,, Forum

[manofjustice]

Didn't we just get done debating a budget that explained we can keep about 40K or something of our BigLaw paycheck?? How is that "nothing to complain about."

You've never held a real job have you...

False but thank you.

I am stuck on the phrase "nothing to complain about."

[RedBirds2011]

Didn't we just get done debating a budget that explained we can keep about 40K or something of our BigLaw paycheck?? How is that "nothing to complain about."

You've never held a real job have you...

False but thank you.

I am stuck on the phrase "nothing to complain about."

I have no sympathy for someone who would whine over a 6 figure salary. Even if you do have a lot of loans.

[manofjustice]

Didn't we just get done debating a budget that explained we can keep about 40K or something of our BigLaw paycheck?? How is that "nothing to complain about."

You've never held a real job have you...

False but thank you.

I am stuck on the phrase "nothing to complain about."

I have no sympathy for someone who would whine over a 6 figure salary. Even if you do have a lot of loans.

I didn't ask for your sympathy, nor did I whine. Why would I whine?

I have no sympathy for you if you find your budget a tad too restrictive for the amount and quality of the work that you do. You should have "nothing to complain about." Because BigLaw associates never complain...

[manofjustice]

Also notice I didn't say the pay was too low. I said maybe it was, and that it should keep strict pace with inflation. Do you find these incorrect statements? I also said that law school costs too much. You disagree?

[RedBirds2011]

To the first paragraph...fine. However, I find saying a 6 figure job is "minimally acceptable" as very much the type of whining that drives me absolutely fucking bonkers. I can't stand it and I hear it all the freaking time.


To the second paragraph...wut?

[RedBirds2011]

Also notice I didn't say the pay was too low. I said maybe it was, and that it should keep strict pace with inflation. Do you find these incorrect statements? I also said that law school costs too much. You disagree?

A law firm will pay you what they feel you are worth. No more, no less. People aren't entitled to higher salaries just because they took out an exorbitant amount of loans. Also, no I really don't disagree with what you say here. What is quoted above me is fine.

[manofjustice]

Also notice I didn't say the pay was too low. I said maybe it was, and that it should keep strict pace with inflation. Do you find these incorrect statements? I also said that law school costs too much. You disagree?

A law firm will pay you what they feel you are worth. No more, no less. People aren't entitled to higher salaries just because they took out an exorbitant amount of loans. Also, no I really don't disagree with what you say here. What is quoted above me is fine.

Okay, good. And I respect not liking "whining." I am not trying to whine. But it is patently true that law firms will pay you more than what you are worth, presumably based in part on the loans you have had to incur, based on your future potential value. So there is room here not to "whine," but to reasonably "complain"--perhaps not individually (don't walk into your partner's office tomorrow and demand more money), but as a collective.

[birdlaw117]

Also notice I didn't say the pay was too low. I said maybe it was, and that it should keep strict pace with inflation. Do you find these incorrect statements? I also said that law school costs too much. You disagree?

A law firm will pay you what they feel you are worth. No more, no less. People aren't entitled to higher salaries just because they took out an exorbitant amount of loans. Also, no I really don't disagree with what you say here. What is quoted above me is fine.

Okay, good. And I respect not liking "whining." I am not trying to whine. But it is patently true that law firms will pay you more than what you are worth, presumably based in part on the loans you have had to incur, based on your future potential value. So there is room here not to "whine," but to reasonably "complain"--perhaps not individually (don't walk into your partner's office tomorrow and demand more money), but as a collective.

I don't know why you get to complain and whine because you made a poor decision. You knew tuition costs up front and you know various salary figures up front. Make a decision, and if it was a bad one, that's on you.

[manofjustice]

Also notice I didn't say the pay was too low. I said maybe it was, and that it should keep strict pace with inflation. Do you find these incorrect statements? I also said that law school costs too much. You disagree?

A law firm will pay you what they feel you are worth. No more, no less. People aren't entitled to higher salaries just because they took out an exorbitant amount of loans. Also, no I really don't disagree with what you say here. What is quoted above me is fine.

Okay, good. And I respect not liking "whining." I am not trying to whine. But it is patently true that law firms will pay you more than what you are worth, presumably based in part on the loans you have had to incur, based on your future potential value. So there is room here not to "whine," but to reasonably "complain"--perhaps not individually (don't walk into your partner's office tomorrow and demand more money), but as a collective.

I don't know why you get to complain and whine because you made a poor decision. You knew tuition costs up front and you know various salary figures up front. Make a decision, and if it was a bad one, that's on you.

What I am doing differs from whining because a) I am adverting to concerns that affect us all as a class, not just my own and b) because I am not asking for money. I am simply asking that as we go forward, relevant parties with power understand what we as a class, and in fact the youth of entire globe, has to risk today just for a chance to "make it." We as a society have yet to process what we are doing to a generation with one word: "debt". Educational debt, sovereign debt, debt of all kinds.

I really can't say anything about "knowing the information." But it's not really the point.

[birdlaw117]

No, you're whining.

[manofjustice]

No, you're whining.

whatevs.

[IAFG]

When I consider my non-sticker debt, my non-NY tax rate/rent and my omg-are-they-kidding salary, I just don't have any patience for this complaining. We make sick money. Our debt load is unpleasant, but temporary. On top of that, we're incredibly young and inexperienced. Who can look at all that and say with a straight face that the situation is merely minimally acceptable? You're an entitled twat.

[dudeimsocool]

OP: you are a fuc*ing moron

[RedBirds2011]

Manofjustice,


These are definitely legitimate concerns. Just be careful with your wording. When you say a six figure job as "minimally acceptable" you might get punched in the face

[IAFG]

Didn't we just get done debating a budget that explained we can keep about 40K or something of our BigLaw paycheck?? How is that "nothing to complain about."

My post-tax, post-student loan take home is $60k/yr.

[manofjustice]

When I consider my non-sticker debt, my non-NY tax rate/rent and my omg-are-they-kidding salary, I just don't have any patience for this complaining. We make sick money. Our debt load is unpleasant, but temporary. On top of that, we're incredibly young and inexperienced. Who can look at all that and say with a straight face that the situation is merely minimally acceptable? You're an entitled twat.

Keep it civil. Why are you so mad?

We JUST went through a budget that said if you want to pay off your sticker debt in 4 years you have to live off 40K a year. We JUST agreed that after 4 years, you may be out.

The reason you make your omg-are-they-kidding salary (and congratulations on your non-sticker debt, your parents must be proud; I don't care that you don't work in DC--apparently you do) is because lawyers before you complained.

"Nothing to complain about." Tell that to people who paid sticker, just barley got a job in NYC, and are making maybe 25 bucks an hour. Or tell that to the class of 2010 laid off after half a year.

"Nothing to complain about." It's only a quarter of a million dollars in debt...you are insane.

[manofjustice]

Manofjustice,


These are definitely legitimate concerns. Just be careful with your wording. When you say a six figure job as "minimally acceptable" you might get punched in the face

"Minimally acceptable" was just meant to suggest that the compensation in real dollars should remain steady or go up, not down (as some have suggested) if law school tuition continues to remain steady or go up.

Understandably, it had a negative connotation.

edit: And not-for-nothin, it seems at some firms, post-bonus and post-inflation, compensation has gone down a bit.

[birdlaw117]

I think you're conflating right to complain and less than ideal.

And I doubt salaries were increased because lawyers went into their boss' office and through a tantrum.

Oh, and perhaps paying off your debt in 4 years is imprudent. Again, just because you make shitty decisions doesn't mean you should complain about it later.

[IAFG]

I think you're conflating right to complain and less than ideal.

Oh, and perhaps paying off your debt in 4 years is imprudent. Again, just because you make shitty decisions doesn't mean you should complain about it later.

Yup and yup. Just because it's technically possible to end up in the worst LS loan situation out there (sticker at a $50k/yr law school, put no summer money or previous savings towards your loans, then work in NY) doesn't mean biglaw salaries are complaint-worthy. That's stupid. The amazing thing is how willing biglaw is to subsidize this string of bad choices.

[rayiner]

Rayiner as usual makes sense. But we need to bottom-line it and (hopefully) agree: at this point, in the final analysis, law school costs too much and (as a corollary) BigLaw salaries are minimally acceptable. Either the former has to go down, or the latter should at least keep strict pace with inflation.

Law school costs too much. It's taking up increasingly larger fractions of the net value added by getting a T14 JD. Law schools are effectively oligopolies (the very existence of the "T14" concept bears that out), so it is no surprise they can continue to expand to capture more and more of the value added by the degree. I'm one of those leftists who thinks their oligopoly and tax-advantaged status warrants strict regulation, and at a more philosophical level that educational institutions shouldn't be in the business of trying to extract all of the value they add to students' careers.

[Tiago Splitter]

Also notice I didn't say the pay was too low. I said maybe it was, and that it should keep strict pace with inflation. Do you find these incorrect statements? I also said that law school costs too much. You disagree?

The increase in first year salaries has far exceeded inflation. We'd be worse off if those salaries had only kept your strict pace.

[manofjustice]

Also notice I didn't say the pay was too low. I said maybe it was, and that it should keep strict pace with inflation. Do you find these incorrect statements? I also said that law school costs too much. You disagree?

The increase in first year salaries has far exceeded inflation. We'd be worse off if those salaries had only kept your strict pace.

Relevent inflation should include educational inflation/"extraction" Rayiner refers to.

[Tiago Splitter]

Also notice I didn't say the pay was too low. I said maybe it was, and that it should keep strict pace with inflation. Do you find these incorrect statements? I also said that law school costs too much. You disagree?

The increase in first year salaries has far exceeded inflation. We'd be worse off if those salaries had only kept your strict pace.

Relevent inflation should include educational inflation/"extraction" Rayiner refers to.

Well then just say that next time.

The problem is that if we let tuition continue to rise at this ridiculous pace and just make BigLaw salaries go up to pay for it, we screw the huge percentage of people who will never work in BigLaw.

[Samara]

Rayiner as usual makes sense. But we need to bottom-line it and (hopefully) agree: at this point, in the final analysis, law school costs too much and (as a corollary) BigLaw salaries are minimally acceptable. Either the former has to go down, or the latter should at least keep strict pace with inflation.

Law school costs too much. It's taking up increasingly larger fractions of the net value added by getting a T14 JD. Law schools are effectively oligopolies (the very existence of the "T14" concept bears that out), so it is no surprise they can continue to expand to capture more and more of the value added by the degree. I'm one of those leftists who thinks their oligopoly and tax-advantaged status warrants strict regulation, and at a more philosophical level that educational institutions shouldn't be in the business of trying to extract all of the value they add to students' careers.

Not to go off-topic, haha, but do we know how much the average amount of tuition actually paid has increased, inflation-adjusted? For UG, the average amount paid (inflation-adjusted) has actually only slightly increased. Sticker price has increased dramatically, but so has financial aid. I'm curious if it is a similar situation for law school.

If you think taking out loans to pay for law school at sticker is crazy, that's nothing compared to people who hit that debt level for UG. I'm not completely on the law school costs too much bandwagon because I think sticker is still well worth it if you make it to biglaw. Thus, sticker price shouldn't necessarily be reduced as much as debt loads should be lessened for people who miss out on biglaw.

[IAFG]

Rayiner as usual makes sense. But we need to bottom-line it and (hopefully) agree: at this point, in the final analysis, law school costs too much and (as a corollary) BigLaw salaries are minimally acceptable. Either the former has to go down, or the latter should at least keep strict pace with inflation.

Law school costs too much. It's taking up increasingly larger fractions of the net value added by getting a T14 JD. Law schools are effectively oligopolies (the very existence of the "T14" concept bears that out), so it is no surprise they can continue to expand to capture more and more of the value added by the degree. I'm one of those leftists who thinks their oligopoly and tax-advantaged status warrants strict regulation, and at a more philosophical level that educational institutions shouldn't be in the business of trying to extract all of the value they add to students' careers.

Not to go off-topic, haha, but do we know how much the average amount of tuition actually paid has increased, inflation-adjusted? For UG, the average amount paid (inflation-adjusted) has actually only slightly increased. Sticker price has increased dramatically, but so has financial aid. I'm curious if it is a similar situation for law school.

If you think taking out loans to pay for law school at sticker is crazy, that's nothing compared to people who hit that debt level for UG. I'm not completely on the law school costs too much bandwagon because I think sticker is still well worth it if you make it to biglaw. Thus, sticker price shouldn't necessarily be reduced as much as debt loads should be lessened for people who miss out on biglaw.

Don't conflate the issues. It's possible for law school to both cost too much and also be worth the investment.