Which graduates are most likely to make 50k+ in their careers?

Locums always earn more, thats not surprising.
I've seen that document and theres nothing there saying 40 hours a week, it could include part time.
Of course going private is difficult, it would require specialist training. Point is, 100k is perfectly attainable as a dentist if you are to do specialist training and or work hard.
GPs also train longer than dentists and they do work longer hours.

I have also been looking into this and i agree with mariobros. The full report says dentists working 35-45 hours earned 69k. If you average it, a dentist working 40 hours should be on slightly less. probably 65-69k. The point is that budding dentists should be aware of the difficulty in becoming fully private. Every dentist is prepared to work hard. How else would they be dentists? And from all dentist only the top 5-10% would be fully private, reflecting just how difficult it is to get to that stage and be the top of all dentists. If you look at all GPs, you will see the top 10% earners who take home 300k a year.The daily mail is full of reports on them. Does that mean you can tell all future doctors that they can make 300k if they become GPs with some hard work? No. Always look at the averages coz that is what most lkely you will be earning.

And no GPs don't work ridiculously more hours than dentists. A salaried gp will work 40 hours a week coz thats what he is contracted to do. He won't go out of his way to do more work coz he wont be paid for it. Practise owners however will work longer hours as they are running a business, however the hours they work won't be much different than Dental practise owners who also run a buisness.

And GPs train for 4 more years than dentists. Not exactly lifetimes apart.

True.

And MPs in central London do things MPs in rural Wales do not.

You're seriously comparing the two?
First of all, CEO is a title, not a job. A politician does a specific job('serve' the constituency).
I'm pretty sure being CEO of an FTSE 100 company is harder. To become a person with a political appointment, you need to be able to sweet talk. If you have the gift of the gab, I'm sure becoming an MP wouldn't be anywhere near as hard as being a CEO of an FTSE 100 company.

Being an MP is going to be pretty difficult. They tend to have good educations, and be of a reasonable age by the time they get selected to run as an MP. Then, you have to run for election every few years.

It's definitely no walk in the park becoming an MP. I was referring to what it takes to do the job when I said that. I have a feeling that they work harder trying to get into office than actually when in office. I'm of the opinion that many doctors/lawyers/engineers/investment bankers work a lot harder than them.

Yes, I would agree with that. But I think it's so difficult (relatively speaking) for them to get into office, that it's not a "likely" career choice to make £50 000+.

That is true. So I guess the politicians should thank us for the comfortable careers we have given them, and actually work harder to do what they're supposed to do.

4 years is a long time, its like doing dental school all over again. Especially when you consider a dentist could become a implantologist/ortho etc in that time with a part time degree so they'd be earning whilst doing it. Not to mention, an ortho/implantologist works a LOT less hours earning around the same.

Also, 70k for 35-45 hours when you're not even a principle dentist is ****ing incredible when you think about it

Ever met an MP?

You could say the same of CEOs since their compensation is 80x higher.

Well, the big difference is probably one uses tax payers money, the other doesn't. For FTSEs, they are private companies, and as far as I'm concerned, they are allowed to pay whatever the hell they want to their CEOs.

MPs, on the other hand, are public servants, who are supposed to do things solely for the benefit of the people. By making the pay high, you are only attracting the wrong kind of people. Increasing pay may attract more people who are doing it to get monetary gains, rather than wanting to serve the public.

So, yes, you can make the MP's compensation 10X or even 20X higher if you feel that they are not paid enough. But realise that it is coming out from your own pocket, and that may just attract those who want to do it for the money.

Well, the big difference is probably one uses tax payers money, the other doesn't. For FTSEs, they are private companies, and as far as I'm concerned, they are allowed to pay whatever the hell they want to their CEOs.

MPs, on the other hand, are public servants, who are supposed to do things solely for the benefit of the people. By making the pay high, you are only attracting the wrong kind of people. Increasing pay may attract more people who are doing it to get monetary gains, rather than wanting to serve the public.

So, yes, you can make the MP's compensation 10X or even 20X higher if you feel that they are not paid enough. But realise that it is coming out from your own pocket, and that may just attract those who want to do it for the money.

A high salary is going to help pay off debts for sure but if all things were equal what would ppl most want in their job?

I think you miss the point about why MPs are paid in the first place.

Also the majority of MPs take a pay cut to enter the House.


Posted from TSR Mobile

A high salary is going to help pay off debts for sure but if all things were equal what would ppl most want in their job?

A high salary is going to help pay off debts for sure but if all things were equal what would ppl most want in their job?