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.
dixiecupdrinking

Gold
Posts: 3440
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:36 am

sublime wrote:Congrats and good luck!

^

User avatar
Ronan

Gold
Posts: 2080
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:58 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Ronan » Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:47 am

Way to go OP! Good luck!

User avatar
elendinel

Silver
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby elendinel » Sun Feb 26, 2017 12:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
whysoseriousbiglaw wrote:I'd rather be a teacher making 60k a year with 3 months off ....so this is a no brainer.

I don't have any money grubbing kids, though.


Not OP, but that sounds so nice it's unbelievable.. Easy hours, 3 months off during the prime months of the year (SUMMER). What a dream


Sounds too good to be true cause it is; only lazy teachers who don't mind getting fired/have tenure actually have that many months off (most spend the breaks tweaking their curriculum to satisfy whatever standards most recently got implemented, doing training, or other preparatory work). Some even pick up temp jobs if what they're being paid is not sustainable for the area they live in. And this is after school years where you're easily working longer than the school day to adjust lessons, meetings with students, school meetings, meetings with parents, etc. Good grief.

On-topic: OP I think you're making the right decision and I wish you luck. You most definitely will provide a comfortable life to your kids on this salary, given your finances. But more importantly, your kids are probably going to care more that you were physically there for them, than they'll care whether mummy and daddy bought the best house and put them in the best private school (especially if they're still young).

And I echo other warnings that partnership is never as "in the bag" as you think it is, no matter what partners tell you. I've seen associates at my biglaw firm get told every year from 8-10 "Oh this year was a fluke, but next year you're a shoo-in" and then have to take pay cuts anyway just to try again at a different firm. Not because they sucked or didn't have backing, but because it's impossible to predict what will happen when all the partners sit down and decide who this year's 8-12 partners should be. Better to leave on your own terms than to risk having to do so later to jumpstart your career, IMO.

dabigchina

Silver
Posts: 1429
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby dabigchina » Sun Feb 26, 2017 12:17 pm

I think one thing you have to consider is the quality of the company.

If we are talking about a Cisco or a Google I think it's a solid opportunity. If we are talking about Snap or Twitter maybe not so much given the risk. Given the comp structure it looks like a legit company, but who knows.

User avatar
elendinel

Silver
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby elendinel » Sun Feb 26, 2017 12:50 pm

Rahviveh wrote:People compare themselves to others in their social class, not to the poorest. The poor in NYC don't compare themselves to the poor in Africa


The definition of privilege is complaining about the fact that you can't buy a home in Manhattan or SF or buy an expensive car, or pay for private school, when the vast majority of Americans don't get to earn half of what you make and couldn't even try to live in these cities/entertain these options if they tried. Like, no, your $200k in SF should not allow you to buy a McMansion and an expensive car, if most people in the city who make less can't even afford to buy any sort of house. That's entitlement talking.

You are not living in poverty and giving your kids terrible lives if you can afford to live in SF and to give them the benefits that such a lifestyle conveys (regardless of whether you own your apartment, whether you're sending them to the best private school, etc.). You are just living in an area that has a CoL that ought to shift down your expectations of what it means to be rich/live a nice life in that area. Almost everyone else earning less than you has somehow managed to do that, even though they, too, would have a lot more going on for them in other states if they kept the same salary.

User avatar
LaLiLuLeLo

Silver
Posts: 649
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby LaLiLuLeLo » Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:23 pm

webcammie wrote:
LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I am quite certain that I will make partner if I stay. And I've been told that by a number of partners, not just one. But I ultimately want to go in-house and I think making the leap to in-house as a partner is much harder than as an associate. Partners are much more expensive and companies don't have that many "director" or "chief" or "general counsel" positions available for partners. Associates can go in as senior counsel and then get promoted within. I've seen quite a few number of partners who could not generate business, wanted to go in-house, but ended up just leaving for a different firm because s/he couldn't get an in-house gig.

And lucky for me, even though I make big-law salary, I don't spend like one. We live in a modest home and generally save around $100K a year (at least in the past few years).

This discussion is very informative though. But I'm working today and my kids want to go play. More reason for me to leave biglaw.


The partner track thing is really tough. For a bit of anecdata, we had a senior associate who *everybody* thought would be made partner. The partners in our office loved him, he was an amazing attorney, and we were all told he would be the guy.

Didn't make partner.


Do you know what happened? That's quite shocking to me.


No idea what happened behind the scenes. My only guess is that the majority of the partners didn't vote for him, regardless of what our office's partners wanted. It was pretty fucked up after the assurances he was told. Hell, even summers were told he'd probably be a partner by the time they started full time, so they should try to work with him. Dude got 100% screwed.

User avatar
PrezRand

Gold
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:31 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby PrezRand » Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:45 pm

Guys, all of your problems would be solved if you moved to TX. 200k in TX is basically 1% salary. I'm sorry Cali is lame with it's high taxes, high regulations, and asinine cost of living. The South>>>

User avatar
sayan

Bronze
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:05 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby sayan » Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:34 pm

elendinel wrote:
Rahviveh wrote:People compare themselves to others in their social class, not to the poorest. The poor in NYC don't compare themselves to the poor in Africa


The definition of privilege is complaining about the fact that you can't buy a home in Manhattan or SF or buy an expensive car, or pay for private school, when the vast majority of Americans don't get to earn half of what you make and couldn't even try to live in these cities/entertain these options if they tried. Like, no, your $200k in SF should not allow you to buy a McMansion and an expensive car, if most people in the city who make less can't even afford to buy any sort of house. That's entitlement talking.

You are not living in poverty and giving your kids terrible lives if you can afford to live in SF and to give them the benefits that such a lifestyle conveys (regardless of whether you own your apartment, whether you're sending them to the best private school, etc.). You are just living in an area that has a CoL that ought to shift down your expectations of what it means to be rich/live a nice life in that area. Almost everyone else earning less than you has somehow managed to do that, even though they, too, would have a lot more going on for them in other states if they kept the same salary.


Agreed, but lawyers (and IBankers, consultants etc.) need to feel like their slave-like work conditions earn them significantly more than average and the feeling of superiority that brings; after all, what's the point of such slavery if they can only live an existence in SF/NYC that is similar to a factory worker living in Texas doing the typical 9-5? Accepting your premise is too damaging to their egos so such self-entitlement is a good subconscious protective mechanism.

juzam_djinn

Bronze
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:23 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby juzam_djinn » Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:04 pm

whysooseriousbiglaw wrote:
JohannDeMann wrote:
sublime wrote:I know like a 7th year at a highly leveraged firm and his view is along the lines of fuck it I may as well stick around for two more years and see if he is offered a partnership worth over 100 mil over like 30 years. I don't think it's unreasonable


wouldnt take 100M and signing the rest of my life away working for the end result of being buried with 50M in assets or whatever and my kids / spouse hating me. i dont think its unreasonable but i think its ignorant about the purpose of the work as a means to end of a good life unless his goal is pure money.


Weird part is a lot of partners end up with only like 5 to 10 mill in savings.......which is shit given their salaries.

Time is more valuable than money IMO. I'd rather go in house and make 200k and work 9 to 5 than sign the rest of my life away to working biglaw. Unless you're a rainmaker partners still work shit hours for life.


Do we really think the average partnership at a v10/v100 is worth this amount? I have serious doubts about this... You can't take PPP as the average expected earnings per year. Even those who end up making PPP usually need a ramp up period where they are junior/non-equity for a while and then prove themselves worthy of equity, and once they do that they need to slowly get more "points" or "shares" or whatever metric the firm uses for distributions.

I guess I'm mainly disputing the $100M because to an outside observer or biglaw aspirant, that amount of $$$ over a 40-year career could actually sound like it's worth 30 years of stress and hard work. Knowing how much biglaw sucks, I disagree, and I also think the value of the partnership isn't even close to $100M (unless you're assuming you WILL be amongst the top rainmaker partners at your firm).

Wipfelder

Silver
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:26 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Wipfelder » Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:16 pm

PrezRand wrote:Guys, all of your problems would be solved if you moved to TX. 200k in TX is basically 1% salary. I'm sorry Cali is lame with it's high taxes, high regulations, and asinine cost of living. The South>>>


Ah, isn't that the thing!

dabigchina

Silver
Posts: 1429
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby dabigchina » Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:19 pm

juzam_djinn wrote:
whysooseriousbiglaw wrote:
JohannDeMann wrote:
sublime wrote:I know like a 7th year at a highly leveraged firm and his view is along the lines of fuck it I may as well stick around for two more years and see if he is offered a partnership worth over 100 mil over like 30 years. I don't think it's unreasonable


wouldnt take 100M and signing the rest of my life away working for the end result of being buried with 50M in assets or whatever and my kids / spouse hating me. i dont think its unreasonable but i think its ignorant about the purpose of the work as a means to end of a good life unless his goal is pure money.


Weird part is a lot of partners end up with only like 5 to 10 mill in savings.......which is shit given their salaries.

Time is more valuable than money IMO. I'd rather go in house and make 200k and work 9 to 5 than sign the rest of my life away to working biglaw. Unless you're a rainmaker partners still work shit hours for life.


Do we really think the average partnership at a v10/v100 is worth this amount? I have serious doubts about this... You can't take PPP as the average expected earnings per year. Even those who end up making PPP usually need a ramp up period where they are junior/non-equity for a while and then prove themselves worthy of equity, and once they do that they need to slowly get more "points" or "shares" or whatever metric the firm uses for distributions.

I guess I'm mainly disputing the $100M because to an outside observer or biglaw aspirant, that amount of $$$ over a 40-year career could actually sound like it's worth 30 years of stress and hard work. Knowing how much biglaw sucks, I disagree, and I also think the value of the partnership isn't even close to $100M (unless you're assuming you WILL be amongst the top rainmaker partners at your firm).

probably closer to 50 IMO. I would argue the difference between 50M and 100M isn't as big as it seems anyway. What could someone with a net worth of 100M do that someone with a net worth of 50M could not do?

Granted neither my family nor I have ever had anywhere close to this much money so there could definitely be differences I don't know about.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327446
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:57 pm

Not Sublime but the chair of my firm said partnership ends up being worth around 120 mil over around 30 years. It is a top 5 ppp firm though and probably one of the financially healthiest. A lot of that is from high leverage, and aside from wachtell that is probably top tier though.

ETA: very obviously varies by firm.

dabigchina

Silver
Posts: 1429
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby dabigchina » Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:05 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Not Sublime but the chair of my firm said partnership ends up being worth around 120 mil over around 30 years. It is a top 5 ppp firm though and probably one of the financially healthiest. A lot of that is from high leverage, and aside from wachtell that is probably top tier though.

ETA: very obviously varies by firm.

Assuming you're at a Cahill or something that's probably true. 120 is stretching it for other otherwise financially strong firms.

Also, I've always been skeptical about what partners tell associates re: the value of partnership at the firm. The incentive would def be for the partners to round up in their estimate, not down.

ETA: I mean in my previous career. I have a feeling it wouldn't be different in law.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327446
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:11 pm

dabigchina wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Not Sublime but the chair of my firm said partnership ends up being worth around 120 mil over around 30 years. It is a top 5 ppp firm though and probably one of the financially healthiest. A lot of that is from high leverage, and aside from wachtell that is probably top tier though.

ETA: very obviously varies by firm.

Assuming you're at a Cahill or something that's probably true. 120 is stretching it for other otherwise financially strong firms.

Also, I've always been skeptical about what partners tell associates re: the value of partnership at the firm. The incentive would def be for the partners to round up in their estimate, not down.

ETA: I mean in my previous career. I have a feeling it wouldn't be different in law.


Definitely incentive to round up, but I trust our chair and it is an over 4 mil ppp firm iirc.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327446
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Feb 26, 2017 6:12 pm

Wipfelder wrote:
PrezRand wrote:Guys, all of your problems would be solved if you moved to TX. 200k in TX is basically 1% salary. I'm sorry Cali is lame with it's high taxes, high regulations, and asinine cost of living. The South>>>


Ah, isn't that the thing!

I speak the truth

juzam_djinn

Bronze
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:23 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby juzam_djinn » Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:42 am

Anonymous User wrote:
dabigchina wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Not Sublime but the chair of my firm said partnership ends up being worth around 120 mil over around 30 years. It is a top 5 ppp firm though and probably one of the financially healthiest. A lot of that is from high leverage, and aside from wachtell that is probably top tier though.

ETA: very obviously varies by firm.

Assuming you're at a Cahill or something that's probably true. 120 is stretching it for other otherwise financially strong firms.

Also, I've always been skeptical about what partners tell associates re: the value of partnership at the firm. The incentive would def be for the partners to round up in their estimate, not down.

ETA: I mean in my previous career. I have a feeling it wouldn't be different in law.


Definitely incentive to round up, but I trust our chair and it is an over 4 mil ppp firm iirc.


I can't help but disagree. Unless you're at a cravath or somewhere else that is pure lockstep and there is virtually no de-equitization or risk of not getting equity at your firm, I can't see how this value is accurate (and if you were at cravath, then your chances of partnership are zilch). Just go look at top firm revenues, count how many people have the title "partner," and you will quickly see that the PPP can't be accurate and that there must be many non-equity partners. Your chair is likely telling the truth about a full-fledged partnership (i.e. equity) being worth over 120M, but honestly I think that's misleading and unfair to advertise to people who don't have much accurate info to go off of.

And yes, I agree that if the truth is actually closer to $50M, while that's still a lot of money, I don't think the difference is negligible.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327446
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:49 am

sublime wrote:I know like a 7th year at a highly leveraged firm and his view is along the lines of fuck it I may as well stick around for two more years and see if he is offered a partnership worth over 100 mil over like 30 years. I don't think it's unreasonable


How is that $$$ distributed though? Do you have to stick it out as partner for 10 years before really getting into the dough? Or are you making a million by year 1 of partnership?

dabigchina

Silver
Posts: 1429
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:22 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby dabigchina » Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:12 pm

juzam_djinn wrote:
And yes, I agree that if the truth is actually closer to $50M, while that's still a lot of money, I don't think the difference is negligible.

Again, from a QOL perspective, I don't think there's much of a difference. Sure, you might need to stay at the Ritz when you travel rather than staying at your own pied-a-terre. Oh the horror!

If 50M isn't enough to convince you to gun for partner, I doubt 100M will be.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327446
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:26 pm

We've got some data about partner pay at Dewey in the 2 years before bankruptcy (idk if there's any partner pay info posted on the other large firm bankruptcies.) Dewey went from $1.8 mil in PPP in 2011 to $1 mil in 2012. This reflects income earned in 2011 and the first 6 mos of 2012, but excludes about 100 low performing or more jr partners.

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/08/dewey-ha ... tion-plan/

Obviously this is data on one firm that took a nosedive in 2012, so it is going to be difficult to scale up to a firm above the 3 billion reported PPP cutoff, but if you look a lot of the partners listed here in the 1-1.5 mil range, they are relatively senior people who have been in the profession for 15-20 years. It probably takes a fair number of years for the average partner to hit the reported PPP numbers and many partners might never hit them. OP is also in lit which is going to have very low growth prospects in the foreseeable future. In fact I see it moving into more of a specialized/service type role eventually (lit associate here).

Practice or industry group heads seem to make bank, but again, many partners work their whole careers and never get that kind of book.

EDIT: These folks (partners) also work a lot with bankers/HF/PE guys or C-suite executives. Having to work for or around these people all day and seeing glimpses into what they make can give you a very skewed idea of what "rich" looks like even if you are making seven figures. Not defending the mentality, just trying to explain it.

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 2937
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby nealric » Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:41 pm

juzam_djinn wrote:
whysooseriousbiglaw wrote:
JohannDeMann wrote:
sublime wrote:I know like a 7th year at a highly leveraged firm and his view is along the lines of fuck it I may as well stick around for two more years and see if he is offered a partnership worth over 100 mil over like 30 years. I don't think it's unreasonable


wouldnt take 100M and signing the rest of my life away working for the end result of being buried with 50M in assets or whatever and my kids / spouse hating me. i dont think its unreasonable but i think its ignorant about the purpose of the work as a means to end of a good life unless his goal is pure money.


Weird part is a lot of partners end up with only like 5 to 10 mill in savings.......which is shit given their salaries.

Time is more valuable than money IMO. I'd rather go in house and make 200k and work 9 to 5 than sign the rest of my life away to working biglaw. Unless you're a rainmaker partners still work shit hours for life.




Do we really think the average partnership at a v10/v100 is worth this amount? I have serious doubts about this... You can't take PPP as the average expected earnings per year. Even those who end up making PPP usually need a ramp up period where they are junior/non-equity for a while and then prove themselves worthy of equity, and once they do that they need to slowly get more "points" or "shares" or whatever metric the firm uses for distributions.



Yes. At many Biglaw firms, there is a huge difference between rainmakers and regular rank and file partners. Suppose you have 10 partners and PPP is $2 million. What can happen is that 9 of them make $500k and one makes 15.5 million. Median partner salary would be a more useful metric, but isn't publicly available. On assets- you hear a lot of stories about biglaw partners being terrible with money and having shockingly low net worths despite their huge incomes. Lifestyle creep is real. It's also worth noting that biglaw compensation is very poorly structured from a tax standpoint (all cash, no benefits, and little deferral opportunities) compared to corporate pay (which often has a lot of benefits and equity).

In any event, going in-house doesn't necessarily mean saying good bye to the possibility of big money down the road. You do have an opportunity to end up GC in-house, which at many companies is only a step down from CEO/CFO on comp- you can make biglaw rainmaker money, and chances probably aren't all that different from becoming a biglaw rainmaker.

The real issue when choosing an in-house job is making sure you are working for a good company that values its legal staff and gives them an opportunity to grow. Initial pay may or may not be a good indicator.

juzam_djinn

Bronze
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:23 pm

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby juzam_djinn » Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote:We've got some data about partner pay at Dewey in the 2 years before bankruptcy (idk if there's any partner pay info posted on the other large firm bankruptcies.) Dewey went from $1.8 mil in PPP in 2011 to $1 mil in 2012. This reflects income earned in 2011 and the first 6 mos of 2012, but excludes about 100 low performing or more jr partners.

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/08/dewey-ha ... tion-plan/

Obviously this is data on one firm that took a nosedive in 2012, so it is going to be difficult to scale up to a firm above the 3 billion reported PPP cutoff, but if you look a lot of the partners listed here in the 1-1.5 mil range, they are relatively senior people who have been in the profession for 15-20 years. It probably takes a fair number of years for the average partner to hit the reported PPP numbers and many partners might never hit them. OP is also in lit which is going to have very low growth prospects in the foreseeable future. In fact I see it moving into more of a specialized/service type role eventually (lit associate here).

Practice or industry group heads seem to make bank, but again, many partners work their whole careers and never get that kind of book.

EDIT: These folks (partners) also work a lot with bankers/HF/PE guys or C-suite executives. Having to work for or around these people all day and seeing glimpses into what they make can give you a very skewed idea of what "rich" looks like even if you are making seven figures. Not defending the mentality, just trying to explain it.


Yeah, this. Frankly, I think citing partnership as worth even $50M over a lifetime is generous. Furthermore, the only way to attain that $50M is if: a) you make partner in the first place, b) you do well in the partnership and are able to generate some business, c) you stick it out with simultaneous biz generation demands AND billable demands, and d) are able to do this for 15 years or so so that you can e) cash in the bigger (i.e. $2-4M checks) when you are senior partner in your late 50s.

For every 8th/9th year superstar that is made an equity partner right off the bat, there are likely 10 junior partners who will leave their firms within a decade after making junior partner. For all these reasons, I really think it's problematic to treat biglaw partnership as a path to riches without being very specific about what you mean by "partner."

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 3:06 pm

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?

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 3:14 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?


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.

Wipfelder

Silver
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:26 am

Re: Huge pay cut to go in-house

Postby Wipfelder » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:37 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.


In my opinion, I think this general conversation of "money and kids" misses, or at least fails to directly address, the main issue. The real "key to success" is a function of time and effort spent on children, not money. Paying other people to spend time with your kids can help "fill the gap", but I'm not sure there is a fiscal substitute for just being involved in your child's life. To a point money helps, because that allows one to free-up time (only working one job, or no job, hiring people to do other crap for you, etc.) but after that, its really a diminishing return (on average, exceptions apply, etc.).

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 3:53 pm

Wipfelder wrote:In my opinion, I think this general conversation of "money and kids" misses, or at least fails to directly address, the main issue. The real "key to success" is a function of time and effort spent on children, not money. Paying other people to spend time with your kids can help "fill the gap", but I'm not sure there is a fiscal substitute for just being involved in your child's life. To a point money helps, because that allows one to free-up time (only working one job, or no job, hiring people to do other crap for you, etc.) but after that, its really a diminishing return (on average, exceptions apply, etc.).


Not that you said this, but I didn't say I wasn't spending time with my kid. I do as often as I can. But with regards to someone such as a tutor, I suck at math - paying someone else to teach him math is a far better idea than me trying to fumble my way through it. Other similar services from more qualified people can be bought with money, but it looks like some people consider that some sort of unfair advantage or spoiling him.

Money is not a substitute for actual parenting, but I don't consider it "spoiling" my kid to spend money that I work hard for on worthwhile endeavors for him. And further, where do you draw the line? We are taking the little one to D.C. this spring, partially just for fun, but also because there is so much to see and do that will be educationally valuable for him growing up. Is that giving him some sort of advantage, or allowing him to start at a higher level than his peers? I wouldn't say so, but it looks as if others on here may disagree with me.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.