Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (772018)	2/28/2014 12:56:37 PM
From: puborectalis	Respond to of 1575173

well said.

To: i-node who wrote (772018)	2/28/2014 1:35:37 PM
From: bentway	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575173

"My daughter's best friend is a radiologist who is currently 33. She has just taken her first job. " She'll be replaced by software or outsourced foreign labor before she retires. Why should we protect HER job? ============================================================================== Who's Reading Your X-Ray? By ANDREW POLLACK Published: November 16, 2003 nytimes.com SANJAY SAINI was not prepared for the hate mail. A radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Dr. Saini thought he had found a clever way to relieve an acute shortage of specialists who could read X-rays and M.R.I. scans. The hospital would beam images electronically from some scans to India, to be worked on by radiologists there. But the arrangement, made late last year with a company in India, has touched off a minor furor. It turns out that even American radiologists, with their years of training and annual salaries of $250,000 or more, worry about their jobs moving to countries with lower wages, in much the same way that garment knitters, blast-furnace operators and data-entry clerks do. Since the news got out, Dr. Saini has received a flurry of angry e-mail messages, most of them anonymous, urging him to stop. The American College of Radiology, the professional group for the country's 30,000 radiologists, has set up a task force to look at the offshore transfer of radiology services. And the online discussion groups of AuntMinnie.com, a Web site for radiologists, have been buzzing with debate about the prospects for competition from ''radiology sweatshops'' abroad. ''This teleradiology thing is another nail in the coffin of the job market,'' wrote someone on the Web site who identified himself as a radiologist. ''Who needs to pay us $350,000/yr if they can get a cheap Indian radiologist for $25,000/yr.''

To: i-node who wrote (772018)	2/28/2014 3:11:46 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575173

Your doctor’s retirement plan may need CPR February 28, 2014, 2:40 PM By Matthew HeimerThe odds are good that your doctor makes quite a bit more money than you do. But when it comes to retirement savings, you may have him beat. According to a study of the savings habits of 5,100 physicians, released this week by financial-services giant Fidelity Investments, the typical physician hasn’t saved enough money to adequately sustain his lifestyle in retirement. A $300,000 salary doesn’t stretch as far as it used to. Doctors face one significant financial challenge that sets them apart from, say, attorneys or MBA holders: Because of residencies and other training requirements, they typically can’t start earning significant incomes until after age 30. Couple that with student debt that can climb high into the six-figure range, and it’s easy to imagine why a younger physician might struggle to fully fund her nest egg. Indeed, the Fidelity analysis finds that the typical doctor isn’t able to save 15% or more of his annual income until after age 50. The authors also find that a high percentage of doctors in their 50s and 60s have particularly aggressive asset allocations, with a lot of money tied up in higher-risk, higher-reward equities—probably, the researchers theorize, because they’re playing catch-up. Despite such efforts, Fidelity concludes that the average doctor is on track to replace only 56% of his income in retirement, well short of the 71% Fidelity recommends for higher earners. Here, however, is where some perspective is in order. Doctors earn between seven and eight times what the average American earns, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (And more power to them—I don’t know about you, but I didn’t save any lives today.) The average physician in Fidelity’s survey earns $299,000 a year, which is in line with industry averages: The Medical Group Management Association, a trade group, calculated the average earnings of primary-care doctors at $221,000 in 2012, while estimating that the average specialist earned $396,000. The implication of the Fidelity study is that for someone earning $300,000 a year, having to retire on 56% of that—or $168,000 a year—would be a highly undesirable comedown. In this, the study shares a common weakness with many others of its kind, because it uses income continuity as the main proxy for retirement quality of life. But that assumption–that your retirement income needs to be pretty close to your working-life earnings–starts to break down when you’re talking about the needs of higher earners. A retired doctor with a paid-off mortgage and the kids finished with college will probably live very well on a 56% income-replacement rate; her retired colleagues with bigger and more complicated obligations later in life may feel tightly squeezed. But that’s exactly the point: it’s the spending needs and habits of the individual retiree, rather than a one-size-fits-all income-replacement goal, that should set the savings target. For a financial planner’s perspective on this idea, see this recent post by RetireMentor Larry Stein’s recent article, The 2 retirement levers you can control.