Money Magazine - Young Doctors in Debt

[sakky]

<p>

Now does that mean you’re going to make the same decisions on how to spend your money? Of course not, we could run down the list and find all sorts of things that you would be unwilling to cut out of your life. Maybe it’s a gym membership, maybe it’s a bowling league, maybe it’s subscription to a magazine or a website…I dunno.

</p>

<p>Uh, no, I don’t think you’re seeing my point. My point is, when you’re in massive debt, you are supposed to be cutting down. Sure, if you’re rich, you can do whatever the heck you want. But if you’re poor, you’re not supposed to be doing that. That’s why you don’t see poverty-stricken students running around buying new cars, wearing Armani, and eating from the best restaurants.</p>

<p>That’s what fiscal responsibility is all about: you’re not supposed to buy things you can’t afford. Instead, you’re supposed to save your money and learn the discipline to delay your gratification until such time that you can afford it. Isn’t that something all our parents taught us? People who don’t have a lot of money are not supposed to spending a lot of money. Is that really such a controversial point? </p>

<p>So, to your point, sure, I buy plenty of things that aren’t truly necessary. But the big difference is that I can afford them. Specifically, I don’t have a giant negative net worth hanging around my neck like an albatross. If I did, I would surely cut back massively. But apparently, not this couple. </p>

<p>

Further, I’ve heard some places/magazines argue that getting a DVR is more time efficient anyways - you’re not tied to the network’s schedule and you get to fast forward through commercials.

</p>

<p>And here’s a way that’s even more efficient. Just borrow the DVD box set from your public library for free. That’s what I do. </p>

<p>Remember, these are resident doctors here who are working Ibanking hours. It’s not like they have a lot of time to be camping out in front of the tube anyway. They need to know what’s going on with Gray’s Anatomy, not Grey’s Anatomy.</p>

<p>

As for your (hypothetical) complete lack of being able to be reached…I doubt that’s going to win you many friends. Further, residency is a job and I’m willing to guarantee that the contracts have clauses about “at-will employment”…Even if they don’t, making decisions which directly impede your ability to perform that job at a satisfactory level are grounds for dismissal. I think they’ll probably tell you to get a phone, make yourself available, or take a hike…good luck getting into a new residency next year with a firing under your belt.

</p>

<p>Let me put it to you this way. I know plenty of people who have successfully demanded that their employers pay for their cellphone bills. And they don’t occupy positions as important as resident doctors. Heck, they don’t even get paid as much as do resident doctors (who aren’t getting paid very much anyway). Heck, these people don’t even hold bachelor’s degrees (and I think a few of them didn’t even graduate from high school). Yet somehow they were able to negotiate their cellphone bill away. I have to imagine that this couple could do the same.</p>

<p>Besides, think of it this way. I would hardly call such a request particularly controversial. If something is necessary for the performance of the job, then I think it’s fair that the employer should pay for it. Why not? After all, what’s next? Should hospitals demand that residents now have to pay for all of the medical gear they use on their jobs? Maybe they should even have to personally pay for all of the medications they prescribe to their patients too? These are all costs that are necessary to perform the job too. So if hospitals can force residents to pay for their own ability to be reached, why not also force them to pay for everything they do on their jobs?</p>