Tom Joad wrote: Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
Tom Joad wrote:Antitrust bros, would it be illegal if all firms agreed to drop associate salaries to $80,000 max? It would seem to be a good move for the partners and really pretty fair to associates.
I'm deciding to procede as though this is not a troll post.
Are you high? I guess associates getting back 17-25% of the revenue they generate is just a crazily high percentage while partners take home millions, huh? Why, it's getting to the point where partners won't even be to afford a personal chef for their summer homes. I don't want to hear any talk of "fair to associates" when PPP is reaching record levels while law school costs $300,000 and associates watched as inflation ate up 10% of the real value of the dollar since associate salaries were last raised six and a half years ago.
Also, the type of person who's desperate enough to work long hours in a Biglaw environment for $80k probably isn't the type of person you'd want to hire. Biglaw is going to take the hit soon from all the potential 170+ kids who realized law was a profession headed in the wrong direction.
No, I am not high. But if I was a partner my first loyalties would be to my fellow partners and my clients. So I would try my best to make as much money for partners to keep them happy and attract new talent. And I would try to make costs as low as possible for my clients.
Not sure why associates wouldn't be thrilled to be in the top 1 percent of the 20 something workforce. And there are plenty of 165 LSAT people out there. Why would I need 170+ people? And lots of people don't take out loans or pay the full way so I don't see how that is relevant.
You sound like one of those people who just want to be a lawyer for the money.
And you sound like a callous boomer who has never heard of the term "opportunity cost."
Associates would be "thrilled to be in the top 1 percent of the 20-something workforce"? No, they'd immediately default left and right because law school would cost three and a half years salary. Anyone worth their salt would never go. And if you don't think having high-performing students is relevant to Biglaw, then I guess you should start telling them to hire from TTTs, because they seem to care. A lot.
It's not about "being it in for the money" when you go into $300k of debt, spend three years of your life in school, and you still have to work 60 hours a week. It's about being paid something that justifies the sacrifice of the time and money to go to law school, and having a salary that would actually allow you to pay back your loans. Maybe I'd only make $50k in my alternate job, but it would be 40 hours a week in a low-pressure environment. I wouldn't go to law school unless I could make at least $125k coming out. Just because I enjoy the law doesn't mean I'm going to make a financially retarded decision.