NYC to 200k Forum

[Anonymous User]

...

[Anonymous User]

So when is my V70 going to match?

[Anonymous User]

So when is my V70 going to match?

Probably sooner than my v50

[Anonymous User]

LMAO at the poster trying to attribute living in NYC as extra income in determining socioeconomic class.

Way to oversimplify. Person A makes $100k working in NYC and lives outside of NYC in some cheaper Jersey suburb because that's what they can afford. Person B makes $180k and lives in Manhattan because that's what they can afford. Person B pays significantly more for rent, taxes, food, etc. than Person A such that they have approximately the same income leftover for discretionary spending. I think it's fair to say Person A is in a lower economic class than Person B. Why? Because Person B can afford the luxury of living in NYC.

[Anonymous User]

LMAO at the poster trying to attribute living in NYC as extra income in determining socioeconomic class.

Way to oversimplify. Person A makes $100k working in NYC and lives outside of NYC in some cheaper Jersey suburb because that's what they can afford. Person B makes $180k and lives in Manhattan because that's what they can afford. Person B pays significantly more for rent, taxes, food, etc. than Person A such that they have approximately the same income leftover for discretionary spending. I think it's fair to say Person A is in a lower economic class than Person B. Why? Because Person B can afford the luxury of living in NYC.

Shut. THE FUCK. UP.

COMPENSATION NEWS ONLY!!!

ALL CITES ARE GREAT/SUCK and EVERYONE IS RICH/POOR.

[Anonymous User]

LMAO at the poster trying to attribute living in NYC as extra income in determining socioeconomic class.

Way to oversimplify. Person A makes $100k working in NYC and lives outside of NYC in some cheaper Jersey suburb because that's what they can afford. Person B makes $180k and lives in Manhattan because that's what they can afford. Person B pays significantly more for rent, taxes, food, etc. than Person A such that they have approximately the same income leftover for discretionary spending. I think it's fair to say Person A is in a lower economic class than Person B. Why? Because Person B can afford the luxury of living in NYC.

What if someone is making 100K in Philly and their costs are lower such that this person and the NYC person at 180k have the same income leftover for discretionary spending?

[OneTwoThreeFour]

LMAO at the poster trying to attribute living in NYC as extra income in determining socioeconomic class.

Way to oversimplify. Person A makes $100k working in NYC and lives outside of NYC in some cheaper Jersey suburb because that's what they can afford. Person B makes $180k and lives in Manhattan because that's what they can afford. Person B pays significantly more for rent, taxes, food, etc. than Person A such that they have approximately the same income leftover for discretionary spending. I think it's fair to say Person A is in a lower economic class than Person B. Why? Because Person B can afford the luxury of living in NYC.

Shut. THE FUCK. UP.

COMPENSATION NEWS ONLY!!!

ALL CITES ARE GREAT/SUCK and EVERYONE IS RICH/POOR.

+200

[Anonymous User]

LMAO at the poster trying to attribute living in NYC as extra income in determining socioeconomic class.

Way to oversimplify. Person A makes $100k working in NYC and lives outside of NYC in some cheaper Jersey suburb because that's what they can afford. Person B makes $180k and lives in Manhattan because that's what they can afford. Person B pays significantly more for rent, taxes, food, etc. than Person A such that they have approximately the same income leftover for discretionary spending. I think it's fair to say Person A is in a lower economic class than Person B. Why? Because Person B can afford the luxury of living in NYC.

What if someone is making 100K in Philly and their costs are lower such that this person and the NYC person at 180k have the same income leftover for discretionary spending?

Pretty sure this was covered by the hypothetical.

[Anonymous User]

LMAO at the poster trying to attribute living in NYC as extra income in determining socioeconomic class.

Way to oversimplify. Person A makes $100k working in NYC and lives outside of NYC in some cheaper Jersey suburb because that's what they can afford. Person B makes $180k and lives in Manhattan because that's what they can afford. Person B pays significantly more for rent, taxes, food, etc. than Person A such that they have approximately the same income leftover for discretionary spending. I think it's fair to say Person A is in a lower economic class than Person B. Why? Because Person B can afford the luxury of living in NYC.

What if someone is making 100K in Philly and their costs are lower such that this person and the NYC person at 180k have the same income leftover for discretionary spending?

Pretty sure this was covered by the hypothetical.

No. The person in the hypothetical lives in NJ and works in NYC.

[Anonymous User]

LMAO at the poster trying to attribute living in NYC as extra income in determining socioeconomic class.

Way to oversimplify. Person A makes $100k working in NYC and lives outside of NYC in some cheaper Jersey suburb because that's what they can afford. Person B makes $180k and lives in Manhattan because that's what they can afford. Person B pays significantly more for rent, taxes, food, etc. than Person A such that they have approximately the same income leftover for discretionary spending. I think it's fair to say Person A is in a lower economic class than Person B. Why? Because Person B can afford the luxury of living in NYC.

What if someone is making 100K in Philly and their costs are lower such that this person and the NYC person at 180k have the same income leftover for discretionary spending?

Pretty sure this was covered by the hypothetical.

No. The person in the hypothetical lives in NJ and works in NYC.

Manhattan > Philly, so the conclusion that the NY lawyer is in a higher economic class still holds. You certainly wouldn’t think the Philly lawyer, with an equal amount of discretionary income, would be of a higher economic class. So, at best, they’d be equal.

[Anonymous User]

LMAO at the poster trying to attribute living in NYC as extra income in determining socioeconomic class.

Way to oversimplify. Person A makes $100k working in NYC and lives outside of NYC in some cheaper Jersey suburb because that's what they can afford. Person B makes $180k and lives in Manhattan because that's what they can afford. Person B pays significantly more for rent, taxes, food, etc. than Person A such that they have approximately the same income leftover for discretionary spending. I think it's fair to say Person A is in a lower economic class than Person B. Why? Because Person B can afford the luxury of living in NYC.

What if someone is making 100K in Philly and their costs are lower such that this person and the NYC person at 180k have the same income leftover for discretionary spending?

Pretty sure this was covered by the hypothetical.

No. The person in the hypothetical lives in NJ and works in NYC.

Manhattan > Philly, so the conclusion that the NY lawyer is in a higher economic class still holds. You certainly wouldn’t think the Philly lawyer, with an equal amount of discretionary income, would be of a higher economic class. So, at best, they’d be equal.

So I could see how in the original hypo there would be some truth. But what you are saying just denies that there are different thresholds for different classes depending on the market, which is obviously wrong.

[houwangmagic]

If the mprraccoon makes it, Minneapolis to 215.

[Anonymous User]

LMAO at the poster trying to attribute living in NYC as extra income in determining socioeconomic class.

Way to oversimplify. Person A makes $100k working in NYC and lives outside of NYC in some cheaper Jersey suburb because that's what they can afford. Person B makes $180k and lives in Manhattan because that's what they can afford. Person B pays significantly more for rent, taxes, food, etc. than Person A such that they have approximately the same income leftover for discretionary spending. I think it's fair to say Person A is in a lower economic class than Person B. Why? Because Person B can afford the luxury of living in NYC.

What if someone is making 100K in Philly and their costs are lower such that this person and the NYC person at 180k have the same income leftover for discretionary spending?

Pretty sure this was covered by the hypothetical.

No. The person in the hypothetical lives in NJ and works in NYC.

Manhattan > Philly, so the conclusion that the NY lawyer is in a higher economic class still holds. You certainly wouldn’t think the Philly lawyer, with an equal amount of discretionary income, would be of a higher economic class. So, at best, they’d be equal.

So I could see how in the original hypo there would be some truth. But what you are saying just denies that there are different thresholds for different classes depending on the market, which is obviously wrong.

I didn’t write the original hypo but merely extrapolated from it. I actually believe that where you live matters in determining your class. I live in a pricier area and I feel like “upper middle class” here takes on a different meaning. If I lived somewhere that afforded me plenty of luxuries vs somewhere with greater pay where everything was so expensive that I couldnt afford those same luxuries then Id think my class would be greater where I could afford more notwithstanding the latter locale offering a greater salary.

[Single-Malt-Liquor]

It all really depends. A single associate making 235k is easily upper middle class.

However, a family of 5? That’s middle class.

My parents always told me that you need roughly 100k per person in your household to live comfortably. So, for a family of 5, to live the comfortable lifestyle I grew up with, my dad had to earn ~500k. This was in the early 90s. My dad made more than that and we still lived a very middle class life (nothing lavish).

I also grew up in an expensive CT town, so it probably differs from someone living in Toledo or something.

I grew up in Stamford bro, if you're living middle class in Greenwich, Westport, or something like that, then you're definitely upper middle class.

[Anonymous User]

LMAO at the poster trying to attribute living in NYC as extra income in determining socioeconomic class.

Way to oversimplify. Person A makes $100k working in NYC and lives outside of NYC in some cheaper Jersey suburb because that's what they can afford. Person B makes $180k and lives in Manhattan because that's what they can afford. Person B pays significantly more for rent, taxes, food, etc. than Person A such that they have approximately the same income leftover for discretionary spending. I think it's fair to say Person A is in a lower economic class than Person B. Why? Because Person B can afford the luxury of living in NYC.

What if someone is making 100K in Philly and their costs are lower such that this person and the NYC person at 180k have the same income leftover for discretionary spending?

Pretty sure this was covered by the hypothetical.

No. The person in the hypothetical lives in NJ and works in NYC.

Manhattan > Philly, so the conclusion that the NY lawyer is in a higher economic class still holds. You certainly wouldn’t think the Philly lawyer, with an equal amount of discretionary income, would be of a higher economic class. So, at best, they’d be equal.

So I could see how in the original hypo there would be some truth. But what you are saying just denies that there are different thresholds for different classes depending on the market, which is obviously wrong.

Original Person A/B anon here. We can both be right. Obviously there's a difference in "middle class" for various localities, but that's not the whole picture, and it doesn't mean that someone with $X discretionary income in NYC is in the same class as someone else with $X discretionary income in Houston. There's another part to the story: the person in NYC is paying for the luxury of being in NYC. That price to some degree puts the NYC resident in a higher economic class, even if not all of the additional rent/food costs/etc. correspond directly to an increase in class. However, the original statement you laughed at (about people defending the greatness of NYC and still crying poor) still stands because, unlike your absolutist argument that living in NYC can't be treated as "extra income," it didn't claim to explain everything.

[Anonymous User]

Guaranteed the last few posters are friendless virgins.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Guaranteed the last few posters are friendless virgins.

[Anonymous User]

Guaranteed the last few posters are friendless virgins.

[20181989]

Mods, please.

Post news about compensation or find another thread.

[Anonymous User]

Mods, please.

Post news about compensation or find another thread.

There is no news about compensation u twat

[Anonymous User]

someone please confirm this entire conversation is trolling. Please.

[Anonymous User]

Mods, please.

Post news about compensation or find another thread.

There’s no news. It’s almost 8 in NY.

[Anonymous User]

Are there people who think this may be the new normal? Some firms at 190, some at 180? I understand that firms have to meet and discuss, but the theory that firms have to have their committees reconvene post-cravath seems strange. Last time there were raises, no one knew what cravath was doing and they matched quickly.

I just would’ve thought firms would have agreed to a range of salaries (kind of like those who keep saying KE and whatever had always been prepared to go to 215).

Also, anyone think Greenberg Traurig will match in NY after that email?

[Anonymous User]

Are there people who think this may be the new normal? Some firms at 190, some at 180? I understand that firms have to meet and discuss, but the theory that firms have to have their committees reconvene post-cravath seems strange. Last time there were raises, no one knew what cravath was doing and they matched quickly.

I just would’ve thought firms would have agreed to a range of salaries (kind of like those who keep saying KE and whatever had always been prepared to go to 215).

Also, anyone think Greenberg Traurig will match in NY after that email?

It was already the new normal before, but I think more firms will drop into the 180 or the 190/Milbank camp, especially some firms that don't have as big a NYC presence or that fancy themselves as places where senior associates typically lateral in for a chance at partnership.

[Anonymous User]

Are there people who think this may be the new normal? Some firms at 190, some at 180? I understand that firms have to meet and discuss, but the theory that firms have to have their committees reconvene post-cravath seems strange. Last time there were raises, no one knew what cravath was doing and they matched quickly.

Not strange at all. Partner time costs them money, and I'd think that they'd want to see someone like Cravath move before they waste their time talking about some soon-to-be obsolete salary scale. Also, re "last time" - last time firms knew something was in the works since it had been a long time since there was a raise. Milbank likely caught most firms off guard. Finally, the summer bonuses are likely slowing things down because firms are concerned that this will become the new norm. They may want to wait it out to see if they can squeak by with just the raises.

I just would’ve thought firms would have agreed to a range of salaries (kind of like those who keep saying KE and whatever had always been prepared to go to 215).

Might make sense to an associate, but for a large firm with lots of variables I doubt they spend much time sitting around saying "if Cravath raised tomorrow what would we be willing to take?" Getting a bunch of people to agree on a hypothetical sounds like a waste of time.

Also, anyone think Greenberg Traurig will match in NY after that email?

If I recall correctly GT said it was a holistic question for each office. NYC is more likely, especially if that's a really profitable office. Elsewhere? Unlikely if other firms keep at $180. This is just speculation though.