|
Droo posted:There are about as many 25-44 year olds as there are 45-64 year olds in the US. Have you worked with a relatively equal group of software engineers > 45 and < 45 over the years? No, primarily because many engineers don't stay engineers their entire career, they branch into product, management, architecture, etc.
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:43 |
|
|
Droo posted:There are about as many 25-44 year olds as there are 45-64 year olds in the US. Have you worked with a relatively equal group of software engineers > 45 and < 45 over the years?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Well I think the number of young people entering the field of software engineering now is a lot bigger than it was 30 years ago. Observationally speaking I agree with your greater point but you need more than raw quantity to prove it. I don't really know how to prove it with numbers, so I guess we can all just wait for the engineers at Google / Facebook / Amazon / Microsoft to start getting shocked by round after round of layoff just like the engineers at Bell Labs / Lucent / Motorola / Tellabs did 20 years ago. And then, just like every other time it happens with every other industry, too many people who no longer have jobs and were making a lot of money will be competing with younger people who will work for cheaper, or outsourced labor that will work for even cheaper, or robots and AI this time around I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
I think the only 100% safe jobs these days are in medicine. Almost everything else is in danger over the next 20 years from a combination of automation and outsourcing. The only thing you can do is to invest as much as possible and try to stay at the top of your field so you aren't the one getting cut. Maybe some of the more hands-on trades would also fall into that category, but then you have a bigger risk of not being able to work because of an injury.
OctaviusBeaver fucked around with this message at 17:41 on May 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
If you don't think medical diagnosis/procedures/testing and most of nursing will be automated within like a year after cars then you're paying absolutely zero attention.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:If you don't think medical diagnosis/procedures/testing and most of nursing will be automated within like a year after cars then you're paying absolutely zero attention. I think it's more about regulations than technology. I can buy a strep throat right now and it's easy to administer, but I can't buy antibiotics to cure my strep until my insurance company pays the doctor $150 to give it to me. I could see pharmacies getting hit pretty hard though if Amazon decides to start filling prescriptions with 2 hour delivery.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
I was kinda wondering the other day why Pharmacists haven't already been eliminated with automation given most of what they do seems so rules based.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
If you're on a prescription for more than 3 months my insurance company will fill it for free if you use their mail order pharmacy. So I think it is catching on to some degree, I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies start pushing for it hard to cut costs.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
withoutclass posted:I was kinda wondering the other day why Pharmacists haven't already been eliminated with automation given most of what they do seems so rules based. A lot of the tasks pharmacists do have been automated or been given computerized assistance for (references to interactions, medicine contraindication checkers, tablet counters / reconstitution units, etc). However, they still have a bunch of "human element" tasks that aren't easily automated (yet) around patient counseling re: medicines, trying to enforce regimen adherence, knowing/understanding that the patient absolutely loving will not read that little instructional pamphlet whatsoever so sneak instructions in there verbally, etc. Also, general patient interaction to a degree. It's definitely things that can be automated, but it's not there yet mostly because patients are stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
also because you need a license to dispense medications and pharmacists and their lobbying organizations spend a lot of money protecting that. Also relative to the cost savings available elsewhere in the prescription medication industry automating out pharmacists is not really the low hanging fruit.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:also because you need a license to dispense medications and pharmacists and their lobbying organizations spend a lot of money protecting that. I mean, we took it for granted you needed a license to run a taxi service or a hotel, and that those industries would be able to protect their monopolies, butttt...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I mean, we took it for granted you needed a license to run a taxi service or a hotel, and that those industries would be able to protect their monopolies, butttt... Need your prescription? Our app will locate independent contractors in your area with a supply they're willing to sell* you! *Surge pricing applies for anyone on the last day of their prescription. Edit: Actually, why don't pharmacies already do that? If a customer shows up at the pharmacy for a refill of a vital medicine and they're on their last day before they run out, why has no company set up where it'll triple the price? Is it just because they know the insurer will reject it outright anyway and they won't get extra $$$?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Need your prescription? Our app will locate independent contractors in your area with a supply they're willing to sell* you!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
A friend of mine is a pharmacist and apparently those machines that auto-dispense / count pills to speed up pharmacies behind the counter are the worst. There's 4 or 5 different brands on the market and only one of them is marginally usable. They consistently miscount pills because there's no standard pill shape/size and it tries to account for them all. You also have horrible cross-contamination potential because parts of pills can easily break off when handled and pill dust can build up so you have to clean it constantly and at the end of the day it's just more hassle than it's worth. in England there ARE are pill vending machines of the top 12 prescriptions or whatever and it just scans your auth paper and spits out your prescription without having to involve the pharmacist for SOME things, which is actually a great idea.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:I think it's more about regulations than technology. I can buy a strep throat right now and it's easy to administer, but I can't buy antibiotics to cure my strep until my insurance company pays the doctor $150 to give it to me. I could see pharmacies getting hit pretty hard though if Amazon decides to start filling prescriptions with 2 hour delivery. TCC lifehack: It's possible to buy many antibiotics from aquarium supply companies and measure them out on a mg scale. Last couple times I had strep throat I got Erythromycin from an aquarium supply for $25 and it lasted two treatments. Thanks, US healthcare system!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Uhhh, how do you know they're manufactured and stored to the same safety standard as that for human consumption?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:Uhhh, how do you know they're manufactured and stored to the same safety standard as that for human consumption? Some of the fish antibiotics are literally the same pill as you get from a pharmacy with a prescription, you can look up the pill and markings in pharmacy databases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:I think it's more about regulations than technology. I can buy a strep throat right now and it's easy to administer, but I can't buy antibiotics to cure my strep until my insurance company pays the doctor $150 to give it to me. I could see pharmacies getting hit pretty hard though if Amazon decides to start filling prescriptions with 2 hour delivery. Also note that many medical tests aren't as accurate as you might believe. The strep throat test is actually wrong a lot and overdiagnoses strep by such a large margin (and also misses strep) that it's only one of something like 4 criteria for strep. If you tested yourself every time you had a fever and sore throat you'd be wrong both a large number of times when it says you have strep, and when it said you didn't. It's not a great test. And most medical tests are also bad unless PCR get involved, but that can't be done at home. The like, big notable exception is that the pregnancy test is amazingly accurate (assuming you wait long enough) so we sell it over the counter. People then think that all tests are like that, but they're not. Most are kinda lovely. However, most doctors don't seem to understand this and properly apply Bayes so you could argue that letting the public access tests is kinda equivalent to lovely doctors anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Amara posted:Also note that many medical tests aren't as accurate as you might believe. The strep throat test is actually wrong a lot and overdiagnoses strep by such a large margin (and also misses strep) that it's only one of something like 4 criteria for strep. If you tested yourself every time you had a fever and sore throat you'd be wrong both a large number of times when it says you have strep, and when it said you didn't. It's not a great test. And most medical tests are also bad unless PCR get involved, but that can't be done at home. I just couldn't let the last part go without a different perspective
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Here's what my YTD expenditures look like, including all taxes except sales tax (which is included in the purchase category and is actually quite high at 10.25%). Definitely an interesting view, I added my taxes manually into Mint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Here's what my YTD expenditures look like, including all taxes except sales tax (which is included in the purchase category and is actually quite high at 10.25%). Looks pretty normal if you're counting payroll tax in that tax estimate....?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Looks pretty normal if you're counting payroll tax in that tax estimate....? I'm in the US, seemed pretty extreme to me. Edit: here it is with my savings rate as "Financial" 
baquerd fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jun 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
baquerd posted:I'm in the US, seemed pretty extreme to me. The US as a whole puts about ~38% of income into public spending (OECD 2015 estimate). That seems to be about in line with the chart that doesn't exclude your savings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
baquerd posted:I'm in the US, seemed pretty extreme to me. No that is very normal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
My wife and I have paid just about 35% total tax in my life, including both parts of social security, property tax, state tax, federal tax and both sides of medicare tax. The percentage would be slightly lower if I wasn't too lazy to adjust my income up to add back the employer side of SS/Medicare and health insurance, so maybe more like 33-34%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Huh. Does anybody have an idea how this squares with the stats that many non-US countries with UHC spend less per capita for better health outcomes? They pay their doctors less. We should be paying our doctors less, the AMA acts to limit supply raising the price and in essence killing people :/.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
I'm fairly certain that while wages are higher in the US, it is one of the smallest drivers of the increased cost of health care compared to administration, defensive medical practice and the lacklustre negotiation for drugs.
Struensee fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 10:03
|
|
|
We should be paying our administrators, insurance companies, and for-profit hospitals less.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
I can't imagine there's anyone in my Canadian province who works in healthcare who makes more than $500k per year. At the top would be specialist doctors and surgeons. Top administrators would be in the $150k-200k range. Wouldn't you guys have hospital CEOs making millions per year? What a load of horseshit. You don't need to pay people a lot of money to attract top tier talent to work in healthcare. The social status from the title can be enough to get the cream of the crop, in my opinion. Rick Rickshaw fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
Rick Rickshaw posted:The social status from the title can be enough to get the cream of the crop, in my opinion. This is wrong, given the financial costs of acquiring a medical degree - 4 years undergraduate, 4 years of medical school and however many years of essentially low-pay on-the-job training.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
Requiring a 4-year undergrad degree is an american thing as well, it's not like that everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Possibly at the expense of our young doctors' soulful youth spent in senior year elective classes at liberal arts colleges and fourth year medical students dicking around as much as possible and spending months interviewing for residency programs, I agree that we should cut at least a year out of the overall course of college and medical school
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
The undergrad degree is 120 credits, I'm not aware of any schools that actually require you to be there for 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Sure, of course you can graduate early from college but the very competitive nature of medical school admissions heavily incentivizes staying a full four years to pad one's GPA and resume.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Med school literally requires like, 8 undergrad classes, there's no reason a 4 year bachelors degree in something you don't give a poo poo about it required.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
But surely there's value in giving doctors a broad, liberal arts education. If the goal was to train glorified technicians who only need to follow existing documentation, sure you could cut out a lot of the education and just have medical students practice from manuals. But if you want creative problem solvers who are able to draw on a breadth of knowledge and experience to come up with creative and novel solutions to difficult problems, pumping out medical technicians cheaply isn't going to be effective. An extensive education doesn't have to be unreasonably expensive to the consumer. Heavily subsidizing (all) post-secondary education like the rest of the developed world would have the same effect of relieving student loan repayment as a driver for doctors' compensation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
The real reason med school is expensive isn't tuition (you can do it for less than $100k at many state schools), it's the opportunity cost of spending 8 years in school instead of working. If someone is smart enough to get into med school then they could easily be averaging at least $50k over that time period, so about $400k in opportunity costs. Granted they would have been earning something during residency but I the hours are much longer than working a normal job. So even if you make tuition free the total cost of attendance doesn't drop that drastically. And in that case you still have to hike up taxes on everybody else to pay for free schooling for doctors who make more than 99% of the population which seems unfair to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:And in that case you still have to hike up taxes on everybody else to pay for free schooling for doctors who make more than 99% of the population which seems unfair to me. Yeah i mean society gains no benefit from having large numbers of trained doctors. No sir. None at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Yeah i mean society gains no benefit from having large numbers of trained doctors. No sir. None at all. Medical schools are at max capacity already and turn away most applicants, so I have no idea how your idea is going to make more of them. If you want to open more schools, or allow nurse practitioners to do more then sure, I'm all for that, and it might actually bring prices down. I'm really skeptical of the idea that doctors get paid a lot because med school is expensive. Veterinarians also take on a ton of debt and they don't make squat. I think doctors make a lot because of market forces and if you want to lower costs you have to tackle it from that direction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:43 |
|
|
Trying to view the medical industry from a rational perspective is problematic, at this point it's just more of a massive rube goldberg machine that must sustain itself and all its millions of jobs at all costs. Rationality or good care or common sense or good results or anything else never enters the equation unless it's by accident, the human health machine must perpetuate itself and grow forever. Everyone is just a cog in this machine where everything has been done this way forever, nobody who works in it at an level is responsible for or capable of changing anything. It's really just impressive to gawk at from a sociology perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 15:50
|
|