Huge pay cut to go in-house

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Wipfelder

Silver
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:26 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Wipfelder » Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:15 pm

Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Phil Brooks » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:02 pm

kalvano wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote: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?


This is silly. If I can work hard now to ensure that my kid doesn't have to have student loans when he goes to college, then I for damn sure want to do so. That's not spoiling your kid. If my son works hard and gets good grades and is generally doing things right, I have no issue paying for his schooling (and have already set aside money to do so). I have no issue hiring tutors or other people to help ensure he can go far in life, if its a worthwhile endeavor to do so.

Spoiling your kid is buying him whatever he wants regardless of whether he deserves it or not.


You can of course pay your child's way through life, but then when your child is an adult he better not be one of these self-deluded jerks who says, "I accomplished what I did only thanks to my own hard work, and therefore I should not have to pay any taxes." No, your child started life on third base thanks to YOUR hard work, not his. And the taxes go towards helping those who had to start from home, who weren't deposited onto third base at birth.

Unearned advantage is unearned advantage, whether it comes from the lottery or from one's parents.

Your comment about student loans gets exactly at the point: Wouldn't it be better if we spent our time working so that college was available to everyone who has the grades?

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Phil Brooks » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:06 pm

Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327219
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:11 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote: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?


No. You obviously don't have children. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on here.

Accidental anon- ClubberLang

ClubberLang

Bronze
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby ClubberLang » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:24 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
kalvano wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote: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?


This is silly. If I can work hard now to ensure that my kid doesn't have to have student loans when he goes to college, then I for damn sure want to do so. That's not spoiling your kid. If my son works hard and gets good grades and is generally doing things right, I have no issue paying for his schooling (and have already set aside money to do so). I have no issue hiring tutors or other people to help ensure he can go far in life, if its a worthwhile endeavor to do so.

Spoiling your kid is buying him whatever he wants regardless of whether he deserves it or not.


You can of course pay your child's way through life, but then when your child is an adult he better not be one of these self-deluded jerks who says, "I accomplished what I did only thanks to my own hard work, and therefore I should not have to pay any taxes." No, your child started life on third base thanks to YOUR hard work, not his. And the taxes go towards helping those who had to start from home, who weren't deposited onto third base at birth.

Unearned advantage is unearned advantage, whether it comes from the lottery or from one's parents.

Your comment about student loans gets exactly at the point: Wouldn't it be better if we spent our time working so that college was available to everyone who has the grades?


You've really gone off the deep end Pinko. Taking care of your offspring and providing them advantages is one of the primary reasons why people work hard. But I'm sure everything you do is for the common good. Honest question, are you leaving everything to the government in your will?

Wipfelder

Silver
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:26 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Wipfelder » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:51 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.


But like, how far does that go? Many kids in the US do not have adequate nutrition, should we all ensure our children are malnourished? Many kids live in violent areas in violent situations, should I randomly fire a gun into my children's room to make sure they don't gain an unfair advantage?

It's a global economy, Americans have huge advantages over almost everyone in the world, how do we compensate for that?

User avatar
kalvano

Diamond
Posts: 11952
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby kalvano » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:59 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
kalvano wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote: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?


This is silly. If I can work hard now to ensure that my kid doesn't have to have student loans when he goes to college, then I for damn sure want to do so. That's not spoiling your kid. If my son works hard and gets good grades and is generally doing things right, I have no issue paying for his schooling (and have already set aside money to do so). I have no issue hiring tutors or other people to help ensure he can go far in life, if its a worthwhile endeavor to do so.

Spoiling your kid is buying him whatever he wants regardless of whether he deserves it or not.


You can of course pay your child's way through life, but then when your child is an adult he better not be one of these self-deluded jerks who says, "I accomplished what I did only thanks to my own hard work, and therefore I should not have to pay any taxes." No, your child started life on third base thanks to YOUR hard work, not his. And the taxes go towards helping those who had to start from home, who weren't deposited onto third base at birth.

Unearned advantage is unearned advantage, whether it comes from the lottery or from one's parents.

Your comment about student loans gets exactly at the point: Wouldn't it be better if we spent our time working so that college was available to everyone who has the grades?


1. This makes no sense.

2. You obviously don't have kids.

3. You are (wrongly) conflating a desire to make sure my child is well-positioned to do what he wants in life with spoiling him. They are not the same thing. The advantage is not "unearned," I work my ass off to make sure he has these opportunities. Further, if he ever thinks that he is somehow entitled to those opportunities, as opposed to having to meet certain standards to retain them, I have zero problem yanking those opportunities. I'm not paying for his college education if he's turning in C's and D's.
Last edited by kalvano on Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rahviveh

Gold
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Rahviveh » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:00 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.


I looked up your posts and you work in biglaw. If you'd like to continue your sermon please quit immediately.

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Phil Brooks » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:15 pm

Wipfelder wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.


But like, how far does that go? Many kids in the US do not have adequate nutrition, should we all ensure our children are malnourished? Many kids live in violent areas in violent situations, should I randomly fire a gun into my children's room to make sure they don't gain an unfair advantage?

It's a global economy, Americans have huge advantages over almost everyone in the world, how do we compensate for that?


Good questions. Of course there's a limit. I would focus on the three main institutional drivers of inequality of opportunity: public education, property ownership, and inheritance.

First, education sets you up for life, but there is huge disparity in funding levels for public schools in this country, where schools in the suburbs have the latest fancy technologies while schools in the cities lack up-to-date textbooks. The reason for this is that in the United States, unlike in every developed country that outperforms the U.S. on test scores, public schools are funded from neighborhood property taxes rather than at a centralized level. I would greatly lower property taxes in order to increase state taxes and centralize school funding to the state level. There are already some lawsuits under state constitutions that seek to achieve this goal (i.e. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/nyre ... ders.html; http://www.elc-pa.org/2016/06/16/pa-sup ... g-lawsuit/)

Second, people build wealth in this country by owning property, but some banks have discriminated and continue to discriminate against black and Hispanic borrowers with good incomes and good credit scores by charging them higher terms or denying them mortgages altogether (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-jpmor ... SKBN1521TY). This effectively prevents them from owning high-value property and building wealth. I would aggressively enforce fair housing laws.

Third, yes, I do believe that inheritance is unearned income just like money from a casino or the lottery. Right now there is no tax on the first $5.49 million of inherited income (https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/11 ... rates.aspx). I think that's outrageous and I would lower that to $1 million, and use the money from the estate tax to fund education.

ClubberLang

Bronze
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby ClubberLang » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:24 pm

Phil, you sound like the type of guy that hands out raisins on Halloween.

Wipfelder

Silver
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:26 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Wipfelder » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:27 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.


But like, how far does that go? Many kids in the US do not have adequate nutrition, should we all ensure our children are malnourished? Many kids live in violent areas in violent situations, should I randomly fire a gun into my children's room to make sure they don't gain an unfair advantage?

It's a global economy, Americans have huge advantages over almost everyone in the world, how do we compensate for that?


Good questions. Of course there's a limit. I would focus on the three main institutional drivers of inequality of opportunity: public education, property ownership, and inheritance.

First, education sets you up for life, but there is huge disparity in funding levels for public schools in this country, where schools in the suburbs have the latest fancy technologies while schools in the cities lack up-to-date textbooks. The reason for this is that in the United States, unlike in every developed country that outperforms the U.S. on test scores, public schools are funded from neighborhood property taxes rather than at a centralized level. I would greatly lower property taxes in order to increase state taxes and centralize school funding to the state level. There are already some lawsuits under state constitutions that seek to achieve this goal (i.e. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/nyre ... ders.html; http://www.elc-pa.org/2016/06/16/pa-sup ... g-lawsuit/)

Second, people build wealth in this country by owning property, but some banks have discriminated and continue to discriminate against black and Hispanic borrowers with good incomes and good credit scores by charging them higher terms or denying them mortgages altogether (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-jpmor ... SKBN1521TY). This effectively prevents them from owning high-value property and building wealth. I would aggressively enforce fair housing laws.

Third, yes, I do believe that inheritance is unearned income just like money from a casino or the lottery. Right now there is no tax on the first $5.49 million of inherited income (https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/11 ... rates.aspx). I think that's outrageous and I would lower that to $1 million, and use the money from the estate tax to fund education.


But those are social policies far outside our conversation, i.e., doing the best you can, with a mix of time and money, to help your kids have the best opportunities they can in life. And, of course, public education is far from equal, but probably outside the discussion at hand.

I'm hesitant to give so much power to state governments, as they are far less efficient than the average country that outperforms the US on test scores. Its much easier to maximize money spent on education when your an ethnically homogeneous, politically accessible nation. I'm not saying the situation as we have it now is ideal (far from it), but that our state governments will "help", ehhhhhhh. That may be a situation where you get equality by relegating everyone to the lowest common denominator......

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Phil Brooks » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:28 pm

Rahviveh wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.


I looked up your posts and you work in biglaw. If you'd like to continue your sermon please quit immediately.


Why? There are many fields in BigLaw besides corporate M&A. Maybe I help fund renewable energy projects. Maybe I help sue dictators. Maybe I help represent classes of homeowners who were foreclosed upon during the financial crisis. There are BigLaw firms that do all of these things.

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1482
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Npret » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:29 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.


But like, how far does that go? Many kids in the US do not have adequate nutrition, should we all ensure our children are malnourished? Many kids live in violent areas in violent situations, should I randomly fire a gun into my children's room to make sure they don't gain an unfair advantage?

It's a global economy, Americans have huge advantages over almost everyone in the world, how do we compensate for that?


Good questions. Of course there's a limit. I would focus on the three main institutional drivers of inequality of opportunity: public education, property ownership, and inheritance.

First, education sets you up for life, but there is huge disparity in funding levels for public schools in this country, where schools in the suburbs have the latest fancy technologies while schools in the cities lack up-to-date textbooks. The reason for this is that in the United States, unlike in every developed country that outperforms the U.S. on test scores, public schools are funded from neighborhood property taxes rather than at a centralized level. I would greatly lower property taxes in order to increase state taxes and centralize school funding to the state level. There are already some lawsuits under state constitutions that seek to achieve this goal (i.e. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/nyre ... ders.html; http://www.elc-pa.org/2016/06/16/pa-sup ... g-lawsuit/)

Second, people build wealth in this country by owning property, but some banks have discriminated and continue to discriminate against black and Hispanic borrowers with good incomes and good credit scores by charging them higher terms or denying them mortgages altogether (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-jpmor ... SKBN1521TY). This effectively prevents them from owning high-value property and building wealth. I would aggressively enforce fair housing laws.

Third, yes, I do believe that inheritance is unearned income just like money from a casino or the lottery. Right now there is no tax on the first $5.49 million of inherited income (https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/11 ... rates.aspx). I think that's outrageous and I would lower that to $1 million, and use the money from the estate tax to fund education.


Not to burst your bubble regarding the wonderful job states do with funding, but New York State has owed schools money for a decade or more. I wouldn't trust any state legislature to responsibly and equably support education from a large pot of money.

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Phil Brooks » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:31 pm

Wipfelder wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.


But like, how far does that go? Many kids in the US do not have adequate nutrition, should we all ensure our children are malnourished? Many kids live in violent areas in violent situations, should I randomly fire a gun into my children's room to make sure they don't gain an unfair advantage?

It's a global economy, Americans have huge advantages over almost everyone in the world, how do we compensate for that?


Good questions. Of course there's a limit. I would focus on the three main institutional drivers of inequality of opportunity: public education, property ownership, and inheritance.

First, education sets you up for life, but there is huge disparity in funding levels for public schools in this country, where schools in the suburbs have the latest fancy technologies while schools in the cities lack up-to-date textbooks. The reason for this is that in the United States, unlike in every developed country that outperforms the U.S. on test scores, public schools are funded from neighborhood property taxes rather than at a centralized level. I would greatly lower property taxes in order to increase state taxes and centralize school funding to the state level. There are already some lawsuits under state constitutions that seek to achieve this goal (i.e. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/nyre ... ders.html; http://www.elc-pa.org/2016/06/16/pa-sup ... g-lawsuit/)

Second, people build wealth in this country by owning property, but some banks have discriminated and continue to discriminate against black and Hispanic borrowers with good incomes and good credit scores by charging them higher terms or denying them mortgages altogether (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-jpmor ... SKBN1521TY). This effectively prevents them from owning high-value property and building wealth. I would aggressively enforce fair housing laws.

Third, yes, I do believe that inheritance is unearned income just like money from a casino or the lottery. Right now there is no tax on the first $5.49 million of inherited income (https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/11 ... rates.aspx). I think that's outrageous and I would lower that to $1 million, and use the money from the estate tax to fund education.


But those are social policies far outside our conversation, i.e., doing the best you can, with a mix of time and money, to help your kids have the best opportunities they can in life. And, of course, public education is far from equal, but probably outside the discussion at hand.

I'm hesitant to give so much power to state governments, as they are far less efficient than the average country that outperforms the US on test scores. Its much easier to maximize money spent on education when your an ethnically homogeneous, politically accessible nation. I'm not saying the situation as we have it now is ideal (far from it), but that our state governments will "help", ehhhhhhh. That may be a situation where you get equality by relegating everyone to the lowest common denominator......


How does the presence of ethnic and racial minorities prevent us from maximizing money spent on education? I've never understood this argument.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327219
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:50 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote: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?


Yes, we have NORMALIZED parents wanting better for their kids than they want for others. Oh the horror, biology makes us do craY things.

Go cry into your Jill Stein shirt. I'm sure you aren't going to willingly send your kid to some terrible public school.

Love With The Coco

New
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:32 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Love With The Coco » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:54 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
kalvano wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote: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?


This is silly. If I can work hard now to ensure that my kid doesn't have to have student loans when he goes to college, then I for damn sure want to do so. That's not spoiling your kid. If my son works hard and gets good grades and is generally doing things right, I have no issue paying for his schooling (and have already set aside money to do so). I have no issue hiring tutors or other people to help ensure he can go far in life, if its a worthwhile endeavor to do so.

Spoiling your kid is buying him whatever he wants regardless of whether he deserves it or not.


You can of course pay your child's way through life, but then when your child is an adult he better not be one of these self-deluded jerks who says, "I accomplished what I did only thanks to my own hard work, and therefore I should not have to pay any taxes." No, your child started life on third base thanks to YOUR hard work, not his. And the taxes go towards helping those who had to start from home, who weren't deposited onto third base at birth.

Unearned advantage is unearned advantage, whether it comes from the lottery or from one's parents.

Your comment about student loans gets exactly at the point: Wouldn't it be better if we spent our time working so that college was available to everyone who has the grades?


So let's just make college a second level of High School. I'm sure that will help society and won't lead to diploma dilution.

Love With The Coco

New
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:32 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Love With The Coco » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:56 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.


Please explain the difference between "natural" characteristics and others. It's completely arbitrary.

User avatar
Rahviveh

Gold
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Rahviveh » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:10 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
Rahviveh wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.


I looked up your posts and you work in biglaw. If you'd like to continue your sermon please quit immediately.


Why? There are many fields in BigLaw besides corporate M&A. Maybe I help fund renewable energy projects. Maybe I help sue dictators. Maybe I help represent classes of homeowners who were foreclosed upon during the financial crisis. There are BigLaw firms that do all of these things.


Yeah I'm sure your suing dictators.

Please get me those comments on the term loan agreement by COB, thanks.

Wipfelder

Silver
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:26 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Wipfelder » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:19 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.


But like, how far does that go? Many kids in the US do not have adequate nutrition, should we all ensure our children are malnourished? Many kids live in violent areas in violent situations, should I randomly fire a gun into my children's room to make sure they don't gain an unfair advantage?

It's a global economy, Americans have huge advantages over almost everyone in the world, how do we compensate for that?


Good questions. Of course there's a limit. I would focus on the three main institutional drivers of inequality of opportunity: public education, property ownership, and inheritance.

First, education sets you up for life, but there is huge disparity in funding levels for public schools in this country, where schools in the suburbs have the latest fancy technologies while schools in the cities lack up-to-date textbooks. The reason for this is that in the United States, unlike in every developed country that outperforms the U.S. on test scores, public schools are funded from neighborhood property taxes rather than at a centralized level. I would greatly lower property taxes in order to increase state taxes and centralize school funding to the state level. There are already some lawsuits under state constitutions that seek to achieve this goal (i.e. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/nyre ... ders.html; http://www.elc-pa.org/2016/06/16/pa-sup ... g-lawsuit/)

Second, people build wealth in this country by owning property, but some banks have discriminated and continue to discriminate against black and Hispanic borrowers with good incomes and good credit scores by charging them higher terms or denying them mortgages altogether (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-jpmor ... SKBN1521TY). This effectively prevents them from owning high-value property and building wealth. I would aggressively enforce fair housing laws.

Third, yes, I do believe that inheritance is unearned income just like money from a casino or the lottery. Right now there is no tax on the first $5.49 million of inherited income (https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/11 ... rates.aspx). I think that's outrageous and I would lower that to $1 million, and use the money from the estate tax to fund education.


But those are social policies far outside our conversation, i.e., doing the best you can, with a mix of time and money, to help your kids have the best opportunities they can in life. And, of course, public education is far from equal, but probably outside the discussion at hand.

I'm hesitant to give so much power to state governments, as they are far less efficient than the average country that outperforms the US on test scores. Its much easier to maximize money spent on education when your an ethnically homogeneous, politically accessible nation. I'm not saying the situation as we have it now is ideal (far from it), but that our state governments will "help", ehhhhhhh. That may be a situation where you get equality by relegating everyone to the lowest common denominator......


How does the presence of ethnic and racial minorities prevent us from maximizing money spent on education? I've never understood this argument.


There is a strong correlation between diversity and lack of efficiency in education. This is pretty well settled I'm certain. There are also issues with geographical distance, population mass and inherent "rights issues" that those smaller, homogenous countries don't have.

I think, though, that is a net strength overall. Having lived many years in Europe and other places, I fee like the US population is much better suited to meet the future, global economies needs than most of th we countries, even though they have more equitable, efficient education systems.

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Phil Brooks » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:55 pm

Rahviveh wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
Rahviveh wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.


I looked up your posts and you work in biglaw. If you'd like to continue your sermon please quit immediately.


Why? There are many fields in BigLaw besides corporate M&A. Maybe I help fund renewable energy projects. Maybe I help sue dictators. Maybe I help represent classes of homeowners who were foreclosed upon during the financial crisis. There are BigLaw firms that do all of these things.


Yeah I'm sure your suing dictators.

Please get me those comments on the term loan agreement by COB, thanks.


Lol, ever heard of the field investment arbitration? Here is an example of that field being used to sue a dictator: https://www.iisd.org/itn/2014/09/04/yuk ... on-awards/
Last edited by Phil Brooks on Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Phil Brooks » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:59 pm

Love With The Coco wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
kalvano wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote: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?


This is silly. If I can work hard now to ensure that my kid doesn't have to have student loans when he goes to college, then I for damn sure want to do so. That's not spoiling your kid. If my son works hard and gets good grades and is generally doing things right, I have no issue paying for his schooling (and have already set aside money to do so). I have no issue hiring tutors or other people to help ensure he can go far in life, if its a worthwhile endeavor to do so.

Spoiling your kid is buying him whatever he wants regardless of whether he deserves it or not.


You can of course pay your child's way through life, but then when your child is an adult he better not be one of these self-deluded jerks who says, "I accomplished what I did only thanks to my own hard work, and therefore I should not have to pay any taxes." No, your child started life on third base thanks to YOUR hard work, not his. And the taxes go towards helping those who had to start from home, who weren't deposited onto third base at birth.

Unearned advantage is unearned advantage, whether it comes from the lottery or from one's parents.

Your comment about student loans gets exactly at the point: Wouldn't it be better if we spent our time working so that college was available to everyone who has the grades?


So let's just make college a second level of High School. I'm sure that will help society and won't lead to diploma dilution.


Actually I'm for making primary and high school much more academically rigorous and closing the diploma-mill colleges. There is too much societal pressure to go to college anyway, and not enough reflection of whether academic college is for everyone. What should deter people from going to college is reflection on their academic and career ambitions; it should not be the cost of college.

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Phil Brooks » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:07 pm

Love With The Coco wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.


Please explain the difference between "natural" characteristics and others. It's completely arbitrary.


It is not arbitrary. Natural characteristics are genetic traits that result in people having different skills and talents. The wealth of one's parents or the wealth of the neighborhood in which one lives is not a natural characteristic.

There is a whole body of philosophy on this, written by John Rawls (http://www.ohio.edu/people/piccard/entropy/rawls.html)

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Phil Brooks » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
ClubberLang wrote: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?


Yes, we have NORMALIZED parents wanting better for their kids than they want for others. Oh the horror, biology makes us do craY things.

Go cry into your Jill Stein shirt. I'm sure you aren't going to willingly send your kid to some terrible public school.


Triggered much? That is not what I said.

As evidenced by this thread, people tolerate a society with unjustifiable inequalities of opportunity, as long as they can be the lucky few who have access to the opportunities. This is what we have normalized.

And since your only argument is to accuse me of hypocrisy, I have done and continue to do my part to try to make public schools less terrible before, during, and still after law school by assisting in impact litigation designed to increase education funding and volunteering in underfunded schools in my neighborhood. If you would like to help but don't have time to volunteer due to your job and family, there are plenty of organizations to donate to. Here is one: https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/edlawcenterpa.

User avatar
star fox

Diamond
Posts: 20789
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby star fox » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:26 pm

Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:
Phil Brooks wrote:
Wipfelder wrote:Yea, that's crazy that someone would think that was somehow immoral.

I mean, what if you kid gets his height from his father? Should he crouch when playing basketball be use he's been given an unfair advantage?


Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in natural characteristics are unavoidable.

Differences in outcome that are the result of differences in other unearned advantages are something that we, as a society, can and should prevent.


But like, how far does that go? Many kids in the US do not have adequate nutrition, should we all ensure our children are malnourished? Many kids live in violent areas in violent situations, should I randomly fire a gun into my children's room to make sure they don't gain an unfair advantage?

It's a global economy, Americans have huge advantages over almost everyone in the world, how do we compensate for that?


Good questions. Of course there's a limit. I would focus on the three main institutional drivers of inequality of opportunity: public education, property ownership, and inheritance.

First, education sets you up for life, but there is huge disparity in funding levels for public schools in this country, where schools in the suburbs have the latest fancy technologies while schools in the cities lack up-to-date textbooks. The reason for this is that in the United States, unlike in every developed country that outperforms the U.S. on test scores, public schools are funded from neighborhood property taxes rather than at a centralized level. I would greatly lower property taxes in order to increase state taxes and centralize school funding to the state level. There are already some lawsuits under state constitutions that seek to achieve this goal (i.e. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/nyre ... ders.html; http://www.elc-pa.org/2016/06/16/pa-sup ... g-lawsuit/)

Second, people build wealth in this country by owning property, but some banks have discriminated and continue to discriminate against black and Hispanic borrowers with good incomes and good credit scores by charging them higher terms or denying them mortgages altogether (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-jpmor ... SKBN1521TY). This effectively prevents them from owning high-value property and building wealth. I would aggressively enforce fair housing laws.

Third, yes, I do believe that inheritance is unearned income just like money from a casino or the lottery. Right now there is no tax on the first $5.49 million of inherited income (https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/11 ... rates.aspx). I think that's outrageous and I would lower that to $1 million, and use the money from the estate tax to fund education.

Ok, are you running for office or trying to convince people that they should not pay for their kid's education and instead write a check to Inner City School Districts?

ClubberLang

Bronze
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:34 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby ClubberLang » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:41 pm

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?



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.