Milbank/Davis Polk/Cravath Scale: NYC to 215-415k Forum

[Anonymous User]

After more than a month, DPW finally matched and y'all are still arguing about the usefulness of junior associates. Just stop.

I honestly think this is happening because of the "whelming" nature of the DPW announcement. Like, if you wanted to calculate a re-raise to be as unmotivating as possible, the delay, the lack of movement on junior salaries, the use of $500 increments, it's perfect. People are just bickering out of a sense of lukewarm dissatisfaction and to pass the time at this point.

[Anonymous User]

I haven't seen one post suggesting anyone wants to see people get fired. People here need a lesson in the difference between "descriptive" vs. "normative." If anything, people are trying to opine on how *not* to get fired once things settle down again post-COVID.

As someone with absolutely no stake in this currently, you are absolutely blind--or incapable of picking up on subtext (if not outright text)--if you think that the "descriptive" statements are not tinged with--if not outright soaking with--"normative" axioms.

[Anonymous User]

I haven't seen one post suggesting anyone wants to see people get fired. People here need a lesson in the difference between "descriptive" vs. "normative." If anything, people are trying to opine on how *not* to get fired once things settle down again post-COVID.

As someone with absolutely no stake in this currently, you are absolutely blind--or incapable of picking up on subtext (if not outright text)--if you think that the "descriptive" statements are not tinged with--if not outright soaking with--"normative" axioms.

Strong disagree sorry. I think people are conveying how things actually function inside firms based on what we've been exposed to and it's ruffling the feathers of those who wish it were otherwise which in turn is causing all this bickering. There's no subtext. I haven't seen anyone psychopathically wishing, by implication connotation or otherwise, for people to lose their jobs. And the frustration is misdirected; if I could magically wave a wand & let us be in an industry where we make our 500k per year or whatever but also get to check out at 6pm, I'd do it--I think that's called being an orthopedic surgeon.

[Anonymous User]

Relax; no need to name call. And no one is trying to be terrifying. One of the reasons we post here is to be able to frankly (and anonymously) discuss business dynamics inside firms. Maybe it's different wherever you are (doubt it) but I'm just reflecting the reality of the V25 I'm at. Being consistently unavailable, pushing back on work (when you're not billing a ton), not promptly responding to e-mail or calls is one of the big missteps you can make as a junior and it will get you pushed out over time--slowly during weird times like we're in now, but quickly when things are normal as I said in my first post. We can certainly dance around this & pretend it's not true if that's more to everyone's taste.

The simmering anger you feel witnessing juniors not needing to tongue butthole the way you did is very obvious and very entertaining.

The personal attacks make me feel like you're angry at someone you work with and are venting here, which is fine but kind of ironic. I don't think we disagree as much as you might think, just different values. But for the record I do take all 5 weeks of vacation every year and people are happy to cover for me when I do. Not sure if that's uncommon but it might help that I tend to be a hardworking "doormat" when I'm not away.

Not even remotely correct, but I'm again not surprised that you keep trying to rationalize me into some kind of lazy creep in defense of your mewling sycophancy.

The personal attacks are because certain anons here are presenting very attackable personalities. How am I supposed to restrain myself in such a target rich environment?

I guess it's one thing to be upset that the omnipresent fear of being fired hasn't been around for the last two years, but what kind of monster do you have to be to want people to get fired? Just to prove some point that sacrificing your late 20s to the panthern was, indeed, what needed to be done? Pound sand dudes

Glad someone gets it.

I never "tongued butthole." At what point do these personal attacks that you continue to throw at everyone get you temp banned? Most people ITT, on different sides of the issue, are trying to at least keep it civil.

Edit: Also, you're projecting terribly right now. I don't feel any simmering anger. Mentoring juniors is one of the most rewarding aspects of my job; I'm not the caricature of some aggrieved senior associate you think you're talking to.

[Anonymous User]

Are the weirdo sociopaths in this thread the same people who seem so normal irl? Legit curious. On both sides of the debate. Or are they the ones we know to avoid.

[Anonymous User]

Strong disagree sorry. I think people are conveying how things actually function inside firms based on what we've been exposed to and it's ruffling the feathers of those who wish it were otherwise which in turn is causing all this bickering. There's no subtext. I haven't seen anyone psychopathically wishing, by implication connotation or otherwise, for people to lose their jobs. And the frustration is misdirected; if I could magically wave a wand & let us be in an industry where we make our 500k per year or whatever but also get to check out at 6pm, I'd do it--I think that's called being an orthopedic surgeon.

Thanks for proving my point, I guess? At the outset, you completely pervert the issue--which was based on juniors going to bed at 11 p.m., a specific time mentioned in a previous comment, to midlevels/seniors earning $500k checking out at 6 p.m.

With that out the way, the lack of anecdotes of droves of juniors getting fired for going to bed at 11 when not expecting work are curiously absent. And the rather irrational response you provided suggests a level of emotional agitation that I find hard to square with dispassionate "description."

[Anonymous User]

Strong disagree sorry. I think people are conveying how things actually function inside firms based on what we've been exposed to and it's ruffling the feathers of those who wish it were otherwise which in turn is causing all this bickering. There's no subtext. I haven't seen anyone psychopathically wishing, by implication connotation or otherwise, for people to lose their jobs. And the frustration is misdirected; if I could magically wave a wand & let us be in an industry where we make our 500k per year or whatever but also get to check out at 6pm, I'd do it--I think that's called being an orthopedic surgeon.

Thanks for proving my point, I guess? At the outset, you completely pervert the issue--which was based on juniors going to bed at 11 p.m., a specific time mentioned in a previous comment, to midlevels/seniors earning $500k checking out at 6 p.m.

With that out the way, the lack of anecdotes of droves of juniors getting fired for going to bed at 11 when not expecting work are curiously absent. And the rather irrational response you provided suggests a level of emotional agitation that I find hard to square with dispassionate "description."

I think we're talking past each other right now. My point was that, across all the statements over the last couple pages, I hadn't seen anyone, in describing expectations about availability and responsiveness, to be making prescriptive / normative statements (i.e., "and if you're not available, you ought to be fired!"). You're trying to box that into a debate about the reasonableness of availability at 11pm when that wasn't what I was responding to (and I'm not now; it's a silly debate that's going to vary depending on context, firm, practice group, so why waste ink on it).

Also, several people in this thread now have stretched for the old internet cope of, in more euphemistic terms, "you mad." No one as far as I can tell is "mad," myself included. It's weird watching people try to make this point without a valid basis for it and I don't know why everyone is so fixated on it, though this is an aside.

This place has been a decent source of info during a bonus / raise season, but the capacity of people here to just endlessly bicker about trivial crap is astounding. Maybe just a feature of the legal profession.

[Anonymous User]

welp, good thread guys
see ya next raise

[Anonymous User]

I think we're talking past each other right now. My point was that, across all the statements over the last couple pages, I hadn't seen anyone, in describing expectations about availability and responsiveness, to be making prescriptive / normative statements (i.e., "and if you're not available, you ought to be fired!").

That is why my OP mentioned "subtext" in addition to "text."

[Anonymous User]

Loving this popcorn, 10/10.

[Anonymous User]

I think we're talking past each other right now. My point was that, across all the statements over the last couple pages, I hadn't seen anyone, in describing expectations about availability and responsiveness, to be making prescriptive / normative statements (i.e., "and if you're not available, you ought to be fired!").

That is why my OP mentioned "subtext" in addition to "text."

Right and the "subtext" of my reply encompassed that point.

[Anonymous User]

Loving this popcorn, 10/10.

I'm just psychologically processing DPW's non-raise-re-raise. It's either this or therapy.

[Anonymous User]

I guess it's one thing to be upset that the omnipresent fear of being fired hasn't been around for the last two years, but what kind of monster do you have to be to want people to get fired? Just to prove some point that sacrificing your late 20s to the panthern was, indeed, what needed to be done? Pound sand dudes

I don’t think you need to be a monster to wish for an associate to be let go when said associate “manages time” to such a degree that staffing readjustments need to be routinely made such that other associates in that person’s class are stretched unexpectedly thinner because god forbid they worked until 6:01pm one week day or had to send a response on a weekend.

The only reason these people think they’re standing up to the system, such as the asshat railing in this thread, is that we’re in a market where a warm body is always better than an empty seat. The takes here reek of a background of privilege and show a complete lack of awareness when someone can gleefully say they don’t care if they’re fired. Everyone that I’ve encountered that takes this approach to big law (or other pursuits) seems to come from wealthier backgrounds. I wonder why that’s the case…

[Anonymous User]

Is Kirkland going to surprise us all tomorrow? Probably not.

They might round up from those.5s though. Weak if they don't.

I don't get why they refuse to be market leaders for comp. We know it's the one firm that can afford to match whatever number and probably would. They had to know someone else was going to do it, why are they so set on having a reputation for not really going there?

[Blessedassurance]

Why are the juniors so obsessed with raises? Genuinely curious.

[Anonymous User]

Not sure these takes about who gets fired in a slowdown are right

The seniors probably get fired because they are most expensive and the partnership wont make new partners in bad times

Today's useless juniors may be less useless midlevelsby then and survive

World isnt fair

[Anonymous User]

I honestly think this is happening because of the "whelming" nature of the DPW announcement. Like, if you wanted to calculate a re-raise to be as unmotivating as possible, the delay, the lack of movement on junior salaries, the use of $500 increments, it's perfect. People are just bickering out of a sense of lukewarm dissatisfaction and to pass the time at this point.

This, a thousand times over.

It’s great the proletariat here are debating the … *checks notes* usefulness of a junior associate, when you should be wondering if junior associates will remember the lack of lobster on their plate.

McFish for me tonight.

[Anonymous User]

Right and the "subtext" of my reply encompassed that point.

Ah, the attempt at a cop-out. As classic as it is ineffective.

[Wanderingdrock]

Why are the juniors so obsessed with raises? Genuinely curious.

They stand to gain the most.

[Anonymous User]

Right and the "subtext" of my reply encompassed that point.

Ah, the attempt at a cop-out. As classic as it is ineffective.

No definitely not a cop-out. It was an attempt to amicably end a discussion that is becoming increasingly pointless. But since you apparently would like to continue out of a dogged sense of, I don't know what, your post that I replied to was poorly reasoned. Both of us have acknowledged that we're discussing both literal statements and their subtextual implications. Your reply of "that's why my OP mentioned subtext" as if I wasn't considering it was a weak rhetorical move that wasn't tracking the actual discussion being had--no one was trying to disacknowledge subtext. As already stated, my read of the statements throughout the last several pages is that they are not calling for the firing of attorneys due to e.g., lack of responsivity, either directly or through connotation or subtext. If you think otherwise, you're welcome to stick with that misapprehension, but at least do so straightforwardly rather than trying to create a red herring in the discussion ("Oh, sir, you're now ignoring the 'subtext!'"). Have a great evening champ.

[ExpOriental]

Right and the "subtext" of my reply encompassed that point.

Ah, the attempt at a cop-out. As classic as it is ineffective.

No definitely not a cop-out. It was an attempt to amicably end a discussion that is becoming increasingly pointless. But since you apparently would like to continue out of a dogged sense of, I don't know what, your post that I replied to was poorly reasoned. Both of us have acknowledged that we're discussing both literal statements and their subtextual implications. Your reply of "that's why my OP mentioned subtext" as if I wasn't considering it was a weak rhetorical move that wasn't tracking the actual discussion being had--no one was trying to disacknowledge subtext. As already stated, my read of the statements throughout the last several pages is that they are not calling for the firing of attorneys due to e.g., lack of responsivity, either directly or through connotation or subtext. If you think otherwise, you're welcome to stick with that misapprehension, but at least do so straightforwardly rather than trying to create a red herring in the discussion ("Oh, sir, you're now ignoring the 'subtext!'"). Have a great evening champ.

This is perhaps the maddest anyone has ever been on the internet

[Anonymous User]

Your reply of "that's why my OP mentioned subtext" as if I wasn't considering it was a weak rhetorical move that wasn't tracking the actual discussion being had--no one was trying to disacknowledge subtext.

You apparently were, since you clearly missed the entire point.

As already stated, my read of the statements throughout the last several pages is that they are not calling for the firing of attorneys due to e.g., lack of responsivity, either directly or through connotation or subtext.

And I never once suggested that subtext indicating normative convictions entailed calling for the firing of anyone.

[Anonymous User]

Your reply of "that's why my OP mentioned subtext" as if I wasn't considering it was a weak rhetorical move that wasn't tracking the actual discussion being had--no one was trying to disacknowledge subtext.

I never said that. I was responding to the subtext.

As already stated, my read of the statements throughout the last several pages is that they are not calling for the firing of attorneys due to e.g., lack of responsivity, either directly or through connotation or subtext.

And I never once suggested that subtext indicating normative convictions entailed calling for the firing of anyone.

Ah, so a cop out. That's the route you want to go now? Sort of ironic.

[Anonymous User]

Ah, so a cop out. That's the route you want to go now? Sort of ironic.

Not really, since unlike many posters here I am not pressed lol.

[Anonymous User]

Ah, so a cop out. That's the route you want to go now? Sort of ironic.

Not really, since unlike many posters here I am not pressed lol.

You seem pretty pressed in this discussion tbh. Also not sure what's "lol" about this other than you trying to beg off suddenly.