Huge pay cut to go in-house Forum

[star fox]

Conversely, get rich and provide your kids a big trust fund so they won't have to worry about making money to ensure their livelihood and can devote all their time and attention to public interest and social justice causes.

[elendinel]

Conversely, get rich and provide your kids a big trust fund so they won't have to worry about making money to ensure their livelihood and can devote all their time and attention to public interest and social justice causes.

Lololol

[Wipfelder]

Conversely, get rich and provide your kids a big trust fund so they won't have to worry about making money to ensure their livelihood and can devote all their time and attention to public interest and social justice causes.

Lololol

This actually a real, notable thing. Old money families donate their time, not just dividends off their estate. (Not that there is really "old money" in the US, but you get it)

[star fox]

Conversely, get rich and provide your kids a big trust fund so they won't have to worry about making money to ensure their livelihood and can devote all their time and attention to public interest and social justice causes.

Lololol

This is what like half of the mega-rich do with their time.

[Phil Brooks]

Aren't you providing unearned advantages to the students in the school where you volunteer? What about all the other kids who can't benefit from your brilliance?

Well that's why it's good to try to help both on an individual level and on a systematic level through things like impact litigation or legislative advocacy. No idea why this topic set you off this much.

[Wipfelder]

Aren't you providing unearned advantages to the students in the school where you volunteer? What about all the other kids who can't benefit from your brilliance?

Well that's why it's good to try to help both on an individual level and on a systematic level through things like impact litigation or legislative advocacy. No idea why this topic set you off this much.

But your still providing unearned privledges to a group of people.

On one hand you say "you can't provide a child a benefit that every single other child doesn't have", and on the other.....I dunno some general policy tax stuff that doesn't go to your initial point that everyone thought was rediculous (because it is).

[Phil Brooks]

Aren't you providing unearned advantages to the students in the school where you volunteer? What about all the other kids who can't benefit from your brilliance?

Well that's why it's good to try to help both on an individual level and on a systematic level through things like impact litigation or legislative advocacy. No idea why this topic set you off this much.

But your still providing unearned privledges to a group of people.

On one hand you say "you can't provide a child a benefit that every single other child doesn't have", and on the other.....I dunno some general policy tax stuff that doesn't go to your initial point that everyone thought was rediculous (because it is).

I did not say "you can't do xyz." In fact, I said that OP can do whatever she wants. All I said was the implications of what OP is doing. If her child begins life on third base, that child better not complain as an adult about being asked to help others. The people who benefit from volunteer work do not begin life on third base.

And which of the three policy proposals I mentioned are "rediculous" ? Centralizing education funding? Preventing racial discrimination in mortgage lending? Increasing the inheritance tax? These things qualify as "rediculous" to you?

[star fox]

Hopefully they raise the inheritance tax so there can be more work created for lawyers to find ways around it. USA! USA!

[almondjoy]

Well, this was a pretty interesting thread until it got derailed horribly.

[njdevils2626]

Well, this was a pretty interesting thread until it got derailed horribly.

[ClubberLang]

Aren't you providing unearned advantages to the students in the school where you volunteer? What about all the other kids who can't benefit from your brilliance?

Well that's why it's good to try to help both on an individual level and on a systematic level through things like impact litigation or legislative advocacy. No idea why this topic set you off this much.

Because you made some inane comment about parents wanting what's best for their kids. Don't opine on things you know nothing about.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Well, this was a pretty interesting thread until it got derailed horribly.

Yeah, but why is City way better to live and work in than NYC?

[Phil Brooks]

Aren't you providing unearned advantages to the students in the school where you volunteer? What about all the other kids who can't benefit from your brilliance?

Well that's why it's good to try to help both on an individual level and on a systematic level through things like impact litigation or legislative advocacy. No idea why this topic set you off this much.

Because you made some inane comment about parents wanting what's best for their kids. Don't opine on things you know nothing about.

If you say so, "Pinko." I hope tomorrow is a happier day for you.

[ClubberLang]

Sure bro. Good luck with the impact litigation.

[Love With The Coco]

Written by Phil Brooks - http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... es/6437058

[ClubberLang]

Written by Phil Brooks - http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... es/6437058

From the article:

‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips [Phil Brooks].

[dixiecupdrinking]

We live in a society that treats a lot of basic needs as luxuries, which is fucked. As long as that's the world we live in, parents will do everything they can to pay for those things for their kids, which is understandable. It's not productive to conflate the social evils with the individual responses to them. If someone doesn't want to sacrifice their kid on the altar of a broken public education system, I can't blame them, but it certainly creates something of a death spiral when anyone with the resources opts out of public systems.

[Abbie Doobie]

Well, this was a pretty interesting thread until it got derailed horribly.

Yeah, but why is City way better to live and work in than NYC?

why would you want to live in City when you can live in the suburbs!

[Anonymous User]

Conversely, get rich and provide your kids a big trust fund so they won't have to worry about making money to ensure their livelihood and can devote all their time and attention to public interest and social justice causes.

Lololol

This is what like half of the mega-rich do with their time.

The non profit sector is mainly comprised of trust fund kids.

[kingpin101]

Truly the great part of being rich is to not have to give a shit about money.

[Stringer Bell]

Good post Sayan. The right thing to do here depends on circumstances that none of us know. I will say, it's easy to say "live below your means," but when you have children and want to give them every advantage, that is quite a bit more complicated.

This type of attitude honestly bothers me. We have normalized unearned advantages in this country, from the above kind of attitude to complaints about the "death tax."

Wouldn't you prefer that your children start on the same level as their peers, so that when they accomplish something it can be their own accomplishment rather than 90% the result of the advantages their parents handed in their lap?

Honestly in terms of outcomes what is the difference between a desire to give one's children every advantage and a desire to spoil one's children?

So "best DNA" wins? What is your end game?

[RedPurpleBlue]

Good post Sayan. The right thing to do here depends on circumstances that none of us know. I will say, it's easy to say "live below your means," but when you have children and want to give them every advantage, that is quite a bit more complicated.

This type of attitude honestly bothers me. We have normalized unearned advantages in this country, from the above kind of attitude to complaints about the "death tax."

Wouldn't you prefer that your children start on the same level as their peers, so that when they accomplish something it can be their own accomplishment rather than 90% the result of the advantages their parents handed in their lap?

Honestly in terms of outcomes what is the difference between a desire to give one's children every advantage and a desire to spoil one's children?

So "best DNA" wins? What is your end game?

Sure. There's not that big of a difference in "DNA," unless a kid has a serious mental or physical handicap or prodigy talent. It's a hell of a lot better idea than, rule by who happened to accumulate capital first.

Anyway, this thread is way off topic. Good luck to OP with his choice!

[Anonymous User]

Hi all- OP here.

Thanks again for your advice and lively discussion regarding staying at big law or going in house. As you all know, I decided to go in house and after several months I can definitely say that I do not regret it one bit. I'm much happier and my family is also very happy as well. So here are my observations for anyone who's interested.

Location/company: Bay Area huge Fortune 500 tech company; previously at big law firm in Bay Area for 6 years (ie 7th year IP associate).
Base compensation: I took a paycut to go in house, but surprisingly after taxes, health insurance premiums, 401k match, it's really only a 15% reduction in base, so not bad at all (I make around $200k in house).
Bonus: I'm supposed to get 20% but haven't receive it yet since I just started so can't comment on this.
Hours: I come in around 8:45-9:30 and leave around 5:30-5:45. There was only one day where I left at 6. And on Fridays I leave at 5 pm or earlier. I only had to work from home twice for a few hours and that was because I just started so the learning curve was pretty steep. Have not worked on weekends.
Work: I love the work! I'm an IP litigator by training but now I don't do any of that. I'm now a generalist so I take care of everything including reviewing contracts, training, taking care of random legal issues that come up.
Workload: no billable hours! I'm actually very busy with tons of meeting but my days go by pretty quickly and I take time to eat lunch now with coworkers and not worry about not billing. I also enjoy the rare downtime I have and again not have to worry about billing my hours.

Let me know if you have any questions.

[sims1]

Hi all- OP here.

Thanks again for your advice and lively discussion regarding staying at big law or going in house. As you all know, I decided to go in house and after several months I can definitely say that I do not regret it one bit. I'm much happier and my family is also very happy as well. So here are my observations for anyone who's interested.

Location/company: Bay Area huge Fortune 500 tech company; previously at big law firm in Bay Area for 6 years (ie 7th year IP associate).
Base compensation: I took a paycut to go in house, but surprisingly after taxes, health insurance premiums, 401k match, it's really only a 15% reduction in base, so not bad at all (I make around $200k in house).
Bonus: I'm supposed to get 20% but haven't receive it yet since I just started so can't comment on this.
Hours: I come in around 8:45-9:30 and leave around 5:30-5:45. There was only one day where I left at 6. And on Fridays I leave at 5 pm or earlier. I only had to work from home twice for a few hours and that was because I just started so the learning curve was pretty steep. Have not worked on weekends.
Work: I love the work! I'm an IP litigator by training but now I don't do any of that. I'm now a generalist so I take care of everything including reviewing contracts, training, taking care of random legal issues that come up.
Workload: no billable hours! I'm actually very busy with tons of meeting but my days go by pretty quickly and I take time to eat lunch now with coworkers and not worry about not billing. I also enjoy the rare downtime I have and again not have to worry about billing my hours.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Wow, sounds like you found an awesome gig, congrats!

With hindsight, if you could do it again would you have stayed for 7 years (to open more doors) or left earlier?

[Anonymous User]

To be clear, I only worked at big law for 6 years. I left early in my 7th year. And I would not change a thing. As I mentioned before, I was happy at the law firm and would have stayed but this opportunity fell on my lap and I decided to take it. but I think 6-8 years is the right time to leave as an IP litigator. Of course, if you're in the Corp group, it might make sense to leave earlier. Depends on the situation.