Do you think a $20k raise is generous? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Our elevators have these stupid fun fact of the day things that pop up. I remember reading that the average raise is only like 2-3% so by this figure, this was an exceptionally generous raise.

[bk1]

Our elevators have these stupid fun fact of the day things that pop up. I remember reading that the average raise is only like 2-3% so by this figure, this was an exceptionally generous raise.

Biglaw associates already receive raises higher than that stat (lockstep raises).

[Anonymous User]

Our elevators have these stupid fun fact of the day things that pop up. I remember reading that the average raise is only like 2-3% so by this figure, this was an exceptionally generous raise.

Biglaw associates already receive raises higher than that stat (lockstep raises).

Pretty sure that the inflation issue with respect to attorney raises isn't that each step doesn't overtake inflation, but that after 10+ years of the lockstep not moving at all to begin with, the steps don't necessarily match with what they would be had they gone up 2-3% per year.

Said another way, the jump from first year to second year is more than 2-3%, but the 160k/etc weren't going up with inflation, so while it might have felt like attorneys have been getting generous raises between years, all the steps would have been more if the steps had increased, even by 1%/year, to account for inflation/higher costs of living/etc. Senior associate pretty much got screwed by the lack of updates to the lockstep scale.

[dixiecupdrinking]

I'm a bit confused why it's a partners fault that some of its associates took out sticker debt to go to Columbia. Should they pay different values based on how much student loans you have?

Uh, it's not anyone's "fault" but if partners don't compensate associates in congruence with the debt loads then they really shouldn't complain or even be confused when only morons are going to law school.

I don't think there is any real evidence that there is or will be a dearth of law students/grads who are "qualified" (i.e., well credentialed and not dumb as rocks) for biglaw. There will pretty much always be 500 Columbia grads available year in, year out, and if they were getting systematically dumber it would take a generation for anyone to notice and longer for anyone to care.

I say this every goddamn thread, but the trend is toward fewer and fewer high-achieving students, and that is eventually going to have some repercussions if nothing changes. It may very well take years, but something will have to give.

I know you say it a lot. I still disagree that it's a trend law firms have any business being concerned with. Especially because "high achieving," as far as firms are concerned, relates to law schools' output, not input. There will always be X number of T14 grads, there will always be Y percent on law review and graduating magna, there will always be Z federal clerks, etc. Whether those people had a 175 or a 170 LSAT is never going to matter to firms. I guess if magna at HLS is all 150 LSAT scorers in some idiocracy-level future scenario it might start to matter, but marginal differences in the objective "quality" of incoming law students are just really not a big deal.

[seaside2013]

LOL at people talking about the unfairness of a 180K starting salary. A bit out of touch, don't ya think?

It's pretty amazing how apathetic people are in the U.S. when it comes to the employer-employee relationship. Sorry I don't really want to be a bootlicker and thank the Partner Pantheon every time they decide to drop a few more crumbs down to us mortals.

I'm sorry but 40% of working Americans make less than $20,000 TOTAL PER YEAR. So fine, discuss whether the distribution within the firm is correct, but calling that "crumbs" is ridiculously out of touch. It is a starting salary and $180,000 puts you in the top 5% with significant room for growth. Plenty of other legal jobs work ridiculous hours with nowhere near this amount of compensation (maybe not quite as ridiculous at big law, but proportional to salary, much more ridiculous).

[LaLiLuLeLo]

LOL at people talking about the unfairness of a 180K starting salary. A bit out of touch, don't ya think?

It's pretty amazing how apathetic people are in the U.S. when it comes to the employer-employee relationship. Sorry I don't really want to be a bootlicker and thank the Partner Pantheon every time they decide to drop a few more crumbs down to us mortals.

I'm sorry but 40% of working Americans make less than $20,000 TOTAL PER YEAR. So fine, discuss whether the distribution within the firm is correct, but calling that "crumbs" is ridiculously out of touch. It is a starting salary and $180,000 puts you in the top 5% with significant room for growth. Plenty of other legal jobs work ridiculous hours with nowhere near this amount of compensation (maybe not quite as ridiculous at big law, but proportional to salary, much more ridiculous).

It's not out of touch, $20k (or about $40k per partner at a firm like Cravath) is quite literally crumbs to them. I don't look at this like you guys do. You seem to approach it as, "We make so much money, we should be thankful for anything we get because it's a ridiculous amount of money." I see it as, "I'm thankful to make this amount of money, but let's not kid ourselves and think this raise is generous or even fair." Partners at the biggest firms have only gotten richer. Can't say the same for associates, can we? So why should we just thank the gods for their generosity instead of pushing for more?

[ticklemesilly]

LOL at people talking about the unfairness of a 180K starting salary. A bit out of touch, don't ya think?

It's pretty amazing how apathetic people are in the U.S. when it comes to the employer-employee relationship. Sorry I don't really want to be a bootlicker and thank the Partner Pantheon every time they decide to drop a few more crumbs down to us mortals.

I'm sorry but 40% of working Americans make less than $20,000 TOTAL PER YEAR. So fine, discuss whether the distribution within the firm is correct, but calling that "crumbs" is ridiculously out of touch. It is a starting salary and $180,000 puts you in the top 5% with significant room for growth. Plenty of other legal jobs work ridiculous hours with nowhere near this amount of compensation (maybe not quite as ridiculous at big law, but proportional to salary, much more ridiculous).

It's not out of touch, $20k (or about $40k per partner at a firm like Cravath) is quite literally crumbs to them. I don't look at this like you guys do. You seem to approach it as, "We make so much money, we should be thankful for anything we get because it's a ridiculous amount of money." I see it as, "I'm thankful to make this amount of money, but let's not kid ourselves and think this raise is generous or even fair." Partners at the biggest firms have only gotten richer. Can't say the same for associates, can we? So why should we just thank the gods for their generosity instead of pushing for more?

Millennials have the bad habit of always expecting everything to be handed to them. This kind of reminds me of the Yale (I think it was Yale, could have been another ivy league school) student protesters who claimed that they shouldn't be required to study or go to class because disturbing news stories about current events made them too stressed out to do well academically. You want to make a million dollars a year? Stick around at a firm, work your butt off, be an exceptional lawyer and make partner in 10 years. But first you have to actually graduate from law school (where you have gained very little practical legal training) and actually learn something about practicing before you get your cut of the share. A lot of the value partners add to a firm is in the contacts they have made through years of practicing- that’s what brings in the business, and without those connections associates wouldn’t even have the opportunity to work on cases (and thus, no 180K a year starting salary). Until you get the experience and clout needed to become a partner, you can cry about your six figure salary all you want.

Why do you think the turnover rate at firms is so high? Some people are of course asked to leave a firm after 8 or so years if it is determined that they won't make partner (to be made partner you must be exceptional) but most people decide to leave themselves much earlier. Many people don’t like working 65 hour weeks, or don’t want to work at a firm long-term and are just looking for an interim job until they have the money to pay off their debts. They aren’t willing or interested in making the sometimes decade-plus long sacrifice it takes, going far above and beyond the billing requirements, etc. And they certainly haven’t made the requisite contacts to bring the firm new business and clients- it takes years to become such a valuable asset. Do you really think potential partners would stick around at a law firm, working years under intense conditions and making many personal sacrifices if the compensation structure was set up in a way that provided diminishing marginal returns to more experiences/valuable lawyers (if young associates got a big enough chunk of the profits, the corollary is that the salary increases that come with being made partner are smaller)?

[sublime]

Outed for anon abuse. Also, fuck off.

[bern victim]

partners = makers, associates = takers

[LaLiLuLeLo]

LOL at people talking about the unfairness of a 180K starting salary. A bit out of touch, don't ya think?

It's pretty amazing how apathetic people are in the U.S. when it comes to the employer-employee relationship. Sorry I don't really want to be a bootlicker and thank the Partner Pantheon every time they decide to drop a few more crumbs down to us mortals.

I'm sorry but 40% of working Americans make less than $20,000 TOTAL PER YEAR. So fine, discuss whether the distribution within the firm is correct, but calling that "crumbs" is ridiculously out of touch. It is a starting salary and $180,000 puts you in the top 5% with significant room for growth. Plenty of other legal jobs work ridiculous hours with nowhere near this amount of compensation (maybe not quite as ridiculous at big law, but proportional to salary, much more ridiculous).

It's not out of touch, $20k (or about $40k per partner at a firm like Cravath) is quite literally crumbs to them. I don't look at this like you guys do. You seem to approach it as, "We make so much money, we should be thankful for anything we get because it's a ridiculous amount of money." I see it as, "I'm thankful to make this amount of money, but let's not kid ourselves and think this raise is generous or even fair." Partners at the biggest firms have only gotten richer. Can't say the same for associates, can we? So why should we just thank the gods for their generosity instead of pushing for more?

Millennials have the bad habit of always expecting everything to be handed to them.

Yeah, I checked out here.

[sublime]

Outed for anon abuse. Also, fuck off.

Also, lol at someone who appears to have just finished 1L fucking lecturing practicing attorneys about their comp and working conditions.

And keeping in mind that you were considering attending a diversity fair as a non-URM, Idk that you should be bitching about entitlement or whatever dumbfuck boomer point you were trying to make.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 9#p9389118


Like, seriously. jfc.

[Lincoln]

Millennials have the bad habit of always expecting everything to be handed to them. This kind of reminds me of the Yale (I think it was Yale, could have been another ivy league school) student protesters who claimed that they shouldn't be required to study or go to class because disturbing news stories about current events made them too stressed out to do well academically. You want to make a million dollars a year? Stick around at a firm, work your butt off, be an exceptional lawyer and make partner in 10 years. But first you have to actually graduate from law school (where you have gained very little practical legal training) and actually learn something about practicing before you get your cut of the share. A lot of the value partners add to a firm is in the contacts they have made through years of practicing- that’s what brings in the business, and without those connections associates wouldn’t even have the opportunity to work on cases (and thus, no 180K a year starting salary). Until you get the experience and clout needed to become a partner, you can cry about your six figure salary all you want.

Why do you think the turnover rate at firms is so high? Some people are of course asked to leave a firm after 8 or so years if it is determined that they won't make partner (to be made partner you must be exceptional) but most people decide to leave themselves much earlier. Many people don’t like working 65 hour weeks, or don’t want to work at a firm long-term and are just looking for an interim job until they have the money to pay off their debts. They aren’t willing or interested in making the sometimes decade-plus long sacrifice it takes, going far above and beyond the billing requirements, etc. And they certainly haven’t made the requisite contacts to bring the firm new business and clients- it takes years to become such a valuable asset. Do you really think potential partners would stick around at a law firm, working years under intense conditions and making many personal sacrifices if the compensation structure was set up in a way that provided diminishing marginal returns to more experiences/valuable lawyers (if young associates got a big enough chunk of the profits, the corollary is that the salary increases that come with being made partner are smaller)?

lol

[Anonymous User]

Millennials have the bad habit of always expecting everything to be handed to them.

This is really stupid. When my parents were my age (in the 1970s) getting a job was a joke and keeping one was easier (see below). My parents basically have told me that our generation have it much harder - in terms of education, job prospects and job expectations, COL (buying or renting) than the boomers. That's just a fact. You could literally get a white collar job with a high school diploma or history degree or English degree from random state school.

There are a lot of reasons for this - (1) outsourcing, (2) automation of jobs, (3) rampant inflation in the cost of education (in part because of number (5), (4) overpopulation in the US, (5) the boomer mentality of "everyone should have an education", thereby devaluing the college degree since everyone and their mom is a college grad these days, and (6) the internet/technology, which has made a lot of jobs 24/7 on call (when they did not used to be) and made attorneys work like 3 times as hard (back in the day, secretaries would do a lot of the typing/revising, not attorneys).

The boom years of the US are OVER. Millennials are not whiny - the US is just completely and utterly fucked. I think that by the time we are old, it's going to be like a Greece....so better learn Chinese and move to China because pretty soon robots are going to be doing everything, the rich will only get richer, and there will be no middle class - just a large welfare state with a lot of underemployed but overly educated people. The American dream is no longer achievable for the vast majority of people. The only way to not be completely and utterly fucked when the USA becomes even more of a shit country to live in is to learn Chinese and move to China...hth.

[unlicensedpotato]

Millennials have the bad habit of always expecting everything to be handed to them. This kind of reminds me of the Yale (I think it was Yale, could have been another ivy league school) student protesters who claimed that they shouldn't be required to study or go to class because disturbing news stories about current events made them too stressed out to do well academically. You want to make a million dollars a year? Stick around at a firm, work your butt off, be an exceptional lawyer and make partner in 10 years. But first you have to actually graduate from law school (where you have gained very little practical legal training) and actually learn something about practicing before you get your cut of the share. A lot of the value partners add to a firm is in the contacts they have made through years of practicing- that’s what brings in the business, and without those connections associates wouldn’t even have the opportunity to work on cases (and thus, no 180K a year starting salary). Until you get the experience and clout needed to become a partner, you can cry about your six figure salary all you want.

Why do you think the turnover rate at firms is so high? Some people are of course asked to leave a firm after 8 or so years if it is determined that they won't make partner (to be made partner you must be exceptional) but most people decide to leave themselves much earlier. Many people don’t like working 65 hour weeks, or don’t want to work at a firm long-term and are just looking for an interim job until they have the money to pay off their debts. They aren’t willing or interested in making the sometimes decade-plus long sacrifice it takes, going far above and beyond the billing requirements, etc. And they certainly haven’t made the requisite contacts to bring the firm new business and clients- it takes years to become such a valuable asset. Do you really think potential partners would stick around at a law firm, working years under intense conditions and making many personal sacrifices if the compensation structure was set up in a way that provided diminishing marginal returns to more experiences/valuable lawyers (if young associates got a big enough chunk of the profits, the corollary is that the salary increases that come with being made partner are smaller)?

This as a whole is far enough off base to ignore, but you yourself noted why the salary is relatively "high."

Also, as said above, 65 hours per week is what you do when you *aren't* busy, and honestly that's even low.

[anyriotgirl]

LOL at people talking about the unfairness of a 180K starting salary. A bit out of touch, don't ya think?

It's pretty amazing how apathetic people are in the U.S. when it comes to the employer-employee relationship. Sorry I don't really want to be a bootlicker and thank the Partner Pantheon every time they decide to drop a few more crumbs down to us mortals.

I'm sorry but 40% of working Americans make less than $20,000 TOTAL PER YEAR. So fine, discuss whether the distribution within the firm is correct, but calling that "crumbs" is ridiculously out of touch. It is a starting salary and $180,000 puts you in the top 5% with significant room for growth. Plenty of other legal jobs work ridiculous hours with nowhere near this amount of compensation (maybe not quite as ridiculous at big law, but proportional to salary, much more ridiculous).

lol

[ticklemesilly]

Outed for anon abuse. Also, fuck off.

Also, lol at someone who appears to have just finished 1L fucking lecturing practicing attorneys about their comp and working conditions.

And keeping in mind that you were considering attending a diversity fair as a non-URM, Idk that you should be bitching about entitlement or whatever dumbfuck boomer point you were trying to make.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 9#p9389118


Like, seriously. jfc.

Say what you want about associates who have experience (perhaps they deserve more; perhaps after 1 year associates should be getting paid as much as partners), but 180K is the base salary for someone who comes straight out of law school.

BTW (although it’s irrelevant because you are attacking my character rather than my argument), I’ll just say that being diverse is not synonymous with being URM. I might not be URM but I’m from a blue collar community and am a race that has historically been very mistreated in the U.S. If the goal is to just target one or two types of potential employees, it’s not a very diverse diversity fair.

[bern victim]

also, like 60-70% of americans are white so if you're excluding them from diversity fairs you're excluding a huge portion of the population. not very diverse if you ask me.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Outed for anon abuse. Also, fuck off.

Also, lol at someone who appears to have just finished 1L fucking lecturing practicing attorneys about their comp and working conditions.

And keeping in mind that you were considering attending a diversity fair as a non-URM, Idk that you should be bitching about entitlement or whatever dumbfuck boomer point you were trying to make.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 9#p9389118


Like, seriously. jfc.

Say what you want about associates who have experience (perhaps they deserve more; perhaps after 1 year associates should be getting paid as much as partners), but 180K is the base salary for someone who comes straight out of law school.

BTW (although it’s irrelevant because you are attacking my character rather than my argument), I’ll just say that being diverse is not synonymous with being URM. I might not be URM but I’m from a blue collar community and am a race that has historically been very mistreated in the U.S. If the goal is to just target one or two types of potential employees, it’s not a very diverse diversity fair.

5th generation Irish-American doesn't count as diverse, lol

[ticklemesilly]

also, like 60-70% of americans are white so if you're excluding them from diversity fairs you're excluding a huge portion of the population. not very diverse if you ask me.

Agreed, and I'm not even white. I don't think it speaks to any alleged entitlement that I was interested in a career fair

[anyriotgirl]

I, too, am bog Irish. where is my career fair???

[bern victim]

also, like 60-70% of americans are white so if you're excluding them from diversity fairs you're excluding a huge portion of the population. not very diverse if you ask me.

Agreed, and I'm not even white. I don't think it speaks to any alleged entitlement that I was interested in a career fair

also it really defeats the purpose of diversity if you are making decisions mechanically based on broad descriptors and not an individual basis. the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[Tiago Splitter]

Millennials have the bad habit of always expecting everything to be handed to them.

This is really stupid. When my parents were my age (in the 1970s) getting a job was a joke and keeping one was easier (see below). My parents basically have told me that our generation have it much harder - in terms of education, job prospects and job expectations, COL (buying or renting) than the boomers. That's just a fact. You could literally get a white collar job with a high school diploma or history degree or English degree from random state school.

Something tells me that with double digit inflation and double digit unemployment things were kind of shitty in the late 70's too.

[Wipfelder]

the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

QOL was so much higher before it. I mean, who really WANTS to live past 35?

[Anonymous User]

Millennials have the bad habit of always expecting everything to be handed to them.

This is really stupid. When my parents were my age (in the 1970s) getting a job was a joke and keeping one was easier (see below). My parents basically have told me that our generation have it much harder - in terms of education, job prospects and job expectations, COL (buying or renting) than the boomers. That's just a fact. You could literally get a white collar job with a high school diploma or history degree or English degree from random state school.

Something tells me that with double digit inflation and double digit unemployment things were kind of shitty in the late 70's too.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

It looks like unemployment rates are worse in the 2010s than in the 1970s?

[Anonymous User]

the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

QOL was so much higher before it. I mean, who really WANTS to live past 35?

Maybe he means the tech boom in the 90s and shit? Because I think QOL has gotten worse due to on-call 24/7 thanks to internet, automation of jobs, etc.

Anyway, there's a good middle ground between living until 35 and living until 85....I think QOL drops drastically at 70+...I don't really want to sit in a diaper all day having my ass being wiped and shitting myself at age 80. I don't see a point to living long if you have no QOL.