NYC to 200k Forum

[Anonymous User]

Welp I guess there goes $200k - congrats STB folks, that summer bonu$ is badass

Not necessarily. Someone could raise to 200k and not give the summer bonus. Looks like STB is trying to hedge against a raise to 200k without having to do it themselves.

It's a risky tactic, though. If someone else goes to 200k, STB has to go to 200k and *also* pay summer bonuses. I think they had already planned summer bonuses and were beaten to the punch by Milbank's salary increase and had to scramble.

Not really, though. If Cravath goes to 200k, I doubt they'd "match" the STB summer bonus (idk why people are so quick to assume they would). If Cravath does move to 200k, STB associates, at least for the first year, will be on par with Cravath (not considering either firms' bonuses). That way, STB can have another year to decide if it needs to raise again. The way they did it, though, allows for them not to give a summer bonus next year in the event no other firm goes to 200k or more.

Whether they are on par would depend on how the raises are implemented. Would we get the full 10K increase or would the raise take effect only for the remainder of the year (i.e., a ~5K raise for this year). If it's the latter, STB associates come out ahead.

[4LTsPointingNorth]

Welp I guess there goes $200k - congrats STB folks, that summer bonu$ is badass

Not necessarily. Someone could raise to 200k and not give the summer bonus. Looks like STB is trying to hedge against a raise to 200k without having to do it themselves.

It's a risky tactic, though. If someone else goes to 200k, STB has to go to 200k and *also* pay summer bonuses. I think they had already planned summer bonuses and were beaten to the punch by Milbank's salary increase and had to scramble.

Not really, though. If Cravath goes to 200k, I doubt they'd "match" the STB summer bonus (idk why people are so quick to assume they would). If Cravath does move to 200k, STB associates, at least for the first year, will be on par with Cravath (not considering either firms' bonuses). That way, STB can have another year to decide if it needs to raise again. The way they did it, though, allows for them not to give a summer bonus next year in the event no other firm goes to 200k or more.

If Cravath goes to 200k and everyone follows, STB will have to follow soon after or else they will be offering $10,000 below market during the Fall recruiting season this year.

[Pulsar]

I feel like STB is trying to lead in comp while retaining flexibility (you can cut bonuses in recessions, but never salaries). I lean toward it being a move to pre-empt $200k.

If my firm doesn't match the bonus I'mma be pissed.

[1styearlateral]

Welp I guess there goes $200k - congrats STB folks, that summer bonu$ is badass

Not necessarily. Someone could raise to 200k and not give the summer bonus. Looks like STB is trying to hedge against a raise to 200k without having to do it themselves.

It's a risky tactic, though. If someone else goes to 200k, STB has to go to 200k and *also* pay summer bonuses. I think they had already planned summer bonuses and were beaten to the punch by Milbank's salary increase and had to scramble.

Not really, though. If Cravath goes to 200k, I doubt they'd "match" the STB summer bonus (idk why people are so quick to assume they would). If Cravath does move to 200k, STB associates, at least for the first year, will be on par with Cravath (not considering either firms' bonuses). That way, STB can have another year to decide if it needs to raise again. The way they did it, though, allows for them not to give a summer bonus next year in the event no other firm goes to 200k or more.

If Cravath goes to 200k and everyone follows, STB will have to follow soon after or else they will be offering $10,000 below market during the Fall recruiting season this year.

I feel like STB is trying to lead in comp while retaining flexibility (you can cut bonuses in recessions, but never salaries). I lean toward it being a move to pre-empt $200k.

If my firm doesn't match the bonus I'mma be pissed.

Pretty much this. STB now has flexibility without having to be the first firm to jump to 200k.

[Anonymous User]

Someone tell ATL they better start including summer bonuses in their scorecard. STB did not match Milbank; they topped Milbank.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/salary- ... ises-2018/

[Cobretti]

Someone tell ATL they better start including summer bonuses in their scorecard. STB did not match Milbank; they topped Milbank.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/salary- ... ises-2018/

Nah its a match. If you want it to be the "[Your Firm Here] Scale" you need to raise base comp.

[Anonymous User]

Someone tell ATL they better start including summer bonuses in their scorecard. STB did not match Milbank; they topped Milbank.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/salary- ... ises-2018/

Will be pissed if my firm doesn't pay out summer bonuses

[Anonymous User]

Welp I guess there goes $200k - congrats STB folks, that summer bonu$ is badass

Not necessarily. Someone could raise to 200k and not give the summer bonus. Looks like STB is trying to hedge against a raise to 200k without having to do it themselves.

It's a risky tactic, though. If someone else goes to 200k, STB has to go to 200k and *also* pay summer bonuses. I think they had already planned summer bonuses and were beaten to the punch by Milbank's salary increase and had to scramble.

Not really, though. If Cravath goes to 200k, I doubt they'd "match" the STB summer bonus (idk why people are so quick to assume they would). If Cravath does move to 200k, STB associates, at least for the first year, will be on par with Cravath (not considering either firms' bonuses). That way, STB can have another year to decide if it needs to raise again. The way they did it, though, allows for them not to give a summer bonus next year in the event no other firm goes to 200k or more.

Whether they are on par would depend on how the raises are implemented. Would we get the full 10K increase or would the raise take effect only for the remainder of the year (i.e., a ~5K raise for this year). If it's the latter, STB associates come out ahead.

Anyone know how this will work?

[Anonymous User]

I'd prefer the bonus to a base comp raise because then we might start seeing a new summer bonus arms race every summer in addition to the year end bonuses and base compensation.

[Anonymous User]

Welp I guess there goes $200k - congrats STB folks, that summer bonu$ is badass

Not necessarily. Someone could raise to 200k and not give the summer bonus. Looks like STB is trying to hedge against a raise to 200k without having to do it themselves.

It's a risky tactic, though. If someone else goes to 200k, STB has to go to 200k and *also* pay summer bonuses. I think they had already planned summer bonuses and were beaten to the punch by Milbank's salary increase and had to scramble.

Not really, though. If Cravath goes to 200k, I doubt they'd "match" the STB summer bonus (idk why people are so quick to assume they would). If Cravath does move to 200k, STB associates, at least for the first year, will be on par with Cravath (not considering either firms' bonuses). That way, STB can have another year to decide if it needs to raise again. The way they did it, though, allows for them not to give a summer bonus next year in the event no other firm goes to 200k or more.

Whether they are on par would depend on how the raises are implemented. Would we get the full 10K increase or would the raise take effect only for the remainder of the year (i.e., a ~5K raise for this year). If it's the latter, STB associates come out ahead.

Anyone know how this will work?

It will work like any salary works.

[Anonymous User]

When it went to 180k from 160k, only the weeks after July 1 were at the higher scale. So effectively if you were a first year when it was announced, you got 170k instead of 180k for that year.

[Anonymous User]

Given that STB, Milbank, etc. have all gone to 190 firmwide, it would make a ton of sense for Covington, Hogan, Sidley, Gibson or some other big non-NYC firm with an NYC office to go to 190 everywhere BUT NYC, where they make it 200.

It would cost them less money since most of their associates are not in NYC, they'd still be matching Milbank, but they'd be considered a leader for paying 200. And for real it's ridiculous that NYC doesn't get more.

[Anonymous User]

Welp I guess there goes $200k - congrats STB folks, that summer bonu$ is badass

Not necessarily. Someone could raise to 200k and not give the summer bonus. Looks like STB is trying to hedge against a raise to 200k without having to do it themselves.

It's a risky tactic, though. If someone else goes to 200k, STB has to go to 200k and *also* pay summer bonuses. I think they had already planned summer bonuses and were beaten to the punch by Milbank's salary increase and had to scramble.

Not really, though. If Cravath goes to 200k, I doubt they'd "match" the STB summer bonus (idk why people are so quick to assume they would). If Cravath does move to 200k, STB associates, at least for the first year, will be on par with Cravath (not considering either firms' bonuses). That way, STB can have another year to decide if it needs to raise again. The way they did it, though, allows for them not to give a summer bonus next year in the event no other firm goes to 200k or more.

Whether they are on par would depend on how the raises are implemented. Would we get the full 10K increase or would the raise take effect only for the remainder of the year (i.e., a ~5K raise for this year). If it's the latter, STB associates come out ahead.

Anyone know how this will work?

It will work like any salary works.

Don't blame him/her - he/she is at a V200. Not sure why he/she is even monitoring this thread.

[Anonymous User]

True. I forgot it wasn't only Columbia/Yale students here.

[Anonymous User]

WTF is CravaTTTh doing?

[10b5]

Given that STB, Milbank, etc. have all gone to 190 firmwide, it would make a ton of sense for Covington, Hogan, Sidley, Gibson or some other big non-NYC firm with an NYC office to go to 190 everywhere BUT NYC, where they make it 200.

It would cost them less money since most of their associates are not in NYC, they'd still be matching Milbank, but they'd be considered a leader for paying 200. And for real it's ridiculous that NYC doesn't get more.

Some folks really don't seem to understand cost of living/free market economics. NYC costs more to live in because of all the things that NYers rave about - walkability, bodegas open at 3am, waiting for an hour outside shitty clubs unless your good female friend banged the promoter 2 years ago, etc etc. It's entirely up to you to pay the premium that is a higher cost of living in order to experience that lifestyle. Why should the firms comp your shitty decision? There's plenty of people for whom it is absolutely worth it because those things are valuable to them.

On the other hand, people who practice law in Utah don't get any of those amenities, and as a result the cost is lower. If it just so happens that they actually LIKE that lifestyle, then that's great, they win because their tastes don't match with the market and they can take advantage of that. But the day everybody moves to SLC, their rent will go up and they'll be SOL.

The only time firms have to adjust to match CoL is for places like London, where the CoL adjustment is actually acting as hardship pay - it's hard to get people to go abroad for several years without financial inducement.

[alphagamma]

Simpson screwed everything up with summer bonuses. Who will match what? Where does the salary bump begin and the bonus end? I'm thinking another firm can fix everything by matching the summer bonuses this year and announcing that associate salaries will increase starting next year by the same amounts. Then all other firms will follow and we'll effectively be at $200k and I'll be moderately happy.

And then Milbank can bump us up to $215k.

[Anonymous User]

Given that STB, Milbank, etc. have all gone to 190 firmwide, it would make a ton of sense for Covington, Hogan, Sidley, Gibson or some other big non-NYC firm with an NYC office to go to 190 everywhere BUT NYC, where they make it 200.

It would cost them less money since most of their associates are not in NYC, they'd still be matching Milbank, but they'd be considered a leader for paying 200. And for real it's ridiculous that NYC doesn't get more.

It definitely won't be CovingTTTon. We're waiting for the memo where they tell everyone the salary increases are limited to a specific NYC neighborhood but that they're monitoring the markets in other nearby neighborhoods.

[Anonymous User]

Given that STB, Milbank, etc. have all gone to 190 firmwide, it would make a ton of sense for Covington, Hogan, Sidley, Gibson or some other big non-NYC firm with an NYC office to go to 190 everywhere BUT NYC, where they make it 200.

It would cost them less money since most of their associates are not in NYC, they'd still be matching Milbank, but they'd be considered a leader for paying 200. And for real it's ridiculous that NYC doesn't get more.

Some folks really don't seem to understand cost of living/free market economics. NYC costs more to live in because of all the things that NYers rave about - walkability, bodegas open at 3am, waiting for an hour outside shitty clubs unless your good female friend banged the promoter 2 years ago, etc etc. It's entirely up to you to pay the premium that is a higher cost of living in order to experience that lifestyle. Why should the firms comp your shitty decision? There's plenty of people for whom it is absolutely worth it because those things are valuable to them.

On the other hand, people who practice law in Utah don't get any of those amenities, and as a result the cost is lower. If it just so happens that they actually LIKE that lifestyle, then that's great, they win because their tastes don't match with the market and they can take advantage of that. But the day everybody moves to SLC, their rent will go up and they'll be SOL.

The only time firms have to adjust to match CoL is for places like London, where the CoL adjustment is actually acting as hardship pay - it's hard to get people to go abroad for several years without financial inducement.

There's some truth to that, but I generally disagree. A lot of factors go into cost of living, such as availability of land. One reason (not the only one) Seattle and San Francisco are inordinately expensive is their locations on peninsulae. DC isn't packed full of garbage people because of the free market, it's because the federal government needed to put hundreds of thousands of employees in one place and swamplands along the Potomac made sense for that. Then a bunch of money and higher-paying jobs followed.

And New York city enjoys agglomeration benefits. You call it a "shitty decision" to move there? Then you're saying every single wealthy firm made a shitty decision either setting up HQ or at least putting an office there. No, there's a reason NYC has the most law jobs--that's where clients are. That's where money is. Agglomeration makes a stronger economy, including allowing bodegas to stay open til 3AM, but yeah, it comes with higher costs of living too.

[ghostoftraynor]

WTF is CravaTTTh doing?

Don't worry. Cravath to $215k confirmed.
https://imgur.com/a/upyHAKK

[Anonymous User]

Given that STB, Milbank, etc. have all gone to 190 firmwide, it would make a ton of sense for Covington, Hogan, Sidley, Gibson or some other big non-NYC firm with an NYC office to go to 190 everywhere BUT NYC, where they make it 200.

It would cost them less money since most of their associates are not in NYC, they'd still be matching Milbank, but they'd be considered a leader for paying 200. And for real it's ridiculous that NYC doesn't get more.

Some folks really don't seem to understand cost of living/free market economics. NYC costs more to live in because of all the things that NYers rave about - walkability, bodegas open at 3am, waiting for an hour outside shitty clubs unless your good female friend banged the promoter 2 years ago, etc etc. It's entirely up to you to pay the premium that is a higher cost of living in order to experience that lifestyle. Why should the firms comp your shitty decision? There's plenty of people for whom it is absolutely worth it because those things are valuable to them.

On the other hand, people who practice law in Utah don't get any of those amenities, and as a result the cost is lower. If it just so happens that they actually LIKE that lifestyle, then that's great, they win because their tastes don't match with the market and they can take advantage of that. But the day everybody moves to SLC, their rent will go up and they'll be SOL.

The only time firms have to adjust to match CoL is for places like London, where the CoL adjustment is actually acting as hardship pay - it's hard to get people to go abroad for several years without financial inducement.

There's some truth to that, but I generally disagree. A lot of factors go into cost of living, such as availability of land. One reason (not the only one) Seattle and San Francisco are inordinately expensive is their locations on peninsulae. DC isn't packed full of garbage people because of the free market, it's because the federal government needed to put hundreds of thousands of employees in one place and swamplands along the Potomac made sense for that. Then a bunch of money and higher-paying jobs followed.

And New York city enjoys agglomeration benefits. You call it a "shitty decision" to move there? Then you're saying every single wealthy firm made a shitty decision either setting up HQ or at least putting an office there. No, there's a reason NYC has the most law jobs--that's where clients are. That's where money is. Agglomeration makes a stronger economy, including allowing bodegas to stay open til 3AM, but yeah, it comes with higher costs of living too.

And you chose those costs of living, unless you're saying the only market you could get a job in was NYC (and if that's true, why pay you more?). Agglomeration benefits are why there are firms there, but that has nothing to do with the markets of paying you.

[10b5]

Given that STB, Milbank, etc. have all gone to 190 firmwide, it would make a ton of sense for Covington, Hogan, Sidley, Gibson or some other big non-NYC firm with an NYC office to go to 190 everywhere BUT NYC, where they make it 200.

It would cost them less money since most of their associates are not in NYC, they'd still be matching Milbank, but they'd be considered a leader for paying 200. And for real it's ridiculous that NYC doesn't get more.

Some folks really don't seem to understand cost of living/free market economics. NYC costs more to live in because of all the things that NYers rave about - walkability, bodegas open at 3am, waiting for an hour outside shitty clubs unless your good female friend banged the promoter 2 years ago, etc etc. It's entirely up to you to pay the premium that is a higher cost of living in order to experience that lifestyle. Why should the firms comp your shitty decision? There's plenty of people for whom it is absolutely worth it because those things are valuable to them.

On the other hand, people who practice law in Utah don't get any of those amenities, and as a result the cost is lower. If it just so happens that they actually LIKE that lifestyle, then that's great, they win because their tastes don't match with the market and they can take advantage of that. But the day everybody moves to SLC, their rent will go up and they'll be SOL.

The only time firms have to adjust to match CoL is for places like London, where the CoL adjustment is actually acting as hardship pay - it's hard to get people to go abroad for several years without financial inducement.

There's some truth to that, but I generally disagree. A lot of factors go into cost of living, such as availability of land. One reason (not the only one) Seattle and San Francisco are inordinately expensive is their locations on peninsulae. DC isn't packed full of garbage people because of the free market, it's because the federal government needed to put hundreds of thousands of employees in one place and swamplands along the Potomac made sense for that. Then a bunch of money and higher-paying jobs followed.

And New York city enjoys agglomeration benefits. You call it a "shitty decision" to move there? Then you're saying every single wealthy firm made a shitty decision either setting up HQ or at least putting an office there. No, there's a reason NYC has the most law jobs--that's where clients are. That's where money is. Agglomeration makes a stronger economy, including allowing bodegas to stay open til 3AM, but yeah, it comes with higher costs of living too.

It's not a shitty decision to live there if you actually like the things that make NY NY. It is a shitty decision if you move there and then realize that you don't use/appreciate any of the amazing museums, street life, culture, intangible vibes; and that you will shortly move upstate/to long island because your wife wants a third bedroom.

Personally, I love NY and lived there for a long time. Then I made a decision that it wasn't worth what it cost me, and moved elsewhere. But there are people on this thread who said "I wouldn't live in Texas for a million bucks". I assume hyperbole, but yes, exactly! That's why Houston is cheap, because it's less valued. Kirkland/VE/Latham/Sidley/BB need to pay their TX associates a similar amount in Houston to attract top talent because that talent has options in other cities, and that's how markets work. Decide how much living in NY is worth to you, and then either stay or move away as a result.

Regards agglomeration benefits - exactly, another reason why they don't need a CoL adjustment. Everything is available in NY, and that benefit comes with costs.

[Anonymous User]

ITT: associates in shitty back water markets praying that they keep getting subsidized by their respective NY offices.

Enjoy NYC, bro

[Anonymous User]

Was this the first time one of the elite NYC firms such as STB paid a special summer bonus?

[PotatoSalad]

ITT: associates in shitty back water markets praying that they keep getting subsidized by their respective NY offices.

ITT: associates from lesser schools hoping Columbia/Yale graduates continue to subsidize their compensation.