Globally Rational

The Pew Research Center, which always seems to come up with great surveys and statistics, recently asked people if they think that Barack Obama is Muslim.  10% of people said “yes”, which is obviously wrong.  Do people think that Islam is an ethnicity and not a religion?  Or do they think that anybody who lived in Indonesia is a Muslim?  Well, it’s probably not the latter… because most Americans don’t even know that Indonesia is a Muslim country.  So they must be basing their conclusions on faulty assumptions or random rumors… and if you look at the actual data, it’s even more convincing:

• —The opinions are divided across party lines.  16% of conservative Republicans were skeptical of Obama’s beliefs, while only 5% of liberal Democrats felt the same way.
• —16% of evangelical Protestants thought that Obama was Muslim, while only 7% of mainline Protestants agreed.  However, neither group was much more likely than the other (50% vs. 59%, respectively) to believe that he’s Christian.
• —More educated people are less likely to have the misconception.  Among college graduates, 73% think he’s Christian and 5% think he’s Muslim; among people who didn’t go to college, half as many people think he’s Christian (37%) and three times as many believe he’s Muslim (15%).
• —People are very divided based on their region.  19% of rural residents believe that Obama is Muslim, probably because they’re not as well-exposed to different cultures.  In cities and suburbs, the number is less than half as much.  The same sort of trend is evident if you compare the Northeast (7%), the West (6%), the Midwest (13%), and the South (13%).

I’m almost ashamed to live in a non-urban Midwestern area.  It’s obvious that among people who have more experience with world cultures and religions (college graduates, urban residents, people on the East Coast), Obama’s religion is much less of a controversy.  Personally, I don’t even understand how people can make a controversy out of an unquestionable fact… I guess we’ll have to wait until November to see how big of an effect this has on the election.

Popularity: 15% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 15% [?]

Welcome to the 68th edition of Carnival of the Liberals! It was very difficult to choose a reasonable number of articles from the many submissions that I received, but I think I managed to cut it down to the point where it’s not overcrowded.

I also included some comments about each article. I’ll have to say that I was very happy with the quality of the posts, and I expect that you’ll find each of the next 15 articles to be a very interesting read.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the CotL people for letting me host this edition. Also, thanks to all of the bloggers who submitted articles; I hope to see more of your quality work in the future.

---

current events

Timothy Martin presents Habeas What? posted at Mouthful of Politics, saying, “This article examines the recent Supreme Court decision returning habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees.”

Shan’s comments It’s nice to see that the right-leaning Supreme Court still occasionally considers the spirit of the Constitution instead of always being politically charged.

---

The Ridger presents Hiding the hate posted at The Greenbelt, saying, “”We don’t anyone to know we’re bigots - it might hurt our business.” You think? I hope!”

Shan’s comments I can’t say that I’m surprised. Bigots know that they’re bigots… and they don’t want everybody else to know about it

---

liberalism

Madeleine Begun Kane presents Is Olbermann Turning Into O’Reilly? posted at Mad Kane’s Political Madness.

Shan’s comments: I liked this idea; although I agree with most of Olbermann’s ideas, I think he’s become just another angry ranter who always only presents one side of a debate. As long as you’re ignoring your opponents’ arguments, how do you expect to make any difference? It seems that Olbermann is just there to sell his show to fellow liberals… I wish he’s use his position of power to actually persuade some swing voters instead of (literally) yelling at his opponents

---

Alonzo Fyfe presents Atheist Ethicist: The Pledge Project: A Memorial Day Dilemma posted at Atheist Ethicist.

Shan’s comments This article doesn’t fit with the usual theme of my blog (talking about issues with a rational, fact-based perspective), but it is a very interesting essay. It’s also a bit older than what the Carnival usually accepts, but I decided to accept it because it’s a great read.

---

APH presents Urbanism Legend: Zoning Creates Density posted at Market Urbanism, saying, “In many different contexts, I have heard people argue that liberalizing zoning restrictions will cause “overdevelopment” or high density development filled with low income people. Even in relatively low density areas, people make the sensationalist argument that if zoning restrictions were lifted, high rises would be built in their community, creating congestion and overburdening infrastructure.”

Shan’s comments This article, unlike the last one, fits perfectly with the Globally Rational spirit. I wish more people actually looked at the real economic analysis behind their political decisions… but instead, politicians just try to appeal to people’s emotions

---

Greta Christina presents The Messed-Up Teachings of Jesus posted at Greta Christina’s Blog, saying, “A critique of the liberal Christian idea that the teachings of Jesus support progressive ideals, such as peace and tolerance. It provides an extensive list of Jesus’s teachings from the New Testament that run completely counter to some of the most treasured principles of most modern progressives… such as free speech, independent thought, sexual and marital privacy, resisting oppression, and respecting people with different beliefs.”

Shan’s comments I like this article, but you should be sure to take it for what it’s worth. I’m not Christian, but I do like many of Jesus’s original teachings… what this article reminds us is that many of those “original teachings” have evolved and been bastardized by some modern Christian sects

---

opinion

Educatorblog presents Do Teachers Influence Blackness? posted at An (aspiring) Educator’s Blog, saying, “A post about race in the classroom.”

Shan’s comments A great idea and a well-developed post. I think many people underestimate the value of teachers in a person’s life… I can definitely say that some of my teachers had a huge impact on the way that I look at the world today. This is one of my favorite articles in this carnival

---

Mike Haubrich, FCD presents Detainees Deserve Trials posted at Tangled Up in Blue Guy, saying, “So, what is the deal with Habeas Corpus and the Supreme Court?”

Shan’s comments I couldn’t decide which Guantanamo Habeas Corpus post was better (this one or Timothy Martin’s post earlier in this carnival), so I included them both

---

Matthew presents Justice posted at Conservatives and Normals . Com - The Blog, saying, “What is justice and is it individual or social?”

Shan’s comments This post explores one of my favorites topics: the use (and distortion) of semantics to justify people’s pointless ideas. Before we go around throwing around powerful buzzwords like “justice”, we should realize exactly what we’re trying to say

---

vjack presents Atheist Revolution: Strengthening American Infrastructure is a Matter of National Security posted at Atheist Revolution.

Shan’s comments People often forget that there’s much more to national security than just killing all of the bad guys. This post is a nice reminder that there are plenty of important ideas within the broader field.

---

Doctor Biobrain presents What I Learned From Rush Limbaugh posted at And Doctor Biobrain’s Response Is…

Shan’s comments Quality piece about what Limbaugh (and others like him) seem to be trying to accomplish

---

politics

Jeffrey Stingerstein presents » Oh No! John McCain Is Trying to Lose My Vote! Disillusioned Words: atheism, art and politics posted at Disillusioned Words.

Shan’s comments Apparently, John McCain hasn’t read the Constitution. I’m not surprised… he graduated at the bottom of his class, so I doubt that he got an ‘A’ in Political Science 101

---

Mike Haubrich, FCD presents Bush is Not the Decider posted at Tangled Up in Blue Guy, saying, “Bush doesn’t want to open an e-mail. Leadership FAIL”

Shan’s comments When I first heard about this, I was astonished. I guess that, after almost 8 years of Bush, I shouldn’t be surprised

---

Mike Haubrich, FCD also presents I Would Rather Be Anywhere Else posted at Tangled Up in Blue Guy, saying, “Power in the hands of an imperialist, even if the intentions are initially good, leads to abuse of power. The rule of law should supercede the rule of man.”

Shan’s comments This is another article referring to the Guantanamo Habeas Corpus issue, but this one draws an important parallel between the present and the past. It’s always depressing to see us repeating the past

---

opinion

larryniven presents What’s that first step, again? posted at Rust Belt Philosophy, saying, “My blog examines arguments in mass media for argumentative fallacies. In this post, I deconstruct yet another conservative op/ed piece designed to downplay global warming.”

Shan’s comments A good reminder of how to respond to some of the pointless anti-environment arguments.

---

And that’s it. Thanks to everybody who submitted articles and, of course, to the carnival staff for allowing me to host this edition. Hopefully, you’ll be seeing this carnival at Globally Rational again sometime in the future.

Popularity: 24% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 24% [?]

I saw an article today suggesting that, for the first time, the average TV viewer is now over 50 years old. I think it’s interesting to note that top TV characters, on the other hand, seem to be getting younger as time progresses. If you look at the progression from “I Love Lucy” to “The Brady Bunch” to “Cheers” to “Friends”, it seems obvious that the most popular comedy-type shows feature younger and younger characters.

Here are some of the top comedy shows of the 20th century, along with the ages of the main characters during the show’s first season. I chose all of the comedy shows that have at some point been the #1 show in America by ratings, not including shows about families or kids (if I didn’t have enough examples for any particular decade, I threw in some shows that may never have been #1 but are still really good):

1950’s: “I Love Lucy” (main actors were in their 40’s)
1960’s: “The Andy Griffith Show” (Andy was 35-45), “Gunsmoke” (main character was 35-40), “Bewitched” (the husband was 35-40)
1970’s: “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” (Mary was mid-30’s), “Laverne and Shirley” (They were both mid-30’s), “Three’s Company” (mid-30’s)
1980’s: “Cheers” (Sam was mid-30’s), “Who’s the Boss” (Tony was mid-30’s)
1990’s: “Seinfeld” (Jerry was mid-30’s), “Friends” (they were all mid/late-20’s)
2000’s: “Scrubs” (JD was mid-20’s), “Chuck” (mid-20’s)… sorry, these are the best two I could come up with for the 2000’s because the rest of the good shows all feature a wide range of ages (marketing people are starting to figure out how to target a broad demographic).

You’ll notice a similar trend if you look at medical shows (Marcus Welby M.D. was over 60, Quincy M.E. was 50something, while House M.D. is 40something and his assistants are mid-20’s), legal shows (i.e. “Matlock” vs. the cast of “Boston Legal”), or any other specific genre. And look at the people who have sold the most music albums by decade:

1950’s: Harry Belafonte, Henry Mancini, some movie soundtracks
1960’s: Mostly soundtracks, the Monkees, Jimi Hendrix, Iron Butterfly
1970’s: Simon and Garfunkel, Neil Young, Elton John, Led Zeppelin, others of similar age
1980’s: AC/DC, Aerosmith, Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen, others of similar age
1990’s: Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Tupac, others of similar age
2000’s: Linkin Park, Usher, Eminiem, others of similar age

They are all around 25-30 years old at their peaks. So it seems like we like our TV characters to get younger, but our taste for musicians’ ages aren’t really changing. That means that it’s not just the aging population that is being reminiscent of younger days; the real cause is something else…

That “something else”, in my opinion, is the evolution of the field of marketing. Here are the reasons why I think that the marketing applies to TV characters more than to musicians:

–TV networks have a limited number of programs that they can show in any 24-hour period (music labels, meanwhile, can produce as many albums as they want). So, the TV studios have to make sure to appeal to as many people as possible with each show, while record labels can make different albums for each demographic.
–Garage bands can still “come from nothing” by just making good music with no regard to marketing. TV shows, on the other hand, are produced in a boardroom.
–Each TV show has to appeal to a wide demographic in order to look juicier to advertisers.
–People tend to just turn on the TV and watch whatever is most appealing. When they buy music, it’s much more premeditated.

People are getting better at selling things to us. Honestly, I like the product… I love watching many of today’s TV shows. Still, I won’t deny that most of those shows have lost the soul that broadcast television once had. If Andy Griffith (or even Jerry Seinfeld) tried to turn his comedy into a TV show today, the networks would laugh at him.

Popularity: 33% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 33% [?]

We hear politicians talk a lot about “a lady I met who couldn’t afford to pay for xxx” or “a man in Ohio who lost his job”.  I’ll accept that unemployment rates are a little bit higher than last year, but we can find stories like that at any time, even if the economy is booming.  The question I’d like to ask is this: as a society, are we really worse off than we were in 2000?

The Dow Jones is higher today than it was then, even if you adjust for inflation.  The dollar may be a bit weaker, but that’s more of an international issue than a domestic one; also, the “housing crisis” and the “recession” are supposed to affect other countries just as much as they affect the US.  Gas prices are high, but that’s just supply and demand.  As a nation, is the average person doing better or worse?

Gregg Easterbrook, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues (in a Wall Street Journal article) that we’re better than ever:

• Housing prices may have dropped, but that’s only because they surged a few years ago.  People always talked about the “housing bubble”, but people ignored it until the bubble decided to burst.  Easterbrook points out that the average house value today is still about 30-40% higher than it was in 2000 (before the price boom).
• The unemployment rate (~5.5%) is pretty low by historical standards.
• Income is still rising faster than inflation.
• The definition of a recession is “two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth”.  We still haven’t even had one such quarter… the economy may not be growing as fast as before, but it’s still growing.

I think a big part of our problem is that people think the economy is worse than it is.  In a recent survey, 79% of Americans were worried that we may go into a depression (not a recession)… I don’t think they realize exactly how extreme a depression is.  The media hype is fueling our tendency to act like we’re in a recession, which fuels the possibility of a real recession.

The reason why we’re worried is because we’ve become accustomed to the “Great Moderation” of the last couple of decades; economists agree that normal economic volatility has decreased substantially in recent years.  Because of this, every slight downturn seems much worse than it actually is.

Popularity: 61% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 61% [?]

I called in to NPR’s Talk of the Nation today to discuss my opinion on America’s negative image overseas.  I think that the guest, Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins, hit the point perfectly… instead of boring you with an article, I’ll link you to the story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91812972

If you click “listen now” and forward to about 5-6 minutes into the conversation, you’ll hear a caller named “Shan from Missouri”… that’s me.

Popularity: 60% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 60% [?]

I saw an article today in USA Today suggesting that the legacy of Sandra Day O’Connor, America’s first female Supreme Court justice, has been fading since she retired in January 2006 (after a tenure of over two decades).  The article mentions that the new Court has “undercut several of her most important rulings on issues such as abortion rights, campaign finance law and government policies intended to help racial minorities.”  Among other things, the article mentions the following changes in the Court’s policies since O’Connor retired and Chief Justice William Rehnquist died:

• Shifted course on abortion rights: The court upheld a federal ban on the abortion procedure opponents call “partial birth” and backed away from a 2000 O’Connor opinion that required an exception in such laws to protect the health of the mother.

• Retreated on integration: The court made it harder for public school districts to assign students to schools outside their neighborhoods to achieve racial diversity. In 2003, O’Connor had cast the swing vote to allow affirmative action in higher education and stressed the importance of racial diversity.

• Altered its approach to campaign-finance law: The court opened the door to corporate and union financing of broadcast ads right before an election. It moved away from a standard O’Connor had crafted to regulate campaign financing and made it harder for Congress to limit donations in elections. In doing so, the justices said campaign finance regulation could undermine free speech.

What interests me the most about this article is the fact that the Supreme Court’s political leanings have obviously changed thanks to the justices appointed by President Bush II.  While Rehnquist and O’Connor were known to make apolitical decisions on a case-by-case basis, their replacements (John Roberts and Samuel Alito, respectively) are generally considered as members of the Court’s “conservative wing”.  Since when is a legal system, particularly the Supreme Court, allowed to have a “conservative wing?”

It’s about time that we start appointing justices based upon their accomplishments rather than their political leanings.  Aside from the Presidents Bush, all US Presidents have appointed justices who make highly rational, apolitical decisions.  Why do we let it fly when an active member of either political party is allowed to join the Court?  Alito, Roberts, and Clarence Thomas (who was appointed by Bush Sr.) are the only current justices who weren’t approved by at least 85% of Senators (Alto had 58%, Roberts had 78%, and Thomas had a mere 52%).  The other six justices made it in almost unanimously… why is it that the Bushes couldn’t do the same thing that Ford, Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton were able to do?

The purpose of the Judicial Branch of the US government is to interpret and enforce the laws.  As long as the members of the highest court are affiliated with a political party, how can we possibly guarantee neutrality?

Popularity: 61% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 61% [?]

Not Bush or McCain (not by a longshot), but Rush Limbaugh.

Recently, 235 right-leaning bloggers voted on the 25 most influential conservatives in US politics. The rankings are interesting:

#25) Mark Levin: 6 votes
#21) Hugh Hewitt: 7
#21) George Will: 7
#21) John Roberts: 7
#21) Ronald Reagan: 7
#20) Victor David Hanson: 8
#19) Antonin Scalia: 9
#18) John McCain: 10
#14) Glenn Beck: 11
#14) George W. Bush: 11
#14) Glenn Reynolds: 11
#14) Matt Drudge: 11
#13) Bill Kristol: 12
#10) Charles Krauthammer: 13
#10) Thomas Sowell: 13
#10) Laura Ingraham: 13
#9) Karl Rove: 14
#8) Jonah Goldberg: 15
#7) Bill O’Reilly: 17
#5) Newt Gingrich: 21
#5) Ann Coulter: 21
#3) Mark Steyn: 23
#3) Sean Hannity: 23
#2) Michelle Malkin: 24
#1) Rush Limbaugh: 49

A few interesting things stand out; I thought you might be interested too:

• President Bush is #14 and Republican Presidential frontrunner John McCain is #18. So, the supposed “most powerful man in the world” is the 14th-most influential person in his own party.
• Rush Limbaugh, who is widely considered to be a hardline right-winger whose opinions are often dismissed by policymakers, is considered by most right-leaning bloggers to be the most influential of their party.
• There are no well-known politicians in the top 4.
• Karl Rove, despite all of the controversy surrounding him, still comes in at #14.
• Ronald Reagan had only 4 less votes than President Bush… did people forget that he’s dead?

I think that the most striking fact is that the President has less influence over these bloggers than 13 other conservatives. What does that say about the status of the Executive Branch today? Do we really place so much value on the opinions of a former President who hasn’t been mentally healthy since the Cold War (before the information age)? And is there any respect left for the Presidency today?

I think this might tell us something about where the US is headed in the future… what do you think?

Popularity: 46% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 46% [?]

I recently read (in The Economist) about a study showing that over the course of the last 30 years, conservatives have consistently claimed to be “very happy” more often than liberals. Many people try to use this data to say that conservatism directly causes happiness… but before arriving at a conclusion like that, we need to examine the causality.

So, like I always do, I decided to parse the data about the demographics of liberals vs. conservatives. I found a study included 9 overall groups; there were three major groups for liberals, conservatives, and moderates and each had three subgroups for different socioeconomic backgrounds. They surveyed the different groups and published the data, which seems to be very telling.

I think there are a few interesting explanations for why conservatives are happier:

1. Graduate degrees
   Among the 9 political groups in the study, the most liberal people were the most likely to be highly educated (postgraduate degree); as everybody seems to agree, “ignorance is bliss”… so a more educated person is less likely to be satisfied with the world.
2. Bachelor’s degrees
   Among people of a lower socioeconomic status, conservatives were more likely to be moderately educated (undergraduate degree) than liberals; this suggests that less advantaged conservatives are more likely to be successful than less advantaged liberals, which would probably make the conservatives happier.
3. Wealth
   Conservatives are more likely to be wealthy (income over $75,000/year) than moderates or liberals. Liberals are more likely to disagree with the statement “paying the bills is not generally a problem” and to agree with the statement “I often can’t make ends meet.” Without the added stress of working overtime and falling behind on bills, I think it’s obvious that a group would be happier on average. Money may not buy happiness, but lack of money does lead to unhappiness.
4. Family
   Conservatives are more likely than moderates/liberals to be married and have children; companionship tends to make a person more content with their life.
5. Optimism
   Among people with a relatively disadvantaged socioeconomic background, conservatives are far more optimistic than liberals. This group of people was told that “people can get ahead with hard work”; conservatives agreed in 76% of cases, while liberals agreed in only 14% of cases. A similar trend was clear with less disadvantaged liberals/conservatives, but it was less drastic.
6. Religion
   Conservatives are the most religious of the three groups and liberals are the least religious, suggesting that conservatives are more likely to believe that God will solve all of their problems.
7. Future
   Conservatives are more likely to be stock traders or small business owners, suggesting that they perceive themselves to be in control of their own future.
8. Pride
   As one would expect, conservatives tend to display the American flag more often than liberals. This leads me to believe that conservatives are more proud and more satisfied with their country.

I think these 8 factors explain why a typical conservative is happier than a typical liberal. Now we can look at the causality: is the political viewpoint causing the happiness or vice versa? In other words, would you be happier if you became more conservative?

Based on the data, I don’t think so. It seems like the causality follows an indirect trend; certain variables lead to both conservatism and happiness, and neither the political viewpoint nor the happiness can predict one another. Optimism and pride seem to cause life satisfaction and conservatism; higher education and pessimism, meanwhile, seem to cause dissatisfaction and liberalism.

Personally, I think it’s better to have more people who are unsatisfied with the status quo… this will lead to change and, eventually, improvement. Of course, we also need plenty of satisfied people to balance them out, so that we’re not constantly changing everything. Overall, it seems that this two-party system (which, as many Americans don’t realize, most countries don’t have) is keeping the US in a delicate balance that has probably contributed greatly to the nation’s success.

Popularity: 67% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 67% [?]

About 200 years ago, the mathematician Thomas Robert Malthus famously wrote an equation predicting that the human population would soon reach the planet’s ecological carrying capacity, causing many of us to die off because of the lack of food and resources (just like what we have often seen with other species). He expected it to have already happened well before 2008 (especially because of the rapid population growth of the last 200 years), but we’ve managed to stave it off thanks to the effects of the Industrial Revolution. Recently, however, I’ve been seeing more and more articles suggesting that the hunger crisis is on its way to reaching epidemic proportions.

The UN is expecting that this lack of food will kill about 100 million of the world’s current residents, suggesting that we’re on the brink of a cap in our population. When everybody tries to share an inadequate amount of food, nobody gets enough… so this could lead to bigger problems in the future. As growth continues in some parts of the world, the increased number of mouths to feed will eventually mean that we’ll see the mass die-off that Malthus predicted. It seems like we’re following either the orange or the green trend on the graph (see right), since such a huge negative shift couldn’t possibly be on the same order as the red line.

The Malthusian catastrophe is not unexpected; we’ve expected it for a long time, but we managed to delay it with new technology. The biggest question has just been the timing of the effect, an it seems like we’re on our way there now. Odds are that it won’t directly affect you, since you’re obviously well-off enough to be reading this in your spare time, so we probably won’t bother to do anything about it. Recently, for example, Sam’s Club and Costco set a purchasing limit of 4 bags of rice per customer per visit… which is 3 more bags than I’ve ever bought.

We need to ask ourselves if we care enough to really do something about this.

Popularity: 90% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 90% [?]

Anybody familiar with the US medical system would completely support New Zealand’s junior doctors in their recent strike. After all, American resident physicians (our counterpart to the Australian “junior doctor”) are overworked (recently, the government limited the work week to 80 hours) and underpaid (~$40,000/year) despite the fact that they’re licensed physicians. They also get no vacation and no time to themselves. I think it’s about time that they expect more.

Here’s why you’d be wrong: Junior physicians in New Zealand make twice as much money (~$88,000/year) in much less time (50-60 hrs/week) than their American counterparts. They also get 6 weeks of vacation every year and 2 weeks off for conferences. They’re going on strike, without much regard for the 1,000 patients who will be left without medical care thanks to the already understaffed hospitals, for 48 hours. The reason is because their colleagues in Australia make a little bit more money than they do.

Here are some reasons why the resident physicians in Australia deserve more money than those in New Zealand:

• Australia’s cities have a higher cost of living than New Zealand’s.
• Australia’s per-capita GDP is 40% higher than New Zealand’s, meaning that an average Australian makes 40% more money than an average New Zealander. Why should doctors be an exception?
• It’s harder to become a doctor in Australia now, as most Australian schools are moving towards graduate medical programs rather than undergraduate programs.
• Citizens of both countries are allowed to freely travel (and work) in either of the two, so any physician in New Zealand could work in Australia if he/she was able to get a job… if they’re in New Zealand, that means one of two things:
  (1) They don’t want to go to a more expensive country just to make more money.
  (2) They can’t get a job in Australia because they didn’t do well enough in medical school.

The junior doctors in New Zealand want a 40% pay increase over the next 3 years. Apparently, they believe that they should make just as much money as people who are in a more expensive country and spent more time in school.

If that’s how things will go, then American resident physicians are the one who really deserve a raise… here, we have the highest cost of living (of the three countries), the most difficult medical admissions process (requiring a full 4-year bachelor’s degree before you can go to med school), the most demanding medical school curriculum (medical students rarely have a social life), and the longest residency work hours (70 hrs/week).

Not surprisingly, New Zealand’s medical curriculum doesn’t include a class in economics.

Popularity: 78% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 78% [?]