Why do people favor NYC firms? Forum

[thesealocust]

* begins furiously researching Roosevelt Island *

[PKSebben]

* begins furiously researching Roosevelt Island *

dont do that

[thesealocust]

* begins furiously researching Roosevelt Island *

dont do that

* stops researching Roosevelt Island *

[rayiner]

* begins furiously researching Roosevelt Island *

dont do that

It's got a weird "Shutter Island" vibe to it, but the area around the new condo development is nice (and right next to the F line). Only 3 stops and 8 minutes to Rockefeller Center.

[rayiner]

Anyway, I'm a New Yorker, but I'm from Brooklyn and I've never lived in Manhattan, and don't really have any desire to ever do so, so I'm not unsympathetic to a lot of the complaints here. But as others have said, a lot of them Manhattan-specific, and you can get all/most of the benefits of living in NYC without a lot of the drawbacks by living in an outer borough.

While this might be true generally, it's less applicable ITT because nearly all law firm offices are in Manhattan.

Yes, but there are plenty of places in Brooklyn or Queens that are closer to Midtown than certain places in Manhattan.

It takes about the same time to commute from Brooklyn Heights to Midtown East (half an hour) as it does from the Upper West Side to Midtown East. Midtown is about 15 minutes away from Astoria and Long Island City).

Most of the partners and a fair number of the associates at my summer firm don't live in Manhattan.

Also: LOL @ Brooklyn: --LinkRemoved--

[quakeroats]

Anyway, I'm a New Yorker, but I'm from Brooklyn and I've never lived in Manhattan, and don't really have any desire to ever do so, so I'm not unsympathetic to a lot of the complaints here. But as others have said, a lot of them Manhattan-specific, and you can get all/most of the benefits of living in NYC without a lot of the drawbacks by living in an outer borough.

While this might be true generally, it's less applicable ITT because nearly all law firm offices are in Manhattan.

Yes, but there are plenty of places in Brooklyn or Queens that are closer to Midtown than certain places in Manhattan.

It takes about the same time to commute from Brooklyn Heights to Midtown East (half an hour) as it does from the Upper West Side to Midtown East. Midtown is about 15 minutes away from Astoria and Long Island City).

Most of the partners and a fair number of the associates at my summer firm don't live in Manhattan.

Also: LOL @ Brooklyn: --LinkRemoved--

One of my professors told a story about driving by a dump in Brooklyn with his dad when he was about 3 years old. He asked his dad what the bad smell was, and when his father responded he said, "why don't they just move that to New Jersey?"

[transferguy]

How do people feel about Long Island City? I'm debating between living there or the FiDi at the moment, with FiDi probably being my #1 choice at the moment.

[Anonymous User]

How do people feel about Long Island City? I'm debating between living there or the FiDi at the moment, with FiDi probably being my #1 choice at the moment.

Similar question: I'm starting at a V30 in the fall and have 0 debt. What is a good amount for me to spend on rent? Is 3.5K too much?

[BunkMoreland]

You want to spend almost an entire paycheck on rent?

[thesealocust]

How do people feel about Long Island City? I'm debating between living there or the FiDi at the moment, with FiDi probably being my #1 choice at the moment.

Similar question: I'm starting at a V30 in the fall and have 0 debt. What is a good amount for me to spend on rent? Is 3.5K too much?

Take home in the city will be around 98K before health insurance, gym memberships, travel expenses, and 401(k) contributions (all of which can be taken out pre-tax in one form or another at many firms). You'll have on the order of 8K take home per month to play with. While you could pay 3.5K for rent and live comfortably, I'd personally much rather save + invest, even if you don't have loans to service.

[rayiner]

How do people feel about Long Island City? I'm debating between living there or the FiDi at the moment, with FiDi probably being my #1 choice at the moment.

Similar question: I'm starting at a V30 in the fall and have 0 debt. What is a good amount for me to spend on rent? Is 3.5K too much?

Where do you work? (east or west midtown, fidi)? 3k will get you a serviceable place.

At a certain point is silly to compromise your lifestyle too much. If you spend 2k instead of 3k, how much are you saving? 10k/year? That's peanuts in the long run.

[GeePee]

How do people feel about Long Island City? I'm debating between living there or the FiDi at the moment, with FiDi probably being my #1 choice at the moment.

Similar question: I'm starting at a V30 in the fall and have 0 debt. What is a good amount for me to spend on rent? Is 3.5K too much?

Take home in the city will be around 98K before health insurance, gym memberships, travel expenses, and 401(k) contributions (all of which can be taken out pre-tax in one form or another at many firms). You'll have on the order of 8K take home per month to play with. While you could pay 3.5K for rent and live comfortably, I'd personally much rather save + invest, even if you don't have loans to service.

I mean, it basically comes down to trading a half-hour per day for about $1-1.5k/mo. in the difference in rent between Manhattan and Queens/Brooklyn. Considering most big firm lawyers are working for somewhere in the range of $60/hr., it's not an economically irrational decision to trade $1800/mo. in life-hours gained for $1500 in cash. When you factor in that most biglawyers seem to suggest that they'd derive greater utility from less pay at less hours, you end up with a completely rational economic decision.

[thesealocust]

Assuming you keep your job. Stress/health, the market (heyo Latham!), and plenty of other issues mean that I wouldn't want to have a liability of that size from day 1. It would limit your willingness to change jobs if you wound up hating it, too. But sure, spending that much can be a rational decision if that's what somebody decides they want.

[rayiner]

How do people feel about Long Island City? I'm debating between living there or the FiDi at the moment, with FiDi probably being my #1 choice at the moment.

Similar question: I'm starting at a V30 in the fall and have 0 debt. What is a good amount for me to spend on rent? Is 3.5K too much?

Take home in the city will be around 98K before health insurance, gym memberships, travel expenses, and 401(k) contributions (all of which can be taken out pre-tax in one form or another at many firms). You'll have on the order of 8K take home per month to play with. While you could pay 3.5K for rent and live comfortably, I'd personally much rather save + invest, even if you don't have loans to service.

I mean, it basically comes down to trading a half-hour per day for about $1-1.5k/mo. in the difference in rent between Manhattan and Queens/Brooklyn. Considering most big firm lawyers are working for somewhere in the range of $60/hr., it's not an economically irrational decision to trade $1800/mo. in life-hours gained for $1500 in cash. When you factor in that most biglawyers seem to suggest that they'd derive greater utility from less pay at less hours, you end up with a completely rational economic decision.

That's not the calculation. Remember you're working with a marginal value curve. You need to look at the marginal value of that extra free time. Commuting from queens/Brooklyn might save you $1000 per month or $50 per working day. What is your personal marginal value on that half hour of free time (out of maybe 3 hours a day)? If you're trading your labor for an *average* rate of $60/hr, it's totally believable that you'd price that marginal hour at $100.

[rayiner]

Assuming you keep your job. Stress/health, the market (heyo Latham!), and plenty of other issues mean that I wouldn't want to have a liability of that size from day 1. It would limit your willingness to change jobs if you wound up hating it, too. But sure, spending that much can be a rational decision if that's what somebody decides they want.

Yes, risk averse lawyers.

[transferguy]

How do people feel about Long Island City? I'm debating between living there or the FiDi at the moment, with FiDi probably being my #1 choice at the moment.

Similar question: I'm starting at a V30 in the fall and have 0 debt. What is a good amount for me to spend on rent? Is 3.5K too much?

Where do you work? (east or west midtown, fidi)? 3k will get you a serviceable place.

At a certain point is silly to compromise your lifestyle too much. If you spend 2k instead of 3k, how much are you saving? 10k/year? That's peanuts in the long run.

Working in midtown east right by GCT.

[GeePee]

I mean, it basically comes down to trading a half-hour per day for about $1-1.5k/mo. in the difference in rent between Manhattan and Queens/Brooklyn. Considering most big firm lawyers are working for somewhere in the range of $60/hr., it's not an economically irrational decision to trade $1800/mo. in life-hours gained for $1500 in cash. When you factor in that most biglawyers seem to suggest that they'd derive greater utility from less pay at less hours, you end up with a completely rational economic decision.

That's not the calculation. Remember you're working with a marginal value curve. You need to look at the marginal value of that extra free time. Commuting from queens/Brooklyn might save you $1000 per month or $50 per working day. What is your personal marginal value on that half hour of free time (out of maybe 3 hours a day)? If you're trading your labor for an *average* rate of $60/hr, it's totally believable that you'd price that marginal hour at $100.

Right, that's why I wrote that last sentence -- to suggest that biglawyers are not at equilibrium between work and leisure time. Because of the inelasticity of biglaw hours (you can't decide to work less hours for less pay), marginal leisure time is worth considerably more than money in your pocket, so an individual is adding considerable utility and therefore making a completely rational decision.

[quakeroats]

Right, that's why I wrote that last sentence -- to suggest that biglawyers are not at equilibrium between work and leisure time. Because of the inelasticity of biglaw hours (you can't decide to work less hours for less pay), marginal leisure time is worth considerably more than money in your pocket, so an individual is adding considerable utility and therefore making a completely rational decision.

Even in biglaw you can work less for less money. You might not get a bonus--or it might be lower than everyone else's--and you might be forced out earlier, but you can still work less if you don't mind losing money. You can be at an NALP firm in a secondary market and get the same result. I can find you 10 firms right now that have average-hours-worked figures under 2000.

[GeePee]

Right, that's why I wrote that last sentence -- to suggest that biglawyers are not at equilibrium between work and leisure time. Because of the inelasticity of biglaw hours (you can't decide to work less hours for less pay), marginal leisure time is worth considerably more than money in your pocket, so an individual is adding considerable utility and therefore making a completely rational decision.

Even in biglaw you can work less for less money. You might not get a bonus--or it might be lower than everyone else's--and you might be forced out earlier, but you can still work less if you don't mind losing money. You can be at an NALP firm in a secondary market and get the same result. I can find you 10 firms right now that have average-hours-worked figures under 2000.

That changes the entire calculus though -- one of your suggested approaches completely changes your job security, and the other totally defeats the purpose of living closer to/farther away from a Manhattan office.

[quakeroats]

Right, that's why I wrote that last sentence -- to suggest that biglawyers are not at equilibrium between work and leisure time. Because of the inelasticity of biglaw hours (you can't decide to work less hours for less pay), marginal leisure time is worth considerably more than money in your pocket, so an individual is adding considerable utility and therefore making a completely rational decision.

Even in biglaw you can work less for less money. You might not get a bonus--or it might be lower than everyone else's--and you might be forced out earlier, but you can still work less if you don't mind losing money. You can be at an NALP firm in a secondary market and get the same result. I can find you 10 firms right now that have average-hours-worked figures under 2000.

That changes the entire calculus though -- one of your suggested approaches completely changes your job security, and the other totally defeats the purpose of living closer to/farther away from a Manhattan office.

I wouldn't say it completely changes one's job security--remember the attrition rate after 4-5 years is over 90%. I suspect you can make it a few years in most major NYC firms without hitting the billable target, but I've never looked into it.

[PKSebben]

Right, that's why I wrote that last sentence -- to suggest that biglawyers are not at equilibrium between work and leisure time. Because of the inelasticity of biglaw hours (you can't decide to work less hours for less pay), marginal leisure time is worth considerably more than money in your pocket, so an individual is adding considerable utility and therefore making a completely rational decision.

Even in biglaw you can work less for less money. You might not get a bonus--or it might be lower than everyone else's--and you might be forced out earlier, but you can still work less if you don't mind losing money. You can be at an NALP firm in a secondary market and get the same result. I can find you 10 firms right now that have average-hours-worked figures under 2000.

That changes the entire calculus though -- one of your suggested approaches completely changes your job security, and the other totally defeats the purpose of living closer to/farther away from a Manhattan office.

I wouldn't say it completely changes one's job security--remember the attrition rate after 4-5 years is over 90%. I suspect you can make it a few years in most major NYC firms without hitting the billable target, but I've never looked into it.

Also targeting totally secondary markets is a lot harder than blasting NYC at OCI.

[quakeroats]

Also targeting totally secondary markets is a lot harder than blasting NYC at OCI.

Why waste a bid on secondary markets for OCI? As long as you have connections you can have a secondary-market job offer before OCI even starts.

[PKSebben]

Also targeting totally secondary markets is a lot harder than blasting NYC at OCI.

Why waste a bid on secondary markets for OCI? As long as you have connections you can have a secondary-market job offer before OCI even starts.

I bet 80 percent or better of secondary market SA gigs come from OCI.

[quakeroats]

Also targeting totally secondary markets is a lot harder than blasting NYC at OCI.

Why waste a bid on secondary markets for OCI? As long as you have connections you can have a secondary-market job offer before OCI even starts.

I bet 80 percent or better of secondary market SA gigs come from OCI.

Eh, I doubt it, but I'm defining secondary as everything but NYC, DC, Chicago, LA, SF, Boston, Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta. Perhaps what I'm really driving at is tertiary markets.

[Renzo]

Also targeting totally secondary markets is a lot harder than blasting NYC at OCI.

Why waste a bid on secondary markets for OCI? As long as you have connections you can have a secondary-market job offer before OCI even starts.

I had major, bigtime connections to a fairly large secondary market, and couldn't crack it. I mean, born there, went to school there, still have family there, led civic groups, worked for 10+ years, had political connections.... But I got nothing.

I wanted to stay in NYC, so it worked out in the end, but the idea that all it takes is ties is simply incorrect. And before you ask, I got several V10 to V100 offers, (both from OCI and mailing) so it wasn't simply that I'm a bad candidate.