NYC to 200k Forum

[Marshallian]

Near the end of day 3, the silence really is deafening. Comparing 2016 to 2018 salary bumps...

2016
Day 1: 1 firm matches
Day 2: 5 firms match
Day 3: 14 firms match

2018
Day 1: 1 firm matches
Day 2: 2 firms match
Day 3: 2 firms match

Compare https://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/salary- ... ed-raises/ with https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/salary- ... 2018/?rf=1

Not trying to draw inferences or offer an explanation, just confirming it doesn't just "feel" slow--it is slow.

[anonnymouse]

Reading about overpaid office workers that make 99 percentile of American income discussing the fucking merits of their shitty cities is getting real fucking tiring for the 95% of us in this thread who just want news about the raises. Just shut the fuck up. No one fucking cares about market differences. It's like being dead or being a virgin; it either applies to you, or it doesn't. Either way, it has no material effect on your life other than to jerk yourself off online unless you're literally looking to lateral.

What if i just got the tip in before slipping into a persistent vegetative state?

I, too, would like a more fulsome explanation of this wonderful analogy.

It's definitely that the new generation is insufferable. There used to be good schtick to fill the void between match announcements. Now it's just butthurt anons and self-satisfied trolls that aren't remotely funny. What happened to this bort?

[Clearly]

Near the end of day 3, the silence really is deafening. Comparing 2016 to 2018 salary bumps...

2016
Day 1: 1 firm matches
Day 2: 5 firms match
Day 3: 14 firms match

2018
Day 1: 1 firm matches
Day 2: 2 firms match
Day 3: 2 firms match

Compare https://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/salary- ... ed-raises/ with https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/salary- ... 2018/?rf=1

Not trying to draw inferences or offer an explanation, just confirming it doesn't just "feel" slow--it is slow.

It's slow because the whole industry is still waiting for CSW to call out STB and Milbank's feeble attempts to cut the legs out from under the new Cravath Scale.

[minnbills]

It's definitely that the new generation is insufferable. There used to be good schtick to fill the void between match announcements. Now it's just butthurt anons and self-satisfied trolls that aren't remotely funny. What happened to this bort?

I've been on this site a long time and I don't think it's any worse. People love to fight about money, especially lawyers, who are competitive and insecure by nature. The only real difference is that under old management the anonymous posting would not have been tolerated.

That said, this is all pretty entertaining. It's the people who take it all too seriously who need to take a breather.

[Bilb0Baggins]

Near the end of day 3, the silence really is deafening. Comparing 2016 to 2018 salary bumps...

2016
Day 1: 1 firm matches
Day 2: 5 firms match
Day 3: 14 firms match

2018
Day 1: 1 firm matches
Day 2: 2 firms match
Day 3: 2 firms match

Compare https://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/salary- ... ed-raises/ with https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/salary- ... 2018/?rf=1

Not trying to draw inferences or offer an explanation, just confirming it doesn't just "feel" slow--it is slow.

It's slow because the whole industry is still waiting for CSW to call out STB and Milbank's feeble attempts to cut the legs out from under the new Cravath Scale.

CSW?

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I can't decide if TLS posters were always this unbearable/remarkably dumb and I've just grown up, or if it's just that the new generation of TLS posters are unbearable/remarkably dumb.

Law school brain drain in full effect

No, it's the children who are wrong anons.

[terpie]

Near the end of day 3, the silence really is deafening. Comparing 2016 to 2018 salary bumps...

2016
Day 1: 1 firm matches
Day 2: 5 firms match
Day 3: 14 firms match

2018
Day 1: 1 firm matches
Day 2: 2 firms match
Day 3: 2 firms match

Compare https://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/salary- ... ed-raises/ with https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/salary- ... 2018/?rf=1

Not trying to draw inferences or offer an explanation, just confirming it doesn't just "feel" slow--it is slow.

Good post. Of note are the firms that responded by this time in 2016, that are still silent following this raise:

Paul Weiss
Cahill Gordon
Weil Gotshal
Cleary Gottlieb
Debevoise & Plimpton
Quinn Emanuel
Skadden Arps
Sullivan & Cromwell
Kirkland & Ellis
Davis Polk

Let's hypothesize what could explain the difference:

1) Firms generally believe $190k is likely not the end point and so want to save themselves the embarrassment of being leapfrogged.
2) The recent raise in 2016 has put less pressure on firms to immediately follow the trend. In 2016, so much time had passed since the last raise, that there was perhaps more value in signalling strength through an immediate match. Firms now have more experience and knowledge in how the market responds to these events and may feel there is no reputational damage by waiting.
3) People are waiting to see what CSM does, given they led the last round (relates back to 1 and 2).
4) Firms are busy surveying Yale/Columbia 0Ls to get their thoughts on the appropriate response.

[thelastlaugh]

Let's hypothesize what could explain the difference:

1) Firms generally believe $190k is likely not the end point and so want to save themselves the embarrassment of being leapfrogged.
2) The recent raise in 2016 has put less pressure on firms to immediately follow the trend. In 2016, so much time had passed since the last raise, that there was perhaps more value in signalling strength through an immediate match. Firms now have more experience and knowledge in how the market responds to these events and may feel there is no reputational damage by waiting.
3) People are waiting to see what CSM does, given they led the last round (relates back to 1 and 2).
4) Firms are busy surveying Yale/Columbia 0Ls to get their thoughts on the appropriate response.

I'd vote for 1, but I'm not sure how STB's summer bonus changes that. Firms seem less likely to leapfrog if they also have to match bonuses to keep with the pack. Given that partners want to give up as little as they can, it seems more likely that firms match at 190k and match bonuses (so they can re-evaluate next year) than move to 200k and match STB bonuses.

Prove me wrong.

[yomisterd]

quick plug to remember legal aid and public defense orgs in your post-raise giving plans

[OneTwoThreeFour]

quick plug to remember legal aid and public defense orgs in your post-raise giving plans

+1

[Clearly]

Let's hypothesize what could explain the difference:

1) Firms generally believe $190k is likely not the end point and so want to save themselves the embarrassment of being leapfrogged.
2) The recent raise in 2016 has put less pressure on firms to immediately follow the trend. In 2016, so much time had passed since the last raise, that there was perhaps more value in signalling strength through an immediate match. Firms now have more experience and knowledge in how the market responds to these events and may feel there is no reputational damage by waiting.
3) People are waiting to see what CSM does, given they led the last round (relates back to 1 and 2).
4) Firms are busy surveying Yale/Columbia 0Ls to get their thoughts on the appropriate response.

I'd vote for 1, but I'm not sure how STB's summer bonus changes that. Firms seem less likely to leapfrog if they also have to match bonuses to keep with the pack. Given that partners want to give up as little as they can, it seems more likely that firms match at 190k and match bonuses (so they can re-evaluate next year) than move to 200k and match STB bonuses.

Prove me wrong.

Bonus isn't part of the pack. If CSW goes to 200, they absolutely don't need to include the summer bonus. STB would however have to match 200, and couldn't renege on the bonus. It was a gamble to give CSW an out before 200. I don't think they are taking the bait.

[thelastlaugh]

Bonus isn't part of the pack. If CSW goes to 200, they absolutely don't need to include the summer bonus. STB would however have to match 200, and couldn't renege on the bonus. It was a gamble to give CSW an out before 200. I don't think they are taking the bait.

I'd tend to agree, but what if you see a move to 200, and STB paying bonuses. Do peers then feel obligated to match? Or is that just an own goal by STB for taking that approach, and other firms can decline to award summer bonuses?

[Traynor Brah]

Let's hypothesize what could explain the difference:

1) Firms generally believe $190k is likely not the end point and so want to save themselves the embarrassment of being leapfrogged.
2) The recent raise in 2016 has put less pressure on firms to immediately follow the trend. In 2016, so much time had passed since the last raise, that there was perhaps more value in signalling strength through an immediate match. Firms now have more experience and knowledge in how the market responds to these events and may feel there is no reputational damage by waiting.
3) People are waiting to see what CSM does, given they led the last round (relates back to 1 and 2).
4) Firms are busy surveying Yale/Columbia 0Ls to get their thoughts on the appropriate response.

I'd vote for 1, but I'm not sure how STB's summer bonus changes that. Firms seem less likely to leapfrog if they also have to match bonuses to keep with the pack. Given that partners want to give up as little as they can, it seems more likely that firms match at 190k and match bonuses (so they can re-evaluate next year) than move to 200k and match STB bonuses.

Prove me wrong.

Bonus isn't part of the pack. If CSW goes to 200, they absolutely don't need to include the summer bonus. STB would however have to match 200, and couldn't renege on the bonus. It was a gamble to give CSW an out before 200. I don't think they are taking the bait.

If CSM goes to 200 and STB also moves to 200 and keeps the summer bonus, there is no way the top of the market doesn't do both.

[KM2016]

Let's hypothesize what could explain the difference:

1) Firms generally believe $190k is likely not the end point and so want to save themselves the embarrassment of being leapfrogged.
2) The recent raise in 2016 has put less pressure on firms to immediately follow the trend. In 2016, so much time had passed since the last raise, that there was perhaps more value in signalling strength through an immediate match. Firms now have more experience and knowledge in how the market responds to these events and may feel there is no reputational damage by waiting.
3) People are waiting to see what CSM does, given they led the last round (relates back to 1 and 2).
4) Firms are busy surveying Yale/Columbia 0Ls to get their thoughts on the appropriate response.

I'd vote for 1, but I'm not sure how STB's summer bonus changes that. Firms seem less likely to leapfrog if they also have to match bonuses to keep with the pack. Given that partners want to give up as little as they can, it seems more likely that firms match at 190k and match bonuses (so they can re-evaluate next year) than move to 200k and match STB bonuses.

Prove me wrong.

Bonus isn't part of the pack. If CSW goes to 200, they absolutely don't need to include the summer bonus. STB would however have to match 200, and couldn't renege on the bonus. It was a gamble to give CSW an out before 200. I don't think they are taking the bait.

If CSM goes to 200 and STB also moves to 200 and keeps the summer bonus, there is no way the top of the market doesn't do both.

TCR.

[terpie]

Let's hypothesize what could explain the difference:

1) Firms generally believe $190k is likely not the end point and so want to save themselves the embarrassment of being leapfrogged.
2) The recent raise in 2016 has put less pressure on firms to immediately follow the trend. In 2016, so much time had passed since the last raise, that there was perhaps more value in signalling strength through an immediate match. Firms now have more experience and knowledge in how the market responds to these events and may feel there is no reputational damage by waiting.
3) People are waiting to see what CSM does, given they led the last round (relates back to 1 and 2).
4) Firms are busy surveying Yale/Columbia 0Ls to get their thoughts on the appropriate response.

I'd vote for 1, but I'm not sure how STB's summer bonus changes that. Firms seem less likely to leapfrog if they also have to match bonuses to keep with the pack. Given that partners want to give up as little as they can, it seems more likely that firms match at 190k and match bonuses (so they can re-evaluate next year) than move to 200k and match STB bonuses.

Prove me wrong.

I think that's right. The "cost" of a one-time bonus is far less than a permanent raise. If we assume a discount rate of 7% and all else equal, in the eyes of the firm, a $10k raise is equivalent to a ~$142,000 one-time bonus today. Given that, I would think $200k is probably unlikely, but wouldn't be surprised if we see another firm increase the bonus above STB. Obviously there is some "stickiness" to the mid-year bonus that would cause firms to have some increased expected value payment going forward that goes against the "one-time" bonus analysis, so it's probably somewhat less than the 14.2x multiple. In any event, it's far less expensive to give a bonus than raise base salaries.

[Cobretti]

Let's hypothesize what could explain the difference:

1) Firms generally believe $190k is likely not the end point and so want to save themselves the embarrassment of being leapfrogged.
2) The recent raise in 2016 has put less pressure on firms to immediately follow the trend. In 2016, so much time had passed since the last raise, that there was perhaps more value in signalling strength through an immediate match. Firms now have more experience and knowledge in how the market responds to these events and may feel there is no reputational damage by waiting.
3) People are waiting to see what CSM does, given they led the last round (relates back to 1 and 2).
4) Firms are busy surveying Yale/Columbia 0Ls to get their thoughts on the appropriate response.

I'd vote for 1, but I'm not sure how STB's summer bonus changes that. Firms seem less likely to leapfrog if they also have to match bonuses to keep with the pack. Given that partners want to give up as little as they can, it seems more likely that firms match at 190k and match bonuses (so they can re-evaluate next year) than move to 200k and match STB bonuses.

Prove me wrong.

I think that's right. The "cost" of a one-time bonus is far less than a permanent raise. If we assume a discount rate of 7% and all else equal, in the eyes of the firm, a $10k raise is equivalent to a ~$142,000 one-time bonus today. Given that, I would think $200k is probably unlikely, but wouldn't be surprised if we see another firm increase the bonus above STB. Obviously there is some "stickiness" to the mid-year bonus that would cause firms to have some increased expected value payment going forward that goes against the "one-time" bonus analysis, so it's probably somewhat less than the 14.2x multiple. In any event, it's far less expensive to give a bonus than raise base salaries.

Did you calculate the PV as a perpetual annuity? that number isn't even close to accurate. It should be only for the duration of an average associate working at the firm, which is probably around 3 years. PV is probably something like ~28k per associate.

[Clearly]

If you're a midlevel and you're tired and you're thinking about going in house and:

a) you work at stb currently and you get your weird june bonus; or

b) you work at Cravath, who leapfrogs the pack and lands at 200 (the "New Cravath Scale")

Which job are you less likely to quit?

[minnbills]

To add to that, if spring/summer bonuses start to become an expected form of market compensation where firms start matching each other, it could be better in the short term for associates who won't stay for more than 3-4 years.

Right - so why would they do this unless they were just trying to keep the actual salaries lower? Clearly that's what this is, an attempt to stop salaries from moving higher.

[yomisterd]

quick plug to remember legal aid and public defense orgs in your post-raise giving plans

I already donate my time.

if your pro bono hours are compensated at firm levels and count towards billables, you aren’t donating shit.

I’m sure it makes your mom proud when you tell her that tho

[terpie]

Let's hypothesize what could explain the difference:

1) Firms generally believe $190k is likely not the end point and so want to save themselves the embarrassment of being leapfrogged.
2) The recent raise in 2016 has put less pressure on firms to immediately follow the trend. In 2016, so much time had passed since the last raise, that there was perhaps more value in signalling strength through an immediate match. Firms now have more experience and knowledge in how the market responds to these events and may feel there is no reputational damage by waiting.
3) People are waiting to see what CSM does, given they led the last round (relates back to 1 and 2).
4) Firms are busy surveying Yale/Columbia 0Ls to get their thoughts on the appropriate response.

I'd vote for 1, but I'm not sure how STB's summer bonus changes that. Firms seem less likely to leapfrog if they also have to match bonuses to keep with the pack. Given that partners want to give up as little as they can, it seems more likely that firms match at 190k and match bonuses (so they can re-evaluate next year) than move to 200k and match STB bonuses.

Prove me wrong.

I think that's right. The "cost" of a one-time bonus is far less than a permanent raise. If we assume a discount rate of 7% and all else equal, in the eyes of the firm, a $10k raise is equivalent to a ~$142,000 one-time bonus today. Given that, I would think $200k is probably unlikely, but wouldn't be surprised if we see another firm increase the bonus above STB. Obviously there is some "stickiness" to the mid-year bonus that would cause firms to have some increased expected value payment going forward that goes against the "one-time" bonus analysis, so it's probably somewhat less than the 14.2x multiple. In any event, it's far less expensive to give a bonus than raise base salaries.

Did you calculate the PV as a perpetual annuity? that number isn't even close to accurate. It should be only for the duration of an average associate working at the firm, which is probably around 3 years. PV is probably something like ~28k per associate.

No, the # of associates stays the same. So this should be calculated in perpetuity. That's why I specified "in the eyes of the firm". Your number is the PV "in the eyes of the associate".

[alphagamma]

Jones Day just matched, with retroactive compensation to summers.

What the heck is "retroactive compensation"? I want that.

[Anonymous User]

Jones Day just matched, with retroactive compensation to summers.

what about bonuses?

[Clearly]

Does jones day even release comp? I thought they were wacky black box firm?

[Anonymous User]

It's definitely that the new generation is insufferable. There used to be good schtick to fill the void between match announcements. Now it's just butthurt anons and self-satisfied trolls that aren't remotely funny. What happened to this bort?

I've been on this site a long time and I don't think it's any worse. People love to fight about money, especially lawyers, who are competitive and insecure by nature. The only real difference is that under old management the anonymous posting would not have been tolerated.

That said, this is all pretty entertaining. It's the people who take it all too seriously who need to take a breather.

This is the right take. If you think a post in a thread is not interesting, ignore/scroll over it -- not that hard. Don't try to police the content for others who want to engage in the side-stories, or bemoan the collapse of civilization. It's just a public place to talk to each other, FFS.

Also, I'm much happier with the new TLS where everyone is free to say what they want, even if they're obnoxious, rude, immature, or whatever. That's what makes an online board even semi-interesting. In any case, it's much better than the precious, self-congratulatory circle-jerk over on the new site who tone-police every post and ban anyone who doesn't toe the ideological party line or challenges their Overton window. I occasionally checked that site when it first started, it's pretty much a boring echo chamber of the same tired old posters, I'm guessing needy 3Ls or local gov lawyers who need a place where they can feel important. This? This is at least refreshing.

[JohnnieSockran]

It's definitely that the new generation is insufferable. There used to be good schtick to fill the void between match announcements. Now it's just butthurt anons and self-satisfied trolls that aren't remotely funny. What happened to this bort?

I've been on this site a long time and I don't think it's any worse. People love to fight about money, especially lawyers, who are competitive and insecure by nature. The only real difference is that under old management the anonymous posting would not have been tolerated.

That said, this is all pretty entertaining. It's the people who take it all too seriously who need to take a breather.

This is the right take. If you think a post in a thread is not interesting, ignore/scroll over it -- not that hard. Don't try to police the content for others who want to engage in the side-stories, or bemoan the collapse of civilization. It's just a public place to talk to each other, FFS.

Also, I'm much happier with the new TLS where everyone is free to say what they want, even if they're obnoxious, rude, immature, or whatever. That's what makes an online board even semi-interesting. In any case, it's much better than the precious, self-congratulatory circle-jerk over on the new site who tone-police every post and ban anyone who doesn't toe the ideological party line or challenges their Overton window. I occasionally checked that site when it first started, it's pretty much a boring echo chamber of the same tired old posters, I'm guessing needy 3Ls or local gov lawyers who need a place where they can feel important. This? This is at least refreshing.

This may not be the case anymore...the number of posts on this thread on shrinking by the minute, so I assume mods are cleaning it up from back at the start or something. Who knows...