AT some point you hit diminishing returns on the pay/QAL ratio.

IF the tradeoff is bad at 200k/yr, it wont be better at 225k/yr or 250k/yr

Then increase the pay even more or increase the quality of life at work.

Instead of $250k, halve the work load somehow and make it two $125k.

If there is no number, then society cannot afford it.

But this is nursing, not trying to find ways around the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If nurses received $300k/year income, then there probably would not be a shortage since the barrier to entry is not that high.

If we really want to get down to the nitty gritty of it, most people cannot afford quality nurse care (or doctors or hospitals). So the question really comes down to how much wealth is society willing to redistribute to those who need it in the form of healthcare?

Totally agree. With lowering wages and cranking out more nurses. I think this is a more sustainable solution.

Sure, but nurses are more like 30-40k/yr. Plenty of room for improvement.

> Sure, but nurses are more like 30-40k/yr. Plenty of room for improvement.

“Nurses” can be used to mean many things (CNAs, LVNs/LPNs, RNs) but this is specifically RNs, who, make much more than that, generally (median $77.6k/yr) https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/mobile/registered-nurses....

> median $77.6k/yr

Given the amount of school a nurse must have, that’s low.

2 years of school to be an RN, 4 for BSN - it's not a lot of school, it's an average amount of school at most.

The point is that I know nurses that make 200k a year and still complain about the workload. More nurses and better hours is the solution. Meanwhile the trend is to make it more and more difficult to become a nurse and higher and higher for hospitals to have nurses

>>Sure, but nurses are more like 30-40k/yr.

Not even close if you are talking about the USA (and actual nurses, not CNA's or MAs) - starting pay for 2 year RN degrees near me are about 55-65K, and you easily go over 100K in a few years.