,,

Discuss various money matters here. Loans (federal and private), scholarships, lottery winnings, or other school finance related information and queries.
09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby 09042014 » Thu May 17, 2012 7:42 pm

According to Robert Half, you are looking at ~130K at the lower end for in-house after 5 years in places like NYC, DC and LA. Closer to 200 if you have 10+ years experience (that's the lower end).

The kind of law that big lawyers do pays well. If it didn't, they wouldn't have to pay associates so much.

User avatar
TTTLS
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:09 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby TTTLS » Fri May 18, 2012 2:47 pm

rayiner wrote:HP is laying off 30,000 people (10% of its workforce): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/techn ... &seid=auto
Thank the Lord that Meg Whitman didn't become the governor of California.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby Samara » Fri May 18, 2012 3:13 pm

rayiner wrote:
sunynp wrote:I still have never seen anyone post the calculation at a lower salary. I dont understand why that isn't as important to do. I know that the question is "is school worth it even if I get biglaw?' but part of that question is , "if school is only worth it if I get biglaw, what happens if I don't?" How will I be living and spending my income? Am I going to be struggling for the next 10 years or 25 years?


I think maybe it would be useful to do the detailed break down of what you would do personally, just to get some perspective on what it means beyond "you're fucked!" But I also think such analysis is less useful to post on a board like this. It depends very heavily on your personal circumstances. I, for example, would have dropped out, moved back in with my parents, and went back to my old engineering job. I could have paid back maybe 3/4 the ~$100k in loans accrued through OCI in two years of doing this, and left myself with a car-payment's worth of debt. For people who didn't already have a job paying that much, maybe the appropriate action would be to finish degree, get small firm job, move back in with parents until you got debt below say $100k, and then put the rest on the 25-year schedule.

Of course some people don't have parents who can support them or who live in a major metro area where jobs are readily available. These people should be more risk-averse, but then again I think with the demographics of law school being what they are, these people are probably in the minority amongst people at NYU.

I get what you're saying, sunynp, but I don't really understand the value in it. If I'm assessing the risks of choosing various law schools, classifying a certain percentage of the class as fucked is enough for me. Is it really important to detail exactly how fucked you are? Looking at the biglaw analysis is important, because if even the best case scenario doesn't fit into my goals, it wouldn't make sense to go to law school at all.

And like rayiner says, missing the biglaw boat means so many different things to different people. Getting biglaw means almost exactly the same thing to everyone, so it's easy to analyze. Not getting biglaw can mean all kinds of different things, so it's hard to make a widely-applicable model.

If what you mean to say is that people don't spend enough time figuring out what missing the biglaw boat means and what their backup options are, I agree with you. Lots of people still think you can easily get an LRAP job if you miss out on biglaw. I imagine that few people have a strong contingency plan for employment beyond "biglaw or bust." But I don't think that budgeting out a $30k income under IBR is a particularly useful part of such a contingency plan.

User avatar
FlanAl
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:53 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby FlanAl » Fri May 18, 2012 3:58 pm

sunynp wrote:
rayiner wrote:
sunynp wrote:I don't understand why people will calculate exactly how much they will spend on groceries a month from their hypothetcial biglaw salary but they won't even consider a basic calculation of the numbers at a lower salary. It just seems like people are deluding themselves and ignoring the downside.


I think we disagree on the purpose of the detailed big law salary breakdowns. They aren't the whole analysis. They're a piece of the overall analysis, complementary to the calculations I posted earlier in this thread. They answer a part of the larger question: is big law even worth it in the ~75% chance that I get it?

I think part of the disagreement stems from culture. TLS has become dramatically more pessimistic over the last three years. I think back when I first started reading in 2008, before the Lehman collapse, people would do these salary break downs to figure out how awesome of an apartment they could afford, etc. Today, they're all about figuring out if they can live on $30k/year in Manhattan so they can put $70k/year to paying off their loans.


Ok, now I see that I am maybe focusing on people posting just a part of their analysis. I appreciate your pointing that out. I did go back and look at the previous figures.

I still have never seen anyone post the calculation at a lower salary. I dont understand why that isn't as important to do. I know that the question is "is school worth it even if I get biglaw?' but part of that question is , "if school is only worth it if I get biglaw, what happens if I don't?" How will I be living and spending my income? Am I going to be struggling for the next 10 years or 25 years?


I'm not exactly sure what you're asking but I know that school's websites have LRAP calculators to show how you'll be living etc.. I was interested because I wanted to see how bad it would be to be earning 50K (about average public defender salary in CA). The main thing with LRAP jobs is that your pay is not stagnant and the benefits are very good. In a lot of cases you also have really good job security. If you aren't doing LRAP (or PI IBR) qualifying work you are on normal IBR which is 5% more payment. If you get stuck at making 30K a year your whole life, then it probably isn't the prettiest of pictures, but I'm not sure how many t14 grads are in this situation for a long period of time.

005618502
Posts: 2577
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby 005618502 » Fri May 18, 2012 4:50 pm

admisionquestion wrote:These posts drive me NUTS. Here is why.

Imagining one pay sticker at 210 of direct expenses and 40 more of debt accrual so they graduate with 250k.

You get big law and end up with 160K + bonus.

After Taxes that comes out to 103K + bonus. [tax estimate coming from paycheckcity]

Kick the bonus out of the math for the sake of making the math a bit conservative.

Then imagine living on this budget:
Image

Notice a few things about this budget.
1000 a month on rent is not unreasonable especially with a roommate or SO. (i'm sorry if your too proud to live in jersey)
300 monthly on transit is EXTREMELY generous if you use mass transit/cycling. (I'm sorry if you find that prospect unfriendly)
300 for healthcare is an absurdly generous assumption considering biglaw firms tend to have cushy health care plans.
400 for groceries comes out to about 5 dollar a meal ( a bit more if your like me and eat only twice a day).
45 cell phone (i included it but in reality I'd guess most firms cover--included to be safe)
100 wiggle room (included just to be a bit conservative).
20 a day for blowing on anything you want sound INCREDIBLY comfortable to me.

Okay so that comes out to 2,745 monthly or 32,940 yearly. This leaves you with 71,030 of surplus money. This money is used to pay off your debt. All of it is. If, in a given month you cannot live on 2745 because of some emergency, that's okay you can pay off less of your debt that month and the projects will be slightly off---but generally speaking all of the remaining money should be used to pay off your debt.

Assuming a 7.5% interest rate on your loans. You're 4 year debt outlook looks like this:

Image

By the end of your first year you will have $192,392 in debt. Second year $121,832. Third 38,219. By the end of your fourth year you will have 63,254.

So please do not say that people who make this decision are "borderline insane." Its not helpful. They are making a decision to take on some debt risk to establish themselves in a career that is highly lucrative (and rewarding at some point).

More importantly, for many of us, the alternative is a $12 per hour job at starbucks. (of course there are other alternatives like CPA which I think are highly reasonable for many people and on paper at least as good of a decision as law school).

Just to further make my point, that $12 per job, would have to live on a mere $24,000 a year. After paying some small amount of taxes lets call that very generously $20,000. Imagining one lived on the "insanely" small mount of 1/2 what I used above (i.e. 16,470) lets see how long it would take them to save what the big law lawyer has saved at the end of their 4 year stint.

{assuming no raises, since they won't be huge either way}

20,000-16,470=3530 so they would need to work for (63254/3530=17) about 17 years to have put away the same amount as the big law lawyer did before the end of their fourth year.


Got here and just wanted to say Bravo, I like this kind of thinking. Also if you have a SO that will help. I am fully planning on living based only on my gf (then wife) salary. It will likely only be 35k-40k but I am living off less than that at the moment and it wont be in NYC. I dont understand why you wouldnt do whats shown above, or if you have a SO, use their income and out 100k toward loans for 2 years and be done with it.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby rayiner » Fri May 18, 2012 4:54 pm

Desert Fox wrote:According to Robert Half, you are looking at ~130K at the lower end for in-house after 5 years in places like NYC, DC and LA. Closer to 200 if you have 10+ years experience (that's the lower end).

The kind of law that big lawyers do pays well. If it didn't, they wouldn't have to pay associates so much.


This is an important point. The pay scale would not rise so fast and firms would not pay such substantial bonuses if everyone's alternative to the firm was a $50k/year job.

blsingindisguise
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:08 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby blsingindisguise » Fri May 18, 2012 10:59 pm

admisionquestion wrote:Image

Notice a few things about this budget.
1000 a month on rent is not unreasonable especially with a roommate or SO. (i'm sorry if your too proud to live in jersey)
300 monthly on transit is EXTREMELY generous if you use mass transit/cycling. (I'm sorry if you find that prospect unfriendly)
300 for healthcare is an absurdly generous assumption considering biglaw firms tend to have cushy health care plans.
400 for groceries comes out to about 5 dollar a meal ( a bit more if your like me and eat only twice a day).
45 cell phone (i included it but in reality I'd guess most firms cover--included to be safe)
100 wiggle room (included just to be a bit conservative).
20 a day for blowing on anything you want sound INCREDIBLY comfortable to me.

Okay so that comes out to 2,745 monthly or 32,940 yearly. This leaves you with 71,030 of surplus money. This money is used to pay off your debt. All of it is. If, in a given month you cannot live on 2745 because of some emergency, that's okay you can pay off less of your debt that month and the projects will be slightly off---but generally speaking all of the remaining money should be used to pay off your debt.

Assuming a 7.5% interest rate on your loans. You're 4 year debt outlook looks like this:

Image

By the end of your first year you will have $192,392 in debt. Second year $121,832. Third 38,219. By the end of your fourth year you will have 63,254.





I would still like to pick a few bones with your numbers here:

1) $1000/mo rent is not "not unreasonable, especially with a roommate or SO" -- it's a rent that you could ONLY pay in New York with a roommate or SO and even then you're only going to be able to live in queens, jersey, far brooklyn, washington heights, bronx, etc. I guess if you're cool with living somewhere you don't like or an hour commute to your 70 hr/wk biglaw job, go for it.

Similarly, $400 for groceries -- yeah, workable if you have inexpensive tastes and don't indulge. Hell, my SO and I manage to do about $700/mo for two, but we go way out of our way to shop places like Costco. But we make almost all our meals at home. You think you're gonna be cooking a lot working biglaw hours?

How about clothing/dry-cleaning/laundry? Don't see that on your budget. You're going to go through a lot of dress shirts, you'll need a few good suits, etc., and you won't have time to do your own laundry so you'll probably need a wash-and-fold service.

No travel for four years?

No dating? No nice restaurants ever? Oh right, $20/day disposable income. Take her out for ice cream, should go well.

I mean, really, it's admirable of you to make a very self-disciplined spreadsheet. But that's all it is. There are rare people who can live like a monk for four years for the sake of paying off their loans. I didn't meet a lot of them in law school.

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby sunynp » Sat May 19, 2012 12:22 am

blsingindisguise wrote:
admisionquestion wrote:Image

Notice a few things about this budget.
1000 a month on rent is not unreasonable especially with a roommate or SO. (i'm sorry if your too proud to live in jersey)
300 monthly on transit is EXTREMELY generous if you use mass transit/cycling. (I'm sorry if you find that prospect unfriendly)
300 for healthcare is an absurdly generous assumption considering biglaw firms tend to have cushy health care plans.
400 for groceries comes out to about 5 dollar a meal ( a bit more if your like me and eat only twice a day).
45 cell phone (i included it but in reality I'd guess most firms cover--included to be safe)
100 wiggle room (included just to be a bit conservative).
20 a day for blowing on anything you want sound INCREDIBLY comfortable to me.

Okay so that comes out to 2,745 monthly or 32,940 yearly. This leaves you with 71,030 of surplus money. This money is used to pay off your debt. All of it is. If, in a given month you cannot live on 2745 because of some emergency, that's okay you can pay off less of your debt that month and the projects will be slightly off---but generally speaking all of the remaining money should be used to pay off your debt.

Assuming a 7.5% interest rate on your loans. You're 4 year debt outlook looks like this:

Image

By the end of your first year you will have $192,392 in debt. Second year $121,832. Third 38,219. By the end of your fourth year you will have 63,254.





I would still like to pick a few bones with your numbers here:

1) $1000/mo rent is not "not unreasonable, especially with a roommate or SO" -- it's a rent that you could ONLY pay in New York with a roommate or SO and even then you're only going to be able to live in queens, jersey, far brooklyn, washington heights, bronx, etc. I guess if you're cool with living somewhere you don't like or an hour commute to your 70 hr/wk biglaw job, go for it.

Similarly, $400 for groceries -- yeah, workable if you have inexpensive tastes and don't indulge. Hell, my SO and I manage to do about $700/mo for two, but we go way out of our way to shop places like Costco. But we make almost all our meals at home. You think you're gonna be cooking a lot working biglaw hours?

How about clothing/dry-cleaning/laundry? Don't see that on your budget. You're going to go through a lot of dress shirts, you'll need a few good suits, etc., and you won't have time to do your own laundry so you'll probably need a wash-and-fold service.

No travel for four years?

No dating? No nice restaurants ever? Oh right, $20/day disposable income. Take her out for ice cream, should go well.

I mean, really, it's admirable of you to make a very self-disciplined spreadsheet. But that's all it is. There are rare people who can live like a monk for four years for the sake of paying off their loans. I didn't meet a lot of them in law school.


Yes I agree with this. I didn't bother to go into the numbers because I think it is so ridiculous for a person who has no idea what law school (or possibly NYC) is like to calculate exactly how much they will spend on groceries (eating two meals a day) and lecturing people on how they should live. (FYI- along with the other unreal numbers -$300 is low, my deduction for insurance alone (no co-pays, no prescriptions) is over $300. Though if you are under 26 and your firm allows it, you can stay on your parents insurance. Thank you Obama)

My other concern is that making this fictional budget for an imaginary job makes those numbers seem real. Figuring out to the dollar how you are going to live on a salary might be a good exercise, but this poster needs to understand that what his/she is writing in a spreadsheet is just make-believe. They need to seriously consider the other realities of debt and of not getting biglaw. I think making those spreadsheets of the lower salary numbers are worthwhile because then those numbers-- and how tough it will be without biglaw-- become real as well.

I understand that no one agrees with me. I think it would be worth it to figure out what the minimum salary you need is to live even at this level and then add in debt. I know that 75,000 isn't going to leave much room for loan repayment even on this unrealistic budget.

I thought I'd give it one last shot.

User avatar
snailio
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:40 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby snailio » Sat May 19, 2012 12:55 am

TTTLS wrote:
rayiner wrote:HP is laying off 30,000 people (10% of its workforce): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/techn ... &seid=auto
Thank the Lord that Meg Whitman didn't become the governor of California.




Yeah, god forbid California actually live within its means. January, we supposedly had only a 9 billion deficit, now 4 months later it’s 16+ billion and Old Jerry is out on the hustings begging for tax increases.
Meanwhile actual taxpayers along with business are flowing out of this state, leaving who? California is first in debt in this country and third in unemployment.

You know living in reality is a nasty business, I can see why you avoid it.

User avatar
kapital98
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby kapital98 » Sat May 19, 2012 1:34 am

snailio wrote:
TTTLS wrote:
rayiner wrote:HP is laying off 30,000 people (10% of its workforce): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/techn ... &seid=auto
Thank the Lord that Meg Whitman didn't become the governor of California.




Yeah, god forbid California actually live within its means. January, we supposedly had only a 9 billion deficit, now 4 months later it’s 16+ billion and Old Jerry is out on the hustings begging for tax increases.
Meanwhile actual taxpayers along with business are flowing out of this state, leaving who? California is first in debt in this country and third in unemployment.

You know living in reality is a nasty business, I can see why you avoid it.


California is not #1 in debt. According to Fitch, it's #15. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-2 ... fitch.html).

Regarding unemployment: Guess were most of the lost jobs are coming from? Government (http://www.latimes.com/business/money/l ... 1132.story). This is common during a jobless recovery. The economy needs greater demand but the government cannot afford to finance the necessary demand.

I doubt Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman would have much impact on the macroeconomic indicators regarding California.

redbullvodka
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:51 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby redbullvodka » Sat May 19, 2012 1:40 am

blsingindisguise wrote:
admisionquestion wrote:Image

Notice a few things about this budget.
1000 a month on rent is not unreasonable especially with a roommate or SO. (i'm sorry if your too proud to live in jersey)
300 monthly on transit is EXTREMELY generous if you use mass transit/cycling. (I'm sorry if you find that prospect unfriendly)
300 for healthcare is an absurdly generous assumption considering biglaw firms tend to have cushy health care plans.
400 for groceries comes out to about 5 dollar a meal ( a bit more if your like me and eat only twice a day).
45 cell phone (i included it but in reality I'd guess most firms cover--included to be safe)
100 wiggle room (included just to be a bit conservative).
20 a day for blowing on anything you want sound INCREDIBLY comfortable to me.

Okay so that comes out to 2,745 monthly or 32,940 yearly. This leaves you with 71,030 of surplus money. This money is used to pay off your debt. All of it is. If, in a given month you cannot live on 2745 because of some emergency, that's okay you can pay off less of your debt that month and the projects will be slightly off---but generally speaking all of the remaining money should be used to pay off your debt.

Assuming a 7.5% interest rate on your loans. You're 4 year debt outlook looks like this:

Image

By the end of your first year you will have $192,392 in debt. Second year $121,832. Third 38,219. By the end of your fourth year you will have 63,254.





I would still like to pick a few bones with your numbers here:

1) $1000/mo rent is not "not unreasonable, especially with a roommate or SO" -- it's a rent that you could ONLY pay in New York with a roommate or SO and even then you're only going to be able to live in queens, jersey, far brooklyn, washington heights, bronx, etc. I guess if you're cool with living somewhere you don't like or an hour commute to your 70 hr/wk biglaw job, go for it.

Similarly, $400 for groceries -- yeah, workable if you have inexpensive tastes and don't indulge. Hell, my SO and I manage to do about $700/mo for two, but we go way out of our way to shop places like Costco. But we make almost all our meals at home. You think you're gonna be cooking a lot working biglaw hours?

How about clothing/dry-cleaning/laundry? Don't see that on your budget. You're going to go through a lot of dress shirts, you'll need a few good suits, etc., and you won't have time to do your own laundry so you'll probably need a wash-and-fold service.

No travel for four years?

No dating? No nice restaurants ever? Oh right, $20/day disposable income. Take her out for ice cream, should go well.

I mean, really, it's admirable of you to make a very self-disciplined spreadsheet. But that's all it is. There are rare people who can live like a monk for four years for the sake of paying off their loans. I didn't meet a lot of them in law school.


What in heaven's name are you buying that costs $700 per month for a couple? At Costco no less. The food budget was a bit generous in my opinion -- "biglaw hours" means he'll be working so late that he can eat on the firm's dime. You either have time to cook because it's a light day, or you eat on the firm's dime. Don't understand why this number is so unreasonable.

Should probably build in costs for laundry/drycleaning, the responder is right in that regard.

And biglaw partners commute, and work similarly shitty hours. You can do it too. To insist on living in Manhattan is ridiculous.

EDIT: If "living like a monk" seems unreasonable, then don't take out sticker debt. For those of us who are, this budget is a good approximation for how to make it work in the short term and open up the rest of our careers as debt-free attorneys.

apollo2015
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:13 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby apollo2015 » Sat May 19, 2012 1:47 am

snailio wrote: Old Jerry is out on the hustings begging for tax increases.


I get the vibe from Governor Jerry Brown that he is less concerned with tax increases than he is with presenting the statewide electorate with a choice of higher taxes/higher services or lower taxes/lower services. He may marginally prefer the higher tax/higher services scenario, but he seems fine with either option. I am pleased that he is putting the responsibility for this choice in the hands of the electorate.

User avatar
snailio
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:40 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby snailio » Sat May 19, 2012 3:14 am

kapital98 wrote:
snailio wrote:
TTTLS wrote:
rayiner wrote:HP is laying off 30,000 people (10% of its workforce): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/techn ... &seid=auto
Thank the Lord that Meg Whitman didn't become the governor of California.




Yeah, god forbid California actually live within its means. January, we supposedly had only a 9 billion deficit, now 4 months later it’s 16+ billion and Old Jerry is out on the hustings begging for tax increases.
Meanwhile actual taxpayers along with business are flowing out of this state, leaving who? California is first in debt in this country and third in unemployment.

You know living in reality is a nasty business, I can see why you avoid it.


California is not #1 in debt. According to Fitch, it's #15. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-2 ... fitch.html).

Regarding unemployment: Guess were most of the lost jobs are coming from? Government (http://www.latimes.com/business/money/l ... 1132.story). This is common during a jobless recovery. The economy needs greater demand but the government cannot afford to finance the necessary demand.

I doubt Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman would have much impact on the macroeconomic indicators regarding California.




My error on using the word debt, instead it should have read deficit, which by the way as of 4 hours ago the Times reported this.


Legislative Analyst Mac Tayor says the shortfall may be more than $1 billion larger than Gov. Jerry Brown's latest estimate, increasing the deficit to at least $17 billion.

Your article makes no mention of how many jobs lost were government, but maybe this will help you from the Sacramento Business Journal

The Golden State dropped 116,600 government jobs since September 2007, three months before the official beginning of the recession, according to a new On Numbers study.

additionally this report from MSNBC states

California has lost almost half a million jobs to China, according to EPI. Like Texas, many of these were lost in the computer and electronic parts industry. Additionally, eight of the nation’s 20 hardest hit districts are in the state. Governor Jerry Brown has proposed ways to win back jobs from China outside of the computer sector, such as green technology. In his race for governorship, Brown said that he would create thousands of clean-energy jobs, “reclaiming from China leadership of the cleantech economy.”


I'm kinda slow at math ...but I think half a million is still prolly more than 116,000

And finally this from the L. A. Times


California is even losing the battle for green manufacturing jobs. Earlier this year, Bing Energy, a fuel-cell maker, announced that it would relocate from Chino in San Bernardino County to Tallahassee, Fla., where it expected to hire nearly 250 workers. "I just can't imagine any corporation in their right mind would decide to set up in California today," Dean Minardi, Bing's chief financial officer, said.

User avatar
snailio
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:40 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby snailio » Sat May 19, 2012 3:45 am

apollo2015 wrote:
snailio wrote: Old Jerry is out on the hustings begging for tax increases.


I get the vibe from Governor Jerry Brown that he is less concerned with tax increases than he is with presenting the statewide electorate with a choice of higher taxes/higher services or lower taxes/lower services. He may marginally prefer the higher tax/higher services scenario, but he seems fine with either option. I am pleased that he is putting the responsibility for this choice in the hands of the electorate.



This is an interesting take on Jerry's motives, if taken in a moment in time might make sense, but he has been frantic since the election over the need for more taxes, only recently has your scenario become so. This is really a political calculation designed to avoid doing what leaders do...which is lead. That's pretty much why we elect these people.


Sorry OP and rayiner I didn't mean to derail the thread, I'll refrain.

User avatar
kapital98
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby kapital98 » Sat May 19, 2012 5:07 am

snailio wrote:My error on using the word debt, instead it should have read deficit, which by the way as of 4 hours ago the Times reported this.


Legislative Analyst Mac Tayor says the shortfall may be more than $1 billion larger than Gov. Jerry Brown's latest estimate, increasing the deficit to at least $17 billion.

Your article makes no mention of how many jobs lost were government, but maybe this will help you from the Sacramento Business Journal

The Golden State dropped 116,600 government jobs since September 2007, three months before the official beginning of the recession, according to a new On Numbers study.

additionally this report from MSNBC states

California has lost almost half a million jobs to China, according to EPI. Like Texas, many of these were lost in the computer and electronic parts industry. Additionally, eight of the nation’s 20 hardest hit districts are in the state. Governor Jerry Brown has proposed ways to win back jobs from China outside of the computer sector, such as green technology. In his race for governorship, Brown said that he would create thousands of clean-energy jobs, “reclaiming from China leadership of the cleantech economy.”


I'm kinda slow at math ...but I think half a million is still prolly more than 116,000

And finally this from the L. A. Times


California is even losing the battle for green manufacturing jobs. Earlier this year, Bing Energy, a fuel-cell maker, announced that it would relocate from Chino in San Bernardino County to Tallahassee, Fla., where it expected to hire nearly 250 workers. "I just can't imagine any corporation in their right mind would decide to set up in California today," Dean Minardi, Bing's chief financial officer, said.


First, the net change in CA state government since the recession is -152,500 jobs (see the Federal Reserve’s official data: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/se ... ?cid=27286)

Second, the net change in CA employment over this period, counting government, is -986,300 (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CANA). So the number is closer to ~800,000 lost in the private sector.

Third, the % of gov’t employees relative to the CA economy before the recession was 16.5%. After, it is now 16.7%.

Conclusion #1: 5 years after the beginning of the recession and both the public and private sectors have still not recovered. However, at least in California, the loss in jobs have been nearly identical in both sectors. Looking at the absolute numbers is not very helpful. It’s important to look at percent change – and both have changed in similar fashion (although if you look at the numbers there is a significant difference on when they changed.)

Conclusion #2: As I said before, Jerry Brown has essentially no impact on these macroeconomic indicators.

Note: I wish I still had my Moody’s subscription. I posted the news articles because they are quick to find. But they don’t give any analysis. The FRED links are accurate but you have to understand the theory behind the numbers for them to be helpful.

User avatar
snailio
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:40 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby snailio » Sat May 19, 2012 7:01 am

kapital98 wrote:
snailio wrote:My error on using the word debt, instead it should have read deficit, which by the way as of 4 hours ago the Times reported this.


Legislative Analyst Mac Tayor says the shortfall may be more than $1 billion larger than Gov. Jerry Brown's latest estimate, increasing the deficit to at least $17 billion.

Your article makes no mention of how many jobs lost were government, but maybe this will help you from the Sacramento Business Journal

The Golden State dropped 116,600 government jobs since September 2007, three months before the official beginning of the recession, according to a new On Numbers study.

additionally this report from MSNBC states

California has lost almost half a million jobs to China, according to EPI. Like Texas, many of these were lost in the computer and electronic parts industry. Additionally, eight of the nation’s 20 hardest hit districts are in the state. Governor Jerry Brown has proposed ways to win back jobs from China outside of the computer sector, such as green technology. In his race for governorship, Brown said that he would create thousands of clean-energy jobs, “reclaiming from China leadership of the cleantech economy.”


I'm kinda slow at math ...but I think half a million is still prolly more than 116,000

And finally this from the L. A. Times


California is even losing the battle for green manufacturing jobs. Earlier this year, Bing Energy, a fuel-cell maker, announced that it would relocate from Chino in San Bernardino County to Tallahassee, Fla., where it expected to hire nearly 250 workers. "I just can't imagine any corporation in their right mind would decide to set up in California today," Dean Minardi, Bing's chief financial officer, said.


First, the net change in CA state government since the recession is -152,500 jobs (see the Federal Reserve’s official data: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/se ... ?cid=27286)

Second, the net change in CA employment over this period, counting government, is -986,300 (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CANA). So the number is closer to ~800,000 lost in the private sector.

Third, the % of gov’t employees relative to the CA economy before the recession was 16.5%. After, it is now 16.7%.

Conclusion #1: 5 years after the beginning of the recession and both the public and private sectors have still not recovered. However, at least in California, the loss in jobs have been nearly identical in both sectors. Looking at the absolute numbers is not very helpful. It’s important to look at percent change – and both have changed in similar fashion (although if you look at the numbers there is a significant difference on when they changed.)

Conclusion #2: As I said before, Jerry Brown has essentially no impact on these macroeconomic indicators.

Note: I wish I still had my Moody’s subscription. I posted the news articles because they are quick to find. But they don’t give any analysis. The FRED links are accurate but you have to understand the theory behind the numbers for them to be helpful.



Do you realize you are making my argument for me?...I mean thanks and all but look at your original statement,
the fact that our numbers differ is of no real importance, the percentages remain about the same, in contrast to your original assertion. As far your statement that looking at absolute numbers is not very helpful, that's a nice academic way of discounting the real lives affected.

So I would disagree with both of your conclusions.

I'm done with this trading google search results ...it's not an efficient use of my time, and it's off topic for the thread in any event.

Good luck at Hastings

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby sunynp » Sat May 19, 2012 8:07 am

redbullvodka wrote:
blsingindisguise wrote:
admisionquestion wrote:Image

Notice a few things about this budget.
1000 a month on rent is not unreasonable especially with a roommate or SO. (i'm sorry if your too proud to live in jersey)
300 monthly on transit is EXTREMELY generous if you use mass transit/cycling. (I'm sorry if you find that prospect unfriendly)
300 for healthcare is an absurdly generous assumption considering biglaw firms tend to have cushy health care plans.
400 for groceries comes out to about 5 dollar a meal ( a bit more if your like me and eat only twice a day).
45 cell phone (i included it but in reality I'd guess most firms cover--included to be safe)
100 wiggle room (included just to be a bit conservative).
20 a day for blowing on anything you want sound INCREDIBLY comfortable to me.

Okay so that comes out to 2,745 monthly or 32,940 yearly. This leaves you with 71,030 of surplus money. This money is used to pay off your debt. All of it is. If, in a given month you cannot live on 2745 because of some emergency, that's okay you can pay off less of your debt that month and the projects will be slightly off---but generally speaking all of the remaining money should be used to pay off your debt.

Assuming a 7.5% interest rate on your loans. You're 4 year debt outlook looks like this:

Image

By the end of your first year you will have $192,392 in debt. Second year $121,832. Third 38,219. By the end of your fourth year you will have 63,254.





I would still like to pick a few bones with your numbers here:

1) $1000/mo rent is not "not unreasonable, especially with a roommate or SO" -- it's a rent that you could ONLY pay in New York with a roommate or SO and even then you're only going to be able to live in queens, jersey, far brooklyn, washington heights, bronx, etc. I guess if you're cool with living somewhere you don't like or an hour commute to your 70 hr/wk biglaw job, go for it.

Similarly, $400 for groceries -- yeah, workable if you have inexpensive tastes and don't indulge. Hell, my SO and I manage to do about $700/mo for two, but we go way out of our way to shop places like Costco. But we make almost all our meals at home. You think you're gonna be cooking a lot working biglaw hours?

How about clothing/dry-cleaning/laundry? Don't see that on your budget. You're going to go through a lot of dress shirts, you'll need a few good suits, etc., and you won't have time to do your own laundry so you'll probably need a wash-and-fold service.

No travel for four years?

No dating? No nice restaurants ever? Oh right, $20/day disposable income. Take her out for ice cream, should go well.

I mean, really, it's admirable of you to make a very self-disciplined spreadsheet. But that's all it is. There are rare people who can live like a monk for four years for the sake of paying off their loans. I didn't meet a lot of them in law school.


What in heaven's name are you buying that costs $700 per month for a couple? At Costco no less. The food budget was a bit generous in my opinion -- "biglaw hours" means he'll be working so late that he can eat on the firm's dime. You either have time to cook because it's a light day, or you eat on the firm's dime. Don't understand why this number is so unreasonable.

Should probably build in costs for laundry/drycleaning, the responder is right in that regard.

And biglaw partners commute, and work similarly shitty hours. You can do it too. To insist on living in Manhattan is ridiculous.

EDIT: If "living like a monk" seems unreasonable, then don't take out sticker debt. For those of us who are, this budget is a good approximation for how to make it work in the short term and open up the rest of our careers as debt-free attorneys.


I think you should be willing to listen to reasonable people who are telling you that this budget will be very difficult to pull off for 4 years. You are making plans for how you will spend money from a job you dont have for the next 8 years of yor life. I don't understand why you are defending this budget- it isn't real, so don't get too attached to it.

As far as I can tell, you haven't even taken a law school class, much less have any grades or gone through OCI, so this biglaw salary you are counting on, is right now just a hope. When you say things like - this is how we are going to pay off our loans and have debt-free careers - you know this is assuming the best possible outcome. Don't make it sound like you have this job and this salary locked up.

I would love to see your plans for what happens if you don't get biglaw. You know (no matter how much you minimize it) there is a chance you won't get, or won't keep, a biglaw job for 4 years. What do you plan for that?

apollo2015
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:13 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby apollo2015 » Sat May 19, 2012 1:29 pm

snailio wrote:

This is an interesting take on Jerry's motives, if taken in a moment in time might make sense, but he has been frantic since the election over the need for more taxes, only recently has your scenario become so. This is really a political calculation designed to avoid doing what leaders do...which is lead. That's pretty much why we elect these people.


The way the California government is set up, it is nearly impossible for the Governor/Legislature to govern without acting in conjunction with the statewide electorate. In an ideal world the Governor/Legislature could decide between taxes/spending and lowtaxes/lowspending on their own, but the electorate has restrained them from doing that. As such, I am not sure what else the Governor could have done to avoid passing the decision to the electorate other than just surrendering to the lowtax/lowspending John Galtists in the legislature.

Brown is also well aware that the statewide voting-electorate is fairly conservative in its orientation. (In the past century, California has had Republican Governors approximately 75% of the time.) As such, I would imagine that most of his pro-tax pageantry has been more to keep the democratic coalition symbolically pleased as opposed to being mainly to change the mind of the voting-electorate (which he knows is not likely to happen).

User avatar
anon2015
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 12:18 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby anon2015 » Sat May 19, 2012 1:29 pm

sunynp wrote:
redbullvodka wrote:
blsingindisguise wrote:
admisionquestion wrote:Image

Notice a few things about this budget.
1000 a month on rent is not unreasonable especially with a roommate or SO. (i'm sorry if your too proud to live in jersey)
300 monthly on transit is EXTREMELY generous if you use mass transit/cycling. (I'm sorry if you find that prospect unfriendly)
300 for healthcare is an absurdly generous assumption considering biglaw firms tend to have cushy health care plans.
400 for groceries comes out to about 5 dollar a meal ( a bit more if your like me and eat only twice a day).
45 cell phone (i included it but in reality I'd guess most firms cover--included to be safe)
100 wiggle room (included just to be a bit conservative).
20 a day for blowing on anything you want sound INCREDIBLY comfortable to me.

Okay so that comes out to 2,745 monthly or 32,940 yearly. This leaves you with 71,030 of surplus money. This money is used to pay off your debt. All of it is. If, in a given month you cannot live on 2745 because of some emergency, that's okay you can pay off less of your debt that month and the projects will be slightly off---but generally speaking all of the remaining money should be used to pay off your debt.

Assuming a 7.5% interest rate on your loans. You're 4 year debt outlook looks like this:

Image

By the end of your first year you will have $192,392 in debt. Second year $121,832. Third 38,219. By the end of your fourth year you will have 63,254.





I would still like to pick a few bones with your numbers here:

1) $1000/mo rent is not "not unreasonable, especially with a roommate or SO" -- it's a rent that you could ONLY pay in New York with a roommate or SO and even then you're only going to be able to live in queens, jersey, far brooklyn, washington heights, bronx, etc. I guess if you're cool with living somewhere you don't like or an hour commute to your 70 hr/wk biglaw job, go for it.

Similarly, $400 for groceries -- yeah, workable if you have inexpensive tastes and don't indulge. Hell, my SO and I manage to do about $700/mo for two, but we go way out of our way to shop places like Costco. But we make almost all our meals at home. You think you're gonna be cooking a lot working biglaw hours?

How about clothing/dry-cleaning/laundry? Don't see that on your budget. You're going to go through a lot of dress shirts, you'll need a few good suits, etc., and you won't have time to do your own laundry so you'll probably need a wash-and-fold service.

No travel for four years?

No dating? No nice restaurants ever? Oh right, $20/day disposable income. Take her out for ice cream, should go well.

I mean, really, it's admirable of you to make a very self-disciplined spreadsheet. But that's all it is. There are rare people who can live like a monk for four years for the sake of paying off their loans. I didn't meet a lot of them in law school.


What in heaven's name are you buying that costs $700 per month for a couple? At Costco no less. The food budget was a bit generous in my opinion -- "biglaw hours" means he'll be working so late that he can eat on the firm's dime. You either have time to cook because it's a light day, or you eat on the firm's dime. Don't understand why this number is so unreasonable.

Should probably build in costs for laundry/drycleaning, the responder is right in that regard.

And biglaw partners commute, and work similarly shitty hours. You can do it too. To insist on living in Manhattan is ridiculous.

EDIT: If "living like a monk" seems unreasonable, then don't take out sticker debt. For those of us who are, this budget is a good approximation for how to make it work in the short term and open up the rest of our careers as debt-free attorneys.


I think you should be willing to listen to reasonable people who are telling you that this budget will be very difficult to pull off for 4 years. I don't understand why you are defending this budget- it isn't real, so don't get too attached to it.

I would love to see your plans for what happens if you don't get biglaw? You know (no matter how much you minimized it) there is a chance you won't get or won't keep a biglaw job for 4 years. What do you plan for that?


Sunny D

I dont know your lifestyle choices, but this analysis is not unreasonable, and not necessarily for monks. I have lived off a similar and smaller budget (in several areas of the country, major cities, suburbs and rural areas) for about 9 years now while paying under-grad loans. In that time, through efficient use of resources and networks and bargain hunting I've even been able to pull off traveling, nice dinners here and there (thanks Groupon!) and have accumulated a decent home entertainment set-up. The budget posted is very livable, it just entails calculated sacrifice - like having a crappy/low car payment, or not having children. That lifestyle could be yours with or without law school debt. Have you ever gone through two years of unemployment? Trust me, you could be worse off than this budget. You could be working 60-80 hours a week at $10/hr with no health insurance or vacation time.

Assuming any job - law or not - is bold in ITE.

Your worst-case scenario is having $250k in debt, with no law job. You find any job, even at $10/hr and work 60-80/week. You would live off a similar budget as what was proposed. You'd pay your loans under IBR. {If your lucky, you get either a PI law job, or you work a regular non-law non-profit job for a homeless shelter, or your local government as a janitor (janitors make more than $10/hr though :D ) or something like that and your loans are forgiven in 10 years.} If you don't get the non-profit gig, they are forgiven in 25 years. If you get a SO and get married, don't file joint income tax returns. Your SO's income will give you decent options, like vacations and going out to dinner more, and their income won't affect your IBR payment.

Worst worst-case scenario, your future SO has a $250k law-school debt and no job too... then you make a calculated sacrifice and leave them. Find someone else it's not worth it. :wink:

It almost can't get much worse. If your income falls that much further, IBR continues to protect you from the crushing loans, and local poverty alleviation programs can help you survive - food stamps, child care, health clinics, rental assistance, etc.

If you feel that you are entitled to a better life.. well good luck with that feeling. You can certainly work for it, and luck out. Many do. But it's only up from the worst-case scenario, which, in this country, isn't too bad. You can be in that worst-case scenario whether you go to law school or not. In any analysis I've seen and worked on, law school (at a T50 or better) only gives you potential to have a better life (than the above described worst-case). How much better, depends on your luck. I appreciate Rayiner's analysis because, as others have pointed out, it determines a realistic risk analysis for the good-outcomes. I understand the bad outcomes - there is a bottom line to them where they don't really get worse. But understanding your potential for a good outcome is important in the decision making process. If the best-case scenario didn't look much different than the worst, then why go to school, unless you have a real passion for law or someone else is paying for it. Also, I appreciate Rayiner's analysis because it weighs the odds and pay-out. Of course you could always win the lottery, or land a multi-million dollar tort, but why consider those? You need a realistic view of the potential for good-outcome, not the lottery winning version.

Edit: Here's a worst-case scenario that you can create for yourself. No matter what you do/make, you're money is all being taken away..... but you'd deserve it :)
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-fathered-30-kids-needs-break-child-support-140439765.html

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15457
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sat May 19, 2012 1:51 pm

apollo2015 wrote:Brown is also well aware that the statewide voting-electorate is fairly conservative in its orientation.


C'mon dude. If there is one state where conservatives have had virtually no voice it's California.

@Sunynp, if things go to shit you use IBR. Below some income threshold it will become painfully obvious that getting out of debt quickly isn't going to happen.

goodthings
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:20 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby goodthings » Sat May 19, 2012 3:02 pm

...
Last edited by goodthings on Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kapital98
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby kapital98 » Sat May 19, 2012 5:45 pm

snailio wrote:
kapital98 wrote:
First, the net change in CA state government since the recession is -152,500 jobs (see the Federal Reserve’s official data: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/se ... ?cid=27286)

Second, the net change in CA employment over this period, counting government, is -986,300 (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CANA). So the number is closer to ~800,000 lost in the private sector.

Third, the % of gov’t employees relative to the CA economy before the recession was 16.5%. After, it is now 16.7%.

Conclusion #1: 5 years after the beginning of the recession and both the public and private sectors have still not recovered. However, at least in California, the loss in jobs have been nearly identical in both sectors. Looking at the absolute numbers is not very helpful. It’s important to look at percent change – and both have changed in similar fashion (although if you look at the numbers there is a significant difference on when they changed.)

Conclusion #2: As I said before, Jerry Brown has essentially no impact on these macroeconomic indicators.

Note: I wish I still had my Moody’s subscription. I posted the news articles because they are quick to find. But they don’t give any analysis. The FRED links are accurate but you have to understand the theory behind the numbers for them to be helpful.



Do you realize you are making my argument for me?...I mean thanks and all but look at your original statement,
the fact that our numbers differ is of no real importance, the percentages remain about the same, in contrast to your original assertion. As far your statement that looking at absolute numbers is not very helpful, that's a nice academic way of discounting the real lives affected.

So I would disagree with both of your conclusions.

I'm done with this trading google search results ...it's not an efficient use of my time, and it's off topic for the thread in any event.

Good luck at Hastings


I don't think either of our initial arguments were correct. I was interested in the data and reported the results. I'm not going to lie or be disingenuous just because my initial hypothesis was different.

The absolute v. relative numbers had to do with analyzing the validity of your argument (private sector losing more jobs). Your argument is not sound. The comparison was not about the state of the labor market. That's a different issue.

FRED is not the result of a google search. It is the best information on macroeconomic indicators in the country. However, you have to understand what the statistic represents for it to be helpful.

apollo2015
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:13 am

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby apollo2015 » Sat May 19, 2012 6:11 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
apollo2015 wrote:Brown is also well aware that the statewide voting-electorate is fairly conservative in its orientation.


C'mon dude. If there is one state where conservatives have had virtually no voice it's California.



They generally win statewide elections in California. The conservatives' only real weakness in California politics is in the legislature, but even there they wield a veto power over tax increases.

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby sunynp » Sat May 19, 2012 9:19 pm

goodthings wrote:I don't mean this in an accusatory way, but have those of you saying living on $35K a year is not possible ever tried to live on this salary? Or less?

It's possible. It's not even "living like a monk" possible. Saying it's not doable is just incorrect. Plenty of people do it. It takes discipline, planning, even a certain type of person maybe. But it's possible. If you've done it and can understand the difference in lifestyle you would need to account for (dry cleaning, clothing budgets, convenience food, etc) and budget accordingly it is completely feasible. People live (in New York City no less!) at the poverty level. Yes, THAT is living like a monk, and in economic misery. But you guys know that's not $35,000 a year, right?


There is a difference between living at poverty level because you are in poverty and living at a poverty level when you have a 6 figure income. Your peers, your clients and your bosses will expect you to live, or at least dress and appear, at a certain level of income and status. I think you will tire of living on that restricted budget, and tire of traveling a long way home after working all night. But maybe you have great levels of discipline.

I have only one more thing to add:

The poster who suggested, laughingly, I think - that a grad could just get a non-law, non-profit job after law school, or work as a janitor for the state government - I would not count on those jobs being open to you after you graduate with a JD. I don't think either of these places are anxious to hire JDs. What happens after you have a JD is that other employers assume you will leave as soon as you find another job, or they may assume that you will be a pain-in-the-ass because that is what they think of all lawyers. A JD is not marketable in other areas and can make it more difficult to get hired.

I'm not sure how it works to take your JD off your resume. You will have a large gap of time. I have heard that people get away with no questions asked about gaps in employment once they start applying for truly low level (as in sales clerk at walmart) jobs. Maybe the janitorial staff won't care either.

I may be overly cautious on your behalf. Everyone has all these calculations as to why I am wrong. But I do know T14 and even T6 grads who lost their biglaw jobs and have struggled ever since. I know T14 and T6 grads who didn't get biglaw at all. Yes, this has colored my view, maybe too much to the negative, but it does happen. There are people on this forum who don't have jobs. It isn't a rare and unheard of outcome.
Last edited by sunynp on Sat May 19, 2012 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jurisx
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 9:01 pm

Re: NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPAY 210K IN LOANS? HELP

Postby jurisx » Sat May 19, 2012 9:21 pm

Dang and I thought my $100K expected debt was going to suck.

Income based repayment plan. Whatever you don't have paid off at the 20 year mark is forgiven under the program too.




Return to “Financial Aid”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest