UVAIce wrote: laotze wrote:
UVAIce wrote:Just making six figures puts you in the top 7% of salaries. Maybe not rich but certainly a substantial income in your 20s.
There really should be a positive net worth requirement for this standard. I would never assume a recent law graduate was "rich" even if employed in biglaw, given the number of them walking around with >$200k debt that will likely take at least
the first half decade of their career to pay off, maybe the whole damn decade depending on remaining UG debt and their city COL.
This is just stupid. You want to alter salary statistics in the United States just for lawyers?
No, and I said nothing about that. I'm talking about off-the-cuff street definitions of wealth, not altering the fucking BLS metrics for income reporting.
Besides, even statistically speaking, anyone who sees a young lawyer on the street and assumes they are making >$100k is an idiot, given that the BLS-reported median is reflective of everyone in the field
(i.e. partners and all lawyers who secured their positions prior to the market crash), and is still only $112,750/year.
UVAIce wrote:Guess what, lot's of other fields have this exact same problem for entry level folks at the moment.
No shit, Sherlock; that's a pretty natural expansion of my observation. But way to be a condescending douche about your faulty assumptions.