NeedsMoreCapitalism t1_jaaxkc4 wrote

>remove all residents from the hospitals. What do you think the result would be? The answer will tell you plenty about your claim that they aren't adding much value.

Yes in the short term. We already know that hospitals would rather hire traveling nurses for 3-4x what a hired nurse would cost.

We already know that in plenty of industries where the interns and first and second year workers do lots of work, that's it's mostly used purposes anyway and the work isn't very valuable.

And look. All I did was repeat what hospitals have said and talk about why the system exists in the first place.

I'm telling you there's a chance that this is reality.


NeedsMoreCapitalism t1_jaapmmg wrote

>And imagine taking hospitals at face value that residents don't provide value. That is, on its face, a stupid claim.

It's the reason why the resident system was created in the first place. Hospitals didn't want to pay fresh doctors anything originally. It was a hastle to have them around at all.

The American Medical Association, created this system so fresh new doctors could get paid something even if they aren't actually adding much value during the time they're learning their trade, because of the time needed to train them and the increased liability.

> Residencies are traditionally hospital-based, and in the middle of the twentieth century, residents would often live (or "reside") in hospital-supplied housing. "Call" (night duty in the hospital) was sometimes as frequent as every second or third night for up to three years. Pay was minimal beyond room, board, and laundry services. It was assumed that most young men and women training as physicians had few obligations outside of medical training at that stage of their careers.

It's why they're called residents. It's necessary for the first few years of work to be extended training because no one wants to send fresh medical school grads directly into patient work by themselves.

But on the other hand, said workers are barely worth anything to the institutions because they need their hands held.


NeedsMoreCapitalism t1_ja6m7bo wrote

They're not even primarily fighting for pay. They want to be less overworked.

Additionally a big problem with that sentiment is...

Many hospitals claim that residents actually don't provide any value. It's part of the reason the resident system was created in the first place to subsidize them.

There's a chance they just say it's not worth it to have trainees and just hire full doctors only.

Roughly half of all companies only hire experienced candidates and make entry level workers someone else's problem


NeedsMoreCapitalism t1_izv9n1w wrote

NYC has it's own financial regulations. The state has its own state financial regulatory authority.

NYC has it's own complex web of small business regulations, and inspectors that overlap with the state.

NYC has a complex restaurant dlsafryy rating system that literally doesn't mean anything.

In no other place in the county does a business operator need to handle 3 separate sets of regulations.

Moreover NYC regulations are almost always written to be far more complex and difficult to stay on top of that any other state's regulations. Because the city uses fines on small business owners as a tax base.

NYC has it's own massive and complex welfare system. Why can't we have one at the federal level and one at the state level only? Why do city taxpayers need to pay an additional giant pile of taxes to support systems that spend more on the bureaucracy than they do actually helping anyone.

The city has a fucking racial justice department.

And I can literally go on forever.

"Creating jobs" is literally something politicians brag about.