Biglawyers. Are any of you happy? Was this job better than others you've had? Forum

[zot1]

I think people are though. You could be in Southern California and your COL would be cheaper.

fixed. Norcal has higher rent. And not only do you live in an expensive as fuck metropolis with higher taxes and a moronically liberal government/voting public that results in EVERYTHING being stupid expensive, but you need a car too.

There's some overlap between not being able to procreate, and being charitable. Homosexuals have the same psychological needs as heterosexuals, but can't self-actualize by making babies so their options are to either adopt or throw money and charities. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini ... .html?_r=0 A city like San Francisco is probably likelier to support paying higher taxes for more altruistic social services, and the result of this is you have ridiculous charities like Bubble Baths for Crackheads that drain your income.

Your comment is really offensive and inappropriate. First, you're stereotyping. Second, there are ways same-sex partners can have children--just not necessarily with both parents involved; but it can happen.

[jrass]

I think people are though. You could be in Southern California and your COL would be cheaper.

fixed. Norcal has higher rent. And not only do you live in an expensive as fuck metropolis with higher taxes and a moronically liberal government/voting public that results in EVERYTHING being stupid expensive, but you need a car too.

There's some overlap between not being able to procreate, and being charitable. Homosexuals have the same psychological needs as heterosexuals, but can't self-actualize by making babies so their options are to either adopt or throw money and charities. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini ... .html?_r=0 A city like San Francisco is probably likelier to support paying higher taxes for more altruistic social services, and the result of this is you have ridiculous charities like Bubble Baths for Crackheads that drain your income.

Your comment is really offensive and inappropriate. First, you're stereotyping. Second, there are ways same-sex partners can have children--just not necessarily with both parents involved; but it can happen.

Saying something is likelier doesn't mean it's always true. The data shows that homosexuals give a higher portion of their income to charity than heterosexuals. I'm simply proffering one theory as to why. Another could be education - i.e. more educated people give more to charity, and homosexuals are likelier to earn an undergraduate and advanced degree than heterosexuals. This does not mean that all homosexuals earn advanced degrees. This same logic applies to weather and cards. It's likelier to snow in November than in July, but it doesn't always snow in November. You're also likelier to get two-pair than a full house, but this doesn't mean you always get two-pair. If you'd like we can keep going, but it may be easier to simply google likelier definition, and read some examples on Websters.com.

[dixiecupdrinking]

This will end well.

[zot1]

This will end well.

It will because it already did.

[Danger Zone]

I think people are though. You could be in Southern California and your COL would be cheaper.

fixed. Norcal has higher rent. And not only do you live in an expensive as fuck metropolis with higher taxes and a moronically liberal government/voting public that results in EVERYTHING being stupid expensive, but you need a car too.

There's some overlap between not being able to procreate, and being charitable. Homosexuals have the same psychological needs as heterosexuals, but can't self-actualize by making babies so their options are to either adopt or throw money and charities. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini ... .html?_r=0 A city like San Francisco is probably likelier to support paying higher taxes for more altruistic social services, and the result of this is you have ridiculous charities like Bubble Baths for Crackheads that drain your income.

Wait how is this post responsive to anything

[zot1]

It's not, DZ.

Getting back on topic. If personalities seem to be such a big problem in biglaw, will our generation then replace that for the next one or do y'all anticipate that the same model will continue?

Edit: typo.

[Danger Zone]

It's not, DZ.

Getting back on topic. If personalities seem to be such a big problem in biglaw, will our generation then replace that for the next one or do y'all anticipate that the same model will continue?

Edit: typo.

Nah our generation has enough shit head strivers to fill the void.

[Desert Fox]

It's not, DZ.

Getting back on topic. If personalities seem to be such a big problem in biglaw, will our generation then replace that for the next one or do y'all anticipate that the same model will continue?

Edit: typo.

If anything our generation might be worse.

[zot1]

[ballouttacontrol]

I think people are though. You could be in Southern California and your COL would be cheaper.

fixed. Norcal has higher rent. And not only do you live in an expensive as fuck metropolis with higher taxes and a moronically liberal government/voting public that results in EVERYTHING being stupid expensive, but you need a car too.

There's some overlap between not being able to procreate, and being charitable. Homosexuals have the same psychological needs as heterosexuals, but can't self-actualize by making babies so their options are to either adopt or throw money and charities. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini ... .html?_r=0 A city like San Francisco is probably likelier to support paying higher taxes for more altruistic social services, and the result of this is you have ridiculous charities like Bubble Baths for Crackheads that drain your income.

Wait how is this post responsive to anything

I think he's referring to the libtards that make SF/the bay area the most expensive place to live. The "hot tubs for EVERY chicken" initiatives that get passed, and then chicken doubles in price and taxes go up to pay for chicken inspectors. Etc etc etc, there are countless measures like this every single year and they always fucking pass.

I would say the gays may be a good portion of the offending populace, but they're definitely not the only ones. It's just the attitude of the area. See, e.g., Smug in South Park

[krads153]

It's not, DZ.

Getting back on topic. If personalities seem to be such a big problem in biglaw, will our generation then replace that for the next one or do y'all anticipate that the same model will continue?

Edit: typo.

If anything our generation might be worse.

More people in the US/the planet; greater competition; harder to make partner so the only truly gunnerish types will (as opposed to in the past when everyone did); higher COL, etc. I think we're just overpopulated - people should stop having so many kids. Robots will probably replace a lot of jobs. I predict massive unemployment/poverty in a lot of countries.

I think it will only get worse, as it will in other industries like medicine, etc.

If any of you know any foreign languages, consider moving abroad. The US will be a shell of its former self in our lifetime - jobs outsourced at a rapid rate; robots replacing people, work hours increasing (apparently the US now surpasses even Japan on hours worked on average), etc. Other countries may also be bad off, but at least the healthcare costs wouldn't be so ridiculously expensive.

[zot1]

Well now I'm depressed.

[krads153]

Well now I'm depressed.

The truth is, the American dream is dead for our generation.

So take advantage of whatever languages you guys know, and GTFO. While other countries may not fare that much better due to technology, etc., at least they work fewer hours on average and a lot of them have true universal healthcare. Plus COL may be cheaper in a lot of places.

[zot1]

We can't just move to another country even if we knew the language due to hmmm immigration reasons.

Nevertheless, I can't complain too much. I may not ever be rich in my lifetime but I'll be comfortable.

[krads153]

We can't just move to another country even if we knew the language due to hmmm immigration reasons.

Nevertheless, I can't complain too much. I may not ever be rich in my lifetime but I'll be comfortable.

Get a visa to work abroad/ work for a company with offices abroad that will sponsor you.

I think my parents and my in laws will be a lot richer than I'll ever be in my lifetime - NONE of them are lawyers. The only way I even have a shot at getting lots of money is if I inherit it. Being a lawyer is not a good way to get rich.

[run26.2]

How do you define rich? If it is enough to retire at a reasonable age, then being a biglaw attorney can get you there, even today, if you plan correctly, and manage your money and career well. Of course, there are some caveats, like you didn't go into 300K in debt for your education.

[mvp99]

How do you define rich? If it is enough to retire at a reasonable age, then being a biglaw attorney can get you there, even today, if you plan correctly, and manage your money and career well. Of course, there are some caveats, like you didn't go into 300K in debt for your education.

Rich = 250k salary
Wealthy = owning the means of production, being able to live off passive income, net worth more than $5 million

edit: reduced the salary from 400k, 250k seems enough

[A. Nony Mouse]

We can't just move to another country even if we knew the language due to hmmm immigration reasons.

Nevertheless, I can't complain too much. I may not ever be rich in my lifetime but I'll be comfortable.

Get a visa to work abroad/ work for a company with offices abroad that will sponsor you.

I think my parents and my in laws will be a lot richer than I'll ever be in my lifetime - NONE of them are lawyers. The only way I even have a shot at getting lots of money is if I inherit it. Being a lawyer is not a good way to get rich.

Most things are not a good way to get rich, the way a lot of people on this board seem to define it, or more people would be.

[bk1]

Of course, there are some caveats, like you didn't go into 300K in debt for your education.

Now you tell me.

[dixiecupdrinking]

We can't just move to another country even if we knew the language due to hmmm immigration reasons.

Nevertheless, I can't complain too much. I may not ever be rich in my lifetime but I'll be comfortable.

Get a visa to work abroad/ work for a company with offices abroad that will sponsor you.

I think my parents and my in laws will be a lot richer than I'll ever be in my lifetime - NONE of them are lawyers. The only way I even have a shot at getting lots of money is if I inherit it. Being a lawyer is not a good way to get rich.

Most things are not a good way to get rich, the way a lot of people on this board seem to define it, or more people would be.

But it's not fair when the thing I chose isn't a good way to get rich

[El Pollito]

this thread got super weird

[jrass]

this thread got super weird

looks like my work here is done

[JCougar]

It's not, DZ.

Getting back on topic. If personalities seem to be such a big problem in biglaw, will our generation then replace that for the next one or do y'all anticipate that the same model will continue?

Edit: typo.

If anything our generation might be worse.

On one hand, a lot of people in this generation are getting fucked way harder than the baby boomers and even Gen X. The upper-middle class millenials are getting debt-fucked by college costs and a soft entry-level job market, and studies show the number of kids in their mid-20s and mid-30s moving back in with their parents is increasing in number. And the lower-middle-class and poor millenials have no college debt, but also have no hope as there's no longer any blue-collar work in this country, and shit like oxycontin is widespread and getting people addicted, etc. (mortality rates for poor whites are even increasing due to drug addiction and suicide, in case people haven't read that study).

Sometimes getting shit on and having it tough builds character. But getting shit on too much just breaks you down and turns you into a shell of yourself. Hard to say which way the younger generation without means will end up getting pushed.

On the other hand, despite financial stresses (or if your parents are rich, without them), people (even a lot of poorer people with some of this stuff) have basically every single fucking thing at their fingertips, and if they don't, they can get it in seconds. You can watch whatever movie you want wherever you want, often in high definition, listen to whatever album you want whenever you want, you can go out and get any kind of food you want delivered to your door, you can talk to anyone you want wherever you are and wherever they are, you have stores and gastropubs with 20,000 different types of wine and beer, you have access to 50,000 terabytes of porn without even having to embarrass yourself to go out in public and buy it, you have an encyclopedia of information online for free, you have access to news with whatever slant/philosophy you desire, you have yoga/martial arts/painting/crafts/music lessons, you can take a picture/video of everything and have it turn out and put online instantly, etc.

It doesn't take much imagination to see how, under the cover of the general mass of shit-on millenial poors, the generation is breeding a smaller army of mini-Caligulas, whose egos and lust for self-satisfaction, perfection, and instant gratification know no limits. It's not the biggest army, but it's certainly large enough to fill the narrowing ranks of Biglaw partnership for the next 40 or so years.

[run26.2]

How do you define rich? If it is enough to retire at a reasonable age, then being a biglaw attorney can get you there, even today, if you plan correctly, and manage your money and career well. Of course, there are some caveats, like you didn't go into 300K in debt for your education.

Rich = 250k salary
Wealthy = owning the means of production, being able to live off passive income, net worth more than $5 million

edit: reduced the salary from 400k, 250k seems enough

This reasonable to me, although the net worth is a bit low in today's climate. In days gone by, you could become wealthy (by your definition) on that salary with the right investments.

[krads153]

How do you define rich? If it is enough to retire at a reasonable age, then being a biglaw attorney can get you there, even today, if you plan correctly, and manage your money and career well. Of course, there are some caveats, like you didn't go into 300K in debt for your education.

Rich = 250k salary
Wealthy = owning the means of production, being able to live off passive income, net worth more than $5 million

edit: reduced the salary from 400k, 250k seems enough

This reasonable to me, although the net worth is a bit low in today's climate. In days gone by, you could become wealthy (by your definition) on that salary with the right investments.

Rich = 2 million net worth
Wealthy = 8 million net worth? I think the top 1% has net worth like 8 to 9 million these days.

Salary on its own doesn't mean that much to me, since you could easily have like 500k debt but a 250k salary.