what is up with the "T14 or DON'T GO" sentiment?? Forum

[STLMizzou]

So, biglaw consensus starting salary is $165,000 / 50 wks / 80 hrs = $41.25 per hour
I'd just like to point out that my plumber makes more than that.

the thing about big law (for better or worse) is, yes you get paid a lot, but you need to work a lot of hours. some people do well under those circumstances, others would prefer to work at a smaller firm, making less money, but working less hours (and coming out around the same hourly wage)

True, I also know people who are the operations managers at higher end restaurants that work ~90-100 hours a week, and end up making good money (one guy has no college degree, and runs a nice restaurant in Chicago making 90K +bonuses).

But even working all that time, he drinks more than anybody I know, works out every day, and over-all loves life. When we are graduating school we are (mostly) in our mid 20’s pulling in +120,000K net.

I don’t think people understand how rare that is. Most people will never make that in their life. Hell, most households don’t even come close to that.
Work hard, play harder, and sleep when you are dead.

[180asBreath]

It's true. People on this board forget how ridiculous a $160,000/year salary is. I know tons of well-educated professionals who feel they have all the money they could want, and they are in the $75-$100k band.

I'm sure the hours are hellacious and the stress is unbearable, but what do you expect for a salary that equals that of 4 households?

[Veyron]

what do you expect for a salary that equals that of 4 households?

(Taxes do not exist)

[Tiago Splitter]

From what I've learned from people who have done it, or are in the process, if you want to make partner in a major law firm you need to rack up at least 2000 billable hours per year, which equates to about an 80 hour workweek

No. Anyone only able to bill 40 hours a week while working 80 isn't efficient enough to make partner.

[STLMizzou]

From what I've learned from people who have done it, or are in the process, if you want to make partner in a major law firm you need to rack up at least 2000 billable hours per year, which equates to about an 80 hour workweek

No. Anyone only able to bill 40 hours a week while working 80 isn't efficient enough to make partner.

I don't think you understand how billable hours work? First year associates are most likely going to get a ton of shit work (making copies, finding depositions for experts, finding a file that disappeared in the office somewhere, etc.) that you can’t bill for.

On top of that, clients expect a certain thing to be done in a certain amount of time (example: drafting a counter-claim for contribution = X hours) because it has been done for them a million times. A 4th year associate who has done it a million times can do it in that amount of time, but a 1st year who maybe doing it for the 5th time is going to take longer. No matter how long it takes, it gets billed as if the 5th year did it (aka, super fast).

It has nothing to do with efficiency, it is just the learning curve combined with busy non-billable work (another example: an emergency motion has to be filed that day, they may send an associate to wait outside the courtroom to be first in line when the emergency motion list comes out to make sure they get on that list. That can be 2+ hours of time which cannot be billed)

[Tiago Splitter]

From what I've learned from people who have done it, or are in the process, if you want to make partner in a major law firm you need to rack up at least 2000 billable hours per year, which equates to about an 80 hour workweek

No. Anyone only able to bill 40 hours a week while working 80 isn't efficient enough to make partner.

I don't think you understand how billable hours work? First year associates are most likely going to get a ton of shit work (making copies, finding depositions for experts, finding a file that disappeared in the office somewhere, etc.) that you can’t bill for.

On top of that, clients expect a certain thing to be done in a certain amount of time (example: drafting a counter-claim for contribution = X hours) because it has been done for them a million times. A 4th year associate who has done it a million times can do it in that amount of time, but a 1st year who maybe doing it for the 5th time is going to take longer. No matter how long it takes, it gets billed as if the 5th year did it (aka, super fast).

It has nothing to do with efficiency, it is just the learning curve combined with busy non-billable work (another example: an emergency motion has to be filed that day, they may send an associate to wait outside the courtroom to be first in line when the emergency motion list comes out to make sure they get on that list. That can be 2+ hours of time which cannot be billed)

Just trust me on this one dude. 50% billing efficiency doesn't happen at BigLaw firms. It might happen in a given week, but no one working 4000 hours a year struggles to hit the 2000 billable hour mark.

ETA: There's a reason why partners say that they lose money on associates for the first few years. In the situations you mentioned the associate may very well bill the time but the partner will adjust the bill for the client.

[romothesavior]

From what I've learned from people who have done it, or are in the process, if you want to make partner in a major law firm you need to rack up at least 2000 billable hours per year, which equates to about an 80 hour workweek

No. Anyone only able to bill 40 hours a week while working 80 isn't efficient enough to make partner.

I don't think you understand how billable hours work? First year associates are most likely going to get a ton of shit work (making copies, finding depositions for experts, finding a file that disappeared in the office somewhere, etc.) that you can’t bill for.

Tiago Splitter is right, dude. There is a difference between "billable hours" and "hours billed directly to the client." You're a 0L. Don't talk like you know about law firm life.

[BruceWayne]

Really? To me, it looks like you said: "the QOL is even worse than law firm work" (btw, thanks for bolding that....I was having trouble seeing it before). Obviously the QOL is terrible at both places; I'm not disagreeing with you there. However, is the QOL at an IB in Dallas worse than the QOL at a big law firm in NYC? Doubtful. Hence, why I said it depends where you work. If you would have just said: "the QOL at IBs is terrible" - I would have totally agreed with you. But that's not what you said.

I'm going to assume reading comp. was your weakest section on the LSAT. Am I right?

You should change your name to straw king, because you're excellent at arguing against statements no one said (by the way I'm assuming that you know what a straw man argument is; admittedly that's a terrible assumption to make). Who the hell ever asked/stated that the QOL at a Dallas IBank is better or worse than biglaw in NYC? Are you even aware of which poster you're arguing against? You seem very confused. Let me spell it out for you. I said that the QOL of Ibanking is worse than that of working at a law firm. That is so commonly known as to be unnecessary for me to explain. You being anxious to "prove" how terrible working as a lawyer is because it is so "easy" to find other higher paying jobs that offer better hours, foolishly decided to use Ibanking to support that statement. After realizing how foolish that statement was you pulled this Dallas Ibanking compared to NYC biglaw statement out of your ass--which may not even be true in itself. At least you were smart enough to back track on your earlier erroneous statement.

You really do struggle with reading comprehension don't you? I tried to help you out by bolding the statement for you. Nonetheless I enjoy helping those in need; would you like me to give you online lessons? Just so you know my qualifications I missed one question on my entire Reading Comprehension section when I took the LSAT. I'd be happy to take time to teach a moron such as yourself.

[johansantana21]

Really? To me, it looks like you said: "the QOL is even worse than law firm work" (btw, thanks for bolding that....I was having trouble seeing it before). Obviously the QOL is terrible at both places; I'm not disagreeing with you there. However, is the QOL at an IB in Dallas worse than the QOL at a big law firm in NYC? Doubtful. Hence, why I said it depends where you work. If you would have just said: "the QOL at IBs is terrible" - I would have totally agreed with you. But that's not what you said.

I'm going to assume reading comp. was your weakest section on the LSAT. Am I right?

You should change your name to straw king, because you're excellent at arguing against statements no one said (by the way I'm assuming that you know what a straw man argument is; admittedly that's a terrible assumption to make). Who the hell ever asked/stated that the QOL at a Dallas IBank is better or worse than biglaw in NYC? Are you even aware of which poster you're arguing against? You seem very confused. Let me spell it out for you. I said that the QOL of Ibanking is worse than that of working at a law firm. That is so commonly known as to be unnecessary for me to explain. You being anxious to "prove" how terrible working as a lawyer is because it is so "easy" to find other higher paying jobs that offer better hours, foolishly decided to use Ibanking to support that statement. After realizing how foolish that statement was you pulled this Dallas Ibanking compared to NYC biglaw statement out of your ass--which may not even be true in itself. At least you were smart enough to back track on your earlier erroneous statement.

You really do struggle with reading comprehension don't you? I tried to help you out by bolding the statement for you. Nonetheless I enjoy helping those in need; would you like me to give you online lessons? Just so you know my qualifications I missed one question on my entire Reading Comprehension section when I took the LSAT. I'd be happy to take time to teach a moron such as yourself.

Oh god, I love TLS.

[STLMizzou]

True. I stand corrected. I only know how it works for 1st years at the boutique I work at, and here there is no difference between billable hours and hours billed to client. They (along with myself and the other clerks/paralegals) enter exactly how long it takes to do something (.3= 18 minutes) and the managing partner of that case makes it a time they feel is appropriate and that is the final billable hours (for both the client and associate).


Because of the steep learning curve, when they started either of the 1st year associates billing 40 when I know they were easily in the office 80 was not out of the ordinary at all. Still now, 4-5 months in, neither of the associates ever exceeds 75% of the time here to billable, and they are doing (mostly) the same things every day because of my firm’s specialties and the practice groups they are assigned to staying static. This is mostly because they don’t have assistants, and they still get curve balls most weeks.

Admittedly, I don’t know how it works at big-law/ other firms. I assumed the learning curve would be greater because there would be a greater range of cases that the associates help with.

I apologize for my faulty assumptions.

[cdelgado]

Really? To me, it looks like you said: "the QOL is even worse than law firm work" (btw, thanks for bolding that....I was having trouble seeing it before). Obviously the QOL is terrible at both places; I'm not disagreeing with you there. However, is the QOL at an IB in Dallas worse than the QOL at a big law firm in NYC? Doubtful. Hence, why I said it depends where you work. If you would have just said: "the QOL at IBs is terrible" - I would have totally agreed with you. But that's not what you said.

I'm going to assume reading comp. was your weakest section on the LSAT. Am I right?

You should change your name to straw king, because you're excellent at arguing against statements no one said (by the way I'm assuming that you know what a straw man argument is; admittedly that's a terrible assumption to make). Who the hell ever asked/stated that the QOL at a Dallas IBank is better or worse than biglaw in NYC? Are you even aware of which poster you're arguing against? You seem very confused. Let me spell it out for you. I said that the QOL of Ibanking is worse than that of working at a law firm. That is so commonly known as to be unnecessary for me to explain. You being anxious to "prove" how terrible working as a lawyer is because it is so "easy" to find other higher paying jobs that offer better hours, foolishly decided to use Ibanking to support that statement. After realizing how foolish that statement was you pulled this Dallas Ibanking compared to NYC biglaw statement out of your ass--which may not even be true in itself. At least you were smart enough to back track on your earlier erroneous statement.

You really do struggle with reading comprehension don't you? I tried to help you out by bolding the statement for you. Nonetheless I enjoy helping those in need; would you like me to give you online lessons? Just so you know my qualifications I missed one question on my entire Reading Comprehension section when I took the LSAT. I'd be happy to take time to teach a moron such as yourself.

Oh god, I love TLS.

+1
gtfo

[AriGoldButNicer]

It's true. People on this board forget how ridiculous a $160,000/year salary is. I know tons of well-educated professionals who feel they have all the money they could want, and they are in the $75-$100k band.

I'm sure the hours are hellacious and the stress is unbearable, but what do you expect for a salary that equals that of 4 households?

+1. Going by hourly pay is weak. On this front, it would never pay to go to law school, because even if you could get into a top school, you can also get hired by Manhattan LSAT, and make $100/hour. However, you don't see many law school grads taking this over big law when they have the option even though the pay is more than double per hour. There's something to be said for being able to make a decent hourly wage for 80 hours. I mean, that is cleaning up. 160k is a lot of money, but how many people do you know making 160k who don't bust a**? The only people I have met who make more than this are either doctors or run their own business. It should be notes that doctors are also struggling in this economy, and many doctors who run a small practice have been filing for bankruptcy. Additionally, the pure nature of plumbing is that most jobs are completed in only a few hours, and a lot of the charge has to do with the travel to the location. On this front, technically gardening would be a more prudent choice to a top law school, as would things like prostitution, most tutoring jobs and being a barber.

[AriGoldButNicer]

honestly, i don't know think making 150k vs. making 300k would have a huge impact on the quality of someone's life unless they have a ton of kids. even after taxes, supporting a spouse 100% (which likely won't be the case as virtually everyone at our age winds up preferring to work in some capacity) and paying 24k a year in loan repayment (sticker on a 10 yr plan), 150k is more than enough to live a good life anywhere including NYC. unless you're going to a 5 star restaurant every night, the only thing 300k would do for most people is pad their savings with an extra 150k each year. it also comes back to tangible value. just based on economics, do any of you really think you're going to be worth more than 160,000 a year for your legal skills your first year out of law school? i mean, the president only makes a shade over 250k.

[soitgoes9]

honestly, i don't know think making 150k vs. making 300k would have a huge impact on the quality of someone's life unless they have a ton of kids. even after taxes, supporting a spouse 100% (which likely won't be the case as virtually everyone at our age winds up preferring to work in some capacity) and paying 24k a year in loan repayment (sticker on a 10 yr plan), 150k is more than enough to live a good life anywhere including NYC. unless you're going to a 5 star restaurant every night, the only thing 300k would do for most people is pad their savings with an extra 150k each year. it also comes back to tangible value. just based on economics, do any of you really think you're going to be worth more than 160,000 a year for your legal skills your first year out of law school? i mean, the president only makes a shade over 250k.

The economy is so bad that the ex eic of Harvard Law review is only making 250k many years out of school.

[AriGoldButNicer]

honestly, i don't know think making 150k vs. making 300k would have a huge impact on the quality of someone's life unless they have a ton of kids. even after taxes, supporting a spouse 100% (which likely won't be the case as virtually everyone at our age winds up preferring to work in some capacity) and paying 24k a year in loan repayment (sticker on a 10 yr plan), 150k is more than enough to live a good life anywhere including NYC. unless you're going to a 5 star restaurant every night, the only thing 300k would do for most people is pad their savings with an extra 150k each year. it also comes back to tangible value. just based on economics, do any of you really think you're going to be worth more than 160,000 a year for your legal skills your first year out of law school? i mean, the president only makes a shade over 250k.

The economy is so bad that the ex eic of Harvard Law review is only making 250k many years out of school.

lol this isn't to rip on obama, but also when did he haul a** 80 hours a week?

before politics.

[TatteredDignity]

honestly, i don't know think making 150k vs. making 300k would have a huge impact on the quality of someone's life unless they have a ton of kids. even after taxes, supporting a spouse 100% (which likely won't be the case as virtually everyone at our age winds up preferring to work in some capacity) and paying 24k a year in loan repayment (sticker on a 10 yr plan), 150k is more than enough to live a good life anywhere including NYC. unless you're going to a 5 star restaurant every night, the only thing 300k would do for most people is pad their savings with an extra 150k each year. it also comes back to tangible value. just based on economics, do any of you really think you're going to be worth more than 160,000 a year for your legal skills your first year out of law school? i mean, the president only makes a shade over 250k.

The economy is so bad that the ex eic of Harvard Law review is only making 250k many years out of school.

[dingbat]

honestly, i don't know think making 150k vs. making 300k would have a huge impact on the quality of someone's life unless they have a ton of kids. even after taxes, supporting a spouse 100% (which likely won't be the case as virtually everyone at our age winds up preferring to work in some capacity) and paying 24k a year in loan repayment (sticker on a 10 yr plan), 150k is more than enough to live a good life anywhere including NYC. unless you're going to a 5 star restaurant every night, the only thing 300k would do for most people is pad their savings with an extra 150k each year. it also comes back to tangible value. just based on economics, do any of you really think you're going to be worth more than 160,000 a year for your legal skills your first year out of law school? i mean, the president only makes a shade over 250k.

Because if you work/live in NYC, you can't afford to buy a home on $150k/year, even if you're willing to eat ramen noodles 3 meals a day. (spoken as someone who lived in NYC for 6 years and already has a six figure salary)

[dingbat]

From what I've learned from people who have done it, or are in the process, if you want to make partner in a major law firm you need to rack up at least 2000 billable hours per year, which equates to about an 80 hour workweek

No. Anyone only able to bill 40 hours a week while working 80 isn't efficient enough to make partner.

I don't think you understand how billable hours work? First year associates are most likely going to get a ton of shit work (making copies, finding depositions for experts, finding a file that disappeared in the office somewhere, etc.) that you can’t bill for.

Tiago Splitter is right, dude. There is a difference between "billable hours" and "hours billed directly to the client." You're a 0L. Don't talk like you know about law firm life.

I must admit, I've not worked as a first year associate at a law firm - however, I have worked with a lot of law firms and have seen it from the paying end. In addition, in my office I work closely with someone who had made partner at big law, and discussing the bills law firms send us is quite educational.

I have learned that you're unlikely to make partner if you don't generate 2000 hours billed to the client every year. I also know that, as a client, there are a lot of things we do not pay for that a lawyer needs to do. I will admit that it's not a 2-to-1 ratio, as I described above, but I have no doubt that when we pay for an hour's worth of work, the attorney will have spent significantly more time than that on the work.

Also, if you're a lawyer in IB, M&A, or related, expect to be treated like shit. I have no problem emailing a ton of stuff at 2 o'clock on a friday afternoon and requiring a full review to be completed in time to close and send wires before the 5pm cut-off.

[AriGoldButNicer]

honestly, i don't know think making 150k vs. making 300k would have a huge impact on the quality of someone's life unless they have a ton of kids. even after taxes, supporting a spouse 100% (which likely won't be the case as virtually everyone at our age winds up preferring to work in some capacity) and paying 24k a year in loan repayment (sticker on a 10 yr plan), 150k is more than enough to live a good life anywhere including NYC. unless you're going to a 5 star restaurant every night, the only thing 300k would do for most people is pad their savings with an extra 150k each year. it also comes back to tangible value. just based on economics, do any of you really think you're going to be worth more than 160,000 a year for your legal skills your first year out of law school? i mean, the president only makes a shade over 250k.

Because if you work/live in NYC, you can't afford to buy a home on $150k/year, even if you're willing to eat ramen noodles 3 meals a day. (spoken as someone who lived in NYC for 6 years and already has a six figure salary)

then no offense, but you're awful with $.

subway has $5 footlongs, there are supermarkets galore and 100s of amazing delis that make incredible sandwiches for around $5-$8, and plenty of good falafel for under $5. you can afford a mortgage in a decent suburb. obviously, you can't buy manhattan real estate at 25 on 160k, but who expects to?

[johansantana21]

honestly, i don't know think making 150k vs. making 300k would have a huge impact on the quality of someone's life unless they have a ton of kids. even after taxes, supporting a spouse 100% (which likely won't be the case as virtually everyone at our age winds up preferring to work in some capacity) and paying 24k a year in loan repayment (sticker on a 10 yr plan), 150k is more than enough to live a good life anywhere including NYC. unless you're going to a 5 star restaurant every night, the only thing 300k would do for most people is pad their savings with an extra 150k each year. it also comes back to tangible value. just based on economics, do any of you really think you're going to be worth more than 160,000 a year for your legal skills your first year out of law school? i mean, the president only makes a shade over 250k.

Because if you work/live in NYC, you can't afford to buy a home on $150k/year, even if you're willing to eat ramen noodles 3 meals a day. (spoken as someone who lived in NYC for 6 years and already has a six figure salary)

then no offense, but you're awful with $.

subway has $5 footlongs, there are supermarkets galore and 100s of amazing delis that make incredible sandwiches for around $5-$8, and plenty of good falafel for under $5. you can afford a mortgage in a decent suburb. obviously, you can't buy manhattan real estate at 25 on 160k, but who expects to?

Well if you have 6 figure debt, that's already going to take a while to pay off.

Not to mention most people only stay in biglaw for 3-5 years.

[dingbat]

It's true. People on this board forget how ridiculous a $160,000/year salary is. I know tons of well-educated professionals who feel they have all the money they could want, and they are in the $75-$100k band.

I'm sure the hours are hellacious and the stress is unbearable, but what do you expect for a salary that equals that of 4 households?

+1. Going by hourly pay is weak. On this front, it would never pay to go to law school, because even if you could get into a top school, you can also get hired by Manhattan LSAT, and make $100/hour. However, you don't see many law school grads taking this over big law when they have the option even though the pay is more than double per hour. There's something to be said for being able to make a decent hourly wage for 80 hours. I mean, that is cleaning up. 160k is a lot of money, but how many people do you know making 160k who don't bust a**? The only people I have met who make more than this are either doctors or run their own business. It should be notes that doctors are also struggling in this economy, and many doctors who run a small practice have been filing for bankruptcy. Additionally, the pure nature of plumbing is that most jobs are completed in only a few hours, and a lot of the charge has to do with the travel to the location. On this front, technically gardening would be a more prudent choice to a top law school, as would things like prostitution, most tutoring jobs and being a barber.

It's a matter of choosing the lifestyle that you want. My sister works a (relatively) low-wage job, because, well, she didn't like the lifestyle that was required of her when she had a better-paying job.

Also, many doctors are filing for bankruptcy because they started their own business (i.e. a medical practice) but don't have any business sense. Ask the average doctor for details of their revenue or their cost structure and they'll give you a blank stare. Just because you're a doctor, doesn't mean you'll realistically know if it makes fiscal sense to hire another nurse, or whether inviting another doctor to join the practice is going to increase or decrease your profits.
How about waiving co-pays? Deciding which insurance plans to accept and which to reject?
Do you think the average doctor performs an in-depth cost/benefit analysis each time?

[AriGoldButNicer]

It's true. People on this board forget how ridiculous a $160,000/year salary is. I know tons of well-educated professionals who feel they have all the money they could want, and they are in the $75-$100k band.

I'm sure the hours are hellacious and the stress is unbearable, but what do you expect for a salary that equals that of 4 households?

+1. Going by hourly pay is weak. On this front, it would never pay to go to law school, because even if you could get into a top school, you can also get hired by Manhattan LSAT, and make $100/hour. However, you don't see many law school grads taking this over big law when they have the option even though the pay is more than double per hour. There's something to be said for being able to make a decent hourly wage for 80 hours. I mean, that is cleaning up. 160k is a lot of money, but how many people do you know making 160k who don't bust a**? The only people I have met who make more than this are either doctors or run their own business. It should be notes that doctors are also struggling in this economy, and many doctors who run a small practice have been filing for bankruptcy. Additionally, the pure nature of plumbing is that most jobs are completed in only a few hours, and a lot of the charge has to do with the travel to the location. On this front, technically gardening would be a more prudent choice to a top law school, as would things like prostitution, most tutoring jobs and being a barber.

It's a matter of choosing the lifestyle that you want. My sister works a (relatively) low-wage job, because, well, she didn't like the lifestyle that was required of her when she had a better-paying job.

Also, many doctors are filing for bankruptcy because they started their own business (i.e. a medical practice) but don't have any business sense. Ask the average doctor for details of their revenue or their cost structure and they'll give you a blank stare. Just because you're a doctor, doesn't mean you'll realistically know if it makes fiscal sense to hire another nurse, or whether inviting another doctor to join the practice is going to increase or decrease your profits.
How about waiving co-pays? Deciding which insurance plans to accept and which to reject?
Do you think the average doctor performs an in-depth cost/benefit analysis each time?

yeah, i agree with you here.

[Tiago Splitter]

I must admit, I've not worked as a first year associate at a law firm - however, I have worked with a lot of law firms and have seen it from the paying end. In addition, in my office I work closely with someone who had made partner at big law, and discussing the bills law firms send us is quite educational.

There is a difference between "billable hours" and "hours billed directly to the client."

[dingbat]

honestly, i don't know think making 150k vs. making 300k would have a huge impact on the quality of someone's life unless they have a ton of kids. even after taxes, supporting a spouse 100% (which likely won't be the case as virtually everyone at our age winds up preferring to work in some capacity) and paying 24k a year in loan repayment (sticker on a 10 yr plan), 150k is more than enough to live a good life anywhere including NYC. unless you're going to a 5 star restaurant every night, the only thing 300k would do for most people is pad their savings with an extra 150k each year. it also comes back to tangible value. just based on economics, do any of you really think you're going to be worth more than 160,000 a year for your legal skills your first year out of law school? i mean, the president only makes a shade over 250k.

Because if you work/live in NYC, you can't afford to buy a home on $150k/year, even if you're willing to eat ramen noodles 3 meals a day. (spoken as someone who lived in NYC for 6 years and already has a six figure salary)

then no offense, but you're awful with $.

subway has $5 footlongs, there are supermarkets galore and 100s of amazing delis that make incredible sandwiches for around $5-$8, and plenty of good falafel for under $5. you can afford a mortgage in a decent suburb. obviously, you can't buy manhattan real estate at 25 on 160k, but who expects to?

Let's say you earn $150,000 per year.
According to NYC's payrate calculator (http://www.nyc.gov/html/opa/html/gettin ... ator.shtml) that means a monthly after-tax salary of $5737
Your company will match up to 3% for your 401k and, being smart, you choose to maximise this, so $172 is put away for retirement (I know it doesn't work this way, but let's keep things simle), bringing your take-home pay to $5565

*Rent: $2000 (decent 1 bedroom or half of a good 2 bedroom apartment in NYC)
Subway: $104 for a monthly pass
Smartphone: $100 after taxes (rounded) - you'll need it for work
Cable TV & Internet: $100 (or more)
Student Loan: $2301 ($200k at 6.8% over 10 years)

Let's say you only eat at subways, or at delis that make sandwiches between $5-$8, 3 meals a day. Let's include drinks, taxes, and the occasional snack and round out at $30/day (good luck enjoying that day in day out)
that's $900.

Now let's say once a month your boss and colleagues go out for drinks - you go with them, because you're social, and otherwise will be passed over for promotions. 2 drinks and a cab home (because it's late and you need to be at work first thing the next morning) and you've spent another $40

So, now you've got $20 left over, per month. Have fun


*If you live in a decent suburb outside NYC, you'll be lucky to be paying $2000/month for mortgage and property taxes (good luck). But, then you'll need to pay eifor your commute, which will cost at least $250/month (it'll be more, but, I'm being conservative)

[johansantana21]

honestly, i don't know think making 150k vs. making 300k would have a huge impact on the quality of someone's life unless they have a ton of kids. even after taxes, supporting a spouse 100% (which likely won't be the case as virtually everyone at our age winds up preferring to work in some capacity) and paying 24k a year in loan repayment (sticker on a 10 yr plan), 150k is more than enough to live a good life anywhere including NYC. unless you're going to a 5 star restaurant every night, the only thing 300k would do for most people is pad their savings with an extra 150k each year. it also comes back to tangible value. just based on economics, do any of you really think you're going to be worth more than 160,000 a year for your legal skills your first year out of law school? i mean, the president only makes a shade over 250k.

Because if you work/live in NYC, you can't afford to buy a home on $150k/year, even if you're willing to eat ramen noodles 3 meals a day. (spoken as someone who lived in NYC for 6 years and already has a six figure salary)

then no offense, but you're awful with $.

subway has $5 footlongs, there are supermarkets galore and 100s of amazing delis that make incredible sandwiches for around $5-$8, and plenty of good falafel for under $5. you can afford a mortgage in a decent suburb. obviously, you can't buy manhattan real estate at 25 on 160k, but who expects to?

Let's say you earn $150,000 per year.
According to NYC's payrate calculator (http://www.nyc.gov/html/opa/html/gettin ... ator.shtml) that means a monthly after-tax salary of $5737
Your company will match up to 3% for your 401k and, being smart, you choose to maximise this, so $172 is put away for retirement (I know it doesn't work this way, but let's keep things simle), bringing your take-home pay to $5565

Rent: $2000 (decent 1 bedroom or half of a good 2 bedroom apartment in NYC)
Subway: $104 for a monthly pass
Smartphone: $100 after taxes (rounded) - you'll need it for work
Cable TV & Internet: $100 (or more)
Student Loan: $2301 ($200k at 6.8% over 10 years)

Let's say you only eat at subways, or at delis that make sandwiches between $5-$8, 3 meals a day. Let's include drinks, taxes, and the occasional snack and round out at $30/day (good luck enjoying that day in day out)
that's $900.

Now let's say once a month your boss and colleagues go out for drinks - you go with them, because you're social, and otherwise will be passed over for promotions. 2 drinks and a cab home (because it's late and you need to be at work first thing the next morning) and you've spent another $40

So, now you've got $20 left over, per month. Have fun

You could probably save a lot by renting with a roomate. Just saying.

But I agree with you. For people going to school at sticker, biglaw won't suddenly make you rich.