9/10 times rich people have nice homes . That's kind of the point of being rich.

Anonymous wrote:We are very well off and live in a small house. It’s a smaller carbon footprint than a big house, and we find it cozy. We don’t like owning a lot of things. So it doesn’t feel cramped. We spend our fortune on traveling and philanthropy.

Your mother has a big carbon footprint

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 50s to the 80s they were but this was before the cost of medical school exploded and business/finance/IT salaries took off.

Also because there was a major change around 1990s that drastically reduced how insurance like BCBS would reimburse the physicians.

This had to happen because there was no control on how much they could charge. Wish something similar happen for universities that could charge whatever they want. It has been crazy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:House size is not a a good way to measure wealth.

It is good barometer, and not to be confused with fancy cars, clothing, jewelry. You have to have plenty
of $$ in your pocket to pay for a $3m home and the
Ongoing taxes, maintenance, utilities, etc. Most whom I know living in expensive
Homes in expensive locales have plenty of cash - they are either earning it or have
family money.

But the absence of a big house does not necessarily mean poverty, especially when the owners are well-employed.

Anonymous wrote:So I have this one friend and she married a doctor. He is a hand surgeon. They live in a very small house in Boulder, so no way they are rich. So my question would be why so many people consider doctors rich?

Why would you think so?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:House size is not a a good way to measure wealth.

It is good barometer, and not to be confused with fancy cars, clothing, jewelry. You have to have plenty
of $$ in your pocket to pay for a $3m home and the
Ongoing taxes, maintenance, utilities, etc. Most whom I know living in expensive
Homes in expensive locales have plenty of cash - they are either earning it or have
family money.

The situation here is the opposite. They are in a small house so OP assumes they are not rich. But maybe they just don’t care for large houses. Or maybe it’s actually an expensive house because it’s in an expensive area like Boulder and OP doesn’t know costs there.

There are also plenty of people in expensive areas that bought their now expensive houses when prices were much lower. The run up in prices in CA, DC, etc over the last 20 years is crazy.

I think some are and some are not. Some specialties pay more than others. Same with lawyers.

Because her husband is still paying off his loans. Once he does that, they will be rich. My siblings were both not rich until their mid-40s.

Anonymous wrote:We are very well off and live in a small house. It’s a smaller carbon footprint than a big house, and we find it cozy. We don’t like owning a lot of things. So it doesn’t feel cramped. We spend our fortune on traveling and philanthropy.

snort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:House size is not a a good way to measure wealth.

It is good barometer, and not to be confused with fancy cars, clothing, jewelry. You have to have plenty
of $$ in your pocket to pay for a $3m home and the
Ongoing taxes, maintenance, utilities, etc. Most whom I know living in expensive
Homes in expensive locales have plenty of cash - they are either earning it or have
family money.

I know many people with a ton of money who live in modest homes. I also know folks who have overstretched their budgets to live in fancy homes who are house poor. I work in a field where I see clients' tax returns and, per above, house size is not a good way to measure wealth - particularly in the way OP is doing.

Anonymous wrote:House size is not a a good way to measure wealth.

It is good barometer, and not to be confused with fancy cars, clothing, jewelry. You have to have plenty
of $$ in your pocket to pay for a $3m home and the
Ongoing taxes, maintenance, utilities, etc. Most whom I know living in expensive
Homes in expensive locales have plenty of cash - they are either earning it or have
family money.

The MINIMUM opportunity cost of becoming a primary care physician is $1m today - assuming you went to work a decent job after 4 year degree, attending state Med school, and completing a 3 year internal medicine residency. It’s no longer financially lucrative to seek a career in medicine - only for those who love the work.

Anonymous wrote:House size is not a a good way to measure wealth.

This, unless they paid cash and has no loan against it.

House size is not a a good way to measure wealth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taken as a whole, physicians still have the highest salaries of any profession:

Median income for attorneys: $123K
Median income for software engineers: $108K
Median income for physicians: $208K

And of course, some specialists will earn far more than that.

You have to take into account opportunity cost. Residency is low pay at 50-60k for around 7 years after 4 years of medical school which is 60-100k a year depending on where. It’s better to be at engineer and make 100k throughout your 20s. Also, Physician Assistant is great - only 2 years no residency and make anywhere between 100-200 k

Agree with all of this. In the overall financial picture, physicians do not come out ahead. Not to mention your 20s are spent studying and working insane hours.