Manual testing as the first step… not very productive imo.
Outside in testing is great but I typically do automated outside in testing and only manual at the end. The loop process of testing needs to be repeatable and fast, manual is too slow
Yeah that's fair, the manual testing doesn't have to sequentially go first - but it does have to get done.
I've lost count of the number of times I've skipped it because the automated test passed and then found there was some dumb but obvious bug that I missed, instantly exposed when I actually exercised the feature myself.
Maybe a bit pedantic, but does manual testing really need to be done, or is the intent here more towards being a usability review? I can't think of any time obvious unintended behaviour showed up not caught by the contract encoded in tests (there is no reason to write code that doesn't have a contractual purpose), but, after trying it, finding out that what you've created has an awful UX is something I have encountered and that is something much harder to encode in tests[1].
[1] As far as I can tell. If there are good solutions for this too, I'd love to learn.
Automated testing (there aren't different kinds; to try and draw a distinction misunderstands what it is) doesn't catch bugs, it defines a contract. Code is then written to conform to that contract. Bugs cannot be introduced to be caught as they would violate the contract.
Of course that is not a panacea. What can happen in the real world is not truly understanding what the software needs to do. That can result in the contract not being aligned with what the software actually needs. It is quite reasonable to call the outcome of that "bugs", but tests cannot catch that either. In that case, the tests are where the problem lies!
Most aspects of software are pretty clear cut, though. You can reasonably define a full contract without needing to see it. UX is a particular area where I've struggled to find a way to determine what the software needs before seeing it. There is seemingly no objective measure that can be applied in determining if a UX is going to spark joy in order to encode that in a contract ahead of time. Although, as before, I'm quite interested to learn about how others are solving that problem as leaving it up to "I'll know it when I see it" is a rather horrible approach.
There's a lot of pedantry here trying to argue that there exists some feature which doesn't need to be "manually" tested, and I think the definition of "manual" can be pushed around a lot. Is running a program that prints "OK" a manual test or not? Is running the program and seeing that it now outputs "grue" rather than "bleen" manual? Does verifying the arithmetic against an Excel spreadsheet count?
There are programs that almost can't be manual, and programs that almost have to be manual. I remember when working on PIN pad integration we looked into getting a robot to push the buttons on the pad - for security reasons there's no way of injecting input automatically.
What really matters is getting as close to a realistic end user scenario as possible.
An example where they’re creating a new mutex every time they call a function and then surprised when multiple goroutines that called that function and got entirely different mutexes somehow couldn’t coordinate the locks together.
That isn’t a core misunderstanding of Go, that’s a core misunderstanding of programming.
I’d like to see a study like this for young kids. Anecdotally, I ran through the woods until I went to college and stress about the urban life I’m providing for my kids
It might depend on what you mean by urban. Are there a lot of places your kids can walk to from your residence? I'm thinking of schools, parks, stores, etc. or are you in a place where they really have to be driven everywhere?
True. Older (in the U.S., pre-war) neighborhoods actually provide kids with far more opportunities for walking than newer, cul-de-sac based suburban neighborhoods. I keep wondering when we're going to stop allowing such immobilizing, isolating neighborhoods to be built.
The first time I looked at a city map of my home town and saw the division between the prewar streetcar suburbs, and the postwar neighborhoods, was a revelation. Before the war: everything is on a grid, and there are alleys for utilities and garages down every block. Easy to walk everywhere. After: no more alleys, cul-de-sacs everywhere, traffic funneled onto arterials, unwalkable.
I'd love to see cities put efforts into connecting those isolated cultures-de-sac neighborhoods with pedestrian and bike paths.
I can understand the desire to reduce through-traffic which sometimes comes with speeding or aggressive drivers. But walking and cycling to your friends house shouldn't mean going a mile out to the entrance of your neighborhood, down the busy highway, then a mile back in to their house when they were only half a mile away to begin with.
My neighborhood was platted in the late 50s, and it has what the kids call "secret sidewalks" that cut between the houses and connect the streets. It's the best of both worlds: Minimal car traffic, but easy to get around by walking. The secret sidewalks also radiate outward from the elementary school, approximately.
Cities charge a right-of-way fee, planning, and permitting process every time you connect to a public road. The county/city planning committee often requires new neighborhoods to cover the cost (often via HOA) of roads and their easements in the neighborhood. The end result is the neighborhood private planners have their hand forced to eliminate thru-traffic and minimize connections to arterials.
The county would basically have to do the opposite to change things; provide low-cost/low-overhead process for connecting to public road and pay neighborhoods/HOA for connecting to arterials to offload the traffick and provide thru-routes. Otherwise the public is just leaching off the private roads, and due to neighborhood planning requirements they usually can't charge a toll to get it back, so it gets designed to avoid that.
I'm suggesting not limiting foot and bike traffic just because we choose to limit car traffic. There are lots of routes between places in my town that would be much more direct, and safe, on a bike if there were small connecting paths between neighborhoods, including those built at different times by different developers, instead of being forced out onto the arterials.
Yeah, I think that's the part that I was suggesting should be "banned". All neighborhoods should connect with all adjacent neighborhoods via pedestrian or multiuse paths. And yes, that means across arterials as well -- either have an official surface crossing with appropriate traffic calming measures / pedestrian islands, or build a tunnel.
I don’t like cul-de-sacs in general but they can be walkable if there are shortcuts for pedestrians/cyclists and only cars has to follow a long way. You also need amenities in a walking distance. One can find such neighbourhoods in the UK.
> Plaintiffs proposed a remedial term unique to Apple that would forbid any “contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value.”
Ooof. Google gives Apple like a third of its search revenue on iOS searches. Apple gets tens of billions of bucks from this. Presumably it is so much money in part because Microsoft would happily pay half that to be the default instead. But if Google isn't allowed to offer anything at all, Microsoft is free to offer only a sliver of what it otherwise would have, because what's Apple gonna do otherwise, send all of its users to Duck Duck Go?
I suspect the biggest concern Apple has is that it’s a big part of their services revenue, which is what’s holding their earnings up currently. They want Services to be seen as a big interesting business, but it’s mostly Google and App Store games. It’d be a big problem for them to report a drop in services revenue, and they’re not going to find anything to replace it quickly enough.
From a legal perspective, Apple's biggest concern, by far, is that this case could set a precedent for using courts to sanction Apple without letting Apple in court. Next to that, revenue is meaningless. Because they can take your revenue from whatever source via judgement, without giving you so much as an opportunity to file a brief in front of the court.
This is one time where there is much more on the line than money. At least for Apple. Maybe for everyone if the Supremes were to say this is OK. (Unlikely in the extreme, but still.)
This is an underrated comment and should be WAY higher. Like a lot of things Apple does, this isn't about the thing itself, but about the next ten to twenty years of related things.
Also consider that a good portion of Apple's services revenue is from services running on GCP, which would be prohibited. They could go all-in with AWS and Azure, but that's a significant tech change and reduces their negotiating power with those alternatives.
And how does that help? You’re going from the 3rd largest cloud provider to the first and second?
Apple already runs some of its workloads on AWS. It was an open secret inside AWS before. But they brought an Apple person on stage at the last reinvent
I think GP point, is that the proposed remedy: “contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value.” would force Apple ditch all Google services, including GCP. Given paying Google for GCP services would require a contract exchanging something of value.
I know, I’m saying that it is a dumb remedy to “we don’t like BigTech colluding so we are going to force Apple to leave the third largest cloud provider (an also ran) for the first and second largest provider”
I seriously doubt Apple would move to Bing by default, even if there were some short term monetary gain. Using a subpar/cluttered search interface is so far off from their brand image.
I find it 10x more likely Apple would suddenly find the motivation to make their own search engine if forced to end their deal with Google.
(They say they wouldn't under any circumstance, but seems to be posturing to me)
Regardless, it's clear getting paid Billions to give people the default they'd choose anyway is a good deal for them.
I wonder who at Google negotiated this, because the terms seem very bad for them. They only make sense if the premise was to prevent Apple from starting a competitor
> I seriously doubt Apple would move to Bing by default, even if there were some short term monetary gain. Using a subpar/cluttered search interface is so far off from their brand image.
> I find it 10x more likely Apple would suddenly find the motivation to make their own search engine if forced to end their deal with Google.
I find it 10x more likely that in such case they would use white label Bing and do front-end on their own.
> I find it 10x more likely Apple would suddenly find the motivation to make their own search engine if forced to end their deal with Google.
I think that could only work if someone successfully makes the case internally that an Apple search engine built in to Safari (not as a first-class web app) would boost the Apple brand and/or Safari market share enough to justify it. Maybe even offer it as a subscription.
To monetize it with ads would go completely against their DNA -- ad revenue incentivizes companies to violate users' privacy and build a sub-optimal UX. So it would have to be either a subscription or a platform feature.
> Now that they're not encumbered by the Google deal: build their own search engine.
"Encumbered"? Apple wants a deal with Google search. Apple is 'self-encumbering' themselves: Apple wants the deal so they don't have go through the rigamarole of building it themselves.
Building would cost a lot and they'd also not be getting cash from Google: so they're doubly hit.
They have the google deal specifically because they don't want to be in the search engine business.
> In a declaration filed with the U.S. District Court in Washington, Apple Senior Vice President Eddy Cue said creating a search engine would require diverting significant capital and employees, while recent AI developments make such an investment "economically risky."
Yup! And the fact that Apple has so far appeared completely uninterested in doing this (compare this to how aggressively Apple competes against Google Maps!) proves that this anticompetitive financial arrangement harms competition, which harms consumers (and probably even harms advertisers, since having Google Search in such a dominant position means Google has much more pricing power to sell ads than they would if a large chunk of iPhone users moved over to Apple Search).
The actual Google maps app was released and had TBT before Apple Maps even came out. The previous/original “Maps” app was using Google map tiles but was written in-house by Apple. Whatever its feature lacks were is on Apple, and Google had already delivered that feature to customers, without Apple needing to spend all that money.
Posting because it's too late to edit, but I realized later that my above comment is wildly wrong. The "Actual Google Maps app" of course did not predate Apple Maps so my point is completely invalid. I regret the error.
I still assume the overall reasons for whatever Apple and Google each did amounted to greed, greed, and more greed.
Apple has enough spare cash to buy a small country. They can build a search engine if they wanted to.
There's a reason there are only a dozen or so successful search engines worldwide, and maybe five successful image search engines. The margins are razor thin, it's a constant battle against "SEO optimisers" trying to ruin search engines for profit, and the moment they get popular governments start coming up with very creepy requests and demands.
It'll cost them billions and they won't know if they can even beat Google before Google drops them as a client for trying to compete with them, taking out a lucrative multi billion dollar deal for a default setting.
No, I think they'll just contract Microsoft Bing and rid themselves of the risks. They're already incorporating Microsoft's side OpenAI side project into their service stack, so it'd just make sense to couple further. Maybe the American government will sue them for that deal as well, but before that's final there will be years of not decades of lawsuits and appeals.
Apple is one of the most valuable companies in the world. They'd probably just buy an also ran search engine and make it the default. I'd say the only reason they didn't do this already was Google's money bag was so big and replacing them would be so easy if it shrank or disappeared.
Smaller companies are the ones that will really get screwed by this ruling, Apple will be fine.
Exactly. Users have to manually download Chrome yet it has a 70% market share. Changing the search engine on mobile is already easy enough, far easier than installing a browser. Google will get a majority of its share back, while Apple will get nothing.
> Google will get a majority of its share back, while Apple will get nothing.
Then you would have to ask, if people would only switch back to Google anyway, why is Google paying them currently? Depriving Apple of the incentive to develop a competing search engine good enough for people to willingly use.
Google has a strong position in search, and pushes Chrome every time you hit their top level page. Also Chrome is the default on Android, yeah? I don't think you can extrapolate from that market share to determine how likely people are to change browsers.
The parent's market share claim is for desktop OSes, where Android is irrelevant.
It's still far easier to not install chrome than it is to install it: downloading a thing, running the downloaded thing, click through all the dialogs, ignore all of Windows's nags to stick with Edge (which is probably a greater abuse of platform control than advertising on the search page), ...
I think a lot of companies switched to pushing Chrome via device management during the later IE days and never switched back. Presumably that's a decent chunk of market
Because Chrome isn't a thing on iPhone. It's Safari webview with a very thin layer of Chrome branding around it. Users have very little incentive to switch. And considering Google search is the default on both, Google doesn't have much of an incentive to push users either.
The payoff disincentivizes Apple from competing and ensures Google does not need to compete. I would assume there's also some kind of exclusivity such that Apple is also incentivized to promote Google search over others.
Google would likely win the melee but not without unknown effort. Loss of users + risk + higher maintenance cost is all part of the equation.
They might, if Google hadn't enshittified their own product over the last few years. At this point, I will at least listen to anyone who says they're willing to take search seriously again.
It was Google's game to lose, and they seem to be trying their hardest to do just that, without any help from competitors or the government.
Or just don't use a default at all and have users select a search provider when they get their phones. Would mean they don't get any kickbacks though. They could also, and probably should, route most requests through Siri first, that is, when they finally get Siri up to the level of modern LLMs.
So all Google services would disappear from the App Store because it could be argued that it provides tremendous value for Google to have their services there? The $100 USD /year fee, even if withdrawn, would trigger it, since it's a contract, right?
As far as I understand it, this is specifically to do with the bundling of Google search in Apple devices. Still big but not a ban on any contracts between them.
> “Google must not offer or provide anything of value to Apple—or offer any commercial terms—that in any way creates an economic disincentive to compete in or enter the GSE or Search Text Ad markets,”
That's a very broad statement that could easily be interpreted to cover more than just the default-search-provider agreement.
It's pretty consistent with what the law actually says. Here's the Sherman Act:
> Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal.
> Every person who shall monopolize, or
attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other per-
son or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce
among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed
guilty of a felony
It's very under-enforced, but that's what it says.
>> Plaintiffs proposed a remedial term unique to Apple that would forbid any “contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value.”
> Wow
That seems a little broad. Wouldn't it forbid Google from buying Macbooks for employees, for instance?
> No, because there's no contract necessary to purchase Macbooks.
You don't have to sign a paper in a big room with lawyers to have a contract. Whenever you buy something, you're entering into a contract. It's got all the elements.
Or, for that matter - Apple is a major customer of GCP for iCloud storage. A court order requiring that business to cease would place an undue burden on Apple.
I attempted playing a few world cyber game US regional matches and I was always amazed how much faster everyone else was. Then I remember when they live streamed it from Korea and I saw how fast they played and I was blown away. From a strategy point of view, something so basic about the game that I missed was when a blog introduced me to some math for a protoss zealot power up that defeated a zergling in 2 hits rather than 3. That's when I realized this is a chess game and I got hooked.
Optimizing for money is a guaranteed flight risk for any employer. High attrition is something to avoid at smaller companies as it greatly effects morale
I don't agree because I think optimizing for money in the absence of alternatives is perfectly normal and a fairly good idea.
If someone has consistently chosen to favor cash over anything else, that's a different story, but if someone chose an industry or type of career with money as the deciding factor I don't think that is terribly important. People need and want money.
If I don't know what to do and have no guidance, how am I to decide? I'll look at difficulty, social benefits, moral impact and economic benefits. A 20 year old won't necessarily understand how to parse difficulty, social benefits or moral impact but will absolutely be able to understand basic economic benefits, so I think it's appropriate to use that as a method for choosing a career direction and I wouldn't object to hiring them.
> A much more sensible system would to make medical school free so that the salaries don’t have to start off so high.
That's not how any labor market works. Your salary isn't determined by how much debt you rack up. Doctor's salary's are high because the supply of doctor's is so low (especially primary care).
The article covers all the points you're debating (much better than I).
My response was about the claim that OP is a health economist while not understanding where the bottleneck in the supply for doctors comes from. I believe you are incorrect as it pertains to doctor salaries. Demand is high and supply relatively low. That is true but this isn’t the only factor that goes into determining pay. That’s an overly simplistic view of things. Supply/demand does not account for everything in this situation. If med students came out of med school with zero debt then the healthcare industry could make being a doctor sufficiently lucrative with salaries that are smaller than they currently are. Lowering the salary a bit in this scenario would not lower supply. You should read about David Carr’s work.
I don't agree the cost of university is driving the salaries here. It's all about how many doctors are available to meet demand. If there are less, it's going to drive up salaries. There are other countries where the cost of getting a degree in a certain specialty is very low due to state subsidies but the salaries are very high once they graduate since they are scarce.
In countries with mostly free higher education doctor’s salaries are less on average than in the U.S. You really think having several hundred thousand dollars in student loans doesn’t in any way affect salaries?
There are important differences in most of those countries including (importantly!) direct government regulation of prices, including salaries in the medical market.
British doctors, for example, work under a contract negotiated between a British version of the AMA and the British government. The government and the providers both have leverage, but the British government is the primary purchaser of services in that country. Salaries are lower since the government exerts pressure on them, as they are paid for out of direct taxation.
I understand that you feel very strongly that student debt for doctors is unjustifiable or too high or something. Student debt is not the main driver (or even a driver) of high salaries among US doctors. The level of their student debt is a completely separate topic.
There are private doctors in Canada and the UK and they don’t make as much as their American counterparts.
Anecdotal evidence. My wife has $400,000 in med school debt. She needs a $300,000 salary to afford paying that debt off whilst also maintaining a “good” lifestyle. Med school, residency, etc. were hard and sacrifices were made to go through them. It would not be worth it to go through that without a reasonably high salary.
She’d gladly have gone through the process for a $200,000 a year job. It is certainly the case that highly motivated, highly intelligent people take into account the ability to service med school debt when deciding to become a doctor vs. another going into another field. It is obvious that high med school debt has an effect on the salary needed to attract talent.
David Carr won the Nobel Prize in part for his work questioning the traditional supply/demand view of labor economics. Here is a link to an interesting (to me) paper.
> There are private doctors in Canada and the UK and they don’t make as much as their American counterparts.
Great example. These doctors face competition from a low- or no-cost private sector. This keeps prices down since every consumer can use the state sector. This is true in many countries w/ state health sectors.
> David Carr won the Nobel Prize in part for his work questioning the traditional supply/demand view of labor economics.
His work of course I know. It is related to the economics of minimum wages. I would not say it questions the traditional supply and demand framework (nor would he say that, I bet), though he does point out an empirical observation which doesn't fit well within that framework.
Sorry. Yes, Card. Clearly I’m not an economist but I believe within the field is an emerging movement question the traditional iron clad belief in supply/demand being the explanation in labor economics.
One cannot always use the state system. For example, some elective surgeries can’t be done in the state system fast enough for the upper class and then there are those who want vanity cosmetic surgery. I don’t know what the data says but I’d be surprised if private cosmetic plastic surgeons make as much in France as they do in the U.S.
For the record I believe licensed doctors in, say, the EU should be able to practice medicine here without having to do a residency. Though there is a moral consideration in terms of draining the medical talent from countries like Greece, Romania, etc. I believe that med school in the U.S. should be free and that doctor’s salaries could correspondingly go down without decreasing the supply of people wanting to become doctors. It seems obvious to me that having $x in student loan debt is a factor in determining the required starting salary to attract enough talent. I don’t see how anyone can think otherwise. If the debt can’t be serviced easily enough while having a good enough standard of living then these talented people will do something else.
Of course, I could be wrong about everything. There are lots of “obvious” things that aren’t true.
In almost every country professional salaries are much lower, so looking only at doctors and thinking your argument is unique to them is flawed.
And no, debt does not affect salaries. It's the other way around - with the potential to make a lot more income, one is willing to get more debt to reach that goal. Higher salaries people cause more demand, and so prices go up.
If debt affected salaries, you'd expect your claim to play out on all fields, which it does not. Higher paying undergrad salaries don't correlate to more debt, for example.
I made no claims about uniqueness so I don’t understand your first paragraph.
If debt affected salaries, you'd expect your claim to play out on all fields, which it does not.
This is very much wrong! All fields are not equal. No one should expect motivations, forces at a play in one field to necessarily apply to all fields.
Do you think highly intelligent, highly motivated people would take on hundreds of thousands dollars of student loan debt without an expectation of a high enough salary to service that debt while maintaining a good lifestyle? We are talking about people who could go into just about any field. To be able to attract the talent the salaries need to be high enough to service the debt. Without the debt the salary needed to attract that talent would go down.
My wife’s med school debt is $400,000. She needs the $300,000 salary she has to service this debt while living a good lifestyle. That high salary will last the rest of her life and not just for the few years it takes to pay off her debt. If she had no debt the she’d be able to live the same lifestyle making $225,000 per year.
Personally I think it’s naive to think that the debt level doesn’t come into play when determining the salary needed to attract the labor of highly intelligent, highly motivated people. You really think that in the alternate world where the U.S. had free med school and all else was the same that salaries would be the same?
>I made no claims about uniqueness so I don’t understand your first paragraph.
You responded to a point from a previous poster with "In countries with mostly free higher education doctor’s salaries are less on average than in the U.S." as if those doctor low salaries were the result of less debt (which is your argument throughout this thread - that debt makes salaries higher), and I pointed out that this is not unique to doctors, and the costs across all fields don't seem to have debt/salary correlation. Your evidence for your thesis does not hold up outside doctors, and then only for US doctors, so it's hard to believe there is some mystical economic law working only for that sub-case.
>the debt level doesn’t come into play when determining the salary needed to attract the labor of highly intelligent
It does. However your claim is "You really think having several hundred thousand dollars in student loans doesn’t in any way affect salaries?" as if the debt forces employers to pay more. It nearly certainly works the other way - if you are going for a job that pays a lot, you are willing to take on more debt to obtain it. Thus those teaching students how to make so much money are able to charge more for teaching that skill.
This is the exact same causal direction of pretty much any asset. Something is more valued, so people will pay more to obtain it. You're implying the other direction.
>To be able to attract the talent the salaries need to be high enough to service the debt
This again makes little sense as to direction. Quants could get PhDs in STEM (mine is in math, and I have a lto of quant friends) and they make vastly more than all but the highest doctors, yet they don't have all the debt. As the quant field matures (and if it lasts), the cost to obtain training will likely rise.
Not sure what your paper shows, except that which I already claimed: doctors are rare, skilled, and take a long time to make. As such they will get paid a lot because their skills are in demand. This has zero to do with debt - this is exactly supply and demand.
Next, again because of supply and demand, those able to teach people to become doctors realize those doctors will make a lot of money, so they, like all free market actors, will charge what the market will bear. Thus the causation is opposite what you claim - each step in the chain absorbs what the market will bear.
It's not like schools decided to charge far beyond what anyone would pay, and later the wages rose to pay for that debt beyond what people could previously pay. It's more that as wages rose, due to demand, school increased prices to capture what the market would bear to provide those skills.
The paper calls into question the existence of a supply/demand curve and as such is relevant to all of your points. Supply/demand is not sufficient to describe elasticity of labor in all cases. For example, in the quoted article:
“…concludes that 'wage elasticity is unresponsive (or inelastic) and that very large increases in wages would be needed to induce even moderate increases in nurse labour supply', adding that the 'weak role of wage increases in promoting nurse supply is also supported by recent qualitative studies..”
I misread your original comment regarding uniqueness. I now understand what you meant. The situation for doctors in the U.S.:
It’s a field that requires highly motivated, highly intelligent people to go through the process. There is a high opportunity costs involved due to the 10 - 12 years of required training at little or no pay. A massive debt is incurred to become a doctor. The people entering the field have the talent and ability to do something else that has high pay or is otherwise rewarding.
As such, attracting people into the field must take into account the ability to service the debt. Suppose starting next year all graduating med students were forevermore saddled with a $1 million med school tax upon graduation in form of a debt to the Treasury at 5% interest. Salaries for incoming doctors would eventually have to rise to take this into account in order to attract talent. Clearly the large debt incurred in order to become a doctor has some effect on the salary necessary to attract talent.
It's not like schools decided to charge far beyond what anyone would pay, and later the wages rose to pay for that debt beyond what people could previously pay. It's more that as wages rose, due to demand, school increased prices to capture what the market would bear to provide those skills.
It’s the case that this model of how things work is too simplistic. There’s a dance between the different forces at play. Each of the forces involved evolves over time and they all adjust over time to each other. That is the proper modeling of such things.
>As such, attracting people into the field must take into account the ability to service the debt. Suppose starting next year all graduating med students were forevermore saddled with a $1 million med school tax upon graduation in form of a debt to the Treasury at 5% interest. Salaries for incoming doctors would eventually have to rise to take this into account in order to attract talent.
The easy way to conceptualize this is the waiting list for medschool.
Today the line is out the door and around the corner. As tuition goes up, the line will start shrinking. Only after the line is gone and fewer doctors are graduating will salaries start rising.
It's mostly the other way around. Because of demand, doctor's salaries are high, and so the cost of education increases because new doctors can absorb the high loan payments.
I believe there is a dance between these various quantities. Overall, my claim is that large med school debt does play a role in high doctor salaries. I don’t claim it is the only factor but just that it is a factor. I further claim that if med school was free them doctor salaries wouldn’t have to be quite as high as they are. That is, the same number of people would be aspire to be doctors with med school being free but doctor’s salaries being x% lower.
>That is, the same number of people would be aspire to be doctors with med school being free but doctor’s salaries being x% lower.
I think the point others are making is that there is already a surplus of people that want to be doctors and a fixed number of a medical degrees in both scenarios.
If doctors already make more than enough to pay off their medical debt, what would change to make them start accepting lower salaries? It seems that the salary is driven by competition between hospitals (demand ) opposed to what doctors are willing to take. I guess it is possible that doctors without school debt would less actively chase higher salaries, so perhaps there is some small impact there.
That said, it seems by far the best solution is still more doctors, with or without school debt.
If doctors already make more than enough to pay off their medical debt, what would change to make them start accepting lower salaries..
If med school were free then salary required to live at the required standard would go down since the need to service the debt would no longer be there.
I think that is the point. What is the "required standard" where doctors refuse more money?
I don't think there is one. If doctor can live on 100k a year, they can also live on 500k a year. If you were a doctor, which job would you pick? Hospitals will always compete on salary because there aren't enough doctors to go around, and they don't want to be the one without a doctor.
Sure, some people might settle for a low-ball salary for personal reasons if they don't have debt, but I think the vast majority would follow the salary.
Outside in testing is great but I typically do automated outside in testing and only manual at the end. The loop process of testing needs to be repeatable and fast, manual is too slow