What is so bad about the post-doc lifestyle anyway?

[Locrian]

This idea that if you have a PhD you should earn more income has a firm basis in economics, by the way.

Let's say one person goes to work at 23, while another begins a 6 year PhD at 23.

The PhD holder has to have 47% higher income to have the same net present value as the BS holder (assuming they both retire at 65, using 6% discounting). Given different assumptions this number may be higher or lower, but I think if you account for the differing benefits during the 6 PhD years, the number will end up higher.

So if people demanded economic fairness, they wouldn't choose to get a PhD unless it offered roughly 50% higher income. If society needed those workers, it would raise the pay until it attracted them. Luckily for me, good souls like Dragoon are willing to work for much less than that.

 

[Locrian]

I don't think that's what this discussion or most along its lines are boiling down to, it's a false dichotomy, I don't know why you're bringing it up. There's no ethical consideration in these discussions as far as I can tell, this isn't a forum about the priesthood profession.

If you read it carefully, the post wasn't about ethics, it was about economics.

 

[Locrian]

There have been posts where undergrads have said that anything less than 6 figure salary is not worth their time. No grad school, no post doc, no experience. Just a bachelor's degree. Six figures apparently is bare minimum for maintaining a modern lifestyle.

This definitely jives with my experience dealing with undergrads years ago as a TA. I wish there was some reality show that documented the contact between undergrad expectations and realities.

I'd watch it.

 

[Lavabug]

So if people demanded economic fairness, they wouldn't choose to get a PhD unless it offered roughly 50% higher income. If society needed those workers, it would raise the pay until it attracted them. Luckily for me, good souls like Dragoon are willing to work for much less than that.

The problem is society and the politicians it elects into office does not always place value in the right places, or make the best decisions with long term prospects in mind. If you want an example: if things were fair, educators would not be at the bottom of the economic and social ladder as they are in most of the West, as they do produce something of immense value. You are assuming a high salaried job always goes hand in hand with high value labor, but there are many instances -in industry and government- where this is very far from the case.

 

[Lavabug]

This definitely jives with my experience dealing with undergrads years ago as a TA. I wish there was some reality show that documented the contact between undergrad expectations and realities.

I'd watch it.

In the meantime, there's http://first-world-problems.com/

If you read it carefully, the post wasn't about ethics, it was about economics.

Greed and virtue, two words you decided to use, are pretty much ethical/moral concepts...

 

[psparky]

I lived off of 35 to 40K a year 10 years ago. That is rough...you want to talk about tight! Ugh.

And that was 10 years ago...obviously worse now. Money isn't everything, but it sure is a lot!

 

[Locrian]

Greed and virtue, two words you decided to use, are pretty much ethical/moral concepts...

That's true. It also mentioned food, but wasn't about food. It mentioned retirment, but wasn't about retirement.

We can agree to disagree on this one, but I'd encourage you to read all the words in the post, and not just those two.

I will give you this - I need to pull back on the irony in my posts. People don't get it, and it's not productive or conducive to useful conversation.

 

[Locrian]

I lived off of 35 to 40K a year 10 years ago. That is rough...you want to talk about tight! Ugh.

And that was 10 years ago...obviously worse now. Money isn't everything, but it sure is a lot!

Agreed. I like to say that money can't buy happiness, but a lack of it can sure bring a lot of suffering.

 

[Lavabug]

That's true. It also mentioned food, but wasn't about food. It mentioned retirment, but wasn't about retirement.

We can agree to disagree on this one, but I'd encourage you to read all the words in the post, and not just those two.

I will give you this - I need to pull back on the irony in my posts. People don't get it, and it's not productive or conducive to useful conversation.

You could also try to be less patronizing. I think we're all sound enough to distinguish between a healthy, comfortable balanced lifestyle with proper food, exercise and a retirement plan without much else and being dirt poor, failing to cover the most basic of living requirements. I won't go into health and education, as that is a whole other topic and a massively different consideration in the US.

 

[pi-r8]

Really? I can't ever remember reading that in this forum outside this thread.

I thought it was the opposite! Usually when some naive young person comes asking questions about the salaries for scientists, they get bombarded with responses like "dont worry about money", "money won't make you happy", or "do it for love". All sending the signal a real scientist doesn't need money to be happy, and that expectong a middle class salary is greedy and bad.

 

[Lavabug]

I thought it was the opposite! Usually when some naive young person comes asking questions about the salaries for scientists, they get bombarded with responses like "dont worry about money", "money won't make you happy", or "do it for love". All sending the signal a real scientist doesn't need money to be happy, and that expectong a middle class salary is greedy and bad.

The people giving replies like these are still in high or middle school, what do you expect?

I wouldn't call a middle class salary greedy or bad, but as the articles/polls I posted seem to suggest, the vast majority of people in the US have grossly inflated idea of what a "middle class salary" is.

 

[Locrian]

I thought it was the opposite! Usually when some naive young person comes asking questions about the salaries for scientists, they get bombarded with responses like "dont worry about money", "money won't make you happy", or "do it for love". All sending the signal a real scientist doesn't need money to be happy, and that expectong a middle class salary is greedy and bad.

Yes! That's exactly how I feel!

I feel like I've read the phrase "Money isn't everything" a million times. But unlike the tenacious Lavabug, I'm not in the mood to go searching for it. Maybe later.

 

[ModusPwnd]

I feel like I've read the phrase "Money isn't everything" a million times. But unlike the tenacious Lavabug, I'm not in the mood to go searching for it. Maybe later.

I've seen that too, but I see it often implied that the above average economic status most here were born in and end up in is somehow not a lot of money and inline with the "Money isn't everything" philosophy, even though they are in the richer half of one of the richest countries in history.

Even grad students like to complain about being "poor". But two grad students make 40k and usually have no kids. Compare that to the average household income of 50k with kids or other dependents and grad students suddenly don't seem so poor. Rather, they can easily be seen as above average.

 

[Lavabug]

I've seen that too, but I see it often implied that the above average economic status most here were born in and end up in is somehow not a lot of money and inline with the "Money isn't everything" philosophy, even though they are in the richer half of one of the richest countries in history.

Even grad students like to complain about being "poor". But two grad students make 40k and usually have no kids. Compare that to the average household income of 50k with kids or other dependents and grad students suddenly don't seem so poor. Rather, they can easily be seen as above average.

Also a good point. Though I still am under the impression that those giving the enthusiastic 'money isn't everything' predominantly are still in high school under the care of their parents and haven't had a taste of the labor market yet.

Playing devil's advocate here: A problem with this argument is the opportunity cost and advancement/salary raise potential of 6 years in grad school vs 6 years at a "real job", plus none of those earnings in grad school are going towards a retirement plan of any sort.

 

[jbunniii]

Even grad students like to complain about being "poor". But two grad students make 40k and usually have no kids. Compare that to the average household income of 50k with kids or other dependents and grad students suddenly don't seem so poor. Rather, they can easily be seen as above average.

Not to mention that they usually get cheap or free health insurance (not common for $40k jobs), the work for which they are being paid is only part-time (for TA's, at least), and they are getting a free education... It's actually quite a good deal.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Playing devil's advocate here: A problem with this argument is the opportunity cost and advancement/salary raise potential of 6 years in grad school vs 6 years at a "real job", plus none of those earnings in grad school are going towards a retirement plan of any sort.

This "real job" you speak of is generally assumed to be a upper middle class higher paying position for somebody with a degree. Sure, compared to that you make less money while in grad school. But opportunity cost does not make one "poor". The average family grosses 50k in the US. That is more, but not a lot more, than two average grad students. Also, Grad students are free to save for their retirement if they wish. With no dependents it shouldn't be a problem unless they have a taste for fast food, restaurants and bars and insist on having a bachelor pad with no roommates. I knew some that managed to live on quite a bit less than they made and did have savings going on. Most however spent like mad under the assumption that they will make a lot more in a few years. For the most part, americans save little for retirement and rely heavily on govt. money rather than savings to pay them when they don't work.

Not to mention that they usually get cheap or free health insurance (not common for $40k jobs)

Good point. The only time I ever had health insurance was as a grad student. Its very expensive and should be considered as part of the compensation.

 

[Locrian]

Even grad students like to complain about being "poor". But two grad students make 40k and usually have no kids. Compare that to the average household income of 50k with kids or other dependents and grad students suddenly don't seem so poor. Rather, they can easily be seen as above average.

You have no idea whether they are more or less poor until you adjust for the investment in education. So you also need the average # of years of post secondary education in the [strike]average[/strike] Edit: median statistic before we know anything about it.

You can't just compare raw numbers. I suspect a pair of postdocs will do okay after the adjustment, but it's going to be a much smaller difference.

 

[jesse73]

I think we're all sound enough to distinguish between a healthy, comfortable balanced lifestyle with proper food, exercise and a retirement plan without much else and being dirt poor, failing to cover the most basic of living requirements.

Working at 40k all your life you won't have a sound retirement plan especially with inflation being pretty much a constant occurrence. I suppose you would have social security retirement benefits but who knows how long that will last in this political landscape and the realities of an increasing amount of seniors and a diminishing amount of employed young adults combined with a political apathy over young adults being employed in a decent job.

Pay for PhD's in industry and professors needs to be high because to save an equal amount for retirement to those employed post bachelors you need to make more money and save it (that is how compounded interest works).

 

[Locrian]

ModusPwnd, my apoligies, my last post quoting you doesn't make any sense. I thought you were talking about two postdocs (since that's the topic of the thread). You were talking about two grad students.

In any case, I looked up the median two earner household income. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html. That information is needed for a comparison to another two earner household.

 

[psparky]

I figure if you live somewhat modestly, it costs the mature single adult (living alone) a 100 dollar bill just to wake up in the morning. (mortgage, gas bill, electricity, internet, hospitalization insurance, tv cable, car payment, car insurance, car gas, credit card payment, toiletries, food and let's not forget about going out to dinner and drinks...big bucks. Then there are those little unexpected expenses that seem to creep in each month as well.

Multiply that by 365 days and you get $36,500 to wake up each year. That's net, so it actually costs roughly $50,000 gross just to break even. Throw in expensive wife and kids and you are way under water. If your wife is money maker...bonus!

If you want to throw a roomate in the mix, your costs may be cut in half...but your privacy will be cut in half as well.

 

[Lavabug]

Working at 40k all your life you won't have a sound retirement plan especially with inflation being pretty much a constant occurrence. I suppose you would have social security retirement benefits but who knows how long that will last in this political landscape and the realities of an increasing amount of seniors and a diminishing amount of employed young adults combined with a political apathy over young adults being employed in a decent job.

Pay for PhD's in industry and professors needs to be high because to save an equal amount for retirement to those employed post bachelors you need to make more money and save it (that is how compounded interest works).

Let's be clear here: I didn't equate or fix the definition of a middle class salary to 40k. In some parts where the cost of living is not very high, it is a very high wage. Well above the per capita income for most states (and about 20% below the national median household income) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income#States_ranked_by_per_capita_income

 

[Lavabug]

I figure if you live somewhat modestly, it costs the mature single adult (living alone) a 100 dollar bill just to wake up in the morning. (mortgage, gas bill, electricity, internet, hospitalization insurance, tv cable, car payment, car insurance, car gas, credit card payment, toiletries, food and let's not forget about going out to dinner and drinks...big bucks. Then there are those little unexpected expenses that seem to creep in each month as well.

Multiply that by 365 days and you get $36,500 to wake up each year. That's net, so it actually costs roughly $50,000 gross just to break even. Throw in expensive wife and kids and you are way under water. If your wife is money maker...bonus!

The problem is that your concept of "modest living" is pretty warped. Having a mortage, cable, the latest phone with a massive data plan, credit card debt for most likely commodities and not necessities, a brand new car lease and going out to dinner regularly is NOT modest living by any standards. Plenty of people in the West (and many more elsewhere) do without these things and do just fine, manage to get their children into school, and grow old and healthy into their 70's (US is probably the exception because of its healthcare system, but that's another story) .

 

[psparky]

The problem is that your concept of "modest living" is pretty warped. Having a mortage, cable, the latest phone with a massive data plon, an brand new car lease and going out to dinner regularly is NOT modest living by any standards. Plenty of people in the West (and many more elsewhere) do without these things and do just fine, manage to get their children into school, and grow old and healthy into their 70's.

Warped, perhaps. But the things I describe would be normal to most Americans I would think. What I described is middle class. Just a matter of differing opinion.

I just know that the worst part of my life is when I made 40K out of school. Could never afford anything, just the bare minimums. Not having money just plain stinks.

 

[Lavabug]

Warped, perhaps. But the things I describe would be normal to most Americans I would think. What I described is middle class. Just a matter of differing opinion.
.

Right, it is normal for most Americans (in fact, what you're describing is fairly conservative to what I'm used to hearing). The issue is that most Americans have a very inflated idea of what 'baseline' comfortable living consists of, as the articles I posted strongly indicate. I think most people need to take a long hard look at the rest of their community (nationwide, that's not asking for much) and how they're doing to realize just how ridiculously entitled they are coming across. You belong to the top 10-15% most prosperous, healthiest and longest-living piece of the world population in great part thanks to being born into it, act like it.

 

[analogdesign]

You belong to the top 10-15% most prosperous, healthiest and longest-living piece of the world population in great part thanks to being born into it, act like it.

What does "act like it" mean to you in this context?

 

[-Dragoon-]

Wow, this thread blew up so quickly.

Institutions occasionally have "research staff member" positions which tend to go to people who are good researchers but exceptionally awful at teaching classes or have absolutely no interest in teaching even if it means not being a professor.

Except they're official titles clearly state "post-doctoral researcher" on their website and their curriculum vitae suggests they've been doing this for 15+ years.

Stanford limits postdoc positions to 5 years. http://postdocs.stanford.edu/admin/how-to/reappointments.html

Yale limits postdoc positions to 6 years. http://postdocs.yale.edu/faculty/reappointing-postdoc

See also http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/component/content/article/51-npa-advance-/410-advance-clearinghouse-oversight : "Establish limits for total time as a postdoc".

This is interesting, thanks. However, I'd like to see something more concrete (if possible) along the lines of a nationwide policy. I'm not based in the U.S, nor have any interest in ever working in the U.S, but it seems here in my country that there exists no such policy and that people can make careers of being post-docs. It's not exactly surprising Stanford and Yale have no interest in perpetual post-docs, as the kinds of people who are perpetual post-docs (most physicists) would have absolutely no chance in getting a post-doctoral position at Yale or Stanford even if they just finished their PhD.

 

[psparky]

What does "act like it" mean to you in this context?

It's true that if you are American and have a good education and job...you are very lucky compared to the rest of the world. Actually, you are very lucky even compared to the average American.

40K is probably decent in other parts of world. In USA...you are going to struggle at that rate. You may be able to get what you need, but rarely what you want. I suppose there is nothing wrong with struggling...life seems to be designed in this fashion in the first place.

Oh wait, I forgot the single most popular expense in USA...no one and I mean no one can live without a smart phone with unlimited internet/text! Add another $100 per month for that!

 

[atyy]

This is interesting, thanks. However, I'd like to see something more concrete (if possible) along the lines of a nationwide policy. I'm not based in the U.S, nor have any interest in ever working in the U.S, but it seems here in my country that there exists no such policy and that people can make careers of being post-docs. It's not exactly surprising Stanford and Yale have no interest in perpetual post-docs, as the kinds of people who are perpetual post-docs (most physicists) would have absolutely no chance in getting a post-doctoral position at Yale or Stanford even if they just finished their PhD.

You can google the term limits in other places. But the more important point to be made, although I don't have hard data, is that Jesse73's point with which Locrian agreed, that you cannot be an eternal postdoc is generally true - even without a formal limit, most people will not hire someone for a third or fourth postdoc.

There is no such thing as being an eternal postdoc. After a few postdocs nobody is going to offer you a post doc. A post doc is supposed to a stepping stone to prove yourself for a junior faculty position. The idea is to have someone who is good enough to become faculty do some work of that level for you before he/she gets a junior faculty position. If after a few postdocs you can't get a junior faculty position you will have just proven yourself as a very mediocre postdoc.

Can we establish that you can't do a post doc forever. At some point you are going to need to get a permanent research position like "staff member" or the few research only professorships. If you can't get those than you are going to get squeezed out.

I think we already have established that.

 

[-Dragoon-]

It sounds like you've made up your mind, Dragoon. That's cool, go for it.

I'm still weighing my options, but right now it's looking like that's the path I'll take.

You'll be a very highly trained individual working for peanuts and virtually no benefits. Hopefully you'll choose an area of research that benefits society and/or mankind. I appreciate the benefits that science can provide, and you'll be providing them on the cheap. That's good for me, and if you enjoy it, then I guess everyone wins.

Highly trained is really a subjective term. History PhD's, for example, are equally as "highly trained" and yet no one thinks they are getting a raw deal if they have to be a perpetual post-doc for the rest of their career. Personally, I'm glad society can see value in scientific research beyond irrelevant practical applications, and the things I'm interested in will NOT ever give way to any sort of practical application. It wasn't always like this and once upon a time only those who were wealthy could pursue scientific research on a full-time basis.

Personally, I couldn't do it. I, too, don't need much in the way of stuff (though I do appreciate having a family). It's the unfairness that would get to me. You'll be making 1/3rd of what other people with similar educational investments make. While they fight off recruiters, you'll be begging for a job every few years. They'll be promoted, you'll be a perpetual postdoc. They'll be putting away 50% of your pay into their 401k, and still enjoying amenities that you can't afford.

That's quite understandable. I respect the fact that this a sacrifice for many people and that such a lifestyle would simply not appeal to most. I myself don't tend to compare myself with other people or how they're doing, but even if I did, I'd say a lifetime salary of 35-40K would still have me doing a lot better than my childhood peers. You might think 35-40K is peanuts, but to many of us, it is considered a very decent salary compared to what we grew up on.

 

[Lavabug]

What does "act like it" mean to you in this context?

Perhaps a bad choice of words on my part. Something along the lines of "stop whining" and realize how incredibly cozy your life is! It's borderline insulting to the people who don't have that kind of wealth and comfort.

That's quite understandable. I respect the fact that this a sacrifice for many people and that such a lifestyle would simply not appeal to most. I myself don't tend to compare myself with other people or how they're doing, but even if I did, I'd say a lifetime salary of 35-40K would still have me doing a lot better than my childhood peers. You might think 35-40K is peanuts, but to many of us, it is considered a very decent salary compared to what we grew up on.

Out of curiosity: what part of the US did you grow up in and what did/do your parents for a living? Edit: Nevermind, I missed half of your post. Time for new glasses...