Biglaw associates: What class year were you when you bought a house? How expensive of a house did you get? Forum

[nixy]

Always amazing to me to see people try to argue that biglaw people aren't "rich." Ok, middle class 6-figure guy.

And yeah, I'm a partner. But I was an associate just like others are (and got paid meaningfully less than associates get paid now, even accounting for inflation). I was rich too. Jeez. "Poor person's concept of rich" More like silver spoon out of touch concept of what it takes to be "rich."

So much depends on your point of comparison. BL folks often don't feel rich because they are constantly exposed to people with quite a bit more wealth than them. Associates are comparing themselves to partners. Partners are comparing themselves to executives they work with.

If you are the manager of a Walmart making $150k, you are mostly surrounded by people making near minimum wage, and you probably feel pretty well off. If you are Jr. Biglaw associate making $215k, almost every other attorney you work with makes more than you.

I'd also note that class is more than just how much money you bring in annually. A lot of fairly wealthy people think of themselves as "middle class" because they were raised and perceive themselves as such. "Rich" is often thought of as something for people born with trust funds large enough to make income optional and who grew up using "summer" as a verb.

I agree with this, but think there needs to be some kind of acknowledgment that being in the top [whatever] income percentile has some kind of objective meaning. If I’m hanging out with Zuckerberg or Bezos or Musk I’m definitely going to *feel* poor, and that may put some stress on me (beyond just how awful an experience that would be generally), but that doesn’t actually make me poor. It’s not like the number of people who make less than you is contingent on how rich you feel.

And it would make sense to separate the financial meaning (top whatever percentile income) from the class meaning. The US is completely confused about class.

[Wild Card]

$140,000 post-tax is very good money, but I will never, ever be able to afford a house.

My parents raised me on less than $60,000, but their current home (apt.), which they own, they bought for $60,000.

I'd be delighted to buy a McMansion in New Jersey or Connecticut for $280,000, or even $420,000. 420 blaze!

--

To add to what was written above, about $70,000 being "middle class" for NYC, I'm inclined to agree. Or, at least, that was good money in the 80# and 90s. When I was growing up, I went out for lunch with my parents on weekends, we always went out for dinner on special occasions, we'd watch a movie once a month (matinee was $6.00), and we'd go on one vacation a year. I felt "middle class" and happy and comfortable.

[Anonymous User]

$140,000 post-tax is very good money, but I will never, ever be able to afford a house.

My parents raised me on less than $60,000, but their current home (apt.), which they own, they bought for $60,000.

I'd be delighted to buy a McMansion in New Jersey or Connecticut for $280,000, or even $420,000. 420 blaze!

--

To add to what was written above, about $70,000 being "middle class" for NYC, I'm inclined to agree. Or, at least, that was good money in the 80# and 90s. When I was growing up, I went out for lunch with my parents on weekends, we always went out for dinner on special occasions, we'd watch a movie once a month (matinee was $6.00), and we'd go on one vacation a year. I felt "middle class" and happy and comfortable.

Just to be clear, $60k in 1980 is $210k now. Mortgage rates in the 1980s were also astronomical (~15%+ for some). Thus, a mortgage for 80% of a $210k house at 15% would be $2,124/mo. At 5% instead of 15%, those same payments could get you a house priced around $400k.

I don't mean to suggest that $400k will get you a lot of house today. It won't. I also don't mean to suggest that home prices haven't gone up substantially. They have. But without knowing what your parents' house is worth now and without an accurate comparison of inflation adjusted numbers, it's hard to say what has become unaffordable.

I also disagree with the idea that people making six figures will never be able to afford a house. You just can't afford the house you WANT. It's that same faulty logic that drives people to pay more and more for houses they can't afford, making them even less affordable.

[Anonymous User]

$140,000 post-tax is very good money, but I will never, ever be able to afford a house.

My parents raised me on less than $60,000, but their current home (apt.), which they own, they bought for $60,000.

I'd be delighted to buy a McMansion in New Jersey or Connecticut for $280,000, or even $420,000. 420 blaze!

--

To add to what was written above, about $70,000 being "middle class" for NYC, I'm inclined to agree. Or, at least, that was good money in the 80# and 90s. When I was growing up, I went out for lunch with my parents on weekends, we always went out for dinner on special occasions, we'd watch a movie once a month (matinee was $6.00), and we'd go on one vacation a year. I felt "middle class" and happy and comfortable.

The only reasons I’ll be able to buy in NYC are (1) not having kids and (2) wife makes as much as I make.

[Anonymous User]

The only reasons I’ll be able to buy what I want in NYC are (1) not having kids and (2) wife makes as much as I make.

Fixed.

[d39524s]

$140,000 post-tax is very good money, but I will never, ever be able to afford a house.

My parents raised me on less than $60,000, but their current home (apt.), which they own, they bought for $60,000.

I'd be delighted to buy a McMansion in New Jersey or Connecticut for $280,000, or even $420,000. 420 blaze!

--

To add to what was written above, about $70,000 being "middle class" for NYC, I'm inclined to agree. Or, at least, that was good money in the 80# and 90s. When I was growing up, I went out for lunch with my parents on weekends, we always went out for dinner on special occasions, we'd watch a movie once a month (matinee was $6.00), and we'd go on one vacation a year. I felt "middle class" and happy and comfortable.

The only reasons I’ll be able to buy in NYC are (1) not having kids and (2) wife makes as much as I make.

Are you both in biglaw?

[Anonymous User]

$140,000 post-tax is very good money, but I will never, ever be able to afford a house.

My parents raised me on less than $60,000, but their current home (apt.), which they own, they bought for $60,000.

I'd be delighted to buy a McMansion in New Jersey or Connecticut for $280,000, or even $420,000. 420 blaze!

--

To add to what was written above, about $70,000 being "middle class" for NYC, I'm inclined to agree. Or, at least, that was good money in the 80# and 90s. When I was growing up, I went out for lunch with my parents on weekends, we always went out for dinner on special occasions, we'd watch a movie once a month (matinee was $6.00), and we'd go on one vacation a year. I felt "middle class" and happy and comfortable.

The only reasons I’ll be able to buy in NYC are (1) not having kids and (2) wife makes as much as I make.

Are you both in biglaw?

No she’s in a different industry that’s less demanding. I get that some folks really want families, but DINK life works for me.

[nealric]

Always amazing to me to see people try to argue that biglaw people aren't "rich." Ok, middle class 6-figure guy.

And yeah, I'm a partner. But I was an associate just like others are (and got paid meaningfully less than associates get paid now, even accounting for inflation). I was rich too. Jeez. "Poor person's concept of rich" More like silver spoon out of touch concept of what it takes to be "rich."

So much depends on your point of comparison. BL folks often don't feel rich because they are constantly exposed to people with quite a bit more wealth than them. Associates are comparing themselves to partners. Partners are comparing themselves to executives they work with.

If you are the manager of a Walmart making $150k, you are mostly surrounded by people making near minimum wage, and you probably feel pretty well off. If you are Jr. Biglaw associate making $215k, almost every other attorney you work with makes more than you.

I'd also note that class is more than just how much money you bring in annually. A lot of fairly wealthy people think of themselves as "middle class" because they were raised and perceive themselves as such. "Rich" is often thought of as something for people born with trust funds large enough to make income optional and who grew up using "summer" as a verb.

I agree with this, but think there needs to be some kind of acknowledgment that being in the top [whatever] income percentile has some kind of objective meaning. If I’m hanging out with Zuckerberg or Bezos or Musk I’m definitely going to *feel* poor, and that may put some stress on me (beyond just how awful an experience that would be generally), but that doesn’t actually make me poor. It’s not like the number of people who make less than you is contingent on how rich you feel.

And it would make sense to separate the financial meaning (top whatever percentile income) from the class meaning. The US is completely confused about class.

Sure, there's an objective top, but where to draw the line is inherently subjective. By global standards, just about everyone posting on this forum is wealthy. Someone making $30k/yr is very well off by global standards. But someone making $30k in NYC is likely going to feel economically constrained, as that's below the level which one could afford just about any market rate apartment of one's own in the city. On the other hand, someone making $300k in Biglaw may be able to "only" afford a 1,000sq ft condo, which is well below average home size in most of the country.

Regarding your Musk/Bezos/Zuckerberg hang-out, I do think social settings can matter a lot in how people perceive their wealth, because there can be intense social pressure to spend according to your peers. Back when I was a summer associate, I was trying to save every penny. That summer money was intended to last me the entire following school year AND buy an engagement ring (which it did), so I lived as cheap as possible. During the summer, I ended up making friends with some people who were a bit older, had no kids, and liked nice restaurants. Nothing terribly extravagant by NYC standards, but they didn't think much of a $100/person dinner bill on a weekend. As someone who regarded a meal at Chipotle as a splurge, and normally hung out with similarly cheapskate students, I nearly had a heart attack when they ordered a *second* $40 bottle of wine for the table at dinner. They didn't quite get that what was normal weekend spending for them was a huge unplanned expense for me. I was making ridiculously good money for a 23 year old that summer, but I felt poor because of who I was hanging out with.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I spent some time in rural Honduras during high school. I once went to church with my host family and put the equivalent of about $5 in the collection plate. I realized after I plunked down the bill that was about 20x what everybody else put in- because the average person there made about $1/day. Thinking about it from the perspective of someone who watched a 16 year old kid drop a week's pay into a collection plate like it was nothing, I'm sure I looked like Richie Rich.

U.S. is indeed very confused about class. It's both good and bad. On one hand, there's less overt class discrimination because the vast majority of folks think of themselves as "middle class". On the other hand, we refuse to acknowledge that class discrimination exists (it most certainly does).

[Anonymous User]

And now "rich" means going to a bar without "stressing about the bill" ? that's a poor person's conception of being rich.

Shouldn't we be basing our conception of rich on what poor people think!? Every rich person I talk to (note that I don't talk to the "I own a multi-billion-dollar company types") thinks she or he could really use more money. If I could just afford private school for my kids, I'd really be rich. If I could just have a house on the coast, I'd really be rich. If I could just afford that nice boat and a Ferrari, I'd really be rich. The perceptions of the poor are the only constant - their view of what makes you rich doesn't change with how much money you happen to make.

People often feel uncomfortable or ashamed to identify as rich. That's probably why we have this debate, and also why we have meaningless terms like "upper middle class" (whatever that means). Maybe it's out of modesty or maybe it's out of greed for more. TBH I'd be embarrassed trying to convince my average joe friends (nurses, HR professionals, plumbers, graphic designers, government workers, teachers, etc.) I'm not rich. They'd take one look at my salary with six figures that doesn't start with a "1", >$1m home, and savings account balance and laugh me out of the room.

It doesn't matter, whether you feel rich or whether someone else you know makes more. If you're making biglaw money you're rich. Someone who graduated in the top 5% of your average high school is smart, even if they didn't get into Harvard. Someone who is in the bottom 5% of the weight curve is skinny, even if they know someone skinnier and think they could lose a few pounds. Someone who earns in the top 5% of individuals in the country is rich, even if there's someone else who makes more.

Not even top 5% of the country - top 5% of NYC. I can just tell OP is a KJD who has no idea what it's like to live on a normal salary.

Yes - not having to worry about bills, whether they be rent, restaurant, electricity etc. means you're better off than the large majority of Americans. That's not a poor person mindset. That's the reality of life for about 95% of Americans.

Not a KJD. Anyway, you keep citing irrelevant statistics. Middle class doesn’t mean the statistical middle, nor does rich mean statistical top X percent. That’s just what total rubes believe. The more accurate conception of class would be the English and particularly the London definition, whereby at most 5 or 10% of people are ever classed as “middle” (and big lawyer would be a quintessentially middle class role) and “upper” status must be inherited.

As a Brit now living in the U.S., there's a lot of things I think we do better than the Americans, but our totally fucked up class system is definitely not one I would be eager to import.

[Anonymous User]

I continue to stand by my point that if you can't tell the average American that you're "not rich" with a straight face, then you're rich. Sure, the term may mean different things to different people (and may have meant something different in the past or in the UK), but I don't see any point to bickering over that with a bunch of overpaid lawyers living in high COL cities. Does what we think of ourselves really matter that much?

[Anonymous User]

I continue to stand by my point that if you can't tell the average American that you're "not rich" with a straight face, then you're rich. Sure, the term may mean different things to different people (and may have meant something different in the past or in the UK), but I don't see any point to bickering over that with a bunch of overpaid lawyers living in high COL cities. Does what we think of ourselves really matter that much?

Yes, I think this is actually a good rough measure. If you're embarrassed to talk about your salary with an average person - you are likely rich.

As a paralegal making $40k - no issues discussing salary. As a 4th year associate, I avoid discussing it even though my salary is now widely published all over the internet.

[Anonymous User]

Third year w/ working spouse (although they don’t make anywhere near BigLaw money). Bought a 4 bd 2 bath house 15 minutes from the office for under 300k.

Don’t chase the prestige, folks. Secondary markets are the way to go!

[thisismytlsuername]

Third year w/ working spouse (although they don’t make anywhere near BigLaw money). Bought a 4 bd 2 bath house 15 minutes from the office for under 300k.

Don’t chase the prestige, folks. Secondary markets are the way to go!

Yeah, prestige is the only reason to avoid secondary markets. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to avoid eating at Panera 3 times a week or having bands I actually want to see tour where I live regularly.

[Anonymous User]

Third year w/ working spouse (although they don’t make anywhere near BigLaw money). Bought a 4 bd 2 bath house 15 minutes from the office for under 300k.

Don’t chase the prestige, folks. Secondary markets are the way to go!

Yeah, prestige is the only reason to avoid secondary markets. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to avoid eating at Panera 3 times a week or having bands I actually want to see tour where I live regularly.

LOLZ! Idk man, when you work in NYC but live in Stamford or something, it’s not like you have a great restaurant or concert scene anyways.

[thisismytlsuername]

Third year w/ working spouse (although they don’t make anywhere near BigLaw money). Bought a 4 bd 2 bath house 15 minutes from the office for under 300k.

Don’t chase the prestige, folks. Secondary markets are the way to go!

Yeah, prestige is the only reason to avoid secondary markets. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to avoid eating at Panera 3 times a week or having bands I actually want to see tour where I live regularly.

LOLZ! Idk man, when you work in NYC but live in Stamford or something, it’s not like you have a great restaurant or concert scene anyways.

1. I would never live in Stamford.
2. Even Stamford isn't bad for music. Have you not heard of Alive at 5? http://stamford-downtown.com/events/alivefive-5/

[Anonymous User]

Third year w/ working spouse (although they don’t make anywhere near BigLaw money). Bought a 4 bd 2 bath house 15 minutes from the office for under 300k.

Don’t chase the prestige, folks. Secondary markets are the way to go!

Yeah, prestige is the only reason to avoid secondary markets. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to avoid eating at Panera 3 times a week or having bands I actually want to see tour where I live regularly.

LOLZ! Idk man, when you work in NYC but live in Stamford or something, it’s not like you have a great restaurant or concert scene anyways.

1. I would never live in Stamford.
2. Even Stamford isn't bad for music. Have you not heard of Alive at 5? http://stamford-downtown.com/events/alivefive-5/

Fair enough on 1, but if Alive at 5 is your baseline it seems pretty unfair to discount cities like Phoenix, Indy, KC, Denver, etc. as not having a good enough music scene (same goes for food). To each their own, amigo. Just wanted to sing the praises of the non-NYC markets as someone from the East Coast who deliberately avoided going back.

[nixy]

Third year w/ working spouse (although they don’t make anywhere near BigLaw money). Bought a 4 bd 2 bath house 15 minutes from the office for under 300k.

Don’t chase the prestige, folks. Secondary markets are the way to go!

Yeah, prestige is the only reason to avoid secondary markets. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to avoid eating at Panera 3 times a week or having bands I actually want to see tour where I live regularly.

Have you ever lived in a “secondary” market? There’s plenty of good food and entertainment. We’re not talking Peoria.

[Sackboy]

Yeah, prestige is the only reason to avoid secondary markets. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to avoid eating at Panera 3 times a week or having bands I actually want to see tour where I live regularly.

Have you ever lived in a “secondary” market? There’s plenty of good food and entertainment. We’re not talking Peoria.

It gives you some real NYC vibes when someone makes such a stupid comment. Nashville, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, etc. are all awesome places to live that certainly have a lot more options than Panera, or the like, and get 95% of the national acts that would visit NYC, Chicago, or LA. The further solidifies my take that New Yorkers are trash.

[thisismytlsuername]

Yeah, prestige is the only reason to avoid secondary markets. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to avoid eating at Panera 3 times a week or having bands I actually want to see tour where I live regularly.

Have you ever lived in a “secondary” market? There’s plenty of good food and entertainment. We’re not talking Peoria.

It gives you some real NYC vibes when someone makes such a stupid comment. Nashville, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, etc. are all awesome places to live that certainly have a lot more options than Panera, or the like, and get 95% of the national acts that would visit NYC, Chicago, or LA. The further solidifies my take that New Yorkers are trash.

Who said anything about national acts? Bowery ballroom or bust, baby.

[nealric]

Third year w/ working spouse (although they don’t make anywhere near BigLaw money). Bought a 4 bd 2 bath house 15 minutes from the office for under 300k.

Don’t chase the prestige, folks. Secondary markets are the way to go!

Yeah, prestige is the only reason to avoid secondary markets. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to avoid eating at Panera 3 times a week or having bands I actually want to see tour where I live regularly.

Have you ever lived in a “secondary” market? There’s plenty of good food and entertainment. We’re not talking Peoria.

I'd also keep in mind that a lot of those entertainment options go out the window anyways if you start a family. The things you prioritize in your 20s may not be the same as in your 30s. I'm glad I did the NYC thing in my 20s, but I'm also glad I don't live there now. Being chained to biglaw so I can spend $4 million on an apartment that is considerably smaller than a $500k house almost anywhere else and pay $70k/yr per kid for private school doesn't sound like a good time. Going to a concert when you have two small kids at home is just not worth it. Staying out until 2AM (or even midnight) for a concert isn't so much fun when your kids are going to wake you up at 6 no matter what (setting aside the difficulty in finding a babysitter for something like that).

Yes, "secondary" biglaw markets like Chicago/Denver/Atlanta/Houston/Dallas are still major international cities. You aren't bound to live in chain restaurant suburbia by any stretch. At the same time, NYC does have pretty unique dining/entertainment options that are at a different level from even other major cities.

[Moneytrees]

Yeah, prestige is the only reason to avoid secondary markets. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to avoid eating at Panera 3 times a week or having bands I actually want to see tour where I live regularly.

Have you ever lived in a “secondary” market? There’s plenty of good food and entertainment. We’re not talking Peoria.

It gives you some real NYC vibes when someone makes such a stupid comment. Nashville, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, etc. are all awesome places to live that certainly have a lot more options than Panera, or the like, and get 95% of the national acts that would visit NYC, Chicago, or LA. The further solidifies my take that New Yorkers are trash.

Who said anything about national acts? Bowery ballroom or bust, baby.

A lot of people on this forum consider any market other than NYC as "secondary" lol. Love living in New York, but it's a ludicrous proposition to claim that secondary markets don't have much to offer in terms of cultural options. I think a lot of people in NYC espouse the city's superiority in an attempt to justify how much they pay to live here.

[thisismytlsuername]

Yeah, prestige is the only reason to avoid secondary markets. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to avoid eating at Panera 3 times a week or having bands I actually want to see tour where I live regularly.

Have you ever lived in a “secondary” market? There’s plenty of good food and entertainment. We’re not talking Peoria.

It gives you some real NYC vibes when someone makes such a stupid comment. Nashville, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, etc. are all awesome places to live that certainly have a lot more options than Panera, or the like, and get 95% of the national acts that would visit NYC, Chicago, or LA. The further solidifies my take that New Yorkers are trash.

Who said anything about national acts? Bowery ballroom or bust, baby.

A lot of people on this forum consider any market other than NYC as "secondary" lol. Love living in New York, but it's a ludicrous proposition to claim that secondary markets don't have much to offer in terms of cultural options. I think a lot of people in NYC espouse the city's superiority in an attempt to justify how much they pay to live here.

In the past few weeks I've seen an Oscar winner on Broadway, a couple of other Tony winning shows, David Cross working out new material, an Italian pianist and composer, some experimental theater in Bushwick, and eaten at two Michelin starred restaurants, but I'm sure that I could easily do all that stuff in Milwaukee.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, prestige is the only reason to avoid secondary markets. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to avoid eating at Panera 3 times a week or having bands I actually want to see tour where I live regularly.

Have you ever lived in a “secondary” market? There’s plenty of good food and entertainment. We’re not talking Peoria.

It gives you some real NYC vibes when someone makes such a stupid comment. Nashville, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, etc. are all awesome places to live that certainly have a lot more options than Panera, or the like, and get 95% of the national acts that would visit NYC, Chicago, or LA. The further solidifies my take that New Yorkers are trash.

Who said anything about national acts? Bowery ballroom or bust, baby.

A lot of people on this forum consider any market other than NYC as "secondary" lol. Love living in New York, but it's a ludicrous proposition to claim that secondary markets don't have much to offer in terms of cultural options. I think a lot of people in NYC espouse the city's superiority in an attempt to justify how much they pay to live here.

In the past few weeks I've seen an Oscar winner on Broadway, a couple of other Tony winning shows, David Cross working out new material, an Italian pianist and composer, some experimental theater in Bushwick, and eaten at two Michelin starred restaurants, but I'm sure that I could easily do all that stuff in Milwaukee.

That was a pretty awesome way to move the goal posts. Originally your argument was secondary markets don’t have any restaurants besides Panera, now you’ve given up on that and are just listing off cool shit NYC has. No one (or at least not me) is saying secondary markets offer the same things as NYC.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Yeah, prestige is the only reason to avoid secondary markets. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to avoid eating at Panera 3 times a week or having bands I actually want to see tour where I live regularly.

Have you ever lived in a “secondary” market? There’s plenty of good food and entertainment. We’re not talking Peoria.

It gives you some real NYC vibes when someone makes such a stupid comment. Nashville, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, etc. are all awesome places to live that certainly have a lot more options than Panera, or the like, and get 95% of the national acts that would visit NYC, Chicago, or LA. The further solidifies my take that New Yorkers are trash.

Even Chicago and LA aren't in any way similar to NYC. There's only one global city in the US, and it's NYC. But with that said, it's true that overall quality of life may be higher in non-NYC biglaw. There's something to be said for affording a house, a car, personal space, and being well-off relative to your neighbors, and NYC doesn't have a monopoly on the arts or good food.

[Sackboy]

I feel like the insufferable NYer is unaware that Tony-winning shows, comedy clubs/bars, italian pianists and composers, niche theater, and Michelin star restaurants aren't exclusive to NY. I may not be able to get that all in Milwaukee, but I certainly can in Chicago, LA, and several other cities. But, keep stanning for NY as you return to your $3,000/mo. 450sq ft apartment.