That sounds so darn cool! It’s gotta be extrra healthy, right?
1 Like
It’ll give you +30 health points for sure
3 Likes
From working at a mortgage company, I can’t say the industry data reflects this, at least when factoring in fixed bills. I can’t speak to the frivilous vacation esque expenses.
Yup, exact same as what I was thinking. The doctor can buy a brand new car off the lot every year and still pay all his bills. The same absolutely cannot be said of the other guy.
In my personal experience, it’s almost exclusively hipsters like zny sister who makes sub 25 a year gross, but I get your point.
That being said, gun to my head, I’d absolutely say the average rich person spends less per item due to smarter buying habits. In high school I worked at a Subway inside the Walmart in my town. Acknolwedging my opinions on the personal shopping habits is purely anecdotal
Did we factor in college loans?
Most underwriters (meaning most of the big banks) will typically calculate 1% of your total balance a month as payment, or the current student loan payment, whichever is higher.
I’ll defer to you on this. It doesn’t seem logical to me, but I’ve never worked in the industry.
Actually, 5x is the target loan amount that most lending institutions aim for and will approve at.
The kid I used to work with was flabbergasted by that. He was approved for like 140K, and was asking how it was even possible. I explained it just like that- gross income X 5. His house was only like 80, and the lender kept pushing for him to get work done, new roof, etc. She wanted to write it at at least 125, and was actually stonewalling him.
Why not? Wealthy people statistically save more for retirement, have more expendable income, etcetc.
If you were suddenly making 500k, would you scale up your expenditures to match the ratio it’s at now?
Tru dat. I know docs whose wife works ‘because we need the money.’
While most FP probably do a little better than that (especially if they work in a relatively underserved area), this is generally tru dat too. Proceduralists–ie, docs whose practice consists primarily of performing invasive interventions–are compensated more than docs who are primarily knowledge workers. (This is a bias built into the reimbursement system.)
2 Likes
That makes sense. It was probably 10 years since I was informed of that. I was always curious but just kind of assumed it was some enormous amount.
The convo was actually along these same lines as this one.
Varies widely by specialty and state so grain of salt and all but…
Anywhere between ~$10,000 (GP) - $300,000 per year (for a neurosurgeon in Massachusetts, using a quick search for 2013).
So basically 1-6 people’s salary.
Oh no, you were right in the first–the disparity is an enormous amount. I was just saying that FPs can usually count on a salary of at least the mid to high 100s. Meanwhile, if you’re an interventional cardiologist who isn’t cracking half a mill, it’s because you ain’t trying.
Because bigger houses usually cost more. Electric, water, taxes, etc… You name it, pretty much everything goes up. At least in my experience.
Don’t most people?
Is about right. Neurosurgeons (and obstetricians) get crushed on med-mal insurance. (Because they get sued at a higher rate than most other specialties.) Mississippi was on the verge of losing all its obstetricians until it enacted tort reform in the early aughts.
1 Like
Right but it doesn’t scale linearly. Not by a long shot.
Not in my experience, nor in the experience of most wall street data showing increased savings at higher income brackets.
Can I take that to mean you would intend to keep your relative expenses the same?
It’s just crazy. I always knew it was high, which makes sense to a certain degree based on both the seriousness of the risks and the litigious society we have overall, but until I got acquainted with a few doctors socially I never really knew how obscene it could get.
%40 income tax + $300k/year in insurance for a neurosurgeon is stupid.
1 Like
Agreed. Like I said, I wouldn’t consider Person A house poor.
Devils Advocate: Shouldn’t that be factored in, though? I save like 12% of my income in my 401(k) so that’s non-disposable income. Ya, it’s long-term savings for me and a great idea, but it’s a reduction in available income to pay for things in the short term (potentially making me house poor or a factor in being house poor).
God no, but I’m not the keeping up the Jones’ type.
It’s optional expenditures that can be withdrawn at a penalty. It’s absolutely disposable at a cost.
Okay good. Just checking haha
The thing that blew me away was the hours. On multi organ stuff they can be tied up for 30+ hrs. straight.
You really can’t swim half way across that river!
1 Like
I hear ophthalmologist make bank. Over 500,000 a year.