Acceptable office decorations for a first year Forum

[beepboopbeep]

pics or didn't happen

[PorscheFanatic]

Anybody who says they are dropping 10-20k on a current model rolex because it's a good investment and not because they derive pleasure from showing it off is either lying or an idiot.

No one really thinks watches are a good investment. My point was more that, unlike a $1,000 basketball hoop, you might have inherited or been gifted an expensive watch, which in any event is unlikely to lose a substantial portion of its value. That's (part of) why most people would think wearing a Rolex/Patek/IWC is less idiotic than having that hoop in the office.

This. I don't judge you at all for having an expensive watch. IMO, your net worth has not changed (much) from before you bought the nice watch and after. AND you get to show off your watch.

I think if you're judging ppl based on preserving/maximizing net worth, most luxury watch purchases are absurdly stupid and the only reason you think otherwise is because it's a socially acceptable stupid purchase. IMO, barring any serious financial negligence, no one should judge the idiosyncratic expensive shit ppl derive pleasure from unless they're committed to judging it all.

Personally I wouldn't judge OP for spending 1k on that item, but others will (as this thread demonstrates), so if you are concerned about what others think, maybe you should avoid it.

This is actually the point I was trying to make (OP here).

[BlendedUnicorn]

I don't know I think that one can recognize that while yes, taste is subjective, some things are objectively dumb.

[PorscheFanatic]

I don't know I think that one can recognize that while yes, taste is subjective, some things are objectively dumb.

New scenario. Imagine there's this guy who's pretty nerdy (in the way movies and TV portrays "nerds"). He's socially awkward, never enjoyed sports because he wasn't any good, and was more of the quiet type and enjoyed reading and other intellectual pursuits. Also, he's the nicest guy you've ever met, would literally give you the shirt off his back, but is just a little socially awkward. He's a very "likeable" nerd (I'm sure you can think of a movie that portrays a character this way).

Now let's imagine this guy gets a full ride to a top law school. He's brilliant, graduates top of his class, with no debt because of the scholly. Everything he does is safe: drives a nice Honda or something else not flashy, wears OTR suits from JAB that average $100 each, and no jewelry, watch or anything else flashy about his life. Lives in a mediocre apartment in a mediocre part of town, invests substantial amounts of money each month toward retirement.

Then he goes out and does one "crazy" thing and buys a $1000 basketball hoop for his office because he always envied the jocks growing up, even though he never actually wanted to be like them. Hangs it up because he thinks it's really cool (taste is subjective, remember?).

Are we still going to judge this guy who literally only makes safe choices aside from this one instance, as aggressively as people on TLS judge this hoop? Lol. The dude has $180k literally burning a hole in his pocket.

[njdevils2626]

I don't know I think that one can recognize that while yes, taste is subjective, some things are objectively dumb.

New scenario. Imagine there's this guy who's pretty nerdy (in the way movies and TV portrays "nerds"). He's socially awkward, never enjoyed sports because he wasn't any good, and was more of the quiet type and enjoyed reading and other intellectual pursuits. Also, he's the nicest guy you've ever met, would literally give you the shirt off his back, but is just a little socially awkward. He's a very "likeable" nerd (I'm sure you can think of a movie that portrays a character this way).

Now let's imagine this guy gets a full ride to a top law school. He's brilliant, graduates top of his class, with no debt because of the scholly. Everything he does is safe: drives a nice Honda or something else not flashy, wears OTR suits from JAB that average $100 each, and no jewelry, watch or anything else flashy about his life. Lives in a mediocre apartment in a mediocre part of town, invests substantial amounts of money each month toward retirement.

Then he goes out and does one "crazy" thing and buys a $1000 basketball hoop for his office because he always envied the jocks growing up, even though he never actually wanted to be like them. Hangs it up because he thinks it's really cool (taste is subjective, remember?).

Are we still going to judge this guy who literally only makes safe choices aside from this one instance, as aggressively as people on TLS judge this hoop? Lol. The dude has $180k literally burning a hole in his pocket.

Yes. Buy better suits, FFS

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yes. It’s still a dumb thing to have in your office because while there are probably people who like it, it is an objectively dumb item. It would just be an affectionate judgment.

(In practice it might fly entirely under the radar because it might not occur to anyone that someone would pay $995 for such a thing. And having an actual basketball hoop would be fine, it’s just that a limited edition minimalist white hoop is bizarre.)

[Jchance]

New scenario. Imagine there's this guy who's pretty nerdy (in the way movies and TV portrays "nerds"). He's socially awkward, never enjoyed sports because he wasn't any good, and was more of the quiet type and enjoyed reading and other intellectual pursuits. Also, he's the nicest guy you've ever met, would literally give you the shirt off his back, but is just a little socially awkward. He's a very "likeable" nerd (I'm sure you can think of a movie that portrays a character this way).

Now let's imagine this guy gets a full ride to a top law school. He's brilliant, graduates top of his class, with no debt because of the scholly. Everything he does is safe: drives a nice Honda or something else not flashy, wears OTR suits from JAB that average $100 each, and no jewelry, watch or anything else flashy about his life. Lives in a mediocre apartment in a mediocre part of town, invests substantial amounts of money each month toward retirement.

Then he goes out and does one "crazy" thing and buys a $1000 basketball hoop for his office because he always envied the jocks growing up, even though he never actually wanted to be like them. Hangs it up because he thinks it's really cool (taste is subjective, remember?).

Are we still going to judge this guy who literally only makes safe choices aside from this one instance, as aggressively as people on TLS judge this hoop? Lol. The dude has $180k literally burning a hole in his pocket.

Yes, his judgment has become questionable for (1) buying and (2) hanging up that hoop.

Agreed re buying better suits.

[mecarey]

Extravagant purchases that people will talk about: five-figure watches, six-figure cars, seven-figure homes and boats.

Purchases that people will, at most, say "huh" about: a relatively expensive white basketball hoop.

This thread makes it seem like 50% of the legal workforce would ostracize someone for buying an expensive basketball hoop for their office. That's absurd. Sure, a good number of people would think "I would NEVER, in a hundred years, spend that much on a basketball hoop for my office." But to extend that into thinking someone's judgment was outright questionable is a bit much.

That being said, I would give someone some shit about it, but it would be in a fun, friendly way. Not the overly toxic TLS "this is a trashy display of new money and your judgment is questionable and I will judge you from here on out" kind of way.

[Danger Zone]

I don't know I think that one can recognize that while yes, taste is subjective, some things are objectively dumb.

New scenario. Imagine there's this guy who's pretty nerdy (in the way movies and TV portrays "nerds"). He's socially awkward, never enjoyed sports because he wasn't any good, and was more of the quiet type and enjoyed reading and other intellectual pursuits. Also, he's the nicest guy you've ever met, would literally give you the shirt off his back, but is just a little socially awkward. He's a very "likeable" nerd (I'm sure you can think of a movie that portrays a character this way).

Now let's imagine this guy gets a full ride to a top law school. He's brilliant, graduates top of his class, with no debt because of the scholly. Everything he does is safe: drives a nice Honda or something else not flashy, wears OTR suits from JAB that average $100 each, and no jewelry, watch or anything else flashy about his life. Lives in a mediocre apartment in a mediocre part of town, invests substantial amounts of money each month toward retirement.

Then he goes out and does one "crazy" thing and buys a $1000 basketball hoop for his office because he always envied the jocks growing up, even though he never actually wanted to be like them. Hangs it up because he thinks it's really cool (taste is subjective, remember?).

Are we still going to judge this guy who literally only makes safe choices aside from this one instance, as aggressively as people on TLS judge this hoop? Lol. The dude has $180k literally burning a hole in his pocket.

Wow do people actually describe themselves this way

Weirdo

[Jchance]

This thread makes it seem like 50% of the legal workforce would ostracize someone for buying an expensive basketball hoop for their office. That's absurd. Sure, a good number of people would think "I would NEVER, in a hundred years, spend that much on a basketball hoop for my office." But to extend that into thinking someone's judgment was outright questionable is a bit much.

That being said, I would give someone some shit about it, but it would be in a fun, friendly way. Not the overly toxic TLS "this is a trashy display of new money and your judgment is questionable and I will judge you from here on out" kind of way.

The differing opinions of the people in this thread alone indicate a good sample size of how one's office would perceive such display of new money. Again, about half finds it tolerable and the other half would find it distasteful.
/thread

[toast and bananas]

egregious JAB trolling ITT

[didntretake]

I really want some partner to come in here and drop a pic of TWO of those ridiculous hoops set up on opposite ends of an office with a story about making some juniors play full court one on one.

[PeanutsNJam]

If we’re being realistic, nobody’s going to look at that hoop and know it costs $1000, and nobody is going to care to look that up. Therefore, nobody would judge OP.

Also, if I walked into someone’s office and saw something expensive, I’d assume it has sentimental value. It wouldn’t occur to me that a co-worker (a junior at that) would be flexing his cash for the rest of his law firm to see. If a hanging a $1000 hoop in your office brings you joy, who am I to judge. People pay more than 100x that for fugly paintings.

If you’re hanging a $1000 hoop to “show off,” I’ll judge, not because of the cost, but because you’re weird enough to think that a $1000 hoop is impressive.

[sparkytrainer]

I really want some partner to come in here and drop a pic of TWO of those ridiculous hoops set up on opposite ends of an office with a story about making some juniors play full court one on one.

10/10 would pay to watch

[pancakes3]

[gaddockteeg]

Anybody who says they are dropping 10-20k on a current model rolex because it's a good investment and not because they derive pleasure from showing it off is either lying or an idiot.

No one really thinks watches are a good investment. My point was more that, unlike a $1,000 basketball hoop, you might have inherited or been gifted an expensive watch, which in any event is unlikely to lose a substantial portion of its value. That's (part of) why most people would think wearing a Rolex/Patek/IWC is less idiotic than having that hoop in the office.

This. I don't judge you at all for having an expensive watch. IMO, your net worth has not changed (much) from before you bought the nice watch and after. AND you get to show off your watch.

I think if you're judging ppl based on preserving/maximizing net worth, most luxury watch purchases are absurdly stupid and the only reason you think otherwise is because it's a socially acceptable stupid purchase. IMO, barring any serious financial negligence, no one should judge the idiosyncratic expensive shit ppl derive pleasure from unless they're committed to judging it all.

Personally I wouldn't judge OP for spending 1k on that item, but others will (as this thread demonstrates), so if you are concerned about what others think, maybe you should avoid it.

No where did I say I was judging anybody for anything. I said was NOT judging someone for having an expensive because I dont see it as a waste money. I have no idea where you interpreted that to mean the inverse of that was true.

[EIWIsMyFetish]

these kinds of items - the 'funny/cool thing to have in the office to burn time but youll never actually use it because you actually don't have time to kill and even if you did you'd opt to do something more productive' items..

the shittier they are, the cooler they are.

Get one from Target if you want one

Not that anyone will even know what the white one costs, it's just way more chill to have one you can throw away, and also one that won't leave you upset when the partner comes in to mess with you and dunks on your basket a bit too hard.

[DeMihiNonCuratLex]

Judged for liking the Enterprise-E like some sort of casual.

[swtlilsoni]

Anybody who says they are dropping 10-20k on a current model rolex because it's a good investment and not because they derive pleasure from showing it off is either lying or an idiot.

No one really thinks watches are a good investment. My point was more that, unlike a $1,000 basketball hoop, you might have inherited or been gifted an expensive watch, which in any event is unlikely to lose a substantial portion of its value. That's (part of) why most people would think wearing a Rolex/Patek/IWC is less idiotic than having that hoop in the office.

Because they're assuming it was a gift? But not everyone who wears an expensive watch obtained it that way. There are plenty of people who blow money on an expensive watch for fun. Do they deserve the same judgment as someone who blows it on a basketball hoop? If not, the gift/inheritance thing is irrelevant.

[Lincoln]

Anybody who says they are dropping 10-20k on a current model rolex because it's a good investment and not because they derive pleasure from showing it off is either lying or an idiot.

No one really thinks watches are a good investment. My point was more that, unlike a $1,000 basketball hoop, you might have inherited or been gifted an expensive watch, which in any event is unlikely to lose a substantial portion of its value. That's (part of) why most people would think wearing a Rolex/Patek/IWC is less idiotic than having that hoop in the office.

Because they're assuming it was a gift? But not everyone who wears an expensive watch obtained it that way. There are plenty of people who blow money on an expensive watch for fun. Do they deserve the same judgment as someone who blows it on a basketball hoop? If not, the gift/inheritance thing is irrelevant.

They still don't, for all of the reasons stated above. I see it as kind of a sliding scale, with posting pics on Instagram of yourself setting fire to cash being at one extreme, and that basketball hoop about three steps away, while buying a nice watch is closer to buying a bespoke suit or a nice car. Those things are indulgent in that there are certainly cheaper options that would serve exactly the same function, but they're not worthy of inclusion in a buzzfeed article about how awful lawyers are.