k if he/she is working full time. The amounts of less than 100k is probably from residents.

In medicine, after medical school, all specialties (including general practice aka internal medicine/family medicine/pediatrics) need to do an additional training called residency which is around 3-8 years (so general practice would maybe be 3-4 years where as cardiology, neurosurgery, etc will take 8 years+). During residency, you basically work like 60-70 hours a week making 50k a year. After that, can you finally practice on your own. So for a lot of the higher paying specialties, they will not be able to work for themselves and make the published salary until their mid 30s (4 years of university, 4 years of med school, 8 years of residency).

EDIT: Caveat is assuming it's in the United States. I have no idea for other countries.

@aznseal: I'm aware of that, I'm just searching a grabbing anything that wasn't a pop-news top-10 site.

Much more specific to your case: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Neurosurgeon/Salary

Now, payscale isn't exactly what I would call a primary source, but it's difficult to come up with statistical studies focusing specifically on medical niches.

From the data, there is some truth to his statement; there does seem to be a certain percent of neurosurgeons that make less than your specified claim, but it's not nearly as daunting as he made it sound.

Edit: I'm not here is disagree with anyone, just to make a point with the data at hand.

yet you feel the need to humble brag on a 2d gaming site.

@sezbeth: health services isn't the same as physicians. Your link is for health managers, aka mostly people with a MPH, not an MD. The link I posted is more accurate.

http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2015/public/overview

EDIT: Your second link is correct and that's the one for MDs. My post was directed at the person above me when he claims that brain surgeons barely break 250k.

@aznseal: Google results on this sort of thing aren't exactly reliable.

This however, is: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes119111.htm

Edit: Give me a moment to find something more specific.

Here: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/compensation-issues/2014-physician-salary-by-specialty.html

@bleute:
The average brain surgeon after 6 years can make close to 600k.

For me personally and the field i'm going into, the average is closer to 300k: http://i.imgur.com/Jptoyar.jpg

@aznseal:

If you're going to claim that you make at least $250,000 per year, at least provide evidence instead of using it as weight to a baseless claim. Most senior engineers, brain surgeons, astronauts and lawyers with a lifetime of experience don't even make half as much as you claim to make, even if they have a decent portfolio on top of their careers. And for the record, you probably shouldn't discuss a subject as intricate as economics when you haven't the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. Stick with whatever subject you have credentials in.

Oh. That's actually a really valid argument, and I respect that of you. You make me feel a little guilty for supporting Bernie.

@sirkibble: There are several. Here is a quick link to one. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates