if u want NYC to 190, u need to do more deals. Forum

[Old Gregg]

Two pages in without the words "supply" or "demand" ever entering the conversation...

This is why I think law school is stupid/worthless unless you a) know something about finance/economics already or b) aren't planning on doing anything related to business or the regulation thereof.

i mean... the chart kind of speaks to it. kind of simplistic to just look for keywords, but anything to prove a point...

[Mal Reynolds]

This entire thread is about the number of lawyers and how much work they're doing...

[lacrossebrother]

Two pages in without the words "supply" or "demand" ever entering the conversation...

This is why I think law school is stupid/worthless unless you a) know something about finance/economics already or b) aren't planning on doing anything related to business or the regulation thereof.

*guy ridicules people for missing "basic" econ*
*doesnt realize economic decision making gets more complex than the widgets he discussed in his Econ 101 course*

[lacrossebrother]

This entire thread is about the number of lawyers and how much work they're doing...

Actually it's not at all but you can continue to purposely misread graphs to try to get a cheap jab in.

The point is that output hasn't increased to increasing salaries...even though it's a dumb point.

[Mal Reynolds]

This entire thread is about the number of lawyers and how much work they're doing...

Actually it's not at all but you can continue to purposely misread graphs to try to get a cheap jab in.

The point is that output hasn't increased to increasing salaries...even though it's a dumb point.

I guess you haven't read this thread then.

[wanderer]

the leads are weak

Underrated

[wanderer]

We’re busy as fuck, and always scrambling to hire more juniors, but I doubt the partners have even considered raising salaries. I wasn’t around for the previous jumps, but I’m guessing partners know as soon as we do it, someone else will just match, so there will be nothing gained, and a lot of money lost. Also, I’ve helped review lateral resumes a little, and it’s weird how selective the firm is. If there’s a NYU dude that clearly would have done biglaw, but he graduated in 2011, so he struck out and went to the city attorney’s office (or whatever the fuck), he’s not even in consideration. It’s kinda lame because I know I was 1 or 2 bad interviews away from being in the same shoes. For the time being, I think my firm will just hire away from marginally lower-rated firms, and those lower-rated firms will do the same. I don’t see any pressure to raise salaries at all.

[TTTooKewl]

So with all the V75 mostly at $160, it seems to me it would make more sense for a non-V10 to bump salaries before a V10. V10 already perceived as a better value because 'exit options,' already winning the talent prize-pool. V20 or V50 could potentially improve its talent substantially with a little bump.

Cf. http://abovethelaw.com/2014/11/which-la ... kes-again/ (Jones Day hiring most scotus clerks).

[WhirledWorld]

It makes no sense to talk about NY to 190 when bonuses are still a rounding error after taxes. But the bonus memos should be going out starting in a few weeks...

One positive note is that the NY bb ibanks have upped analyst and associate comp this year and are making lifestyle changes to retain talent.

[GOATlawman]

I don't see why anyone even does nyc at 160 when stl, Atl, Nash , Texas at even just 100 is a better way of life.

salary compression for one. year 7 in stl making 140k is not the same as nyc 280k. (5k/yr raise is very common in secondary markets)

tx is not on the same level as stl in CoL at all. The prices get overblown by retards citing to mcmansions 90 minutes out from downtown.

[Old Gregg]

salary compression for one. year 7 in stl making 140k is not the same as nyc 280k. (5k/yr raise is very common in secondary markets)

tx is not on the same level as stl in CoL at all. The prices get overblown by retards citing to mcmansions 90 minutes out from downtown.

you make it sound like making $280k in NYC is clearly superior and clearly a good life. if you're satisfied with being a renter of an 800 square ft apartment in the upper upper west side while you spend 30 minutes commuting in a rat-infested subway station so you can bill your dick off, then more power to you.

on the flipside, agreed that TX is a little overblown. properties are definitely cheaper, and there is no state tax, but property taxes are high. and unless you live in certain very monied areas (which are comparable in pricing to NYC places), you're basically buying into a mcmansion whose value isn't guaranteed.

but there's a middle ground between nyc and texas. there are markets where you can make $160k starting our (and eventually reach that coveted $280k status), and still have a very high quality of life: Chicago is one of them.

and all this discussion of "280k" is stupid because maybe 10% of your original associate class will reach that level, and even then they would enjoy it for maybe two years max before getting the boot (unless they make partner... LOL).

[Tiago Splitter]

It's just a lot easier to get a job in NYC.

[Old Gregg]

It's just a lot easier to get a job in NYC.

straight out of law school... and if you have no ties to other markets, probably. but for lateraling? no. not at all.

[Tiago Splitter]

It's just a lot easier to get a job in NYC.

straight out of law school... and if you have no ties to other markets, probably. but for lateraling? no. not at all.

I assumed we were talking about 190k for first years.

For lateraling, are you saying other markets have the same difficulty as NYC or that NYC is actually harder? Curious as to why the huge advantage NYC has in total number of jobs wouldn't also apply to the lateral market.

[Old Gregg]

I don't mean easier in terms of quantity of jobs. I think NYC is still superior there, but that doesn't at all mean that if you're a midlevel with biglaw experience in an in demand practice area, you won't find a job. It's pretty easy.

[Borg]

Two pages in without the words "supply" or "demand" ever entering the conversation...

This is why I think law school is stupid/worthless unless you a) know something about finance/economics already or b) aren't planning on doing anything related to business or the regulation thereof.

*guy ridicules people for missing "basic" econ*
*doesnt realize economic decision making gets more complex than the widgets he discussed in his Econ 101 course*

Right, what do I know about any of this? I'm just a simple investment banker who majored in econ and got an MBA.

I've really rethought my position. You guys made a lot of good points using that chart that only addresses the demand side of the equation without speaking to whether that demand actually requires more qualified lawyers than are currently available on the market to satisfy a firm's needs. I know that it's just my simplistic Econ 101 self talking, but I had this silly hunch that law firms are acutely aware of the fact that even graduates of the very top schools are having trouble finding employment and that there is literally no reason whatsoever to raise employee compensation. I can't wait to learn about the REAL econ that you all know, where compensation is based on the number of deals done without regard to equilibrium in the labor market.

[Old Gregg]

Two pages in without the words "supply" or "demand" ever entering the conversation...

This is why I think law school is stupid/worthless unless you a) know something about finance/economics already or b) aren't planning on doing anything related to business or the regulation thereof.

*guy ridicules people for missing "basic" econ*
*doesnt realize economic decision making gets more complex than the widgets he discussed in his Econ 101 course*

Right, what do I know about any of this? I'm just a simple investment banker who majored in econ and got an MBA.

I've really rethought my position. You guys made a lot of good points using that chart that only addresses the demand side of the equation without speaking to whether that demand actually requires more qualified lawyers than are currently available on the market to satisfy a firm's needs. I know that it's just my simplistic Econ 101 self talking, but I had this silly hunch that law firms are acutely aware of the fact that even graduates of the very top schools are having trouble finding employment and that there is literally no reason whatsoever to raise employee compensation. I can't wait to learn about the REAL econ that you all know, where compensation is based on the number of deals done without regard to equilibrium in the labor market.

I love how he talks down to us like we don't know anything.

[desertlaw]

Let's turn this into a fresh and original NYC vs. Rest of Country debate!

[sinfiery]

Right, what do I know about any of this? I'm just a simple investment banker who majored in econ and got an MBA.

I've really rethought my position. You guys made a lot of good points using that chart that only addresses the demand side of the equation without speaking to whether that demand actually requires more qualified lawyers than are currently available on the market to satisfy a firm's needs. I know that it's just my simplistic Econ 101 self talking, but I had this silly hunch that law firms are acutely aware of the fact that even graduates of the very top schools are having trouble finding employment and that there is literally no reason whatsoever to raise employee compensation. I can't wait to learn about the REAL econ that you all know, where compensation is based on the number of deals done without regard to equilibrium in the labor market.

If only all of the V2-10 SA offer's ran to Cahill, Kirkland and Boiess and other above market paying firms and explicitly said it was for the money.

They gotta take one for the team.

[zugzwanger]

Just wondering where the 190 figure came from or if it is arbitrary. You don't think it's more realistic that an increase would be to like 165/170?

[lacrossebrother]

@borg

Here is a start: Supply and demand implies a fairly bargained equilibrium

Next: tacit collusion seems to be the empirical driver of salaries...

Next: it's poor business to think of employees as commodities and no firm that can consistently make an enormous profit off of productive but difficult to identify employees would ever try to find the minimum salary at which they could secure that work.

Moreover, it seems plain that supply and demand actually would push prices DOWN according to your dumb hypothesis. But give that salaries haven't moved up OR down despite everything for the last little while, again, it is immensely stupid to say that this is a supply and demand issue.

Last, everyone understands that there's General economics forces at play and the goal of this thread was to discuss what the major explanation for the atypical market movement is. For you to drop Econ 101 condescending bullshit in here makes you an asshole, especially if you're trained to actually think of economic forces beyond supply and demand.

[fats provolone]

where does gordon wood come in?

[WhirledWorld]

@borg

Here is a start: Supply and demand implies a fairly bargained equilibrium

Next: tacit collusion seems to be the empirical driver of salaries...

Next: it's poor business to think of employees as commodities and no firm that can consistently make an enormous profit off of productive but difficult to identify employees would ever try to find the minimum salary at which they could secure that work.

Moreover, it seems plain that supply and demand actually would push prices DOWN according to your dumb hypothesis. But give that salaries haven't moved up OR down despite everything for the last little while, again, it is immensely stupid to say that this is a supply and demand issue.

Last, everyone understands that there's General economics forces at play and the goal of this thread was to discuss what the major explanation for the atypical market movement is. For you to drop Econ 101 condescending bullshit in here makes you an asshole, especially if you're trained to actually think of economic forces beyond supply and demand.

I wouldn't try to argue economics with Borg. I mean, the guy has an MBA!

[Old Gregg]

@borg

Here is a start: Supply and demand implies a fairly bargained equilibrium

Next: tacit collusion seems to be the empirical driver of salaries...

Next: it's poor business to think of employees as commodities and no firm that can consistently make an enormous profit off of productive but difficult to identify employees would ever try to find the minimum salary at which they could secure that work.

Moreover, it seems plain that supply and demand actually would push prices DOWN according to your dumb hypothesis. But give that salaries haven't moved up OR down despite everything for the last little while, again, it is immensely stupid to say that this is a supply and demand issue.

Last, everyone understands that there's General economics forces at play and the goal of this thread was to discuss what the major explanation for the atypical market movement is. For you to drop Econ 101 condescending bullshit in here makes you an asshole, especially if you're trained to actually think of economic forces beyond supply and demand.

I wouldn't try to argue economics with Borg. I mean, the guy has an MBA!

He took economics, too. How can we ever know what supply and demand are now???

[Desert Fox]

ITT we prove why we shouldn't get 190k