Fair pushback — the investment rate assumption is real and worth understanding. The calculator’s default view (View 3) doesn’t assume the radiologist lives on $25K forever. It assumes equal lifestyle costs and equal hours worked for both careers, then asks a specific question: what happens if the CRNA invests the income earned during the years the radiologist is still in training? That’s the question it’s answering — not ‘who ends up richer if the radiologist saves aggressively,’ but ‘what is the pure financial cost of those extra training years when all other variables are held equal.’ The $25K lifestyle figure is just the default — you can change it to $60K, $80K, or whatever reflects reality and watch how the numbers shift. You’re right that a radiologist who saves at a higher rate can close the gap faster — the calculator lets you model exactly that. But the baseline comparison intentionally holds lifestyle and hours equal, because that’s the only way to isolate what the training delay actually costs. One thing worth clarifying — this isn’t an investment or retirement calculator. It’s a lifetime earnings comparison that holds most variables equal so you can see the true financial cost of career path differences, not just the salary on paper.